[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Food for thought:
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_4_03_07.htm
[/quote]
Interesting article. Outdated though; The US promised to release the 5 revolutionary guards it is holding in Iraq and Tehran immediately agreed to let the sailors go.
I’m betting HH is mad this didn’t end up in nuclear mushrooms.
Message from the West to the islmac radicals:
Dear Terrorists:
If you need anything at all please take a few hostages and treaten us and we will appease you at every turn. And if you don’t get what you want, suicide bomb a few people and then we will aggree to what ever your terms are. Remember we cower at every turn so please, if you need anything at all, just threaten.
Regards,
The very over tollerent west.
You’re only going to see Iran and it’s cronies and ideological twins do more of this shit no less. Why? Because it works.
Terrorism works…I need a raise I think I’ll take some people hostage and blow up a few cars. I bet I could get ride on the corperate jet!
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Message from the West to the islmac radicals:
Dear Terrorists:
If you need anything at all please take a few hostages and treaten us and we will appease you at every turn. And if you don’t get what you want, suicide bomb a few people and then we will aggree to what ever your terms are. Remember we cower at every turn so please, if you need anything at all, just threaten.
Regards,
The very over tollerent west.
[/quote]
Message from pat36 to T-Nation:
Dear T-Nation:
I have absolutely no idea what the whole problem was, but since it involves Iran and Ahmadinejad whom I think of as the incarnation of the devil, I’ll start making ignorant remarks about the issue with no basis whatsoever.
Regards,
The not-so-bright pat36.
In case you didn’t notice, the sailors are alive and well thanks to the cool-headedness of Iranian officials. Blair handled the diplomatic issue catastrophically but the sailors were in luck. What would have happenend if Tony bombed Tehran? No 15 British sailors, a thousand military personnel dies for nothing, a few million people displaced and hundreds of thousands dead.
Imagine if it had been US soldiers. Bush would have jumped on the occasion. Oh, well, maybe not 'cause of the new congress and all…
[quote]pat36 wrote:
You’re only going to see Iran and it’s cronies and ideological twins do more of this shit no less. Why? Because it works.[/quote]
Reagan negotiated with Iranian terrorists who held Americans as prisoners, I’m sure you remember that.
This one had a good outcome… nerve wracking but nobody died, nobody was executed, no bombs were dropped. That’s what we all want… a peaceful resolution where everyone gets to go home in one piece. Well, that’s what sensible people want anyway.
And oh, the irony… Ahmadinejad treats detainees better than Bush does. How embarassing for Bush.
Iran got what they wanted from the situation: flexing for the world, press coverage, showing themselves to be tough with the West to rest of the ME, so, sure why not let them go?
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Message from the West to the islmac radicals:
Dear Terrorists:
If you need anything at all please take a few hostages and treaten us and we will appease you at every turn. And if you don’t get what you want, suicide bomb a few people and then we will aggree to what ever your terms are. Remember we cower at every turn so please, if you need anything at all, just threaten.
Regards,
The very over tollerent west.
Message from pat36 to T-Nation:
Dear T-Nation:
I have absolutely no idea what the whole problem was, but since it involves Iran and Ahmadinejad whom I think of as the incarnation of the devil, I’ll start making ignorant remarks about the issue with no basis whatsoever.
Regards,
The not-so-bright pat36.
In case you didn’t notice, the sailors are alive and well thanks to the cool-headedness of Iranian officials. Blair handled the diplomatic issue catastrophically but the sailors were in luck. What would have happenend if Tony bombed Tehran? No 15 British sailors, a thousand military personnel dies for nothing, a few million people displaced and hundreds of thousands dead.
Imagine if it had been US soldiers. Bush would have jumped on the occasion. Oh, well, maybe not 'cause of the new congress and all…[/quote]
Dear Irrelevant Moron from Sweden:
Iran got to open diplomatic channels with Brittan and humiliate British Soldiers on nearly a daily basis for the world to see. Iran wanted something and they got it that territorial waters crap is bullshit and you know it or are you to dim witted to figure out how the world actually works? If somebody happens to be on your property and you don’t want them there, you ask them to leave you don’t take them hostage.
Taking hostages is an act of war and aggression. Blair gave in because he just wants to leave in the office in peace. He acted like a pussy not a leader. There was nothing to negotiate.
I know you euro-fags cave to terrorism at every turn so if somebody demonstrates aggression against you, you just give them what they want.
I guess nobody gives enough of a fuck about Sweden to do anything to it, or you are protected by a miserable ass winter
The only sucess here was for terrorists. They got the sign that terror works. Hell I may have to move to Sweden to get away from it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
In case you didn’t notice, the sailors are alive and well thanks to the cool-headedness of Iranian officials. Blair handled the diplomatic issue catastrophically but the sailors were in luck. What would have happenend if Tony bombed Tehran? No 15 British sailors, a thousand military personnel dies for nothing, a few million people displaced and hundreds of thousands dead.
Imagine if it had been US soldiers. Bush would have jumped on the occasion. Oh, well, maybe not 'cause of the new congress and all…[/quote]
This passage is perhaps the biggest load of horseshit I think I’ve ever read on this site.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
pat36 wrote:
You’re only going to see Iran and it’s cronies and ideological twins do more of this shit no less. Why? Because it works.
Reagan negotiated with Iranian terrorists who held Americans as prisoners, I’m sure you remember that.
[/quote]
You mean like how they released the Embassy prisoners when Reagan got elected? Maybe they knew a guy with balls was in the White House.
I’m still trying to figure the justification for taking the British prisoners — according to Lixy, there IS no border to even cross. They are therefore international kidnappers. Ah well…the slob captors who got the medals from that Satanist made out okay. Note: Based on the appearance of their sailors, any war would be over in a day or two. Fat slobs.
The ports, nuke sites, and military bases of Iran should all be dust by now.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Reagan negotiated with Iranian terrorists who held Americans as prisoners, I’m sure you remember that.
You mean like how they released the Embassy prisoners when Reagan got elected? Maybe they knew a guy with balls was in the White House.[/quote]
No, I mean how Reagan’s people negotiated with the Iranian terrorists to continue holding the hostages until after the election was over.
The idea that Reagan intimidated the terrorists, simply by taking office, is ridiculous. Terrorists weren’t intimidated by Reagan, hence the ongoing terrorist activity during Reagan’s term. The idea that terrorists released the hostages just because they saw the election results (and not because of a behind the scenes deal)… are you really that naieve?
Reagan’s people negotiated with Iranian terrorists, that is a historical fact… they even sold weapons to them. Ever hear of the Iran-Contra scandal?
[quote]pat36 wrote:
If somebody happens to be on your property and you don’t want them there, you ask them to leave you don’t take them hostage.[/quote]
You must have missed the Brits attacking Iraq, threatening Iran to stop its enrichment program and back off Bush when he included them in the “axis of evil”.
May wanna rethink your analogy.
So I take it you were ready to sacrifice the 15 sailors to pass a message. How noble and humane of you!
Leave your warmongering attitude at the door though; Either that or get Nader or someone sensible elected next year.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Note: Based on the appearance of their sailors, any war would be over in a day or two. Fat slobs.[/quote]
Isn’t that what you guys said about Iraq five years ago? Vietnam 40 years ago?
Iran is nothing like Iraq. They’ll take you down with them. They have the backing of China and the rest of the Asian block. Ever heard of the Shanghai Cooperation Council? The US candidature was turned down, so your media probably didn’t feel like talking about it.
Attacking Iran will guarantee US metropoles being hit by suicide bombers and bacteriological agents.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’m still trying to figure the justification for taking the British prisoners — according to Lixy, there IS no border to even cross. They are therefore international kidnappers
[/quote]
Since when is international kidnapping a problem?
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Reagan negotiated with Iranian terrorists who held Americans as prisoners, I’m sure you remember that.
[/quote]
Reagan didn’t negotiate shit. He was being sworn in when the hostages were released. They did that to spite Carter; and they were scared of Reagan because of his pre-election rhetoric. They knew he was going to do something about it.
If you consider near daily humiliation on a world stage, making those guy apologize for something they likely didn’t do and if they did, it was a matter of inches. I don’t know what pictures you were looking at, but those “detainees” looked scared shitless.
Anyhow, if you are arguing that we should humiliate the the gitmo prisoners, then I agree.
You guys keep wanting to spite Bush, cutting off you nose to spite you face is what you are doing. I too hold Bush responsible for perhaps the worst foreign policy blunder in American history, increasing the size of the government, and pissing on our civil liberties. But, I am not going to support the terrorists who want to kill us because Bush is a dick, which is what you guys seemly do; except for lixy who appears to just want to pick fights like a over hormonal sixth grader getting his fist pimple. Besides, like it or not, Bush is gone in a year. Trying to further trump him is a waste of time.
I am happy the soldiers are alive and well, but capitulating to terror tactics will only increase bloods shed, not reduce it. Remember that the terrorists like to hit civilians more than military targets so when the want some new demands met, innocent people will likely die, a fact I suppose you’ll celebrate, particularly if they are Jews.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Note: Based on the appearance of their sailors, any war would be over in a day or two. Fat slobs.
Isn’t that what you guys said about Iraq five years ago? Vietnam 40 years ago?
Iran is nothing like Iraq. They’ll take you down with them. They have the backing of China and the rest of the Asian block. Ever heard of the Shanghai Cooperation Council? The US candidature was turned down, so your media probably didn’t feel like talking about it.
Attacking Iran will guarantee US metropoles being hit by suicide bombers and bacteriological agents. [/quote]
China will not lift a finger to defend Iran, or any other nation for that matter. The Chinese economy would disintegrate if it could not export to the US. You are clueless on this subject.
Europeans cave in to threats of terrorism. The US does not. Get over it, Iran doesn’t last a week against a US assault. If Iran attacked a US city the retribution would massive and overwhelming, even if a Democrat was in office. You would probably be out of a job or at least an internet connection so that would be a positive for T-Nation in general.
Your internet Jihad still isn’t working. Not one person on T-Nation has bought it. How sad for you.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Note: Based on the appearance of their sailors, any war would be over in a day or two. Fat slobs.
Isn’t that what you guys said about Iraq five years ago? Vietnam 40 years ago?
Iran is nothing like Iraq. They’ll take you down with them. They have the backing of China and the rest of the Asian block. Ever heard of the Shanghai Cooperation Council? The US candidature was turned down, so your media probably didn’t feel like talking about it.
Attacking Iran will guarantee US metropoles being hit by suicide bombers and bacteriological agents. [/quote]
Something I assume you support? As any enemy of the U.S. is a friend of yours.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Reagan didn’t negotiate shit. He was being sworn in when the hostages were released. They did that to spite Carter; and they were scared of Reagan because of his pre-election rhetoric. They knew he was going to do something about it.[/quote]
It’s a pretty naive stance to take, especially given the Iran-Contra affair.
A lot of people don’t buy into your explanation. Here’s something from the Wiki about former Iranian president Bani-Sadr.
"Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, first elected President of Iran after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, claimed in a December 17, 1992 letter to the U.S. Congress, that he had first learned of the Republican “secret deal” in July 1980 after Reza Passendideh, a nephew of Khomeini, attended a meeting with Cyrus Hashemi and Republican lawyer Stanley Pottinger in Madrid on July 2, 1980. Though Passendideh was supposed to return with a proposal from the Carter administration, Bani-Sadr said Passendideh proffered instead a plan “from the Reagan camp.” “Passendideh told me that if I do not accept this proposal, they [the Republicans] would make the same offer to my [radical Iranian] rivals. He further said that they [the Republicans] have enormous influence in the CIA. … Lastly, he told me my refusal of their offer would result in my elimination.” Bani-Sadr said he resisted the threats and sought an immediate release of the American hostages. But Bani-Sadr said Khomeini, the wily Islamic leader, was playing both sides of the U.S. street. [13] Bani Sadr has stated elsewhere that,
It is now very clear that there were two separate agreements, one the official agreement with Carter in Algeria, the other, a secret agreement with another party, which, it is now apparent, was Reagan. They made a deal with Reagan that the hostages should not be released until after Reagan became president. So, then in return, Reagan would give them arms. We have published documents which show that US arms were shipped, via Israel, in March, about 2 months after Reagan became president."
Shouldn’t we wait for their statements before making up our minds on how humiliated they were.
I’m confused. Who capitulated to terror tactics? Last I checked, Iran got nothing in return but PR. On the other hand, Bush keeps on calling them “axis of evil” and say that “all options are on the table”.
Here’s a newsflash for you: All states practice terrorism. The most notorious one to date being the US.
[quote]hedo wrote:
China will not lift a finger to defend Iran, or any other nation for that matter. The Chinese economy would disintegrate if it could not export to the US. You are clueless on this subject.[/quote]
I wouldn’t bet on that. They have invested a lot in Iran and would very likely resist a US invasion.
That’s what we heard Israel tell us about Lebanon last summer. When you put a heavy weight (4 or 5th strongest army in the world and backing of the US) against an skinny amateur and the latter is still standing after a few rounds, well, it’s clear who the winner is.
Iran is nothing like Iraq. Matter of fact, they sustained a lengthy war waged by Saddam against them and survived it just fine, despite Iraq being supported by the US and all. Note that Iraq of 2003 was coming out of a decade of sanctions and that’s the reason they were so vulnerable.
Same thing applies for the US attacking an Iranian city.
Are you under the impression that I’m in Iran or anywhere close to the ME?
Sigh.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Something I assume you support? As any enemy of the U.S. is a friend of yours.
[/quote]
I don’t support violence. I might find an Iranian retaliation in case of an attack on their sovereignty justifiable but that depends on the case the US presents against Iran.
If you can prove that Tehran is making nukes then, let them have it. If not, leave them be.
Sidenote: I have no sympathy whatsoever for the conservative freaks ruling Iran at the moment.
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
China will not lift a finger to defend Iran, or any other nation for that matter. The Chinese economy would disintegrate if it could not export to the US. You are clueless on this subject.
I wouldn’t bet on that. They have invested a lot in Iran and would very likely resist a US invasion.
Iran doesn’t last a week against a US assault.
That’s what we heard Israel tell us about Lebanon last summer. When you put a heavy weight (4 or 5th strongest army in the world and backing of the US) against an skinny amateur and the latter is still standing after a few rounds, well, it’s clear who the winner is.
Iran is nothing like Iraq. Matter of fact, they sustained a lengthy war waged by Saddam against them and survived it just fine, despite Iraq being supported by the US and all. Note that Iraq of 2003 was coming out of a decade of sanctions and that’s the reason they were so vulnerable.
If Iran attacked a US city the retribution would massive and overwhelming,
Same thing applies for the US attacking an Iranian city.
ou would probably be out of a job or at least an internet connection so that would be a positive for T-Nation in general.
Are you under the impression that I’m in Iran or anywhere close to the ME?
Your internet Jihad still isn’t working. Not one person on T-Nation has bought it. How sad for you.
Sigh.[/quote]
How would China resist a US invasion of Iran? With what? I don’t think anyone is talking about an invasion by the way, they are talking about the destruction of it’s military. As can be scene from the first GW a big gap remains the US military and third world middle east armies. The Chinese have a lot more at stake with regards to US investment and commerce then with Iran and the Chinese are pragmatic and mecantile.
I don’t think the US is worried about an Iranian military response. Simply hoping for a capability doesn’t give you one.
It would not suprise me or anyone else here if you are in the ME.
And yes “sigh” would be an appropriate response to your efforts.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Reagan didn’t negotiate shit. He was being sworn in when the hostages were released. They did that to spite Carter; and they were scared of Reagan because of his pre-election rhetoric. They knew he was going to do something about it.
It’s a pretty naive stance to take, especially given the Iran-Contra affair.
A lot of people don’t buy into your explanation. Here’s something from the Wiki about former Iranian president Bani-Sadr.
"Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, first elected President of Iran after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, claimed in a December 17, 1992 letter to the U.S. Congress, that he had first learned of the Republican “secret deal” in July 1980 after Reza Passendideh, a nephew of Khomeini, attended a meeting with Cyrus Hashemi and Republican lawyer Stanley Pottinger in Madrid on July 2, 1980. Though Passendideh was supposed to return with a proposal from the Carter administration, Bani-Sadr said Passendideh proffered instead a plan “from the Reagan camp.” “Passendideh told me that if I do not accept this proposal, they [the Republicans] would make the same offer to my [radical Iranian] rivals. He further said that they [the Republicans] have enormous influence in the CIA. … Lastly, he told me my refusal of their offer would result in my elimination.” Bani-Sadr said he resisted the threats and sought an immediate release of the American hostages. But Bani-Sadr said Khomeini, the wily Islamic leader, was playing both sides of the U.S. street. [13] Bani Sadr has stated elsewhere that,
It is now very clear that there were two separate agreements, one the official agreement with Carter in Algeria, the other, a secret agreement with another party, which, it is now apparent, was Reagan. They made a deal with Reagan that the hostages should not be released until after Reagan became president. So, then in return, Reagan would give them arms. We have published documents which show that US arms were shipped, via Israel, in March, about 2 months after Reagan became president."
If you consider near daily humiliation on a world stage, making those guy apologize for something they likely didn’t do and if they did, it was a matter of inches. I don’t know what pictures you were looking at, but those “detainees” looked scared shitless.
Shouldn’t we wait for their statements before making up our minds on how humiliated they were.
I am happy the soldiers are alive and well, but capitulating to terror tactics will only increase bloods shed, not reduce it. Remember that the terrorists like to hit civilians more than military targets so when the want some new demands met, innocent people will likely die, a fact I suppose you’ll celebrate, particularly if they are Jews.
I’m confused. Who capitulated to terror tactics? Last I checked, Iran got nothing in return but PR. On the other hand, Bush keeps on calling them “axis of evil” and say that “all options are on the table”.
Here’s a newsflash for you: All states practice terrorism. The most notorious one to date being the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America[/quote]
The UK (that’s Brittan) conceded to opening up diplomatic channels with Iran. Channels that were severed but the Iran’s nuclear “program”. They also forced an apology out of Brittan (that’s England) for something it did not do.
Also, I guess forcing those soldiers to repeat over and over again how sorry they were for entering the waters of Iran and forcing them to write statements on how they were used as puppets to carry out this unjust war in Iraq and requesting the UK leave Iraq is not humiliating them. I am sure they meant every word of it, no coercion there.
I am sure they are proud of those statements.