[quote]lixy wrote:
kevinm1 wrote:
Comical Lixy already replied with an anti-american stance.
What did you find anti-American in my reply? Did I somehow twist facts or make stuff up? Let me know please.[/quote]
You bring in the US this is Britian vs Iran not Iran vs US keep my country out of it.
[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
Kill or Capture strategy
Kill or capture strategy refers to a strategy adopted in 2007 by the United States in Iraq to confront Iranian operatives in Iraq
In January 2007 the Bush administration authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian military and intelligence operatives inside Iraq as part of a strategy to weaken Iran’s influence in Iraq and compel the
government to end its nuclear program.
British Special Forces will participate in this program.
Possible consequences:
The possibility that the Iranians might seek to retaliate by kidnapping or killing U.S. personnel in Iraq has been raised
[/quote]
Grim,
I’m not sure the kill and capture strategy was designed around or attempting to influence the nuclear standoff.
However, I’m fairly certain it was in response to iranian involvement in Iraq.
I was curious as to your take on this.
Does killing Americans in Iraq and fomenting rebellion enough provocation to wipe out the nuclear facities and their naval forces?
Again, I’d like to hear your take on this.
Thanks,
JeffR
[quote]pat36 wrote:
This makes me sick. England’s message to Iran, “Oh, do me harder, stick it in deeper.” What a bunch of fucking pussies.
They should have already laid to waste Iran’s “nuclear facilities” and started on strategic targets every hour until the soldiers are released. Everyday it makes me sicker.
Europe has learned nothing from it’s past. Laying down an appeasing their enemies only emboldens them, it does not bring peace, it brings oppression and slavery.
What’s next? The EU going to bring back the feudal system, with these clerics as the Lords? Why the hell not. If they are going to capitulate at every violence done to them, why not just give in all the way and accelerate the process.
No, wait it must be the jews! That’s it. They captured the soldiers and staged it so it looks Iran did it. Those are all actors![/quote]
How many Americans died or were horribly wounded liberating Europeans from their self-imposed dictators? Maybe Nietzsche was correct…the Ultimate Man is suicidal.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
This makes me sick. England’s message to Iran, “Oh, do me harder, stick it in deeper.” What a bunch of fucking pussies.
They should have already laid to waste Iran’s “nuclear facilities” and started on strategic targets every hour until the soldiers are released. Everyday it makes me sicker.
Europe has learned nothing from it’s past. Laying down an appeasing their enemies only emboldens them, it does not bring peace, it brings oppression and slavery.
What’s next? The EU going to bring back the feudal system, with these clerics as the Lords? Why the hell not. If they are going to capitulate at every violence done to them, why not just give in all the way and accelerate the process.
No, wait it must be the jews! That’s it. They captured the soldiers and staged it so it looks Iran did it. Those are all actors![/quote]
The problem is that Blair is now a lame duck. He’s obviously tired.
Where is belgium when we need them to step up?
Never mind.
JeffR
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
You bring in the US this is Britian vs Iran not Iran vs US keep my country out of it.[/quote]
You have the right to love your country, but like it or not, it was the US that drew Britain into Iraq. If you think Blair is anything more than Bush’s poodle when it comes to foreign policy, you’re deeply mistaken.
Remember the millions of people in London on February 15th, 2003?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
The problem is that Blair is now a lame duck. He’s obviously tired.
Where is belgium when we need them to step up?
Never mind.
JeffR
[/quote]
The problem with Blair is that his preoccupation at the moment is with his retirement from politics and job on the speech/lecture circuit.
Yet again we will see Europe falter at the decisive moment. But if we are really really nice to the Iranians, let them have their nuclear bombs and stop killing their soldiers operating in Iraq, then maybe, just maybe the’ll be nice to us as well.
[quote]lixy wrote:
kevinm1 wrote:
You bring in the US this is Britian vs Iran not Iran vs US keep my country out of it.
You have the right to love your country, but like it or not, it was the US that drew Britain into Iraq. If you think Blair is anything more than Bush’s poodle when it comes to foreign policy, you’re deeply mistaken.
Remember the millions of people in London on February 15th, 2003?[/quote]
No, can’t say that I do. Was that the bunch the police fenced in?
As far as being “drawn” into Iraq, I think that having the only significant military that we readily commit for overseas deployment may be a factor as well.
The Russians, Chinese, French, Indians, Turks, and any other nation with a “large”/“modern” military are never in a million years going to commit to a US led action anywhere, so strangely, the UK, a rather longterm ally of the US, with some rather significant historical links and close military ties got involved.
Here’s a big clue for you, Great Britain has been universally hated since the days of the empire, now the US is basking in the glow of universal hatred, so why do you think we have close political ties?
[quote]lixy wrote:
kevinm1 wrote:
You bring in the US this is Britian vs Iran not Iran vs US keep my country out of it.
You have the right to love your country, but like it or not, it was the US that drew Britain into Iraq. If you think Blair is anything more than Bush’s poodle when it comes to foreign policy, you’re deeply mistaken.
Remember the millions of people in London on February 15th, 2003?[/quote]
Once again keep iraq out of it,
this is Iran vs Britian talk about Britian we declared independence from them in 1776 won the “war” in 1792, it’s when clowns, you included, remember when the muslim’s had their panties in a bunch over the demark cartoons? Death to America etc etc we had nothing to do with it. Keep the discussions relevant to the US in US related issues.
On a side note
Eat train grow
[quote]JeffR wrote:
The problem is that Blair is now a lame duck. He’s obviously tired.
Where is belgium when we need them to step up?
Never mind.
JeffR
[/quote]
True, but he needs to grow some balls and fix it. Blow the fuck out of Iran and then step down if he has to.
I think the key to victory is to start a feminist movement over there. Let’s send Patricia Ireland,Rosie, and Hillary as an envoy. They’d probably surrender just to get them to shut the fuck up.
[quote]The Beast wrote:
JeffR wrote:
The problem is that Blair is now a lame duck. He’s obviously tired.
Where is belgium when we need them to step up?
Never mind.
JeffR
The problem with Blair is that his preoccupation at the moment is with his retirement from politics and job on the speech/lecture circuit.
Yet again we will see Europe falter at the decisive moment. But if we are really really nice to the Iranians, let them have their nuclear bombs and stop killing their soldiers operating in Iraq, then maybe, just maybe the’ll be nice to us as well.[/quote]
The Beast,
Again, nice to hear your point of view. I’m so sick of the reckless’/lixy/orion hate America crap.
I agree 100% with both your statement of fact and the sarcasm later.
However, I think you are being too harsh on England in particular. You guys didn’t falter when it came to Iraq. You were there. You shed blood.
Here is a link to the troops sent by the Coalition:
Multi-National Force – Iraq - Wikipedia.
A quick count gives me FORTY countries that have sent troops to Iraq.
If Bush was a better communicator, he would ram this down the “unilateral” crowd’s throat at least once a week.
Remember there was a broad representation of countries including europe.
Don’t play into the france/germany/russia=international community tag-line.
They don’t deserve that moniker.
In summary, the usual subjects will falter with iran.
However, I fully expect Blair to eventually deal with this crises.
JeffR
[quote]The Beast wrote:
lixy wrote:
kevinm1 wrote:
You bring in the US this is Britian vs Iran not Iran vs US keep my country out of it.
You have the right to love your country, but like it or not, it was the US that drew Britain into Iraq. If you think Blair is anything more than Bush’s poodle when it comes to foreign policy, you’re deeply mistaken.
Remember the millions of people in London on February 15th, 2003?
No, can’t say that I do. Was that the bunch the police fenced in?
As far as being “drawn” into Iraq, I think that having the only significant military that we readily commit for overseas deployment may be a factor as well.
The Russians, Chinese, French, Indians, Turks, and any other nation with a “large”/“modern” military are never in a million years going to commit to a US led action anywhere, so strangely, the UK, a rather longterm ally of the US, with some rather significant historical links and close military ties got involved.
Here’s a big clue for you, Great Britain has been universally hated since the days of the empire, now the US is basking in the glow of universal hatred, so why do you think we have close political ties?[/quote]
Some of the hatred we both deserve, the other portion (jealousy/focusing on the big dog to distract from home troubles) get a long, thick middle-finger from me.
JeffR
[quote]The Beast wrote:
No, can’t say that I do. Was that the bunch the police fenced in?[/quote]
Maybe…Can’t say for sure. The cost was pretty high though. 7/7 would have not happened if you didn’t “readily commit for overseas deployment” in Iraq.
It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the French, Turks and others respected the will of the majority?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070320/wl_uk_afp/iraqanniversarybritain_070320105207
Duh! Empires are in the business of making money, not friends. “Civilizing” and “freeing” the occupied populations is often used as a pretext to that.
It’s only natural that it ends up with enemies.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Grim,
I’m not sure the kill and capture strategy was designed around or attempting to influence the nuclear standoff.
However, I’m fairly certain it was in response to iranian involvement in Iraq.
I was curious as to your take on this.
Does killing Americans in Iraq and fomenting rebellion enough provocation to wipe out the nuclear facities and their naval forces?
Again, I’d like to hear your take on this.
Thanks,
JeffR
[/quote]
I agree that the above is probably more directly a response to their guys on the ground in Irak. However, the nuclear part of the equation is hard to isolate from their past aid to and direct contribution to terrorism as a tool of statecraft.
I would say that their activities in Iraq are most likely to be viewed as yet another sign of unstable aggression when considering them as a potential nuclear power.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
A quick count gives me FORTY countries that have sent troops to Iraq.
If Bush was a better communicator, he would ram this down the “unilateral” crowd’s throat at least once a week.[/quote]
92% of the troops were American. In my book, it’s unilateral. Others (not the UK) were there symbolically.
All of the governments that caved in and sent troops to Iraq are politically dead. Opposition to the war reached 90% in countries such as Spain and Italy. How can you not see that your so-called “coalition of the willing” is indeed a coalition of the coerced, bribed and intimidated is beyond me.
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
Once again keep iraq out of it,
this is Iran vs Britian talk about Britian we declared independence from them in 1776 won the “war” in 1792, it’s when clowns, you included, [/quote]
In international politics, US influence is ubiquitous. I’m just painting the big picture, but if you wanna pretend that the capture of the Brits has nothing to do with the Iraq war, suit yourself.
Yep. A bunch of crazy zealots were under the impression that there was a conspiracy against Muslims. The idiots managed to hurt people over some cartoons.
What’s that gotta do with the subject at hand?
Sure thing.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
However, I think you are being too harsh on England in particular. You guys didn’t falter when it came to Iraq. You were there. You shed blood.
[/quote]
Lots of it.
And remember:
They hate you for your freedom.
Or what is left of it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
kevinm1 wrote:
Once again keep iraq out of it,
this is Iran vs Britian talk about Britian we declared independence from them in 1776 won the “war” in 1792, it’s when clowns, you included,
In international politics, US influence is ubiquitous. I’m just painting the big picture, but if you wanna pretend that the capture of the Brits has nothing to do with the Iraq war, suit yourself.
remember when the muslim’s had their panties in a bunch over the demark cartoons? Death to America etc etc we had nothing to do with it.
Yep. A bunch of crazy zealots were under the impression that there was a conspiracy against Muslims. The idiots managed to hurt people over some cartoons.
What’s that gotta do with the subject at hand?
Eat train grow
Sure thing.[/quote]
It is interesting how you manage to se the invisible hand of the evil empire (USA) everywhere, but at the same time, you are unable to see the same hand on the other side of the conflict… 
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
It is interesting how you manage to se the invisible hand of the evil empire (USA) everywhere, but at the same time, you are unable to see the same hand on the other side of the conflict… [/quote]
If you mean the Iranian “hand” meddling with Iraq and Lebanon, rest assured that I see it quite clearly.
If it’s something else you mean, please elaborate on what the “other side of the conflict” is. I’m interested in knowing your views.
[quote]lixy wrote:
92% of the troops were American. In my book, it’s unilateral. Others (not the UK) were there symbolically.
All of the governments that caved in and sent troops to Iraq are politically dead. Opposition to the war reached 90% in countries such as Spain and Italy. How can you not see that your so-called “coalition of the willing” is indeed a coalition of the coerced, bribed and intimidated is beyond me.[/quote]
If good people are not staunch in their beliefs, then evil people become staunch in theirs. You then see the ‘good’ people become cringing and appeasing, begging the evil ones to ‘please leave us alone’. This is evident in our Democrats, with their cringing and base use of the Iraqi conflict to gain power here, selling out their country for a congressional or presidential seat.
This is VERY evident in most overseas countries, where the cringing has reached a fever pitch. Well, sorry guys, giving in to thugs simply emboldens the thugs. Give an inch, they want a foot, give a foot, they want a mile. Its just like 1940 again, with the USA having to bail out all the cowardly scum in Belgium, France, Italy, and on and on. There are few men left in those countries; they now are mostly composed of frightened little rodent-men who run at the first step of a murdering thug.
History repeats itself…
Food for thought: