This once again falls into the classification of "Why is nobody in herre talking about this?"

It has been a week since Iran siezed 15 British Sailors and Marines, yet nobody has even brought it up in here.  I have watched this closely over the last week, and am becomming increasingly uneasy.  This more then anything else in the last 10 years may bring us to the brink of "WWIII".

Iran has a history of violating international laws and protocols when it comes to taking "hostages".  They did it in 1979, when they stormed the US Embassy and held it's occupants for 444 days.  And they did it again in 2004, when they detained 8 British sailors who they claimed "strayed into their waters".

And in each of these events, Iran blatently disregards the Geneva Convention.  Yet nothing is ever done.  In the 2004 seizure, one of the Sailors was subjected to a mock trial, concluding in his mock execution.  In all three of these events, the perople captured were paraded around in public, made to make written and oral statements which were broadcast on Iranian TV, and never given access to the International Red Cross.  Each of thes in clear violation of International Treaty.

And now, President Fruityloops (Ahmadinejad is just to hard to spell) is threatening to hold trials and charge the sailors and Marines with espionage.  And as everybody knows, the sentence for that crime is Death.  Yet the Geneva Convention clearly states that military operating in uniform (and Iran can't deny this was the case, since they show them in uniform all the time) can't be tried for Espionage. 

And now the UN finally takes some action, or is that inaction.  They wrote a mild reply, stating that the British Servicemembers should be released.  I find this sad, since they were in there upholding UN Resolutions (1546, 1723, 1737) in the first place.  That is why they were searching an Indian flagged vessel near the Iraq-Iran border.

This has been going on for a week now, and the tensions and agression between the two nations keeps heating up.  A month ago, people were talking about the US making a strike against Iran.  Now, it is looking more and more like England may do it unless something is done soon.

Our news here in the US has mostly been focusing on the reactions between the two Governments.  But I am curious, what is the reaction from the British Subjects?  I know that we have a lot of users here from Commonwealth nations.  I am curious to what is being said "at home", and their reactions to this crisis.

iran's being really obnoxious, and they televised the prisoners in violation of the geneva conventions. of course so did the us when they captured hussein, so i'm not sure the geneva conventions are operative anymore. when iran violates them nobody's particularly surprised but when an allegedly civilized government like the us does it it actually undermines the structures of international law.

it's funny how iran is playing into us/british hands. it's no big secret the administration is champing at the bit to go to war with iran, although i'm not quite clear whose military it plans to do this with  ::), and this gives them just the pretext they need.

as for the way iran is conducting themselves, i guess my reaction is... what do you expect? they've been professional a-holes since 1979.

Iran's using anything they can get there hands on. (including hostages)  Thankfully Tony's not falling for it.  Did you guys see the videos of them?  In all honest I have seen hostages look worse.

I'm not really sure what Iran hopes to gain here.

Israel has said that if Iran continues to develope Nuclear weapons, they will stop production by any means neccesary. Israel is essentially a US State and would receive full backing from the US and UK. (and where else matters, all those other country suck ass.) So my dream could come true and somebody could finally nuke the middle east!  :)

iran's being really obnoxious, and they televised the prisoners in violation of the geneva conventions. of course so did the us when they captured hussein, so i'm not sure the geneva conventions are operative anymore.


As a "Head Of State", Saddam was not covered by the Geneva Convention.  About the only "Head Of State" that I can think of that might be covered would be Colonel Kadaffy, who is still on active duty with his military, in addition to being President.


as for the way iran is conducting themselves, i guess my reaction is... what do you expect? they've been professional a-holes since 1979.


LOL, so true.  Maybe someday the US will be able to open an embassy over there again.


Iran's using anything they can get there hands on. (including hostages)  Thankfully Tony's not falling for it.  Did you guys see the videos of them?  In all honest I have seen hostages look worse.


I have seen the videos.  However, Iran has a reputation of useing psychological torture on foreigners they hold for propaganda purposes.  Mock trials, mock executions, withholding food, and sleep deprevation.  In fact, it is more then likely that when Faye Turney is released, she reveals that she was threatened with death unless she made the statements she did.

And yes, I have seen the video.  Constant eye blinking, a common sign of extreme stress.  All of the people in the videos were rapidly looking around off-camera.  This has also been seen before, normally by people who are being forced to "perform" under threat.  And the way they were eating (all holding onto the food, eating rapidly and almost "protecting" it) is also commonly seen when it is withheld.  And in both the 1979 and 2004 incidents, everybody involved stated that starvation and removal of food was a common punishment for not "performing" properly.

In fact, I bet if Jeremiah Denton was one of the captured, he would be blinking in morse code.  But I am sure that the Iranians know enough to look for that.


I'm not really sure what Iran hopes to gain here.

Israel has said that if Iran continues to develope Nuclear weapons, they will stop production by any means neccesary. Israel is essentially a US State and would receive full backing from the US and UK. (and where else matters, all those other country suck ass.) So my dream could come true and somebody could finally nuke the middle east!  :)


Israel has also shown they are fully capable of taking action on their own, even against US advice and approval.  Look at the 1981 attack against an Iraqi Nuclear Plant.  In fact, the US spoke up against that attack, because they were already involved in diplomatic negotiations to try and end the crisis.

Contrary to "popular belief", Israel is a puppet of nobody.  Over and over again, they have refused diplomatic approaches by the US to many of it's problems.  The US will often urge diplomacy, but Israel goes ahead and charges into conflict.  And they really don't care either.  I think Israel has more UN Sanctions and reprimands then any other country in the world.  And not one of those would have gone through if the US did not want it to.

Israel has also shown they are fully capable of taking action on their own, even against US advice and approval.  Look at the 1981 attack against an Iraqi Nuclear Plant.  In fact, the US spoke up against that attack, because they were already involved in diplomatic negotiations to try and end the crisis.

Contrary to "popular belief", Israel is a puppet of nobody.  Over and over again, they have refused diplomatic approaches by the US to many of it's problems.  The US will often urge diplomacy, but Israel goes ahead and charges into conflict.  And they really don't care either.  I think Israel has more UN Sanctions and reprimands then any other country in the world.  And not one of those would have gone through if the US did not want it to.


Very good point. I hadn't really thought that through. Still, reaffirms the good news that Israel will act with the violence and ruthlessness that the US SHOULD be acting with.

The last thing I want is war with Iran, but just what is the U.K. supposed to do here?
>:(


Well, to re-use an old saying, "I bet they would not have done this if Maggie was PM".

One thing about Margaret Thatcher, she was not willing to take crap off of anybody.  When they had their little tiff with Argentina, she showed them that even though they were not a "Super Power" any more, the UK was still willing and able to cross the world to take back what they think is theirs.

And I might even consider the idea that the videos are not being forced out of them, if not for the "US" comments.  These are British subjects, why on earth would they be commenting about US foreign policy?  I know that when I was in the military, I could not care less what UK Foreign Policy was.  And I certainly would not have tried to castigate the UK, since it is not my country, and not my place to do so.

Potentially, this has the potential to turn into the largest "minor war becomes major war" since "The War For Jenkin's Ear".

i have to admit it kinda makes me go, hmm, that the bush admin has been stumping for military action against iran for so long and then we get this. sorta makes me wonder if these sailor guys weren't wagged in front of the iranians as bait to provide a pretext.

lol. yeah, there's an onion article about the falklands war -- maggie thatcher takes on the falklands' elite puffin brigade, or something to that effect. it's hilarious.

problem with going to war with iran is that they actually have an army.

The last thing I want is war with Iran, but just what is the U.K. supposed to do here?
>:(


Indeed...what can they do?

Make no mistake, the British won't go storming the place - Iran knows this...

At the same time, Britain has managed to obtain a UN Security Council statement requiring the release of the personnel...not really a trump card to have up one's sleeve when dealing with Iran, who are hardly avid listeners of the UN...

So we just have to wait for 'diplomacy' to take its course...painful though it is...

i have to admit it kinda makes me go, hmm, that the bush admin has been stumping for military action against iran for so long and then we get this. sorta makes me wonder if these sailor guys weren't wagged in front of the iranians as bait to provide a pretext.


That may or may not be.  And frankly, it does not matter.

There are two main things I am looking at here.  One of them was the original GPS coordinates given by Iran.  It is interesting how they have changed 2 times now, and that the first set was well within Iraqi waters.

And no matter what, the UK and US are not responsible for how Iran is acting now.  If they were inside their waters, Iran had every right to detain them.  But they have no right to turn this into the media show it has become.  And Iran certainly has no right to threaten them with spy charges.  I am looking at the reactions from Iran when I make my opinions about this incident.

lol. yeah, there's an onion article about the falklands war -- maggie thatcher takes on the falklands' elite puffin brigade, or something to that effect. it's hilarious.

problem with going to war with iran is that they actually have an army.


And Argentina did not?

Try telling that to the crew of the HMS Antelope, HMS Ardent, HMS Coventry, or the HMS Sheffield.  They were all sunk during the conflict.  And both the HMS Argonaut and HMS Brilliant were badly damaged during the conflict.  In fact, at least 13 1,000 pound bombs struck British ships without detonating.  After the conflict, Lord Craig (Marshal of the Royal Air Force) stated that if Argentina had “Six better fuses and we would have lost".

Not to shabby at all for a "Third World Nation".  And most of the attacks were done by 20-30 year old American and French fighters (the A-4 and Mirage).  And "off-the-shelf" Exocet missiles.

This conflict in many ways would be the reverse of the Falklands.  Argentina had a pretty good Navy and Air Force, but not much of an Army.  Iran has a large army, but not much of an Air Force or Navy.  Most of their airplanes date back to the 1960's and early 1970's, and the largest ship they have is similar to a 1970's era light destroyer.  Most of their ships are nothing more then armed pleasure boats in the 30' range.

However, Iran does have a huge number of surface launched anti-ship missiles.  This simply ensures that any strike against them would more then likely be made by aircraft over land.  Iran has a huge offensive capability (in missiles), but in reality very few defensive systems in place (mostly 1970's era Soviet anti-aircraft missiles).  Their entire posture is more dedicated to offensive then defensive operations.

Add to that the UK doctrine of "rapid attack" by a small number of highly trained troops, and the fight would be more even then most people think.  Unless the US joined in that is.  Combining SAS and other elite UK forces with the sheer mass of US forces, and you would have a conflict about as one-sided as either of the wars with Iraq.

And as for "the Iranian Army", in reality they are no more equiped for a war then that of Iraq was.  Badly outdated equipment (mostly Soviet "throw-aways" from the 1970's), poor training, and outdated doctrine.  Even with their superior numbers, the most they could do against Iraq was a stalemate.  Against a dedicated attack by a modern military, they would last about as long as Iraq's military did.

And the only reason for that is their larger numbers.  Iraq actually had newer and better equipment then Iran does now.  Other then missiles, their equipment was outdated even by 1980 standards.  And that has not changed in the last 25 years.

As a "Head Of State", Saddam was not covered by the Geneva Convention.  About the only "Head Of State" that I can think of that might be covered would be Colonel Kadaffy, who is still on active duty with his military, in addition to being President.

LOL, so true.  Maybe someday the US will be able to open an embassy over there again.

I have seen the videos.  However, Iran has a reputation of useing psychological torture on foreigners they hold for propaganda purposes.  Mock trials, mock executions, withholding food, and sleep deprevation.  In fact, it is more then likely that when Faye Turney is released, she reveals that she was threatened with death unless she made the statements she did.

And yes, I have seen the video.  Constant eye blinking, a common sign of extreme stress.  All of the people in the videos were rapidly looking around off-camera.  This has also been seen before, normally by people who are being forced to "perform" under threat.  And the way they were eating (all holding onto the food, eating rapidly and almost "protecting" it) is also commonly seen when it is withheld.  And in both the 1979 and 2004 incidents, everybody involved stated that starvation and removal of food was a common punishment for not "performing" properly.

In fact, I bet if Jeremiah Denton was one of the captured, he would be blinking in morse code.  But I am sure that the Iranians know enough to look for that.

Israel has also shown they are fully capable of taking action on their own, even against US advice and approval.  Look at the 1981 attack against an Iraqi Nuclear Plant.  In fact, the US spoke up against that attack, because they were already involved in diplomatic negotiations to try and end the crisis.

Contrary to "popular belief", Israel is a puppet of nobody.  Over and over again, they have refused diplomatic approaches by the US to many of it's problems.  The US will often urge diplomacy, but Israel goes ahead and charges into conflict.  And they really don't care either.  I think Israel has more UN Sanctions and reprimands then any other country in the world.  And not one of those would have gone through if the US did not want it to.


Did you notice the progression of Faye's covering? 

To be honest. I could care less about what happens to any iranian. The RN personnel over there are considerably more important than every Iranian in the region.

In what could be a case of the few for the many I'd be interested to see what would happen if they were executed. I'm thinking level theran and all it's inhabitants..like ants.

oops.

welcome to the wonderful world of conservatism, i suppose. sentiments like that seem like they're always bubbling not too far from the surface in the right wing.

To be honest. I could care less about what happens to any iranian. The RN personnel over there are considerably more important than every Iranian in the region.


I have to agree fully with Maxwell here (everybody pick up your jaws).

I have no problems in hating a government or system.  But I certainly do not carry that forward to the people who have to live under that government or system.  While I may hate President Fruityloops, I most certainly do not hate Iranians.  In the same way that I hate Islamofascist Terrorists, but I do not hate Muslims.

Even after the 444 day captivity, those released from Iran in 1979 still spoke of Iranians in general in good terms.  It was just the ones that stormed the embassy and held them hostage that they had little or no use for.


oops.

welcome to the wonderful world of conservatism, i suppose. sentiments like that seem like they're always bubbling not too far from the surface in the right wing.


And that is rather insulting if I may say so Tia.  Contrary to what many people believe, the vast majority of Conservatives deplore anything like that.  Just like the vast majority of Liberals.  But you will always have a few on the fringe, that will hate anything different from themselves.

And that is rather insulting if I may say so Tia.  Contrary to what many people believe, the vast majority of Conservatives deplore anything like that.  Just like the vast majority of Liberals.  But you will always have a few on the fringe, that will hate anything different from themselves.
that's okay if you feel that way. i'm going with my honest impressions here. it reminds me a little bit of the conversations we've had on this board about katrina. there's this eff em all attitude i keep detecting just under the surface, yanno? if they can't take care of themselves they can all fall in the ocean as far as the right wing could care.

i really do honestly see a connection between that and this, hey, let's nuke the entire middle east attitude. which i actually encounter quite a lot. i do appreciate your agreement with maxwell above, though. that sort of stuff is really pretty gut-wrenchingly ugly.

Regardless if it's ugly or not.

It's survival of the fittest, we're the best and everyone else needs to accept that.

I'm sick of propping up the rest of the world with my taxes, screw them. They're poor, who cares, they're not me.

I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, you've just been conditioned to believe we have an obligation to help others. Nuh Uh!

I'll agree with Andy insofar as we are not obligated to travel the world and help every group of less fortunate people we find.  We have people IN OUR OWN COUNTRY who need our time, our money and our attention.....they should be our first priority.  Wasting valuable resources on fruitless causes is not helping us out in any way whatsoever.  Call that selfish, I don't care.  My government and my tax dollars should be spent and used helping me and my fellow Americans, not people 20,000 miles away.



MMmHmm.

See, all the bleeding hearts will say "Oh, but we made them poor." Tough s**t. Deal with it. Margaret Thatcher made my Dad unemployed, he got another job. Deal with it.

When I say Nuke the middle east. I'm not saying that strategic missile command needs to unleash the ICBM's.. I'm just saying, if it happened, I'd still raise the flag.

sometimes i wonder if human beings should have ever bothered climbing down out of the trees. i mean, the kind of civilization we'd wind up with under a philosophy like that is actually a lot like the one the iranians have now. we're gonna cut off your hands for stealing and execute women for contemplating adultery, cuz we can, cuz we win.

sometimes i wonder if human beings should have ever bothered climbing down out of the trees. i mean, the kind of civilization we'd wind up with under a philosophy like that is actually a lot like the one the iranians have now. we're gonna cut off your hands for stealing and execute women for contemplating adultery, cuz we can, cuz we win.


Not at all. Let those in your own country get on with things. It's nationalism. Me and my country come first. We need more nationalistic attitudes in this modern age as the NWO pushes to take over and we end up as the same nationality with nothing defineing us as individuals... next thing you know, they'll take your thoughts away.. Number 2847B9.

by the by, i have iranian friends. i lived with an indian-iranian couple for a while, she was a filmmaker who got snuck out of the country. made subversive political movies about what it's like to live in iran as a woman and about how effed up the regime was. they had to sneak her out of the country under death threats, and to do what she did she probably had more courage in her little finger than a lot of folks have in their whole body.

this talk about how all iranians suck is just ridiculous.

by the by, i have iranian friends. i lived with an indian-iranian couple for a while, she was a filmmaker who got snuck out of the country. made subversive political movies about what it's like to live in iran as a woman and about how effed up the regime was. they had to sneak her out of the country under death threats, and to do what she did she probably had more courage in her little finger than a lot of folks have in their whole body.

this talk about how all iranians suck is just ridiculous.


.. and as I've said many times. I am very much painting everyone with the same brush. Unfortunatly, when dealing with a country with millions of people, it's the only viable solution.

I am not condoning the eradication of the whole Arabian peninsula, but seriously. How many of us would cry about it? The Iranian leadership has chosen it's path (whatever that may be) and if the people of that nation don't like it they should do something about it.

Their actions speak very loudly. If the Brits were trespassing why aren't they being prosecuted for it right now? Why all of this media blitz? It is certainly not helping anyone, and if Blair doesn't have the stones to stand up to them I'm sure his buddy would be willing to spend more of our money to teach them a lesson.

It's all just a farking puppet show anyway.
Get your guns and head for the hills...

and yet... everyone hates america! ::)

with this kill-em-all-and-let-god-sort-em-out attitude everyone in this country seems to have now, who can blame em? i think a lot of people probably see this looming war between iran and the US as a conflict between two pariah states. i mean, we're not that bad off yet but we'll wind up there if we keep thinking like this.

how do you think we got where we are? by killing people and robbin' em blind? no, we got where we are today by being an inspiration to others in terms of the way we act. this talk about oh, all iranians are the same is the stupidest stuff i've ever heard, sorry. if we were smart about it we'd find ways to encourage the reform movement in iran and conduct ourselves in a way people would like to imitate. but who would wanna be like america the way it is now? we've got lots of money, sure, but apparently no soul.

and yet... everyone hates america! ::)

with this kill-em-all-and-let-god-sort-em-out attitude everyone in this country seems to have now, who can blame em? i think a lot of people probably see this looming war between iran and the US as a conflict between two pariah states. i mean, we're not that bad off yet but we'll wind up there if we keep thinking like this.

how do you think we got where we are? by killing people and robbin' em blind? no, we got where we are today by being an inspiration to others in terms of the way we act. this talk about oh, all iranians are the same is the stupidest stuff i've ever heard, sorry. if we were smart about it we'd find ways to encourage the reform movement in iran and conduct ourselves in a way people would like to imitate. but who would wanna be like america the way it is now? we've got lots of money, sure, but apparently no soul.


Souls don't exist.

We're the best because we have the biggest guns, the most money and the ability to destroy everything. Step in to line or step off a short pier.

ha ha.

seriously, though.

i wouldn't sweat it. the thread's descended to a fifth-grade level anyhow.

You miss the point.  I'm not intelligent enough to comment on this board.  I should really stick to talking about sugared cereals from the '80s!
:-\\


Now this was unnecessary. 

You miss the point.  I'm not intelligent enough to comment on this board.  I should really stick to talking about sugared cereals from the '80s!
:-\\
i think all sugared cereals from the 80s should be destroyed. no quarter sought, no quarter given. let god sort out the cocoa puffs from the frosted flakes. >:(

i think all sugared cereals from the 80s should be destroyed. no quarter sought, no quarter given. let god sort out the cocoa puffs from the frosted flakes. >:(



Don't you mess with the Frosted Flakes, or me and my SCUD missile are going to hunt your ass down.

i have to admit it kinda makes me go, hmm, that the bush admin has been stumping for military action against iran for so long and then we get this. sorta makes me wonder if these sailor guys weren't wagged in front of the iranians as bait to provide a pretext.


  I'm not so sure.  Iran holds most of the winning cards in this poker game.  If "the West", namely the USA is provoked into initiating hostilities with Iran, Iran will be the victor.  It's been very wise to let cooler British heads patrol the Shatt.  American sailors might have opened fire in a similar confrontation, with disastrous consequences groove ;) on...

i think all sugared cereals from the 80s should be destroyed. no quarter sought, no quarter given. let god sort out the cocoa puffs from the frosted flakes. >:(


Hey!  Stop giving Them ideas! 

Consider the trouble Captain Crunch got into in 1971 - five years' probation - and ponder what he would have gotten today for the same "offence".  The easily-accessed 2600-Hz tone of the whistles that came in boxes of Captain Crunch cereal inspired Draper, and Draper ended up in the company of a couple of geeks who built 2600-Hz-emitting "blue boxes" in their garage.  30 years on, you might have heard of their little company.  It's called "Apple Computer".

No 80s cereals, no personal computer revolution.  No Google.  No Intarwebs on which to discuss the fates of 15 Brits.  And with that, we're back on topic.  (Damn, my neck hurts.  I almost got whiplash from that!)

I'm not really sure what Iran hopes to gain here.

Israel has said that if Iran continues to develope Nuclear weapons, they will stop production by any means neccesary. Israel is essentially a US State and would receive full backing from the US and UK. (and where else matters, all those other country suck ass.) So my dream could come true and somebody could finally nuke the middle east!  :)


HELL YEAH.  Let's let fly with some nukes and teach those sumbiches a lesson,

HELL YEAH.  Let's let fly with some nukes and teach those sumbiches a lesson,
i take it you don't know anybody over there?

must suck getting your knuckles all scraped up all the time.

i take it you don't know anybody over there?

must suck getting your knuckles all scraped up all the time.


It does not suck as much as not being able to spot obvious sarcasm.

It does not suck as much as not being able to spot obvious sarcasm.
someone who was serious would have worded it the exact same way. and a LOT of people say stuff like that and are serious.

so i really don't think it was at all obvious.

This once again falls into the classification of "Why is nobody in herre talking about this?"

I was thinking about posting about this, back when it all kicked off, but didn't seem to have the time.

I've just re-read "Whirlwind", by James Clavell, a magnificent book set in Iran at the time of the revolution.  While I wouldn't want to use it as a reference work, there is a lot in the way he describes the Shi'a outlook on life that is somewhat revealing.

But Armoureddinnerjacket is plain f***ing scary: he manages to sound completely rational, and can present a very good reasoned argument.. then without batting an eyelid goes into a corollary that's damn near insane.  Even scarier to think what it'd be like if Iran gets an a-bomb

i just heard "imadinnerjacket" for the first time a couple days ago. it's catching on like wildfire.

Even scarier to think what it'd be like if Iran gets an a-bomb


They'd only get the bomb if the liberals allowed them to.

They'd only get the bomb if the liberals allowed them to.
i doubt the conservatives will be able to keep them from getting the bomb either. they got blustier rhetoric but no tricks up their sleeves the dems don't have.

dems are just as willing to do aerial bombardment as the republicans. but bush isn't going to start a ground war any more than a democratic president would, because that would be a disaster. and a ground war is the only thing that would keep iran from getting the bomb, other than destroying the entire country. which constitutes the sort of nightmare we're trying to keep iran from getting the bomb to prevent.

i doubt the conservatives will be able to keep them from getting the bomb either. they got blustier rhetoric but no tricks up their sleeves the dems don't have.

dems are just as willing to do aerial bombardment as the republicans. but bush isn't going to start a ground war any more than a democratic president would, because that would be a disaster. and a ground war is the only thing that would keep iran from getting the bomb, other than destroying the entire country. which constitutes the sort of nightmare we're trying to keep iran from getting the bomb to prevent.


I disagree.

We could take out Iran (or rather Israel could) and limit the damage to mainly just Iran. Whereas if Iran had 'the bomb' as it were, the targets would be far more important.

I hope that this get resvolved peacefully.

I disagree.

We could take out Iran (or rather Israel could) and limit the damage to mainly just Iran. Whereas if Iran had 'the bomb' as it were, the targets would be far more important.
unforunately if we get into the business of "taking out" entire countries i imagine the entire world will, rightly, organize against us since by doing so we'll have become the biggest evil on the planet since mid-century european fascism. ::)

the last six years i've kept hearing "more force! more force!" being put forward as the solution to all our problems and yet look where we are? the last six years we've been using military force liberally, if you'll excuse the expression, and it just seems to be making things worse.

i'd rather see people start using their brains, quite frankly.

unforunately if we get into the business of "taking out" entire countries i imagine the entire world will, rightly, organize against us since by doing so we'll have become the biggest evil on the planet since mid-century european fascism. ::)

the last six years i've kept hearing "more force! more force!" being put forward as the solution to all our problems and yet look where we are? the last six years we've been using military force liberally, if you'll excuse the expression, and it just seems to be making things worse.

i'd rather see people start using their brains, quite frankly.


In a normal situation, I'd agree. But everyone civilised country on earth has tried negotiating with the different partys in the middle east.. and with very few exceptions (my man Nassar being one of them) it's impossible to negotiate with them.

The biggest problem prevention negotiation is that it is simply not possible.

Under the current Government, trying to Negotiate with Iran is like negotiating with Nazi Germany in 1937.  They are so convinced that they are fulfilling their "God Given Destiny", that they can say anything they want to get what they want.  And since everybody else is a "Godless Infidel", breaking promises means nothing to them.

In fact, it is like trying to negotiate with North Korea.  They agreed to stop their program twice in exchange for money and fuel.  But a year or so later, they just start it up all over again.

With all of his actions (like that "Holocost Conference" last year), Iran does not have a lot of credibility in the International Community.  They have already stated that they need to get "the bomb" so they can take their rightfull place as a world super power.

And the Government is actually deluded enough to think having nukes makes them a super power.

All I know is that I continue to watch this very closely.  Because it may well be of critical importance to me in the near future.

you conservative guys are running things, it's your call. if i were you, i'd worry less about the government, since it's so intractable, and worry more about ways to encourage reform movements or change in the government from within. wholesale genocide of the iranian people is out, and you can't negotiate with them, so it's time to come up with something interesting.

the cia used to actually be good at this sort of thing in the 50s and 60s, you know. but as it is i get the impression y'all are basically using rhetoric to beat on liberals, you know, by saying negotiation won't work and advocating wholesale warfare. aren't there other options besides using this as a partisan tool? what's an actual solution here?

hint: i dont think it has to do with open warfare, and i don't think it has to do with dealing with the existing government.

you conservative guys are running things, it's your call. if i were you, i'd worry less about the government, since it's so intractable, and worry more about ways to encourage reform movements or change in the government from within. wholesale genocide of the iranian people is out, and you can't negotiate with them, so it's time to come up with something interesting.

the cia used to actually be good at this sort of thing in the 50s and 60s, you know. but as it is i get the impression y'all are basically using rhetoric to beat on liberals, you know, by saying negotiation won't work and advocating wholesale warfare. aren't there other options besides using this as a partisan tool? what's an actual solution here?

hint: i dont think it has to do with open warfare, and i don't think it has to do with dealing with the existing government.


In theory you're right. If you proposed to the people, the concept that they could have X, Y and Z and the best way to achieve that would be via establishing their own self elected government etc etc it'd be nice. Of course, they'd all be slaughtered anyway.

dude, as a far-left liberal i've been reading about coups the cia successfully orchestrated in guatamala, iran in 53, greece, iraq possibly, all sorts of different places. ways of inserting propaganda and encouraging resistance movements from within, hell, they actually worked within the liberal movement in europe after the end of world war ii to make sure the noncommunist leftists in eastern europe didn't succumb to soviet influence, to the extent possible. they used to be really clever at that stuff during the cold war. i mean, that's a slow process and the folks i've studied with find it quite distasteful but what are the other options here? all out war, or endless liberal bashing without any genuine progress, and eventually iran gets the bomb anyway.

i say do something useful! start figuring out ways to undermine the current regime from within. we got some smart people on our side, i bet there are ways it can be done. bust out some cloak and dagger stuff, some genuine struggles for hearts and minds. i know you guys (sorry to generalize about the right, again!) are big on shows of force but iraq has basically seen to it that diplomacy, espionage and covert action are the only real remaining options. i'm not saying that as a liberal, i'm saying that as a realist. i mean look at the situation.

dude, as a far-left liberal i've been reading about coups the cia successfully orchestrated in guatamala, iran in 53, greece, iraq possibly, all sorts of different places. ways of inserting propaganda and encouraging resistance movements from within, hell, they actually worked within the liberal movement in europe after the end of world war ii to make sure the noncommunist leftists in eastern europe didn't succumb to soviet influence, to the extent possible. they used to be really clever at that stuff during the cold war. i mean, that's a slow process and the folks i've studied with find it quite distasteful but what are the other options here? all out war, or endless liberal bashing without any genuine progress, and eventually iran gets the bomb anyway.

i say do something useful! start figuring out ways to undermine the current regime from within. we got some smart people on our side, i bet there are ways it can be done. bust out some cloak and dagger stuff, some genuine struggles for hearts and minds. i know you guys (sorry to generalize about the right, again!) are big on shows of force but iraq has basically seen to it that diplomacy, espionage and covert action are the only real remaining options. i'm not saying that as a liberal, i'm saying that as a realist. i mean look at the situation.


As a realist I can't even begin to contemplate ground invasions because the troop numbers aren't there and the nation and military is not in a position for a draft and wouldn't stand for it.

What you're saying is all well and good, but I dare say it's going on now.. and it's not working.

As a realist I can't even begin to contemplate ground invasions because the troop numbers aren't there and the nation and military is not in a position for a draft and wouldn't stand for it.

What you're saying is all well and good, but I dare say it's going on now.. and it's not working.
it's going to take a while.

and i know it's fun to talk about annihilating the whole middle east. but it's just not going to happen.

it's going to take a while.

and i know it's fun to talk about annihilating the whole middle east. but it's just not going to happen.


No, of course it's not. But I'll be honest and say I wouldn't lose any sleep if 100,000,000 were obliterated, just being honest.

There's not really a simple solution, although I think Iran may have an equally large problem on their other side soon, if they keep pissing off Putin he'll go Khruschev on their asses!

that's fine. well, it's not, but it is, because it's not going to happen. so how do we actually solve the problem.

that's fine. well, it's not, but it is, because it's not going to happen. so how do we actually solve the problem.


We send in a couple of snipers to put a bullet or two in the head of the Grand Ayatollah.  That would be a good start.

We send in a couple of snipers to put a bullet or two in the head of the Grand Ayatollah.  That would be a good start.
that would be nice, it might not be that simple. plus if they trace it back to you they might just have a bunch of ugly demonstrations and put someone even worse in.

how do you encourage reform movements in a country? it's a simple question without a simple answer.

that would be nice, it might not be that simple.

how do you encourage reform movements in a country? it's a simple question without a simple answer.


Simply put, you don't.

it has to be their idea.

Hell, the reform movement in this country is still a fairly pathetic conglomerate of do-gooders with the occasional nutjob sprinkled in for good measure.

Simply put, you don't.

it has to be their idea.

Hell, the reform movement in this country is still a fairly pathetic conglomerate of do-gooders with the occasional nutjob sprinkled in for good measure.
iran actually already has a very active reform movement. and their government is so different from america's that comparisons between the two aren't that useful. reformers in iran are much more likely to be, if you excuse the expression, die-hard moderates.

iran actually already has a very active reform movement. and their government is so different from america's that comparisons between the two aren't that useful. reformers in iran are much more likely to be, if you excuse the expression, die-hard moderates.


Or what we'd consider moderate anyhow, or so I assume?

I know one important factor about Iran that seperates them from the Arabs and that is that there isn't so much of a vacuum.. education actually exists in iran and there are educated individuals across the class boundaries. That could be helpful, but as I said before, as you say it, any changes that occur will have to be prompted by the Iranian's themselves.

you conservative guys are running things, it's your call.

Tell that to Nancy Polosi (who is in Syria at the moment).

Anybody that thinks that any one party runs things really does not understand our Government.  In reality, the Beaurocrats really run things.  The parties come and go who make the big decisions, but it is the beaurocrats that in reality run things.

And no one party can run everything without support of the other.  If Republicans really ran everything, then why were so many Judicial positions still vacant?  Sinple, because the Democrats used their power to hold things up (not a comment on anything other then how even as a minority - a party can make it's power visible).

The US is probably the ultimate example of a "Coalition Government".  For over 200 years now, the parties have bounced back and forth for control.  And even if one has a strong majority, the other can still get things that it really wants - as long as it has enough popular support.


iran actually already has a very active reform movement. and their government is so different from america's that comparisons between the two aren't that useful. reformers in iran are much more likely to be, if you excuse the expression, die-hard moderates.


"Reform Movement" in Iran?  What is that, the ones that want to make things even more Fundamentalist?

That kinda sounds like "Reform" in the old USSR.  Since the system was such a paradise, anybody that thought it needed changing had to be crazy, and belonged in a loony bin.  Although I am sure that in Iran, it is more along the lines that a reformer is an Apostate, and needs to be stoned for not following the "teachings of Islam".

"Death To Israel", "Death to America", "Holocost Denial".  I seem to be missing the "moderate" element in there somewhere.

Tell that to Nancy Polosi (who is in Syria at the moment).
she's in syria, therefore she's running things? i'm missing your point.

she's in syria, therefore she's running things? i'm missing your point.


If the Republicans are running things, why is the House Majority Leader meeting with a foreign Head of State?  After all, is that not part of the Constitutional Powers assigned to the President?  In fact, the House is Constitutionally excluded from having any say in the Treaty process.

After all, it is clearly stated that it is the President that makes treaties.  The only power that Congress (Specifically The Senate) has is to ratify or not ratify a treaty.  SO I am somewhat confused as to why the Speaker Of The House is in a foreign country, making negootiations with a foreign Head Of State.  Does she think she is in charge?  Does she want to be in charge?  Or does she want people to think she is in charge.

Sounds to me like somebody is trying to step outside of her Constitutional powers.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

US Constiution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2

um, is she making treaties? if not i don't see the problem. hasn't jimmy carter met with a number of foreign heads of state? i wasn't aware that the president was the only person who could travel outside the country. ;D

yeah, this is a nonstarter. total nonissue. although since the president has shown a severe allergy to negotiating, i'm actually rather relieved someone's taking up the slack. i'm sure fox news is painting her as a traitor for talking to syria, right? lol.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain

Apparently the President of Iran will be freeing them.

  So, the British negotiated their release.  I wonder what was given to Iran in exchange for their lives...

  I figured Iran would have made the British sweat a little longer...

If the Republicans are running things, why is the House Majority Leader meeting with a foreign Head of State?  After all, is that not part of the Constitutional Powers assigned to the President?  In fact, the House is Constitutionally excluded from having any say in the Treaty process.

After all, it is clearly stated that it is the President that makes treaties.  The only power that Congress (Specifically The Senate) has is to ratify or not ratify a treaty.  SO I am somewhat confused as to why the Speaker Of The House is in a foreign country, making negootiations with a foreign Head Of State.  Does she think she is in charge?  Does she want to be in charge?  Or does she want people to think she is in charge.

Sounds to me like somebody is trying to step outside of her Constitutional powers.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

US Constiution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2
As tia pointed out, others have also met with Heads of States and negotiated on our behalf.  Heck, almost every time I see a news blurb about her, Condoleeza is meeting with some ruler or another.  Granted, I'm no constitutional expert, but IMO, that clause means that only a President can sign a treaty.  I'm sure throughout history, many of the presidents who have signed treaties with other countries have left the actual "negotiation" to someone else, at least in part.

Now, I'm no fan of Pelosi (she's a bit TOO left for my tastes), but I don't see the problem with her being in Syria.  Personally, if I had to choose between her & Bush to not make the US look like a bunch of monkeys, I'd choose her.  At least she seems to be able to put 2 sentences together on her own....

mr. bean.

mr. bean.


;D

   So, the British negotiated their release.  I wonder what was given to Iran in exchange for their lives...

Our dignity.  So it seems.


mr. bean.

That' my MP, you're talking about ;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=E6qdUw_jrRs