Jump to content

British Navy Sailors


jdobbin

Recommended Posts

Yes, he knew how to rule thru fear, and intimidation...but then again so can anyone..It takes a person with some leadership skills to run a democracy. Are you saying that all the Iraqis or for that matter most middle eastern countries are not capable of becoming or are ready to become democracies and need to be ruled with an iron fist enforced by threats of violence....if not then how should they be governed ?

Even some of the middle eastern nations have admitted that Sadam and his band of thugs were not exactly a stabilizing force within the middle east...Kuwait, and iran would be examples of that...

So how is the west or for that matter all democractic countries to deal with these countries, do we bury our heads in the sand and let them have free rein to do as they please....and hope that some form of humanity developes soon.

He did rule through fear and intimidation and brute force, but we need to remember that Iraq is a made-up country. Unlike other countries such as England, Russia, Japan and even US (although to a much lesser extent) Iraq does not have centuries of history that unite the people within it, it does not have centuries of existenence as a power behind it.

Iraq is basically a small room where three kids who hate each other have been tossed in. Saddam was like a maniacal, white trash parent who beat his kids but through the beatings he ensured the relative safety of the kids. He even provided basic education and kept them from becoming criminals.

Come 1991, the "Social services" came in and slapped Saddam around for mistreating the kids and then imposed a harsh embargo on the house, preventing Saddam from getting any food, school supplies or entertainment into the country. The kids grew more violent and angry, but still Saddam kept them in check.

Come 2003, Social services invade again, behead Saddam and let the kids do whatever they want. Naturally, the first thing the kids do is cheer because the evil parent was decapitated and then they remember that they hate each other and they turn onto one another, tearing each other to pieces savagely, forgoing any degree of civilty that the previous regime kept up.

Obviously the analogy is superficial, but it more or less illustrates how I feel about the issue. People only deserve democracy until they can realize that they need it and that they want it and that they're ready to do something about it.

Having it shoved down their throats, especially with a heavy death toll AND demolishion of infrastructure (at least during Saddam era they had electricity and fresh water) will not go well, and will not serve anything but promote hate for the west.

Iraq has also become a training camp for terrorists and militants, where they can get real-life experience of fighting american security forces.

When the Americans pull out, the Shia majority in Iraq will want to merge with Iran or at least establish a government that is friendly with Iran. Instead of having a divided Middle East (Secular / Sunni muslims under Saddam vs Hardcore islam regime under Iranian ayatollahs) now the "Islam crescent" will be complete.

So basically we had two choices. Let the Middle Eastern countries sort their own things out and then deal with the resulting government or interfere (and interfere clumsily at that) now and screw the pooch by making the whole world apprehensive of our "democratization process".

Oh yeah, having a leader who has no charisma and no diplomatic tact whatsoever, who keeps talking about crusades and downplays all the atrocities that Israel commits in the Middle East does not help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 429
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Now, if you go to a larger scale: A government that is guilty of flagrant human right abuses, violating geneva conventions and wiping its ass with international laws orders soldiers to invade an innocent country under false premises (WMD search). Do the soldiers not have the MORAL and ETHICAL obligation to disobey the commanders orders and not go anywhere.

Defending our soldiers in this case is like defending SS troops who invaded countries during WW II. Sure, they acted like sheep and went along with the crowd, but that should-not absolve them of responsibility of killing millions of people in the name of an illegal cause.

No they don't, not according to the UN. Only in extremist nutbar land.

That's not really true. SS soldiers often took part in civilian massacres. So far American troops haven't been ordered to, and if they did go along with it they will be punished.

I don't think American soldier's have actually killed million's of people, that's probably a made up reason on your part. The American's would actually have to a hold the gun to the civilian's head and shoot in order to be the equivalent of the SS.

By the way, I don't think you should be so judgemental. You live in the most comfortable of setting's, you can drone on about how American soldiers are SS storm troopers all you want, however without being in that situation how would you know you would do.

This is why it's so easy for the Republican's to have won power, because people make dumbass remarks like this poster did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cnn

this says that they were no where near your river you stated and in Iraqi waters. That little map they give is most helpful. They were operating in the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, not the Arvand river.

:lol: :lol: :lol: This is priceless.

FYI, oh-one-who-mouths-off-in-absense-of-knowledge, the Shatt al-Arab IS the Arvand River.

It's interesting that you would risk war with a superpower just because of a few boats operating in our waters, it happens and we can't do much about it.

You think that Canada enforcing it's territorial sovereignty would lead to a war with the United States? What a terrible thing to think of our wonderful allies!

If you want to nickel and dime then you can call it the Arvandrud. That's the first i've heard it referred to as Arvand. Bravo, do you want a medal?

:huh:

WTF is wrong with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF is wrong with you?

I don't see any problem

You took the time to level a personal attack, now take the time and answer my question about canada and denmark in a similar dispute and how we handle it like civilized people and not like the barbarians out in Iran. the questions are earlier in the thread, other posters would like to see your response concerning this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, and it's a big however, when one takes prisoners in disputed waters, and then threatens to try them for espionage, that is way way up the escalation ladder. There are a whack of ways to end an intrusion; the most common being to shoo the perceived intruder away and resolve the incident later. This is direct confrontation by Iran.

If these indeed are disputed waters between Iraq and Iran, what business do the British have to take sides in that dispute by implicity endorsing the Iraqi position by treating the waters as Iraqi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF is wrong with you?

I don't see any problem

Why did you ask if I wanted a medal? Do you want a medal for talking like you know something when clearly you don't?

I got your blue ribbon right here.

... answer my question about canada and denmark in a similar dispute and how we handle it like civilized people and not like the barbarians out in Iran.

Canada and Denmark are easier-going than Iran and Iraq. I hope that's no revelation to anyone. It tells you zip about where the sailors were, what the status of the waters is, or whether Iran was within its rights to capture them. What is your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 21 year old brother is there right now. If he is killed by Iranian supplied goods, then yeah fuck them.

Perhaps your 21 year old brother should've thought twice before he signed away his life in exchange for the benefits that army provides.

I dont normally do this, and ill take the ban i get for it, but go fuck yourself. Don't you ever presume to know why my brother joined the military. That boy needed the Military for more reasons then a paycheck. If someone were to say that to my face I would knock you the fuck out. I dont care if you were 6ft 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada and Denmark are easier-going than Iran and Iraq. I hope that's no revelation to anyone. It tells you zip about where the sailors were, what the status of the waters is, or whether Iran was within its rights to capture them. What is your point?

We are two countries in a border dispute, much like Iran and Iraq. My point is that do we go and arrest Danish sailors when they wander in our claimed waters of Hans Island, and do they arrest our sailors for the same thing? I'm saying that no country has the right to up and capture sailors for being in disputed waters, Canada and Denmark don't do it, what makes Iran so special?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these indeed are disputed waters between Iraq and Iran, what business do the British have to take sides in that dispute by implicity endorsing the Iraqi position by treating the waters as Iraqi?

Where would you draw the line? Which boat is in who's waters?

Shatt al arab River...Google maps.

Apparently, repeated UK attempts to get dipomatic access to these sailors...at least one a female if that matters...have failed. Rumors are that they're still in Tehran...but no confirmation.

----------------------------------------------------------

How much of human life is lost in waiting?

---Ralph Waldo Emerson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada and Denmark are easier-going than Iran and Iraq. I hope that's no revelation to anyone. It tells you zip about where the sailors were, what the status of the waters is, or whether Iran was within its rights to capture them. What is your point?

We are two countries in a border dispute, much like Iran and Iraq. My point is that do we go and arrest Danish sailors when they wander in our claimed waters of Hans Island, and do they arrest our sailors for the same thing? I'm saying that no country has the right to up and capture sailors for being in disputed waters, Canada and Denmark don't do it, what makes Iran so special?

I know what you are saying, and it's wrong. The fact that Canada and Denmark choose not to do something doesn't tell you anything about whether countries have the right to do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you are saying, and it's wrong. The fact that Canada and Denmark choose not to do something doesn't tell you anything about whether countries have the right to do something.

So should Canada and Denmark start arresting each other's sailor's and make things worse? Countries do not have the right to kidnap sailors in disputed waters. what would you say if Britain tossed 15 Iranian sailors into the brig because they were in disputed waters? Iran could have let the Brits go and not caused an international incident. Do the Brits have warships in Iran's harbors?

Iran has the right to do something, just not kidnapping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these indeed are disputed waters between Iraq and Iran, what business do the British have to take sides in that dispute by implicity endorsing the Iraqi position by treating the waters as Iraqi?

Where would you draw the line? Which boat is in who's waters?

An excellent question. Iran would like to draw the line, and probably has drawn a line it claims. Iraq would like to draw the line. Should Britain draw the line? If you're Britain you should follow a line if the UN says its a line. If there's no UN approved line, then you should respect the Iranian line, 'cause it's not your business to press for the Iraqi line.

Apparently, repeated UK attempts to get dipomatic access to these sailors...at least one a female if that matters...have failed. Rumors are that they're still in Tehran...but no confirmation.

Let's hope they're released soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you are saying, and it's wrong. The fact that Canada and Denmark choose not to do something doesn't tell you anything about whether countries have the right to do something.

So should Canada and Denmark start arresting each other's sailor's and make things worse? Countries do not have the right to kidnap sailors in disputed waters. what would you say if Britain tossed 15 Iranian sailors into the brig because they were in disputed waters? Iran could have let the Brits go and not caused an international incident. Do the Brits have warships in Iran's harbors?

Iran has the right to do something, just not kidnapping.

Why do you keep going on about Canada and Denmark? They are less aggressive, if you think peace is a good policy then you'll prefer our approach, yes.

But look, this is a very simple fact -- states have the right to enforce their sovereignty in their own territorial waters. That includes taking foreign military personel into custody when they are engaging civilian shipping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you are saying, and it's wrong. The fact that Canada and Denmark choose not to do something doesn't tell you anything about whether countries have the right to do something.

So should Canada and Denmark start arresting each other's sailor's and make things worse? Countries do not have the right to kidnap sailors in disputed waters. what would you say if Britain tossed 15 Iranian sailors into the brig because they were in disputed waters? Iran could have let the Brits go and not caused an international incident. Do the Brits have warships in Iran's harbors?

Iran has the right to do something, just not kidnapping.

Why do you keep going on about Canada and Denmark? They are less aggressive, if you think peace is a good policy then you'll prefer our approach, yes.

But look, this is a very simple fact -- states have the right to enforce their sovereignty in their own territorial waters. That includes taking foreign military personel into custody when they are engaging civilian shipping.

Those are disputed waters though, a whole new ball game, I would think one should tread lightly there. You can enforce sovereignty without kidnapping. Why couldn't Iran just send a warship out there and shoo them away? that's what civilized countries do. What's even worse is that Iran won't immediately send them back to Britain.

Anyone else remember the Estai incident? In that case, Canada arrested foreign sailors in international waters in the name of fish.

Yah that incident, they had arrested the sailors for comitting a crime in Canadian waters, much different than the brits for doing a UN mandated ship inspection in disputed waters. Also to note, did Canada deny the Spanish sailors access to the ambassador, keep their location a secret, etc. like the Iranians are doing? The Estai incident is more and more proof that what the Iranians are doing is wrong.

cbc

wiki

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are disputed waters though, a whole new ball game, I would think one should tread lightly there.

We still don't know exactly where the sailors were. But yes, that will make a difference depending on that fact.

You can enforce sovereignty without kidnapping.

If you are enforcing legitimate sovereignty -- it's -- not -- kidnapping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else remember the Estai incident? In that case, Canada arrested foreign sailors in international waters in the name of fish.

I'll take fish over gaining pawns in a very dangerous game of intentional escalation. These prisoners have the right to consular assistance, and the Iranians aren't even telling the Brits where they are being held.

Arresting and taking prisoners are okay, as long as the situation is dealt with rationally after. I don't see that from Iran. They are doing this to be provoke Brit and the US, and to gain chips in the big nuclear poker game. Canada wasn't trying to dissaude Spain from investigating and holding us to account on nuclear weapons violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else remember the Estai incident? In that case, Canada arrested foreign sailors in international waters in the name of fish.

I'll take fish over gaining pawns in a very dangerous game of intentional escalation. These prisoners have the right to consular assistance, and the Iranians aren't even telling the Brits where they are being held.

Arresting and taking prisoners are okay, as long as the situation is dealt with rationally after. I don't see that from Iran. They are doing this to be provoke Brit and the US, and to gain chips in the big nuclear poker game. Canada wasn't trying to dissaude Spain from investigating and holding us to account on nuclear weapons violations.

That really is the crux of the matter. Obviously they were taken either in intl waters or disputed waters, and even if the Iranians feel they have a case, they have leapt several rungs up the escalation ladder right off the bat. There is no real excuse for it, and they will almost certainly end up getting burned.

But the real eye opener is how many people hereabouts hate their own society so much that they're willing to immediately jump to the conclusion that it must be the west who is wrong, in spite of the clear evidence that Iran has been an essentially pariah nation since the 70s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the real eye opener is how many people hereabouts hate their own society so much that they're willing to immediately jump to the conclusion that it must be the west who is wrong, in spite of the clear evidence that Iran has been an essentially pariah nation since the 70s.

I hate my society so much that I don't want to see all of the young people go off and die in some useless war that could be solved using diplomacy.

Ever hear about Mossadeq, he was deposed by the west because he wanted to nationalize Iran's oil assets. Despite the fact that's what the people of Iran wanted.

The Shah, man, that guy was great. We could really use alot more people like him in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the real eye opener is how many people hereabouts hate their own society so much that they're willing to immediately jump to the conclusion that it must be the west who is wrong, in spite of the clear evidence that Iran has been an essentially pariah nation since the 70s.

I hate my society so much that I don't want to see all of the young people go off and die in some useless war that could be solved using diplomacy.

Ever hear about Mossadeq, he was deposed by the west because he wanted to nationalize Iran's oil assets. Despite the fact that's what the people of Iran wanted.

The Shah, man, that guy was great. We could really use alot more people like him in the world.

Try to stay on topic and not let your spleen take over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously they were taken either in intl waters or disputed waters, ...

Okay, I'll ask. What is your ludicrous justification for that assertion?

They could have been in Iraqi or Iranian waters too.

...if the Iranians feel they have a case, they have leapt several rungs up the escalation ladder right off the bat.

Not really. The British weren't just sightseeing. They were conducting an armed boarding mission.

There is no real excuse for it, and they will almost certainly end up getting burned.

Iran's success in the diplomatic battle lately is pretty strong. You might get burned on that prediction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try to stay on topic and not let your spleen take over.

Buddy, you said that people that don't agree with military action hate our own society.

Are you nuts?

Once again, we should allow diplomacy to do it's work here. From what I understand the British had boarded a ship, and that is when they were taken prisoner. I realize some people want to see a war, but at the same time I don't see the point in sacrificing numerous lives when we can just as easily use diplomacy, and get these guys out safely with no lives being lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...