Iranian President pardons all 15 Sailors

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
haha are you telling me that Iran should be trusted with developing an unsupervised nuclear program?

No, I'm telling you don't have the facts to prove they do. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a funny feeling you won't be able to.

boy am I glad people with your logic don't run this country!

Likewise, tinfoil boy.

haha nice insults

Still awaiting above requested "facts" to prove guilt is determined rather than assigned.

Please provide us with your insight.

im going out, when i get back ill retype what i typed up there ^^^ and more if you'd like

To Quote Monty Python "Runaway...."

 

[judasmachine]

God I wish I could change the channel on this show. Yes folks this was all a show. Iran wanted back on the main stage, and Britain was a 'soft' target. Bush didn't mind either as it gave him the chance to forward his policy of hate and aggression.

 

[BarneyFife]

Plus they got new suits out of it!! The president of Iran is right about one thing... we have no family values. What country sends a mother to the middle of nowhere? We have no shame.

 

[Aimster]

I find it funny that the British sailors look better in a suit than the Iranian President.

Maybe the Iranian President should hire whoever helped pick out their suits.

 

[Al Neri]

* their presidents denial the holocaust ever existed

* the fact that wikipedia, youtube, among other websites and supressed media outlets

* their desire for a nuclear facility for "peaceful purposes," but their refusal to accept help in exchange to limit their development to light-water reactors in place of heavy-water reactors (which can be a way to manufacture weapons grade Uranium, light water is ostensibly not)

* the desire to crush Israel and "wipe it off the map" -- i don't care how it is translated

* the recent capturing of 15 british troops and pulling a charade

i would say that's just the tip of the iceberg...

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: spittledip
This is good news. I know if it had been Iranians in US waters, they would have been held for awhile also, so this whole thing was not unreasonable to me at all, especially considering the tension as of late.

That is if the Brits were in Iranian water. Seeing as the Iranians have already changed their story once on the location of the troops, I suspect they were nowhere near the line.

I'll take your word for it. NOT.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Once again, even this monkey makes Bush look like a complete imbecile when it comes to statesmanship and conducting foreign affairs.
He deftly end ran Bush and Co.

Suffer from BDS all time don't ya?

How was Bush involved in this crisis other than letting Britian and the UN handle it?

huh?

Where did I efing say he was, genius? yeah that's what I thought.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Once again, even this monkey makes Bush look like a complete imbecile when it comes to statesmanship and conducting foreign affairs.
He deftly end ran Bush and Co.

He had to let them go eventually or face British retaliation, even though it had been limited to diplomatic action to this point. Keeping them indefinitely or putting them on trial for espionage (a charge so obviously trumped up it would make Mike Nifong blush) would have forced England's hand into military action and probably requesting our help.

My opinion is that this was a setup from the get go to see just how far they could push the British, grab some headlines, and distract people from the nuclear issue. They took the sailors because prior experience told them that the UK wouldn't do anything involving force unless pushed to extremes. Intentionally kidnapping US military members currently carries a lot more risk and in the circumstances that this happened would likely constitute a casus belli. Iran wasn't about to give Bush a legitimate and defensible reason to initiate hostilities.

Put simply, this couldn't have played out any other way unless Ahmadinejad really wanted an up close and personal demonstration of western weapons technology.

Yeah carries a lot more risk, just ask the Chinese how much risk. 😛

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
* their presidents denial the holocaust ever existed

* the fact that wikipedia, youtube, among other websites and supressed media outlets

* their desire for a nuclear facility for "peaceful purposes," but their refusal to accept help in exchange to limit their development to light-water reactors in place of heavy-water reactors (which can be a way to manufacture weapons grade Uranium, light water is ostensibly not)

* the desire to crush Israel and "wipe it off the map" -- i don't care how it is translated

* the recent capturing of 15 british troops and pulling a charade

i would say that's just the tip of the iceberg...

We were waiting for some facts, I believe? Not just a copy/paste job from your posts this morning.

We're ready for the rest of the iceberg.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Who was that US naval commander that said he would have sent his men in with guns blazing if it had been American marines in that situation? He should be demoted. The British diplomats and the quick thinking of the British navy on the spot helped calm a tense moment into a reasonably minor situation, whereas the US naval commander would have started a war. Nice one.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Who was that US naval commander that said he would have sent his men in with guns blazing if it had been American marines in that situation? He should be demoted. The British diplomats and the quick thinking of the British navy on the spot helped calm a tense moment into a reasonably minor situation, whereas the US naval commander would have started a war. Nice one.

Funny you bring that up. There is a theory the reason the Iranian targetted British troops is because of their policy to not fight for preservation. The Iranians knew if they kidnapped American soldiers by the end of the day their cities would be bombed and American troops on the way to the border.

I guess, we are lucky this turned out all rosy and the puppet in charge over there gave the british a gift lol. They could have as easily hung them in the public square for espionage.

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
* their presidents denial the holocaust ever existed

* the fact that wikipedia, youtube, among other websites and supressed media outlets

* their desire for a nuclear facility for "peaceful purposes," but their refusal to accept help in exchange to limit their development to light-water reactors in place of heavy-water reactors (which can be a way to manufacture weapons grade Uranium, light water is ostensibly not)

* the desire to crush Israel and "wipe it off the map" -- i don't care how it is translated

* the recent capturing of 15 british troops and pulling a charade

i would say that's just the tip of the iceberg...

We were waiting for some facts, I believe? Not just a copy/paste job from your posts this morning.

Arriba, arriba, andale, yeehaa!

We're ready for the rest of the iceberg esé.[/q]

Those are some reasons -- refute them.

Way to be racist...

 

[Lemon law]

Well maybe this will put it in perspective.

I live in a rural area of a state with very strong laws regarding dogs. My neighbor has a fairly young dog and also some fairly young children---but children old enough to be aware.

If I want to show these children exactly how strong laws are---I could wait until they are playing outside and also wait until their dog strays one inch inside my property. And then quite legally kill their dog right in front of their eyes. I am quite sure it will teach those children that I am strong and resolute---and also send that strong message to their parents that they better not mess with me.

But maybe its the difference between a bleeding heart liberal like myself and some on this forum. Because I have no desire to kill dogs for petty reasons, no desire to impress young children with how strong I am, and I also point out that its why my neighbor and I have no problems with each other.

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well maybe this will put it in perspective.

I live in a rural area of a state with very strong laws regarding dogs. My neighbor has a fairly young dog and also some fairly young children---but children old enough to be aware.

If I want to show these children exactly how strong laws are---I could wait until they are playing outside and also wait until their dog strays one inch inside my property. And then quite legally kill their dog right in front of their eyes. I am quite sure it will teach those children that I am strong and resolute---and also send that strong message to their parents that they better not mess with me.

But maybe its the difference between a bleeding heart liberal like myself and some on this forum. Because I have no desire to kill dogs for petty reasons, no desire to impress young children with how strong I am, and I also point out that its why my neighbor and I have no problems with each other.

I'm not sure this is posted in the right place. Who has a desire to kill anyone?

All I am saying is Iran should not be trusted, especially with developing nuclear weapons. I don't care if your liberal or conservative in the face until you turn blue, you are completely naive if you think that

a) Iran can develop a nuclear program without being significantly checked by a separate strict watchdog agency, uni-, bi-, multilaterally for all I care; or
b) Iran can develop a nuclear program while being checked by the United Nations weapons inspectors.

If you wish to call for blindly trust a nation who's supporters (read: fundamental islam) denounce and call for the end of an entire nation (I don't care how you translate it) with development of a "peaceful" nuclear program, who claims they are not developing weapons, be my guest, I, for one, albeit do not support the current administration wholly, would say that would be a dumb idea.

N.B. While I am not saying that what was done in the past with the establishment of Israel was the best thing to do, I do not see any reason to say "ok, let them attack isreal then" which apparently you (or similar minded people to yourself) do.

edit: grammar

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well maybe this will put it in perspective.

I live in a rural area of a state with very strong laws regarding dogs. My neighbor has a fairly young dog and also some fairly young children---but children old enough to be aware.

If I want to show these children exactly how strong laws are---I could wait until they are playing outside and also wait until their dog strays one inch inside my property. And then quite legally kill their dog right in front of their eyes. I am quite sure it will teach those children that I am strong and resolute---and also send that strong message to their parents that they better not mess with me.

But maybe its the difference between a bleeding heart liberal like myself and some on this forum. Because I have no desire to kill dogs for petty reasons, no desire to impress young children with how strong I am, and I also point out that its why my neighbor and I have no problems with each other.

This analogy doesn't work at all. There has been tension between Iran and US/UK/UN due to the nuclear stuff and also possibility of supplying Iraqis with weapons. Therefore, seeing how our govts operate, it would not be unreasonable to suspect that the Brits might have been engaged in some type of covert mission. Even if they weren't, b/c of the tensions, it is just a bad time to go into Iranian waters. Countries must proceed delicately at this point. Iranians were well within their right to hold trespassers.

Your analogy was much too simplistic to work. It would only work if 1. one assumes that Iran was trying to make a show of this incident 2. There was no possibility of the British engaging in military actions, covert or otherwise- i.e., the only thing the British could have been suspected of doing wrong is going into Iranian waters.

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
* their presidents denial the holocaust ever existed

* the fact that wikipedia, youtube, among other websites and supressed media outlets

* their desire for a nuclear facility for "peaceful purposes," but their refusal to accept help in exchange to limit their development to light-water reactors in place of heavy-water reactors (which can be a way to manufacture weapons grade Uranium, light water is ostensibly not)

* the desire to crush Israel and "wipe it off the map" -- i don't care how it is translated

* the recent capturing of 15 british troops and pulling a charade

i would say that's just the tip of the iceberg...

We were waiting for some facts, I believe? Not just a copy/paste job from your posts this morning.

Arriba, arriba, andale, yeehaa!

We're ready for the rest of the iceberg esé.

JPeyton:

Since you have no desire to "debunk" my statements, I'll also harp on this, which was posed in another thread, and you have been skirting :

You are obviously vastly smarter than they are, so please, enlighten us on your views on how to keep Iran from gainin a nuke:

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
I'm not sure this is posted in the right place. Who has a desire to kill anyone?

Not Iran.

All I am saying is Iran should not be trusted, especially with developing nuclear weapons. I don't care if your liberal or conservative in the face until you turn blue, you are completely naive if you think that

It's a good thing they aren't developing a nuclear weapon then; only nuclear power.

a) Iran can develop a nuclear program without being significantly checked by a separate strict watchdog agency, uni-, bi-, multilaterally for all I care; or
b) Iran can develop a nuclear program while being checked by the United Nations weapons inspectors.

Actually, as I recall historically, the last time IAEA weapons inspectors failed to find evidence of a nuclear weapons program (in Iraq), they were correct. Once again, in Iran, they have failed to find any evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

If you wish to call for blindly trust a nation who's supporters (read: fundamental islam) denounce and call for the end of an entire nation (I don't care how you translate it) with development of a "peaceful" nuclear program, who claims they are not developing weapons, be my guest, I, for one, albeit do not support the current administration wholly, would say that would be a dumb idea.

Who cares if you don't like it? You're acting like you're the commander of some great nation with a great army. Face the facts. We're not now, not ever going to bomb Iran unless we can prove to the international community with concrete evidence that they are producing nuclear weapons. Our country spent it's wild card in Iraq; the American people and the world community won't allow us to unilaterally and pre-emptively strike another country again unless we have the proof. Evidence/proof/facts are what you continually lack in your weak arguments against Iran, and are the reason why our leaders will never go to war with Iran.

N.B. While I am not saying that what was done in the past with the establishment of Israel was the best thing to do, I do not see any reason to say "ok, let them attack isreal then" which apparently you (or similar minded people to yourself) do.

edit: grammar

Iran has no history of attacking another country without being attacked first.

 

[Trianon]

SKY NEWS

'We Gathered Intelligence'
Updated: 19:25, Thursday April 05, 2007

The captain in charge of the 15 marines detained in Iran has said they were gathering intelligence on the Iranians.

Sky News went on patrol with Captain Chris Air and his team in Iraqi waters close to the area where they were arrested - just five days before the crisis began.

We withheld the interview until now so it would not jeopardise their safety.

And today, former Iranian diplomat Dr Mehrdad Khonsari said if the Iranians had known about it, they would have used it to "justify taking the marines captive and put them on trial".

Captain Air and his team were on an 'Interaction Patrol' where their patrol boats came alongside fishing dhows.

The operation was mainly to investigate arms smuggling and terrorism but Captain Air said it was also to gain intelligence on Iranian activity.

He told Sky Correspondent Jonathan Samuels: "Basically we speak to the crew, find out if they have any problems, let them know we're here to protect them, protect their fishing and stop any terrorism and piracy in the area," he said.

"Secondly, it's to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us.

"Whether it's about piracy or any sort of Iranian activity in the area. Obviously we're right by the buffer zone with Iran."

The UK Defence Secretary Des Browne told Sky News it was important to gather intelligence to "keep our people safe".

He said: "Modern military operations all have an element of gathering intelligence.

"We need to understand as much as we can about the environment we operate in and intelligence gathering is an every day part of that."

He added: "The UN mandate would clearly empower the military taskforce to gather information about the environment in which they were working."

Captain Air said that fishing dhows had been robbed by Iranian soldiers on a number of occasions.

"It's good to gather int on the Iranians," he said.

Fifteen sailors and marines were taken captive nearly two weeks ago after the Iranian government claimed they had strayed into their waters.

so I guess Brits were not at all innocent after all...

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Trianon
SKY NEWS

'We Gathered Intelligence'
Updated: 19:25, Thursday April 05, 2007

The captain in charge of the 15 marines detained in Iran has said they were gathering intelligence on the Iranians.

Sky News went on patrol with Captain Chris Air and his team in Iraqi waters close to the area where they were arrested - just five days before the crisis began.

We withheld the interview until now so it would not jeopardise their safety.

And today, former Iranian diplomat Dr Mehrdad Khonsari said if the Iranians had known about it, they would have used it to "justify taking the marines captive and put them on trial".

Captain Air and his team were on an 'Interaction Patrol' where their patrol boats came alongside fishing dhows.

The operation was mainly to investigate arms smuggling and terrorism but Captain Air said it was also to gain intelligence on Iranian activity.

He told Sky Correspondent Jonathan Samuels: "Basically we speak to the crew, find out if they have any problems, let them know we're here to protect them, protect their fishing and stop any terrorism and piracy in the area," he said.

"Secondly, it's to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us.

"Whether it's about piracy or any sort of Iranian activity in the area. Obviously we're right by the buffer zone with Iran."

The UK Defence Secretary Des Browne told Sky News it was important to gather intelligence to "keep our people safe".

He said: "Modern military operations all have an element of gathering intelligence.

"We need to understand as much as we can about the environment we operate in and intelligence gathering is an every day part of that."

He added: "The UN mandate would clearly empower the military taskforce to gather information about the environment in which they were working."

Captain Air said that fishing dhows had been robbed by Iranian soldiers on a number of occasions.

"It's good to gather int on the Iranians," he said.

Fifteen sailors and marines were taken captive nearly two weeks ago after the Iranian government claimed they had strayed into their waters.

so I guess Brits were not at all innocent after all...

WTF is with you people? Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

Let me repost a very important part of your post,

He said: "Modern military operations all have an element of gathering intelligence.

"We need to understand as much as we can about the environment we operate in and intelligence gathering is an every day part of that."

He added: "The UN mandate would clearly empower the military taskforce to gather information about the environment in which they were working."

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JD50
WTF is with you people? Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

There's nothing wrong with gathering intelligence. But when you mix that with violating another nations border, you run the risk of getting detained.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50
WTF is with you people? Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

There's nothing wrong with gathering intelligence. But when you mix that with violating another nations border, you run the risk of getting detained.

I'm still waiting on the proof of them being in Iranian waters....

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50
WTF is with you people? Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

There's nothing wrong with gathering intelligence. But when you mix that with violating another nations border, you run the risk of getting detained.

I'm still waiting on the proof of them being in Iranian waters....

The second set of Iranian GPS coordinates wasn't good enough?

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: JD50
Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

Funny that you mentioned that [Irbil?]...

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50
WTF is with you people? Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

There's nothing wrong with gathering intelligence. But when you mix that with violating another nations border, you run the risk of getting detained.

I'm still waiting on the proof of them being in Iranian waters....

The second set of Iranian GPS coordinates wasn't good enough?

The first set of Iranian and British GPS coordinates wasn't good enough?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: JD50
Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

Funny that you mentioned that [Irbil?]...

What?