Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You started the incredibly wrong strawman argument.

I didn't start the strawman, you did. I said it was stupid of them to sail in Iranian waters given the situation there. And it is. You don't go hiking in northern Iraq, you don't go fishing in the river between north and south Korea and you don't go sailing in Iranian waters. These are the acts of stupid people.

The US and UK both routinely have ships in our waters. japan, RUssia, China, and Mexico alone have hundreds of fishing vessels in our waters. I am sure there are lots of similar ships in UK waters. Last I saw neither the US nor the UK were seizing Canadian catamarans and putting the crews on the TV.

Again, what the feth does that have to do with anything? This is America, a nation with no border wars, no terror networks, a stable and functional government, and an incredibly powerful economy. It would make sense if we were Iran, but we're not. From the very beginning I said what they did was wrong, what are you even arguing? That because gumdrop-chocolate-landia is safe and full of pillows, sleeping kittens, and angels, that Iran is an ok place to go sailing for a week?

The comparison is just mindnumbingly stupid.

So why the hell do you keep making it?

Here's my first post.

How do people keep "wandering" into Iranian territory? Christ, the "Hikers" were enough, why would you sail there? Not to defend the capture of civilians, they should be returned immediately, but thats just fething dumb.

This is all just a political game anyway, they'll be returned after a few months of posturing.

Heres your response to it.

hundreds of ships are in US waters everyday. We don't run over and blow them out of the water, or caputure them and put them on TV.

Who is the one strawmaning again?

Wolfstan wrote:
Here's a heads up... we aren't interested in restarting the Empire!!!! We don't give a monkey's what Israel does, if you have an issue with them sort it out, us Brits don't care. We aren't oppressing you!!! Taking out Saddam helped you!!! Just give it a rest, we are getting bored with your childish behaviour.

Yes it did, but having a US/UK presence in Iraq does not.

Wolfstan wrote:
PS. Just be aware that if you are planning on making a nuclear weapon and using it... make sure you do a good job, because if you don't you will not get a second chance.

Its unlikely that they'll use nuclear weapons. Using nuclear weapons on Israel risks retaliation from the United States. It makes more sense for them to pursue nuclear weapons, goading Israel into attacking them, and thus building domestic political support for a conventional war (buttressed by insurgent support) in Iraq. A war that would be backstopped by nuclear support. This is the type of plan that comes to fruition in 20 years, after the US is largely out of Iraq, and operating with something like 2/3 the current defense budget.

For Iran the greatest risk is that the internal strife caused by poor economic performance will be too great for Israeli reprisal to overcome (should Israel attack at all). The plan also falls apart if the US begins to widen the growing cracks in Iranian society with clandestine arms deliveries (though that can just as easily lead to an upswing in Iranian nationalism should the support minority prove too small).

generalgrog wrote:
Holy cow I didn't think they spent much on defense at all, prefering the U.S. bodyguard approach. That's interesting.

France is really, really good at counter-terrorism. In terms of major action: they usually substitute military force with political maneuvering (which they're also very good at). We could learn a great deal from their approach.

Ok shuma I feel it is time to give you some actual knowledge in military matters since you being an armchair general makes me feel all warm inside. To capture a foreign nations soldiers more to the point to take captive is defined under the articles of war as a violent act towards said nation, thus allowing that nation to declare war. This means that if the UK decided that they had enough of these hostile actions taken by Iran they could petition the UN for military aid and go into iran with full support. Also being the allies we are the United States will no matter what back up the UK. Hell man even the French have started their offenses in Afghanistan realizing that it is a war that must occur. At times war is the only answer if you don't believe so then look at what flag flies abouve your avatar. What Iran has shown weather these sailors were inside their waters or not is that they are hostile to foreign nations. We allow many nations to port their warships here, and abroad as well as they do to us. What do you think ships stay at sea all year long?

Empchild wrote:Ok shuma I feel it is time to give you some actual knowledge in military matters since you being an armchair general makes me feel all warm inside. To capture a foreign nations soldiers more to the point to take captive is defined under the articles of war as a violent act towards said nation, thus allowing that nation to declare war. This means that if the UK decided that they had enough of these hostile actions taken by Iran they could petition the UN for military aid and go into iran with full support. Also being the allies we are the United States will no matter what back up the UK. Hell man even the French have started their offenses in Afghanistan realizing that it is a war that must occur. At times war is the only answer if you don't believe so then look at what flag flies abouve your avatar. What Iran has shown weather these sailors were inside their waters or not is that they are hostile to foreign nations. We allow many nations to port their warships here, and abroad as well as they do to us. What do you think ships stay at sea all year long?

I'm still confused as to what this has to do with any of my posts. But hey, if you have to practice your kung fu on a poster of me thats cool I guess.

@dogma: I understand what you are thinking when it comes to nucs the problem is you are thinking as a westerner with little fanatacism to your religon. How many christians have you heard of straping bombs to their chest for god? A fanatic is more dangerous then a trained soldier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'm still confused as to what this has to do with any of my posts. But hey, if you have to practice your kung fu on a poster of me thats cool I guess.

the reality is with that statement that I made proves frazzeld and everyone else right. You have little idea of the reality of the situation at hand. This is not some publicity paris hilton stages to gain some rep this is about reality of a nation who feels they are on top of the food chain and has no problem flexing their biceps to try and prove it. Your arguements are by all accounts invalid when it comes to anything like this. So this is the part where you make another pointless statement about whatever, try to attack me, but the reality is you are not a soldier hell I would put money your some college kid who thinks he knows the world, but onmatters like this were war is on the horizon you have no clue.

I thought dogma actually had an intriguing plan. If you used the nuclear weapons as a failsafe device in case you started losing, you would not suffer the anger of the entire world. If North Korea and the USSR has shown us anything, it is that a nuclear weapons program is a wonderful deterrent.

If Iran were to spend 20 years building domestic forces and laying the framework for insurgents in their targeted country, then they would likely have a very good chance of winning. The USA is going to be burned out on war when Iraq and Afghanistan finally pacify, or we pull out.

Going back to Iraq once we're clear- especially if it is timed well- would be a devastating blow to American morale. If Iran avoided any catalyzing terrorist attacks, then public opinion would probably be for UN sanctions and other slow interventions to avoid a military confrontation.

Its worse here. These aren't military sailors. These were guys as part of an international race and were sailing to Dubai to take part in that.

The Britons were part of the nine-strong crew of the Kingdom of Bahrain, a racing yacht, which was apprehended by the Iranian navy on Wednesday.

It is thought the boat, which carried a satellite tracker, may have drifted into Iranian waters after its propeller was damaged.

The newly refitted vessel was making its way from Bahrain to Dubai for a 350-mile race to Muscat, which began on Thursday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6695918/Iran-five-British-sailors-seized-after-straying-into-Iranian-waters.html

Gitzbitah wrote:I thought dogma actually had an intriguing plan. If you used the nuclear weapons as a failsafe device in case you started losing, you would not suffer the anger of the entire world. If North Korea and the USSR has shown us anything, it is that a nuclear weapons program is a wonderful deterrent.

If Iran were to spend 20 years building domestic forces and laying the framework for insurgents in their targeted country, then they would likely have a very good chance of winning. The USA is going to be burned out on war when Iraq and Afghanistan finally pacify, or we pull out.

Going back to Iraq once we're clear- especially if it is timed well- would be a devastating blow to American morale. If Iran avoided any catalyzing terrorist attacks, then public opinion would probably be for UN sanctions and other slow interventions to avoid a military confrontation.

spoken very tactfully, and honestly I agree with you, BUT your thinking yet again like a westerner, not as a zelot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Its worse here. These aren't military sailors. These were guys as part of an international race and were sailing to Dubai to take part in that.

The Britons were part of the nine-strong crew of the Kingdom of Bahrain, a racing yacht, which was apprehended by the Iranian navy on Wednesday.

It is thought the boat, which carried a satellite tracker, may have drifted into Iranian waters after its propeller was damaged.

The newly refitted vessel was making its way from Bahrain to Dubai for a 350-mile race to Muscat, which began on Thursday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6695918/Iran-five-British-sailors-seized-after-straying-into-Iranian-waters.html

Well this is almost another matter entirely, but still falls under the same heading. The UK has the right to protect its citizens both abroad and locally however they may choose.

the reality is with that statement that I made proves frazzeld and everyone else right.

When they say "Lets sink their navy!" or when Fraz says "This would never happen in American Waters". One you didn't prove right, and the other is still totally irrelevant.

You have little idea of the reality of the situation at hand.

Why do you say that? Because I stated that this was a political maneuver to ensure a more nationalistic and politicized voterbase to help secure the damaged Iranian national government?

Or the part where I stated that the sailors were stupid for sailing in Iranian waters. I'm pretty sure both are still true and that you're referencing some post that I've never made.

This is not some publicity paris hilton stages to gain some rep this is about reality of a nation who feels they are on top of the food chain and has no problem flexing their biceps to try and prove it.

Yes, it's about the reality of a nation that is flexing its biceps by capturing british nationals in an attempt to gain rep with it's own citizenry. I know. I said that already. What post are you arguing against? You didn't really quote anything relevant to what you're saying and looking over what I've posted you seem to be pulling a lot out of thin air.

Your arguements are by all accounts invalid when it comes to anything like this.

What arguments? What are you even talking about?

So this is the part where you make another pointless statement about whatever, try to attack me, but the reality is you are not a soldier hell I would put money your some college kid who thinks he knows the world, but onmatters like this were war is on the horizon you have no clue.

I state that I'm a college kid (23 years young!) all the time. I have a blog I've posted once in attached to my signature. How is any of this new? What are you arguing? Where are the posts that you're arguing against?

I've said that the sailors were dumb and that what Iran did was wrong. I've said that it's a political ploy. Finally I said that we had international prisons holding innocent civilians, and that two wrongs don't make a right, and that arguing about our own innocence or guilt has no bearing on the situation at hand.

None of the things I've posted about were incorrect or ignorant. And none of them seem at all related to whatever you're ranting about.

Its worse here. These aren't military sailors. These were guys as part of an international race and were sailing to Dubai to take part in that.

The Britons were part of the nine-strong crew of the Kingdom of Bahrain, a racing yacht, which was apprehended by the Iranian navy on Wednesday.

It is thought the boat, which carried a satellite tracker, may have drifted into Iranian waters after its propeller was damaged.

The newly refitted vessel was making its way from Bahrain to Dubai for a 350-mile race to Muscat, which began on Thursday.

Yea, that's pretty rough for them. I'm betting with this in the light they get released considerably faster. Iran doesn't have a particularly effective media clampdown, and once the reality sets in a bit it will no longer be politically advantageous for them to hold the sailors. They'll just look like dicks to their own people.

Empchild wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:I thought dogma actually had an intriguing plan. If you used the nuclear weapons as a failsafe device in case you started losing, you would not suffer the anger of the entire world. If North Korea and the USSR has shown us anything, it is that a nuclear weapons program is a wonderful deterrent.

If Iran were to spend 20 years building domestic forces and laying the framework for insurgents in their targeted country, then they would likely have a very good chance of winning. The USA is going to be burned out on war when Iraq and Afghanistan finally pacify, or we pull out.

Going back to Iraq once we're clear- especially if it is timed well- would be a devastating blow to American morale. If Iran avoided any catalyzing terrorist attacks, then public opinion would probably be for UN sanctions and other slow interventions to avoid a military confrontation.

spoken very tactfully, and honestly I agree with you, BUT your thinking yet again like a westerner, not as a zelot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Its worse here. These aren't military sailors. These were guys as part of an international race and were sailing to Dubai to take part in that.

The Britons were part of the nine-strong crew of the Kingdom of Bahrain, a racing yacht, which was apprehended by the Iranian navy on Wednesday.

It is thought the boat, which carried a satellite tracker, may have drifted into Iranian waters after its propeller was damaged.

The newly refitted vessel was making its way from Bahrain to Dubai for a 350-mile race to Muscat, which began on Thursday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6695918/Iran-five-British-sailors-seized-after-straying-into-Iranian-waters.html

Well this is almost another matter entirely, but still falls under the same heading. The UK has the right to protect its citizens both abroad and locally however they may choose.

Exactly. As I noted, I'm sure the Brits are similar but we've had three wars over this sort of thing. That doesn't even count the Lusitania/WWI.

Iran may try to milk this incident but given the relatively recent history from the article:

12 days. In 2007 15 British sailors and Royal Marines aboard the HMS Cornwall were surrounded, arrested and taken prisoner by the navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Iran claimed that the British had strayed into its territorial waters; Britain said that the ship was always in Iraqi waters. The British personnel were freed after 12 days

3 days. In 2004 six Marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the same area. The captured personnel appeared on Iranian television blindfolded but were released after Iran said that they had mistakenly crossed into its waters. Their ordeal lasted three days

Judging from those events it seems likely that they'll return those Brits especially since they freed military personnel and in this case its a bunch of racing civvies. Just gives me another reason to never sail especially around Iran.

Here's at least one of the stupid parts:

Or the part where I stated that the sailors were stupid for sailing in Iranian waters. I'm pretty sure both are still true and that you're referencing some post that I've never made.

See above. They were going to a boat race no less and their ship broke down.
Most other nations (ok not North Korea is Best Korea) would, you know, offer assistance, not seize them. We even have a service that does that for us, you may have heard of them. The Coast Guard.

Empchild wrote:@dogma: I understand what you are thinking when it comes to nucs the problem is you are thinking as a westerner with little fanatacism to your religon.

The people that control the nuclear weapons that Iran will soon possess are not fanatics. They have been entirely rational, if somewhat bold, in all of their previous dealings with the outside world. There is no reason to believe they will suddenly become wildly irrational by launching a nuclear missile at Israel.

Empchild wrote:
How many christians have you heard of straping bombs to their chest for god? A fanatic is more dangerous then a trained soldier.

Up until about 10 years ago the majority of groups which used suicide tactics were secular. Indoctrination and fanaticism compel people to make the ultimate sacrifice, the specific semantic structure used to justify it is largely irrelevant.

As for why there aren't any overtly Christian suicide groups: most likely its because there is a fairly hard division between Church and state within the Christian tradition. The political martyr is not held with the same kind of esteem that he is in Islam. Not that this stops Christians from perpetrating violence in the name of their faith, it simply prevents them from killing themselves in the course of doing so.

That said, there is a huge difference between martyring an individual, and martyring a nation which aspires to become a new Caliphate. Killing yourself in the name of Islam is already of dubious sanction, but destroying an entire Islamic community in order to achieve similar ends is flat out sacrilegious.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but it sure does make someone feel better about themselves.


@Fraz, maybe, just maybe the Iranians wanted the brits to lose that boat race as they had money on a different team. With achmenijad as leader, anything is possible.

@Shuma, empchild is a tad bit correct. We gotta think like a fanatic and any attempt to use a nuke as a tactical defense and political moves aren't going to work. The only thing that may please a fanatic are either their own death or the death of the people they hate. A fanatic, as empchild stated, is willing to blow themselves up. How many trained military men do you know that are willing to do the same on a daily basis? We think that threats will work against a fanatic when they don't care about threats we could say that we'll retaliate if they attack and they still do.

@Everyone, stop attacking each other, it hurts feelings and makes baby bunny rabbits cry.

Frazzled wrote:Here's at least one of the stupid parts:

Or the part where I stated that the sailors were stupid for sailing in Iranian waters. I'm pretty sure both are still true and that you're referencing some post that I've never made.

See above. They were going to a boat race no less and their ship broke down.
Most other nations (ok not North Korea is Best Korea) would, you know, offer assistance, not seize them. We even have a service that does that for us, you may have heard of them. The Coast Guard.

Yeah, I was typing my response when you posted that. I didn't see it until after, which is why I added the tail end to my post. As I said, it's a rough deal for the sailors if propellor damage was all they were guilty of.

As for comparing nations, as I said, who cares? What is the relevance? We aren't talking about other nations. We're talking about Iran. A regime that gets talked about all the god damn time, and it's never nice talk. In my very first post I said what they did was wrong. Please stop glossing over that.

Shuma, empchild is a tad bit correct. We gotta think like a fanatic and any attempt to use a nuke as a tactical defense and political moves aren't going to work. The only thing that may please a fanatic are either their own death or the death of the people they hate. A fanatic, as empchild stated, is willing to blow themselves up. How many trained military men do you know that are willing to do the same on a daily basis? We think that threats will work against a fanatic when they don't care about threats we could say that we'll retaliate if they attack and they still do.

Iran is not led by a fanatical regime. A somewhat dictatorial and very childish one certainly, but they aren't fanatics. The things they do they do for a reason, and most of those revolve around maintaining their sense of independence from western powers.

halonachos wrote:Two wrongs don't make a right, but it sure does make someone feel better about themselves.


@Fraz, maybe, just maybe the Iranians wanted the brits to lose that boat race as they had money on a different team.

I'd respect that actually.

Frazzled wrote:
Most other nations (ok not North Korea is Best Korea) would, you know, offer assistance, not seize them. We even have a service that does that for us, you may have heard of them. The Coast Guard.

Wouldn't Iran be around the same league as NK though? If one were to draw up countries Westerners have beef with, I imagine those two would share top spots on such a list especially since they're not the most cooperative bunch.

To play devil's advocate: If the US Coast Guard found Iranian/NK/etc citizens in its waters I do wonder if they'd release them lickity-split as well...gotta make sure the homeland is secure and all. I'd imagine they'd at least be taken in for questioning and to make sure they're not spies/terrorists but I know little of the Coast Guard's policies here.

Gitzbitah wrote:
If Iran were to spend 20 years building domestic forces and laying the framework for insurgents in their targeted country, then they would likely have a very good chance of winning.

And they've already begun building those networks of insurgents.

Gitzbitah wrote:
The USA is going to be burned out on war when Iraq and Afghanistan finally pacify, or we pull out.

Economic conditions will also likely force us to cut the military budget, revisit entitlements, and raise taxes in order to begin paying down the debt. Not a good recipe for paying for a foreign war, let alone generating popular support for one.

Gitzbitah wrote:
then public opinion would probably be for UN sanctions and other slow interventions to avoid a military confrontation.

The one hurdle Iran would face is the creation of a coalition force that would go in to kick them out of Iraq, much as we did with Iraq in Desert Storm. No one wants to see Iran gain greater control over oil supplies, not even nations like Russia or China.

Hey, here's an idea, lets pull evrything out and let them get on with it. Everyone out of Afganistan & Iraq and leave them to it. This also includes the US leaving Israel to it's own devices, moral support is allowed. If they want to fight amongst themselves let them, lets see see how their economies last when they are frackked to pieces by war. Lets see their civilisations go backwards as they fight amongst themselves, wasting billions on wars that achieve what? Nothing.

The whole region is the biggest hypocritical mess on the planet. The sodding Israelis think that Israel is theirs because "God" gave it to them... it says so in this here book! Well if he gave it to you then he can bloody well protect you then, no need for the US to be involved. That should remove the thorn in the side of the US involvement in the Middle East that winds up the Muslims. What next? Oh yes... you can start fighting each other!!! Cos' that bull****! about Muslim's not killing Muslims is the biggest load of gawk on the planet. You are no different to the rest of us, it's all about power. It makes no difference if you're a Muslim Dictator, Mullah or Warlord you are all in it for one thing, the money and the power.

ShumaGorath wrote:



Iran is not led by a fanatical regime. A somewhat dictatorial and very childish one certainly, but they aren't fanatics. The things they do they do for a reason, and most of those revolve around maintaining their sense of independence from western powers.

Go talk to your poly sci prof. Iran is truely run by the council of three. These are the true political power of iran as they are three clerics chosen directly by the Ayatolla. Amadijidad or whatever his name is the face. It is much like a constitutional monarchy except in that facit it is religion not paraliament.

Empchild wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:



Iran is not led by a fanatical regime. A somewhat dictatorial and very childish one certainly, but they aren't fanatics. The things they do they do for a reason, and most of those revolve around maintaining their sense of independence from western powers.

Go talk to your poly sci prof. Iran is truely run by the council of three. These are the true political power of iran as they are three clerics chosen directly by the Ayatolla. Amadijidad or whatever his name is the face. It is much like a constitutional monarchy except in that facit it is religion not paraliament.

The Ayatollah has lost a considerable amount of political power over the last few years, especially with the most recent election in Iran. Don't talk to me like I don't know what I'm talking about. His existence doesn't make the regime Fanatical. That word has a meaning.

fa⋅nat⋅i⋅cal  [fuh-nat-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
motivated or characterized by an extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

Saudi Arabia is arguably a fanatical regime, North Korea definitely is, The Vatican certainly is, and to a lesser extent so are several of the other mideastern states. Iran has a state religion, and it has the Supreme Leader. But neither make it particularly fanatical in it's international or domestic actions. What Iran is is incredibly nationalistic, something that trumps even it's religious issues, it has a tenuous balance to maintain between the rural voting populace and the urban middle class. One is fairly reactionary and incredibly critical of the west and any leadership that seems to bow to it in any way, the other wants progressive opening of dialogue and trade relations. The schism is pronounced and it's vital to understand before you label a nation as "fanatical".

Empchild wrote:
Go talk to your poly sci prof. Iran is truely run by the council of three. These are the true political power of iran as they are three clerics chosen directly by the Ayatolla. Amadijidad or whatever his name is the face. It is much like a constitutional monarchy except in that facit it is religion not paraliament.

No, Iran is run by the Supreme Leader. His power is checked, marginally, by the Assembly of Experts. The President handles most rhetorical duties, and serves as the day to day leader of the nation, though he makes few real decisions.

The council of three is not actually a political institution. I thin you're referring to the Guardian Council: a group of people appointed by the Supreme Leader, and empowered to vet candidates for popular election.

The current Supreme Leader is a fairly pragmatic man, whose loyalty to Islam will prevent him from sacrificing his entire nation in pursuit of the destruction of Israel. He is a fanatic in the sense that he vehemently supports Islam. He is not a fanatic in the sense that he is incapable of any reason at all.

Saudi Arabia is arguably a fanatical regime

No arguements their.

North Korea definitely is,

again

The Vatican certainly is,

The vatican is it's own nation run by religion so what do you think hmm...

and to a lesser extent so are several of the other mideastern states.

yet again

, it has a tenuous balance to maintain between the rural voting populace and the urban middle class.

aaahhh yes the one that didnt allow the recent canidate who won to actually take power... great system yet again don't have a clue huh.

Wolfstan wrote:Hey, here's an idea, lets pull evrything out and let them get on with it. Everyone out of Afganistan & Iraq and leave them to it.

Epic Fail.

We tried this, and ended up with two buildings destoyed in New York, and our pentagon on fire.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Hey, here's an idea, lets pull evrything out and let them get on with it. Everyone out of Afganistan & Iraq and leave them to it.

Epic Fail.

We tried this, and ended up with two buildings destoyed in New York, and our pentagon on fire.

GG

hrmm the rockin kitty has a point in an odd way, but sadly it is not our job as a nation to police others.

Wolfstan wrote:Hey, here's an idea, lets pull evrything out and let them get on with it. Everyone out of Afganistan & Iraq and leave them to it.

"it" being what ? If we leave right now then all the actions in that region for the last few years really will have acheived nothing.

This also includes the US leaving Israel to it's own devices, moral support is allowed. If they want to fight amongst themselves let them, lets see see how their economies last when they are frackked to pieces by war.

..let's see how our economies cope with that as well then shall we ?

The UK has the right to protect its citizens both abroad and locally however they may choose.

.. we do ? Really ? Lord Palmerston.. you're alive !

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were fanatics. They did a lot of off the wall stuff because of ideology and it went horribly wrong.

I don't think the government of North Korea is fanatic. I think they are realistic about which side their bread is buttered.

Empchild wrote:
aaahhh yes the one that didnt allow the recent canidate who won to actually take power... great system yet again don't have a clue huh.

We don't know that Ahamdinejad lost. Many assume he did because of the demonstrations, but there were many similar demonstrations in support of his election. The fact is that there is little, publicly available, information about what actually transpired.

Regardless, the legitimacy of Iran's political apparatus is of little concern to us. We should be attempting to undermine its authority whether or not it has the support of the people.

reds8n wrote:

The UK has the right to protect its citizens both abroad and locally however they may choose.

.. we do ? Really ? Lord Palmerston.. you're alive !

?? Ok on this one im honestly lost, who is that?

Kilkrazy wrote:Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were fanatics. They did a lot of off the wall stuff because of ideology and it went horribly wrong.

I don't think the government of North Korea is fanatic. I think they are realistic about which side their bread is buttered.

Your silly kill being as theirs no food in North Korea but you do have a solid point.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Regardless, the legitimacy of Iran's political apparatus is of little concern to us. We should be attempting to undermine its authority regardless of whether or not it has the support of the people.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!

reds8n wrote:
.. we do ? Really ? Lord Palmerston.. you're alive !

Quick, start the incantations, we must bring back Disraeli!