AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 Please, educate us. What do they care about?It certainly seemed like the cared about international opinion during the British incident. They went through a lot of trouble to make it seem like the acted legally, and then essentially told the British to shut up about us acting illegally or we'll keep them longer, and that whole video tape they released of them saying good bye and loading them on the plane all seemed to be designed to affect world opinion. Why go through all of that if you are not interested in world opinion? Just grab them up, say we grabbed them because we wanted to and could, and we'll release them when we want to if you don't care about world opinion. They only care about political opinion when it works against their enemies, when it works against them then they simply rally in their religion and their flag. Much like someone else we all know too well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 If you can't add to the debate without invoking dead people you don't know, jump in your POS yellow Corvette and bounce..boy. Like you are adding to the debate with this jewel of wisdom? ...Boy:laugh: ""IMO, what Bush (Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.) wants is total chaos in the region. Mass Civil War, if possible. All the better to pilfer the crude."" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 They only care about political opinion when it works against their enemies, when it works against them then they simply rally in their religion and their flag. Much like someone else we all know too well. So them breaking international law wasn't international public opinion working against them? That happy departure at the airport wasn't designed to help negate the negative international public opinion that was the product of them taking them in the first place? I'm sorry, but I don't understand your logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 So them breaking international law wasn't international public opinion working against them? That happy departure at the airport wasn't designed to help negate the negative international public opinion that was the product of them taking them in the first place?I'm sorry, but I don't understand your logic. What don't you understand? If they really cared about international publick opinion would they have broken international law in the first place? They used the kidnapping of the British sailors to force Britain to negotiate with them, and guess what? It worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 A great thing? How in the world did you come to that conclusion. It is amazing how little people know about Iranian politics. The kooks are losing the battle of ideas. Mullahs are losing their grip and influence. The population is young and liberal.A CIA coup last time I checked, didn't work out well in that country. It gave rise to kooks. Iranians will rally with their government against a foreign power. It will only reinforce the notion that United States is an imperial power hell bent on trying to impose their views on others. This will only strengthen the current regime and the mullahs. It will only speed up the process to build a nuclear weapon. This is makes it even easier for Bin Landen to recruit ( it is fairly easy now for him) This is beyond stupid, it's dangerous. Well said. Iranians are trying to get rid of their government in increasing numbers. The same way the whole US pulled together as one regardless of political views after 9/11 the Iranians will do the same. For those supporting any kind of actions against Iran I have a question. Which military actions the US has been involved in post WII do you view as a success? Then tell me how Iran would be any different from unlearned lesson after unlearned lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 What don't you understand? If they really cared about international publick opinion would they have broken international law in the first place? They used the kidnapping of the British sailors to force Britain to negotiate with them, and guess what? It worked. What good does it do them to have Britain negotiate w/ them over sailors they took? Does somebody pay them for every negotiation the British enter w/ them? Again, I don't understand your logic. I would guess a combination of things, but here are what seem to me to be the reasonable possilities: 1. They didn't fully think through the consequences of their actions, and it was rash action w/ no real thought about the objectives or the reasoning. 2. They were upset that their Generals were disappearing and saw this as a way to respond. 3. They were hoping they would be able to use the situation to put pressure on countries w/ respect to the UN sanctions that were approaching for their nuclear program (e.g. if you impose sanctions, we can make a mess out of things). "Seizing the British troops a day before the U.N. Security Council voted on sanctions against Iran over the nuclear standoff was widely interpreted as Iran sending a none-too-subtle reminder of its capacity for disruption at the epicenter for the global oil economy. Oil markets certainly took the hint, with prices scooting up to their highest this year on Friday following news of the Iranian action." http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1602945,00.html 4. They were hoping to affect British policy w/ respect to stopping and searching ships so that they could more freely arm Iraq insurgents. 5. They wanted to sneak something particular by the British and into Iraq, and the best way they could figure out how to do that involved taking those British sailors. Essentially, grabbing the sailors was a smoke screen. The first three reasons show a general lack of understanding of how things work or poor thought processes. The fourth or fifth actually would have made the mission successful because the British suspended the ship stopping, while they "review" the procedures they are using, but then you have to admit that they are arming people killing American soldiers in a country other than Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 Again all of which was done in the face of international opinion, and they didn't back down until they were satisfied. I still don't understand what is so hard to understand that international opinion affects the US and British policy more than it affects Irans, by far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Again all of which was done in the face of international opinion, and they didn't back down until they were satisfied. I still don't understand what is so hard to understand that international opinion affects the US and British policy more than it affects Irans, by far. Two words: Iraq War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Like you are adding to the debate with this jewel of wisdom? ...Boy:laugh: ""IMO, what Bush (Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.) wants is total chaos in the region. Mass Civil War, if possible. All the better to pilfer the crude."" Yup, opinions add to the debate. Unless you wrap yourself in the flag like a punk. What did you add here besides sarcasm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Well said. Iranians are trying to get rid of their government in increasing numbers. The same way the whole US pulled together as one regardless of political views after 9/11 the Iranians will do the same. Can you provide a link? The last thing I saw on this in Time was that the Iranian youth were willing to look the other way, and the goverment was looking the other way while the youth enjoyed the money that is flowing into the country from oil. Essentially, the Iranian public has been bought off by the success of the economy, which has happened throughout history and around the world (a lot of people in Germany looked the othe way at some of things the Nazis were doing early on because the economy was doing better, and then when things got really troubling it was too late). At best though it seems like we are working w/ groups in Iran (we aren't sneaking in and blowing up buildings or killing people ourselves). Doesn't it make sense to work w/ pro-democratic forces that are in Iran? We did an OK job w/ that against Milosevic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 You underestimate the hardliners in Iran, they don't care about opinion on the international stage. I disagree. All their actions are done via terrorist networks and they go to great lengths to produce theater for the world stage. The brits that were "captured" in Iranian waters.... only to be pardoned by the great Iranian leader in a show of compassion for his enemies. It's all BS. They do almost nothing directly and they won't start now. As long as they can say "we didn't do it, that other group did!" they can argue any attacks against them are crazy acts of aggression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 Two words:Iraq War First arguing that Iran doesn't respect international opinion by stating and using the example of another country that didn't makes no sense. Second, Bush tried everything he could to coordinate the coalition of the coerced as he went into Iraq. Why? Because he needed to maintain the illusion of international approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 It's all BS....As long as they can say "we didn't do it, that other group did!" they can argue any attacks against them are crazy acts of aggression. Just LIKE Bush! Yet how long will it take Iran to decide enough is enough, again being backed into a corner results in one of two choices, and if they are so bent on supporting terror then what makes us think that they won't choose the more destructive path? Which could arguably work for them, not based on shear military stength but on public opinion of the war heavily against the administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I always felt the reason we appeared to fail in Iraq, was to justify occupation. Then we would have a great jump spot to invade Iran or Pakistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 First arguing that Iran doesn't respect international opinion by stating and using the example of another country that didn't makes no sense. Second, Bush tried everything he could to coordinate the coalition of the coerced as he went into Iraq. Why? Because he needed to maintain the illusion of international approval. Let's try this again. I never said that Iran doesn't respect international opinion. I think Iran is very worried about international opinion because they saw what happened w/ Iraq w/ respect to the sanctions and despartely want to avoid that. The only thing the worries them more than sanctions is a war w/ the US, which is why when caught in a pickle between having international opinion against them and the UN impose sanctions and developing their nuclear weapons, which they see as the only way to protect them from a US invasion, they did something stupid. They went and grabbed the British saliors in an effort to influence international opinion so that sanctions would not be levied by the UN as supported by the quote from Time I supplied. When that failed, they tried to put a happy face on everything and released them w/o any gain for them (e.g. The British promised nothing in return for their release). They put a happy face on everything including the video of the airport good bye to try and influence world opinion to their side. You are the one who said: "they don't care about opinion on the international stage." They being the Iranians. I'm disagreeing w/ you. As explained above, the Iranians do care about international opinion. I would assert what Bush did was not to affect opinion on the international stage, but to affect opinion here at home. Bush knew he was never going to win over the Russians, the Chinese, the Germans, the French, and the Canadians, but had to go through the effort in order for people here in the US to support him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 All of you freaking out and reading WAY too much into a yet to be authenticated major intel leak (why do none of you freaking out have a problem with this?) need to keep one thing in mind. What this article accuses the US of beginning to impliment has been going on for years against us by the ME. They are constantly creating propoganda for the world to condemn us, they use oil to try to weaken our economy, and they try to use the media to inflict political unrest that will result in a more ME friendly govt. Surely, being provoked for decades and being backed into the corner, this mean dog has the right to defend itself right? The Us would be completely justified in attacking all the countries that do this to us? Or, is this just business as usal on the international stage? Countries have been doing this for as long as there have been countries. The only reason this is news is because a "anonymus" source in the CIA leaked extremely sesnitive Top Secret information to a newspaper. Which should result in the death of said leaker, unless it was a planted story by Tehran. Chill.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 All of you freaking out and reading WAY too much into a yet to be authenticated major intel leak (why do none of you freaking out have a problem with this?) need to keep one thing in mind. What this article accuses the US of beginning to impliment has been going on for years against us by the ME. They are constantly creating propoganda for the world to condemn us, they use oil to try to weaken our economy, and they try to use the media to inflict political unrest that will result in a more ME friendly govt. Surely, being provoked for decades and being backed into the corner, this mean dog has the right to defend itself right? The Us would be completely justified in attacking all the countries that do this to us? Or, is this just business as usal on the international stage? Countries have been doing this for as long as there have been countries. The only reason this is news is because a "anonymus" source in the CIA leaked extremely sesnitive Top Secret information to a newspaper. Which should result in the death of said leaker, unless it was a planted story by Tehran. Chill.... You act like these things are OK just because everyone does them. See my sig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Only about four years too late. The Iranians have been at war against us since 1979. Taking Americans hostage, shooting us, bombing us. Supporting our enemies with money and weapons. Murdering Jews and western oriented Muslims. Arming the Al Qaeda cells in Iraq against us. Plotting to build nuclear weapons to commit genocide against Israel. We should be bombing their facilities around the clock for two weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Only about four years too late.The Iranians have been at war against us since 1979. Taking Americans hostage, shooting us, bombing us. Supporting our enemies with money and weapons. Murdering Jews and western oriented Muslims. Arming the Al Qaeda cells in Iraq against us. Plotting to build nuclear weapons to commit genocide against Israel. We should be bombing their facilities around the clock for two weeks. Nuke em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 USS John C. Stennis, USS Bonhomme Richard and third carrier group steam into the Persian Gulf near Iran. May 23, 2007 Get some.. http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070523/capt.cc47920fa0404afaaf6eb6ba5497d697.mideast_gulf_us_navy_ny123.jpg?x=380&y=253&sig=cMJchcIiSg8fEEg2rYv0xQ-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 USS John C. Stennis, USS Bonhomme Richard and third carrier group steam into the Persian Gulf near Iran. May 23, 2007 Get some.. http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070523/capt.cc47920fa0404afaaf6eb6ba5497d697.mideast_gulf_us_navy_ny123.jpg?x=380&y=253&sig=cMJchcIiSg8fEEg2rYv0xQ-- T. Roosevelt would call that a "big stick". It's destructive power is only matched by it's diplomatic power. Money can't buy "speaking softly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 This is a great thing ASF. We should be using propoganda and helping moderate groups in Iran. If anything has been lacking from the fight against these kooks it's been engaging them on the battlefield of ideas. They spread crazy **** and now it's time for us to fight back. We certainly fought communism in this manner. Now we just need world leaders to openly mock the extremists and stop pretending burning down buildings in response to cartoons is acceptable. The last thing moderate groups in Iran need is to be branded traitors by receiving American support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 Only about four years too late.The Iranians have been at war against us since 1979. Taking Americans hostage, shooting us, bombing us. Supporting our enemies with money and weapons. Murdering Jews and western oriented Muslims. Arming the Al Qaeda cells in Iraq against us. Plotting to build nuclear weapons to commit genocide against Israel. LOL, you act like they just woke up one morning and thought these things would make a great hobby, it must be nice to live in your world where the US holds no responsibilities for the events in the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 The last thing moderate groups in Iran need is to be branded traitors by receiving American support Yeah, God forbid they step up and help get rid of the *******s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 USS John C. Stennis, USS Bonhomme Richard and third carrier group steam into the Persian Gulf near Iran. May 23, 2007 Get some.. Yeah, and we wonder why Iran might think that the US wants to provoke a war against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.