Deploy troops in Iran...!

[Muezzin]

Don't say that. They'll tell you Iran will be ready with catapults and spears because only the US/UK have proper arms. :rollseyes

Are you suggesting that 'they' are suggesting that people outside the US/UK lack a pair of appendages?

 

[Yanal]

Aslam alkum warkmatulah wabrkatuh my brothers and sisters..oh my god man this thread has so many posts i suscribed this post and in a minute i get like 24 e mails from this thread ps i know this is off topic but i have my hundreth post hipphoriy me peace

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Are you suggesting that 'they' are suggesting that people outside the US/UK lack a pair of appendages?

At least they have something called b***s!!!

 

[Cognescenti]

Don't say that. They'll tell you Iran will be ready with catapults and spears because only the US/UK have proper arms. :rollseyes

Forward ...the Immortals!

I wonder if Xerxes ever took hostages. Probably.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Forward ...the Immortals!

I wonder if Xerxes ever took hostages. Probably.

Dosen't the Bible state he was ''Ahasuerus''? Although we are going off topic...

 

[Muezzin]

Although we are going off topic...

Ding ding ding!

Let's not get sidetracked too much here, lads.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Ding ding ding!

Let's not get sidetracked too much here, lads.

Lord LI are certainly getting their money's worth from you dude!

''Leading Seaman Turney, 26, said they had been seized in the Gulf because obviously we trespassed in Iranian waters She said: "I was arrested on Friday March 23. Obviously we trespassed into their waters.

"They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, good people.

"They explained to us why we had been arrested. There was no aggression, no hurt, no harm. They were very, very compassionate.
''

 

[mohammed farah]

Iran offers UK access to sailors

Iran has offered to let UK officials visit the 15 Royal Navy personnel who were captured in the Gulf on Friday.
Iran's foreign minister also said the only woman being held, Faye Turney, who has been interviewed on Iranian state television, could be released.

However, he added the stand-off would only be resolved if the UK admitted that the sailors and marines were in Iranian waters, which it denies.

The Britons were seized after boarding a vessel and returning to their boats.

Letter shown

The Foreign Office said it was waiting for further details on possible consular access, and that no official offer had yet been made by Iran. The Iranian minister was speaking to reporters at the Arab summit in Saudi Arabia.

In the Iranian TV interview, Leading Seaman Turney, 26, said they had been seized in the Gulf because "obviously we trespassed" in Iranian waters.

She said her captors had been friendly and the 15 personnel, who were all based on HMS Cornwall in the Gulf, were unharmed.

The video showed a letter, said to have been written by Leading Seaman Turney, who is from Shrewsbury, to her parents in which she admitted that the navy personnel had "apparently" crossed into Iranian waters.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in a statement she was "very concerned" about the pictures, which also featured the 14 servicemen seized along with Leading Seaman Turney.

Mrs Beckett said she was concerned about "any indication of pressure on or coercion of our personnel", who she said were on a routine operation in accordance with international law.

Defence Secretary Des Browne said it was "completely unacceptable to parade our people in this way".

Tony Blair has said it was time for the UK to "ratchet up" pressure on Iran.

Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Vice Admiral Charles Style, has produced data which he said proves the boarding party was 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters.

The Ministry of Defence also released a photograph of a handheld global positioning satellite device in HMS Cornwall's Lynx helicopter as it flew over the searched merchant vessel.

Ed Owen, who was an advisor to Jack Straw during his time as foreign secretary, has told BBC Radio Five Live he thought Iran had deliberately engineered the incident.

"There are people in the Iranian regime who believe that the way to address what they regard as the dangers of the West, as well as expanding Iranian influence, is to confront the West," he said.

The Iranian embassy in London said the Britons had been 0.5 km inside Iranian territorial waters.

Link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6505453.stm

 

[barney]

Don't say that. They'll tell you Iran will be ready with catapults and spears because only the US/UK have proper arms. :rollseyes

Nope they have Fishbeds and T72's. 40 year old kit. It could take on any of it's neighbours with ease.

 

[PEACE1975]

If UK or USA bombs Iran ..... welcome world war 3

Get prepared for many years of chaos around the world

Is this the right time ??? ...

I believe everyone should at this time step back ...solve existing problems before creating another big one

 

[barney]

Oh I agree about taking a step back. I think Iran should release the hostages (again), stop sending Iraq a stream of terrorists & explosives and stay off the nukes.

Britain and America will then stop the anti-smuggling patrols and the supporting of sanctions.

Its a easy deal!

 

[InToTheRain]

Oh I agree about taking a step back. I think Iran should release the hostages (again), stop sending Iraq a stream of terrorists & explosives and stay off the nukes.

Britain and America will then stop the anti-smuggling patrols and the supporting of sanctions.

Its a easy deal!

If your going to go to war with a nation for supplying Iraq with weapons and arming their terrorists I think you should also go to war with USA and UK.

[PIE]How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot

THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.'

Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'.

It is thought the information contained in the Senate committee reports is likely to make up much of the 'evidence of proof' that Bush and Blair will reveal in the coming days to justify the US and Britain going to war with Iraq. It is unlikely, however, that the two leaders will admit it was the Western powers that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction.

However, Bush and Blair will also have to prove that Saddam still has chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. This looks like a difficult case to clinch in view of the fact that Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations destroyed most of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now.

According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were des troyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'.

Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.

Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.'

He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance.

The UN's former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons program.

Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were 'comprehensively trashed' on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked.

'We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,' von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. 'They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.'

[/PIE]

Sometime I think USA went into war with Iraq knowing full well they have the weapons of mass destruction they themselves supplied, Imagine the SHOCK HORROR of the Bush administration when they couldn't find their own weapons in Iraq.

 

[SATalha]

Don't say that. They'll tell you Iran will be ready with catapults and spears because only the US/UK have proper arms. :rollseyes

Joker, yeah spearz and catapults. I think the iranians have been prepering 4 this.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Oh I agree about taking a step back. I think Iran should release the hostages (again), stop sending Iraq a stream of terrorists & explosives and stay off the nukes.

Britain and America will then stop the anti-smuggling patrols and the supporting of sanctions.

Its a easy deal!

Is this what you call a 'deal'? well it's not acceptable return with something practical.....

1 - They will not stop sending people to fight off occupation. You've invaded, so expect resistance.

2 - They won't stay off the nukes, they have a right just as you do. They will have nukes.

 

[MTAFFI]

Really? You war hungry individual you!! :skeleton:

But I am from the west, what do you expect? LOL j/k

 

[MTAFFI]

Anyway watever military power da u.s hav it doesnt matter. They hav already shown that they cant take care of a few turbaned taliban fighters n those militias in iraq. Wat will they do wit a beter organised iran

I think you may share the same ignorant mindset as the Iranians. Here is the difference and you might want to jot this down before you make a comment like that again. If the US had actually "gone to war" in Iraq, Iraq would be a desolate wasteland and there wouldnt be a "turbaned taliban fighter" in sight. The US is not in Iraq to be at war with Iraq, the US is in Iraq to help stabilize the country, there is no way to tell the difference between friend and foe. Now if the US went to war with Iran, it wouldnt be to invade, it would be to destroy. Everyone there would be the enemy, bomb after bomb until all infrastructure and nuclear sites would be seized or destroyed. Irans military capabilities do not come close to matching that of the US and it would be very apparent very soon after attack. Now let me say, I hope Iran starts to think more clearly and in the interests of their people so that this does not have to happen. I am positive that not all in Iran want a war with the US and it would be a tragedy for so many people to have to die just because of the arrogance of their government. I will repeat again though, that Iran would have been more of a legitimate target than Iraq as far as threats to US security

 

[MTAFFI]

Is this what you call a 'deal'? well it's not acceptable return with something practical.....

1 - They will not stop sending people to fight off occupation. You've invaded, so expect resistance.

2 - They won't stay off the nukes, they have a right just as you do. They will have nukes.

in response to #1
Is Iran not invading as well by sending this "resistance"? and how is it a resistance to occupation of ones country when the resistance is not even from the country being occupied?

in response to #2
they simply will not have nukes, one way or the other they can either stop the attempt or someone will eventually step in and stop it for them

 

[Keltoi]

The Iranians are taking this incident way further than I thought they might. Why should they fear sanctions though? The mullahs have already destroyed economy.

 

[omar_2133]

US funding the taliban against russia years ago

The Taliban didn't even exist back then. It was only born out of the civil war and chaos in the years following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

 

[SATalha]

I think you may share the same ignorant mindset as the Iranians. Here is the difference and you might want to jot this down before you make a comment like that again. If the US had actually "gone to war" in Iraq, Iraq would be a desolate wasteland and there wouldnt be a "turbaned taliban fighter" in sight. The US is not in Iraq to be at war with Iraq, the US is in Iraq to help stabilize the country, there is no way to tell the difference between friend and foe. Now if the US went to war with Iran, it wouldnt be to invade, it would be to destroy. Everyone there would be the enemy, bomb after bomb until all infrastructure and nuclear sites would be seized or destroyed. Irans military capabilities do not come close to matching that of the US and it would be very apparent very soon after attack. Now let me say, I hope Iran starts to think more clearly and in the interests of their people so that this does not have to happen. I am positive that not all in Iran want a war with the US and it would be a tragedy for so many people to have to die just because of the arrogance of their government. I will repeat again though, that Iran would have been more of a legitimate target than Iraq as far as threats to US security

Whatever the case and whatever the U.S is capable of, i realy dont want to see it happpen in Iran. I know that they are prolonging this and taking the****. But lets hope the U.S and U.K dont have to flex their muscle again. We will see what happens?