Iranian navy captures British sailors

[JP135]

This morning on the WBAP news, there was a report that the Iranian navy has siezed 13 British sailors in Iraqi waters. The story said the British sailors were doing an inspection on a ship when Iran showed up and took the sailors into custody. I haven't heard any more about it and a quick check of Fox and CNN doesn't show anything. Y'all heard anything?

Reckon Iran is going to get (further) involved in Iraq?

[Denny]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17752685/

15 British troops... this will definately be elevating things.

[D]

Uh oh. If it's in Iraqi waters, Iran is in the wrong because, correct me if I'm wrong, we control those waters.

[Denny]

Uh oh. If it's in Iraqi waters, Iran is in the wrong because, correct me if I'm wrong, we control those waters.
You are correct. Our (coalition forces) "occupation" extends to Iraqi waters. This is not only a direct violation, but an aggressive show of force on the part of the Iranians. We've now been engaged, what will we do about it?

[Fox466]

Nothing likely. Lots of talk, posturing, then a half assed apology (us to them) with their release after we give them millions of dollars in funding and supplies. Oh, along with a critical component or two for their reactor.

[Denny]

Nothing likely. Lots of talk, posturing, then a half assed apology (us to them) with their release after we give them millions of dollars in funding and supplies. Oh, along with a critical component or two for their reactor.
Please forward this to the "What is leading to the downfall of our society?" thread in the Back Porch. :(

[Denny]

The article was updated 7 minutes after I posted the link. Here is what was added:

"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and ... the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office," the ministry said.

"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

[D]

I doubt, as well, that anything worth while will be done to get the Brits back to safety. This is a direct show of aggression towards coalition forces and I hope something gets done about it. :mad:

[Fox466]

Please forward this to the "What is leading to the downfall of our society?" thread in the Back Porch. :(

Yessir. Moral pacifism ftl.

I doubt, as well, that anything worth while will be done to get the Brits back to safety. This is a direct show of aggression towards coalition forces and I hope something gets done about it. :mad:

I believe now and have since day one that we need to get the media out and let our men and woman do what they have been trained to do. With no restraints. No repercussions. And with nothing but dead scumbags in their wake...

[D]

I believe now and have since day one that we need to get the media out and let our men and woman do what they have been trained to do. With no restraints. No repercussions. And with nothing but dead scumbags in their wake...
I agree 100%. Our Rules of Engagement are out dated and not useful in today's war, but if we operated the way we needed to, to effectively do our job, the media would have a hay-day.

[Fox466]

With the technological edge that our troops hold, and with no restraints, this would have been over long ago. And other countries would stop this endless political bullshit.


<---Favors the one world badass stance. Fuck with the USA, we crush you.

[BP]

My question is what was so valuable on that ship that they were willing to start a war to protect it. Could it have been a Uranium shipment from Russia?

[JP135]

With the technological edge that our troops hold, and with no restraints, this would have been over long ago. And other countries would stop this endless political bullshit.


<---Favors the one world badass stance. Fuck with the USA, we crush you.

I remember people saying the same thing in the 60's about Vietnam. It was right then and you're right now.

[46Tbird]

Time to use our ICBMs, or maybe our laser satellites. Fuck this horseshit.. get your fucking PAWS off those troops.

[AL P]

We should release a downpour of tomahawk cruise missiles.

[Walsted]

Yes, Rules of Engagement make a big difference. From what I hear, under Carter, you could not return fire without presidential authorization, for fear of starting some kind of incident. When Reagan took office, that was reversed. In a speech to some military pilots, he told them that they were authorized to pursue and splash (shoot down) anyone who fired at them, with no further approval needed. When asked how far they could pursue, Reagan responded "All the way back to their hanger." Notice how the country received more respect when military action was threatened under Reagan than under Carter.

If I remember right, George H.W. put in a few more restrictions, and when Clinton got into office the only weapon that could go off without a zillion safeguards was in his underwear. George W. lifted a lot of restrictions, but there were still quite a few when I left the Navy.

I think another big part of the problem is that the press portrays the military as Americas' sons and daughters instead of America's men and women. In my opinion, by the time someone gets out of bootcamp, if they aren't thinking like an adult, bootcamp didn't work. Adult laws apply to enlistment unless the enlistee is between 17 and 18, in which case parental permission is required, and then the 17 y/o is pretty much treated as an 18y/o. I don't know of anyone getting a commision under 18, so, despite frequent observations of behavior to the contrary, I will assume all officers are also legal adults. Thus, calling the men and women of the Armed Forces "sons and daughters" instead of men and women demeans our servicemembers, and makes other nations more likely to use our own media against us, by insinuatin g that the casualties are less than adults.

Others may disagree.

[FSON]

You are correct. Our (coalition forces) "occupation" extends to Iraqi waters. This is not only a direct violation, but an aggressive show of force on the part of the Iranians. We've now been engaged, what will we do about it?

Let's ask the Democrats, first.
Please, Miss San Francisco Congresswoman, what does your crystal ball tell you is the most popular choice. Or should we get a Hollywood movie star poll from "ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT". Or let's ask the Hillbillery. I love the way the presidential couple tells us what it wants to do by starting the first sentence with "The people want...." (excrement of bovine).
By all means, we must take the "high" road.

These Muslims are not only angry with the rest of the world, they are angry with there own opposition Muslim sects. What is real Islam? Is it that which is controlled by the power heirs of mohaMAD or not. In the end it will be a war between these two sects. What is that, Turkey against Iran and Saudi Arabia?

[BP]

It is possible that the Iranian commander thought he was in his own territory, It's not like they've got buoys set up showing the borders in the gulf. Apparently this happened right near the border off the coast of Iraq.

Then again it could be a modern day equivalent to the "attack" on the USS Maddox.

[ALLAN]

Well we have just over 40 operational F-22's.
The Raptors, a bunch of F-15s with AWACs will control Iranian airspace in a week.
Will be sad to see the last operational Tomcats shot out of the sky. :(

[D]

Well we have just over 40 operational F-22's.
The Raptors, a bunch of F-15s with AWACs will control Iranian airspace in a week.
Will be sad to see the last operational Tomcats shot out of the sky. :(

Allan, I sure hope you're right.

[mikeb]

My question is what was so valuable on that ship that they were willing to start a war to protect it. Could it have been a Uranium shipment from Russia?

It is retaliation.

High level persons in the iranian republican guard have been "disappearing" for a period of time and iran believes that the US is behind it. They have been considering kidnapping some coalition members in retaliation. Looks like they have begun.

IMO Iran is itching for war.

[BP]

It is retaliation.

High level persons in the iranian republican guard have been "disappearing" for a period of time and iran believes that the US is behind it. They have been considering kidnapping some coalition members in retaliation. Looks like they have begun.

IMO Iran is itching for war.

I'd look more towards Israel as the culprit to disappearing Iranian generals.

[D]

IMO Iran is itching for war.
If that's the case, I would hope we would do it smart...tactical nukes FTW.

[AL P]

Excellent article about the guy in Turkey who disappeared a few weeks back...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1601814,00.html

Also, from what I have read the waters that the incident took place in were in dispute. So IMO the Iranians knew exactly where they were.

[JP135]

So IMO the Iranians knew exactly where they were.

Yeah, it's not like they don't have GPS.

The missing Iranian military pukes has Isreali Mossad written all over it. If so, I feel almost sorry for those boys - they will have some long days and nights ahead of them before their sudden demise.

[AL P]

Yeah, it's not like they don't have GPS.

The missing Iranian military pukes has Isreali Mossad written all over it. If so, I feel almost sorry for those boys - they will have some long days and nights ahead of them before their sudden demise.

This guy is a songbird that anyone will keep around for a while. They'll beat as much out of him as they can, I'm sure.

[Casper]

With the technological edge that our troops hold, and with no restraints, this would have been over long ago. And other countries would stop this endless political bullshit.


<---Favors the one world badass stance. Fuck with the USA, we crush you.

Yes sir. That is my biggest beef with Bush is he got involved with Powell.

[GhostTX]

Frankly, I'm glad its another country that got taken hostage instead of us. Open those damn EU eyes maybe at how f'd up Iran is.

[Casper]

Don't you know this is still Bush's fault?

They will be released, the whole incident will become a file for someone's memoirs, and US will still have tensions dividing them. Pretty crafty, its worked before.

Spain pulled out because the Madrid bombings were "Bush's fault".

[Fox466]

Frankly, I'm glad its another country that got taken hostage instead of us. Open those damn EU eyes maybe at how f'd up Iran is.

Negatory on that Ghostrider. The EUs eyes will never be opened as that would result in their having to announce to the world that the majority of their stances have been incorrect and idiotic...

Buncha damned mm2000s. :rolleyes:

[636ryder]

Well we have just over 40 operational F-22's.
The Raptors, a bunch of F-15s with AWACs will control Iranian airspace in a week.
Will be sad to see the last operational Tomcats shot out of the sky. :(

Don't forget the plentiful B-1s in trashcanistan. Im sure those will come into use just as well in Iran as they have there if need be. Now the ? that comes up...would the other services actually put thier pride aside long enough to allow a total air response? Never been done before...and everyone knows that it can be done.

[D]

Don't forget the plentiful B-1s in trashcanistan. Im sure those will come into use just as well in Iran as they have there if need be. Now the ? that comes up...would the other services actually put thier pride aside long enough to allow a total air response? Never been done before...and everyone knows that it can be done.

We don't have any B-1s in Afghanistan.

[636ryder]

We don't have any B-1s in Afghanistan.

Maybe not from your unit, but we did, and was under the impressoin they're still there. They've given them some new spiffy upgrades for better targeting. I read some AF stuff and talked to several people that messed w/ em over there when I was at sheppard. Granted this was in 05, but hey. I can attempt to reference this comment if need be. :p

[636ryder]

Here ya go.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jul2006/a072806wm1.html

Even better! :p "All of the B-1 maintainers at the 40th Air Expeditionary Group are deployed from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas."

[D]

Maybe not from your unit, but we did, and was under the impressoin they're still there. They've given them some new spiffy upgrades for better targeting. I read some AF stuff and talked to several people that messed w/ em over there when I was at sheppard. Granted this was in 05, but hey. I can attempt to reference this comment if need be. :p

Hey...think what you want...but don't forget that I've got a few B-1 guys sitting right next to me telling me where they go...and no 'Stan countries have been named. ;)

[D]

Here ya go.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jul2006/a072806wm1.html

Even better! :p "All of the B-1 maintainers at the 40th Air Expeditionary Group are deployed from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas."

The 40th EAMXS is at Diego Garcia, slick.

[636ryder]

Hey now, im just saying they go there! So if they can go to fuckin afghanistan, they can sure as hell go to iran! Besides you should be like " yea...those bombers can fuck shit up" but instead your arguing with me on whether or not they get deployed to locations. sheesh. :D

EDIT: o also since I've linked a military written document saying that B-1s have bombed targets in afghanistan...care to maybe acknowledge this or go with what the "guys next to you" say? :p

[D]

Hey now, im just saying they go there! So if they can go to fuckin afghanistan, they can sure as hell go to iran! Besides you should be like " yea...those bombers can fuck shit up" but instead your arguing with me on whether or not they get deployed to locations. sheesh. :D

No...I'm not arguing with you, just filling you in. They can, indeed, fuck shit up...they can drop more ordinance than a B-52 (as long as their wings are empty). They aren't allowed to fly over Iran right now, none of our planes are (last I knew). They have to fly around Iran. I wouldn't jump the gun and say B-1s are going to do stuff in Iran. If anything it'll start out with F-117s and B-2s launching cruise missiles and JDAMs.

EDIT: o also since I've linked a military written document saying that B-1s have bombed targets in afghanistan...care to maybe acknowledge this or go with what the "guys next to you" say? :p

I never said they didn't bomb Afghanistan. I'm not dumb, I know they have a whole bunch. I was just letting you know that they aren't and have not been deployed to Afghanistan.

[usmcluke]

No...I'm not arguing with you, just filling you in. They can, indeed, fuck shit up...they can drop more ordinance than a B-52 (as long as their wings are empty). They aren't allowed to fly over Iran right now, none of our planes are (last I knew). They have to fly around Iran. I wouldn't jump the gun and say B-1s are going to do stuff in Iran. If anything it'll start out with F-117s and B-2s launching cruise missiles and JDAMs.



I never said they didn't bomb Afghanistan. I'm not dumb, I know they have a whole bunch. I was just letting you know that they aren't and have not been deployed to Afghanistan.
I think he is failing to realize that the B-1s have a pretty good range and just because they drop bombs in Afghanistan it doesn't mean they stay there.

Oh yeah. JDAM JSOW FTW!!!!! Fuck a bunch of back breaking Mk-80 series bullshit. :D

[636ryder]

I gotcha now. :D

[D]

I think he is failing to realize that the B-1s have a pretty good range and just because they drop bombs in Afghanistan it doesn't mean they stay there.

Oh yeah. JDAM JSOW FTW!!!!! Fuck a bunch of back breaking Mk-80 series bullshit. :D

They ought to have a good range with a very close to 200k fuel capacity. :eek:

Though, with afterburners, they can burn around 60k just on takeoff. :eek:

[Casper]

Long Live Sparta! Death To The Medes!

[exlude]

Well we have just over 40 operational F-22's.
The Raptors, a bunch of F-15s with AWACs will control Iranian airspace in a week.
Will be sad to see the last operational Tomcats shot out of the sky. :(

Lol, a whole week? All the Iranians have are a bunch of delapidates F-14s. 4 hours and it's all gone.

[exlude]

I stand corrected, they don't have a bunch of F-14s...Al posted this article a while back about the Iranian AF.

As of 2000 it was estimated that only 40 of the 132 F-4Ds, 177 F-4Es and 16 RF-4E. Phantoms delivered before 1979 remained in service. At that time, approximately 45 of the 169 F-5E/Fs delivered are still flying, while perhaps 20 F-14A Tomcats of the 79 initially delivered were airworthy. Another 30 F-4s, 30 F-5s and 35 F-14s have been cannibalized for spare parts. One report suggested that the IRIAF can get no more than seven F-14s airborne at any one time. Iran claims to have fitted F-14s with I-Hawk missiles adapted to the air-to-air role.

[Paladin]

Lol, a whole week? All the Iranians have are a bunch of delapidates F-14s. 4 hours and it's all gone.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Fox466]

Lol, a whole week? All the Iranians have are a bunch of delapidated F-14s. 4 hours and it's all gone.


I think he was predicting that this time next week all their bases are belong to us... :cool:

[636ryder]

I stand corrected, they don't have a bunch of F-14s...Al posted this article a while back about the Iranian AF.

LOL that is a joke! Well then they must have some ground-air defenses that would be worth a damn.

[exlude]

LOL that is a joke! Well then they must have some ground-air defenses that would be worth a damn.

I wouldn't imagine anything past old stingers, some guns they probably don't know how to use (and will get raped by mavericks or HARMs), and probably something similar to the Iraqi AA (infantry with AKs).

[D]

With the technology Iran seems to have acquired, it wouldn't surprise me in the least bit if Iran has some heavy duty AA and SAM shit.

[exlude]

With the technology Iran seems to have acquired, it wouldn't surprise me in the least bit if Iran has some heavy duty AA and SAM shit.

It would me, their nuclear attempts are receiving all their funds right now. Their larger missle testing has been nothing but failure, any of the older Russian AA tech that they could have bought would be easily handled by our air-to-surface.

[Casper]

Russian SA-5 and SA-6 SAMs and probably the Chinese SA-2 knockoffs. Not a walk in the park at all for the current DoD.

[Casper]

...any of the older Russian AA tech that they could have bought would be easily handled by our air-to-surface.

Except they can position children around them as human shields and that political move trumps any military move.

[exlude]

Russian SA-5 and SA-6 SAMs and probably the Chinese SA-2 knockoffs. Not a walk in the park at all for the current DoD.

You know they have this? I would be surprised greatly, except for the SA-2s. That's more what I was expecting.

[exlude]

Except they can position children around them as human shields and that political move trumps any military move.

Don't forget the camera man with a direct link to Al Jazeer.

[Casper]

You know they have this? I would be surprised greatly, except for the SA-2s. That's more what I was expecting.

Yes, I got that from a non-sub view of Jane's. And this deal has been delivered, though not tested and probably not set up; 29 Tor systems.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245859,00.html

I say probably not set up because it was funnelled in with the reactor deal and the russian mafia has the leverage to squeeze them.

[exlude]

Interesting.

They SA-6 has a pretty decent range on it, but except for very recent versions, doesn't fair well against ECM.

[AL P]

The Air Force will do the same thing they did in Iraq. Stealth planes and lots of anti-radar missiles. They can't shoot anything down if they are scared shitless to even flip the switch. Sprinkle lightly with god knows what Area 51 stealth plane we have and a heavy dose of Tomahawk cruise missiles and you got yourself some Iranian airspace free and clear.

[Mustangman_2000]

this should further complicate an already tenuous relationship with iran.

what a bold move on there part. almost like they are not afraid of retaliation?

[mikeb]

almost like they are not afraid of retaliation?

IMO they are not. That's what happens when you have a nutjob with short penis syndrome for a leader.

[Stang Seller]

Remember you guys are receiving your information from American or British media outlets. For all we know, the British WERE trespassing and they're just trying to cover up for their fuck up by claiming Iran is the agressor here. We don't know either way.
As usual, you guys seem to think Iran is going to be some sort of cakewalk for the American troops. Remember, you're still fighting Iraqi's and are not winning. You thought that would be over in two weeks. Iran has much better weapons, much more money, and you don't know about any underground dealings they may have had with the Russians and Chinese to procure weapons and technology! You guys are unbelieveable!
SS

[aceman85turbo]

Remember you guys are receiving your information from American or British media outlets. For all we know, the British WERE trespassing and they're just trying to cover up for their fuck up by claiming Iran is the agressor here. We don't know either way.
As usual, you guys seem to think Iran is going to be some sort of cakewalk for the American troops. Remember, you're still fighting Iraqi's and are not winning. You thought that would be over in two weeks. Iran has much better weapons, much more money, and you don't know about any underground dealings they may have had with the Russians and Chinese to procure weapons and technology! You guys are unbelieveable!
SS'
why again are you still here?

[agiraldo]

The only reason we are "not winning" in Iraq is because of the bullshit we have to put up with.

For example we are at a time of f'n war. War is war it is not a time to be "humane" aka to everybody. I just don't get it there are suicide bombers, children standing in front as shields, etc... When did war become so "legalized"? We torture a couple of people and what? What do we get? Some marines get in trouble and were prosecuted that is fucking bullshit.

I am so tired of the political correctness this war has become. It should be " get the fuck out of the way or you are going to get blown up".

I might get some shit for this, but it just hurts me to see our armed forces getting killed everyday out there. We need something BIG to happen aka blow the whole fucking country up. I know its not a feasible option for "many political reasons" but FUCK enough is enough.

Sorry for my idolistic rant.

[Stang Seller]

'
why again are you still here?
To correct idiots like you.

And Agiraldo, I agree with you completely. War is war, you should be able to do to your enemies what they do to you. Rules of engagement were "put into place" for a reason, but if the other party breaks that rule then it all goes out the window.
SS

[agiraldo]

To correct idiots like you.

And Agiraldo, I agree with you completely. War is war, you should be able to do to your enemies what they do to you. Rules of engagement were "put into place" for a reason, but if the other party breaks that rule then it all goes out the window.
SS

Thank God! I am so frustrated, I know that means nothing but If I were out there id Be firing like a motherfucking idiot at everyone :(

[D]

Remember you guys are receiving your information from American or British media outlets. For all we know, the British WERE trespassing and they're just trying to cover up for their fuck up by claiming Iran is the agressor here. We don't know either way.
As usual, you guys seem to think Iran is going to be some sort of cakewalk for the American troops. Remember, you're still fighting Iraqi's and are not winning. You thought that would be over in two weeks. Iran has much better weapons, much more money, and you don't know about any underground dealings they may have had with the Russians and Chinese to procure weapons and technology! You guys are unbelieveable!
SS

You should be shot in the knees, hung from scraps of the WTC, and fed bacon. Goddamn camel jockey.

[Stang Seller]

You should be shot in the knees, hung from scraps of the WTC, and fed bacon. Goddamn camel jockey.
Awww thanks sweetheart. I love how instead of coming up with a reasonable response (because you obviously can't come up with one), you choose to insult me.
SS

[ALLAN]

Remember you guys are receiving your information from American or British media outlets. For all we know, the British WERE trespassing and they're just trying to cover up for their fuck up by claiming Iran is the agressor here. We don't know either way.
As usual, you guys seem to think Iran is going to be some sort of cakewalk for the American troops. Remember, you're still fighting Iraqi's and are not winning. You thought that would be over in two weeks. Iran has much better weapons, much more money, and you don't know about any underground dealings they may have had with the Russians and Chinese to procure weapons and technology! You guys are unbelieveable!
SS
Iran's AirForce will not stand a chance.
Their aircraft are on par with Iraq's from 1991. :rolleyes:

[5.0LiterRiceEater]

We don't have any B-1s in Afghanistan.
Took this pic at Bagram

[D]

Awww thanks sweetheart. I love how instead of coming up with a reasonable response (because you obviously can't come up with one), you choose to insult me.
SS

There is no point in arguing in favor of America with an Iranian living in Canada. You're the idiot coming on a message board in a largely conservative state arguing in favor of IRAN. That country is a fucking joke and I hope that it turns to glass, or an ocean, or pavement...either of the three would work.

[exlude]

Remember you guys are receiving your information from American or British media outlets. For all we know, the British WERE trespassing and they're just trying to cover up for their fuck up by claiming Iran is the agressor here. We don't know either way.
As usual, you guys seem to think Iran is going to be some sort of cakewalk for the American troops. Remember, you're still fighting Iraqi's and are not winning. You thought that would be over in two weeks. Iran has much better weapons, much more money, and you don't know about any underground dealings they may have had with the Russians and Chinese to procure weapons and technology! You guys are unbelieveable!
SS

Again, you show your military ignorance. I have corrected you once on this misnomer, I suggest you go back and reread it.

[Stang Seller]

There is no point in arguing in favor of America with an Iranian living in Canada. You're the idiot coming on a message board in a largely conservative state arguing in favor of IRAN. That country is a fucking joke and I hope that it turns to glass, or an ocean, or pavement...either of the three would work.
I would have much rather called it debate, but argue away! I'm the only one with sense on this board it seems. You guys are all a bird of the same feather.... you know what they say about you right? That country might be a joke to you, but when your beloved country has lasted over 2500 years.... well, we all know that won't happen.
SS

[Stevo]

I would have much rather called it debate, but argue away! I'm the only one with sense on this board it seems. You guys are all a bird of the same feather.... you know what they say about you right? That country might be a joke to you, but when your beloved country has lasted over 2500 years.... well, we all know that won't happen.
SS

Please make the trip down here to Texas, my hogs need a Muslim to feed upon.

Stevo

[Stang Seller]

Please make the trip down here to Texas, my hogs need a Muslim to feed upon.

Stevo
For the millionth time, you dumb fucking inbred pig fucking moron. I'm not Muslim. But I'll be sure to refer some bomb wearing Allah praising Muslim your way! :D
SS

[Stevo]

For the millionth time, you dumb fucking inbred pig fucking moron. I'm not Muslim. But I'll be sure to refer some bomb wearing Allah praising Muslim your way! :D
SS


Eh, Iranian, close enough, although I will not get the satisfaction of knowing you will be burning in hell do to my little piggies chewing your fucking face off. Feel free to invite all of your Allah praising family this way, I have enough Spam-tipped hollowpoints for all of them.

Stevo

[636ryder]

Remember you guys are receiving your information from American or British media outlets. For all we know, the British WERE trespassing and they're just trying to cover up for their fuck up by claiming Iran is the agressor here. We don't know either way.
As usual, you guys seem to think Iran is going to be some sort of cakewalk for the American troops. Remember, you're still fighting Iraqi's and are not winning. You thought that would be over in two weeks. Iran has much better weapons, much more money, and you don't know about any underground dealings they may have had with the Russians and Chinese to procure weapons and technology! You guys are unbelieveable!
SS

Media portrayel being inaccurate, quite possible. Us not winning in Iran...definately not possible. See here is what you forget...if we go into Iran it will be like how we rolled into Iraq the 1st time. Were not going to be there to " stabalize" the fucks! We'll be there to kill anyone and everyone who so much as points a fucking weapon at our troops. Also...if we were to go in to Iran for whatever reason...im pretty sure we could let our israeli buddies come with us and im pretty sure they won't give a flying fuck about "RoE". As for the technology procurement...i highly doubt they have anything really worth a damn on a big enough scale for it to significantly factor in as to if we could win a war effort against them. Since your family still lives in Iran...im kinda curious as to their viewpoint on what their current leader says/does.

[Stang Seller]

Media portrayel being inaccurate, quite possible. Us not winning in Iran...definately not possible. See here is what you forget...if we go into Iran it will be like how we rolled into Iraq the 1st time. Were not going to be there to " stabalize" the fucks! We'll be there to kill anyone and everyone who so much as points a fucking weapon at our troops. Also...if we were to go in to Iran for whatever reason...im pretty sure we could let our israeli buddies come with us and im pretty sure they won't give a flying fuck about "RoE". As for the technology procurement...i highly doubt they have anything really worth a damn on a big enough scale for it to significantly factor in as to if we could win a war effort against them. Since your family still lives in Iran...im kinda curious as to their viewpoint on what their current leader says/does.
I'm not saying that Iran is impossible for a win, I'm just making a comparison to Iraq with which the US military still struggles. I know NOBODY can touch the US military for weapons and advanced tactics, but they are playing on home court and I'm sure they have at least a couple of aces up their sleeves. Trust me, I want that regime toppled..... I just don't want to see my countrymen burned for it.
Israel getting involved, well that would open another can of worms because at that point every Arab country in the region would declare war because at the end of the day they're fighting against Muslims.
My family in Iran does not like the situation that "our" government has put them in. Most in Iran wish for a regime change, most just want a Democratic style government and many clamor for a return to Monarchist rule with a Democratic twist. Many who voted for Ahmadinejad are now turning against him because he now exhibits very radical views, and thats not who they put into power. Iranians are sick of looking like the bad guy, and my family just wants the country to stabilize and prosper like it was starting to under the Shah. That being said, they are willing to fight for their country and strongly believe that we are entitled to Nuclear energy. They strongly believe that America is trying to put a stranglehold on their right to that nuclear energy, and that the US is trying to control all the energy in the world. THat is their viewpoint.
SS

[Walsted]

My family in Iran does not like the situation that "our" government has put them in. Most in Iran wish for a regime change, most just want a Democratic style government and many clamor for a return to Monarchist rule with a Democratic twist. Many who voted for Ahmadinejad are now turning against him because he now exhibits very radical views, and thats not who they put into power. Iranians are sick of looking like the bad guy, and my family just wants the country to stabilize and prosper like it was starting to under the Shah. That being said, they are willing to fight for their country and strongly believe that we are entitled to Nuclear energy. They strongly believe that America is trying to put a stranglehold on their right to that nuclear energy, and that the US is trying to control all the energy in the world. THat is their viewpoint.
SS

If I recall correctly, the US isn't so much against Iran having nuclear energy, they are agains Iran having the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons, especially with Ahmedinejad and the Ayatollahs so anti-Israel. Ahmedinejad doesn't inspire confidence in a belief of solely peaceful use of nuclear energy, though there could be translation issues since I don't understand Farsi.

It doesn't take too much to envision what would happen if nuclear weapons manufacturing began in Iran - Israel would do the same as they did for Iraq years ago to reduce the perceived threat, and the region would be embroiled in war, with most (if not all) Muslim nations siding with Iran. Whether the strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities would be right or wrong would be irrelevent once the hostilities have started. Once the war has begun, the oil supply from the Mideast will slow to a trickle as Israel ensures that its enemies cannot export oil to support the conflict, thus seriously damaging the world economy, cutting off the cash flow to those nations embroiled in the conflict, and leaving their populations in a situation similar to that of Iraq after Desert Storm. So, for the sake of regional stability, it is in the rest of the world's best interest that Iran does not appear to have a nuclear weapons capability.

Others may disagree.

[Strychnine]

http://ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_thinking.gif


http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=March2007&file=World_News2007032534322.xml

Britons detained in Iraqi waters, says fisherman

Web posted at: 3/25/2007 3:43:22
Source ::: REUTERS


basra, Iraq • An Iraqi fisherman who said he saw Iranian forces detain British sailors and marines on Friday in a waterway between Iraq and Iran said yesterday the ship British forces were searching was anchored in Iraqi waters.

Iran has condemned what it called the illegal entry of 15 British naval personnel into Iranian waters as a “suspicious act”, the official Irna news agency said yesterday.

Britain says they were detained in Iraqi waters on a routine search operation and has demanded their immediate return.

The fisherman, the same one who said he witnessed the sailors being detained several hours before it was confirmed by the British government, said the line between Iranian and Iraqi waters was not marked by buoys but was well known.

“We’ve been working in this job for many years and because of our experience we can distinguish which is the Iraqi and which is Iranian side,” he said, adding that Iraqi boats never venture across because of tight security by Iranian coastguards.

He said the ship the British forces were searching was among several that had been anchored for a week or more, waiting to unload or take on cargo at an Iraqi port. “The ship was in Iraqi waters,” said the fisherman, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of security concerns.

Brigadier Hakim Jassam of the Iraqi coastguard said the incident happened at the entrance of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the open waters of the Gulf narrow into a channel that marks the southern border between the two countries. “We don’t know whether it happened in Iraqi or Iranian waters, we don’t have exact information,” Jassam said.

[Fox466]

Iran ‘to try Britons for espionage’

Uzi Mahnaimi, Michael Smith and David Cracknell
FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.

The penalty for espionage in Iran is death. However, similar accusations of spying were made when eight British servicemen were detained in the same area in 2004. They were paraded blindfolded on television but did not appear in court and were freed after three nights in detention.

Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper based in London, quoted an Iranian military source as saying that the aim was to trade the Royal Marines and sailors for these Guards.

The claim was backed by other sources in Tehran. “As soon as the corps’s five members are released, the Britons can go home,” said one source close to the Guards

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

It would seem that they are willing to do anything to get these 5 'spys' (as I saw them referred to in another article) back. I would think that a little 'extra attention' should be paid those guys to see why there is an interest level high enough to warrant an act of this sort.

[Casper]

W don't play that shit, but you can bet if Kerry were prez there would be american's held instead.

Think about that.