15 UK sailors captured at gunpoint - Page 24

JMH · 03-31-2007, 23:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRB

A. You go to iraq because of WMD
B. You go to iraq because Saddam connection with Bin Laden

There were no WMD and no connection with Bin Laden.

A1. Chinese apparently received about $20 million for each of the 2,500-km range CSS-2s they sold to Saudi Arabia which could be arm with VX and many are talking that they are arm with VX and point to Israel.

B1. Bin Laden have good support form S.A.
Why not attack on S.A. VX missiles or on supporters of Bin Laden?

And please if you lived or read ex-Yu history you will see it is much complicated that what you know from CNN. I think you are one of believers in CNN story about 360.000 raped muslim women in BiH and this is B.S. on tribunal never that number in fact they never point out that Serbs much more women that other sides in war, in fact there is video tape were muslim general said to soliders: " If you want to rape you can but you must capture that city" find me nay tape where Serbian general say that. And we did done war crimes and we are guilty for part of chaos in that war but others are also guilty as well.

Why do you think Israel has Jericho III IRBM, which can be armed with chemical, biological and nuclear warheads?

Why do you think Israel has F-15E Strike Eagle, which are able to drop Nuclear bombs?

Why do you think Israel has five Dolphin submarines that are able to fire Nuclear tipped cruise missiles?

When faced with Israel’s mini-Nuclear triad, would Saudi Arabia, dare launch their Chinese built chemical/biological CSS-2 missiles at Israel? How do you know how the Saudi Arabian Government would use these Chinese missiles, are they intended to be used against Israel, rather than against Iran?

Saudi Arabia may hate the USA, but they are not stupid like the MAD Mullahs and the Iranian President. Saudi Arabia secretly supports terrorists and will quietly and secretly support the USA in its war on Terror, while publicly denouncing both the USA and Israel. Saudi Arabia would much rather see the USA and UK fight Iran than to have to fight Iran themselves.

You really do believe CNN, don't you? I have no idea the total number of women both Muslim and non-Muslim who were raped by the Serbian Army. But I do know it was a large number and I do know about the victims I spoke to and I do know that they are grateful for the US led war that destroyed the Serbian Government led by Milosovich.

The US claim that Saddam Hussein and Iraq possessed Nuclear weapons was just a public relations campaign to gather Congressional support for war against Iraq. Any surviving weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had, were probably transported to Syria in a huge truck convoy with assistance from Russia just days prior to the start of the US bombing and invasion of Iraq. The war in Iraq is part of a larger strategy of President Bush’s War on Terrorism. To attack both terror groups and rogue terror sponsoring nations that make up the Axis of Evil. Libya caved in domestically, Iraq has been invaded, Iran has US troops on both its western and eastern borders and Iran is threatened by the US through the UN and by overwhelming US firepower. North Korea, after a sustained period of defiance, which included a nuclear test and ballistic missile tests, has agreed to stop its nuclear program. Whether or not this War on Terror strategy will work remains to be seen, but it is the primary reason behind all the wars the US is engaged in throughout the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

Bluesman · 03-31-2007, 23:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trooth

The world we are currently in is that, as i have stated, which power is going to start a third concurrent invasion?

Nobody, not even a blood-drinker like myself. We need not invade, nor even expose our forces to undue risk to absolutely mess these jokers UP.

Why are you so convinced that Iran must be invaded if we're to have ANY military option? There's PLENTY we can do that doesn't include marching on Tehran.

Danielk · 04-01-2007, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

And THAT is a weapon of choice for LOSERS.

Sure it is, but this is iran we are talking about, they dont care.

S-2 · 04-01-2007, 03:40 AM

"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... THEN we'll start turning off their lights."

I remain amazed at the vast numbers of those whom believe we don't possess some viable military options with Iran. Bluesman, you've succinctly outlined them. Attack the IRGC, IAF, their IADS, and the leadership. Attack all suspected nuclear facilities. Once their IADS is down, keep it that way with ingress/egress corridors open indefinitely. Establish a no-fly zone over the nation. From their, proceed to the electrical grid, refinery capability, gas/petrol fuel storage (as they import 40%of their needs), and their communcations network. Collateral casualties would be surprisingly light. At least, or until we attacked their water treatment, sewage, and desalinisation facilities. Epidemic would probably make most Iranians want to kill somebody. As we won't be around, perhaps they'll finally choose their own government as target of their wrath? "Death to the mullahs", anyone?

Somehow, we've forgotten the time-honored rules of war, how they've evolved, and why. Odd, but the lessons really aren't any different from fighting the Barbary pirates two hundred years ago. Or the hundred year war. There's a clear quid pro quo that nation-states engage to justify their existence. It always leads to the same place, though. Particularly where demagogues are involved. Funny if the threat of Iranian nukes wouldn't drive us to war, but the laws of the sea might. As the shoe seems to fit in either case, I'd be naturally fine with it.

This seems reasonable now. Iran's vulnerabilities play to our strengths. Our vulnerabilities (deployed troops and other assets in Iraq/Kuwait/Afghanistan) should hunker down, reducing their signature and be ready (as always) to fight. A sustained, high tempo air campaign coupled with a naval blockade of the Iranian coast would be achievable, I suspect, by coalition forces with little exposure.

It seems even more reasonable in light of Iran's continued intransigence w/ the IAEA and the UN, coupled with their naked power play in Iraq. I've never witnessed an institution or government so hell-bent upon martyrdom, but the Iranian government's bizarre motivations do need satisfaction. We should oblige. I don't need to engage in a down n' dirty roadmarch up to Teheran that only plays to my weaknesses. We've an unengaged air force and navy that are just PERFECT for the job.

Clearly, it's in the cards. I can't imagine that GWB is going to leave this issue unexplored before he leaves office. I could be wrong, but Iran seems just his kind of thing. If so, he'd be right. Just so long as he stays punitive, with nary a whiff of neo-con aspirations to save the Iranian people from themselves. Right now, they deserve their fate, and it should be as miserable as we can oblige.

There now. I feel soooo much better.

**Parihaka** · 04-01-2007, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Bush to Iran: 'Give back the hostages'

CAMP DAVID, Md. - US President Bush on Saturday said Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines was "inexcusable" and called for Iran to "give back the hostages" immediately and unconditionally.

Bush said Iran plucked the sailors out of Iraqi waters. Iran's president said Saturday they were in Iranian waters and called Britain and its allies "arrogant and selfish" for not apologizing for trespassing.

"It's inexcusable behavior," Bush said at the Camp David presidential retreat, where he was meeting with the president of Brazil. "Iran must give back the hostages. They're innocent. They did nothing wrong."

It was the first time that Bush had commented publicly on the captured Britons. Washington has taken a low-key approach to avoid aggravating tensions over the incident and shaking international resolve to get Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program.

Bush did not answer a question about whether the United States would have reacted militarily if those captured had been Americans. The president said he supports British Prime Minister Tony Blair's efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, now in its second week.

Bush would not comment about Britain's options if Iran does not release the hostages, but he seemed to reject any swapping of the British captives for Iranians detained in Iraq.

"I support the prime minister when he made it clear there were no quid pro quos," Bush said.

Like Bush's words, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments were his most extensive on the crisis. They tracked tough talk from other Iranian officials, an indication that Tehran's position could be hardening.

"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery," Iran's official news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise."

Britain, however, appeared to be easing its stance, emphasizing its desire to talk with Iran about what it termed a regrettable situation.

"I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said at a European Union summit in Bremen, Germany. "What we want is a way out of it."

Iran appeared unreceptive to possible talks with Britain.

"Instead of apologizing over trespassing by British forces, the world arrogant powers issue statements and deliver speeches," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in southeastern Iran.

The British sailors were detained by Iranian naval units March 23 while patrolling for smugglers near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that has long been a disputed dividing line between Iraq and Iran. Britain also insists the sailors were in Iraqi waters.

In London on Saturday, the political wing of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen Khalq said the capture was planned in advance and carried out in retaliation for U.N. sanctions over Iran's nuclear program. The group is listed as a terrorist group by Britain, the U.S. and the European Union.

Blair has expressed disgust that the captured service members had been "paraded and manipulated" in video footage released by Iran. He warned Tehran that it faced increasing isolation if it did not free them.

Britain has frozen most contacts with Iran. The U.N. Security Council has expressed "grave concern" about the incident. The EU has demanded the sailors' unconditional release and warned of unspecified "appropriate measures" if Tehran does not comply - a position the Iranian Foreign Ministry called "bias and meddlesome."

Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a professor of politics in Tehran's Allameh University, said he's convinced that Iran is prepared to stand its ground and insist that the British violated Iranian territory.

"Iran will seriously continue the case and will put them on trial," Bakhshayesh said. "Only an apology by Britain can stop it. Iran thinks that Britons trespassed to test Iran's reaction, and now London is trying to isolate Tehran instead of apologizing."

But British officials are hopeful that diplomacy can resolve the crisis. The Foreign Office confirmed Saturday that Britain had replied to a letter received earlier in this week from the Iranian embassy. It declined to reveal the nature of either letter.

"We have been exchanging letters with the Iranian government, and we will continue to conduct or diplomatic discussions in private," a spokesman said on the government's customary condition of anonymity.

Source

Ray · 04-01-2007, 06:22 AM

Add up the forces available and see if anyone can attack Iran and yet bring the war to the conclusion desired.

If Afghanistan and Iraq are floundering, what are the odds in Iran?

Be pragmatic!

If it were feasible, then am I do understand that you all are suggesting that Bush and Blair are dunderheads par excellence and wimps to byand are thus avoiding in translating what you all think is as easy as pinching a baby's bottom?

SRB · 04-01-2007, 06:52 AM

JMH I agree with you. Yes those S.A. missiles are for MAD. I agree also about stupidity of A-jad politics. But I not so sure about truck colons to Syria with WAD for Iraq. And about war in my ex country all three sides make crimes well maybe we were the worst(because we were millitary strongest) but again I say that others had enough blood on their hands.
And lets back to this poor sailors.

SRB · 04-01-2007, 07:02 AM

Iran nuclear factories are they on open or in mountains?
As I read somewhere you could start enrichment of uranium in mines with centrifuges but this will give you small amount of U-235.

Breed reactor is much more efficient for production of A-bomb because it use U-238 to create plutonium.
But I am sure that it takes much time to build reactor and huge works like ADE-2(in Siberia) which is underground.
I just thinking is it possible that Iran transport centrifuges in mines and there start process of enrichment uranium?

ADE-2 reactor

SRB · 04-01-2007, 10:54 AM

Here is some answer about underground factories

Makfax vesnik

US might strike Iran in early April, possibly with nuclear weapon

Moscow, 30.03.2007 18:53

Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces will be ready for a possible military operation against Iran in early April, and the use of nuclear tactical weapon is not ruled out, Russian Agency RIA Novosti reported late Friday.

The Vice President of the Academy for Geopolitical Sciences, Gen. Leonid Ivashov, suggested in the interview for the agency that the United States could use nuclear weapons to hit 17 to 20 nuclear research and production facilities in Iran, the majority of which are located deep underground in mountainous areas.
The Americans are rushing to build up their Air Force and Navy contingent in the region, Ivashov said, adding that other signs of a pending war were civil defense exercises being conducted in Israel and the evacuation of some Western embassies in Tehran.

Asked when a military campaign could begin, the general said it depended on a political decision by Washington and the readiness of American troops, but that it could conceivably begin shortly.

The source said the Pentagon could decide to conduct ground operations as well after assessing the damage done to the Iranian forces by its possible missile strikes and analyzing the political situation in the country following the attacks.

Any provocation, including the recent arrest of British Royal Navy personnel by Iran, could prompt the U.S. to launch a military campaign against the Islamic Republic, Ivashov said.

"President George W. Bush needs a quick victory to secure a Republican win in the 2008 election," Ivashov said, adding that a campaign in Iran could be resumed after the presidential poll.

But Ivashov said the war would be over oil and other economic concerns, as U.S. oil reserves were only enough to last about 10 years and the dollar had been declining. He said a war would give a boost to the American economy.

So many factories are underground.

Bluesman · 04-01-2007, 10:57 AM

No wonder Russians think the way they do. Look what passes for reportage there.

SRB · 04-01-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

No wonder Russians think the way they do. Look what passes for reportage there.

It is politics. But report give me info about underground facilities.

Bluesman · 04-01-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRB

It is politics. But report give me info about underground facilities.

Well, if it comes from a source that asserts that Bush will nuke Iran to get more votes for the GOP in '08...I'd be a little more credulous about that source's veracity.

Because that's nuckin' futs.

Ray · 04-01-2007, 13:03 PM

The Russian 'news' could very well be to raise the political temperature with the hope that Iran goes more ballistic and the US gets embroiled with Iran in addition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!

Wars cost money and does affect domestic opinion and politics. It maybe the Russian aim to cause political turmoil within the US as the US gets embroiled with Iran.

In the bargain, the wars will get immensely expensive for the US wherein its economy will suffer and in the bargain there will be huge discontent in the US. In the ensuing confusion, Russia would close the gap between the US and Russia. That maybe the aim behind this 'news'.

This 'news', I feel, is a part of the Russian disinformation campaign.

Low-tech · 04-02-2007, 15:32 PM

wouldnt we have to invade to permenantly stop thier nuke program?. kinda like........get inside the underground facilities and destroy them from the inside?

ive heard and read stuff on the bunker busters not being good enough to get the underground facilities.

like....we could do it, but it would include continious bombings of the same targets to literally move...alot of earth.........to actual destroy those sites.

i am by no means an expert on this stuff.........but it seems like to bomb them would not be successful in detering thier nukes program...........may set them back many years but nothing comprehensive.

also would the oil market go to hell?

i guess we are just looking at a descending degree of "how bad" in any scenerio, granted iran has alot more to lose than we.

Bluesman · 04-02-2007, 15:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low-tech

wouldnt we have to invade to permenantly stop thier nuke program?. kinda like........get inside the underground facilities and destroy them from the inside?

ive heard and read stuff on the bunker busters not being good enough to get the underground facilities.

like....we could do it, but it would include continious bombings of the same targets to literally move...alot of earth.........to actual destroy those sites.

i am by no means an expert on this stuff.........but it seems like to bomb them would not be successful in detering thier nukes program...........may set them back many years but nothing comprehensive.

also would the oil market go to hell?

i guess we are just looking at a descending degree of "how bad" in any scenerio, granted iran has alot more to lose than we.

Why should we need to destroy every component of their nuke program to shut it down? Some of it's underground, and we can't destroy it? No sweat; destroy the parts the Iranians CAN'T bury.

04-01-2007, 03:40 AM	#349 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,552 Country:	Bluesman Reply "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... THEN we'll start turning off their lights." I remain amazed at the vast numbers of those whom believe we don't possess some viable military options with Iran. Bluesman, you've succinctly outlined them. Attack the IRGC, IAF, their IADS, and the leadership. Attack all suspected nuclear facilities. Once their IADS is down, keep it that way with ingress/egress corridors open indefinitely. Establish a no-fly zone over the nation. From their, proceed to the electrical grid, refinery capability, gas/petrol fuel storage (as they import 40%of their needs), and their communcations network. Collateral casualties would be surprisingly light. At least, or until we attacked their water treatment, sewage, and desalinisation facilities. Epidemic would probably make most Iranians want to kill somebody. As we won't be around, perhaps they'll finally choose their own government as target of their wrath? "Death to the mullahs", anyone? Somehow, we've forgotten the time-honored rules of war, how they've evolved, and why. Odd, but the lessons really aren't any different from fighting the Barbary pirates two hundred years ago. Or the hundred year war. There's a clear quid pro quo that nation-states engage to justify their existence. It always leads to the same place, though. Particularly where demagogues are involved. Funny if the threat of Iranian nukes wouldn't drive us to war, but the laws of the sea might. As the shoe seems to fit in either case, I'd be naturally fine with it. This seems reasonable now. Iran's vulnerabilities play to our strengths. Our vulnerabilities (deployed troops and other assets in Iraq/Kuwait/Afghanistan) should hunker down, reducing their signature and be ready (as always) to fight. A sustained, high tempo air campaign coupled with a naval blockade of the Iranian coast would be achievable, I suspect, by coalition forces with little exposure. It seems even more reasonable in light of Iran's continued intransigence w/ the IAEA and the UN, coupled with their naked power play in Iraq. I've never witnessed an institution or government so hell-bent upon martyrdom, but the Iranian government's bizarre motivations do need satisfaction. We should oblige. I don't need to engage in a down n' dirty roadmarch up to Teheran that only plays to my weaknesses. We've an unengaged air force and navy that are just PERFECT for the job. Clearly, it's in the cards. I can't imagine that GWB is going to leave this issue unexplored before he leaves office. I could be wrong, but Iran seems just his kind of thing. If so, he'd be right. Just so long as he stays punitive, with nary a whiff of neo-con aspirations to save the Iranian people from themselves. Right now, they deserve their fate, and it should be as miserable as we can oblige. There now. I feel soooo much better.

04-01-2007, 06:22 AM	#351 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,379 Country:	Add up the forces available and see if anyone can attack Iran and yet bring the war to the conclusion desired. If Afghanistan and Iraq are floundering, what are the odds in Iran? Be pragmatic! If it were feasible, then am I do understand that you all are suggesting that Bush and Blair are dunderheads par excellence and wimps to byand are thus avoiding in translating what you all think is as easy as pinching a baby's bottom? __________________ "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 Last edited by Ray : 04-01-2007 at 06:25 AM.

04-01-2007, 07:02 AM	#353 (permalink)
SRB Contributor Join Date: 05-19-06 Location: Belgrade Posts: 414 Country:	Iran nuclear factories are they on open or in mountains? As I read somewhere you could start enrichment of uranium in mines with centrifuges but this will give you small amount of U-235. Breed reactor is much more efficient for production of A-bomb because it use U-238 to create plutonium. But I am sure that it takes much time to build reactor and huge works like ADE-2(in Siberia) which is underground. I just thinking is it possible that Iran transport centrifuges in mines and there start process of enrichment uranium? ADE-2 reactor Last edited by SRB : 04-01-2007 at 07:09 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Britain Appeals To UN In Sailors' Case	Ironduke	International Politics	338	04-23-2007 16:24 PM
Battleship History Article	rickusn	Battleships Forum	3	01-17-2007 11:16 AM
Al Qaeda Declines in Northern Iraq, Military Officer Says	Shek	The War in Iraq	6	09-16-2005 19:03 PM
Future of afghanistan	raja khan	Operation Enduring Freedom	113	09-20-2004 19:23 PM

04-01-2007, 06:52 AM	#352 (permalink)
SRB Contributor Join Date: 05-19-06 Location: Belgrade Posts: 414 Country:	JMH I agree with you. Yes those S.A. missiles are for MAD. I agree also about stupidity of A-jad politics. But I not so sure about truck colons to Syria with WAD for Iraq. And about war in my ex country all three sides make crimes well maybe we were the worst(because we were millitary strongest) but again I say that others had enough blood on their hands. And lets back to this poor sailors.

04-01-2007, 10:54 AM	#354 (permalink)
SRB Contributor Join Date: 05-19-06 Location: Belgrade Posts: 414 Country:	Here is some answer about underground factories Makfax vesnik US might strike Iran in early April, possibly with nuclear weapon Moscow, 30.03.2007 18:53 Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces will be ready for a possible military operation against Iran in early April, and the use of nuclear tactical weapon is not ruled out, Russian Agency RIA Novosti reported late Friday. The Vice President of the Academy for Geopolitical Sciences, Gen. Leonid Ivashov, suggested in the interview for the agency that the United States could use nuclear weapons to hit 17 to 20 nuclear research and production facilities in Iran, the majority of which are located deep underground in mountainous areas. The Americans are rushing to build up their Air Force and Navy contingent in the region, Ivashov said, adding that other signs of a pending war were civil defense exercises being conducted in Israel and the evacuation of some Western embassies in Tehran. Asked when a military campaign could begin, the general said it depended on a political decision by Washington and the readiness of American troops, but that it could conceivably begin shortly. The source said the Pentagon could decide to conduct ground operations as well after assessing the damage done to the Iranian forces by its possible missile strikes and analyzing the political situation in the country following the attacks. Any provocation, including the recent arrest of British Royal Navy personnel by Iran, could prompt the U.S. to launch a military campaign against the Islamic Republic, Ivashov said. "President George W. Bush needs a quick victory to secure a Republican win in the 2008 election," Ivashov said, adding that a campaign in Iran could be resumed after the presidential poll. But Ivashov said the war would be over oil and other economic concerns, as U.S. oil reserves were only enough to last about 10 years and the dollar had been declining. He said a war would give a boost to the American economy. So many factories are underground.

04-01-2007, 10:57 AM	#355 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,520 Country:	No wonder Russians think the way they do. Look what passes for reportage there.

04-01-2007, 13:03 PM	#358 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,379 Country:	The Russian 'news' could very well be to raise the political temperature with the hope that Iran goes more ballistic and the US gets embroiled with Iran in addition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! Wars cost money and does affect domestic opinion and politics. It maybe the Russian aim to cause political turmoil within the US as the US gets embroiled with Iran. In the bargain, the wars will get immensely expensive for the US wherein its economy will suffer and in the bargain there will be huge discontent in the US. In the ensuing confusion, Russia would close the gap between the US and Russia. That maybe the aim behind this 'news'. This 'news', I feel, is a part of the Russian disinformation campaign.

04-02-2007, 15:32 PM	#359 (permalink)
Low-tech Patron Join Date: 08-04-06 Location: providence, RI Posts: 259	wouldnt we have to invade to permenantly stop thier nuke program?. kinda like........get inside the underground facilities and destroy them from the inside? ive heard and read stuff on the bunker busters not being good enough to get the underground facilities. like....we could do it, but it would include continious bombings of the same targets to literally move...alot of earth.........to actual destroy those sites. i am by no means an expert on this stuff.........but it seems like to bomb them would not be successful in detering thier nukes program...........may set them back many years but nothing comprehensive. also would the oil market go to hell? i guess we are just looking at a descending degree of "how bad" in any scenerio, granted iran has alot more to lose than we.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)