Still Hating America.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
What would you like the reaction to be? We all agree that a delusional state is trying to provoke a reaction. What do you think we and the British should do about it? Invade? We can't. We don't have the resources for it, even if it wasn't a stupid idea.

This situation is a diplomatic crisis that will likely get worked out between Britain and Iran. That is about all there is to say about it right now.

What I would like is for the attitude not to be so cavalier. Instead of being appauled, it sounds like many of you would suggest we send them another nuclear reactor (for peaceful purposes, of course) because it is some how the West's fault that they took the hostages.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What I would like is for the attitude not to be so cavalier. Instead of being appauled, it sounds like many of you would suggest we send them another nuclear reactor (for peaceful purposes, of course) because it is some how the West's fault that they took the hostages.

It's wrong that they took them, and they should give them back, and they probably will give them back. I think that many worse things are happening all over e.g. Africa and Asia every. single. day.

I think US policy on this is pretty clear -- we support Britain and want the people released. On the other hand, this isn't really enough to warrant an invasion of Iran. I don't think anyone has suggested that we offer Iran some nuclear weapons or a bazillion dollars or rights to 2/3 of Iraq in exchange for the soldiers. What do YOU think we should do to Iran?

There just isn't much to discuss or argue about, because we all think (as far as I can tell) that Iran should release the British soldiers without further ado.

I would like to make an official PB motion to condemn Iran's actions in this matter and to, uh, divest from Iran or whatever is appropriate. Does anyone second this motion?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What I would like is for the attitude not to be so cavalier. Instead of being appauled, it sounds like many of you would suggest we send them another nuclear reactor (for peaceful purposes, of course) because it is some how the West's fault that they took the hostages.

Fuck, club. Sometimes it's hard to sustain an outrage level over a long period of time. When reporters and soldiers and contractors are fairly regularly kidnapped (not to mention beheaded and/or lynched), it's sort of hard to get worked up over sailors who, as far as anyone has been able to tell, have been treated ok.

Should the UK follow Israel's example from last summer when one of their soldiers was kidnapped and held? I can't really say that was an overewhelming success on Israel's part.

As for cavalier, people on this board a few weeks ago were advocating assasinating Hugo Chavez for the crime of being a pain in the ass.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The Brits are a patient bunch. They waited a year for us to return five of their citizens from Gitmo, and then another two years for us to return four more. And how many do you think were charged with anything?

Indeed, an appalling attitude.

the better example might be the prior Iranian Hostage crisis, where American government officials were held for a very long time, by a very patient Jimmy carter. You may recall they weren't released until a day after Reagan took office.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the better example might be the prior Iranian Hostage crisis, where American government officials were held for a very long time, by a very patient Jimmy carter. You may recall they weren't released until a day after Reagan took office.

Maybe club is concerned that we will once again grant immunity to Iran and/or unfreeze billions of dollars of Iranian assets in exchange for the soldiers?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the better example might be the prior Iranian Hostage crisis, where American government officials were held for a very long time, by a very patient Jimmy carter. You may recall they weren't released until a day after Reagan took office.

So you're saying Bush has to go? That works for me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Maybe club is concerned that we will once again grant immunity to Iran and/or unfreeze billions of dollars of Iranian assets in exchange for the soldiers?

I'm not considering anything from you until you explain the bacon boycott.

Asssuming you do that, then i ask this: Reagan granted immunity and unfroze $$$, wait the money was frozen because of the hostages right?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Fuck, club. Sometimes it's hard to sustain an outrage level over a long period of time. When reporters and soldiers and contractors are fairly regularly kidnapped (not to mention beheaded and/or lynched), it's sort of hard to get worked up over sailors who, as far as anyone has been able to tell, have been treated ok.

But there is a difference here - this was not the act of some rebel militia or terrorist group. This is the act of a sovereign nation that is (allegedly) part of the world community and signatory to voluminous treatises that probably contributed to half of the rain forest being cut down. They also sit on a shit load of oil and are fairly close to obtaining nuclear weapon. They further have repeatedly called for the aniliation of Israel and the West. The attitude on this board must be similar to the attitude of the world in the 1930s, when Germany was in the early stages of what would become a major world horror.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But there is a difference here - this was not the act of some rebel militia or terrorist group. This is the act of a sovereign nation that is (allegedly) part of the world community and signatory to voluminous treatises that probably contributed to half of the rain forest being cut down. They also sit on a shit load of oil and are fairly close to obtaining nuclear weapon. They further have repeatedly called for the aniliation of Israel and the West. The attitude on this board must be similar to the attitude of the world in the 1930s, when Germany was in the early stages of what would become a major world horror.

When they invade Poland, I mean Israel or something similar, I think we will be more on guard.

I find it offensive that you are only upset when Westerners get involved. What about Somalia?????? Why don't you have more outrage?

I think we should trade arms for the hostages.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
When they invade Poland, I mean Israel or something similar, I think we will be more on guard.

I find it offensive that you are only upset when Westerners get involved. What about Somalia?????? Why don't you have more outrage?

I think we should trade arms for the hostages.

I have long been in favor of delivering a nuclear bomb to Iran.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But there is a difference here - this was not the act of some rebel militia or terrorist group. This is the act of a sovereign nation that is (allegedly) part of the world community and signatory to voluminous treatises that probably contributed to half of the rain forest being cut down. They also sit on a shit load of oil and are fairly close to obtaining nuclear weapon. They further have repeatedly called for the aniliation of Israel and the West. The attitude on this board must be similar to the attitude of the world in the 1930s, when Germany was in the early stages of what would become a major world horror.

Unfortuantely for everyone involved, Iran is not Lichenstein.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But there is a difference here - this was not the act of some rebel militia or terrorist group. This is the act of a sovereign nation that is (allegedly) part of the world community and signatory to voluminous treatises that probably contributed to half of the rain forest being cut down. They also sit on a shit load of oil and are fairly close to obtaining nuclear weapon. They further have repeatedly called for the aniliation of Israel and the West. The attitude on this board must be similar to the attitude of the world in the 1930s, when Germany was in the early stages of what would become a major world horror.

What would the USA do if an Iranian (or Chinese or Russian) military vessel strayed into US territorial (or claimed) waters? Do you really think that the US would simply release them without performing due diligence on whether they were, in fact, spies?

So the Iranians are being more difficult than the US (or Britain) would (likely) be in a similar situation--that isn't a surprise to anyone. Iran wants to make a minor incident into a global issue--again, not surprising.

I think that Iran is holding them a bit longer hoping that we and/or Britain do something especially stupid which will garner Iran a little more support from China and Russia (and probably France, too). The most important thing is not doing something stupid--I wouldn't be surprised if there is an encounter b/t one of the 2 carrier battle groups in the Gulf and Iranian air or sea vessels before this is all over.

[Adder]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It's wrong that they took them, and they should give them back, and they probably will give them back. I think that many worse things are happening all over e.g. Africa and Asia every. single. day.

I think US policy on this is pretty clear -- we support Britain and want the people released. On the other hand, this isn't really enough to warrant an invasion of Iran. I don't think anyone has suggested that we offer Iran some nuclear weapons or a bazillion dollars or rights to 2/3 of Iraq in exchange for the soldiers. What do YOU think we should do to Iran?

There just isn't much to discuss or argue about, because we all think (as far as I can tell) that Iran should release the British soldiers without further ado.

I would like to make an official PB motion to condemn Iran's actions in this matter and to, uh, divest from Iran or whatever is appropriate. Does anyone second this motion?

2.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But there is a difference here - this was not the act of some rebel militia or terrorist group. This is the act of a sovereign nation that is (allegedly) part of the world community and signatory to voluminous treatises that probably contributed to half of the rain forest being cut down. They also sit on a shit load of oil and are fairly close to obtaining nuclear weapon. They further have repeatedly called for the aniliation of Israel and the West. The attitude on this board must be similar to the attitude of the world in the 1930s, when Germany was in the early stages of what would become a major world horror.

I think this means you lose.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
I think this means you lose.

you know, the rule is pretty simple: you do not lose by calling someone else Hitler, unless it is the person you are arguing with. Here Club was calling us Chamberlain. Iran is Hitler.