Iran seizes British Navy Personnel in Iraqi Waters

...If Britian declared war on Iran (and taking British service personnel prisoner at the point of a gun is an act of war in itself), would the Americans have the guts to fight too?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I am no hero nor do I set standards for bravery but I think I can say without reservation that I would rather be killed in a missile strike by my own countrymen than tortured and eventually killed over time by hostiles.

And if the "hostiles" are treating you quite well? First of all we dont have consular access. We dont know where they are. They appear to be well treated. Iran is playing a very clever game here but then so might the Brits in furtherance of American war aims. What about the 5 Iranians who had diplomatic status kidnapped by the Americans in Irbil and "disappeared" into the American gulag? Dont you think that might influence Iranian thinking?

Being kidnapped and then treated well, a possibility made less plausible by the almost instantaneous confessions of these ordinary British sailors, is still not an acceptable condition. Your people have been kidnapped, and another rant about America the Great Satan doesn't really address the situation that your country and countrymen are now in. I have no doubt that someone can work out logic by which the kidnapping of your people is our president's fault, but it's nonsense.

now see, there's one of the main reasons I would prefer to side with the tree hugging pussies.... apparently the other side is populated with a bunch of Brandon 9000's.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I am no hero nor do I set standards for bravery but I think I can say without reservation that I would rather be killed in a missile strike by my own countrymen than tortured and eventually killed over time by hostiles.

And if the "hostiles" are treating you quite well? First of all we dont have consular access. We dont know where they are. They appear to be well treated. Iran is playing a very clever game here but then so might the Brits in furtherance of American war aims. What about the 5 Iranians who had diplomatic status kidnapped by the Americans in Irbil and "disappeared" into the American gulag? Dont you think that might influence Iranian thinking?

Being kidnapped and then treated well, a possibility made less plausible by the almost instantaneous confessions of these ordinary British sailors, is still not an acceptable condition. Your people have been kidnapped, and another rant about America the Great Satan doesn't really address the situation that your country and countrymen are now in. I have no doubt that someone can work out logic by which the kidnapping of your people is our president's fault, but it's nonsense.

now see, there's one of the main reasons I would prefer to side with the tree hugging pussies.... apparently the other side is populated with a bunch of Brandon 9000's.

As always, you lack the guts to actually provide an argument that anything I've said is in error. You are like a little annoying dog, yapping at the ankles of your betters as they try to debate the issues of the day.

Great Britain is held in extremely high esteem here, and very few people will forget the support your country has shown to us.

nice cat btw

more from irna

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0703304649161453.htm

Should the British government apologise? What does a few words of unfelt apology matter if they can come home? Its just an ego trip for power brokers.

Of course The British Government, being very important will not apologise. And the Iranian Regime, will not let them go until they do. How long did they keep the American hostages? And how did the military plan to free them go?

Steve 41oo wrote:

nice cat btw

more from irna

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0703304649161453.htm

Should the British government apologise? What does a few words of unfelt apology matter if they can come home? Its just an ego trip for power brokers.

Of course The British Government, being very important will not apologise. And the Iranian Regime, will not let them go until they do. How long did they keep the American hostages? And how did the military plan to free them go?

Dealing with criminals by apologizing to them? That sounds like a good plan....

I am very sure that if Britain were in a problem situation which they responded to with their military, and they asked the US for help, we would provide it, even if the battle were one that we would otherwise prefer not to take on. Great Britain is held in extremely high esteem here, and very few people will forget the support your country has shown to us.

Like the Australians, a majority of British voters also favor withdrawing from Iraq, according to a YouGov poll conducted in March. Fifty-five percent said they favored the withdrawal of British forces. Of those respondents, 24 percent supported the immediate withdrawal of British troops and 31 percent said the troops should be withdrawn within the next year, regardless of conditions in Iraq. Only 39 percent of those polled in Britain said they supported keeping British troops in Iraq until Iraq's own police were able to take over security operations.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I am very sure that if Britain were in a problem situation which they responded to with their military, and they asked the US for help, we would provide it, even if the battle were one that we would otherwise prefer not to take on. Great Britain is held in extremely high esteem here, and very few people will forget the support your country has shown to us.

Not everyone in Britain is such a keen supporter of George Bush as is Tony Blair

World Opinion Poll wrote:

Like the Australians, a majority of British voters also favor withdrawing from Iraq, according to a YouGov poll conducted in March. Fifty-five percent said they favored the withdrawal of British forces. Of those respondents, 24 percent supported the immediate withdrawal of British troops and 31 percent said the troops should be withdrawn within the next year, regardless of conditions in Iraq. Only 39 percent of those polled in Britain said they supported keeping British troops in Iraq until Iraq's own police were able to take over security operations.

Actually, and this might surprise you Brandon, the real reason I am so mad with the American administration (and not please with Americans, I am not anti American per se) is not that we (you and us) invaded Iraq and got rid of Saddam, but that under American leadership WE SCREWED IT UP.

Whatever the situation before, we are now in a global struggle with militant Islamists for the control of middle east oil. Its a struggle we cant afford to loose, and because of the idiotic incompetence of American leadership, particularly in the immediate "post invasion" phase in Iraq, its going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.

Brandon:

This is not about stealing oil, just making sure that the USA controls who controls the oil. The dream was that we would put in place a peaceful democracy friendly to the US and which just happened to control the second largest reserve of oil in the world. The new Iraq would be smack in between Iran and Saudi Arabia acting as both a beacon of democracy and a buffer to keep Iranian mitts off of all those reserves.

As it appears now, Iranian influence grows by the hour and even the House of Saud is pissed at the Bush boys. What we are going to end up with is a bunch of Shi'a in Iraq, well-connected to Teheran, with their hand on the OFF valves of those oilfields.

Joe(look up Declining US Oil Production since 1988)Nation

Joe Nation wrote:

Brandon:

This is not about stealing oil, just making sure that the USA controls who controls the oil. The dream was that we would put in place a peaceful democracy friendly to the US and which just happened to control the second largest reserve of oil in the world. The new Iraq would be smack in between Iran and Saudi Arabia acting as both a beacon of democracy and a buffer to keep Iranian mitts off of all those reserves.

As it appears now, Iranian influence grows by the hour and even the House of Saud is pissed at the Bush boys. What we are going to end up with is a bunch of Shi'a in Iraq, well-connected to Teheran, with their hand on the OFF valves of those oilfields.

Joe(look up Declining US Oil Production since 1988)Nation

Can you provide any evidence whatever that our motivation for the invasion was connected with oil?

Summary

Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil." This is projected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production. The issue of Peak Oil has been added to the scope of this essay, along with the macroeconomics of `petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but genuine challenge to U.S. dollar hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The author advocates graduated reform of the global monetary system including a dollar/euro currency `trading band' with reserve status parity, a dual OPEC oil transaction standard, and multilateral treaties via the UN regarding energy reform. Such reforms could potentially reduce future oil currency and oil warfare. The essay ends with a reflection and critique of current US economic and foreign policies. What happens in the 2004 US elections will have a large impact on the 21st century.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:

Brandon:

This is not about stealing oil, just making sure that the USA controls who controls the oil. The dream was that we would put in place a peaceful democracy friendly to the US and which just happened to control the second largest reserve of oil in the world. The new Iraq would be smack in between Iran and Saudi Arabia acting as both a beacon of democracy and a buffer to keep Iranian mitts off of all those reserves.

As it appears now, Iranian influence grows by the hour and even the House of Saud is pissed at the Bush boys. What we are going to end up with is a bunch of Shi'a in Iraq, well-connected to Teheran, with their hand on the OFF valves of those oilfields.

Joe(look up Declining US Oil Production since 1988)Nation

Can you provide any evidence whatever that our motivation for the invasion was connected with oil?

You know using Google is not that hard

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Quote:

Summary

Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil." This is projected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production. The issue of Peak Oil has been added to the scope of this essay, along with the macroeconomics of `petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but genuine challenge to U.S. dollar hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The author advocates graduated reform of the global monetary system including a dollar/euro currency `trading band' with reserve status parity, a dual OPEC oil transaction standard, and multilateral treaties via the UN regarding energy reform. Such reforms could potentially reduce future oil currency and oil warfare. The essay ends with a reflection and critique of current US economic and foreign policies. What happens in the 2004 US elections will have a large impact on the 21st century.

I repeat, can anyone provide any evidence whatsoever that the invasion was motivated by oil related issues?

Brandon9000 wrote:

I repeat, can anyone provide any evidence whatsoever that the invasion was motivated by oil related issues?

Take a look at the link. As for your assertion that I am motivated by a desire to collect material for a book on abnormal psychology, well keep posting Brandon.