Iran Captures 15 British Sailors

[Quiet One 15]

I'm not completely off the 'program' but your posts are good ones and quite convincing. I'll consider them and perhaps modify my view on certain points. Well done.

EDIT: BTW, your quoted proverb is taken way out of context...but I suspect you already know that

Mike, you are right when you said that I was transferring the current Administration's views to the rest of you. I apologize.

Yet, that's exactly what most people is doing in this thread. Iran Govt. is not the same as Iran people, which is not the same as Arab people (Iranians are persians, not arabs, they are not even semitic but arian), and Muslims fundamentalists with the billions of Muslims that are not fundamentalists. It's as if the Iranians confused the American Govt. with Ykick. In fact, they probably do so as the world gets polarized amongst two bands. You can be with the Americans or with the Iranians/Iraqis. Of course it's a stupid view. Most arab countries deeply despise Iran, being a chiite (don't know how you spell it) country in an ocean of sunnis countries. Yet, the insistence in confusing Bin Laden with anything related to Islam makes all Muslims feel threatened by US, which makes them more anti-american, which only confirms US supspicions that all muslims are anti-american, which...

One cause of the growing fundamentalism amongst Muslim countries is the "ghetto feeling". Same happened with the Jews in Israel, which turned more and more into fundamentalists views thanks to continuous anti-semitic blabber from their neighbours governments. Same happened with the first Christians.

Sometimes violence only breeds more violence. And if it has to be applied, it should always be applied with intelligence. The "let's nuke them back into stone age" approach may deter some country's invasion, but hardly will stop terrorists the same way that shooting a person won't stop a virus plague.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Mike, you are right when you said that I was transferring the current Administration's views to the rest of you. I apologize.

Yet, that's exactly what most people is doing in this thread. Iran Govt. is not the same as Iran people, which is not the same as Arab people (Iranians are persians, not arabs, they are not even semitic but arian), and Muslims fundamentalists with the billions of Muslims that are not fundamentalists. It's as if the Iranians confused the American Govt. with Ykick. In fact, they probably do so as the world gets polarized amongst two bands. You can be with the Americans or with the Iranians/Iraqis. Of course it's a stupid view. Most arab countries deeply despise Iran, being a chiite (don't know how you spell it) country in an ocean of sunnis countries. Yet, the insistence in confusing Bin Laden with anything related to Islam makes all Muslims feel threatened by US, which makes them more anti-american, which only confirms US supspicions that all muslims are anti-american, which...

One cause of the growing fundamentalism amongst Muslim countries is the "ghetto feeling". Same happened with the Jews in Israel, which turned more and more into fundamentalists views thanks to continuous anti-semitic blabber from their neighbours governments. Same happened with the first Christians.

Sometimes violence only breeds more violence. And if it has to be applied, it should always be applied with intelligence. The "let's nuke them back into stone age" approach may deter some country's invasion, but hardly will stop terrorists the same way that shooting a person won't stop a virus plague.

The Iraqi situation is pretty basic military tactics. When you are fighting a group that isn't a standing army and won't face your army on the battlefield, you create a 'hard point' in an area that the enemy considers valuable and by so doing, you force them into fighting your army. This is what is being employed, rightly or wrongly, in Iraq. Iraq already had many sanctions against it, and stood in violation of a few existing sanctions, so the invasion (and hard point creation) could be done legally (or not, as some may believe). Iraq was never a part of Al Queda per se, but it is part of the Arab world and the U.S being there would be viewed as an affront to be dealt with. This is what's going on now and this is what Bush means when he says 'we must fight them over there to keep them from fighting over here'. This is a ridiculous conclusion, but the military strategy is sound.

Let us be clear, the Muslim ideal is to spread their religion, by whatever means available, across the whole earth. There are many instances from Africa to France that show the Muslim peoples fighting for a more than equal say in the running of the governments. Some countries are being taken by force, others are being taken in the name of 'fairness to religions'. I personally don't want to live under a Muslim religion and will fight against that, in whatever form it may take. Ask yourself, would you like to live under the same social rules that Iran has currently? That is the measuring stick that you must have with you at all times. There are sides you must choose in life, but choosing a side doesn't mean you have to instantly use violence to gain your goal.

The U.S. will always draw terrorist fire for it's stance towards Israel and that will not change. Ever. This country, as General Corwallis said in his memiors, was founded on the backs of Jewish bankers (his words, not mine) and we will always support the Jewish people, like it or not (I happen to like it). If we as a nation are hated for this by the Muslim nations, so be it, but we will defend ourselves when attacked. I just wish we as a nation could say that without the blood of many innocents on our hands as well (as Murray and Cav so aptly point out).

On the racial make-up of the Middle East, it's now impossible to say that anyone is 'pure'. Too many generations have passed. My wife is Lebanese, but she carries distict Asian characteristics. In Israel, there are Caucasian Hebrews and also some Arab-looking Hebrews. Iran was indeed Persia of old, but the people are a genetic mix now. What we call 'Jews' are for the most part still what they were, as they have had very strict inter-marrying rules in place for thousands of years.

Now for a completely different tangent: Andres, do you drink or abstain from alcohol?

[Moose11 0]

Iran are being idiots now. Parading them Brits like they did was wrong, I dont see the need to do it. You can clearly tell that the girls letter was read by Iranians before being sent - she was most likely told what to write about how they where all fine etc. etc. I dont think they are being tortured but I doubt it's a bed of roses either and the fact they forced her to say that they where in Iranian waters and that she apologies is a joke. It's pretty bloody obvious they weren't in Iranian waters.

15 Brits are being held for doing nothing wrong in a dangerous country full of evil leaders. It's time to get them out. Iran arn't budging with verbal talk and Britain needs to show it cant be pushed around. They have been very fair up to now and done things the right now but nobody in their right mind would not understand should they want to get physical.

Unfortunately getting agressive isn't going to encourage them to release these British naval people but some prelonged bombing might force them to give them up. I dont wanna see innocent people get killed but hit their naval ports etc. with air strikess.

Drop a couple of MOAB's in there and they'll do whatever you want to stop!!!!

[Quiet One 15]

Now for a completely different tangent: Andres, do you drink or abstain from alcohol?

you surprised me! I drink, but only every now and then, mostly scotch (sometimes, when I am alone) or a vodka or gin if at a party. No wine, cider, beer or champagne for me.

As for the rest, even if I do not share many of your views, I found them highly reasonable and yes you are right about the racial issue! As much as I hate the politics on forums (mostly because posts tend to be too short to explain things and no matter what you write someone misunderstands or misquotes you! )

As for living under Iranian rules, of course that I don't want to! But, during the 70's Southamerica was filled with violent right-wing military dictatorhips. They were all supported by USA in the grounds that they were effectively fighting communism and sustaining "The Christian and Occidental way of life". In Argentina that meant 30,000 people were kidnapped, tortured and killed in any horrible way imaginable (the famous "desaparecidos"). The rest lived in fear. Too much of a price for the Christian and Occidental way of life.

I agree with you that funamentalists are a threat, yet there HAS to be a better way to deal with them. We don't disagree too much in our views, Mike, we just disagree in the means to achieve them.

[Autumnpuma 0]

you surprised me! I drink, but only every now and then, mostly scotch (sometimes, when I am alone) or a vodka or gin if at a party. No wine, cider, beer or champagne for me.

As for the rest, even if I do not share many of your views, I found them highly reasonable and yes you are right about the racial issue! As much as I hate the politics on forums (mostly because posts tend to be too short to explain things and no matter what you write someone misunderstands or misquotes you! )

As for living under Iranian rules, of course that I don't want to! But, during the 70's Southamerica was filled with violent right-wing military dictatorhips. They were all supported by USA in the grounds that they were effectively fighting communism and sustaining "The Christian and Occidental way of life". In Argentina that meant 30,000 people were kidnapped, tortured and killed in any horrible way imaginable (the famous "desaparecidos"). The rest lived in fear. Too much of a price for the Christian and Occidental way of life.

I agree with you that funamentalists are a threat, yet there HAS to be a better way to deal with them. We don't disagree too much in our views, Mike, we just disagree in the means to achieve them.

That's horrible and I'm ashamed my country used my religion as a partial excuse for this. I'm not a fan of Communism* so I support the fight against that, but your example proves, perhaps, that the U.S. didn't really have Christian ways of life in the forefront of it's thoughts.... I'd wager there was substantial drug monies (and the CIA) involved as well.

I think we agree on the important parts. We both want violence to end. We both want a free society were we can believe what we want if it doesn't hurt another person. We both want fresh air and clean water and a generally beautiful earth to live on and we both want a system in place that will ensure our health and the health of our children. We both want a world where the sound of those children laughing is commonplace. We want to, as one great American once said, be judged not by the colour of our skin, but by the content of our character. Above all we want to be free of the will and manipulations of others.

*In theory, communism is a good, noble system, but in practice it turns into a dictatorship, and later an aristocracy. Communism, as it's been implemented (and visualized by Marx) is a system devoid of religion. I suppose it's that last bit that I object to the most. I may capitulate on every other topic in my life, but I'll fight to the death for my right to practice my religion, with the sure knowledge that in so practicing, I'm not hurting anyone.

Oh, the question about drinking is because I can tell alot about a man (or woman) from what he (or she) drinks, whether it be alcohol or tea....

[Max Mosley 2]

As for living under Iranian rules, of course that I don't want to! But, during the 70's Southamerica was filled with violent right-wing military dictatorhips. They were all supported by USA in the grounds that they were effectively fighting communism and sustaining "The Christian and Occidental way of life". In Argentina that meant 30,000 people were kidnapped, tortured and killed in any horrible way imaginable (the famous "desaparecidos"). The rest lived in fear. Too much of a price for the Christian and Occidental way of life.

Hmm, I didn't know any of that. I should look into it sometime. Very sorry to hear that such things happened.

That's horrible and I'm ashamed my country used my religion as a partial excuse for this. I'm not a fan of Communism* so I support the fight against that, but your example proves, perhaps, that the U.S. didn't really have Christian ways of life in the forefront of it's thoughts.... I'd wager there was substantial drug monies (and the CIA) involved as well.

Yeah I think definitely you can't blame xianity for that, any more than for slavery, the Crusades etc. Individuals clearly just used it as an excuse for their own agendas.

Also, though we do tend to attack the US more than most countries here, any country has similar shameful episodes. Britain's imperial past speaks for itself. Even now, I was just reading today about the problems in Zimbabwe, and learnt that we have reneged on our promises for land reform there, exacerbating the crisis now killing so many people. On Iraq, I'm one of the 5% or so of the non-American population of the world who thinks it was the right policy. We just didn't implement it very well at all. But what have the French done to solve the world's problems? Jack 5hit, sorry, Jacques Chirac, has done little but keep his head down and hope the fanatics bomb Americans rather than French folk, and what little he has done has simply been bitching with Russia and China about the US. And what did the Germans do? Nothing but follow the French for electoral reasons, and Bush was spot on with his infamous letter to Schroeder about "poisoning" US-German relations. At least Americans aren't afraid to step up to the plate in a crisis. That's at least a first step to solving the problems in the world. I think that Americans are quick to act, but slow to reflect on their actions, whereas we Europeans would much rather think than act. There must be a happy medium...

I think we agree on the important parts. We both want violence to end. We both want a free society were we can believe what we want if it doesn't hurt another person. We both want fresh air and clean water and a generally beautiful earth to live on and we both want a system in place that will ensure our health and the health of our children. We both want a world where the sound of those children laughing is commonplace. We want to, as one great American once said, be judged not by the colour of our skin, but by the content of our character. Above all we want to be free of the will and manipulations of others.

Amen to that! And I must admit that I actually didn't bother to research my Proverbs quote. I'm never one to let the facts get in the way of some good provocation, as you know!

[Autumnpuma 0]

And I must admit that I actually didn't bother to research my Proverbs quote. I'm never one to let the facts get in the way of some good provocation, as you know!

When it comes to religion, I don't provoke easily! I actually found it rather amusing....I get why you put it there and it indeed sounds as insane as you thought it did when taken out of context!

[Max Mosley 2]

Yeah, so maybe I'll have to find a better quote. You don't provoke easily on religion, it's true. You must surely like the Life of Brian? I recently bought that comedy classic.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Yeah, so maybe I'll have to find a better quote. You don't provoke easily on religion, it's true. You must surely like the Life of Brian? I recently bought that comedy classic.

Oh hell yes! Also Dogma is very funny. If you want to read a hilarious book on religion, try 'Good Omens' by Gaiman and Pratchett (it answers the nagging question of 'What do you do when you've lost the Anti-Christ?').

[pumpdoc 2]

All other bs aside it comes down to this, the Brits have proved they were in Iraqi waters, the Irainians commited an act of war/aggresion by capturing Brits without cause and as is typical put on a dog and pony show with the captured Brits "confessing" that they did wrong. Why has this happened, I have my opinons but you won't like them.

Britain, it's time you show some backbone or this will happen over and over again..............

[ykickamoocow 0]

Britain, it's time you show some backbone or this will happen over and over again..............

Britian has shown alot of backbone over the past century. When they go to war they really go to war but i dont think war is the best option in this case.

[pumpdoc 2]

Where in my post did I mention war, or to be specific Britain going to war?

[ykickamoocow 0]

Where in my post did I mention war, or to be specific Britain going to war?

I assumed thats what you meant when you mentioned the word backbone.

[pumpdoc 2]

That's your problem, you assume to much.......................

[ykickamoocow 0]

That's your problem, you assume to much.......................

Then what did you mean? If you wernt so cryptic i wouldnt need to assume as the word backbone can mean so many different things.

[Moose11 0]

They will need to go to war if they dont hurry up and release them. Doesnt matter how many of them are there, these are good men (and one woman) and they have been kidnapped illegally. Iran are even parading them infront of television and forcing them to admit they where in the wrong. This is unacceptable and Britain have done everything right so far. It's time to force Iran's hand.

[Shane2 0]

War isn't likely, they'll just send the SAS in

[monza gorilla 1]

All other bs aside it comes down to this, the Brits have proved they were in Iraqi waters, the Irainians commited an act of war/aggresion by capturing Brits without cause and as is typical put on a dog and pony show with the captured Brits "confessing" that they did wrong. Why has this happened, I have my opinons but you won't like them.

Britain, it's time you show some backbone or this will happen over and over again..............

Well, we've just got to remember not to emulate Operation Eagle Claw.............

[shampion 0]

Well, we've just got to remember not to emulate Operation Eagle Claw.............

I Agree!!

[Autumnpuma 0]

This will likely end as a prisoner exchange.

[Shane2 0]

And probably even more UN sanctions

Nobody likes Iran, and this is gonna basically solidify international dismay against them.

[jaq 0]

I might of but i dont recall. If i did it was probably in response to someone elses sweeping generalisation.

PS: I corrected your spelling

Random House Webster's Dictionary ISBN O-345-38337-0 Now I quote "generalization"

[jaq 0]

This will likely end as a prisoner exchange.

How can there be an exchange? Britain isn't holding any Iranian prisoners. Britian has to have something to trade. It is the U.S. that has the 5 Iranians in custody. Do you believe the U.S. would trade their prisoners for the British prisoners? Doubtful under the American premise of not negotiating with terrorists.

[Moose11 0]

This will likely end as a prisoner exchange.

Theres a major problem with doing that thought. The Iranian agents captured where in Iraq - fair enough. The British boys where were they where supposed to be - not fair enough for Iran to do what they did. Should Iran get a prisoner exchange it'll encourage them to do this again and again. The line needs to be drawn.

[Moose11 0]

War isn't likely, they'll just send the SAS in

The SAS are good but they ain't quite Arnie in Commando. You cant send a crack commando unit into a place (that they dont even know where it is in Iran) and expect them to fight through what is probably an extremely highly fortified security stockade - Unless your the A-Team.