Iran attacks british forces

[mummymonkey]

"Or else what?" indeed. As an ex-serviceman I agree with BPSCG. If the Foreign Secretary was being interviewed on Newsnight the first question Paxman would ask is "Or else what?" (Perhaps he might phrase it differently)
I wonder what her answer would be?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Is that why he said, "Interesting rant"? Because he agreed that BPSCG meant the US wouldn't support the UK? He didn't say anything to that effect.

Of course he said no such thing.

So, in order to justify your lunatic ravings, you have to lie about what Darth Rotor posted?

I'm half surprised. I knew you'd have to tell some lie, but I didn't realise that you'd go so far as to lie about the opinions of a US war veteran.

Now I think about it, this is not the first time. I remember "Swiftboating".

 

[Tailgater]

Or else:

(1) The British have all the military options available to Americans. We have everything from nukes to the SAS. We can do military stuff. That's one answer to "or else what?" That's why you wanted us as allies.

(2) Apparently you Americans love us Limeys and fully support us. You said so in your post. And you are the world's only super power. That also is, surely, an answer to the question "or else what?" As we are your allies, surely you are on our side? "Or else what?" Or else, at least, the US will back us up, rather than saying "or else what?"

We are your allies. Honor requires that you guys should side with us against Iran, rather than sitting on the sidelines and asking us what we're going to do about it. If you won't, we shall draw our own conclusions.

But America does not make the Uks decisions for them. Just because the UK has a military, does not mean they will threaten to use military force. There are other means of pressure to use, and with multiple other countries already involved over nuclear talks, it would be interesting to know what the end result to the demands are.

 

[headscratcher4]

Interesting turn of events.

Of course, what gets left out of these discussions, is Iran's long history with the Brits...not an excuse, mind you, but perhaps a contributing additudinal factor (i.e. why Iran would risk this).

Next to America, the Brits are Iranian enemy number one. Go back to the first time the Shah was overthrown by a democratically elected Parliment under the leadership of Mosedeq. The Brits controlled the Iranian oil industry...and as was the pattern in such cases...pretty well excluded Iran from not only participation in the industry, but very much discriminated agaisnt Iranians in their own country.

Mosedeq's solution? Nationalize the British oil holdings. The British response? Well, it was after the war and they didn't have the military might they once did...so, they got the US and the CIA to step in and organize a counter coup that overthrough the elected government (they were socilists/prot-communists in the parlance of the time) and replace it with the once toppled Shah, who proceeded to create a liberl but police state, crushed his poltical oposition and limited freedom of speech, action etc. (making room for dissent only within the realm of the relgious schools, giving rise to Khomeni, et. al).

So, while it presents many confusing situations, today's incident was a opportunity for some faction or other to show that it was standing up to Western impreialism of the kind that historically contributed to the opression of the Iranian people.

I don't think they ultimately are looking for war or an armed conflict at this time, but there is a lot of pride involved. And, while that can be irrational (look at President Bush fighting the fights he thinks his dad lost), it can be extreemly dangerous.

 

[geni]

Expecting the US to attack Iran is unreasonable. The US can bomb Iran but then so so can britian. Invasion is imposible for both short of instituteing a draft and being prepared to accept significant casulties.

However were a problem that was more within the capacity of the US to deal with (say argentina invades the falklands again) I would hope aid would be rather more concrete (mind you there are rumors around that the US might have been prepared to lend an aircraft carrier last time athough what the Royal navy could have done with it is open to question).

 

[Dr Adequate]

But America does not make the Uks decisions for them.

Of course not. What on earth does that have to do with anything I've posted?

Oh, wait, it doesn't.

 

[Tailgater]

Of course not. What on earth does that have to do with anything I've posted?

Oh, wait, it doesn't.

We are your allies. Honor requires that you guys should side with us against Iran, rather than sitting on the sidelines and asking us what we're going to do about it. If you won't, we shall draw our own conclusions.

As an ally who will support you, the thought of what you will do is relevant. Sitting on the sidelines is the only thing we can do, while you decide what to do.

 

[Dr Adequate]

"Or else what?" indeed. As an ex-serviceman I agree with BPSCG. If the Foreign Secretary was being interviewed on Newsnight the first question Paxman would ask is "Or else what?" (Perhaps he might phrase it differently)
I wonder what her answer would be?

I wonder if her first answer would be "Well, of course, in answering your question, I must take into account the fact that Americans are saying "or else what?" rather than affirming their allegiance with the UK."

No, this is not what they are saying. Bush isn't saying "or else what", Rumsfeld isn't saying this, it's just a bunch of right-wing loonies who are saying this.

Whereas the sane right-wingers agree with Darth Rotor, Bush, and Rumsfeld.

Of course America is backing us on this one. But the right-wing nutjobs aren't. Because they hate anyone who isn't American even if we're their allies and are attacked by their enemies.

Dolts.

 

[Dr Adequate]

As an ally who will support you, the thought of what you will do is relevant. Sitting on the sidelines is the only thing we can do, while you decide what to do.

No, you can say that you support us all the way and are "standing shoulder to shoulder" with us, just as Tony Blair did on 9/11.

And I'm pretty sure this is what Bush et al are actually doing: I haven't googled it, but I'm willing to bet that your actual government is on our side while the looneys sit around pretending that it's nothing to do with them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course he said no such thing.

Hmm, interesting rant.

He did indeed, and YOU even quoted that bit.

So, in order to justify your lunatic ravings, you have to lie about what Darth Rotor posted?

Yes, I also have to eat babies.

I'm half surprised. I knew you'd have to tell some lie, but I didn't realise that you'd go so far as to lie about the opinions of a US war veteran.

YOU are the one who lied about Darth's posts. In no part of his post did he express the opinion that BPSCG's question indicated BPSCG thought the US wouldn't or didn't support the UK. His expressions of his own support for the UK don't change that. Which is why you can't quote any part of Darth's post to indicate otherwise. If he wants to come back here and express such an opinion he's certainly free to do so, but so far he hasn't.

 

[Tailgater]

No, you can say that you support us all the way and are "standing shoulder to shoulder" with us, just as Tony Blair did on 9/11.

And I'm pretty sure this is what Bush et al are actually doing: I haven't googled it, but I'm willing to bet that your actual government is on our side while the looneys sit around pretending that it's nothing to do with them.

Ok, I think I see where you're coming from, but if these were US troops and Bush came out and said the exact same thing, my first thought would be the same. When someone demands something, they usually want to finish the sentence. I have three kids and I don't demand anything without telling them what will happen to them.

 

[steverino]

I would like to say that my dad was a navigator in Tibenham, England, in WWII. For some time he flew in B24B's under his commander, Jimmy Stewart. Now he's a damn liberal.

Also, I would like to insert something else. I'd do Posh Spice. There. I said it. Carry on.

 

[Tailgater]

Steverino,

You are the cherry on top of every thread I read. Carry on as well.

 

[Ziggurat]

Go back to the first time the Shah was overthrown by a democratically elected Parliment under the leadership of Mosedeq.

Mossadegh didn't exactly overthrow the Shah. He managed to wrest considerable power away from the Shah, but the Shah remained the Shah throughout the entire event. Furthermore, Mossadegh himself was appointed prime minister by the parliament upon recommendation of the Shah himself.

they got the US and the CIA to step in and organize a counter coup that overthrough the elected government

Parliament did not change. Only Mossadegh, the prime minister, was deposed. He was elected by parliament (which remained after he was deposed), not by any popular vote. And constitutionally, his dismissal was arguably within the Shah's power anyways.

 

[fishbob]

The question still stands: if you want to make a demand from the Iranians, you need to make a threat. It may not be a threat of violence, but if there's no threat, it's not a demand, it's a request. The UK wants it viewed as a demand, so they better be ready to make a threat of some sort. What will that threat be? That question exists regardless of US involvement. And it's a question you have studiously avoided. Which is quite silly of you, because there are a few possible answers which are fairly obvious.

The demand is perfectly effective with no threat stated. UK has not limited their options or committed to something that might turn out to be inappropriate, the Iranians know that UK has all manner of credible threats at their disposal - but don't know which to expect. Making a threat at this time would be counterproductive and just plain silly.

 

[Ziggurat]

The demand is perfectly effective with no threat stated.

Only if there's an implied threat. At this stage, what is the implied threat? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm asking what it is.

Making a threat at this time would be counterproductive and just plain silly.

They've got time and don't need to commit to anything particular at this moment, and I don't doubt it will get worked out. But a demand must have a threat of some sort, be it explicit or implicit, or it simply isn't a demand.

 

[mummymonkey]

.. the Iranians know that UK has all manner of credible threats at their disposal

What are you thinking of fishbob?

 

[Thunder]

If the Brits want to go to war over this that is there choice, but I hope they don't. The USA will support them either way...have no doubts about that.

 

[Dr Adequate]

He did indeed, and YOU even quoted that bit.

You are a halfwitted liar. Darth Rotor never said that "he agreed that BPSCG meant the US wouldn't support the UK".

Even you, stupid drooling liar that you are, have admitted that "he didn't say anything to that effect." You admitted 17 posts ago that he never said any such thing, and the words "he didn't say anything to that effect" are yours. I am quoting you when you admit that he said no such thing. You admitted that he didn't say that, and now, you twisted dirty filthy liar, you say that "he did indeed". You stupid lying filth.

Dr. Adequate - This post came before my previous warning, but again, please keep in mind your membership agreement.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[Dr Adequate]

Let's watch it again in slow motion.

He didn't say anything to that effect.

Of course he said no such thing.

He did indeed.

First you say that Darth Rotor didn't say some nutty stuff that you made up in your head.

Of course he didn't, so then I agreed that he didn't say any of the gibberish that you hallucinated.

Then you insist that he did.

I don't know how to ask this tactfully, but are you completely freakin' insane?