Ray

I think Trooth has a point.

Most of you are looking at the issue from your standpoint (western)!

Try seeing it from Iran's (the enemy, if you wish) standpoint.

Check the brownie points they are winning and how many they will win if anyone attacks them.

Therefore, this is no time to repeat the brash senseless approach that has landed the US into a great mess in Iraq! All that Hollywood type Mission Accomplished on the deck of the aircraft carrier with jumpsuits has become a huge comic charade leaving a carpet of dead, US and Iraqis Ask those who lost their loved ones for a fruitless and stupidly conceived War.

It is time to use BRAINS and not think one is invincible.

Iraq has proved how living in pink clouds bring in black clouds without even a silver lining!

Today, not only Iraq is appearing to be a losing battle, they have ensured that Americans fight amongst themselves too - Democrats vs Republican!!!!!

So, they are winning!

The only salvation is quit being gung ho. Pause and think. THINK. Use BRAINS and I am sure it is not that deficient!

It is the time to clear one's brains from silly jingoism and get cracking. There is an enemy that has to be defeated. Defeat them with guts and wits and not by rhetoric and knee jerk actions alone!

Right now, it appears that the enemy is taking the mickey out of those who are brash.

That is why Britain is biding her time to hit back without any gung ho silliness!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Bluesman

Correct, Pari.

ALSO, and this is the point I think you're all missing: it is simply not enough to have a little spasm of cruise missile firings and stand-off bombings. I'm talking about PAIN. REAL CONSEQUENCES. Not an 'Operation DESERT FOX' that stops after a couple of days, sequenced so that only the night watchman at the Defence Ministry HQ Building is endangered, but timed to kill their entire goddam' General Staff while they're meeting to discuss the previous day's elimination of their surface fleet's major combatants.

I don't give a dam' if every single ayatollah rallies 'round the flag and swears 'Death to America' until they pass out. If their power - the actual usuable force available to them - is destroyed or degraded, I could give a good goddam' HOW they feel about us, and it wouldn't matter if they get really, really pissed off at us ANYway, BECAUSE...

We've been at war with these jungle ceatures for almost 30 years now, THEY know it, WE don't, and it's WAY past time that we FIGHT THEM BACK for a change. They have been killing our people, creating chaos and exacerbating the world's worst problems in the world's most dangerous region, and NOW is the time to reckon up the bill for all of that.

And if it makes 'em all just as mad as hornets, big goddam' deal, because they'll have been emasculated, neutered and rendered powerless. And once they're down...KEEP 'em down.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Danielk

Bombing Iran back to the stone ages would show countrys that support Iran what would happen to them if they were like Iran.

I agree, give diplomacy a try, even though it doesent look to be working very good at the moment..Military force should be used as a last resort.

Since Iran supports terrorism, by arming of militia in iraq,hezbollah etc, bombing iran would see a huge decrease in the capabilites of militia which are supported by Iran.

Bluesman

I don't think we're all clear about what's going on. This is NOT some abberant mis-behavior by Iran - it's STRATEGY, and one they've pursued diligently, with only a small pause (the Reagan Years, if THAT tells you anything). They mean to do things like this until it's beyond any doubt that we cannot be provoked by ANY outrage to defend our interests, our forces and our citizens.

I'm not in favor of what Trooth believes in some 'corrective' action to modify behavior, like we're spanking a naughty skoolboy. We're not dealing with boys, we're dealing with thugs, and I'm more in the mood to stick a goddam' icepick in their kidney than to give 'em a spanking. If we damage 'em, REALLY HURT 'EM, then that will have the VERY salutory effect of modifying their behavior in two ways: they'll be a LOT more circumspect when contemplating the continuation of almost 30 years'-worth outrageous behavior, AND they'll have a dam' sight less ABILITY to do so, if they were still inclined.

Bluesman

Party A spits in Party B's face. Party B's response is, 'Let's talk about this.'

Party C then spits in Party B's face.

And a whoooole bunch of other parties then line up in front of Party B, swishing a big ole greenie around in their gobs, waiting for their turns.

If Party B's response had been to leave Party A in a fukkin' wheelchair for the rest of his life, Party C would've become strangely and suddenly thirsty and cotton-mouthed, and would try as hard as he could to not catch Party B's eye, and a whoooole bunch of other parties would either tip their hats and say 'Good Morning, sir' when they passed by Party B, or they'd be whistleing while they cross to the other side of the street.

Parihaka

The primary concern under the blatherings of the 'diplomacy only' crowd seems to be 'we don't want another Iraq.'
Well, they ain't going to get one.
SAS in to rescue the prisoners, in numbers.
Airforce in simultaneously to destroy Iran's Airforce, thus limiting Iran's ability to impede the primary mission.
Destruction of Naval forces to limit their ability to make the same move again.
And finally a few well placed cruise missiles that even if they don't kill the leadership, will make the point.
I mean who the hell would want to invade the joint.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Trooth

It has control now, but it needs to ensure that when (and its looks more when than if) the western military starts killing Iranian citizens, its spin is that this is unprovoked agression from the West. It doesn't matter what the hell we think, or have read, or seen on TV or whatever, because that is NOT WHAT IRANIANS HAVE SEEN.

It matters nought what we know about Iranian involvement in Iraq, it matters nought that the sailors were in Iraqi waters. It matters nought that we believe Iran is planning a nuclear weapons programme and so on.

All that matters as far as Tehran is concerned is that it portrays itself to anyone that wants to believe that it is the victim. And the most important people here are the Iranians who will be paying with their lives for the policies of Tehran.

Who said a single thing about appeasement? Who said this won't end in military action? However a knee jerk reaction is not going to get our people out safely, and it is going to play into their hands.

__________________
The world as it should be at surrealscoop.blogspot.com

Trooth

No idea where you go the idea about "corrective action". All things being equal i would nuke 'em. But all things are not equal.

The main reason that all things are not equal is that the people you WILL hurt are NOT the people that are doing this. The people that will be hurt are the civilians who only know the **** they are told from Tehran - that the UK was in the process of an incursion stopped by the vigliant and honourable Iranian blah blah - enemy troops well treated blah blah blah, Iranian waters, blah blah.

Time may come for military action against Iran - its been brewing for 5 years and its only the slow progress in Iraq that has meant it has not happened yet, but an ineffectual bombing raid or some such won't help anyone.

I agree, if it is going to be done it has to be big, not small. It has to be decisive. Unfortunately i don't know if we have any countries that actually want to pursue a third invasion at this time.

Trooth

I am not ruling out diplomacy as working, simply because i think that once Iran sees it is not getting a limted action it will see little currency in keeping the prisoners and will then wish to appear "magnanimous".

However what you describe is a midway - it is neither ineffectual nor decisive. It smacks of the liberation of Kuwait but on a smaller scale. The only worthwhile part (aside from the hugely optimistic idea of rescuing the prisoners) is the destruction of the airforce. But we tried that once before in Iraq a dozen years ago ....

Parihaka

I understood the propaganda value of all this the first time you said it, and who said anything about a knee-jerk reaction but you?
You're the one who constantly calls any mention of military action as 'knee-jerk', thus dismissing it, and make the claim that it will be falling into the theocracys cunning plan, and heavens no we don't want them to win by us attacking them do we?
You advocate diplomacy only, which is appeasement.

Trooth

No i don't. Re-read my posts.

The world we are currently in is that, as i have stated, which power is going to start a third concurrent invasion? Which public is going to support it? Therefore the only realistic option - the full hard attack (assuming we are ruling out Nukes here), probably isn't politically viable.

And whilst YOUR limited action suggestion is nice, we tried it the first time around with Iraq with the liberation of Kuwait and IT DID NOT WORK. And why limit your action - because you have to move quickly and are ill-prepared? Because the public won't support anythiung else? That my friend IS a knee jerk reaction.

But the thing is whether you like it or not, we have to look through Tehran's eyes and at least then we see what they are doing when they pull these stunts.

Also i thought better of you than the blathering comment.

Danielk

Also, the thing is..If iran gets attacked, your gonna see a huge wave of suicide bombers lol..

Parihaka

Yes it did, Kuwait was liberated. Also you misread my proposed action. At no time should an invasion of Iran be undertaken except SAS or equivalent troops to specifically free the hostages.
No, because a larger action is unecessary. No one with any sense at all wants to invade Iran ala Iraq. Iraq itself has demonstrated that idiocy, as well as the foolishness of the quick democracy patch. This should only ever be a police action, not a pretext for invasion. I'm confused here, are you actually advocating that invasion is the solution?
Perhaps I haven't made myself clear: it is, as you've pointed out, obvious what they are doing, both internally as you've manfully laboured to tell me, and externally as well.
All that they are attempting to do is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter.
The only trap is of taking them too seriously.
Giving their machinations greater creedence than they deserve.

They are just not that important, their only status is as muharibuun, bringing Hirabah and irhab to the people of Iraq, Jordan and Israel.

In other words, you are giving their thoughts far more gravitas than they deserve.
Then my apologies, it seemed to me that there was a vagueness about your words, with multiple meanings possible.
I must say WAB must have become a very civilised place indeed for such words to now be offensive, again my apologies

Bluesman

Sorry, pal; you're right. I was attempting to rebut bandwagon. He's the one that's thinking I'm trying to be some stern headmaster, and NOT a serious Power, hellbent on preserving vital principles, such as freedom of navigaton, the Law of the Seas, upholding international obligations, defending national property, keeping faith with your military, and not putting up with grossly insulting and dangerous behavior from thug regimes.

As far as hurting civilians, that would only be a risk LATER, if the bastards didn't get the message after 1), their Navy is destroyed, 2) their IADS is destroyed, 3), their military-related facilities are destroyed, and 4) large numbers of their military personnel are killed, starting at the top and working progressivly downward. THEN we'll start turning off their lights.

Bluesman

And THAT is a weapon of choice for LOSERS.