# British Marines Taken



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Anyone wonder where this is headed and what the outcome will be? I figure that most likely, a "mistake" will be determined and they will all be released. On the other hand, they might become pawns over the upcoming UN vote on further sanctions.

What is everyone's thoughts?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

Well it seems as if the Iranian President has now cancelled his visit to the UN. And this latest Iranian action can't help them as they try and avoid sanctions. It seems as if the French are being very constructive and actually taking the lead in demanding a very quick vote so perhaps Europe is beginning to recognize the true danger a nuclear Iran poses. 

This situation isn't helping the price of oil though. More reason to have the US, EU, Japan and South Korea jointly develop a renewable alternative fuel - enrgey security and the ability to impoverish rogue states in one stroke. The failure to begin this process is the greatest error of the Bush administration which is no small feat.

Karl


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

They did the same thing in 2004 to 8 sailors in the Royal Navy and I thought the S was going to HTF but nothing happened. There is a disputed border/water boundry between the two countries; Iran took them, questioned them, and let them go a few days later.

I admit though, when I first heard about it I thought:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crazyquik said:


> They did the same thing in 2004 to 8 sailors in the Royal Navy and I thought the S was going to HTF but nothing happened. There is a disputed border/water boundry between the two countries; Iran took them, questioned them, and let them go a few days later.
> 
> I admit though, when I first heard about it I thought:


I agree and thought the same when it happened before. I would tend to think even Iran thought beyond 2nd stage this time, but perhaps not? I think that limits the possible outcomes to either sad or pathetic.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Shorted oil futures yesterday. We'll see how it turns out.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The UK has an exit strategy on the table. Does Iran think this will push that exit, like the spanish train bombings? Are they looking for bargaining chips for the 3 iranians captured in Iraq by US forces? On a personal, visceral level I was out this morning to refuel my car. Gas has gone up @ .40 cents and now this crisis pushed oil up more. My local, iranian run station used to be fun, I would get a cup of tea and impress the owner naming the persian singer on the CD. Today, I walked in to see the iranian flag on display and Bush with the red crossed circle drawn over. I walked out, drove 10 miles and paid .8 cents more at the 3rd generation Sikhe's who has the american flag raised at dawn and some godawfull country music station on. Forgive me, Christianne Ananpour, But I see the expatriate iranian's supporting the current regime starting to show their colours- literally. It's Thai food today instead of Kabob. Oh well, they spotted my Sam Hober square right off.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

I know that I just about always see the darkest side possible first in these scenarios, but here goes any way:

I see them thinking about chaining these 15 lads to a nuke facility as shields if all goes badly next week in NYC.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

zegnamtl said:


> I know that I just about always see the darkest side possible first in these scenarios, but here goes any way:
> 
> I see them thinking about chaining these 15 lads to a nuke facility as shields if all goes badly next week in NYC.


It is looking pretty disturbing at the moment.

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

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma...FFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/03/25/wiran25.xml


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

How were they seized in the first place?

What ever happened to "England expects that every man will do his duty?"

Why weren't the Iranian boats sunk decisively and quickly?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I believe the gents were taking part in a routine search of a ship passing through Iraqi waters.

I'd wager it gets resolved quickly. The Iranians are playing a dangerous game of poker...

-spence


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Might want to buy some Raytheon stock (RTN) as they produce the Tomahawk and if this is not resolved to 10 Downing Street's satisfaction the Royal Navy might be ordering a bunch.

Now if only France hadn't sold the Exocet to the Iranians.......

Karl


----------



## Trilby (Aug 11, 2004)

I'm hopeful things will work out. As crazyquik pointed out, the same thing happened a couple of years ago, although the political situation there has changed somewhat.

The BBC had a very good interview this morning with a journalist on what was described as the only independent newspaper in Tehran. They obviously don't enjoyed unfettered freedom of the press in Iran, but this journalist sounded pretty open about his views on this. He seemed to share the conventional wisdom in the West - that this is basically just a political ploy by the Iranian government. He also said he was thankful that the sailors were British and not American - because he thought it more likely that the British would find a diplomatic solution, but the US would have probably already gone to war over this.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Trilby,

If the Brits were in Iraqi or International Waters than the Iranian action is an act of war by legal standards. But Iran has been at war with the West since 1979, we have just chosen to ignore it.

I was a bit surprised that the BBC World I caught on my local PBS station this morning didn't lead with the story. Are people in the UK up in arms over this? They should be.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I don't understand how British Marines allowed themselves to be taken either if they knew they were in international waters. I thought they were clearly in the wrong or they would have fought back.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Are people in the UK up in arms over this? They should be.
> 
> Karl


I know that public opinion in the UK is heavily opposed to the U.S. effort in Iraq but I know the English to be very nationalistic and when push comes to shove they've never been ones to run for cover.

I really hope this is resolved by Iran just letting them go. I read this morning that the Iranians were "interrogating" them to see if they knew they were in Iranian waters. Perhaps this is a face saving gesture wherein they can say that after investigating the incident they have determined that no violation occured.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

I bet the glow from a nuked Tehran would be quite lovely at night.

I know, that was inappropriate and not at all constructive, but after reading the articles, it did feel good.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Agnash,

So you want a measured response? A response measured in megatons? 

Karl


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I don't understand how British Marines allowed themselves to be taken either if they knew they were in international waters. I thought they were clearly in the wrong or they would have fought back.


'Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.' - - - -First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West

https://www.portsmouthtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2179341&SectionID=455

Fortunately, we can offer the British the services of an esteemed leader and experienced negotiator, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who has extensive experience in negotiating these tricky international hostage situations - send Jimmy Carter!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Rocker said:


> 'Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.' - - - -First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West


"He who hesitates is lost" 

My follow-up question would be ... then why use Royal Marines? Aren't they something like commmandos?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

"First Sea Lord Admiral Sir". How would you like to be able to put on your business card that you are the First Sea Lord?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> "First Sea Lord Admiral Sir". How would you like to be able to put on your business card that you are the First Sea Lord?


What a cool title.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

The title reminds me of the potentially apocryphal quip of some person (attribution unknown to me) who said of Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson: "He was Admiral of the Fleet and now he is third mate on an American tramp."


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Agnash,
> 
> So you want a measured response? A response measured in megatons?
> 
> Karl


I usually have the wrong answer when it comes to diplomacy, and there is no shortage of people in my life who are willing to point this out to me. That said, I do have to wonder if a failure to respond in megatons this time (or a level of violence comparable to megatons) might not result in a situation (soon) where our provocation is measured in megatons, instead of people kidnapped.


----------



## Trilby (Aug 11, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Trilby,
> 
> If the Brits were in Iraqi or International Waters than the Iranian action is an act of war by legal standards. But Iran has been at war with the West since 1979, we have just chosen to ignore it.
> 
> ...


I'm definitely surprised people aren't up in arms over it - certainly a big contrast to what would have happened in the US.

On the other hand, that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think quiet diplomacy is the most likely way to get them home safely. The worst thing would be for the tabloid press to whip up a frenzy over this and force the government to make some sort of rash move.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Trilby said:


> I'm definitely surprised people aren't up in arms over it - certainly a big contrast to what would have happened in the US.
> 
> On the other hand, that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think quiet diplomacy is the most likely way to get them home safely. The worst thing would be for the tabloid press to whip up a frenzy over this and force the government to make some sort of rash move.


I don't understand the UK position at all. If they are "walking on eggshells" and "don't want to antagonize the Iranians" they shouldn't have troops in the Gulf, IMHO. Seems like a recipe for disaster to me. Why put troops in a position where they can't defend themselves?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The 15 marines and sailors were on two inflatable utility boats and armed solely with sidearms, 9MM pistols. They were out of visual range of their ship and only observed by a helicopter. The iranian guards were in high speed patrol vessels and heavily armed with machine guns and light cannon.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> The 15 marines and sailors were on two inflatable utility boats and *armed solely with sidearms, 9MM pistols. They were out of visual range of their ship and only observed by a helicopter.* The iranian guards were in high speed patrol vessels and heavily armed with machine guns and light cannon.


Sounds like bad planning / force protection. I still think if you're going to put people in harm's way do so with some diliberateness. Even the US Coast Guard doesn't board boats in non-aggressive waters without cover in the form of a .30 or .50 and shotguns or smgs. I find it ludicrous to be in the Gulf with a 9mm pistol.

It's a shame these 15 sailors are having to pay for bad leadership assumptions. Particularly, in spite of the previous incidents - not just with Iran look at Somalia pirates. Enforcement of sanctions, etc. is bad business. It seems to me people should make up their minds. On one hand we listen to them criticize the Pentagon for not having body armor and fully armored vehicles for every person, then we see "marines" armed only with pistols?

Whatever happened to "My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless."? Just a shame these people are having to pay the price for this decision. I'm just in total awe of my friends that serving over in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think we owe them so much more on so many levels. One of my buddies has three kids and he's been to Iraq twice and Afghanistan once already. I've never even heard him mention it except when asked. And I've never heard him complain or say anything negative at all or even mention discomfort or sacrifice. It's just amazing the people we have.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Rocker said:


> 'Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.' - - - -First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West
> 
> https://www.portsmouthtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2179341&SectionID=455
> 
> Fortunately, we can offer the British the services of an esteemed leader and experienced negotiator, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who has extensive experience in negotiating these tricky international hostage situations - send Jimmy Carter!


The First Sea Lord Admiral wouldn't even be able to carry the coat of Lord Nelson.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Crazyquick, History does repeat itself. It was no less than Nelson who praised our infant Navy's action against the Barberry Pirates as one of the boldest naval feats in history. There is a book out currently which examines how our first dealings with Islam as a nation reflect today's. I hope somebody can provide the title and author. I was listening to a review in my car and missed writing down the information. Weak military replies to aggression are nothing new; the precurser to Pearl Harbour sinking of the USS Panay, North Korea's capture of the USS Pueblo for example.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I kind of like Blair, but who is he kidding here?

"In the end, it is a question really for the Iranian government as to whether they want to abide by international law or not," he said.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Don't you think this kind of quasi-provocative stuff is going on all the time, at pretty much every disputed border? Without knowing more about the nature of the dispute as to territorial waters, I think the odds are just as likely that the English marines were in Iranian territory as not, and we'll probably never know. (Although it does seem odd that they would put them out lightly armed in Zodiacs if they thought they were in any danger.) The real questions are what led someone to take this particular action at this particular time, what the decision means, and how to deal with the situation we're in.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Don't you think this kind of quasi-provocative stuff is going on all the time, at pretty much every disputed border? Without knowing more about the nature of the dispute as to territorial waters, I think the odds are just as likely that the English marines were in Iranian territory as not, and we'll probably never know. (Although it does seem odd that they would put them out lightly armed in Zodiacs if they thought they were in any danger.) The real questions are what led someone to take this particular action at this particular time, what the decision means, and how to deal with the situation we're in.


I was just saying, 5 minutes ago to someone - this kind of thing happens all the time, but there is aprotocol. the iranians should have taken the brits back to base, yelled at them, and then let them go when the british comander in the region asked for them back. the iranians would have written it up in their newspapers as a victory over forign agression, and everyone would be happy.

by sending teh soldiers to teheran, the line was crossed.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Don't you think this kind of quasi-provocative stuff is going on all the time, at pretty much every disputed border?


https://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/MexicanIncursionDocs.pdf

Happens all the time on our southern border but no one seems to care. 18 confirmed times in 2005, and probably a large multiple larger than that which went unreported.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The Iranian governmen gets bolder and bolder. I think the best thing is to destroy there government and military for negotiation. I think the people in Iran can create a new government that is much better once the bad guys are gone.

Just a few bombs will do. After all, it is just a few certain guys that need to be removed.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Seriously? Is that because it worked so well in Iraq, or because it worked so well when we did it in Iran in 1953?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Iran is different than Iraq. The people can take care of themselves in Iran.

The only things touching the ground would be bombs. Sending anything more would be a waste of time.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I'm not sure the average Iranian would be too happy if we took out their leaders, even if they are looking for a regime change. Call me naive.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

My impression is the people would like their leaders gone.

But, I could be wrong.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> My impression is the people would like their leaders gone.
> 
> But, I could be wrong.


They probably think the same thing about us!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> They probably think the same thing about us!


Maybe they are right!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

Apologizing for tyranny again it seems. We've known for some time that you have no faith in the US military but alas nowyou question the integrity of the British military. I await your verdict on the Iranian military with bated breath.

You need to get over the Cold War policies of the Eisenhower administration as well. Its 2007 not 1953 and although Montpelier hasn't yet been targeted by Iranian terrorist proxies much of the world has.

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

One more question as I am curious to how your thought process works - besides considering that the current issue was a deliberate British (a liberal democracy) provocation did you entertain the notion that perhaps Iran (a repressive theocracy) manufactured this crisis to cause the price of crude oil to rise? Since the price of oil has risen by a few dollars in the past few days, Iran is presumably hundreds of millions of dollars richer and the longer and worse this crisis gets the more money Iran will make, no? 

Can Iran have sinister and greedy motives or do you reserve such actions only for Haliburton?

Karl


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

Remember the Falklands.:aportnoy:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I hope all the marines are returned safely and are not mis-treated during their captivity. However, I have to say while I am not happy over the way the UK was drawn further into the growing tension over Iran, I am glad they are indeed more vested in this whole scenario. As anyone that pays attention knows, I sincerely do not want the US to be the country that takes the lead in this.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The Falklands was an ignoble slaughter of young argentines and british. The Argentine generals needed a distraction from their failed rule. They seized on the national issue of the Malvinas, Islands seized earlier as a british coaling station during her naval and empire zenith. This probably also saved a then unpopular Thatcher, not to mention husband Dennis' shareholds in The FALKLAND ISLAND COMPANY. By law, Falklanders cannot immigrate to the UK, and all of their major services had to be sourced in Argentiia proper. So young sailors got to freeze to death in liferafts after H.M.S.Conqueror sunk the Phoenix/General Belgrano, joined by British Tars dead from french supplied EXOCETS along with infantry, pilots from both sides and a few sheep. It was Britain, angered over Mossadeq's nationalising Iran's oil fields after being essentialy ripped off by the UK that got us to engineer a C.I.A. coup. The coup, that emboldened us to think all such efforts would work worldwide, that a few bombs or cruise missiles will back down the Bin Laden's and all will be right by breakfast. Iran's a problem, largely our own making. When your in a hole you stop digging. and think of how to climb out. Enlarging that hole into explosive craters before thinking is no different.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

*The Falklands and freedom for all!*

Kav,

I disagree with youe assessment about the Falklands.

First, Argentina was the aggressor. Perhaps the Malvinas do belong to Argentina but simply annexing the islands was not an appropriate step by Argentina - its not as if British Rule over the islands was repressive and unjust.

Second, the victory gave Thatcher some needed support, especially for the general election that took place in the UK in 1983. Thatcher was instrumental during the Euromissile Crisis of 1983 and really help edrally the French and Italians to the US and thus NATO's and the free world's cause. The Cold War might not have had such a happy ending without German acceptance of the Pershing 2-A and without Thatcher (props to Kohl and Mitterand as well) that might not have happened.

Third, the Falklands provided some valuable insight into real world modern naval engagements. Although a just diplomacy is preferred over conflict, better that the West found out how their navies would perfom from the UK fighting Argentina in the South Atlantic than from NATO fighting the Warsaw Pact in the North Atlantic.

And finally (and most importantly for all supporters of liberty) although Argentina failed to "liberate" the Falklands, the Falklands helped to liberate Argentina. The debacle led to the downfall of the military junta in Buenos Aiers and led to the emergence of sustainable democracy in Argentina. In a very ironic way the Falklands loss made Argentina stronger and helped create credible democratic institutions that have been able to weather all sorts of problems including the 2001 financial crisis.

Although we mourn all those who died on both sides in the long term everyone won in the Falklands conflict.

Karl


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl, I don't think it's likely, but I would encourage you to inject a dose of reality into your thinking. There are any number of tyrants, strongmen, dictators, corrupt politicians, and other unsavory characters running countries around the world, and in a fit of pique we could decide to get rid of any one of them, probably up to and including Putin. The problem, as Colin Powell put it, once you kick out the guys in charge you bear responsibility for what happens next. We install our own dictator in Iran in 1953 and prop him up for twenty-five or thirty years, eventually the people get tired of him, install someone arguably worse, but we bear responsibility for creating the conditions that made it happen. If you have some reason to think things will be different in Iran this time around, maybe based on the way we were greeted with flowers and chocolates next door in Iraq, I'd like to hear the evidence. And saying that so-and-so is a bad guy and deserves to be killed or deposed, without explaining what good will happen afterwards, doesn't cut it.

If my first post wasn't clear, I should clarify it now. I.F. Stone was right: all governments lie. There is no more reason to believe England than Iran, no more reason to believe Iran than England. Iraq isn't Iran but remember, before the war the person who was telling the truth about nuclear programs and so-called weapons of mass destruction was Saddam Hussein. Both England and Iran are capable of harboring corrupt motives, and in realistic terms the important thing when tensions like this heat up is to figure out why.

Do you think it's impossible that the English were playing cat and mouse by the border and strayed over the line, but have decided for reasons of state that they shouldn't admit it? Or that there is an actual border dispute, with each side's position valid in its own eyes, and that the English boats were in waters that they claimed were international and Iran claimed were their own?

There are things worth fighting over (for instance, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, which had to be rolled back, or the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan). There are many more disputes that men of good will are obliged to work hard to resolve without violence.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Old Brompton said:


> Remember the Falklands.:aportnoy:


Remember the Sahand...

April 18th, 1988

Iranian frigate IS SAHAND (74) burns after being attacked by aircraft of Carrier Air Wing II from the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS ENTERPRISE (CVN-65) in retaliation for the mining of the guided missile frigate USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS (FFG-58). The ship was hit by three HARPOON missiles plus cluster bombs.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Remember the Vincennes?

Summary: On patrol in the Persian Gulf, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger jet that it had mistaken for a hostile Iranian fighter aircraft. U.S. Navy Captain Will C. Rogers III ordered a single missile fired from his warship, which hit its target and killed all 290 people aboard the commercial airbus. The attack came towards the end of the Iran-Iraq War, while U.S. vessels in the Persian Gulf had been patrolling to ward off Iranian attacks on Kuwaiti oil tankers. The international community was outraged by the American attack on a large civilian aircraft, but the Pentagon and White House defended the action. The United States claimed that the aircraft was outside the commercial jet flight corridor, flying at only 7,000 feet, and on a descent toward the Vincennes. One month later, U.S. authorities admitted that both the Vincennes and the airbus had been within a recognized commercial flightpath, and that the Iranian jet was flying at 12,000 feet and not descending. The U.S. Navy's final report blamed crew error caused by psychological stress on men in combat for the first time.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*I Just Wonder Why?*

Trying to see both sides in a situation is a good thing. Not blindly believing someone's story is also a good thing. But when someone is always so willing to take a stance against the culture that gave them a damn nice life, or at the very least give the benefit of the doubt to the non-Western party in a dispute, you just have to wonder. Take a Sean Penn for instance. If he had been born and raised in say, Baghdad or Liberia, does anyone think he would be a multi-miilionare for making believe?

Just an example. If you think there are some parallels between you and this example, ask yourself why you are always willing to cast your culture in the role of "bad guy".


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

If we don't remember, I bet they do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran-stamp-Scott2335.jpg



jackmccullough said:


> Remember the Vincennes?
> 
> Summary: On patrol in the Persian Gulf, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger jet that it had mistaken for a hostile Iranian fighter aircraft. U.S. Navy Captain Will C. Rogers III ordered a single missile fired from his warship, which hit its target and killed all 290 people aboard the commercial airbus. The attack came towards the end of the Iran-Iraq War, while U.S. vessels in the Persian Gulf had been patrolling to ward off Iranian attacks on Kuwaiti oil tankers. The international community was outraged by the American attack on a large civilian aircraft, but the Pentagon and White House defended the action. The United States claimed that the aircraft was outside the commercial jet flight corridor, flying at only 7,000 feet, and on a descent toward the Vincennes. One month later, U.S. authorities admitted that both the Vincennes and the airbus had been within a recognized commercial flightpath, and that the Iranian jet was flying at 12,000 feet and not descending. The U.S. Navy's final report blamed crew error caused by psychological stress on men in combat for the first time.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

Lets remember the Vincennes. It was a terrible tragedy and a mistake was made. The Navy has never denied that and the families of the victims were compensated financially.

But lets have some context, shall we? The year before the USS Stark was hit (alledgedly an accident) by an Iraqi Exocet missile. After the incident the Navy adopted more aggressive ROE's to prevent such an incident again. 

What you also fail to mention is that earlier that day the Vincennes had been engaging Iranian gunboats (who were violating international law by harassing shipping in international waters) and was operating in a combat state. 

When the Iranian airliner (which hadn't been identified as such by the Vincennes crew) ignored repeated calls to alter its flight path it was deemed hostile and shot down. Even if it had been identified as a commercial airliner it may have met with the same fate given the Iranian military's propensity to use suicide as a combat tactic - and remember the Iran-Iraq War was just coming to an end at this time.

But nevertheless the US and the Navy accepted responsibility even though their presence in the region was warranted by repeated Iranian attempts to harass shipping in the Persian Gulf.

As to your points:

First the US, despite full spectrum dominance, could not remove Putin. A recent article in Foreign Affairs does say that we are rapidly approaching the day when the US will be able to launch a nuclear first strike against Russia or China while being relatively immune to nuclear retaliation. In other words, very shortly neither Russia or China will possess a secure second strike capability. This is a revolutionary development and the fear, irrational in my view but nevertheless real, it produces among Russia and China makes the world a more dangerous place - at least in regard to the established nuclear actors. For this reason I am oppossed to the deployment (though not to the research of) missile defense.

Second, of course the UK is capable of less than pure motives (as we are as well) but I find it disturbing that yoour first reaction is to distrust the UK motives rather than the Iranian ones. Given that the UK is a liberal democracy with a government that is accountable to its population and Iran is a repressive theocracy that excutes women who commit adultery and homosexuals and has a President who denies the Holocaust, I think the UK deserves the benefit of the doubt - especially since the Iranian security services have repeadtedly violated the the territorial integrity of Iraq during the last four years which certainly gives them little moral authority in border violations.

Third, The Shah was far from perfect but under the Shah Iran was moderate and relatively prosperous. Iran was also a responsible international actor under the Shah. The US failed in Iran in the sense that it did not more forcefully coerce the Shah to make political and economic reforms sooner. Had the Shah made reforms more quickly and remained in power there is little question that Iran would be ligh years ahead today.

And its a curious proposition to wonder if Saddam was telling the truth about his WMD programs. The consesus is that key military figures and scientists were lying to Saddam about the progress they were making in WMD developments. So in essence Saddam was telling the UN something he believed to be false even though in the end it was true. If you tell what is ultimately the truth but but believe you are lying are you really "telling the truth?" I urge you to draw upon yuor Jesuit education and I will upon my Marist one and let us see if we can come up with a satisfactory answer to that philosophical question.

And finally, you imply that the US is responsible for all the current carnage in Iraq and yet you fail to consider the alternative - Saddam still in power, still undermining international law, empowering corruption in the UN, supporting terrorism (I don't speak of Al-Qaeda but rather of harboring people like Abul Nidal and aiding Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel) and still killing 7,000-10,000 of his own citizens a year. You also don't consider what would have happend after he left power (through death, natural or otherwise). It is unlikely that Jefferson democracy would have emerged immediately.

The US was able to remove from power a brutal dictator who was a threat to his neighbors and the world and who did more to damage the legitimacy of international law than any other figure in the post World War Two era. The US also gave the Iraqi people a chance to take the future into their own hands and they are now doing this. But there is a fight between those who want to take Iraq into the future and those who wish to take it back into a dark and repressive past. If you want to fault the US for anything than fault it for not sending enough troops (we are still paying the price for the Clinton era gutting of the Army and Bush's unwillingness to call on the nation for a larger military and for more personal and financial sacrifice.) General Shinseki should be the next SecDef regardless of which party wins the White House in 2008.

So, yes, we should have contemplated the consequences of action more thoroughly but you should be as equally rigorous with yourself by being willing to thoroughly contemplate what would have been the consequences of inaction in regard to Iraq. And for the record in parts of Iraq we were greeted with flowers and in poll after poll a majority of Iraqis say that although they have great concerns about the future and that they aren't pleased with some US actions they have no desire to return to the past and they don't regret that Saddam is gone. Under the Mccullough Doctrine Iraqis would have no say in their future and would face death for even voicing the above sentiments. I would bet my botom dollar that Geroge Bush is five times more popular in Kurdistan and Iran than he is in Vermont.

Karl

P.S. I have repeatedly said that I don't currently advocate military action against Iran and in any case that I did, such action would not comprise ground troops or occupation. So try and refrain from indulging in that old canard in the future.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

First, Karl, you make my point for me. The fact that the shooting down of Flight 665 is still vividly remembered by Iran is a perfect example of the kind of repercussion that actions that have apparent validity of justification can nevertheless carry. This is one reason it is so important to be clear about what we are doing and why, and the likely consequences.

Second, you say, "It was a terrible tragedy and a mistake was made. The Navy has never denied that and the families of the victims were compensated financially." In fact, the Navy initially made several false claims about the incident and how it happened: that the Vincennes was in international waters, that the plane it shot down was miles outside of any recognized civilian flight corridor, that the plane was flying at 7,000 feet and descending. All these statements were false, although I do not know whether the government knew they were false when they were made.

Third, as you must know, if you intend the act you intend the consequences. Both Iran and Iraq are illustrations of the fact that even if you grant the best of intentions, actions, particularly when they involve installing governments in countries we little understand, have the natural tendency to lead to unforeseen and sometimes disastrous consequences. If a planner in 1953 had foreseen that installing Pahlavi would have led to decades of repression, followed by the success of a radical theocratic regime, he would have had a hard time convincing the American public, much less the Iranian public, that it was a good idea. If you think those consequences were justified to prevent Iran from nationalizing Western petroleum assets I guess we just have radically different views of how to conduct national affairs.

Finally, I will try to explain this one more time: it is not the case that my "first reaction is to distrust the UK motives rather than the Iranian ones". My first reaction is to distrust the statements of governments, particularly in situations like this. I doubt the motives of both governments. We may never learn the truth of what happened, but that is far less important than finding a way to keep small sparks from turning into major conflagrations.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

So, Jack, you're an isolationist?

Or an anarchist?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Neither. 

I supported the Gulf War because I thought it was important to roll back Iraq's aggression. I opposed the war in Iraq because it was obvious to me that the premises for going to war were false (we don't need to get into an argument about whether they were a lie or simply wrong), that the consequences were likely to be disastrous, and that it is immoral and illegal to invade a sovereign country that poses no threat to us except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

I assume you ask if I'm an anarchist because of my reflection that all governments lie, and that the governments we like are as likely to lie as the governments we dislike. It's the position I took regarding presidential statements even when our presidents have been Democrats that some members of these forums would call liberals (e.g. Carter, Clinton). That doesn't make me an anarchist, just realistic. The reliability of any statement by any government is not based on the fact that it came from the government, but on what evidence can be produced to support it.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> I opposed the war in Iraq because it was obvious to me that the premises for going to war were false (we don't need to get into an argument about whether they were a lie or simply wrong), that the consequences were likely to be disastrous, and that it is immoral and illegal to invade a sovereign country that poses no threat to us except in the most extraordinary circumstances.


I'm not being argumentative here - and I don't mean to change the subject, but I am curious: what does the word "immoral" mean to an atheist? I believe, jackmccullough, you've said you were an atheist and so, I wonder by what standard is something immoral? Is it subjective - does illegal mean the same thing as immoral? Are you using a kind of atheistic version of natural law to declare something as immoral? I would assume that an atheist would only live in a "moral" universe of what is legal or illegal and what is personally pleasing or displeasing to his subjective conscience. I trust you are not relying on the Catholic Church's Just War doctrine :icon_smile:

How do you determine what is immoral?


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Looks like they are stepping up the pressure...


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Neither.
> 
> I supported the Gulf War because I thought it was important to roll back Iraq's aggression. I opposed the war in Iraq because it was obvious to me that the premises for going to war were false (we don't need to get into an argument about whether they were a lie or simply wrong), that the consequences were likely to be disastrous, and that it is immoral and illegal to invade a sovereign country that poses no threat to us except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
> 
> I assume you ask if I'm an anarchist because of my reflection that all governments lie, and that the governments we like are as likely to lie as the governments we dislike. It's the position I took regarding presidential statements even when our presidents have been Democrats that some members of these forums would call liberals (e.g. Carter, Clinton). That doesn't make me an anarchist, just realistic. The reliability of any statement by any government is not based on the fact that it came from the government, but on what evidence can be produced to support it.


So you're a pragmatist?

Fair enough.

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

Rocker said:


> I'm not being argumentative here - and I don't mean to change the subject, but I am curious: what does the word "immoral" mean to an atheist? I believe, jackmccullough, you've said you were an atheist and so, I wonder by what standard is something immoral? Is it subjective - does illegal mean the same thing as immoral? Are you using a kind of atheistic version of natural law to declare something as immoral? I would assume that an atheist would only live in a "moral" universe of what is legal or illegal and what is personally pleasing or displeasing to his subjective conscience. I trust you are not relying on the Catholic Church's Just War doctrine :icon_smile:
> 
> How do you determine what is immoral?


Morality is not unique to religion. Rand's works discussing her philosophy of 'Objectivism' attempt to put a very objective standard on morality and it is most certainly from an atheist position.

I am not an atheist nor an objectivist but I can certainly say that she makes a good argument for a secular morality.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Badrabbit said:


> Morality is not unique to religion. Rand's works discussing her philosophy of 'Objectivism' attempt to put a very objective standard on morality and it is most certainly from an atheist position.
> 
> I am not an atheist nor an objectivist but I can certainly say that she makes a good argument for a secular morality.


There are many, many philosophers that make the case for a secular morality. Most of course, are quite the opposite of Rand and end up pushing more socialism vs. individualism. Singer and Rawls, both coming from a utilitarian bias it should be noted, are two very influential moral philosophers in recent times.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> We may never learn the truth of what happened, _*but that is far less important than finding a way to keep small sparks from turning into major conflagrations*_.


Then the easiest thing to do would be to forget about those 15! Afterall, they are only 15 people. Is it really worth it to go to war over 15 individuals especially when so much is in question? I just read that the one woman who was taken has admitted that they were intruding in Iranian waters and that they are being treated well. If that's the case then why all the fuss?

In fact, Britain and the U.S. should pull up roots from the middle east and just leave. That way we never have to again worry about any troops being killed, maimed or taken prisoner.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> Then the easiest thing to do would be to forget about those 15! Afterall, they are only 15 people. Is it really worth it to go to war over 15 individuals especially when so much is in question? I just read that the one woman who was taken has admitted that they were intruding in Iranian waters and that they are being treated well. If that's the case then why all the fuss?
> 
> In fact, Britain and the U.S. should pull up roots from the middle east and just leave. That way we never have to again worry about any troops being killed, maimed or taken prisoner.


sorry - I don't know you well enough - I am assuming that this is a joke, right?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> sorry - I don't know you well enough - I am assuming that this is a joke, right?


Of course. I was trying to illustrate the absurdity of the "peace at all costs" view of the world. I think that for anyone to adopt that as the basis for international relations would have to seriously consider my proposition and then reflect on how disasterous the outcome would be.

Jack, there are things far worse than going to war. You may find this quaint but national honor does still count for something.


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

"Don't you think this kind of quasi-provocative stuff...."

If kidnapping 15 sailors and marines is only quasi-provocative, what do you deem actually, full-fledged provocation?

Kav- To the Shores of Tripoli by A.B.C. Whipple is a good account of the Barbary Pirates Wars. The incident of the re-capture of the 'Philadelphia' is the action referred to by Lord Nelson.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Posted without comment:

https://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,30000-iran_280307_1800,00.html


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Posted without comment:
> 
> https://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,30000-iran_280307_1800,00.html


For that reason alone Iran needs to be made to suffer. Beyond sanctions we should mine their harbors and unilaterally impose a blockade. Taking out their electricity grid is not a bad idea either.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

". . . .The latest report is that the Britons were ready to fight off their abductors. Certainly their escorting ship, HMS Cornwall, could have blown the Iranian naval vessel out of the water. However, at the last minute the British Ministry of Defense ordered the Cornwall not to fire, and her captain and crew were forced to watch their shipmates led away into captivity.

There was a question whether the Blair government would end up leaving Britain with a navy too small to protect its shores. Now it seems to want a navy that can't even protect its own sailors. . . ."

Source:
https://www.nypost.com/seven/032820...tence_opedcolumnists_arthur_herman.htm?page=0


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

in the begining of the last intafadah in israel, palestinians attacked an israeli military outpost and wounded a soldier. tens of thousands of palestinains then filled the street and wouldn't let an ambulance through. the military leadership was faced with the choice of using violence to rescue the soldier or letting him die and not forcing their way through the crowds. they chose to avoid confilct, and the soldier died. I think that that was a huge mistake, morally and strategically, 



the royal navy should have sunk the iranian ship.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The marines have a tradition of never leaving a comrade behind,including those fallen. This tradition has rarely been breached, and only to keep those still alive and fighting. If an individual serving knows this, their efforts will be redoubled. But if your shipmates are going to be sacrificed for political expediency the next patrol will be less inclined to fullfill it's duty. This is why the same messes remain. Right or wrong, if your going to war have a weapon stamped PARABELLUM and not with RUGER safety warnings. I'm going to sign off for 4 hours. I have to flea bomb my apartment. It's going to be ugly, without quarter asked or given.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Rocker said:


> ". . . .The latest report is that the Britons were ready to fight off their abductors. Certainly their escorting ship, HMS Cornwall, could have blown the Iranian naval vessel out of the water. However, at the last minute the British Ministry of Defense ordered the Cornwall not to fire, and her captain and crew were forced to watch their shipmates led away into captivity.
> 
> There was a question whether the Blair government would end up leaving Britain with a navy too small to protect its shores. Now it seems to want a navy that can't even protect its own sailors. . . ."
> 
> ...


That entire article is a good read.

"The British navy had wiped out the slave trade; it had single-handedly defied tyrants from Louis XIV and Napoleon to Hitler; and it served as midwife to the ideas of free trade and the balance of power.

Now those days are gone for good. Yet, if today's Britons thought that by shedding that historic responsibility they could buy themselves some peace of mind, the current hostage crisis has just proved them wrong.

Seventy years ago, another generation of British politicians believed that disarming themselves would help ease world tensions after World War One. Farsighted and progressive planners cut the Royal Navy by nearly two-thirds and ceased the fortification of vital naval bases like Singapore so as not to alarm other powers. In the name of international peace, Britain signed treaties formally limiting the size of its fleet, and as late as 1935 reached an accord with Adolf Hitler allowing him to build the submarine fleet that the Versailles Treaty had denied him.

Six years later, Hitler's U-boats were turned loose to harry British shipping and the Japanese stormed into Singapore, forcing the greatest mass surrender in British history."

"If the hostages are finally released unharmed, it will have a lot more to do with the presence of two American carrier groups off the Iranian coast than anything Blair is doing - and the British will have learned that what they really lost when they gave up their fleet and abandoned the fight in Iraq is their own self-respect. "


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav:

Your posts are sometimes hard to follow but usually make me smile. Never change.

Regards


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

Rocker said:


> ". . . .The latest report is that the Britons were ready to fight off their abductors. Certainly their escorting ship, HMS Cornwall, could have blown the Iranian naval vessel out of the water. However, at the last minute the British Ministry of Defense ordered the Cornwall not to fire, and her captain and crew were forced to watch their shipmates led away into captivity. . . .
> Source:
> https://www.nypost.com/seven/032820...tence_opedcolumnists_arthur_herman.htm?page=0


Has anyone seen any support for the quoted language other than in the linked Post article?


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Good Post article, I emailed it to a few friends.

Britain's Ministry of Defense has confirmed that the ships were in Iraqi water.



> The briefing, at defence headquarters in London, was given by Vice Admiral Charles Style, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Commitments). Vice Admiral Style, who is responsible for providing strategic advice to operational commanders, explained in detail where the Royal Navy personnel were located when they were seized:
> 
> "The Iranian government has provided us with two different positions for the incident. The first we received on Saturday and the second on Monday. As this map shows, the first of these points still lies within Iraqi territorial waters. We pointed this out to them on Sunday in diplomatic contacts.
> 
> ...


An act of war against the Royal Navy, who were operating in Iraqi waters, under UN Sanction. Has Iraq spoke out about this? What about the UN?

Is it just time for a Royal Navy blockade? Sink every ship flying the Iranian flag? Where is Francis Drake....


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

dopey said:


> Has anyone seen any support for the quoted language other than in the linked Post article?


Good point - I have not. It should be noted that the piece is an opinion piece not a straight news article. It is my understanding that the Rules of Engagement for the Royal Navy were not to fire unless fired upon and the Minitsry of Defense has stated that the sailors, marines, and HMS Cornwall acted in conformity with those rules i.e., they did not fire back as they had no authority to do so even as the Iranian boats approached and/or sailors/marines were being led away as captives/hostages. Ihave not read elsewhere that the Cornwall asked for permission to alter/ignore the ROE.

I trust, after the U.S.S. Cole, American ships are authorized to blow anything and everything out of the water they deem to be a potential danger - even guys in little rubber rafts.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

fenway said:


> So you're a pragmatist?
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up.


I'm hesitant to endorse any label, in part because I'm not familiar with all the ramifications, in part because I don't want to later be facing some charges of being a hypocrite or inconsistent because something else I say doesn't line up with what other people who are labeled pragmatists do or think.

Still, I would say that pragmatism is an important American value to which I subscribe. I also think that it is clear that recent events have restricted our ability to do things internationally that in other times we might like to do. Both the 2001 terrorist attacks and our justified invasion of Afghanistan have put demands on our capabilities that naturally limit other potential activities. We don't have the power or military resources to do everything, and even if we didn't have a major segment of our forces tied down or worn out in Iraq, the times we're facing now are not the times we have seen even very recently (say, during the Clinton administration).


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

If the map holds up it does seem that the English forces were in the right and the Iranian forces in the wrong. Of course, it doesn't show the previous positions of any of the vessels, so it's possible that the English boats were leaving Iranian waters when they were captured. 

I just saw the video of the captured English troops on television, and although there are no visible marks, it's hard to avoid the suspicion that the woman who made the statement and wrote the letter was tortured or otherwise forced to do what she did. It would be consistent with recent experience, like the American journalist who was captured in Iraq, made pro-insurgent statements while being held captive, and then recanted them shortly after she was released.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Badrabbit said:


> Morality is not unique to religion.


I am an atheist, and I think that most of my friends are, but I can't think of a single atheist to whom morality is a foreign concept.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> P.S. I have repeatedly said that I don't currently advocate military action against Iran and in any case that I did, such action would not comprise ground troops or occupation. So try and refrain from indulging in that old canard in the future.


So you favor leaving the theocrats and tyrants in power in Iran?

Just wondering.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I just saw the video of the captured English troops on television, and although there are no visible marks, it's hard to avoid the suspicion that the woman who made the statement and wrote the letter was tortured or otherwise forced to do what she did. It would be consistent with recent experience, like the American journalist who was captured in Iraq, made pro-insurgent statements while being held captive, and then recanted them shortly after she was released.


I thought I read something a few days ago where the British military told troops that if they were ever captured to say whatever would cause them the least stress and harm, and that the military would understand and know what really happened.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Not a bad idea. I remember an American who was captured in Vietnam and forced to make a televised statement was able to blink his eyes using Morse Code to signal the word "torture". I'm thinking it was Larry Pressler, but if it wasn't him it was someone else who wound up in politics.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Not a bad idea. I remember an American who was captured in Vietnam and forced to make a televised statement was able to blink his eyes using Morse Code to signal the word "torture". I'm thinking it was Larry Pressler, but if it wasn't him it was someone else who wound up in politics.


It was Jeremiah Denton. I read his book in high school. After the press released what he had done, he was tortured even worse.

Reminds me of the Pueblo crew who told the North Koreans that the middle finger they were giving in the pictures the NKs were taking was an American good luck symbol. When the NKs found out what they had done, they were beaten as well.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

I favor enablingand supporting the Iranian opposition to begin to reform their own country. I am not as foolish or naive as you like to think and realize that we can't always effectively force regime chane through military action - if we could there would be democracy in Communist China by now I would hope and Pyongyang would have a bit more traffic. However I would favor military action against Iran if all other options in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear state were exhausted. So far they have not. But if Iran harms the British troops I would support the US aiding the UK in severe punitive strikes.

I do think, as Tony Blair said (and I paraphrase), where we can act, we should and Iraq was one of the cases. Lets just say I consider myself a part realist and part neo-Wilsonian.

Karl


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

So the difference is that you support or supported invading one more country than I do to remove a vicious dictator. Thanks for clarifying that.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

No, not quite. But if such a simplistic view helps you then have it. We wouldn't want to dispell any of your illusions - not that we could.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Anyone care to retell Hilter's pretext for invading Poland? How about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? The truth is Nations prepare for war against perceived enemies and either premeditate the start of actual hostilities or blunder in to them. Who did what to who and when aside, Iran has been pushing the envelope because they are gambling nobody is going to push back.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Kav said:


> Who did what to who and when aside, Iran has been pushing the envelope because they are gambling nobody is going to push back.


And so far they've gambled correctly! Why is the west so reluctant to use a heavy hand with these scoundrels?


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> And so far they've gambled correctly! Why is the west so reluctant to use a heavy hand with these scoundrels?


I think Iran has demonstrated that they can not be trusted with a navy. Perhaps we should give them 4 hours to evacuate all their ships, then...."Operation Billy Mitchell!"


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> I think Iran has demonstrated that they can not be trusted with a navy. Perhaps we should give them 4 hours to evacuate all their ships, then...."Operation Billy Mitchell!"


I don't see why not. What will they do? NOTHING! Turn up the heat so intensely that they will have to ask themselves if the destruction of their navy, air force and coastal defenses is worth the hassle. Not to mention a cruise missile strike on their communications and electricity grids.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> I am an atheist, and I think that most of my friends are, but I can't think of a single atheist to whom morality is a foreign concept.


Yeah, I can see that my qustion was a bit naive. I suppose everyone has a "moral" sense - after all even the Nazis were able to rationalize the murder of Jews, political dissenters, slavs, disabled people, etc. as an inherently humane and moral act. I was just surprised that an atheist would use the word; I would think they would restrict themselves to legal/illlegal and (subjectively) right/wrong.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Yeah, I can see that my qustion was a bit naive. I suppose everyone has a "moral" sense - after all even the Nazis were able to rationalize the murder of Jews, political dissenters, slavs, disabled people, etc. as an inherently humane and moral act. I was just surprised that an atheist would use the word; I would think they would restrict themselves to legal/illlegal and (subjectively) right/wrong.


I think that is a pretty unfair characterization but I would like to give you the "Comparison to Nazis" award for this thread.

I live what I would call a godless life. I deem myself agnostic because I feel the stance of athiesm requires the same leap of faith that religious belief does. However, if you were to examine my life and compare it to the Bible's teachings, or that of most any holy book, I lead a "moral" life. I do this with no promise of Heaven, Nirvana, etc. I do it with no threat of punishment or promise of reward. Does that not put my actions on a much purer moral plane than someone that does it to avoid Hell or find Nirvana? I would think so.

No, I am sorry, your statements are unfair to Jack, myself, and the millions of non-believers that lead positive lives that contribute to society. From my stance, your choice to believe in your god is arbitrary as there are a host of sects to subscribe to. This does not mean I will compare you to Nazis. It simply means I shall judge you by your actions.

The actions of some people that trumpet their Xtian values are just frightening. People from the homophobic drug using Colorado priest to the way the Clintons show up at black churches when they want votes. I find all this stuff deplorable. However, I will not compare you to Nazis.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

I keep telling you - there is no such thing as a believer or non-believer. We are all agnostics to varying degrees!

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Back to the original topic, I hear Ahmadinejad was seen with a 'rebel' flag license plate on his car! Perhaps that will inspire Jack to "burn Tehran"? 

Moving on ... Britain is going to the U.N. now? Isn't that cute. Why don't they just come and directly ask the U.S. to get their people back for them, if they can't? Are they really appealing to France, China, and Russia?

UNITED NATIONS -- Britain took its case to free its 15 sailors and marines held by Iran to the United Nations on Thursday, asking the Security Council to support a statement that would "deplore" Tehran's action and demand their immediate release.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Never send your military in harm's way and then tie one hand behind their backs. This is the result.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Well, Ahmadinejad does deny the Holocaust but apparently that didn't bother Jack enough to reconsider his earlier posts where he first questioned British motives rather than Iranian ones. But after all Tehran has always been known as the Montpelier of the Middle East!

Karl


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I think that is a pretty unfair characterization but I would like to give you the "Comparison to Nazis" award for this thread.
> 
> I live what I would call a godless life. I deem myself agnostic because I feel the stance of athiesm requires the same leap of faith that religious belief does. However, if you were to examine my life and compare it to the Bible's teachings, or that of most any holy book, I lead a "moral" life. I do this with no promise of Heaven, Nirvana, etc. I do it with no threat of punishment or promise of reward. Does that not put my actions on a much purer moral plane than someone that does it to avoid Hell or find Nirvana? I would think so.
> 
> ...


You read way too much into what I said - don't be so defensive. I wasn't comparing or analogizing him or atheism to Nazis - and if it was implied (which I do not think it was) - I did not mean it.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

dopey said:


> Has anyone seen any support for the quoted language other than in the linked Post article?


"As the crew members were surrounded in their two rubber dinghies, the Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, frantically radioed back to his own top brass for instructions.

The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire."

https://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=462812007


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Perhaps a well placed shot over the bow of the Iranian vessel(s) would have communicated this message a little clearer?

https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O5VM7O1&show_article=1

"The important thing for us is to get them back safe and sound, but we can't enter into some basis of bargaining," Blair said. "What you have to do when you are engaged with people like the Iranian regime, you have to keep explaining to them, very patiently, what it is necessary to do and at the same time make them fully aware there are further measures that will be taken if they're not prepared to be reasonable.

"What you can't do is end up negotiating over hostages; end up saying there's some quid pro quo or tit for tat; that's not acceptable," he said.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

Rocker said:


> "As the crew members were surrounded in their two rubber dinghies, the Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, frantically radioed back to his own top brass for instructions.
> 
> The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire."
> 
> https://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=462812007


Thanks. That is astounding to me.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I just detained my iranian gas station attendant. He is being treated well, though I am forcing him to wear a tie. He has issued a confession about entering into my car. He is calling for the immediate cessation of iranian involvment in Iraq.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Kav said:


> I just detained my iranian gas station attendant. He is being treated well, though I am forcing him to wear a tie. He has issued a confession about entering into my car. He is calling for the immediate cessation of iranian involvment in Iraq.


Are you going to film him eating a donut and smoking a blunt?


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Kav said:


> I just detained my iranian gas station attendant. He is being treated well, though I am forcing him to wear a tie. He has issued a confession about entering into my car. He is calling for the immediate cessation of iranian involvment in Iraq.


classic! lol


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Probably more incriminating to show him eating a ham sandwich - - -


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

This just in:

The Iranian parliament is enraged by the humiliating behavior shown by the revolutionary guard toward the female british sailor. Legislators from all the major parties are calling for the head of the Iranian defense minister and Ahmedinijad's poll numbers are plummeting. He's going to have to hold a news conference to quell the public outrage. The UN has issued a statement deploring the exploitation of military prisoners and the IRC wants assurances that the rule of law will be followed. Amnesty International is organizing a world wide concert starring the Dixie Chicks to bring awareness to human rights abuses in Iran. 

Wait there's more: 

The general in charge of the Revolutionary Guard has been dismissed! Court Martial proceedings are in the works for those charged with the care of the prisoners. I'm sure there will be plenty more to come. Stay tuned.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

We can only hope - - -

(What about my Megamillions tickets for Friday, while we're dreaming??)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> This just in:
> 
> The Iranian parliament is enraged by the humiliating behavior shown by the revolutionary guard toward the female british sailor. Legislators from all the major parties are calling for the head of the Iranian defense minister and Ahmedinijad's poll numbers are plummeting. He's going to have to hold a news conference to quell the public outrage. The UN has issued a statement deploring the exploitation of military prisoners and the IRC wants assurances that the rule of law will be followed. Amnesty International is organizing a world wide concert starring the Dixie Chicks to bring awareness to human rights abuses in Iran.
> 
> ...


Aren't you three days early?


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> _I just detained my iranian gas station attendant. He is being treated well, though I am forcing him to wear a tie. He has issued a confession about entering into my car. He is calling for the immediate cessation of iranian involvment in Iraq._


Hilarious!


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I really like the idea of doing a surgical strike against the one gas refinery and the nuclear plants. Shut these dicks up for good.

Bombs away!


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

The British military has now surrounded an Iranian consular office in southern Iraq in an effort to put pressure on Tehran.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Artisan Fan,

The problem with the course you suggest is that a surgical strike against Iranian nuclear facilities might not be effective. Iran took to heart the lesson of the Israeli strike at Osirak (dubbed by Tel Aviv as OChirac bc of French assistance to the Iraqi nuclear program at the time and Chirac's chummy relationship with Saddam at the time) and have widely dispersed their nuclear facilities. We could surely cripple the Iranian nuclear program by a few years (and make no mistake about it - we would have to do it, no one else possesses the force projection capability such a mission would require) but that would only strengthen the current Iranian regimes' efforts to develop nuclear weapons and sure up their very shaky domestic support.

Right now we can afford to wait a bit longer and see how things play out - who knows perhaps a soft revolution could take place - but if little tangible and verifiable progress is made by next year we will have to seriously consider a strike against Iranian nuclear program assets. If we have to do it, better that the outgoing Bush administration launch the strikes so the next administration isn't saddled with any of the possible baggage that might be created by such a strike.

Karl


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Artisan Fan,
> 
> The problem with the course you suggest is that a surgical strike against Iranian nuclear facilities might not be effective. Iran took to heart the lesson of the Israeli strike at Osirak (dubbed by Tel Aviv as OChirac bc of French assistance to the Iraqi nuclear program at the time and Chirac's chummy relationship with Saddam at the time) and have widely dispersed their nuclear facilities. We could surely cripple the Iranian nuclear program by a few years (and make no mistake about it - we would have to do it, no one else possesses the force projection capability such a mission would require) but that would only strengthen the current Iranian regimes' efforts to develop nuclear weapons and sure up their very shaky domestic support.
> 
> ...


or, for the cost of training the 20 or so pilots needed to carry out the attack, we could identify the 100 most important individuals from the iranian nuclear program and they could have accidents. as important as centerfuges are, the brains of the people who design them are harder to replace.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> we could identify the 100 most important individuals from the iranian nuclear program and they could have accidents. as important as centerfuges are, the brains of the people who design them are harder to replace.


An interesting angle.

I still like the strike idea because it has great signal value.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> as important as centerfuges are, the brains of the people who design them are harder to replace.


Something tells me that most of the _brains_ are Russians. Way to be responsible Vlad!


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Time to send in Jack Bauer.


----------



## Des Esseintes (Aug 16, 2005)

This thread reminds me why I don't visit the Inhterchange very often...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Then keep a closer eye on your GPS.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

From the "Santayana Was Right" file:



> "The . . . Administration is in terrible shape - a fact that people here are increasingly, if reluctantly, and somewhat worriedly, coming to grips with. Of late it seems almost clinically dysfunctional. This does not mean that it cannot take action; in fact, one concern here is that it might take some foreign action for action's sake - to make itself feel better and change the subject. In recent days, the Administration has been engaged in an internal dispute over whether to take military action against, among other possible targets, Iran - whether in relation to Iran's encouraging terrorism and taking of hostages, or its success in the war with Iraq."


The New Yorker, "Letter From Washington," February 16, 1987.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

So they were taken hostage, treated as political pawns, used in photo ops by the Iranian government to make Iran look like the reaonable party (happy marines shaking hands, bygone be bygones, smiling and waiving Bye-Bye, etc.,) and then, to make it worse, forced to wear crappy looking ill-fitting suits.......

https://www.farsnews.com/imgrep.php?nn=8601150455


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Rocker said:


> used in photo ops by the Iranian government to make Iran look like the reaonable party (happy marines shaking hands, bygone be bygones, smiling and waiving Bye-Bye, etc.,)


Reasonable? Only in _their_ dreams.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

They've just been released as an "Easter gift to the people of the UK." What will they do for Christmas I wonder.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> They've just been released as an "Easter gift to the people of the UK." What will they do for Christmas I wonder.


Sepuku?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Rocker said:


> and then, to make it worse, forced to wear crappy looking ill-fitting suits.......
> 
> https://www.farsnews.com/imgrep.php?nn=8601150455


The Iranians must not like wearing ties! Odd, because I'm Iranian and I love ties. Perhaps someday I will repatriate and open a men's shoppe.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I must wonder if Tony Blair was mumbling various empire epitaths between the lines about Persia's ancient civilisation. We watch these incidents in the voyuer hope somebody will open fire not unlike a car crashing at Daytona. The RN needs to recruit more football hooligans, sail into iranian waters in force and remind themselves the RN is the second largest naval force and probably the best equipped. With gas @ $3.26 for the cheap stuff and an iranian cashier who still tries to shortchange people I expect some manner of compensation.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Kav said:


> I must wonder if Tony Blair was mumbling various empire epitaths between the lines about Persia's ancient civilisation.


I'm sure the Easter present excuse is a face saving gesture. I didn't read anything about Britain "apologizing" so I have to think that Iran was starting to get backed into a corner.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm sure the Easter present excuse is a face saving gesture. I didn't read anything about Britain "apologizing" so I have to think that Iran was starting to get backed into a corner.


I think Iran got other quiet concessions out of the UK and the US. Watch for prisoner releases, etc.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Rumors were the air strikes against Iran were set for Friday.

Think the Iranians heard the same rumors?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> I think Iran got other quiet concessions out of the UK and the US. Watch for prisoner releases, etc.


I am pretty sure I heard something on NPR this morning intimating there was going to be a US prisoner release...totally unrelated of course *wink wink* *nudge nudge*


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Okay....who wants to start a pool for the date/hour that it is first suggested in the main stream media that the marines were freed due to Pelosi's trip to the area?


----------



## Hans B (Mar 25, 2007)

*The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis*

https://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Hans B said:


> https://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece


I read that story and I was lost on the "led to" part. It never does justifiably tie the two events together. Pretty poor journalism IMHO. It doesn't even quote an Iranian claiming the attacks are related. I tend to think that would be pretty easy to find. Heck, I'd bet you could find an Iranian that would claim the 'faked Apollo moon landing' was justification too. The article just talks about the U.S. raid then it leaps to a close with the following unsupported statement:

"The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target than their American comrades."

For all we know this was the event that led to the escalation 'A Deadly U.S.-Iran Firefight'

Regardless, nice first post


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Regardless, nice first post


That was my thought too. Joining a men's clothing board to post this article....

You will fit right in with some folks, enjoy your stay.

Cheers


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

It looks like Bolton did everything except call the Brits a bunch of lily-livered Nancy boys.

https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070409141307.6t3jw8iq&show_article=1


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*John Derbyshire's comments*

From: https://corner.nationalreview.com/

"The Diana-ifictaion of Britain [John Derbyshire]

Iain:

I am at the point with this business about the British hostages where I really can't trust myself to post any more, I'm so mad. Toby Harnden indeed says much of what needs saying, but I think he is too kind to the enlisted men. They are saps and worms, insults to the Queen's uniform. I'd better change track right here-see what I mean?

One thing the whole business has revealed to me is how it is possible to hate your own country, a thing I never understood before. Not that I hate my country-which is, as of five years this coming April 19th, the blessed U.S. of A. I maintain strong sentimental ties to England, though, and I've been burning with anger and shame at the dishonor these giggling buffoons have brought to their country, the country of my ancestors (all English, for as far back as I know), the country I was raised in. Yes, there have been moments when I've hated England.

I've told this story before, so I hope I'll be forgiven for telling it again. My Mum, Esther Alice Knowles (1912-98), eleventh child of a pick'n'shovel coal miner, in one of the last conversations I had with her, said: "I know I'm dying, but I don't mind. At least I knew England when she was England."

I discounted that at the time. Old people always grumble about the state of the world. Now I understand it, though. I even feel a bit the same way myself. I caught the tail-end of that old England-that bumptious, arrogant, self-confident old England, the England of complicated games, snobbery, irony, repression, and stoicism, the England of suet puddings, drafty houses, coal smoke and bad teeth, the England of throat-catching poetry and gardens and tweeds, the England that civilized the whole world and gave an example of adult behavior-the English Gentleman-that was admired from Peking (I can testify) to Peru.

It's all gone now, "dead as mutton," as English people used to say. Now there is nothing there but a flock of whimpering Eloi, giggling over their gadgets, whining for their handouts, crying for their Mummies, playing at soldiering for reasons they can no longer understand, from lingering habit. Lower the corpse down slowly, shovel in the earth. England is dead."

Also, the "crying for their Mummies" statement is linked to

https://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/index.php?p=2026

Interesting stuff...


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

JRR said:


> From: https://corner.nationalreview.com/
> 
> "The Diana-ifictaion of Britain [John Derbyshire]
> 
> ...


excellent post


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Badrabbit said:


> It looks like Bolton did everything except call the Brits a bunch of lily-livered Nancy boys.
> 
> https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070409141307.6t3jw8iq&show_article=1


It seems impossible to argue against his logic.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Let us just hope it is not a repeat of Neville C. I still think a force other than the US military needs to deal with Iran though. The US should be downscaling its deployed forces worldwide.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I still think a force other than the US military needs to deal with Iran though.


A fantastic read on this broader topic is "The New American Militarisim" by Andrew Bacevich

https://www.amazon.com/New-American-Militarism-Americans-Seduced/dp/0195173384

A central theme is that the USA has become so used to diplomacy through cruise missle we've completely forgotten how to actually negiotiate!

-spence


----------



## Hans B (Mar 25, 2007)

i'm not sure what there is to "deal with". so seven countries (i think it's seven) can have nuclear energy and weapons...but no one else can? why should we have the right to nuclear energy/weapons and not others? and not to mention, we're the only country to actually use nuclear weapons and kills hundreds of thousands of innocents:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

it has been estimated that israel has between 80 and 120 nuclear weapons. where is the outcry against those weapons? where have the nuclear inspectors been all these years, in re: to israel?

it's shockingly twisted, as far as i'm concerned.

but please, carry on.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Hans B said:


> why should we have the right to nuclear energy/weapons and not others? and not to mention, we're the only country to actually use nuclear weapons and kills hundreds of thousands of innocents:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki


This sounds very familiar. Can anyone remember who the last poster was to go down this rather dusty, tired road?


----------



## Hans B (Mar 25, 2007)

Oh dear - I'm rather late. Well, never mind then. ;-)


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Hans, Our use of nuclear weapons on Japan could make for a marathon thread in itself. But I think the very fact we are discussing it at all a half century later is a salient point. Please, get on a plane to Nagasaki or Hiroshima and go to the schools there. I ask you to start a conversation about the rape of Nanking, Biological weapon testing on POWs and infecting chinese cities with fleas bearing the plague. Ask what 'comfort women' were. Discuss the Bataan death march, the brutality to British POWs on the infamous Burma railway, the sword practise by decapitating POWs and civilians ( including those executed members of the famous Doolittle raid) we find so abhorent in Iraq. I guarantee you will get a blank look and at best the nervous giggle of embarresment or arrogant excuses by surviving members of that Japan's generation. But then they will break for the calm ritual of lunch. Perhaps you will enjoy mercury laced whale meat sold after being 'harvested' for scientific research into population numbers. It is after all a part of japanese culture- dating all the way back into ancient japan of 1941 to supplement the wartime diet. This is the mindset of denial in one of our closest trade and politcal allies. And you want Iran to have a bomb because the holacoast was a fiction to allow jews to oppress palestinians?


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

JRR said:


> From: https://corner.nationalreview.com/
> 
> "The Diana-ifictaion of Britain [John Derbyshire]
> 
> ...


A very good point which I find myself largely agreeing with as an Englishman still resident in Old Blighty! What is so shocking is that from my perspective this new touchy- feely Englishness is so new - I feel that English "back-bone" has been lost only over a matter of 10 years or so!

It is not all bad news though - I was very heartened to hear the head of the British Army say he would never, never allow his soldiers to act like the Navy personel did, certainly never sell their stories to the press.

It is true that America has forgotten how to negotiate as is seen by the rest of the world including the UK as a bully in the playground who knows how to destroy countries but doesn't know how to build countries. It is also true that America is the only country in the world to have killed millions of innocent people with nuclear weapons and therefore is not in a moral position to lecture Iran. I am certainly not defending Iran and the regime there worries me greatly - we should do all we can to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons - but how can countries like the US and also the UK do that when we have them ourselves? The " we are the good guys they are the bad guys" argument works about as far Eastwards as the East coast of the UK and about as far Westwards as the West sea bord of the USA! The reason most Western countries back the US in matters of state is shared culture and also fear - fear of the alternatives - it is a "better the devil you know than the one you don't" situation!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

It does seem as if the Interchange is never short of idiots. But really no surprise, 70 years ago the "cognoscenti" told us that we shouldn't take Hitler too seriously either. 

But on another note - Welcome HansB! You'll be happy here, the Interchange has no shortage of those find it desirable for tyrannies to have nuclear weapons. And you sir are off to a great start with your advocacy of Iranian nuclear power, swipe at Israel and defense of Tojo's Japan. Don't get too cocky, though. You have a high standard of lunacy before you, but look to Rip's prediction of a Bush-Cheney coup in October 2008 or FrankDC's defense of North Korean aggression and Soviet domination and oppression of Eastern Europe for inspiration.

Karl


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Ugh, the details get more and more cringe worthy:

https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/april07/disgracefiasco.htm


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Ugh, the details get more and more cringe worthy:
> 
> https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/april07/disgracefiasco.htm


That is a pretty embarassing read. Who knows how each of us would behave in that situation though? Not everyone is a 007 or Jack Bauer and can wise crack as they get tortured. Granted these folks did not have even an eyelash damaged but still....

The real crime is the blubbering to the media. At least be stoic once you are safe!


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Leather man said:


> It is true that America has forgotten how to negotiate as is seen by the rest of the world including the UK as a bully in the playground who knows how to destroy countries but doesn't know how to build countries. It is also true that America is the only country in the world to have killed millions of innocent people with nuclear weapons and therefore is not in a moral position to lecture Iran. I am certainly not defending Iran and the regime there worries me greatly - we should do all we can to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons - but how can countries like the US and also the UK do that when we have them ourselves?


Millions of innocent people? Please.

Anyway, by your logic, Britain can't condemn modern slavery because it participated in the slave trade, can't condemn invasions because it practiced colonialism, can't condemn wanton civilian casualties because it bombed Dresden, can't demand equal rights for women in other countries becasue it denied female suffrage, can't condemn child labor because it used it too, can't condemn chemical weapons becasue it used mustard gas in WWI? etc. - I suppose condemning witch burning is out as well?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> The real crime is the blubbering to the media. At least be stoic once you are safe!


You know, I completely agree. No one really knows how they might act - but for G-d's sake admitting in public that you cried like a baby and sought a comforting "mommy hug" is simply over-the-top. Have enough manliness to be ashamed of yourself after the fact and keep quiet.

Honestly though, the descriptions and video images of what these guys went through sounds more like the Monty Python version of the Inquisition in which people were tortured with the "Comfy Chair."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Only the British could make John McCain look like less of a weasle  

Regardless of what 'Senator' McCain turned out to be, I have to respect his service and the way he handles his incarceration as a POW and his torture. 

Not just him, but all the Vietnam era POWs seem to have gotten about the worst of it and comported themselves the best - in spite of Hanoi Jane and her ilk. God Bless them every one!


----------



## Hans B (Mar 25, 2007)

Kav,

Good post - you're making me think. Perhaps I'm just naive. 

regards,
Hans


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Leather man said:


> A very good point which I find myself largely agreeing with as an Englishman still resident in Old Blighty! What is so shocking is that from my perspective this new touchy- feely Englishness is so new - I feel that English "back-bone" has been lost only over a matter of 10 years or so!


Blame Labour.

Us Yanks can look forward to it too once the Democratic-Socialists get back in power.


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> Blame Labour.
> 
> Us Yanks can look forward to it too once the Democratic-Socialists get back in power.


A bloody fine mess we found ourselves stewing about in.

What happened to the old sentiment, which we've drifted so far from, of

_Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves._


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> They did the same thing in 2004 to 8 sailors in the Royal Navy and I thought the S was going to HTF but nothing happened. There is a disputed border/water boundry between the two countries; Iran took them, questioned them, and let them go a few days later.
> 
> I admit though, when I first heard about it I thought:


Likewise. It buggers me. Many of the lads I've talked to back home were of a mind to clear Tehran and beat Johnny Iranian all the way back into the desert. Thankfully, we're not statesmen.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Rocker said:


> Millions of innocent people? Please.
> 
> Anyway, by your logic, Britain can't condemn modern slavery because it participated in the slave trade, can't condemn invasions because it practiced colonialism, can't condemn wanton civilian casualties because it bombed Dresden, can't demand equal rights for women in other countries becasue it denied female suffrage, can't condemn child labor because it used it too, can't condemn chemical weapons becasue it used mustard gas in WWI? etc. - I suppose condemning witch burning is out as well?


I am pretty sure last time I checked Britain has put all those things behind it and no longer practices them - that cannot be said for owning nuclear weapons - THAT is the difference - obvious really!!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Leather man said:


> I am pretty sure last time I checked Britain has put all those things behind it and no longer practices them - that cannot be said for owning nuclear weapons - THAT is the difference - obvious really!!


You did not address the fact you stated:



> It is also true that America is the only country in the world to have killed millions of innocent people with nuclear weapons and therefore is not in a moral position to lecture Iran.


I think that is something we were all surprised to hear. Millions? Here's what wiki has to say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Post-attack_casualties

Someone may be willing to do more research, but it would seem the number of deaths, both instant, directly after, and long term, might not total even 500k. Still a stupendous number, but far from "millions".


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

"They don't look like soldiers, they don't act like soldiers." -from the movie Patton. I think we can weave this thread into the website. What's with the berets and polyester shirts? They look more like Paris tour guides instead of the RN of HMS Exeter, Ajax and Achilles. IRA men went 'on the blanket' rather than don a prison uniform. Headscarves and ill fitting tieless suits indeed.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Leather man said:


> I am pretty sure last time I checked Britain has put all those things behind it and no longer practices them - that cannot be said for owning nuclear weapons - THAT is the difference - obvious really!!


Not so obvious - sorry. You said:



Leather man said:


> It is also true that America is the only country in the world to have killed millions of innocent people with nuclear weapons and therefore is not in a moral position to lecture Iran.


Accordingly, past actions regardless of whether they are engaged in currently (don't believe we've dropped the bomb in the last 60 or so years), by your very words, renders the actor incapable of taking a stand on an issue. This is the clear import of your words. My point remains: that Britain once used mustard gas means it is "not in a moral position" to condemn chemical weapons, that Britain once engaged in the slave trade, etc. - obvious really!!

BTW, Britain still makes bombs of a kind similar to the ones used to kill hundreds of thousands of inncocent civilians in Dresden, doesn't it - and yet, I suppose modern Britain would, at least, feign concern over a modern military action which targeted civilans.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm still mad over the ill treatment of Boudicca by Rome, the ignoble treatement of the Nez Pierce after their relationship with the Corps of Discovery and uncounted other 'old unhappy half forgotten things' There was a really bad, jingoistic song playing during our Hostage crisis. Sung to the tune of Barbara Anne, it went " bomb,bomb,bomb---bomb, bomb Iran" Amadingaling & co. have been spoiling for a fight all semester. It's time somebody meets them behind the handball court after school.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

Kav, do you hang out with Dennis Miller on the weekends? I can't think of anyone else who can manage to speak in combinations of arcane historical and obscure pop-culture references all of the time. I must admit it is a talent I quite admire.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Rocker said:


> Not so obvious - sorry. You said:
> 
> Accordingly, past actions regardless of whether they are engaged in currently (don't believe we've dropped the bomb in the last 60 or so years), by your very words, renders the actor incapable of taking a stand on an issue. This is the clear import of your words. My point remains: that Britain once used mustard gas means it is "not in a moral position" to condemn chemical weapons, that Britain once engaged in the slave trade, etc. - obvious really!!
> 
> BTW, Britain still makes bombs of a kind similar to the ones used to kill hundreds of thousands of inncocent civilians in Dresden, doesn't it - and yet, I suppose modern Britain would, at least, feign concern over a modern military action which targeted civilans.


If we are going to argue over figures - whilst the bombing of Dresden was an awful thing as part of an awful war,it didn't kill hundreds of thousands! And I have exaggerated unintentionally the numbers killed in Japan for which I apologise but not only did hundreds of thousands die but the after effects in terms of malformed children and ill health were and are terrible. To compare with the slave trade - if America would have had to have disarmed itself of nuclear weapons by now completely in order to have an accurate comparison with Britain and the evils of the slave trade - which by the way was supported by many Americans too ( as well as being fiercely opposed by many Americans) - as you I am sure know!

My point about moral high ground is that the evils you accuse Britain of, Rocker, are things in the past that Britian has repented of - so yes actually I think we have got a right to talk about the slave trade now. But I am not saying Britain has the moral high ground with nuclear weapons - we don't because we own them. What I am saying is America certainly has not because America has more than the rest of the world put together and what is more has used them. Whether you like it or not, and I suspect you don't, that is how the rest of the world looks at it. Iran is a worrying situation but the world doesn't think America is in a position to lecture Iran - so someone else - and I suggest not Britain either - must do it. Maybe our role is to work behind the scenes?.

Anyway why are we debating this? Isn't this meant to be a men's fashion forum???


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Leather man said:


> Anyway why are we debating this? Isn't this meant to be a men's fashion forum???


From the main Forum page I quote:



> The Interchange
> A place for ladies and gentlemen to sit back in a plush leather club chair, with drink and cigar in hand and pleasantly discuss the great issues of the day that are not about clothes.


I think we can see how you came up with the "millions" figure. One needs to pay attention to information that is readily available before giving data or asking obvious questions. Hope this helps.

Cheers


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Leather man said:


> If we are going to argue over figures - whilst the bombing of Dresden was an awful thing as part of an awful war,it didn't kill hundreds of thousands!


Yeah - I know Dresden didn't cost hundreds of thousands of lives, but becasue numbers were being played with fast and loose, I decided to go for it.


----------

