fadedsteve wrote:
Because Iran is CRAZY!!! It is a criminal regime PERIOD
This right here sums up exactly what i mean by an ideological conviction where you are, unfortunately, going to make a prejudgment on any matter about a given country through this little prism.
fadedsteve wrote:
They have done so much illegal activity (ie hostage taking, state funding terrorism, making nukes etc.). Without ANY reprocussions by the west. . . They only guy to do ANYTHING in response to Irans criminal activity is Ronald Reagan, when he basically sunk their entire navy in 87' and 89'.
Well since you want to conveniently range your sense of time of Iran to 1979 -- lets take a trip back in time to 1953 -- this lovely year you have the lovely
assisted Coup of Mohammed Mossadegh. We helped the
ulema do what they already wanted to do, but none the less the relationship with the installed ruler was that of disregard of customs -- and an increase in western technology which dotted the landscape and helped no one. So you see in our interfereeing in the political affairs of a sovereign nation we broke Internatnional Law -- and a violation of the UN charter we helped create just a few years prior to this incident. State funded terrorism is something we are all not to familiar with -- oh wait -- indeed we are take a simple look at the Funding of the taliban in order to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And another example would be the funding of the Contras in Nicaragua.
fadedsteve wrote:
They (Iran) took those troops (15 Brits) in direct response to US capturing of Iranian agents in Iraq, and those 3 defections that have happened over the past few months. . . . It is no mystery why Iran pulled this action!
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc -- just because the US captured Iranian agents in Iraq does not dictate there being a relationship between the capture of 15 British troops. This conviction is simply another example of the ideological predisposition to view their actions in a certain light.
fadedsteve wrote:
In fact Iran is pretty good about living up to their threats. . . .They foretold the world that they would be attempting to capture Americans or Brits. . . and look what happend!!
I'm not even sure what this is referecing to, when did they say they would be
capturing American / British troops?
fadedsteve wrote:
Those Brits were NOT in Iranian waters, they were patrolling the Iraqi side of that straight. . . .So NO they were not invading Irans "territorial waters" They were in a small boat and were easy pickings for the larger Iranian fleet to swipe them up.
Alright once again, this area of water has been contested by Iran/Iraq since the 1930s -- in 1975 they had a failed attempt in trying to settle the delineation of the maritime area, but nothing was resolved. The UK cannot, dictate to the international community what LAT. and LONG. corresponds to IRAQI territorial waters. It is not how this works!
fadedsteve wrote:
What kills me is that the British commander didnt order an attack on the Iranians when it was obvious they were attempting to capture his sailors. . . .that is just beyond me!!
Once again being the aggressor is a bad idea
.
fadedsteve wrote:
Regardless, what Iran has done is an act of war. . . . . no if, an's, or but's about it!!! Hostage taking is an act of war, it is illegal under the Geneva convention to do what they are doing (parading them around, making the girl write bs letters etc.). The Iranians need to be hurt economically and militarily, and its anyones guess which rout the Brits and the USA is going to go down first. My guess military action is coming to Irans doorstep shortly. . . .
Honestly, I don't know what else to tell you. I'm not trying to excuse the fact that denying consular officials to visit is justified, but lets take a simple look at the reality that is an oppressive western power [in their view] muddling in their affairs just like previous Russian/British powers did.
