Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Where are the guts from the British Government?

Where are the guts from the British Government?
Thread Tools
typoon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2007, 11:04 PM
 
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...458.shtml?s=lh

"I really don't know why the Iranian regime keeps doing this. All it does is enhance peoples' disgust at captured personnel being paraded and manipulated in this way," Blair said. "It doesn't fool anyone."

WHAT!? Is Blair really this wimpy? He should be doing anything and everything to get these soldiers back. Is Blair really that dense that he Doesn't "know why the Iranian regime keeps doing this?" He should be knocking out the Iranian Navy and demanding the troops back or more of the Iranian ships would be destroyed. He needs to take a stronger stance than this.
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2007, 11:08 PM
 
This is still only a few days old, give them time to come up with a solution. I'm thinking the solution will involve some secret-agent-style espionage raids to rescue these folk. And I think the Brits can pull this off without screwing it up.

It's pretty obvious to me why they're doing it, too -- they want to start a fight. Why should Blair give them exactly what they want?
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2007, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by typoon View Post
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...458.shtml?s=lh

"I really don't know why the Iranian regime keeps doing this. All it does is enhance peoples' disgust at captured personnel being paraded and manipulated in this way," Blair said. "It doesn't fool anyone."

WHAT!? Is Blair really this wimpy? He should be doing anything and everything to get these soldiers back. Is Blair really that dense that he Doesn't "know why the Iranian regime keeps doing this?" He should be knocking out the Iranian Navy and demanding the troops back or more of the Iranian ships would be destroyed. He needs to take a stronger stance than this.
Itchy trigger finger?
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 01:19 AM
 
Maybe Blair can get the UN to send Malamute Abominajihad a strongly worded letter warning of further strongly worded letters.

Or the US could help with an operation that is so under-manned that it turns into an unpopular fiasco in which Iran starts to get sympathy from other nations.

Or a small, elite, covert force could go in to get them, and get slaughtered in a humiliating defeat for the Brits which leaves them running away with their political tails between their legs.

Lets face it, the modern, Democratic countries of the world lost their will long ago. Now the unpopularity of Iraq made things even worse. All we do is talk and impose useless "sanctions" anymore.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 01:32 AM
 
What do you suggest he do? Start World War III?
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 01:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
What do you suggest he do? Start World War III?
Well, we are entering television re-run season and all the other reality shows are getting rather stale ...
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 01:45 AM
 
How long has it been, eight days? When the Chinese knocked down our spy plane in April 2001, the crew of 24 was held for twelve days. As far as I know, we weren't knocking out the Chinese air force or the navy. There is still a little time.

Of course, that's China and not Iran. But still.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 02:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
What do you suggest he do? Start World War III?
I think he should make vague references to "consequences" and taking "action", and do it a lot. That'll show 'em.

But seriously folks, should this ONE incident really be treated as ONE lone incident? Are we gonna let this wacko continue to thumb his nose at the world, threaten the US and Isreal with extinction, develop a Nucular arsenal and really do some damage?

Yes, yes we are. Blair has apparently losing his "political nerve", the US will have a new President soon who is likely to do nothing of substance about anything in this regard, the UN is a spineless, useless entity.

I don't WANT WWIII, I don't WANT any war, but let's face it a large scale conventional war IS something that we and our allies still know how to do and do "well". Ultimately it may be unavoidable.

Of course ANYTHING done militarily by the US or Britain will be viewed as an "oil grab" anyways…
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 05:02 AM
 
smacintush, what's worse, kidnapping a few sailors or starting a large-scale conventional war? Yes, Iran's a terrible country for doing this, but if we responded by starting a war which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths -- well which country's actions would be worse?

And is it really worth it anyway? The war in Iraq is costing $2 trillion. Per person that's what, roughly $7000? Say a war with Iran would cost a comparable amount of money. Honestly, I can think of a lot better things to spend my money on. If you disagree, feel free to cover my share (for both wars -- I'll take a check).

"Ultimately it may be unavoidable."

More likely, it will be avoidable, in my opinion. And if so, then there is no reason to start it.

Iran's gained a lot of power in the region because of our war with Iraq. We have to deal with it (as yet another of the bad consequences of this idiotic war).
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 05:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by typoon View Post
Is Blair really this wimpy?
Yes.

Originally Posted by typoon View Post
Is Blair really that dense
Yes.

What you folks need to understand is that Blair is a complete tosser with no spine whatsoever.

I understand the need for a little diplomacy in this situation (since provoking a war is prolly Iran's aim), but that doesn't alter the facts about Blair. The bloke is a cretin.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 05:49 AM
 
The question aside, if the british soldiers that are now arrested in Iran, really were operating in iranian waters or not, Iran has an important interest in arresting western personell, military or diplomatic ones: The US arrested iranian diplomats, officials and paramilitary-personell in Iraq, and now Iran wants to force them free through a prisoner-exchange.

Taliesin
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin View Post
The question aside, if the british soldiers that are now arrested in Iran, really were operating in iranian waters or not, Iran has an important interest in arresting western personell, military or diplomatic ones: The US arrested iranian diplomats, officials and paramilitary-personell in Iraq, and now Iran wants to force them free through a prisoner-exchange.

Taliesin
Do you really think they were in Iranian waters? When this first started, Iran gave the ship's coordinates to the UK, and the UK noticed that those coordinates put the ship indisputably in Iraqi waters. The Iranian ambassador shuffled back to his embassy and returned with a second set of coordinates, which he assured the British were the REAL coordinates this time, which put the ship in Iranian waters.

With all our fancy GPS stuff, we should know where we are pretty well.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 08:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Do you really think they were in Iranian waters? When this first started, Iran gave the ship's coordinates to the UK, and the UK noticed that those coordinates put the ship indisputably in Iraqi waters. The Iranian ambassador shuffled back to his embassy and returned with a second set of coordinates, which he assured the British were the REAL coordinates this time, which put the ship in Iranian waters.
My jury's still out on that.

Then again, if Blair told me it was daytime I'd have to go outside and check for myself.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
What do you suggest he do? Start World War III?
Either way, there will in fact be a World War III. Who starts it doesn't matter in the least bit.
ebuddy
     
Zeeb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Manhattan, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 10:16 AM
 
"I really don't know why the Iranian regime keeps doing this. All it does is enhance peoples' disgust at captured personnel being paraded and manipulated in this way," Blair said. "It doesn't fool anyone."

As for Blair's quote, I don't think the Iranians want to fool the world, I think they just want to parade the soldiers in front of their own people and perhaps a few other arab countries to strengthen their resolve against the West. It WILL work for that purpose. The rest of the world knows those sailors are just hostages, but Iran knows that it can get away with almost anything considering how unpopular the Iraq war has become.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Zeeb View Post
"I really don't know why the Iranian regime keeps doing this. All it does is enhance peoples' disgust at captured personnel being paraded and manipulated in this way," Blair said. "It doesn't fool anyone."

As for Blair's quote, I don't think the Iranians want to fool the world, I think they just want to parade the soldiers in front of their own people and perhaps a few other arab countries to strengthen their resolve against the West. It WILL work for that purpose. The rest of the world knows those sailors are just hostages, but Iran knows that it can get away with almost anything considering how unpopular the Iraq war has become.
True, but I don't think Blair actually believes Iran is actually trying to fool anyone either. He's calling their bluff, and as long as he's willing to back that up with action, that's not a cowardly thing to do. I don't see a lack of guts here.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Either way, there will in fact be a World War III. Who starts it doesn't matter in the least bit.
I don't quite see how WWIII is inevitable.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I don't quite see how WWIII is inevitable.
Sooner or later it's bound to happen. It might not be next year, it might not even be in our lifetimes, but as long as transportation and communication allow us to transport people around the globe in a relatively quick way, sooner or later there's going to be another world war.

And while that may not be the most pleasant of realizations, it won't be the end of the world either. Humanity will survive and move on, as it always has.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
Sooner or later it's bound to happen. It might not be next year, it might not even be in our lifetimes, but as long as transportation and communication allow us to transport people around the globe in a relatively quick way, sooner or later there's going to be another world war.

And while that may not be the most pleasant of realizations, it won't be the end of the world either. Humanity will survive and move on, as it always has.
I've no doubt there will be more global conflicts, but I can't see there being anything any time soon on the same scale as WWI and WWII, and thus not qualifying for the name 'WWIII'.
     
faragbre967
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 04:04 PM
 
There are two main questions that need to be answered before we can go any further with this debate. 1. What happens if the UK takes no action other than utter disgust and no further trade? 2. What happens if the UK attacks Iran militarily in any sort of fashion?

To be honest I don't really know how I feel about the whole thing. Part of me says if the UK just acts disgusted it's sort of like a parent saying, "I'm really disappointed in you," which is almost always worse than being punished. It makes Iran look terrible to the rest of the world and in the history books. The other part of me says, these god damn towel heads need to figure it out; you mess with a super power you get taken out. If this had happened 100 years ago Iran would already be a colony.

I'm personally interested in seeing what happens with option #1. Somehow I think that it would send the message that the West won't stoop to such levels; that we don't deal with filth.
...
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 04:15 PM
 
Well, with all the honey bees taking a dive we should all be dirt napping by the middle of the next decade so let's have at it. We need some more ethnic cleansing.

I vote WWIII.
     
typoon  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
What do you suggest he do? Start World War III?
It's already begun.
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
typoon  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
True, but I don't think Blair actually believes Iran is actually trying to fool anyone either. He's calling their bluff, and as long as he's willing to back that up with action, that's not a cowardly thing to do. I don't see a lack of guts here.
I doubt he is willing to back it up with Action but we will see.
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2007, 11:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by typoon View Post
It's already begun.
Who started it?
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 12:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
Who started it?
We can blame Canada. Uh, hey, wait a minute.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 12:21 AM
 
Oh look, typoon's back. Hi typoon, anyone else you'd like to accuse of being a terrorist today? (Is there anyone left?)
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 12:59 AM
 
Hey, watch what you say about the left!
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 09:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Do you really think they were in Iranian waters? When this first started, Iran gave the ship's coordinates to the UK, and the UK noticed that those coordinates put the ship indisputably in Iraqi waters. The Iranian ambassador shuffled back to his embassy and returned with a second set of coordinates, which he assured the British were the REAL coordinates this time, which put the ship in Iranian waters.

With all our fancy GPS stuff, we should know where we are pretty well.
I really don't know, that's why I said "The question aside, if they were or not"...

What I know is that there is no really legitimately recognized border-line within the river, merely a ceasefire-line after the Iraq-Iran-war.

But even if they were on the iraqi-side of the ceasefire-line, Iran would have an important reason to use these captured soldiers as bargain-chips to get free the iranian diplomats, officials, paramilitary personell... that were captured in Iraq by the US.

Taliesin
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 09:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
With all our fancy GPS stuff, we should know where we are pretty well.

As we lack the actual information at the moment, for some reason I feel more inclined to believe Blair over Ahmadinejad.

Call it a hunch.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by typoon View Post
It's already begun.
Case in point. Some people are so eager for WWIII, they believe we're already in the middle of it, completely ignoring and disrespecting the scale of WW's I and II.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 09:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Case in point. Some people are so eager for WWIII, they believe we're already in the middle of it, completely ignoring and disrespecting the scale of WW's I and II.
Two problems with this;

1) No one has expressed an "eagerness" for WWIII.
2) No one has claimed we're already in the middle of WWIII.

Unless I missed something.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 09:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
2) No one has claimed we're already in the middle of WWIII.

Unless I missed something.

Here's the memo from upthread.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 09:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here's the memo from upthread.
I would venture to guess "it's already begun" and "in the middle of it" are two different things. Subject to interpretation of course. I agree with Wiskedjak's caution of comparing World Wars, but I'm not confident in the abilities of the powers-that-be to avoid it.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 10:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I would venture to guess "it's already begun" and "in the middle of it" are two different things. Subject to interpretation of course. I agree with Wiskedjak's caution of comparing World Wars, but I'm not confident in the abilities of the powers-that-be to avoid it.

You're right. The idea seemed so off that I didn't bother to make the distinction.

Unless what typoon is saying that this event with the British is the start. I don't think it is, but I have to admit it's the only thing that's happened in the last decade that gives me that "mishandled, this could touch things off" feeling.
     
Zeeb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Manhattan, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 02:04 PM
 
It's hard to imagine this hostage situation touching off anything on the scale of a world war. I think in order for there to be a "world war" two superpowers would have to go at it. A technologically and militarily backward country like Iran can't possibly maintain a war with a western power right now--unless a larger country became allied with them--which is also unlikely. There will probably be some more words exchanged between Britain and Iran until they reach a point where both countries can save face--and then the hostages will be returned. At least I hope so.

That being said, I'm certain in the remainder of human history that a large scale world war will take place. People have a tendency to believe that similar political situations that exist in their lifetimes will persist forever.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
smacintush, what's worse, kidnapping a few sailors or starting a large-scale conventional war? Yes, Iran's a terrible country for doing this, but if we responded by starting a war which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths -- well which country's actions would be worse?

And is it really worth it anyway? The war in Iraq is costing $2 trillion. Per person that's what, roughly $7000? Say a war with Iran would cost a comparable amount of money. Honestly, I can think of a lot better things to spend my money on. If you disagree, feel free to cover my share (for both wars -- I'll take a check).

"Ultimately it may be unavoidable."

More likely, it will be avoidable, in my opinion. And if so, then there is no reason to start it.

Iran's gained a lot of power in the region because of our war with Iraq. We have to deal with it (as yet another of the bad consequences of this idiotic war).
But when we do nothing, and they keep doing it? What then? How many lives of our brothers and our allies must be lost before we stand up and say that capturing our countrymen and holding them hostage is unnacceptable?

The West has lost its resolve. The UN has no spine to enforce any of its resolutions, and when our people are snatched there is little recourse besides escalating the matter, which ultimately leads to a messy conflict.


I'm all for trying to get them out via diplomacy. Lets find out what Iran wants and whether its a reasonable demand. If its not, well then Britain needs to get her people back one way or the other.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 06:32 PM
 
At the same time, some Iranian officials have stated that all would be well if Britain issued an apology for tresspassing.

They should, regardless of who is right. An apology would be the easiest way out of this, would it not? Take the high road and try it I say. If it doesn't work, explore other options.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Zeeb View Post
It's hard to imagine this hostage situation touching off anything on the scale of a world war.

Well, I did say it would have to be mishandled.


Originally Posted by Snow-i
They should, regardless of who is right. An apology would be the easiest way out of this, would it not? Take the high road and try it I say. If it doesn't work, explore other options.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are offering that option only because they know it won't be accepted.

Even though this whole event will likely fizzle out, the Iranians took a big risk in doing it, and they're going to want to squeeze the UK (and the US) as hard as possible while avoiding a cruise missile up the ass.

Following through on their word would only stop the squeeze. Not following through makes the squeeze that much better because the UK comes off looking like a ponce and is still at square one.

I think what will be done (and what the Iranians are expecting) is that we try and get SA to lean on them. This will go slowly and Bush will get all red-faced. Right when we're about to drop the hammer on them, all of the sudden the Iranians will be like "my friend... this is just a big misunderstanding"
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 07:47 PM
 
I thought this was funny.

LiveLeak.com - Message to Iran
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 12:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Y What you folks need to understand is that Blair is a complete tosser with no spine whatsoever.

I understand the need for a little diplomacy in this situation (since provoking a war is prolly Iran's aim), but that doesn't alter the facts about Blair. The bloke is a cretin.
Quite, which is the sole reason Blair made the UK Bush's lapdog for many years. Unless of course there is some hidden UK law that states the UK must always agree with the American president.

We had a spineless leader in Aznar, but he was just traded for yet another Spineless Leader™. They seem to be in fashion.

I think the only spined western leader I can think of now is Chirac, although I can't really tell if he has the cojones he appears to have or is just insane.

Meh, same difference.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 12:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Either way, there will in fact be a World War III. Who starts it doesn't matter in the least bit.
No there won't be a WWIII. Even if it is high on the wishlist of the insane Evangelist heretics.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 01:57 AM
 
Ultimately the British will offer an apology for offending the evil regime, and they'll get their soldiers back - the Nevile Chamberlin way. Iran will win another round.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 05:23 AM
 
Talking about Britain apologising, have a read of this.

Shows just how far out of step the government is with the people too.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 06:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
No there won't be a WWIII. Even if it is high on the wishlist of the insane Evangelist heretics.

V
I hope you're right.

Jesus loves you V.
ebuddy
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 08:31 AM
 
***
( Last edited by red rocket; Apr 2, 2007 at 08:41 AM. Reason: double post)
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 08:36 AM
 
For the record, it's not at all clear that the boat was in Iraqi waters.

link

I'm sick of listening to that prat Tony Blair and his deranged "certainties." As far as I'm concerned, the man has zero credibility left, and I strongly suspect is only ratcheting up the confrontation to provide his pal Dubya with an excuse to start another war.

And don't get me started on this media hysteria about how the soldiers' confessions are "forced", when they are clearly being well treated by their captors - in marked contrast to the way the West has been handling the people it arrests in this misguided war of terror.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
And don't get me started on this media hysteria about how the soldiers' confessions are "forced", when they are clearly being well treated by their captors - in marked contrast to the way the West has been handling the people it arrests in this misguided war of terror.
No kidding. The food they were shown to be eating looked pretty tasty too.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
For the record, it's not at all clear that the boat was in Iraqi waters.

link

I'm sick of listening to that prat Tony Blair and his deranged "certainties." As far as I'm concerned, the man has zero credibility left, and I strongly suspect is only ratcheting up the confrontation to provide his pal Dubya with an excuse to start another war.

And don't get me started on this media hysteria about how the soldiers' confessions are "forced", when they are clearly being well treated by their captors - in marked contrast to the way the West has been handling the people it arrests in this misguided war of terror.
Red Rocket: Interesting nom de guerre

Iran seizes 15 hostages, parades them before cameras, puts a hajib on the woman soldier's head and a cigarette in her mouth. I'm surprised the menue wasn't made public. Bacon sandwich anyone? Who is inciting whom? This is a lose lose for Iran. By the way I see no indication of hysteria on Blair's part, but I did see video of islamist protesters calling for the death of the hostages. I suspect they will be released soon because it is so clearly not in their best interests to continue this charade. Interesting, the last I heard, they will not be parading them before cameras any longer. They better choose the end game wisely.
( Last edited by Orion27; Apr 2, 2007 at 12:24 PM. )
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Talking about Britain apologising, have a read of this.

Shows just how far out of step the government is with the people too.
Indeed, but sometimes the British people are just shy of insane in their reasoning. I'm fine with proud and arrogant, but insane kind of ruins the fun.

I'm thinking of Gibraltar of course. A strategic piece of land that was taken by force by the British. It has never been returned. Menorca was returned, as should Gibraltar.

It is ours.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Indeed, but sometimes the British people are just shy of insane in their reasoning. I'm fine with proud and arrogant, but insane kind of ruins the fun.

I'm thinking of Gibraltar of course. A strategic piece of land that was taken by force by the British. It has never been returned. Menorca was returned, as should Gibraltar.

It is ours.
Originally Posted by Treaty of Utrecht
(Spain cedes to Britain) "the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging … for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever."
This current issue with Gibraltar is only 'coz Franco was getting pissy about it back in '53.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:19 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,