Deploy troops in Iran...!

[AvarAllahNoor]

Iraq 1979-88
Iraq 2003 to current
Afganistan 2002 to current
Themselves if you count killing Kurds...continuously.

Thats it though. ( i diddnt add the tanker war cos that would have involved too many countries...just shooting at any ship they wanted no matter what nation.)

Assisting is invasion??

 

[Cognescenti]

Bull! - Your country didn't have a president during the vote count (it was being fixed by his family member in Florida) The world knows it and so do the americans. Even Al Gore said it. What a great chap he was/is.

As for backing. Well I hate to see people being told what to do by those that think they are better. So yes, i'll back Iran until the US/UK get of their high horse.

The dispute was over several hundred votes in Florida. The other 50,000,000 weren't in question, my friend. So...which is it. Do you really hate only the US government or do you retain some of your hatred for half of the Americans who cast a ballot?

 

[barney]

Assisting is invasion??

Iraq has a soverign government. recognised by the UN.

It has a Army and police to protect it's people, aided by coalition forces.

Iranian Revolutionary Gaurds entering its territory and killing its people and attacking it's schools and hospitals and factories and powerlines and evry other kind of infrastructure.
Thats an invasion.

By the same criteria, the coaliton attack was an invasion too. until the then "soverign" baathists were defeated,. At that point a quick check on weather the majority of the lands people thought it was needed came up with a big YES. then It became classified as a liberation. (they still beleive it was a liberation by the way)

In the same fashion, The Allies in WW2 Invaded Vichy France.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

The dispute was over several hundred votes in Florida. The other 50,000,000 weren't in question, my friend. So...which is it. Do you really hate only the US government or do you retain some of your hatred for half of the Americans who cast a ballot?

They didn't know how the cretin was going to govern, so no I don't hate them. Why would I. - So calm down dear yeah.

You have you views, and me mine.

Good Day To You.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Iraq has a soverign government. recognised by the UN.
It has a Army and police to protect it's people, aided by coalition forces.

Iranian Revolutionary Gaurds entering its territory and killing its people and attacking it's schools and hospitals and factories and powerlines and evry other kind of infrastructure.
Thats an invasion.

By the same criteria, the coaliton attack was an invasion too. until the then "soverign" baathists were defeated,. At that point a quick check on weather the majority of the lands people thought it was needed came up with a big YES. then It became classified as a liberation. (they still beleive it was a liberation by the way)

In the same fashion, The Allies in WW2 Invaded Vichy France.

Is that suppsed to mean something?

As for it being a liberation, the word you're looking for is occupation.

 

[barney]

It's occupation only if the iraqi government asks them to leave and they dont leave.

They have asked them to stay till Iranians and Egyptians and everyone else stops comning into their country and seeking paradise through blowing up Marketplaces and beheading dozens of people each day in the idea that this is what Allah wants.

As to weather it means something. yes it does. but you would have to take a few steps back from your positioning to be able to understand it.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

It's occupation only if the iraqi government asks them to leave and they dont leave.

They have asked them to stay till Iranians and Egyptians and everyone else stops comning into their country and seeking paradise through blowing up Marketplaces and beheading dozens of people each day in the idea that this is what Allah wants.
.

You do realise who selected the government, right...?

 

[guyabano]

you got me wrong,,i meant uk n us soldiers,,not the people who lives there,,,if they are fighting against you,ok,,send them to their own countries...

beside,before you,,was there any suicide bomber?you invade there n destroyed all of their lifes n made them enemies to eachother....dont say that you brought democracy there,,,ur democracy killed millions of people in irak,,n in many other countries...

by the way,all the people know why are you in irak,,,oil! money! power!! you dont care about lifes ,,,

before you ,irak was better than now,,,

*Yawwnnn !* I call that 'fishing for a cheap excuse' !

Most people in Iraq war have been killed after war was finished, and that, due to suicide bombers.

 

[Trumble]

You do realise who selected the government, right...?

Yup, the Iraqi people in a democratic election, the results of which even the 'insurgents' have never seriously questioned.

Rather ironically, in terms of both proportion of actual votes and turnout, the Iraqi government has a stronger electoral mandate than either Bush or Blair!

 

[barney]

With a 80% vote turnout. Better than Britain.

If i was going to be bombed on the way to my poll station, i'd stay at home.

Shows how brave the Iraqi's are and how much they want democracy.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

With a 80% vote turnout. Better than Britain.

If i was going to be bombed on the way to my poll station, i'd stay at home.

Shows how brave the Iraqi's are and how much they want democracy.

TADAAAAH....

All canidates selected were pro Dubya....

BTW - You have to be voted in before you yourself begin to deliver ''democracy'' to others. :wink:

 

[Keltoi]

TADAAAAH....

All canidates selected were pro Dubya....

BTW - You have to be voted in before you yourself begin to deliver ''democracy'' to others. :wink:

All candidates selected were pro Dubya? The candidates were chosen by the new political parties, the mostly poweful of them being the Shia political parties obviously. You could say the Iraqi government is dependent upon the U.S. at this point, but that would have been the case regardless of who was elected. They will continue to be dependent until the Iraqi Army and police can actually start providing security and infrastructure to the country by themselves.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

All candidates selected were pro Dubya? The candidates were chosen by the new political parties, the mostly poweful of them being the Shia political parties obviously. You could say the Iraqi government is dependent upon the U.S. at this point, but that would have been the case regardless of who was elected. They will continue to be dependent until the Iraqi Army and police can actually start providing security and infrastructure to the country by themselves.

Five years on and it's still not happening. Leave and watch it all fall into place. (yes yes I know) ''It'll only get worse if we leave'' complete and utter tosh. They don't want you there. People are killed daily because we are there. The blood of innocents are on your hands. Have some heart and and admit your mistake. I'd love to see the same happen to the US/UK just so you lot can begin to fathom what it is like to be occupied by foreigners. Lord knows I know being a Panjabi and having my country occupied by Hindus!! :raging: :raging:

 

[Keltoi]

Five years on and it's still not happening. Leave and watch it all fall into place. (yes yes I know) ''It'll only get worse if we leave'' complete and utter tosh. They don't want you there. People are killed daily because we are there. The blood of innocents are on your hands. Have some heart and and admit your mistake. I'd love to see the same happen to the US/UK just so you lot can begin to fathom what it is like to be occupied by foreigners. Lord knows I know being a Panjabi and having my country occupied by Hindus!! :raging: :raging:

The U.S. is a no-win situation really. If they stay and violence continues they will be blamed, and rightly so, if they leave and violence continues or gets worse, they will be blamed and rightly so. There isn't a "right" decision here, but Colin Powell said it best when he said, paraphrase, "if you break it is your responsibility to fix it."

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

The U.S. is a no-win situation really. If they stay and violence continues they will be blamed, and rightly so, if they leave and violence continues or gets worse, they will be blamed and rightly so. There isn't a "right" decision here, but Colin Powell said it best when he said, paraphrase, "if you break it is your responsibility to fix it."

So you say pulling out is wrong? Are you not even willing to try it? How can you be so sure of yourself it'll fail?

 

[Keltoi]

So you say pulling out is wrong? Are you not even willing to try it? How can you be so sure of yourself it'll fail?

What do you define as failure? If the death squads regroup after the U.S. leaves and the killing intensifies, that will be failure from a U.S. perspective. The goal at this point is a stable and representative government with unity amongst Shia and Sunni, anything less constitutes failure from a U.S. perspective.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

News just in....

''Following Britain's claims Iran's embassy in London issued a statement in which it said the sailors and marines had been 0.5 km inside Iranian waters at the time they were detained''

NOW, are you going to say ''so what if they were''? You can't have it both ways darlings. Admit you're wrong when you are!!!

 

[seeker_of_ilm]

Apparently Iran will be releasing the Female sailor very shortly. (Wednesday or Thursday).

 

[wilberhum]

News just in....

''Following Britain's claims Iran's embassy in London issued a statement in which it said the sailors and marines had been 0.5 km inside Iranian waters at the time they were detained''

NOW, are you going to say ''so what if they were''? You can't have it both ways darlings. Admit you're wrong when you are!!!

Just In? From where?
I just heard that they were 1.7 miles outside Iranian waters. :? :thumbs_up

 

[Woodrow]

I never thought I would say this. But I agree with Iran on this. However, I think they may be stressing the point too harshly. In the persian Gulf the exact location of the territorial waters is very important to all of the countries in the region. If Iran were to allow a ship or anybody to wander even a few meters into there water and not make an issue of it, it could result in them loosing control of that part of the continental shelf.

This goes back to 1965:

Iran had in 1965 negotiated with Britain for delimitation
of maritime areas, which established the median line of the
sea as a principle upon which the continental shelf between
Iran and her Arab neighbours was to be divided. It was on
the basis of this principle that the subsequent maritime
delimitation agreements were achieved.

In anticipation of existence of oil structures across
maritime boundaries, Iran decided to enforce a provision in
her continental shelf agreements with the states on the
opposite side preventing inappropriate exploitation of such
structures. According to this provision, which appears in
all continental shelf boundary agreements, if a petroleum
structure extends across the boundary and could be
exploited from the other side, there should be no
sub-surface well completion within 125 metres of the
boundary without the mutual agreement of the two parties.
The area of drilling prohibition is 500 metres with Saudi
Arabia.

Nobody in that region wants to risk giving up any oil rights to a neighbor. If it was accepted by Iran that the ship was not in Iranian waters, that would immediatly mean they recognise that as Iraqi waters and they could loose quite a bit of off shore drilling rights.