And here we go, Iran sezes British boats...

[sarettah]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5473446 (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5473446)

Iran Seizes Three British Vessels, 8 Crewmen
Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:35 AM ET

By Amir Paivar

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran seized three British naval boats on Monday, which it said had entered its waters near the Iraqi border, and arrested eight British crew.

While Tehran was deeply opposed to the U.S.-led war and occupation of Iraq, there has been little direct conflict up to now between the Shi'ite Muslim state and foreign forces along its western border.

The incident is likely to place further strain on Tehran's ties with London which last week joined other European nations in condemning Iran for being less than fully cooperative with inspectors from the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.

"This morning three British vessels with eight crew entered the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters and Iran's naval forces, acting on their legal duty, confiscated the vessels and arrested the crew," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement.

[Almighty Colin]

Not wise, I think.

[JR]

giving the masses a little more pride in their poverty and oppression is a good thing for those in power.

[grimm]

Originally posted by sarettah@Jun 21 2004, 08:33 AM
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5473446 (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5473446)

Iran Seizes Three British Vessels, 8 Crewmen
Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:35 AM ET

By Amir Paivar

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran seized three British naval boats on Monday, which it said had entered its waters near the Iraqi border, and arrested eight British crew.

While Tehran was deeply opposed to the U.S.-led war and occupation of Iraq, there has been little direct conflict up to now between the Shi'ite Muslim state and foreign forces along its western border.

The incident is likely to place further strain on Tehran's ties with London which last week joined other European nations in condemning Iran for being less than fully cooperative with inspectors from the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.

"This morning three British vessels with eight crew entered the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters and Iran's naval forces, acting on their legal duty, confiscated the vessels and arrested the crew," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement.
not an act of war if they were in british waters.

[JR]

Originally posted by grimm@Jun 21 2004, 10:23 AM

not an act of war if they were in british waters.
:blink:

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by JR+Jun 21 2004, 01:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Jun 21 2004, 01:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--grimm@Jun 21 2004, 10:23 AM

not an act of war if they were in british waters.
:blink:[/b][/quote]


I think he meant Iran's waters.

Iran has been trying US patience, I think it maybe time to take our their nuclear program.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Jun 21 2004, 01:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Jun 21 2004, 01:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -JR@Jun 21 2004, 01:29 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--grimm@Jun 21 2004, 10:23 AM

not an act of war if they were in british waters.
:blink:


I think he meant Iran's waters.

Iran has been trying US patience, I think it maybe time to take our their nuclear program.[/b][/quote]
has anybody approached Israelis how to do it?
They have expereince
;-))))

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Jun 21 2004, 01:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Jun 21 2004, 01:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Mike AI@Jun 21 2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by -JR@Jun 21 2004, 01:29 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--grimm@Jun 21 2004, 10:23 AM

not an act of war if they were in british waters.
:blink:


I think he meant Iran's waters.

Iran has been trying US patience, I think it maybe time to take our their nuclear program.
has anybody approached Israelis how to do it?
They have expereince
;-))))[/b][/quote]
Some one must do it!!

[pushpills]

Iran didn't learn anything from the Iraq dismemberment. Seems like they want to be next.

The only country I'm all that worried about is North Korea, start a war with them and they'll all fight to the death, the only way is to nuke em.

[RawAlex]

Good news for Bush - another country to stretch the armed forces even thinner on the ground.

Hasn't anyone figured out that the US right now can't do anything about Iran? Forces are already mobilized to something like 80%, and the remaining 20% is up for rotation to replace the 80% that are out there. The US cannot handle another battle anywhere, and those countries who would normally fear US pressure just don't feel it anymore.

Let's see how it goes...

Alex

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 21 2004, 02:49 PM
Good news for Bush - another country to stretch the armed forces even thinner on the ground.

Hasn't anyone figured out that the US right now can't do anything about Iran? Forces are already mobilized to something like 80%, and the remaining 20% is up for rotation to replace the 80% that are out there. The US cannot handle another battle anywhere, and those countries who would normally fear US pressure just don't feel it anymore.

Let's see how it goes...

Alex
Alex,
if we ever go into Iran,
we'll do it with the hands of the students opposing mullahs...

we KNOW how to support insurgents, look at Afganistan
;-)

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Jun 21 2004, 02:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Jun 21 2004, 02:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--RawAlex@Jun 21 2004, 02:49 PM
Good news for Bush - another country to stretch the armed forces even thinner on the ground.

Hasn't anyone figured out that the US right now can't do anything about Iran? Forces are already mobilized to something like 80%, and the remaining 20% is up for rotation to replace the 80% that are out there. The US cannot handle another battle anywhere, and those countries who would normally fear US pressure just don't feel it anymore.

Let's see how it goes...

Alex
Alex,
if we ever go into Iran,
we'll do it with the hands of the students opposing mullahs...

we KNOW how to support insurgents, look at Afganistan
;-)[/b][/quote]


Alex I think you underestimate our military's capacity.

We do not have to take over the whole country. We could bomb, and embargo them for a few years. Maybe setup some "free" zones for Iranian Kurds like we did in Iraq.

I do however agree we should be growing it, adding more combat troops for the Army and Marines.

[Winetalk.com]

Mike,
EVERYBODY know that we can't do shit in Iran.
(military wise)

we ARE spread to thin.....time to let diplomacy/CIA,
"Devide and conquer" doctrine to work

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Jun 21 2004, 02:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Jun 21 2004, 02:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Jun 21 2004, 02:53 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--RawAlex@Jun 21 2004, 02:49 PM
Good news for Bush - another country to stretch the armed forces even thinner on the ground.

Hasn't anyone figured out that the US right now can't do anything about Iran? Forces are already mobilized to something like 80%, and the remaining 20% is up for rotation to replace the 80% that are out there. The US cannot handle another battle anywhere, and those countries who would normally fear US pressure just don't feel it anymore.

Let's see how it goes...

Alex
Alex,
if we ever go into Iran,
we'll do it with the hands of the students opposing mullahs...

we KNOW how to support insurgents, look at Afganistan
;-)


Alex I think you underestimate our military's capacity.

We do not have to take over the whole country. We could bomb, and embargo them for a few years. Maybe setup some "free" zones for Iranian Kurds like we did in Iraq.

I do however agree we should be growing it, adding more combat troops for the Army and Marines.[/b][/quote]
Are you volunteering?

Mike, aren't you still within drafting age?

damn that whole "be careful what you wish for..." thing...

;-)))

[mojobill]

The army may be spread thin.... but the AirForce is pretty bored these days.... and it would not be hard for them to level that nuke plant with a couple fly-by's...

:)

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by fatbaby@Jun 21 2004, 03:52 PM
The army may be spread thin.... but the AirForce is pretty bored these days.... and it would not be hard for them to level that nuke plant with a couple fly-by's...

:)
true, but what air force is going to do when volunteers from Iran infiltrate to Iraq by hundred of thousands?

[Mike AI]

Sykk, I like you, but you are ignorant when it comes to military matters.

The recruitment goals of the Army and Marines are met early in the year. They turn down thousands of people.

Ask Peaches how difficult it was for her son to get into the Air Force, and this is a good smart kid.

There would be no draft, it is not needed or wanted. The military does not want a bunch of random people who are forced to go into the military. They want a specific group of people who when trained right make up the best military in the world.

We are talking about adding another 200k troops. This would still be WAY below cold war levels under Reagan. We did not need a draft then did we? We had 2 million soliders under arms.

[Mike AI]

Serge you are right about heavy intervention in Iran, but we can make our point without having to start an all out war. Putting an oil embargo could hurt Iran. Opressive dictatorships need money to operate - Iran gets a majority of its hard currency by selling oil.

I also think Rumsfields #1 goal is redeploying troops where they are needed. Getting our troops our of Europe and Japan and move them to places where they are needed.

[Winetalk.com]

Mike, there is only ONE thing I am affraid of:
the mentality of the government which lets the ginie out of the bottle without ANY idea how to put the ginie back.

In case I didn't make myself clear:
I doubt in our current government ability to forsee all counter reactions to it's actions.

to illustrate my point of US governments who calculated MUCH better:

JFK, he calculated 25 years in advance that USSR will collapse if they are involved in arms race with US



Reagan's tax cut which:
1) killed inflation
2) spurred economy


just to make a few

[JR]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Jun 21 2004, 01:33 PM
Mike, there is only ONE thing I am affraid of:
the mentality of the government which lets the ginie out of the bottle without ANY idea how to put the ginie back.

In case I didn't make myself clear:
I doubt in our current government ability to forsee all counter reactions to it's actions.

to illustrate my point of US governments who calculated MUCH better:

JFK, he calculated 25 years in advance that USSR will collapse if they are involved in arms race with US



Reagan's tax cut which:
1) killed inflation
2) spurred economy


just to make a few
Iran has a pretty good plan.

"we all go to paradise and fuck virgins. you just die"



Last edited by JR at Jun 21 2004, 02:01 PM

[Rolo]

Originally posted by JR@Jun 21 2004, 02:01 PM
Iran has a pretty good plan.

"we all go to paradise and fuck virgins. you just die"
Anyone want to make a reality site based on this concept - the signups from middle east traffic will probably be good... :grrr:

[Rolo]

Iran will collapse - its a matter of time... They can not escape laws of nature (ex. old mullahs die, because they get older). Sure Mullahs can kick and scream, but young men without jobs, who can not afford a wife and a family, they will get frustrated and demand change... they just need to know that there is a better life, than the one they have now.

I say lets bring Iran into the information age... bomb their country with no cost satelit TV, no cost internet, no cost telephones etc. and we might speed up the process.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 21 2004, 06:41 PM
Iran will collapse - its a matter of time... They can not escape laws of nature (ex. old mullahs die, because they get older). Sure Mullahs can kick and scream, but young men without jobs, who can not afford a wife and a family, they will get frustrated and demand change... they just need to know that there is a better life, than the one they have now.

I say lets bring Iran into the information age... bomb their country with no cost satelit TV, no cost internet, no cost telephones etc. and we might speed up the process.
This is a great plan!

I support it 100%

Iran is the country that rounded up children to walk across fields covered with landmines to set them off so the military can go through them.

[Buff]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 21 2004, 01:49 PM
Good news for Bush - another country to stretch the armed forces even thinner on the ground.

Hasn't anyone figured out that the US right now can't do anything about Iran? Forces are already mobilized to something like 80%, and the remaining 20% is up for rotation to replace the 80% that are out there. The US cannot handle another battle anywhere, and those countries who would normally fear US pressure just don't feel it anymore.

Let's see how it goes...

Alex
We could quadruple our troops in 6 months and field enough competent troops to conquer the whole middle east, North Africa, all of Europe, and the whole Pacific Rim -- hey, just like we did in WWII.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 21 2004, 05:41 PM
Iran will collapse - its a matter of time... They can not escape laws of nature (ex. old mullahs die, because they get older). Sure Mullahs can kick and scream, but young men without jobs, who can not afford a wife and a family, they will get frustrated and demand change... they just need to know that there is a better life, than the one they have now.

I say lets bring Iran into the information age... bomb their country with no cost satelit TV, no cost internet, no cost telephones etc. and we might speed up the process.
That's what's really so funny -- these psychotic Islamic extremists are going to be devestated when their kids and their kids' kids are all tattooed, pierced, watching MTV, eating at McDonald's, and having a lot of promiscuous sex. There's nothing like exporting decadent Western culture to put a civilization in check.

[Trev]

What I would like to know is how do you cross a border, when no official borders have been set for that stretch of water :huh: <_<

[Rolo]

I think its some old Mullah who tought - hey, lets do like we did in 1979, and parade some westerns on TV, so our people can see that we are strong... If its true that the boats were less than 1000 meters in Iranian waters, then it sure sounds like someone was just waiting for this to happen.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 21 2004, 06:41 PM
Iran will collapse - its a matter of time... They can not escape laws of nature (ex. old mullahs die, because they get older). Sure Mullahs can kick and scream, but young men without jobs, who can not afford a wife and a family, they will get frustrated and demand change... they just need to know that there is a better life, than the one they have now.

I say lets bring Iran into the information age... bomb their country with no cost satelit TV, no cost internet, no cost telephones etc. and we might speed up the process.
I agree with your solution ... but I don't buy your analysis of the problem completely.

The unemployed guy who can't envision a future for himself has got to have somebody to hate ... and that makes him prime fodder for the Mullah's ranting about the great Satan.

Mike ... a large part of the ability of recruiters to meet goals can be summed up in one phrase: "It's the economy, stupid."

Serge - "I doubt in our current government ability to forsee all counter reactions to it's actions." is an excellent point that I agree with completely. There is an idealogical bent within many in this Administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz come to mind immediately) that do not let reality interfere with their "vision."

[wig]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jun 22 2004, 10:20 AM
The unemployed guy who can't envision a future for himself has got to have somebody to hate ... and that makes him prime fodder for the Mullah's ranting about the great Satan.

Interesting how that same scenario is being played in US politics.

Fuel the hate of the unemployed, convince him he is a victim, tell him who to hate and who is responsible for his plight and garner a vote in return.

Otherwise known as pandering demagogue.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by wig+Jun 22 2004, 10:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Jun 22 2004, 10:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Jun 22 2004, 10:20 AM
The unemployed guy who can't envision a future for himself has got to have somebody to hate ... and that makes him prime fodder for the Mullah's ranting about the great Satan.

Interesting how that same scenario is being played in US politics.

Fuel the hate of the unemployed, convince him he is a victim, tell him who to hate and who is responsible for his plight and garner a vote in return.

Otherwise known as pandering demagogue.[/b][/quote]
wig, Hitler won elections doing EXACTLY that
;-)))

I wonder how many people here know that Hitler was a duly ELECTED leader of Germany?

[PornoDoggy]

I personally don't see that as quite the same thing. I tend to think there is a bit of a difference between soliciting the vote of someone (based on arguements about economic policy) and convincing someone to go blow themselves up.

I can understand the appeal of the simplistic arguement, however. :rolleyes:

[wig]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jun 22 2004, 11:08 AM
I personally don't see that as quite the same thing. I tend to think there is a bit of a difference between soliciting the vote of someone (based on arguements about economic policy) and convincing someone to go blow themselves up.

I can understand the appeal of the simplistic arguement, however. :rolleyes:
So if you take away the suicide bomber reference, you acknowledge that it is the same thing?

Simplistic argument or Occam's Razor?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by wig+Jun 22 2004, 11:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Jun 22 2004, 11:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Jun 22 2004, 11:08 AM
I personally don't see that as quite the same thing. I tend to think there is a bit of a difference between soliciting the vote of someone (based on arguements about economic policy) and convincing someone to go blow themselves up.

I can understand the appeal of the simplistic arguement, however. :rolleyes:
So if you take away the suicide bomber reference, you acknowledge that it is the same thing?

Simplistic argument or Occam's Razor?[/b][/quote]
No, I do not acknowledge that it is the same thing. I suppose on a purely intellectual basis, it is - but as a practical matter the assertion that it is the same is bullshit.

What IS the same is the class warfare between the political parties within the United States. Everybody runs against "them" - whether "them" is a cadillac-driving-welfare-nigger (or spic, chink/gook/slope, or immigrant, or whatever), or an "old rich white guy."

The problem with Occam's Razor is that you can shave too close ... my experience has been that most people employ the arguement when they defending an intellectual position that fails the common sense test. Comparing American politics to Islamic fundamentalism is ludicrous.

[Dravyk]

Iran has US and allied forces on their "lef" in Iraq. They have US and allied forces on their "right" in Afghanistan. They are the meat in the sandwich, and they surely must be feeling (and should be feeling) quite uncomfortable. Maybe they think the forces are too spread out to do anything (and they might be right on that.)

Either way, very stupid move for the sandwich stuffing to antagonize the slices of bread!!

[Rolo]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jun 22 2004, 07:20 AM
The unemployed guy who can't envision a future for himself has got to have somebody to hate ... and that makes him prime fodder for the Mullah's ranting about the great Satan.
I think that would be the case in many other islamic countries, however Iran has had one of the better education systems in the islamic world, since before the "revolution" in 1979, and a large % of both male and females get a higher education, and there is little focus on religion in the education system. Schools in Tehran and other cities are also linked to the Internet, and recently there were also a somewhat critical press.

I think most older Iranians can remember life before the "revolution", and the young are aware that there is world around them.

[wig]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jun 22 2004, 12:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jun 22 2004, 12:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -wig@Jun 22 2004, 11:41 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Jun 22 2004, 11:08 AM
I personally don't see that as quite the same thing. I tend to think there is a bit of a difference between soliciting the vote of someone (based on arguements about economic policy) and convincing someone to go blow themselves up.

I can understand the appeal of the simplistic arguement, however. :rolleyes:
So if you take away the suicide bomber reference, you acknowledge that it is the same thing?

Simplistic argument or Occam's Razor?
No, I do not acknowledge that it is the same thing. I suppose on a purely intellectual basis, it is - but as a practical matter the assertion that it is the same is bullshit.

What IS the same is the class warfare between the political parties within the United States. Everybody runs against "them" - whether "them" is a cadillac-driving-welfare-nigger (or spic, chink/gook/slope, or immigrant, or whatever), or an "old rich white guy."

The problem with Occam's Razor is that you can shave too close ... my experience has been that most people employ the arguement when they defending an intellectual position that fails the common sense test. Comparing American politics to Islamic fundamentalism is ludicrous.[/b][/quote]
I bet if I framed the original question with an abortion clinic bomber, rather than the unemployed, you would have agreed.

:D

[Mike AI]

My dad sent me an article about a bunch of refueling planes being loaned to Israel. It was a small article buried in a paper.

Wonder if this is part of a plan to put Iran in check?

I understand Iran is trying to flex their muscle, its part of Real Politik, they are going to try and press their advantage.

[JoesHO]

I saw today where they said that they were gonna charge the british crew members with a crime in Iran too.....

[slavdogg]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jun 22 2004, 02:00 PM
My dad sent me an article about a bunch of refueling planes being loaned to Israel. It was a small article buried in a paper.

Wonder if this is part of a plan to put Iran in check?
Mike i know both of us are waiting for Israel to take out Iran's nukes.
but refueling planes might be a long shot, unless they plan to fly out all the way to the indian ocean to strike Iran from.

Israel received new planes from US just few months ago that can reach Iran and back without refueling. They've tested the planes and flew them all the way up to Poland few months ago.

Actually as i write this, it makes a lot of sense for Israelies to fly in from Indian Ocean, as i doubt they'll be able to fly over Jordan again or even Turkey.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by wig@Jun 22 2004, 01:45 PM
I bet if I framed the original question with an abortion clinic bomber, rather than the unemployed, you would have agreed.

:D
You are probably right about that. Take white supremicists, as an example. Most of them find it far more convenient to blame niggers (or whatever) for everything they can't/haven't accomplished. For the record, though, I also would have agreed with you had you used the actions of P.E.T.A. "freeing" lab animals, or the juvinile delinquents who calling themselves environmentalists who burn shit down or blow shit up in order to "defend earth", too.

What I will not agree with you on is the idea that a politican soliciting votes is the same thing as a mullah inciting people to kill themselves in the name of god. If you do think they are the same, I feel sorry for you.

[wig]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jun 22 2004, 08:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jun 22 2004, 08:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-wig@Jun 22 2004, 01:45 PM
I bet if I framed the original question with an abortion clinic bomber, rather than the unemployed, you would have agreed.

:D
You are probably right about that. Take white supremicists, as an example. Most of them find it far more convenient to blame niggers (or whatever) for everything they can't/haven't accomplished. For the record, though, I also would have agreed with you had you used the actions of P.E.T.A. "freeing" lab animals, or the juvinile delinquents who calling themselves environmentalists who burn shit down or blow shit up in order to "defend earth", too.

What I will not agree with you on is the idea that a politican soliciting votes is the same thing as a mullah inciting people to kill themselves in the name of god. If you do think they are the same, I feel sorry for you. [/b][/quote]
All of your examples are valid. I considered them all, but chose the abortion bomber. ;-)

Glad you can agree.

Do I think GWB and John Kerry (front and center examples) are better men? Sure. But that does not take away from the comparison that they are all demagogues, which was the only point I was making.

You just got riled up because I used your reference to the unemployed. I know that is a touchy subject with you, but geez...