[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Dear Iran....... (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 3/31/2007 4:34:00 PM EDT
|
Dear Iran, We, the Brits, are soooo sorry for the unfortunate situation that we have put you in. You have been so understanding and patient with us thus far. We fully understand that Iran is now the worlds only SuperPower. You may do as you please to whomever you please and no one will try to stop you. As a gesture of our good faith we would like to send a party of our finest military officers to the wonderful city of Tehran to personally assure you that we would NEVER even THINK about entering your territorial waters EVER again...... ------------- Probably something along those lines... Ministers seek deal with Iran for captives By Sean Rayment, Tim Shipman and Patrick Hennessy, Sunday Telegraph Last Updated: 12:29am BST 01/04/2007 Ministers are preparing a compromise deal to allow Iran to save face and release its 15 British military captives by promising that the Royal Navy will never knowingly enter Iranian waters without permission. The Sunday Telegraph has learnt of plans to send a Royal Navy captain or commodore to Teheran, as a special envoy of the Government, to deliver a public assurance that officials hope will end the diplomatic standoff. The move, which was discussed at a meeting of Whitehall's Cobra crisis committee yesterday, came as Downing Street officials explicitly cautioned against hopes of a speedy outcome and said that families of the hostages should prepare for the "long haul". The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, have been warned that the impasse may develop into a long-term stand-off. Privately, officials are speculating that the crisis could continue for months. The renewed search for a solution was given greater urgency when a senior Iranian official said that moves had begun to put the 15 British captives on trial. Iran's ambassador to Moscow, Gholamreza Ansari, announced: "Legal moves to determine the guilt of the British sailors have been launched." In an interview with a Russian television channel, he said: "The legal process is going on and has to be completed and if they are found guilty they will face punishment." Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plans to make a formal statement on the crisis on Tuesday. Last night, he denounced Britain's failure to apologise and decision to go to the United Nations: "This is not the legal and logical way." Mrs Beckett revealed that Britain has replied to a letter from the Iranian Embassy in London, sent on Thursday, which called on the Government to acknowledge that the sailors had trespassed into Iranian waters and confirm that it would not happen again. She said: "Everyone regrets that this position has arisen. What we want is a way out of it. We want it peacefully and we want it as soon as possible." Defence officials emphasised that they were not preparing to concede that the two British boats detained nine days ago were at fault. But one said: "We are quite prepared to give the Iranians a guarantee that we would never knowingly enter their waters without their permission, now or in the future. We are not apologising, nor are we saying that we entered their waters in the first place. But it may offer a route out of the crisis." Details of the strategy emerged as a former Falklands War commander expressed fury at how the sailors surrendered to Iranian gunboats without a fight. Maj Gen Julian Thompson called for a review of the Navy's rules of engagement, dictated by the United Nations, that they cannot open fire unless they are shot at first. "In my view this thing is a complete cock-up," he said. "I want to know why the Marines didn't open fire or put up some sort of fight. My fear is that they didn't have the right rules of engagement, which would allow them to do this." A former Iranian ambassador to the UN, Sayed Rajai Korasani, said that Britain should be more conciliatory and called for a delegation of MPs to seek the handover of the sailors. |
When are all these commie world-government fuckers going to remember that "diplomacy" DOESN'T WORK AGAINST TERRORISTS 
What, you'd rather it was settled with a war than, say, with Iran returning the hostages? I mean, if Iran's going to be a fucking dick about it, war may be inevitable, but it's certainly not the preferred option. |
... Exactly the point ... Anger will consume you, that's why it a good thing the Western world isn't ruled by ARFCOM chairborne commanders. ... As much a "Hawk" I am, I always prefer a peaceful option to diffuse a confrontation. Whether it at a personal or national level. |
No no, you're absolutely right. They should apologize for their mistake immediately! Poor little Iran...... Awwwww I just love the way.... THEY ARE KILLING OUR SOLDIERS IN IRAQ! and.. BUILDING A NUCLEAR WEAPON THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE DROPPED UN US! Ohhhh the poor little Iranians... Wake up. |
I can certainly see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. The "peaceful" option back in 1979/80 is what got us where we are today. There are times when some bloodshed now will prevent a lot more bloodshed in the future. Iran delenda est. |
So, even if we can resolve this peacefully, and I'm not saying necessarily that we can but I am saying we can damn well try, you'd rather go to war than get a peaceful solution? You'd rather have thousands of Americans, thouands more allied soldiers, and millions of Iranians, in a best-case scenario, die, than pursue the possibility of a peaceful end? You'd rather they push full-force into Iraq in an attempt to destroy their infrastructure and kill our soldiers as well? You'd rather get every nation in the middle-east besides Israel fighting a war with us? You'd rather the possibility that they bring the war to our land, kill our civilians? You'd rather lose one of our most stable, albeit expensive, source of oil, because as we know, no way in hell will we ever be allowed to drill in ANWR or build new nuclear plants? You'd rather they accelerate that nuke program? You'd rather they set off that nuke in the US as fast as they can than be talked down? You'd rather risk the confusion and destruction that would come with a retaliatory strike? You'd rather some former superpower with an itchy trigger finger think for a second that our strike's heading for them or that the pollution will harm them too much, and that they launch a retaliatory strike against us, and the cycle goes on? It's a goddamn fool who seeks war as the first option rather than a last resort.
There are other options besides "ignore it" and "full-on war." And Iran has allies, too. If we invade, what makes you think their allies won't join in the fight? What makes you think they won't try to take the war here as well? |
Thousands now vs. MILLIONS later. My questions to you: Do you have a family? My guess is no. Do you care about anyone other than yourself? My guess is no. Do you believe in America? My guess is no. Would you give you life for your country? Again, My guess is no. Go back to your Iran apologist thread in the DU. |
Enlarged red text: cruise control for cool! It will still be millions. Even if we somehow absolutely raze all of Iran to the ground overnight, starting tonight, in the morning half the nations in the world will have decided we're too much of a threat. Even if we just invade ASAP and try to take out their military and research facilities, they'll come to the same conclusion. And they might well be right, considering that we'd have just launched a full-scale attack on a sovereign nation, refusing to conduct diplomatic relations to try to solve the problem, instead simply trying to destroy them. Whether we were right or wrong wouldn't matter, because they'd still see it as Poland 1939 all over again, only we'd be the ones driving the tanks. Our allies would be quick to sever ties and join in the fight against us. And if you think we can hold our own against every other country with a military, you're dead wrong. It will be a bloody war, it might end with nuclear fire, but either way, when it's over, there won't be a United States anymore. Even if we didn't piss off every other nation in the world to the point of war, we'd still lose a lot of allies and have a major regional war on our hands.
Wrong!
Wrong!
That depends. Do you mean the idea of America, of inalienable rights, real representation, true liberty, and rational decisions, that only lives on in books and in the heads of the few good men remaining? Or the modern America of living documents, government rights, legislators that don't give a damn about their constituents, skyrocketing taxes, skyrocketing spending, socialist programs, and rushing in blindly?
Wrong!
 Yeah, because not liking the idea of sending millions to their deaths to avoid the indignity of having to try to actually solve a problem in a sane matter makes me a communist.Fuck off. |
You aren't solving any problem. You're simply giving Iran an impetus to drive a wedge between the U.S. and the U.K. You're simply giving a third world dictator ammunition for future agitation and rewarding bad behavior. "It will be a bloody war, it might end with nuclear fire, but either way, when it's over, there won't be a United States anymore." Give it a rest, ya fucking crybaby. Stop taking a pacifist stance toward Islamic radical assholes. |
So do I, but I do not consider bending over and taking it in the ass from Mahmoud Imadinnerjacket to be a "peaceful option." |
There are many ways this could be done: Briton could pay Iran $1 billion for the return of their people. Briton could grovel and apologize for the return of their people. Briton could have its PM suck the dick of the Iranian president for the return of their people. See where I'm going with this? Civilized nations simply do not round (non-terrorist) people up on the high seas and take them hostage. It is usually called an act of war. There is ample evidence that the British sailors were not in Iranian waters. Iran chose this path. They could have released them a day after they captured them with a "oops" statement, and it would have been page 15 news the next day. Briton can either choose to stand firm, with it's Allies backing (thats us, folks), or face further humiliation, hostage taking, and eventually a provokation that will lead to war. Better to settle it now, rather than establish a painful precedent. Oh, wait, Mr. Chamberlain already did that. |
Ain't my job to solve problems. Unless you mean that actually attempting to diplomatically solve the problem won't ever work. In which case, well, I'd say you're out of your fucking gourd. Maybe Iran won't listen. Maybe they will. But just think about what would have happened if Kennedy, instead of trying to solve the Cuban Missile Crisis like a reasonable person, had just lobbed a few missiles at Cuba and some at Moscow for good measure. Diplomacy doesn't always work. Especially not if you try to be an appeasementist and give them what they want. We all see how well that worked out for Czechoslovakia and the rest of the world. But it seems to me it would be better to try and solve the problems in a manner that will avoid unnecessary death. Like I said, if they're dicks, war may be necessary, but I fail to see how trying to sit down and talk to them like adults is worthless.
Yeah, I'm sure Ahmadinejad pays so much attention to this forum, and especially to me "Hey, Mostafa! Check it out! This guy on this website thinks that it would be better for the US to engage in diplomacy than to launch a war! Well, fuck it, then, send the nukes over there!"
Do you honestly believe the world is just going to stand by and let us invade Iran without even trying a peaceful solution? Hell, a lot of countries are mighty pissed at us just for Iraq (and before you ask, I do in fact believe the Iraq war was justified, I don't think we should pull out until we've stabilized it, I think we should let our soldiers actually fight instead of letting them get killed for fear of pissing off the media, and I think that if we hadn't put all these bullshit rules on them and let them actually fight the terrorists it'd be damn near stable already). I think a lot of them'd start seeing us as a major threat, and I think for damn sure Saudi Arabia, Syria, and in all probability Egypt and a few of the other ME nations would come to Iran's defense againt us. Several of our allies would probably begin to break relations with us. Sure, we could probably win, at a huge cost, but if more people started joining in the fight, there's nowhere we could go but down, like Germany, Italy, and Japan in 1945. |
Tom Jefferson..sent out the USN to deal with the same situation..on a larger scale. |
WTF do we have to apologize for? See what happens to a great people once they have been brainwashed into being pussies by liberal, socialist lies and bullshit. The 46% on the other hand who favour military action, show that they are still some of my countrymen who have yet to trade their balls for soicalist bullshit. What I don't understand is how so many people fail to see the threat that radical Islam poses to the West, (yes that includes you also France and Germany). I fear that it will take an attack on a major Western City with a WMD, to make the liberals in America, and Europe realize that, one cannot reason with Radical Islam, and guess what these people are not our friends and don't want to be, and all they seek in life is the murder of as many Infidels as possible, and that they as liberals also fall under the umbrella of Infidel. It blows me away sometimes how some people can be so ignorant, and stupid. Rant over..... |
|
If I was England I would sink their entire shit pot little toy navy. Should take about 15 minutes. Then any sailors left foundering in the waters could be arrested for being lazy. As an aside if I was that British woman I would take that headscarf off every chance I got. I can picture an american girl saying "stick this rag up your ass and get me a pork sandwich" I don't want a war anymore than the next guy but enough is enough. Shit pot little dictators and their kind only shut up when they are being stomped in the face. |
Step away from the bong.... DU Troll. Clean up on page 2. |
 I remember this argument from 2002/2003. How the whole world would unite against us, or at the very least the entire Arab League. How all it would take was Saddam sending the call down from on high that he needed help from his Arab brothers. Then we did it anyway, and not a peep was heard. I think someone needs to learn exactly how international relations work. Dictators cheer each other on until someone comes to kick one of their asses. Then the others couldn't give a flying fuck about him. China's pissed? So? They went to war for a hateful little dictator once, and in hindsight recognize it as one of the stupidest mistakes they ever made. And that was a country right on their border. Right in their back yard. They couldn't care less about some idiot towelhead who's shooting his mouth off and capturing other countries' personnel and fighting quasi-wars with a superpower, basically begging on his hands and knees to get annihilated. Fighting for Iran would not make the tiniest bit of sense for China. Russia? Ahahahahahah. Let's see, who does that leave... oh, Saudi Arabia. You mean the ones who are upgrading their pipelines in hopes that the Hormuz can be completely ignored sometime in the future? Yeah, I'm sure they're gonna fight to keep their competition afloat. Egypt? See Russia. Syria? See Russia. Europe? Europe won't fight to save itself, nevermind a madman who has already threatened them once and is taking their personnel hostage. So who does that leave? Sorry pal, the cheese stands alone on this one. |
... Thank you for making my point ... YOU are not the one with lives and reputations at stake. ... YOU are not the one risking the proverbial "taking it in the ass" or not. ... It's not even YOUR country that is directly involved here. |
|
THe PLain fact is iran has NO INCENTIVE to give them back or to play nice. Unless there is some back channel reason they are doing this, like maybe some old funds need unfreezing or whatever, they WONT give them back. This is IRans way of Bitch slapping and humiliating A major western power. Make no mistake about it. And they will milk it for all it is worth. In the end Iran will look stronger and Britain weaker in the eyes of the turd world and especially the "shia world". This was all planned from the begining. You think the top leaders would've allowed that to happen without a planned Calculus?? They know the Brits Gov't are weak liberals. ANY diplomatic or "peaceful" solution will end up with only one result, Iran looks strong, Britain looks weak. Can there be any other way?? IS there any way Britain could end this by looking strong without the threat of force?? Nope. This now must become a game of Chicken. He who blinks first loses. Iran and their proxy Hezbullshit have been playing this kinda game on the Israelis for 35 years. But i bet you one thing, it'll be a long time before another IDF soldier is kidnapped on the Lebanese border........ |
| Saddam was Tehran's biggest threat..Amazing how Iran posses the same if not greater threat now as it did before the 03 invasion of Iraq...man, some strategic planning on the U.S.'s part..Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..We should of been in Tehran in 03, not Iraq.. |
It's a stepping stone. My personal belief is that Iraq is simply a stepping stone for Iran, and that Iran has been the main target all along. We were hoping that the Iraqis would get on board for the big win, given that they'd been through a pretty rough war with Iran. Though, what we're seeing is that tribal groups take precedent over nationalism there. With bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've essentially forced Iran into a 2-front war, if we so choose to fight it that way. Though it doesn't seem like they'd fight us toe to toe. They'd probably dissolve the military and pull some Iraq-style shit. 
|
When a nation is too cowardly to take any and all of the actions necessary to ensure its continued existence it has essentially forfeited the right to survive. Do you really believe that Iran needs an excuse to accelerate their nuclear program? Do you believe that the Iranians are not presently pushing into Iraq, attacking infrastructure and killing our soldiers? Do you advocate ever increasing acts of cowardice in the face of well calculated, incremental, provocations by a declared enemy of the United States and western civilization as a whole? Diplomacy will only work for us when our side exhibits strength. Currently we are not, and as a result, the western world is being humiliated which will result in more ropers joining hands with the enemy. What you have written here calls for nothing more or less than overt cowardice in the face of threats from a pissant, third world tyrant. However, if that is indeed the road we follow, in the end, the butcher's bill will be infinitely higher than it need be. Remember good old Neville who, through unabashed cowardice, traded the Czecs for "peace in our time" and had a piece of paper signed by Hitler, to prove it. The butcher's bill numbered in the millions of lives. It didn't have to play out that way. |
 Read it and learn something. |