To me that stinks of bluff. If they have it, why not just release it now and get it over with?BBC wrote:
Downing Street said the UK could end up releasing evidence proving the group had not ventured into Iranian waters.
I don't think the Mr.Blair wants to risk a war with Iran, is the threat of nuclear war too great?
I think Bush wishes that Iran did that to 15 of his troops, maybe so he can finally invade Iran?
I think Bush wishes that Iran did that to 15 of his troops, maybe so he can finally invade Iran?
because their idiots.
im more concerned however that we havent had access at any level to them. it is certainly not like last time and if they think the US will hand over their guy's for a load of Brit personel they are insane.
im more concerned however that we havent had access at any level to them. it is certainly not like last time and if they think the US will hand over their guy's for a load of Brit personel they are insane.
I agree with what Cam says, I very much doubt there will be a war over this. I can see it coming to a diplomatic end, mainly for the reasons above.CameronPoe wrote:
The UK, a government who my own people have suffered had the hands off, have infinitely more intelligence, integrity, compassion and reasoning ability than those animals in Israel.
Yup, my thoughts exactly. But that is the reason why Iran wouldn't have taken US soldiers, because they know that bush is crazy enough to go to war over such a matter. They took UK soldiers in order to make a statement of their so called 'power' because they knew it would come to a diplomatic end with the UK without facing war. Which despite many peoples beliefs, Iran wouldn't want either.Macca wrote:
I think Bush wishes that Iran did that to 15 of his troops, maybe so he can finally invade Iran?
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
and the good thing is that it was priest and not the population that elected him. the quran tells them to do it like that, no wonder they have a heckload of dictators in that region of the world.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
The sad part is the people who elected Amadejihad (sp?) in Iran don't support him bucking the UK and the US on everything. The people of Iran are screwed due to thier leader....hmmmm....wait a minute.....naaaaaah.
He became president on 6 August 2005 after winning the 2005 presidential election.motherdear wrote:
and the good thing is that it was priest and not the population that elected him. the quran tells them to do it like that, no wonder they have a heckload of dictators in that region of the world.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
The sad part is the people who elected Amadejihad (sp?) in Iran don't support him bucking the UK and the US on everything. The people of Iran are screwed due to thier leader....hmmmm....wait a minute.....naaaaaah.
Because Iran might flat out deny the evidence, then there would be little choice but to launch a rescue mission. It s more than likely they have GPS data on the craft aswell as radar and logs. Its also possible that iranian waters are outside of the patrol crafts fuel limits, making an attempt to enter Iranian waters something a trained naval captain wouldnt do.Bubbalo wrote:
To me that stinks of bluff. If they have it, why not just release it now and get it over with?BBC wrote:
Downing Street said the UK could end up releasing evidence proving the group had not ventured into Iranian waters.
Pakistan is and always was the home of terror after Afghanistan.ATG wrote:
War is coming, sadly.
I'd prefer we deal with them before they have nukes.
My sources in the military tell me Pakistan is asking for it to. They refer to the border zone there as Talibanistan.
Someone 5 or 6 years ago in the white house must have been drunk. I can imagine it now;
"yeah, I think he said, Iraqi is our friend and we sell Saddam arms and he is to be our new Allies in the war on terror and we are to Invade Pakistan ..........................right???...........emmm or was it the other way around??? .................Hic....."
"Emmm not sure dude, Iraqi is closer...................... so fuck it, lets invade them..................hic...........pass me some of that marchin powder..............hic..........."
I think it'll end up with the SAS or SBS going in and rescuing them.
Iran is at a point where they are trying to gain world opinion. If the UK was inside of Iran destroying homes it would be easier to consider the comparison. Not to mention I personally trust the Iranians over Hamas. Iran has much to lose. Diplomacy is definitely in their best interest. They should be trying to ease tensions. However, some of our biggest wars have been started over small skirmishes.CameronPoe wrote:
The UK, a government who my own people have suffered had the hands off, have infinitely more intelligence, integrity, compassion and reasoning ability than those animals in Israel.sergeriver wrote:
Israel destroyed half of Lebanon over 2 kidnapped soldiers.CameronPoe wrote:
I really doubt there will be a war, I'm even surprised that people have even brought up the thought of one. Iran is showing its teeth and saying 'Don't fuck with us or we'll fuck with you'. The Brits will aim to come to an amicable agreement whereby the detainees are returned and Iran will then return them.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I remember seeing an interview with the dad of one of those soldiers. He seemed to think that Israel was using the capture of his son as an excuse to go bomb Lebanon. Apparently soldiers get kidnaped/shot reasonably regularly, there was no particular reason for the reacton that Israel had.sergeriver wrote:
Israel destroyed half of Lebanon over 2 kidnapped soldiers.CameronPoe wrote:
I really doubt there will be a war, I'm even surprised that people have even brought up the thought of one. Iran is showing its teeth and saying 'Don't fuck with us or we'll fuck with you'. The Brits will aim to come to an amicable agreement whereby the detainees are returned and Iran will then return them.
But what do I know, possibly bombing the crap out of their international airport was fundamental to the process of finding the soldiers.
Personally I can only see the current situation being handled with caution and with both sides trying not to escillate the situation. Neither side wants a conflict.
IRAN ! let them people go !
What I don't get is why are both sides hiding the evidence if they don't want a conflict.
If the British were in Iraqi waters, the UK should show the evidence, and Iran should release the prisoners.
If the British were in Irani waters, Iran should receive an apology and release the prisoners anyway.
If the British were in Iraqi waters, the UK should show the evidence, and Iran should release the prisoners.
If the British were in Irani waters, Iran should receive an apology and release the prisoners anyway.
Ive already answered that. Iran would be likely to flat out deny any evidence that Britain shows. Which kinda puts an end to the diplomatic phase... now please remind me what happens after the diplomatic phase...
I think you meant that...sergeriver wrote:
What I don't get is why are both sides hiding the evidence if they don't want a conflict.
If the British were in Iranian waters, the UK should show the evidence, and Iran should release the prisoners.
If the British were in Iraqi waters, Iran should receive an apology and release the prisoners anyway.
You can deny whatever you want, but the GPS readings are undeniable.Vilham wrote:
Ive already answered that. Iran would be likely to flat out deny any evidence that Britain shows. Which kinda puts an end to the diplomatic phase... now please remind me what happens after the diplomatic phase...
no they arnt. even if the GPS stated XYZ those waters are so contested both sides can scream its in their waters. they have been contested for decades. the only reason its called iraqi waters is becouse we patrol it now in the name of iraq as they have no navy.
i wouldnt be surprised if iran produced a map saying its their waters and we produce a map saying its ours.
i wouldnt be surprised if iran produced a map saying its their waters and we produce a map saying its ours.
Last edited by Toxicseagull (2007-03-27 08:08:07)
No.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
I think you meant that...sergeriver wrote:
What I don't get is why are both sides hiding the evidence if they don't want a conflict.
If the British were in Iranian waters, the UK should show the evidence, and Iran should release the prisoners.
If the British were in Iraqi waters, Iran should receive an apology and release the prisoners anyway.
But equipment and records are "adjustable". There is probably allot we don't know about.sergeriver wrote:
You can deny whatever you want, but the GPS readings are undeniable.Vilham wrote:
Ive already answered that. Iran would be likely to flat out deny any evidence that Britain shows. Which kinda puts an end to the diplomatic phase... now please remind me what happens after the diplomatic phase...
Xbone Stormsurgezz
True. But if they don't want a conflict to start, they both should accept the evidence and send an apology to the other side if they made a mistake.Kmarion wrote:
But equipment and records are "adjustable". There is probably allot we don't know about.sergeriver wrote:
You can deny whatever you want, but the GPS readings are undeniable.Vilham wrote:
Ive already answered that. Iran would be likely to flat out deny any evidence that Britain shows. Which kinda puts an end to the diplomatic phase... now please remind me what happens after the diplomatic phase...
what if the evidence is contradicting from both sides? again if the equipment either way has been fiddled, or the area in which they were taken is under contest the release of that information will simply lead further down a road we do not want to go.
What I'm saying is both sides show little interest in a diplomatic solution.Toxicseagull wrote:
what if the evidence is contradicting from both sides? again if the equipment either way has been fiddled, or the area in which they were taken is under contest the release of that information will simply lead further down a road we do not want to go.
Shit, my bad, read it backwardssergeriver wrote:
No.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
I think you meant that...sergeriver wrote:
What I don't get is why are both sides hiding the evidence if they don't want a conflict.
If the British were in Iranian waters, the UK should show the evidence, and Iran should release the prisoners.
If the British were in Iraqi waters, Iran should receive an apology and release the prisoners anyway.
While Britain will probably find popular support for military action against Iran a lot more forthcoming from the British public than there is for Iraq I doubt they will really want to engage Iran militarily. They are stretched as it stands with campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US hasn't jumped in with tough rhetoric yet either (I doubt they themselves will want military action).
Sky News' middle East expert summed it up this morning when he said Britain will not be looking for a military solution if at all possible, especially not without full support from the US.
Sky News' middle East expert summed it up this morning when he said Britain will not be looking for a military solution if at all possible, especially not without full support from the US.
Last edited by Braddock (2007-03-27 08:24:21)