Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

MSNBC BREAKING NEWS: UK says 15 soldiers detained by Iranian navy

heyholetsgogrant

By heyholetsgogrant
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Zguy28

Zguy28

Posted
Posted
You know it honestly doesn't look like Larry took a stance against the US or it's allies. Looks to me like he's poking fun at right wingers.

But in keeping with the theme: Funny how right wingers always consider themselves and their views as America, as if they were the sole representatives of the US of A.

If you read any international paper, you'll find out that we are America. :silly:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shallow1

Shallow1

Posted
Posted

Just for some clarification that the UN has passed several resolutions in reguards to the circumstances,control, and everything else going on in Iraq.

Here is a link- http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/343

Now Larry, of coarse the "liberal" media won't keep reporting on all this stuff, there to busy trying to blame Bush everything and not acknowleging that the Un is involved in whats is going on in Iraq.

Like this resolution for example, that was passed unanimously- Press Release and text of the new Security Council Resolution passed unanimously on the 8th of November 2005. It extends the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until December 2006, though it includes the proviso that this mandate should be reviewed by the Iraqi government no later than the 15th of June 2006. It also extends current arrangements for the depositing into the Development Fund for Iraq of proceeds from export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas until December 2006, also to be reviewed by the Iraq government no later than the 15th of June 2006. The Resolution was submitted by Denmark, Japan, Romania, the United Kingdom and the United States, and adopted unanimously. See also UN news item.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blighty Skins

Blighty Skins

Posted
Posted

Maybe we should start sending our aircraft carrier over there to join in the party. Not to mention our nuclear missile carrying Trident subs. One thing is for sure...they wont get away with it lightly. Look what happened to Argentina...we'll go anywhere for a fight. :redpunch:

I think the Iranians have never heard the song Rule Britannia:

When Britain first, at heaven's command,

Arose from out the azure main,

Arose, arose, arose from out the a-azure main,

This was the charter, the charter of the land,

And guardian angels sang this strain:

Rule Britania!

Britannia rule the waves.

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Rule Britannia!

Britannia rule the waves.

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

The nations, not so blest as thee,

Must in their turn, to tyrants fall,

Must in ,must in, must in their turn, to tyrants fall,

While thou shalt flourish, shalt flourish great and free,

The dread and envy of them all.

(Chorus)

Rule Britannia!

Britannia rule the waves.

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Rule Britannia!

Britannia rule the waves.

Brittons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
"We" being the US, but this is not the US that is in this current situation, its the UK, and the UK have there own provisions for being there that are backed by a UN resolution. I could see how you got confused though,....US...UK....there almost the same but diffrent.

The UN has not authorized ANY military invasion or occupation of Iraq.

What has actually happened, regarding the UN and Iraq is:

The UN sent Iraq several strongly worded letters, telling Iraq that he'd better do what we say, or else, and this time we mean it.

The US announced that we were tired of Iraq not doing what the UN told him to do, we want to invade, and asked the UN to authorize military force.

It then became apparent that the authorization for military action wasn't going to pass.

Bush withdraws the request for authorization, and announces that he's going in anyway, because the US doesn't need UN permission to defend ourselves.

When it became apparent that Iran wasn't a threat to the US, then The Axis of Good points to the words "or else" in the strongly worded letters and says "see, the UN gave us permission".

Now, it's debatable whether the war was justified. (I still haven't firmly made up my mind.)

But the US (or the UK's) claim of a mandate from the UN has less basis in reality than Al Qeda's claim of a mandate from Allah.

Edit:

Thanks for the link. It looks like the UN actually did, after the invasion, decide to authorize folks to keep doing what they were going to do, anyway.

(Looks like another example of the courageous leadership of the UN, after military action has occurred without them, to claim to be leading what's going on. But at least it's better than nothing.)

And it was something I didn't know about. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
Correct me if I'm wrong... but your entire argument is that what the Iranians did is okay, because other nations do it to. And nobody should have the right to call them on it, because doing so would be hypocritical.

So I can come over to your house, kick you in the nuts... and tell you not to get upset about it because it's not nearly as bad as some of the violence going on around your area.

Oh, no. What they did (assuming no further news) is an act of war. (In fact, I'm surprised that it didn't result in combat on the spot.)

What I'm pointing out is: It's also an act of war, when we do the same thing to them.

(And I think that a case could be made that, frankly, Iran's been at war with the US, at the very least, for the last few years, since they've been providing training and supplies to the "insurgents" in Iraq. A case could well be made that "if you're going to help people kill American soldiers in a war, then you've decided to join the war. Now welcome to a war." In short, I hope it's possible for there not to be another war against Iraq. I'd really not like this to slowly escalate into a World War, and the possibility is on the table. But if it happens, then they're at least partially to blame.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DCsportsfan53

DCsportsfan53

Posted
Posted
Hey guys, he's right. We're the good guys and we are fighting the forces of evil. Go go power rangers.

:laugh:

Definitely need to get some more information on this. I'm still trying to figure out just how the hell the Iranians were able to detain them in Iraqi waters. I think the only thing that's clear is that we need more details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blighty Skins

Blighty Skins

Posted
Posted

Apparently they came from a frigate HMS Cornwall...so obviously it was just a boarding party on a small boat because a frigate holds about 150 men. So what the Iranians did was, they went into Iraqi waters with their cowardly Jihadi boats, forced the boarding party in rubber dingys (like the ones you have on the beach...with pink flowers and yellow dots on the side) into Iranian waters and basically kidnapped them. I also heard the Iranian ambassador is being beaten up this very minute in London...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shallow1

Shallow1

Posted
Posted

"But the US (or the UK's) claim of a mandate from the UN has less basis in reality than Al Qeda's claim of a mandate from Allah."

Larry the UN is actively involved in what's going on in Iraq and has been for some time now, it's there typical "We won't take a stand on anything until the US does something then we will tell them they shouldn't have done it that way but since they did it we want in so we can get ours." response.

The UN resolutions that were voted on and passed by the UN in reguards to the current state of Iraq and what the UN has agreed to are undeniable, they are fact, the UK was acting under a UN resolution when they were patroling the waters off Iraq, and that is a fact. Im sorry you struggle with that concept and I'm not trying to be a jerk about anything or debate anything,....the UN jumped on the Iraq bandwagon so it could have it's say and the UK's resposibility of patroling the waters under the UN's approval has been violated by Iran...pretty simple.

Just saw your updated post Larry,...no problem.. :*)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted

Why didn't the frigate fire onto the Iranian boats? Surely they must have a .50 cal.

Not being aware of the situation, you'd think they'd have some type of look-out watching their inflatable rafts to make sure nothing like this happens. Some Captain is never going to get a promotion now... heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shallow1

Shallow1

Posted
Posted

"Thanks for the link. It looks like the UN actually did, after the invasion, decide to authorize folks to keep doing what they were going to do, anyway.

(Looks like another example of the courageous leadership of the UN, after military action has occurred without them, to claim to be leading what's going on. But at least it's better than nothing.)

And it was something I didn't know about. Thanks."

Yea, Larry it's just sad that here in the US we are not told the facts by our news anymore, Liberal or Conservative.......what happend to the good old days of "here are the FACTS, here are liberal and conservative views and now you figure out what you think?" Maybe someday journalism will have some integrity, but it's so slanted now you can't believe anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jrockster21

jrockster21

Posted
Posted
We still rule the waves...why is it called the "English Channel" and not the "French Channel". When it comes to buggery at high seas no one beats us. ;)

It ain't the 1800's any more, bro...the US Navy dwarfs its British counterpart. :) In fact, we're larger (in tonnage) than the next 17 largest Navies combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smsmith40

smsmith40

Posted
Posted

I'm guessing that blowing the ***** out of a couple of Iranian naval vessels is not the shortcut to the Admiralty either.

I'd imagine that discretion being the better part of valor the captain decided, given the Iranians past record of not harming captured Marines that he would let the diplomats sort it out.

His rules of engagement may not have let him fire on an Iranian veseels unless fired upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smsmith40

smsmith40

Posted
Posted
It ain't the 1800's any more, bro...the US Navy dwarfs its British counterpart. In fact, we're larger (in tonnage) than the next 17 largest Navies combined.

Indeed, you're definitely the biggest, we'll just have to satisfy ourselves with being the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...