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

Teller

Teller

Posted
Posted
Backlash to this compared to building nuclear weapons illegally? Do you really think they care about the "backlash". Also, I'm afraid to tell you, but Iran are laughing in our faces at the moment. Because the liberals and left wankers are doing their job in the US and the UK...pretty hard attacking someone when your woosy members of society are too busy taking it up the arse to care about terrorism and terrorist states like Iran building nukes.

To me, as a former member of our armed services, the illegal hostage taking is more of an issue than a nuke program we have few/conflicting details on. I know I'm in the minority in that position. But one servicemember's life is a thousand times more important to me than whatever nuclear capability they may or may not have.

And quite honestly, I think in this instance, they do, or SHOULD care about the backlash. They're trying to present the facade that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Kinda hard to support that claim when your essentially committing acts of war.

As for the "wankers" you refered to, I'm in complete agreement. When public opinion starts to dictate how a war is waged, that's when things go downhill quick. That's why we've lost 3200 troops, trying to prevent civilian casualties on the other side. That's why the greatest military power on the planet can be stalemated by rag-tag groups of terrorists. It's not because they're our military equals. It's because we allow it.

But at this point, Iran has the right to get ****y. They've seen what fairly disorganized militias have been able to do in Iraq. They've got more sophisticated weaponry, and probably tactics, than anything we're facing in Iraq. Plus, the resolve of the U.S. and our allies is already under great strain. If they're going to start some ****, this is probably the time to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blighty Skins

Blighty Skins

Posted
Posted
To me, as a former member of our armed services, the illegal hostage taking is more of an issue than a nuke program we have few/conflicting details on. I know I'm in the minority in that position. But one servicemember's life is a thousand times more important to me than whatever nuclear capability they may or may not have.

And quite honestly, I think in this instance, they do, or SHOULD care about the backlash. They're trying to present the facade that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Kinda hard to support that claim when your essentially committing acts of war.

As for the "wankers" you refered to, I'm in complete agreement. When public opinion starts to dictate how a war is waged, that's when things go downhill quick. That's why we've lost 3200 troops, trying to prevent civilian casualties on the other side. That's why the greatest military power on the planet can be stalemated by rag-tag groups of terrorists. It's not because they're our military equals. It's because we allow it.

But at this point, Iran has the right to get ****y. They've seen what fairly disorganized militias have been able to do in Iraq. They've got more sophisticated weaponry, and probably tactics, than anything we're facing in Iraq. Plus, the resolve of the U.S. and our allies is already under great strain. If they're going to start some ****, this is probably the time to do it.

To me, as a former member of the armed forces, do not agree with you.

The only reason the insurgents have such an impact in Iraq is because of liberals and leftists who go ballistic if we cuase a smidgen of colateral damage. Frankly, if it was for me, I'd bring back carpet bombing and be done with it. Look at Russia and how they sorted out Chechnya (..carpet bombing Groszny was a masterstroke). The difference? they don't have whiny, snot-nosed, hypocritical, no balls wankers who moan and complain about how war is waged.

Personally, if there is World War 3, despite me being retired (soldier), I will voluntarily take over the place of any weak, no-balls wanker who is currently in the armed forces and refuses to go. There is no better or more glorious death than dying in combat. I was convinced of that and stiil am...also, it's not the publics call to make if soldiers died. You're an ex-soldier and so was I. We both signed on the dotted line as adults with our faculties about us. If I died, I certainly would've accepted it. Don't know about you...but any soldier who doesn't should leave his BDU for someone else.

:2cents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted

The only reason the insurgents have such an impact in Iraq is because of liberals and leftists who go ballistic if we cuase a smidgen of colateral damage. Frankly, if it was for me, I'd bring back carpet bombing and be done with it. Look at Russia and how they sorted out Chechnya (..carpet bombing Groszny was a masterstroke). The difference? they don't have whiny, snot-nosed, hypocritical, no balls wankers who moan and complain about how war is waged.

Long term that does not work. Look at Afaghanistan. The destroyed every city w/ bombing, but by any measure they still lost. Their bombing of Chechnya might quiet things down for a couple of years or even a decade, but long term it isn't a real solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teller

Teller

Posted
Posted
To me, as a former member of the armed forces, do not agree with you.

The only reason the insurgents have such an impact in Iraq is because of liberals and leftists who go ballistic if we cuase a smidgen of colateral damage. Frankly, if it was for me, I'd bring back carpet bombing and be done with it. Look at Russia and how they sorted out Chechnya (..carpet bombing Groszny was a masterstroke). The difference? they don't have whiny, snot-nosed, hypocritical, no balls wankers who moan and complain about how war is waged.

That's exactly what I said. It's not because they're our equal that they can stand up to us military; it's that public opinion sways how we wage war these days. Tactics should be left up to the commanders on the ground. Period. And I fully agree that you should wage TOTAL war or no war at all. This "at war with your government, but not with you" crap doesn't work. I'm not sure how you got anything else out of my post.

Personally, if there is World War 3, despite me being retired (soldier), I will voluntarily take over the place of any weak, no-balls wanker who is currently in the armed forces and refuses to go. There is no better or more glorious death than dying in combat. I was convinced of that and stiil am...also, it's not the publics call to make if soldiers died. You're an ex-soldier and so was I. We both signed on the dotted line as adults with our faculties about us. If I died, I certainly would've accepted it. Don't know about you...but any soldier who doesn't should leave his BDU for someone else.

:2cents:

We're in agreement here too. When and if my country truly needs me again, I'm there in a heartbeat. I feel like I did my time, and I now have other priorities (wife & children), but if I'm called, I'll gladly serve. And I, like you, would much rather go than send someone who doesn't want to be there.

I'd offer only a minor argument about dying in combat. While I respect and appreciate every American and/or Allied soldier that gave his life for our way of life; the goal is NOT to die in combat. As Patton said, "the goal is not to give your life for your country; it's to make the other poor **** die for his."

I realized in both of my former professions (military & law enforcement) that any given day could be my last. Had my life been taken, I would've considered my time well spent, fighting for what I believed. But I don't feel "cheated" because I'm still breathing in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blighty Skins

Blighty Skins

Posted
Posted
Long term that does not work. Look at Afaghanistan. The destroyed every city w/ bombing, but by any measure they still lost. Their bombing of Chechnya might quiet things down for a couple of years or even a decade, but long term it isn't a real solution.

Afghanistan is different, they are more ruralised than Iraq. How many "cities" are there in Afghanistan? 1? No idea how you can even compare the two.

How do you know with any certainty that "Their bombing of Chechnya might quiet things down for a couple of years or even a decade, but long term it isn't a real solution." Are you an intelligence analyst? And who's talking about long term anyway...? Was American intervention ever supposed to be a "long term solution"? Or was it just supposed to overthrow Saddam and replace him with someone more user friendly?

p.s. You realise man in Chechnya can now marry 4 women (despite this not being done in their culture previously muslims or not) because there aren't anough men to go around. Why, you ask? because the Russians killed them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teller

Teller

Posted
Posted
Latest reports: British sailors have "admitted" being in Iranian waters under "interrogation" (torture). This despite proof from the US and UK they weren't.

Keeps on getting better...

Name. Rank. Serial number. Don't you Brits know anything? ;)

I swear. If this is true, Iran is just asking to have their ass handed to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
Afghanistan is different, they are more ruralised than Iraq. How many "cities" are there in Afghanistan? 1? No idea how you can even compare the two.

The only real thing you need to know is that even if you destroy all of the cities (and therefore the manufacturing base) others will continue to ship in weapons, and people will continue to fight. This happened in most of the major conflicts since the WWII (Vietnam, Korea (until a clear line was put in place), in the conflicts in S. and Central America, and Afghanistan). It doesn't take a genius to recognize it. So what you really need to do is control the borders and bombing can't help much w/ that.

Where we have actually been (somewhat) sucessful is when there was either nobody willing/able to aid the enemy (Iraq the first time, Panama, Grenada) or a heavily militarized border was created that made it impossible to bring things like weapons over the border (Korea).

This is obvious, and the same trend can be observed essentially in every conflict since WWII no matter the geography or the distribution of the population.

Was American intervention ever supposed to be a "long term solution"? Or was it just supposed to overthrow Saddam and replace him with someone more user friendly?

The stated goal was to establish a democratic goverment that would then influence other ME countries. That sounds like a long term solution to me.

p.s. You realise man in Chechnya can now marry 4 women (despite this not being done in their culture previously muslims or not) because there aren't anough men to go around. Why, you ask? because the Russians killed them all.

Actually, I did. That's why I said it might take as long as a decade (for the people that are currently considered little boys to grow up and be big enough to fight), but it will happen. They can then come back in and slaughter another generation of Chechnians if they want, but when the next generation grows up the situation will repeat. UNTIL they find a long term solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

Some links to stories on the issue if anyone is interested.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/03/iran_naval_vessels_seize_15_br.php

This one was good .

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2387844.ece

Iran kidnaps Marines at gunpoint

By Terri Judd, aboard HMS Cornwall in the Persian Gulf

All is Well...the French have arrived :D

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3961

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teller

Teller

Posted
Posted
Not so much, just misinterpreted what I had just heard on CNN. Just saw the breaking news on CNN and didn't even really get a chance to hear the story behind the entire situation. My apologies.

No problem. Simple mistake.

:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

This is not going to go over well.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece

Iran ‘to try Britons for espionage’

Uzi Mahnaimi, Michael Smith and David Cracknell

FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held

The penalty for espionage in Iran is death. However, similar accusations of spying were made when eight British servicemen were detained in the same area in 2004. They were paraded blindfolded on television but did not appear in court and were freed after three nights in detention.

Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
heyholetsgogrant

heyholetsgogrant

Posted
  • Author
Posted
This is not going to go over well.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece

Iran ‘to try Britons for espionage’

Uzi Mahnaimi, Michael Smith and David Cracknell

FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held

The penalty for espionage in Iran is death. However, similar accusations of spying were made when eight British servicemen were detained in the same area in 2004. They were paraded blindfolded on television but did not appear in court and were freed after three nights in detention.

Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.

Now, Iran will probably keep these guys after their defeat at the UN today. Man this is not looking good....we need to start to patrolling the international waters near iraq with heavy destroyers to prevent these silly games...We need to make a commitment to iraq and show the neighboring countries that we are series about protecting Iraq from outside influences and arm shipments.

-Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites
portisizzle

portisizzle

Posted
Posted
Now, Iran will probably keep these guys after their defeat at the UN today. Man this is not looking good....we need to start to patrolling the international waters near iraq with heavy destroyers to prevent these silly games...

-Grant

Now you are getting the big picture Grant. Welcome aboard!!! :applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
portisizzle

portisizzle

Posted
Posted
I'm not really being bullish, I'm just saying if our men are over there, they need to be protected and have assurance that if they get into trouble help is near by....it is a ongoing war..

-Grant

No, it is possible that this will lead to a much larger war. Now is no time for Chaimberlain-esque capitulation.

In 30 years we will all look back at this time in history where the Middle East was drug out of the barbaric third world status that currently exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
I'm not really being bullish, I'm just saying if our men are over there, they need to be protected and have assurance that if they get into trouble help is near by....it is a ongoing war..

-Grant

Not to complain,but we are not at war with Iran(yet)

and the British even have diplomatic relations with them.

Damn this feels weird,for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
heyholetsgogrant

heyholetsgogrant

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Not to complain,but we are not at war with Iran(yet)

and the British even have diplomatic relations with them.

Damn this feels weird,for some reason.

I was referring to the Iraq war, either way they need to make sure they are protected in and around international water when they are doing these training exercises. These training missions are probably important, because eventually Iraq will have to have a navy...

-Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

I'm still (as usual) somewhat conflicted.

Part of me is thinking that if we keep escalating things in response to their escalating things, then the result is predictable.

OTOH, part of me is still stuck on the image of the Iranian Navy sending armed ships in to capture British soldiers. I'm thinking back to Full Metal Jacket:

"Why is Private Pyle holding that weapon? Why aren't you kicking Private Pyle's ass?"

(Why wasn't that ship under fire before it made it back to port?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dreamingwolf

dreamingwolf

Posted
Posted
I'm still (as usual) somewhat conflicted.

Part of me is thinking that if we keep escalating things in response to their escalating things, then the result is predictable.

OTOH, part of me is still stuck on the image of the Iranian Navy sending armed ships in to capture British soldiers. I'm thinking back to Full Metal Jacket:

"Why is Private Pyle holding that weapon? Why aren't you kicking Private Pyle's ass?"

(Why wasn't that ship under fire before it made it back to port?)

because the reports would give you ammunition to attack the administration if you were british. Its a sad thing really, but its the truth its why nobody fears us cause they know that political party not in power is their ally. That gives them an ally in anything they do. Im not saying you are their ally, but they know you will defend them to gain political capital. It can be seen through out this thread.

Durring Kosovo the Republicans did alot of rhetoric to slime clinton, granted republicans dont disrupt life with war protests but they as a political group still made political hay of it on a congressional level. If you really dug deep you would probably find that theres a big chunk of your opposition that is based purely in politics. I wouldnt ask you to admit that, just asking that you expolore that. Party people constantly try to find ways to exploit their opponents, and the best way is when their opponent is engaged in war. Its classic politics.

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...