British sailors taken by Iran

[hypertilly]

Were they spies?

[GutZ]

I do think that Iran, or at least the government, feels empowered due to the influence of the anti-war left on western politics. Whether this is a weakeness or not remains to be seen.

 

How many countries will feel empowered know that the US and British has used up it miltary, invading every country it deems "evil" due to the influence of pro-war right western politics.

 

That's a possibility too right?

[ecoli]

I still haven't heard what you think should be done, ecoli. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Do you think the UK should have declared war on Iran? What would not be "appeasement?" Actually, that goes for all of you complaining about looking "weak." What's the plan, guys?

 

No, I think Britain did a pretty good job in keeping the situation from escalating. The appeasement comment was directed at more towards the whole conflict than just the situation with the British hostages. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

Its just a fact that I don't think Iran can be trusted for a moment, so the fact that they kidnapped the soldiers in the first place and released them for apparently no reason, worries me. I'm of the opinion that it was an internal political show, so Ahmedinejad (sp?) could exploit the media.

He tells the people, "these british sailors were violating our boarders, and our superior military was able to capture them. And look, even though it was the British at fault, we're taking the moral high ground by treating the trespassers like guests and letting them go free without making demands... Those western war-mongers wouldn't do that! Iran is great, the US and Britain are weak.... blah, blah, blah."

 

I, personally, have no idea how to treat the situation diplomatically, because I honestly don't believe that Iran will ever respect the West, and I take personal issue with Ahmadinejad's government's holocaust denials and threats against Israel. (though I don't want the thread to turn into a discussion about that).

 

I just see this hostage situation as one more step towards the road to armed conflict with Iran... and neither side is doing much to stop it. If that is even something we want to do... because I don't get the feeling that it's something Iran wants to do.

 

How many countries will feel empowered know that the US and British has used up it miltary, invading every country it deems "evil" due to the influence of pro-war right western politics.

 

That's a possibility too right?

 

True, military spending can only go so far before we simply can't support armed conflict anymore. And some areas of the national budget have already been hurt by a shift in spending to the military... research especially. And of course, the loss of life, which we can't put a price on.

 

It's hard because the initial war in Iraq was f*cked up, so now we have some responsibility to clean up the mess, stop secretarian violence and make sure Iran doesn't gain too much influence over the middle east. All this is going to cost a lot of money, but I don't see what other choice there is... cause letting them fight amoung themselves will definitely lead to a humanitarian crisis.

 

 

Perhaps there can be some way to politically play the Saudi's and Iranians off of each other, as to keep some balance of power.

 

Saudi Arabia's recent overtures to Israel, whether or not it will amount to anything, comforts me, because at least some middle eastern countries are trying to work things out diplomatically. If Iran learns how to do this, then I will be comforted, and not worry so much about their nuclear program; amoung other things.

 

I don't really have a solution though... even tho I'm good at complaining about the way things are currently being run... There's got to be some middle ground here.

[Pangloss]

How many countries will feel empowered know that the US and British has used up it miltary, invading every country it deems "evil" due to the influence of pro-war right western politics.

 

People think it's used up? Let them test us and see what happens.

 

It might be interesting to see what we can do when we decide to spend more than 0.77% of our annual GDP on a military venture.

[ecoli]

People think it's used up? Let them test us and see what happens.

 

It might be interesting to see what we can do when we decide to spend more than 0.77% of our annual GDP on a military venture.

 

Since 'Nam and the expanded media access, it would really hard for the public to support a large scale war.

[Pangloss]

Absolutely. But throw another 9/11 on the table and all bets are off.

[JohnB]

Absolutely. But throw another 9/11 on the table and all bets are off.

I think that may be the point that is being quietly stressed in certain areas.

 

If you guys cop even a big fertilizer bomb (like the one intercepted in the UAR a couple of years ago) I wonder if there isn't the very real possibility that the US will go nuts. (B5 fans, think of the Mimbari when Dukat was killed.)

 

And I don't know how (or if) the rest of us could hold you back. The "Hawks" would want the offending nation levelled and a dissenting voice would be hard pressed to be heard. Not that we wouldn't understand your feelings, but swapping a nation for a city seems a really bad idea.

[GutZ]

People think it's used up? Let them test us and see what happens.

 

Please don't. Canada needs you, how can we maintain our "We love everyone" routine when you guys are all tapped up (Worst Case Scenerio).

 

btw I am not saying Britian should lay down all the time...

 

But "our" side has so many potential "evils" to over come...really...China as a communist state, North Korea, Afganistan, Iran, Iraq, etc.

 

This is why I always believe in destroying the concept of nations, leaders can't manipulate (they will try of course) people into making enemies. There will always be conflicts with well developed/technologically advanced countries over undeveloped (in comparsion).

 

To me either "us" or "them" will have to eliminate each other, or We need to eliminate this "us" vs "them" concept. Or have to deal with this, but invasions...to me are temp solutions.

[Pangloss]

Iraq was a catastrophic mistake, IMO, but I wholeheartedly support what we did with Afghanistan, and I think the status of Afghanistan today is an affirmation of our action there (in spite of the resurging threat of the Taliban -- that's a lack of attention and follow-up, not an up-front mistake). They have a chance now to join the peaceful company of nations that they did not have before. Would it have been better to see them take that step on their own? Absolutely. But they blew it, so we took that step for them.

 

We could have done what Rome did to Carthage, Afghanisto delendo est, killing every man, woman and child and salting the poppey fields. We didn't do that. We simply destroyed its heinous government and replaced it with a new one in a violent and expensive manner, knowing full well that it was not the prefered way, but lacking further tolerance after having been brutally abused for our forebearance.

 

The carrot doesn't do you any good if there's no stick waiting to back it up. Had we not invaded Iraq, the realpolitik situation today would be vastly more positive, egalitarian and progressive, in no small part because of our actions in Afghanistan. Afghanistan could have been the example that that part of the world never forgot, teaching it the price of ongoing stupidity and showing it the way to find the carrot. But we screwed it up, instead teaching that part of the world a worthless lesson in warlike behavior.

 

You're absolutely right, GutZ, in saying that war is never more than a temporary solution. But it's not a question of "us or them". It's a question of being the society you say you're going to be.

[GutZ]

You're absolutely right, GutZ, in saying that war is never more than a temporary solution. But it's not a question of "us or them". It's a question of being the society you say you're going to be.

 

Lol true, but really no country has rock hard integrity, and not every country will agree that a specific country has rock hard integrity.

[John Cuthber]

I'm still waiting for infromation about what other people would have done in Mr Blair's place. While I'm asking; what would you have done if you had been trapped in an inflatable boat by hostile armed ships?

 

Unless you can actually come up with a better response than those who were in that situation, might I enquire as to your qualification to make derogatory comments about them or their country?

(And God knows it's pretty rare that I say Blair did a good job.)

[Pangloss]

Lol true, but really no country has rock hard integrity, and not every country will agree that a specific country has rock hard integrity.

 

Fair enough, but I was actually speaking about the international community as a whole. Its reputation is certainly blemished as well, but the question in my mind is whether that community is going to stand up for what it believes, or simply repeat itself over and over until its beggings are overtaken by further unfortunate events.

[Pangloss]

I'm still waiting for infromation about what other people would have done in Mr Blair's place. While I'm asking; what would you have done if you had been trapped in an inflatable boat by hostile armed ships?

 

Unless you can actually come up with a better response than those who were in that situation, might I enquire as to your qualification to make derogatory comments about them or their country?

(And God knows it's pretty rare that I say Blair did a good job.)

 

What does the tactical situation on the ground have to do with the handling of the political aftermath? I don't understand this correlation at all.

[John Cuthber]

"What does the tactical situation on the ground have to do with the handling of the political aftermath? I don't understand this correlation at all."

 

The only relation is that people are slagging off both without proposing any sugestions as to how they might have been handled better.

 

(Of course, the overall tactics of this conflict are political so the two are not totally unrelated)

The politics of selling the stories to the newspapers is another matter- it could clearly have been done better, but it's a relatively minor point.

[ParanoiA]

If diplomacy, restraint and mutual respect had been in place after WW1, Hitler would never have risen to power. Once he was in power, war was invevitable. What the West is doing in the middle east is creating the conditions for extremist leaders to thrive. We are creating the conditions for War. Why would any sane Government want to do this? Well, the answer is PROFIT

 

Oh please. Is the middle east guilty of anything? One thing bombus? So far, your whole viewpoint is centered on soundbite pesimism founded on baseless, blow hard hate america first philosophy. Do you have anything substative to back up your claims of war profits? So far all we have is a skyrocketing deficit and 3 dollar a gallon gasoline to show for it. Oil companies make money whether we're at war or not. Rich people can get rich a ton of ways easier than manipulating the US government. I know you don't believe that, because it's funner to just blame the US for everything. And you don't have to back up any of your conspiratory claims.

 

You know, it's funny how people like to point out that half the world hates the US, but no one points out that it's only ONE part of that world that targets and kills civilians of that country. Why is it the rest of the world is expected to keep their heads, but the middle east gets a free pass?

 

The prejudice on this globe is stifling...

 

Oh, and Bombus, in case you forgot...the middle east is made up of governments that had no problem taking our money for presence as global marketing. The governments of those countries don't have a problem with profit. (While it might seem a little weird...profit actually isn't bad...it's just made bad by people who aren't any good at it).

[ParanoiA]

The only relation is that people are slagging off both without proposing any sugestions as to how they might have been handled better.

 

Hehe...what are you talking about? Iraq? Terrorism? It fits, either way. Good point...

[ecoli]

Oh please. Is the middle east guilty of anything? One thing bombus? So far, your whole viewpoint is centered on soundbite pesimism founded on baseless, blow hard hate america first philosophy. Do you have anything substative to back up your claims of war profits? So far all we have is a skyrocketing deficit and 3 dollar a gallon gasoline to show for it. Oil companies make money whether we're at war or not. Rich people can get rich a ton of ways easier than manipulating the US government. I know you don't believe that, because it's funner to just blame the US for everything. And you don't have to back up any of your conspiratory claims.

 

You know, it's funny how people like to point out that half the world hates the US, but no one points out that it's only ONE part of that world that targets and kills civilians of that country. Why is it the rest of the world is expected to keep their heads, but the middle east gets a free pass?

 

The prejudice on this globe is stifling...

 

Oh, and Bombus, in case you forgot...the middle east is made up of governments that had no problem taking our money for presence as global marketing. The governments of those countries don't have a problem with profit. (While it might seem a little weird...profit actually isn't bad...it's just made bad by people who aren't any good at it).

 

Well said paranoiA...

 

I'd also like to add, that for some reason, the left doesn't seem to think that their own party is capable of corruption. How come when a dem gets caught, it's not taken as seriously? Whenever a republican sneezes, there's an investigation, but the dems seem (at least to me) to get away with a lot more, by the media. I think it has to do with the Rich/Evil Republican and the Poor/Good democrat stereotype. Life just doesn't work that way.

 

The situation in the Middle east isn't so black and white.

[John Cuthber]

Paranoia,

If you left the quote in context, it was clear what it meant. Why didn't you do that?

[ParanoiA]

Paranoia,

If you left the quote in context, it was clear what it meant. Why didn't you do that?

 

I was being sarcastic. This has been our response every time people, mainly the democrats, criticize Iraq or anything else we're doing to fight back against terrorism. Nancy Pelosi and her followers seem to know all about how NOT to do it, but I haven't heard much on how they would do better. I even started a freaking thread on the subject to find out why, if it was even true, that democrats and the left don't seem to have any ideas to offer.

 

But you cleared it up for me on another thread. Terrorism is just an irritation. They just end lives a little sooner than they otherwise would have been. When you consider how many people die each day, and are going to die each day, then suddenly murder, war, famine, disease - none of it really needs to be dealt with. As long as the daily dead limit hasn't been reached, there's no sense in risking more death to stop it.

[bombus]

I think your trust for Iran is going a little too far when you say they weren't in any danger. They were being held captive in a hostile country... the potential for danger had to have been there.

 

Iran aren't really hostile to us Brits. Cold maybe (and with good reason) but not hostile.

 

Also, I don't think Western nations have the ability to think 10 years in advances. Most politicians don't think past the next election. The government is planning an Iranian invasion in ten years? That's an unfounded statement. And the only thing you have to support it is your irrational distrust and fear of our own government, and your strange love for our enemy.

 

The politicians have very little say. Its their advisers who are unelected and stay even when the governments change that have the real power. They plan a long long way ahead. e.g. the plan for the american 21st century - that Rumsfeld and his pals developed. This Iraq situation started in 1990 - its the same war.

 

 

 

 

They used diplomatic options instead of fighting. Appeasement. I think we know where that lead.

 

Appeasement an option with Hitler. If we had been more diplomatic and 'nice' to Germany after WW1, he'd never have risen to power.

[bombus]

Oh please. Is the middle east guilty of anything?

 

The middle east isn't to blame as its a region made up of many innocent individuals trying to live like everyone else in the world. The leaders are to blame for some things, but remember, most of them were put in place by the West - including Saddam Hussein! The reason why the West hates Iraq is because they overthrew the western puppet (the Shah) and replaced him with someone they wanted who was extremely anti western (the Ayatolloh), because the west had toppled Mossadegh and stirred up anger. I am no fan of either the Shah or the Ayatollah, but it was the West that toppled Mossadegh who led to them both. Its a mess the west created - as usual. So, who is really to blame?

 

One thing bombus? So far, your whole viewpoint is centered on soundbite pesimism founded on baseless, blow hard hate america first philosophy.

 

I'm not anti american, I'm anti capitalist as just leads to wars and suffering. I'm not a communist either mind!

 

Do you have anything substative to back up your claims of war profits?

 

Loads, and it would take up most of this site! But hey, you should be finding this stuff out, not getting me to tell you! Why not subscribe to New Internationalist magazine or something - really!

 

So far all we have is a skyrocketing deficit and 3 dollar a gallon gasoline to show for it.

 

Yup, the american people (your average joes) are just as messed about as anyone else. Your taxes pay for these wars and the profits go to the rich. It's a con and the US citizens are being conned too. Americans are among the most sincere, kind and caring people in the world, but are in general kept in the dark about what's really going on (as most in the west are). It's your leaders that are to blame - and it's not like you're given much choice in those.

 

Oil companies make money whether we're at war or not.

 

Yup, and make even more when they own even more oil fields.

 

Rich people can get rich a ton of ways easier than manipulating the US government.

The rich ARE the US Government! That's the point. You could do some research on the backgrounds of all your major politicians! You'll be surprised...

 

I know you don't believe that, because it's funner to just blame the US for everything.

 

I don't blame the US. I blame the companies, many of which are multinationals, but they have the power to manipulate Governments.

 

And you don't have to back up any of your conspiratory claims.

Firstly I do. Secondly, its the application of occams razor anyway. Look at the situation and try any explanations you like. This fits perfectly, and we know its been done before, (in Central and South America, in Korea, in Vietnam and Cambodia, in Afghanistan, etc etc etc) so why stop now?

 

 

You know, it's funny how people like to point out that half the world hates the US, but no one points out that it's only ONE part of that world that targets and kills civilians of that country.

 

The US is unfairly blamed when it's really just capitalism, but the US is the most capitalist and powerful economy (for now) and so has the most influence. It's a bit like in riots when they always target McDonalds as a symbol of all that's wrong with capitalism.

 

On your other point, what about Northern Ireland? What about the London bombings? All home grown, Brits killing Brits.

 

Why is it the rest of the world is expected to keep their heads, but the middle east gets a free pass?

 

Its not about a free pass. Its just that you have to look at why the situation is what it is before you can really make judgements about what should be done.

 

The prejudice on this globe is stifling...

 

Oh, and Bombus, in case you forgot...the middle east is made up of governments that had no problem taking our money for presence as global marketing. The governments of those countries don't have a problem with profit. (While it might seem a little weird...profit actually isn't bad...it's just made bad by people who aren't any good at it).

 

Well, like I said, the governments of many of these countries were put in power, or sustained by the West. The people of the middle east are really nice too in the main, and they get ripped off too.

 

However, one thing. Saddam Hussein was an evil bully, and ruled Iraq with an iron fist, but life for most citizens was actually OK so long as they kept their heads down and didn't try to overthrow him. Not ideal I know, but miles better than what they have now, and no different to Franco in Spain in the 1970's - and we didn't bomb madrid, no, we just went on holiday there and drank Sangria!

[bombus]

I'd also like to add, that for some reason, the left doesn't seem to think that their own party is capable of corruption. How come when a dem gets caught, it's not taken as seriously? Whenever a republican sneezes, there's an investigation, but the dems seem (at least to me) to get away with a lot more, by the media. I think it has to do with the Rich/Evil Republican and the Poor/Good democrat stereotype. Life just doesn't work that way.

 

I think calling the Democratic party Left is stretching it a little. Slightly less Right would be more accurate. There are no left wing parties (with any hope of getting elected) in the US.

[bombus]

Bettina,

 

I apologise unreservedly for my former harshness. I have been reprimanded and made to see the error of my ways. I am forgetting my manners and at my age should know better.

 

Please do not hold it against me. I'm a nice guy really!

[ecoli]

Iran aren't really hostile to us Brits. Cold maybe (and with good reason) but not hostile.

So, Iran has never made any threats towards the west?

 

A

 

The politicians have very little say. Its their advisers who are unelected and stay even when the governments change that have the real power. They plan a long long way ahead. e.g. the plan for the american 21st century - that Rumsfeld and his pals developed. This Iraq situation started in 1990 - its the same war.

Sorry, but it still smells like a conspiracy theory to me... I can't believe it without evidence.

 

Appeasement an option with Hitler. If we had been more diplomatic and 'nice' to Germany after WW1, he'd never have risen to power.

 

Appeasement is always an option... but in the end it's just delaying war.

 

And as much as I hate getting into "what ifs"... If WWI had never started, and Germany had never decimated France and europe, then they would never have been bitter towards Germany, and wouldn't have demanding such harsh terms of disarmament, reparations, etc. The Germans wouldn't have felt oppressed and forlorn... they wouldn't have desired a strong leader who promised the third Reich.

 

We can do this all day... it doesn't remove responsibility off of Hitler. Most Germans today would agree with me, I think.

 

I think calling the Democratic party Left is stretching it a little. Slightly less Right would be more accurate. There are no left wing parties (with any hope of getting elected) in the US.

Fair enough

[ParanoiA]

I'm not anti american, I'm anti capitalist as just leads to wars and suffering. I'm not a communist either mind!

 

This actually explains everything for me. I respect your position and can see how you make the conclusions you make. Personally, I like capitalism, but then that's to be expected if life is good.

 

The global economy is essentially capitalist. It's a free for all. It stands to reason we'd be pretty good at it. And it stands to reason we'd be resented for it. And your country is plenty successful at capitalism as well, in that regard.

 

We know our politicians are rich. We practically require them to be. We also require them to be liars and cons since that's the only type of person who could be "perfect" to an american audience. We also know we do business all over the globe and war over our assets when necessary. It's unfortunate, but no matter what drives a given country's economy, the global one will require this for survival.