Fester wrote:

"Rich Corinthian Leather" <inexplicable@mysterious.net> wrote in message
news:6ByNh.1373$Rg4.785@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...

Fester wrote:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98FCAFA6B9F37freddybear@194.177.96.26...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

UK sailors captured at gunpoint

HMS Cornwall
Commodore reacts
Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by
Iranian
forces, the Ministry of Defence says.

The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the
Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.

The Royal Navy said the group was on a routine patrol in Iraqi waters
and
were understood to be unharmed.

But Iranian state television quoted the Iran foreign ministry as
saying
they had illegally entered Iranian waters.

The Associated Press news agency is quoting US Navy official,
Commander
Kevin Aandahl, as saying that Iran's Revolutionary Guard were
responsible...

I don't have a pat answer for this yet. However, I just read this
today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece

If the Iranians continue to hold them hostage and if those men were to
come to harm, I sure hope that their will be hell to pay. There is no
doubt that the men were in Iraqi waters, interdicting arms or other
types of smuggling inn to Iraq, despite the Iranian lies to the
contrary. Nor is there any doubt that the Iranians have actively
supported those seeking to undermine the new government at the expense
of many American lives. Their continuation of an illegal nuclear
program is yet another provocation and direct threat. NATO doesn't
need many more excuses to take action. Specifically, action aimed at
their nuke facilities. If any more proof was needed that the Iranians
are the last country on earth that we can afford to see acquire nukes
we have it.

Striking Iran's nuclear would be an act of utmost provocation compared
to the relatively minor incident of seizing about a dozen British
troopers.

You didn't read very carefully, as I said, "and IF those men were to come
to harm." That would escalate it well beyond a "minor" incident.

If an attack were to be carried out, it should be against *military*
bases, primarily naval facilities.

To that contrary. The Iranians should not be permitted to obtain nukes,
under any circumstances. If they provide the justification for a
reprisal at this point in time, all of the West should take it as an
opportunity to rid itself of that threat from these pariahs.

Regardless of the provocation or whatever happens to the captured British,
a retaliatory attack would be ill-advised.

Iraq would really blow up on the US and Coalition forces that would make
Viet Nam look like a picnic!

As to Iran having nukes, we have no reason not to believe they're pursuing
peaceful uses.

Fester wrote:

"Rich Corinthian Leather" <inexplicable@mysterious.net> wrote in
message news:6ByNh.1373$Rg4.785@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...

Fester wrote:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98FCAFA6B9F37freddybear@194.177.96.26...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

UK sailors captured at gunpoint

HMS Cornwall
Commodore reacts
Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by
Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.

The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in
the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was
smuggling cars.

The Royal Navy said the group was on a routine patrol in Iraqi
waters and
were understood to be unharmed.

But Iranian state television quoted the Iran foreign ministry as
saying they had illegally entered Iranian waters.

The Associated Press news agency is quoting US Navy official,
Commander Kevin Aandahl, as saying that Iran's Revolutionary Guard
were responsible...

I don't have a pat answer for this yet. However, I just read this
today:

77.ece

If the Iranians continue to hold them hostage and if those men were
to come to harm, I sure hope that their will be hell to pay. There
is no doubt that the men were in Iraqi waters, interdicting arms or
other types of smuggling inn to Iraq, despite the Iranian lies to
the contrary. Nor is there any doubt that the Iranians have
actively supported those seeking to undermine the new government at
the expense of many American lives. Their continuation of an
illegal nuclear program is yet another provocation and direct
threat. NATO doesn't need many more excuses to take action.
Specifically, action aimed at their nuke facilities. If any more
proof was needed that the Iranians are the last country on earth
that we can afford to see acquire nukes we have it.

Striking Iran's nuclear would be an act of utmost provocation
compared to the relatively minor incident of seizing about a dozen
British troopers.

You didn't read very carefully, as I said, "and IF those men were to
come to harm." That would escalate it well beyond a "minor"
incident.

If an attack were to be carried out, it should be against *military*
bases, primarily naval facilities.

To that contrary. The Iranians should not be permitted to obtain
nukes, under any circumstances. If they provide the justification
for a reprisal at this point in time, all of the West should take it
as an opportunity to rid itself of that threat from these pariahs.

Regardless of the provocation or whatever happens to the captured
British, a retaliatory attack would be ill-advised.

Iraq would really blow up on the US and Coalition forces that would
make Viet Nam look like a picnic!

As to Iran having nukes, we have no reason not to believe they're
pursuing peaceful uses.

After all, since the Revolution in '79, Iran
hasn't attacked anyone. By comparison, the US has gone after: Libya,
Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq (twice), to name a
few.

While Iran does have lots of oil, I understand its highly leveraged
and they can't use reserves promised for future production.

On Mar 25, 8:06 pm, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:

"Rich Corinthian Leather" <inexplica...@mysterious.net> wrote in .

You didn't read very carefully, as I said, "and IF those men were to come
to
harm." That would escalate it well beyond a "minor" incident.

If an attack were to be carried out, it should be against *military*
bases, primarily naval facilities.

To that contrary. The Iranians should not be permitted to obtain nukes,
under any circumstances. If they provide the justification for a
reprisal
at this point in time, all of the West should take it as an opportunity
to
rid itself of that threat from these pariahs.

I agree with your general point of view. We will probably at
some point need to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and we may as
well do it now if the Iranians are foolish enough to harm the British
prisoners. I assume part of the concern is how it would affect our
position in Iraq. I am assuming that if we attack Iran we would
completely antagonize the Iraqi Shias, even the ones who are not pro-
Iranian, and that would put impossible pressure on the toy puppet
government we set up in Baghdad. Right now the ONLY people in Iraq
who work with us, other than the Kurds, is a portion of the Shias
population.

Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote in news:130an9vcogm9d29
@corp.supernews.com:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> writes:

Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote in
news:1308m7l7i1c6b19@corp.supernews.com:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> writes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

UK sailors captured at gunpoint

Hmm, I think the UK should try diplomatic means instead of
setting up some phony WMD story to launch an invasion.

Hey, it worked!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1247054,00.html

Iran frees eight British sailors

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday June 25, 2004
The Guardian

Eight British sailors and marines were poised to leave Iran early
this morning after being released from detention in what appeared

to

be a victory for Iranian moderates.
...

And now the moderates in Iran have more political influence.
Contrast with Iraq, where the extremists have more influence
now, thanks to our traitorous and incompetent president.

Uhh, Brian, that was in 2004.

And why should Britain act differently this time? It worked
last time, right?

Yeah, it worked so well, the Iranians kidnapped another 15 Brits this
time.

Or do you think they should not do what worked last time?

Sure, do it again, why not? How many more Brits will they kidnap next
time?

Meanwhile, Bush wants to take a strategy that failed, and
keep following the same failed strategy.

No, Brian, it's you who wants to keep repeating the same failed
strategy. Over and over and over and over.

IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:7_edndLWF62oN5vbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@giganews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:D_2dneutHblTo5jbnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@giganews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

UK sailors captured at gunpoint

They could try getting the facts, like where the ship was.
Y'know, facts. Those things that you don't let get in
your way.

Why don't you give us those facts, IAAH, since you know so much more
than the British Navy.

Of course, MY point, not the lie you wrote, is that the
facts have not come out.

Of course they have, you moron.

That has never stopped you before, however. See what I
said about you not letting them get in the way - you
certainly illustrated my point for me.