Iran

kins83 · Post by **kins83** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:26 pm

So there's been 15 armed forces members captured for something that they apparently didn't do. There doesn't seem to have been any meaningful communications going on between the Iranian government and the UK, UN or any other parties. I can't see anything kick off, but neither side seems to be giving any ground or making any compromises and I've no idea which way it's going to go. Just wondered what people thought.

teknics · Post by **teknics** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:18 am

i completely agree with u...wat ever communication is happening seems to be getting no where. As an iranian that has never had the oppertunity to go to his own country, due to the risk of being captued because of my parents views and poltical stand against the reigme, i truely see the issue being translated into a conflict.

if u believe in Nostradumus, he has said that WW3 is begin in the middle east. not trying to be over analise the situation, but the middle eastern conflicts dont seem to be calming down, if anything heating up. first Afaganistan, then Iraq and inavatably Iran. With America having such a strong foot hold in many naughbouring country such as kewait and saudi arabia, they will definatly be striving to keep the oil market for them selves.

i guess we'll just have to wait and hope the 15 armes forces will be returned safe and well.

j dub u · Post by **j dub u** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:35 am

They better hurry up and give us our troops back before they really regret it.

If there put up for trail and executed for acts of spying. War will happen. Can't see us losing either unless they do have nukes and our anti-nuke missles from the subs off the coast now miss but the chances are slight at best

iag · Post by **iag** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:57 am

i can't see anything other than disaster if the british were to use military force against Iran. After failing miserably in Afghanistan and Iraq, I can't see how they would stand a chance in the mountains and deserts of Iran. We may have nuclear weapons but I hope they're never used.

The whole affair stinks to me anyway, captured two days before a UN security council vote, bullshit fluff propaganda from both sides. I'm hoping that this won't be a replay of last summers Israel/Lebanon fiasco.

I read a quote in the excellent "Sun" newspaper the other day, "Iran is getting too big for it's tiny boots", I can't help but think it's the other way round.

shonky · Post by **shonky** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:45 am

Don't think that the UK's got the troops to run a third war. Ridiculous amounts of army ads on tv since the Iraq conflict started - imagine not too many people are keen on joining.

If the troops were in Iranian waters, I don't think the brits would have a leg to stand on though. I think Iran should milk it for a bit and then pass them back as an offer of goodwill. I think both US and UK armies are very overstretched, so any threats they give out are going to be difficult to back up and I think bombing Iran over 15 troops would be a ridiculous over-reaction and lower international relations for both countries.

metalboxproducts · Post by **metalboxproducts** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:49 am

Do you remember when this happened a few years back? I seem to remember there was alot of posturing on Irans part and then the troops were let go.

teknics · Post by **teknics** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:36 pm

iag wrote:
The whole affair stinks to me anyway, captured two days before a UN security council vote, bullshit fluff propaganda from both sides. I'm hoping that this won't be a replay of last summers Israel/Lebanon fiasco.

you've got a point mate. When Lebanon took hostage a single Israeli hostage, they waged full out war. Now here we have Iran with 15 british troops and the prime ministers just sitting on his hands.

paolo · Post by **paolo** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:26 pm

Teknics wrote:i completely agree with u...wat ever communication is happening seems to be getting no where. As an iranian that has never had the oppertunity to go to his own country, due to the risk of being captued because of my parents views and poltical stand against the reigme, i truely see the issue being translated into a conflict.

That's a real shame. I hope you get to go one day

cody · Post by **cody** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:29 pm

British say the troops were in Iraqi waters, Iranians say troops were in Iranian waters... he say, she say... think we have to make our own minds up on this one.

I just feel sorry for the sailors stuck in the middle of the argument

To me its a bit dodgy that two days ago and Iranian minister said the female sailor would be released, only for the following day, the chief negotiator for the Iranians went on to say she would not

All out conflict would not be a good idea for either side diplomatically or military speaking. specially britain who are at best overstretched. shonkys right about the recruiting adverts. nuff ones for TA right now.

jahtao · Post by **jahtao** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:38 pm

Anyone else noticed that the women soldier captured is smoking a cigarette in every bit of footage she's in? Hanging around the cells in Iran, having a cigarette. Delivering her forced apology broadcast, smoking a cigarette. In the middle of fucking sea, being taken prisoner, at gun point in an iranian dingy... having a cigarette!

thomas · Post by **thomas** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:03 pm

Too much focus on the capture, you know UK and USA are illegally in Iraq, declaring war on places who dont deserve it, starting some media based campaign to change peoples views on iran/islam/middle east.

Sorry people are being captured, but the gov know exactly why they have been and what exactly they can do to secure safe release. so do it already.

And while you'r at it, how about releasing all the other people who didnt sign up for an illegal war you have positioned in iraq and Afganistan. Thanks.

hera · Post by **hera** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:51 pm

paolo wrote:
Teknics wrote:i completely agree with u...wat ever communication is happening seems to be getting no where. As an iranian that has never had the oppertunity to go to his own country, due to the risk of being captued because of my parents views and poltical stand against the reigme, i truely see the issue being translated into a conflict.

That's a real shame. I hope you get to go one day

i agree. you have 90 days to visit and gtfo before they take you iin for sarbazi.

i dont really have an opinion about this whole affair. its very fucking typical of Iran to instigate situations either with outlandish statements by their president or sucker-punch antics like this one knowing nothing drastic will really be done about it. would you drop a nuke on a country that's sitting on 10% of the worlds oil reserve and 15% of its gas resources?

rickyricardo · Post by **rickyricardo** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:11 pm

It's tit for tat, really...only exacerbated by the US administrations hardline stance against Iran. This all comes months after US commanders receiving orders to capture or kill all Iranian agents found in Iraq....the capture of 5 Iranian "diplomats" in northern Iraq...and most recently, the passing of further UN sanctions against Iran.

It wouldn't surprise me if the orders from the top in Iran were pretty similar to the one's given to the commanders in Iraq: Capture anything that even remotely looks like it's in our territory.

Of course this is all political show. No way are they going to execute any of those soldiers...they aren't that stupid.

echo wanderer · Post by **echo wanderer** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:46 am

RickyRicardo wrote:It's tit for tat, really...only exacerbated by the US administrations hardline stance against Iran.

You mean "The Middle East".

George Carlin once made the truest statement about US war policy in his "Jammin' in New York" HBO special(a bit paraphrased since I can't remember it word for word

,but pretty damned close!!

):

"It's a known fact that this country averages a major war every 20 years.We love war.We're good at it!We are a "war-like" people!Especially if your country is full of "brown people".Can you think of any white people we've bombed???Only Germany,and that's 'cause they were cutting into our action!!!Iran,Iraq,Lybia,El Salvador...if you're in a country full of brown people,you'd better get the fuck out!!"

echo wanderer · Post by **echo wanderer** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:52 am

hera wrote: their president or sucker-punch

Heh...at first I read this as "sucker punch the president".

rickyricardo · Post by **rickyricardo** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:51 pm

Echo Wanderer wrote: You mean "The Middle East".

No, I mean Iran in particular.

Besides, Israel and Saudi Arabia are in the middle East...and you definitely couldn't say that the US position to those two countries are "hardline"

Heh, if anything, the position is "no-line"

djshiva · Post by **djshiva** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:43 pm

RickyRicardo wrote:It's tit for tat, really...only exacerbated by the US administrations hardline stance against Iran. This all comes months after US commanders receiving orders to capture or kill all Iranian agents found in Iraq....the capture of 5 Iranian "diplomats" in northern Iraq...and most recently, the passing of further UN sanctions against Iran.

It wouldn't surprise me if the orders from the top in Iran were pretty similar to the one's given to the commanders in Iraq: Capture anything that even remotely looks like it's in our territory.

Of course this is all political show. No way are they going to execute any of those soldiers...they aren't that stupid.

thanks for mentioning the top points. i was gonna post that myself.

whether i think it's an effective one or not, it's pretty obvious that this is iran's method of trying to use some muscle to get their diplomats back. and although it was the US who captured them, they are smart enough to know that capturing US soldiers would probably ignite the powder keg.

this whole mess is just fucked up and scary. "my" government decides to bully the rest of the world, and now we are moving further and further toward some really explosive confrontations.

teknics · Post by **teknics** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:17 am

RickyRicardo wrote:Of course this is all political show. No way are they going to execute any of those soldiers...they aren't that stupid.

you'd hope they wont execute the soldiers, but i wouldnt put it pass them. u need to remember, this is the nation that openly said they want to wipe Israel of the face of the planet.

any nation that has the guts to say such a thing has to be noticed. i mean u cant not think their hiding somthin or have a plan up their sleeves. how can it be beneficial for them to be opposing british and american governments so openly, when theres a war being fought on there door steps.

SOME MAJOR CSI WORK HAS TO BE CARRIED OUT:p

hera · Post by **hera** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:14 pm

meh. they talk big but i doubt theyll kill anyone.

spaceboy · Post by **spaceboy** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:55 pm

American's never fail to amuse me...

April 3, 2007 -- THE greatest shock from the Middle East this year hasn't been terrorist ruthlessness or the latest Iranian tantrum. It's that members of Britain's Royal Marines wimped out in a matter of days and acquiesced in propaganda broadcasts for their captors.
Jingoism aside, I can't imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in such a shabby, cowardly fashion. Our Marines would have fought to begin with. Taken captive by force, they would've resisted collaboration. To the last man and woman.
You could put a U.S. Marine in a dungeon and knock out his teeth, but you wouldn't knock out his pride in his country and the Corps. "Semper fi" means something.
And our Aussie allies would be just as tough.
What on earth happened to the Royal Marines? They're members of what passes for an elite unit. Has the Labor government's program to gut the U.K. military - grounding planes, taking ships out of service and deactivating army units - also ripped the courage from the breasts of those in uniform?
The female sailor who broke down first and begged for her government to surrender was pathetic enough. But when Royal Marines started pleading for tea and sympathy . . . Ma, say it ain't so!
Meanwhile, back at No. 10 "Downer" Street, British politicians are more upset that President Bush described their sailors and Marines as "hostages" than they are with the Iranians.
Okay, Lord Spanker and Lady Fanny - what exactly are those sailors and Marines? Package tourists?
Naturally, the European Union has praised Britain's "restraint." We've now got another synonym for cowardice.
I've always respected the Brits and quite liked those I worked with when in uniform . . . but I'm starting to wonder if I bought into a legend. While criticizing our military's approach to everything, the Brits made an utter balls of it in Basra - now they're bailing out, claiming "Mission accomplished!" (OK, they had a role model . . .) In Heaven, Winston Churchill's puking up premium scotch.
The once-proud Brit military has collapsed to a sorry state when its Royal Marines surrender without a fight, then apologize to their captors (praising their gentle natures!) while criticizing their own country. Pretty sad to think that the last real warriors fighting under the Union Jack are soccer hooligans.
Of course, bravery isn't equally distributed. One or even two collaborators might be explicable. But not all 15.
Yes, journalists and other civilian captives routinely make embarrassing statements on videos, chiding their governments and begging to be swapped for a battalion of mass murderers. One expects nothing better. But military men and women in the English-speaking tradition historically maintained high standards over long years in brutal captivity - and this hostage situation has barely lasted long enough to microwave a bag of popcorn.
Think about Sen. John McCain with his broken limbs undergoing torture in that Hanoi prison - and refusing an early chance to be repatriated because he wouldn't leave his comrades behind. Think he'd do a Tokyo Rose for Tehran?
The Iranians judged their victims well: The British boat crews didn't make even a token effort at defending themselves. Now their boo-hoo-we-quit government isn't defending them, either. Was Margaret Thatcher the last real man in Britain?
The correct response to the seizure of 15 British military hostages - if not released promptly - would've been to hit 15 Revolutionary Guards facilities or vessels along the Iranian coast, then threaten to hit 30 deeper inland the next day.
By hammering the now-degenerate Revolutionary Guards, the Coalition would've strengthened the less-nutty and less-vicious regular military and emboldened President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's growing number of opponents within the government. (It was telling that the Revolutionary Guards could only muster about 200 demonstrators to harass the British embassy - it didn't look much like 1979.)
Instead, we allowed the Iranian hardliners to humiliate a once-great military and encourage hostage-takers everywhere.
At the very least, the British naval officer commanding in the zone of operations and the vocal collaborators among the hostages should be court-martialed. And the Royal Marine company to which those wankers belong should be disbanded and stricken from the rolls.
John Bull has been cowed. By a pack of unshaven thugs. And the Britannia that ruled the waves is waving goodbye.

Iran

Iran

Who is online