We have a new update on The Future of the Penny Arcade Forums.

Dealing With Terrorist States (Iran Hostage Thread)

LondonBridgeLondonBridge __BANNED USERS regular
edited April 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
This thread is a discussion on the terrorist state of Iran and how they recently took British sailors hostage. Americans have taken Iranians in Iraq for questioning and we never paraded them like Iran has. This whole thing reminds me of Saddam Hussein in 1991 with the Western prisoners taken in Kuwait. in 2001 a group of US airmen were taken in China after a freak air accident where they lost a pilot but since the US showed regret for the loss of the pilot's life they quickly freed.

Iran however is not acting like a nation should and they're only digging a deeper hole when it comes to pissing off the world. Hosting a Holocaust Denial Forum, threats of wiping out Israel, and defying the UN over nukes does not help. Is Iran just asking for a war?

Discuss!

LondonBridge on
«134567

Posts

  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    This thread is a discussion on the terrorist state of Iran and how they recently took British sailors hostage. Americans have taken Iranians in Iraq for questioning and we never paraded them like Iran has. This whole thing reminds me of Saddam Hussein in 1991 with the Western prisoners taken in Kuwait. in 2001 a group of US airmen were taken in China after a freak air accident where they lost a pilot but since the US showed regret for the loss of the pilot's life they quickly freed.

    Iran however is not acting like a nation should and they're only digging a deeper hole when it comes to pissing off the world. Hosting a Holocaust Denial Forum, threats of wiping out Israel, and defying the UN over nukes does not help. Is Iran just asking for a war?

    Discuss!

    We don't really know. No one knows who gave the order to take the hostages.

    Shinto on
  • JPArbiterJPArbiter Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Actually yes Iran is asking for a war. They want it. Iran's real leader ship, the ayatollah's, believes that it is the responsibility of Iran to unite the Muslim world under a single flag. and they feel that if they can hand a big western power like the United States anbd Brittan a defeat, then they will look strong and powerful in the eyes of lesser middle eastern states.

    The thing is that on a one on one basis Iran is quite the military powerhouse. While the navy sucks, thier airforce is qute advanced including 74 F-14D Tomcats and the AIM 54 ERSGAAM Phoenix Hawk Missiles they were designed to carry. These were US designed planes, and the US navy only retired thier fleet under humongeous protest. The Iraninan ground army is also one fo few armies that was designed to take on the armored warfare specialty of Isreal.

    Case in point the Isreali Mverka MK IV tank was designed to trump traditional arab anti tank warfare (namely troops in fast vehicles with RPGs, and artillery) Not only is dorsal armor extremly thick, the turret is equipped with this new Close In Weapon System that can track and destroy icoming RPGs witha 76 % success rate.

    In turn the Iranian military focuses oon a more robust armour-force, specializing in Wire Guided Missiles instead of unguided RPGs.

    Then there are the unconventional forces of Iran. Special ops forces that impress the Seals and Delta, use of State sponsored terropr attacks that do not invovle suicide bombings, Hostage takings, and chemical weapons.

    agsainst the US or England Alone Iran has a chance of putting up a good fight.

    BUT in a military conflict with Iran, the US and England would be invovled together (to the point where Iraq becomes a staging area) Isreal would likely contribute air power, and even nuclear power to absolve the US and England of any responsibility. Turkey is a Wold Card. the Military backs the constitution and secularism to the poitn of throwing out a PM recently, but the current PM is not that secular right now, and may not want to get invovled. If turkey does though that will be four countries that Iran has to face.

    I do not care what God you worship those are bad odds, and I hope that the leadership of Iran wises up to that.

    JPArbiter on
    Sinning since 1983
  • NanaNana Fuzzy Little Yeti Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I know this is slightly off topic, but I have been wondering why the US (and England in this case) won't negoitate for hostages?

    Does it make us look weak? I feel like our government is betraying the service men and women by not doing what we can to secure their releases.

    Its just so sad.

    Nana on
    3DS Friend Code: 3823-8688-4581
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Nana wrote: »
    I know this is slightly off topic, but I have been wondering why the US (and England in this case) won't negoitate for hostages?

    Does it make us look weak? I feel like our government is betraying the service men and women by not doing what we can to secure their releases.

    Its just so sad.

    The govt. is negotiating right now. Do you mean why don't they offer something in return for their release?

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    Nana wrote: »
    I know this is slightly off topic, but I have been wondering why the US (and England in this case) won't negoitate for hostages?

    Does it make us look weak? I feel like our government is betraying the service men and women by not doing what we can to secure their releases.

    Its just so sad.

    Don't worry. The sanctions and international pressure from this politically undermine Ahmedinajad more than the image of Britain.

    Shinto on
  • JamesJames Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I bet the hostages will be released no problem when the next president gets in.

    Just a slap in the face, like Reagan.

    James on
  • NanaNana Fuzzy Little Yeti Registered User regular
    edited March 2007

    The govt. is negotiating right now. Do you mean why don't they offer something in return for their release?


    Yes, basically.

    I know in this case that they are negotating their release with the Iranian goverment. Would the US do this?

    But what I'm mostly wondering about is why the US won't negotiate with the little groups of Al Qaeda-related terrorists who kidnap soilders and contractors in Iraq.

    Nana on
    3DS Friend Code: 3823-8688-4581
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    It's fairly simple.

    Because that sends the message, "anything you need, just take a hostage and we'll get it for you." In other words, it rewards taking hostages, which absolutely, inevitably leads to more and more hostages until we can't meet demands anymore and we've got a much worse situation on our hands.

    It's the same reason you don't give your child candy every time they throw a tantrum. It shuts them up for a sec but teaches them to throw more tantrums, until you've got a raving, insatiable monster on your hands.

    Yar on
  • JamesJames Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I don't think either the US or Britain would want to go to war with Iran. Think of all the UN opposition, and Russia? Russia would really not be happy.

    Or maybe I'm forgetting who we're talking about ;-)

    James on
  • NanaNana Fuzzy Little Yeti Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    But the point of negotiation is to come to a mutual agreement.

    I wasn't implying that we give away what ever anybody asks for with out a second thought. I just think the no negotation policy hurts both parties. I would imagine we would go about negotations like the police, and try to buy time, and get more information out of the kiddnappers to help defuse the situation.

    Nana on
    3DS Friend Code: 3823-8688-4581
  • LondonBridgeLondonBridge __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    Nana wrote: »
    I know this is slightly off topic, but I have been wondering why the US (and England in this case) won't negoitate for hostages?

    Does it make us look weak? I feel like our government is betraying the service men and women by not doing what we can to secure their releases.

    Its just so sad.

    This was explained on CNN yesterday. The UK asked the USA not to intervene so it wouldn't cause any complications. The USA will only support the UK in this crisis with words like, 'We support Britain.' Nothing more.

    Personally I think this makes the UK (including Europe for lack of support) look weak to the world and Blair should increase their rhetoric towards Iran. I'd like to see what would happen if US forces were taken...

    LondonBridge on
  • 3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Nana wrote: »

    But what I'm mostly wondering about is why the US won't negotiate with the little groups of Al Qaeda-related terrorists who kidnap soilders and contractors in Iraq.

    I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Kidnappings happen by the hundreds of every month in Iraq, some terrorism related, but a lot of to just line peoples pockets with money too. I'm sure half the time we don't even know who the hell is kidnapping who.

    Iran might have some decent military gear, but I question their training to use most of that gear. Their Tomcat fleet is woefully maintained, since we've embargo'd any replacement parts to that country for decades. They can't keep the planes in the air really, so thier pilots are woefully prepared to deal with ours in any air to air engagement. Any dangers would be your air-to-ground variety, more so than the Iranian air force.

    Anyways, back on topic - I wonder how long Iran thinks they can get away with the shit thier pulling. Eventually they're going to push to far, and someone's going to do something to them. A part of me yearns for it. Then the rational side of me knows how it would destablize the region even futher, possibly sparking off chaos in other countries like Pakistan, a country we can't afford to fuck with for a number of reasons.

    Edit:
    I'd like to see what would happen if US forces were taken...

    Won't happen. Iran knows we won't surrender to them just because they say 'lay down your guns, come with us.' The U.K. doesn't want to start a seperate conflict, Iran knows this, and thus has carte blanche to fuck with them.

    3lwap0 on
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    JPArbiter wrote: »
    Actually yes Iran is asking for a war. They want it. Iran's real leader ship, the ayatollah's, believes that it is the responsibility of Iran to unite the Muslim world under a single flag. and they feel that if they can hand a big western power like the United States anbd Brittan a defeat, then they will look strong and powerful in the eyes of lesser middle eastern states.

    The thing is that on a one on one basis Iran is quite the military powerhouse. While the navy sucks, thier airforce is qute advanced including 74 F-14D Tomcats and the AIM 54 ERSGAAM Phoenix Hawk Missiles they were designed to carry. These were US designed planes, and the US navy only retired thier fleet under humongeous protest. The Iraninan ground army is also one fo few armies that was designed to take on the armored warfare specialty of Isreal.

    Case in point the Isreali Mverka MK IV tank was designed to trump traditional arab anti tank warfare (namely troops in fast vehicles with RPGs, and artillery) Not only is dorsal armor extremly thick, the turret is equipped with this new Close In Weapon System that can track and destroy icoming RPGs witha 76 % success rate.

    In turn the Iranian military focuses oon a more robust armour-force, specializing in Wire Guided Missiles instead of unguided RPGs.

    Then there are the unconventional forces of Iran. Special ops forces that impress the Seals and Delta, use of State sponsored terropr attacks that do not invovle suicide bombings, Hostage takings, and chemical weapons.

    agsainst the US or England Alone Iran has a chance of putting up a good fight.

    BUT in a military conflict with Iran, the US and England would be invovled together (to the point where Iraq becomes a staging area) Isreal would likely contribute air power, and even nuclear power to absolve the US and England of any responsibility. Turkey is a Wold Card. the Military backs the constitution and secularism to the poitn of throwing out a PM recently, but the current PM is not that secular right now, and may not want to get invovled. If turkey does though that will be four countries that Iran has to face.

    I do not care what God you worship those are bad odds, and I hope that the leadership of Iran wises up to that.

    I don't think Turkey would stay completely out of it. No matter how much we might be pissing them off, I am sure they would rather they be the ones who receive concessions in return for support than the Iranian Kurds.

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Personally I think this makes the UK (including Europe for lack of support) look weak to the world and Blair should increase their rhetoric towards Iran. I'd like to see what would happen if US forces were taken...

    When a foreign government holds your citizens, no-one wants to be associated with the US.

    From what I've heard, the sea border between Iraq and Iran has never been satisfactorily negotiated. Saying that they were in one territory or another seems to come down to where you draw the border. The "evidence" they've given so far seems no better than the "evidence" they gave us for invading Iraq in the first place and that turned out to be a pile of shite.

    Gorak on
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Personally I think this makes the UK (including Europe for lack of support) look weak to the world and Blair should increase their rhetoric towards Iran. I'd like to see what would happen if US forces were taken...

    When a foreign government holds your citizens, no-one wants to be associated with the US.

    From what I've heard, the sea border between Iraq and Iran has never been satisfactorily negotiated. Saying that they were in one territory or another seems to come down to where you draw the border. The "evidence" they've given so far seems no better than the "evidence" they gave us for invading Iaq in the first place and that turned out to be a pile of shite.

    When pressed, Iran gave coordinates that put the boat in Iraqi waters. When Britain pointed this out, the Iranians gave another set, which had the boat in Iranian waters. So, yeah..

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Æthelred wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    Personally I think this makes the UK (including Europe for lack of support) look weak to the world and Blair should increase their rhetoric towards Iran. I'd like to see what would happen if US forces were taken...

    When a foreign government holds your citizens, no-one wants to be associated with the US.

    From what I've heard, the sea border between Iraq and Iran has never been satisfactorily negotiated. Saying that they were in one territory or another seems to come down to where you draw the border. The "evidence" they've given so far seems no better than the "evidence" they gave us for invading Iaq in the first place and that turned out to be a pile of shite.

    When pressed, Iran gave coordinates that put the boat in Iraqi waters. When Britain pointed this out, the Iranians gave another set, which had the boat in Iranian waters. So, yeah..

    When we invaded Iraq it was to find WMD. When it was found that they weren't there, we changed this to "promoting democracy."

    The British government is no more reliable or trustworthy than the government of Iran.

    Gorak on
  • EdcrabEdcrab Actually a hack Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    When we invaded Iraq it was to find WMD. When it was found that they weren't there, we changed this to "promoting democracy."

    The British government is no more reliable or trustworthy than the government of Iran.


    Actually, we invaded on that pretense, but we're apparently staying for the other reason. I'm yet to see any politicians try and retcon their own actions to quite that degree as yet...

    Edcrab on
    cBY55.gifbmJsl.png
  • JamesJames Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    When we invaded Iraq it was to find WMD. When it was found that they weren't there, we changed this to "promoting democracy."

    Actually, the whole "promoting democracy" and helping people was all in their report about why they should invade. WMDs just got the most attention from the public (probably because that reason would be viewed in the best light).

    Whether or not they threw "democracy" on there to cover their asses, on the other hand...

    James on
  • RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Æthelred wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    Personally I think this makes the UK (including Europe for lack of support) look weak to the world and Blair should increase their rhetoric towards Iran. I'd like to see what would happen if US forces were taken...

    When a foreign government holds your citizens, no-one wants to be associated with the US.

    From what I've heard, the sea border between Iraq and Iran has never been satisfactorily negotiated. Saying that they were in one territory or another seems to come down to where you draw the border. The "evidence" they've given so far seems no better than the "evidence" they gave us for invading Iaq in the first place and that turned out to be a pile of shite.

    When pressed, Iran gave coordinates that put the boat in Iraqi waters. When Britain pointed this out, the Iranians gave another set, which had the boat in Iranian waters. So, yeah..

    When we invaded Iraq it was to find WMD. When it was found that they weren't there, we changed this to "promoting democracy."

    The British government is no more reliable or trustworthy than the government of Iran.

    Not sure where you are going here but it has been confirmed by the UN and others that the British were in Iraqi waters. In fact, the first set of coordinates that Iran itself gave placed the boat in Iraqi waters. Is your point that everyone is lying about where the British ship was?

    EDIT:

    To clarify, you are correct in saying that there is no formal boundry but there is a generally accepted line that both sides have used since basically 1975. Up until now, U.S. coalition forces have observed this line as well as the Iranians. In fact, Iran changing the coordinates to have the incident happen on the otherside of this boundry indicates that they themselves know that this is the generally accepted border. Exerpt from the LA times:
    LA Times wrote:
    Authorities on maritime law say the 1975 treaty establishing the land border down the middle of the Shatt al Arab is considered the law but applies only to the river. Out in the gulf, imaginary lines have been drawn in the same general southeasterly direction as the river's course to suggest a territorial boundary. Although the line has been commonly accepted for shipping purposes, it does not have the legal force of a treaty, most analysts say.

    "The lateral maritime boundary between these two countries has not been fixed by a treaty. The only thing that we have over these years is a lot of state practice," said Kaiyan Kaikobad, an associate professor of international law at Britain's Durham University.

    "If you can show that over a reasonably long period of time, that this was the line that both countries actually agreed on, there's lots of rules in international law that allow that line to become not only a de facto line, but a de jure line."

    Roanth on
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    It's always seemed to me that the UK pushed the WMD angle much more than the US did. That was the primary reason here - I don't think promoting democracy could be sold to the British people in the same way it could be to the American.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Roanth wrote: »
    The British government is no more reliable or trustworthy than the government of Iran.

    Not sure where you are going here but it has been confirmed by the UN and others that the British were in Iraqi waters. In fact, the first set of coordinates that Iran itself gave placed the boat in Iraqi waters. Is your point that everyone is lying about where the British ship was?

    Iraqi waters as agreed by whom? Unlesss there's an agreement between Iraq and Iran as to where these borders are, then the entire argument is meaningless. From what I've read, there has been no such aggreement.

    Gorak on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Edcrab wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    When we invaded Iraq it was to find WMD. When it was found that they weren't there, we changed this to "promoting democracy."

    The British government is no more reliable or trustworthy than the government of Iran.


    Actually, we invaded on that pretense, but we're apparently staying for the other reason. I'm yet to see any politicians try and retcon their own actions to quite that degree as yet...

    Then you havn't been watching.

    Gorak on
  • RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Roanth wrote: »
    The British government is no more reliable or trustworthy than the government of Iran.

    Not sure where you are going here but it has been confirmed by the UN and others that the British were in Iraqi waters. In fact, the first set of coordinates that Iran itself gave placed the boat in Iraqi waters. Is your point that everyone is lying about where the British ship was?

    Iraqi waters as agreed by whom? Unlesss there's an agreement between Iraq and Iran as to where these borders are, then the entire argument is meaningless. From what I've read, there has been no such aggreement.[/QUOTE]

    Read my edit. There is no formal treaty but there has been a generally accepted border for the last 30 years that has been observed. If there wasn't, Iran would have not retracted the original coordinates which placed the British boat on the Iraqi side of the line, and substituted them with coordinates that placed the ship on the Iranian side of the line (which indicates they are well aware of the practical boundries that have been observed for years).

    Roanth on
  • EdcrabEdcrab Actually a hack Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Edcrab wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    When we invaded Iraq it was to find WMD. When it was found that they weren't there, we changed this to "promoting democracy."

    The British government is no more reliable or trustworthy than the government of Iran.


    Actually, we invaded on that pretense, but we're apparently staying for the other reason. I'm yet to see any politicians try and retcon their own actions to quite that degree as yet...

    Then you havn't been watching.

    No, I have been watching, and all I see is the same recycled story. I haven't encountered any quotes to the effect that we ever invaded to impose democracy: as stated, that "reason" was barely touched upon when the causes for war were presented to parliament, presumably because they didn't think the public would buy it.

    I haven't seen any quotes to imply that Blair is now saying that the primary reason we went in was to promote democracy- just that that what's we should be doing to make the best of the current situation.

    Edcrab on
    cBY55.gifbmJsl.png
  • SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    It seems pretty clear that Iran is full of shit when they retracted the initial set of coordinates that was initially in Iraqi waters and gave out a new set. The initial set made a lot more sense too given the relative positions of the cargo ship and the larger home ship. It may have been murkier if there were so many signs pointing to Iran lying, but those signs exist and it is sort of silly to believe that they are on equal footing in the situation. Their proposition of espinoge doesn't make much sense, since I doubt that sort of naval setup would dip slightly into Iranian waters knowing the potential for international incident it would cause. The Iranians know from experience that it would be much better to use something that can't be directly traced to the government or is out of reach.

    They are playing a very dangerous game of chicken here. I fairly confident that there is a large portion of their power that doesn't want to get into a war, but like in the US the hawks are currently at the reigns. They are well aware that this sort of action could be grounds for war if it isn't resolved, they just want to see how far they can push the Britons to see if they can get them to crack and back down. Perhaps a deal could be made, but giving into extortion like this is exceptionally dangerous as well, as it opens them up to being pushed around more in the future. I don't see an easy way out of this one if Iran is going to stick to its bluff.

    Savant on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Roanth wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    Roanth wrote: »
    The British government is no more reliable or trustworthy than the government of Iran.

    Not sure where you are going here but it has been confirmed by the UN and others that the British were in Iraqi waters. In fact, the first set of coordinates that Iran itself gave placed the boat in Iraqi waters. Is your point that everyone is lying about where the British ship was?

    Iraqi waters as agreed by whom? Unlesss there's an agreement between Iraq and Iran as to where these borders are, then the entire argument is meaningless. From what I've read, there has been no such aggreement.

    Read my edit. There is no formal treaty but there has been a generally accepted border for the last 30 years that has been observed. If there wasn't, Iran would have not retracted the original coordinates which placed the British boat on the Iraqi side of the line, and substituted them with coordinates that placed the ship on the Iranian side of the line (which indicates they are well aware of the practical boundries that have been observed for years).

    So, under one government there was a generally accepted border. Is it possible that Iran only observed that border because of the threat of force? Is it possible that Iran made an innocent mistake in their first coordinates?

    Given Blairs record, why would I believe him? His government has made proclamations that turned out to be untrue regarding Iraq so why should I believe him here? He's a lying sack of shit and he consistently treats us like idiots.

    Fuck Bliar. Fuck ID cards.

    Gorak on
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2007
    Is it possible that Iran made an innocent mistake in their first coordinates?

    I suppose so, but it's highly unlikely. Imagine the series of mistakes that they would have had to go through to detain someone from coordinates they knew for a fact to be within their waters, then only after the UK points out that the coordinates supplied were not Iranian waters, they move the supposed position of the ship.

    And the anti-Blair shit is blatantly poisoning the well.

    Doc on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited March 2007
    I'm sure this could be used as one of the justifications for starting a war, but I doubt that it means much to those in the White House and Downing Street.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • KauserKauser Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Answering the Negotiate for hostage question. The general dogma is that negotiating for hostages validates the taking of hostages as acceptable, after all they will be negotiated for, as a means to get what one wants. Thus it would encourage the taking of hostages.


    As for a war with Iran, the first three days would involve the systematic dismantling of it's air and communication capabilities, which will be one sided as is now tradition with the US. I don't think Just England and the US will be hitting Iran though. I believe the UN will step in, and should military action take place, it'll look more like the first persian gulf war. (I know, slight difference)

    Kauser on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    Is it possible that Iran made an innocent mistake in their first coordinates?

    I suppose so, but it's highly unlikely. Imagine the series of mistakes that they would have had to go through to detain someone from coordinates they knew for a fact to be within their waters, then only after the UK points out that the coordinates supplied were not Iranian waters, they move the supposed position of the ship.

    Imagine the series of mistakes they would have to go through to suggest that Iraq had bought "yellow cake uranium". Given that the British government lied to get us to support invading Iraq, why should I believe him now?

    And the anti-Blair shit is blatantly poisoning the well.

    In fairness, I hate him for his bullshit over a whole bunch of domestic issues regardless of the lying about Iraq.

    Gorak on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Kauser wrote: »
    I believe the UN will step in, and should military action take place, it'll look more like the first persian gulf war. (I know, slight difference)

    The UN has got more sense than to get dragged into this.

    Gorak on
  • ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    So, under one government there was a generally accepted border. Is it possible that Iran only observed that border because of the threat of force? Is it possible that Iran made an innocent mistake in their first coordinates?

    Given Blairs record, why would I believe him? His government has made proclamations that turned out to be untrue regarding Iraq so why should I believe him here? He's a lying sack of shit and he consistently treats us like idiots.

    Fuck Bliar. Fuck ID cards.

    Is Iran only observing borders because of the threat of force? Well, duh, why else would they observe borders? The goodness of their own hearts (I mean they're clearly nowhere near as bad as our own government, but they're not saints.)

    C'mon mate, our government has it's problems, but I'm far more inclined to believe them than the Iranians and their "honest mistake". Of course I've probably just been brainwashed by "Bliar" and his ID card toting government.

    The 2nd letter "written" by the female sailor was a pretty transparent fabrication or dictation by the Iranians too. At this point they're just embarrasing themselves. It would be funny if the situation wasn't so bloody serious.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Imagine the series of mistakes they would have to go through to suggest that Iraq had bought "yellow cake uranium". Given that the British government lied to get us to support invading Iraq, why should I believe him now?

    I just think it's funny that you'd rather trust Iran when the info that they published makes it clear that they are full of shit.

    Doc on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Coldred wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    So, under one government there was a generally accepted border. Is it possible that Iran only observed that border because of the threat of force? Is it possible that Iran made an innocent mistake in their first coordinates?

    Given Blairs record, why would I believe him? His government has made proclamations that turned out to be untrue regarding Iraq so why should I believe him here? He's a lying sack of shit and he consistently treats us like idiots.

    Fuck Bliar. Fuck ID cards.

    Is Iran only observing borders because of the threat of force? Well, duh, why else would they observe borders? The goodness of their own hearts (I mean they're clearly nowhere near as bad as our own government, but they're not saints.)

    C'mon mate, our government has it's problems, but I'm far more inclined to believe them than the Iranians and their "honest mistake". Of course I've probably just been brainwashed by "Bliar" and his ID card toting government.

    The 2nd letter "written" by the female sailor was a pretty transparent fabrication or dictation by the Iranians too. At this point they're just embarrasing themselves. It would be funny if the situation wasn't so bloody serious.

    I am in no way trying to say that the Iranians are the good guys in this, just that we have no reason to believe that our government is any better.

    In terms of lying bastadness, Iran ranks below the Lib Dems but above Fred West.

    Gorak on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    Imagine the series of mistakes they would have to go through to suggest that Iraq had bought "yellow cake uranium". Given that the British government lied to get us to support invading Iraq, why should I believe him now?

    I just think it's funny that you'd rather trust Iran when the info that they published makes it clear that they are full of shit.

    As opposed to the information published by my government which shows they are full of shit on a whole range of issues.

    Gorak on
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Coldred wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    So, under one government there was a generally accepted border. Is it possible that Iran only observed that border because of the threat of force? Is it possible that Iran made an innocent mistake in their first coordinates?

    Given Blairs record, why would I believe him? His government has made proclamations that turned out to be untrue regarding Iraq so why should I believe him here? He's a lying sack of shit and he consistently treats us like idiots.

    Fuck Bliar. Fuck ID cards.

    Is Iran only observing borders because of the threat of force? Well, duh, why else would they observe borders? The goodness of their own hearts (I mean they're clearly nowhere near as bad as our own government, but they're not saints.)

    C'mon mate, our government has it's problems, but I'm far more inclined to believe them than the Iranians and their "honest mistake". Of course I've probably just been brainwashed by "Bliar" and his ID card toting government.

    The 2nd letter "written" by the female sailor was a pretty transparent fabrication or dictation by the Iranians too. At this point they're just embarrasing themselves. It would be funny if the situation wasn't so bloody serious.

    I am in no way trying to say that the Iranians are the good guys in this, just that we have no reason to believe that our government is any better.

    In terms of lying bastadness, Iran ranks below the Lib Dems but above Fred West.

    I honestly can't remember if I thought you were insane before, then forgot it, or if this is the first time it's occurred to me.

    Doc on
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    So what happens when we get all bomb happy in Iran and the price of oil shoots through the roof and all those Shia in Iraq begin to lose their fool minds?

    siliconenhanced on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited March 2007
    When y'all say war, do you mean war war, or cruise-missiles war?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • JamesJames Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    So what happens when we get all bomb happy in Iran and the price of oil shoots through the roof and all those Shia in Iraq begin to lose their fool minds?

    Well, this takes care of the oil problem, I guess.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7238800781365222249

    James on
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2007
    Jameserson wrote: »
    So what happens when we get all bomb happy in Iran and the price of oil shoots through the roof and all those Shia in Iraq begin to lose their fool minds?

    Well, this takes care of the oil problem, I guess.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7238800781365222249

    Ever been to a car show? There's all sorts of nuts like this there.

    Doc on
Sign In or Register to comment.