What should Britain do about Iran?

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Dudaaye
Islam is backwards, primative, and politically bankrupt. America is number one!

"There will be no federal adminstration. There is tel aviv running washington. There is bush who will hold onto the presidential seat because he will attack Iran in 2008 and hold onto the president's position because of a loop that says he will be president as long as the country is at 'war'"

Unclebin
This quote shows your ignorance. It is not possible, even in wartime, for a president to remain past his term. There is no loophole.

[Padishah]

LOL! Nice with the aggressive tone, and the talking down there Mad Mac, but I'm not the one whose ego hangs in the balance here. I could be wrong, and take it, while you'd be devastated if you were wrong. Bitch boy to 5 Million smelly Jew rats just doesn't suit a proud US Army man, a Lieutenant Colonel no less!



I was referring to this post, and it was written in perfect English as well. Really need to nitpick when there is something there to nitpick Old Man. Just shows desperation on your part.


[quote="Padishah"]
Brits in the Gulf and a Doctored British Map?
Barry Lando / Craig Murray


Former British Ambassador Craig Murray is now challenging the legitimacy of the map just published by the British government in the current dispute with Iran over those 15 captured British sailors and marines.

"Fake Maritime Boundaries

I have been unpopular before, but the level of threats since I started blogging on the captured marines has got a bit scary.

It is therefore with some trepidation that I feel obliged to point this out.

"The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.

"But there are two colossal problems.

"A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

"B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

"None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only harden the Iranian position."

When I spoke with the former Ambassador he told me how dumbfounded he is by the way in which the mainstream media continues to treat this dispute.

The BBC for instance has already interviewed a supposed expert regarding the map, who vouched for its authenticity. But the point is, as Craig Murray, points out, how can such a map exist if the subject of boundaries has never been settled between Iraq and Iran? Turns out the expert had been referred to the BBC by the British Ministry of Defense--who also turned out the plan.

Sounds like the rerun of a bad movie we've already seen.
[/quote]


Mad Mac, the Oil card just isn't going to work here. And the idea that Israel is involved for the Oil is even more preposterous, Mad Mac, and it isn't going to fly. Why is it, after 4 years of the Occupation, and you haven't been able to produce a drop of oil from the Iraqi fields? Why is it when you needed petrol in Iraq, you actually had to SHIP in some more from outside the country. Why invade a country for a resource you can easily pay less for, and for which the Arabs are eager to sell you in preference to the Chinese? Destroying utterly a country's infrastructure, helping create an insurgency, and making life in Iraq as chaotic as possible is not something conducive to getting or controlling oil, but its very conducive to lots of sectarian strife. What is more compelling is the idea Iraq is going to be Balkanised, and this idea has been thrown around in academic and political circles as well. Include the 'Clean Break' paper, and you have a number of compelling reasons why Oil is just not all that much of a motivation.

[quote="Mad Mac"]
Iraq was invaded because Saddam, once a useful tool, was the number one aide provider to the Palestinians. He offered big bucks from petro dollars to suicide bombers, Hamas, Al Jihad, and other sundry actors in that shithole some refer to as Palestine. Since the US is obviously NOT going to cut Israel loose (and given it's nuclear capability, that would be unwise at this juncture), and since the Arabs in general and Palestinians in partciular didn't seem prepared to trade land for peace, something had to be done to prepare them. What could that something be. Well, first, we have to put them on a diet, to paraphrase. Their funding needed to dry up. Their situation had to become so desperate, that their choices were whittled down to negotiate a settlement or die. So Saddam had to go. His removal was also a message to Iran and Syria. Unfortunately the Bush government failed to comprehend that while we can remove governments, and fock up countries, we can not install governments or fix countries. I wish we would learn this lesson, but it seems one that we are doomed to require repeat classes on.
[/quote]

Mad Mac, what you've written above is complete and utter crap! In 2002, BEFORE the Iraq war, ALL of the Arab leaders got together and offered Israel the above 'Land for Peace' deal, (http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm), a deal which was enthusiastically supported by the Palestinian leadership and is identical to the current Peace Initiative in Saudi, what do you think the Israeli's said? It was a flat out 'no' from Sharon who would not tolerate any idea of a Palestinian state. SO don't come here with your bullcrap about the Arabs nor the Palestinians refusing peace, because they were there with Peace in 2002, but were told to go packing. This crap about the Palestinians being put on a diet is complete crap, as they were ready for a comprehensive peace, along WITH THE REST OF THE ARAB WORLD in 2002? What diet is necessary, when was is ready? Its just more wishful rationalisation of yours, and your refusal to acknowledge that Iraq benefits Israel and only Israel.

The fact is, Saddam was removed because he was a troublesome brat, and he was a pain in the rear of the Israeli's and as you say, supportive of the Palestinians. He was no threat to you guys in the US, you and your buddies in the Security Council made sure he and his subjects were gutted with 10 years of heavy comprehensive sanctions. Face it Mad Mac; he was to go, and his nation reduced to three easily controllable feuding Sectarian states. Anything else is just wishful thinking.


[quote="Mad Mac"]
You see kid, the US wants the conflict in the Levant to go away. They want the current borders to be more or less the end state. They want a two state solution. They want the Muslims to shut the fock up.
[/quote]

Mad Mac, you're little delusion and reality don't add up. You say the Americans want the Mid-East strife to end, yet you INVADE a prostrate Middle Eastern country at the behest of Israeli interests, ostensibly to divorce the Palestinians from their main financier, as you rationalised in the last paragraph, thus forcing the Palestinians to accept a peace agreement that the Palestinians were ready to accept when it was was proposed in 2002 by the Arab League of its own violition. Excuse me if I find this a little hard to believe.

You might want the current border to be what Palestine becomes, but the Israeli's have a different idea. You see, if you go to this map (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles5 ... age005.gif), you can see the route of the 'Security Fence' that Israel is building through the West Bank, while innocently waiting for an Arab Peace offer. Have a look at this and tell me truthfullly that the US wants the Palestinians to have a meaningful country, and not an Israel administered Bantustan. I might just believe you, if I take leave of my senses.

If the Americans wanted a two-state Solution, and if Israel was America's bitch, and not the other way around, Bush would have ordered Sharon to consider the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, and not have had Sharon dismiss it out of hand.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"***** boy to 5 Million smelly Jew rats just doesn't suit a proud US Army man, a Lieutenant Colonel no less!"

Kid I wouldn't care. I am in it for the money. Sure, killing Muslims is a side benefit, but frankly I don't care who's on the receiving end. For me, it's all about the cash. So, if a Somali militia were to pay me more than the US Army does, I'd join their focking militia. I just won't fight for Islamists, basically because I hate them. It just so happens that the US Army has the most lucrative offer.

"Former British Ambassador Craig Murray is now challenging the legitimacy of the map just published by the British government in the current dispute with Iran over those 15 captured British sailors and marines."

Maybe their map is "wrong". Seems more likely that it is a boundary in dispute. But if

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"***** boy to 5 Million smelly Jew rats just doesn't suit a proud US Army man, a Lieutenant Colonel no less!"

Kid I wouldn't care. I am in it for the money. Sure, killing Muslims is a side benefit, but frankly I don't care who's on the receiving end. For me, it's all about the cash. So, if a Somali militia were to pay me more than the US Army does, I'd join their focking militia. I just won't fight for Islamists, basically because I hate them. It just so happens that the US Army has the most lucrative offer.

"Former British Ambassador Craig Murray is now challenging the legitimacy of the map just published by the British government in the current dispute with Iran over those 15 captured British sailors and marines."

Maybe their map is "wrong". Seems more likely that it is a boundary in dispute. But if the British were deliberately trying to provoke the Iranians, then surely they would have done so with a large warship, and not a RIB. Since the British have come out on the bad side of this deal, it is hardly credible that they institigated it in a pre-planned way. Again, at the end of the day, who is right and who is wrong on the minutiae doesn't change the fact that Irans subsequent behavior has been totally unreasonable. Again, typical Muslim behavior.

"Mad Mac, the Oil card just isn't going to work here. And the idea that Israel is involved for the Oil is even more preposterous, Mad Mac, and it isn't going to fly. Why is it, after 4 years of the Occupation, and you haven't been able to produce a drop of oil from the Iraqi fields? Why is it when you needed petrol in Iraq, you actually had to SHIP in some more from outside the country. Why invade a country for a resource you can easily pay less for, and for which the Arabs are eager to sell you in preference to the Chinese? Destroying utterly a country's infrastructure, helping create an insurgency, and making life in Iraq as chaotic as possible is not something conducive to getting or controlling oil, but its very conducive to lots of sectarian strife. What is more compelling is the idea Iraq is going to be Balkanised, and this idea has been thrown around in academic and political circles as well. Include the 'Clean Break' paper, and you have a number of compelling reasons why Oil is just not all that much of a motivation."

You weren't paying attention - AGAIN. Re-read what I wrote. The invasion of Iraq was about Israel. But gaining peace in the Levant as a whole is about oil. Stop being a focknut.

"Mad Mac, what you've written above is complete and utter crap! In 2002, BEFORE the Iraq war, ALL of the Arab leaders got together and offered Israel the above 'Land for Peace' deal, (http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm), a deal which was enthusiastically supported by the Palestinian leadership and is identical to the current Peace Initiative in Saudi, what do you think the Israeli's said? It was a flat out 'no' from Sharon who would not tolerate any idea of a Palestinian state. SO don't come here with your bullcrap about the Arabs nor the Palestinians refusing peace, because they were there with Peace in 2002, but were told to go packing. This crap about the Palestinians being put on a diet is complete crap, as they were ready for a comprehensive peace, along WITH THE REST OF THE ARAB WORLD in 2002? What diet is necessary, when was is ready? Its just more wishful rationalisation of yours, and your refusal to acknowledge that Iraq benefits Israel and only Israel."

Not true. The Saudis proposed a possible deal - return to 67 boundaries AND return of refugees into Israel proper AND East Jerusalum as the Palestinian capital. Essentially, Israel gives in on all of the contested issues AND allows the trojan horse of the Palestinian refugee return. In short, the Saudi deal as constructed would have meant the destruction of the state of Israel. Which is what you and the rest of the Muslims want.......they aren't stupid you know. The only one spewing bullcrap is you. Now, when the Israelis say, OK, let's sit down and talk face to face about your proposals, the Saudis says "well, AFTER you meet the terms....." WTF is that? You are so full of shit kid.

"The fact is, Saddam was removed because he was a troublesome brat, and he was a pain in the rear of the Israeli's and as you say, supportive of the Palestinians. He was no threat to you guys in the US, you and your buddies in the Security Council made sure he and his subjects were gutted with 10 years of heavy comprehensive sanctions. Face it Mad Mac; he was to go, and his nation reduced to three easily controllable feuding Sectarian states. Anything else is just wishful thinking."

Now where did I say anything that was different from this?

"Mad Mac, you're little delusion and reality don't add up. You say the Americans want the Mid-East strife to end, yet you INVADE a prostrate Middle Eastern country at the behest of Israeli interests, ostensibly to divorce the Palestinians from their main financier, as you rationalised in the last paragraph, thus forcing the Palestinians to accept a peace agreement that the Palestinians were ready to accept when it was was proposed in 2002 by the Arab League of its own violition. Excuse me if I find this a little hard to believe."

And why do you think we invaded Iraq????? Although I agree it was not a smart move.

"You might want the current border to be what Palestine becomes, but the Israeli's have a different idea. You see, if you go to this map (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles5 ... age005.gif), you can see the route of the 'Security Fence' that Israel is building through the West Bank, while innocently waiting for an Arab Peace offer. Have a look at this and tell me truthfullly that the US wants the Palestinians to have a meaningful country, and not an Israel administered Bantustan. I might just believe you, if I take leave of my senses."

Whoa kid, again, you never pay attention do you? I didn't say the Israelis were innocent in all of this. Oh contraire, their own society is split. BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE ISRAELIS do want to trade land for peace. THE MAJORITY OF THE PALESTINIANS DO NOT. However, Likud and some of it's associates fully intend on ethnically cleansing the west bank by simply making living conditions there impossible for human habitation. The religious Jews are definately part of the problem. I would never postulate otherwise. Again, you are stupidly trying to boil this down to good guys and bad guys, which simply doesn't work in an anarchic world.

"If the Americans wanted a two-state Solution, and if Israel was America's *****, and not the other way around, Bush would have ordered Sharon to consider the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, and not have had Sharon dismiss it out of hand."

Alas, the Israelis can be recalcitrant when they want to be. And given the strength of their lobby, few politicians want to call them on it (although it has happened in the past).

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Ahmedinijad finally packs it in. Time to sink his navy.

[gurey25]

common everyone knew he was gonna do that,
i just thought it would take a little longer.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

So should the Brits sink the Iranian Navy or not?

[highclass]

^^ They are all released now and they have all admitted !!!!!

[Nabeelah]

Yeah the sailors themselves admitted they were trespassing!. I think its quite good what the Iranians have done, which is to show the world that no one can mess with them. Iran was acting in self defense. Anyhow Blair doesn't have the balls to invade Iran or any other country for that matter. The British people need to get rid of the lunatic in power. I despise puppies.

[Grant]

I admit I am a Mushunguli from Marka and I personally shot 60 Habaashi last week.

[gurey25]

mashallah.

dont be afraid of your skin color and Race.
remember your black skin is superior, its wrinkle free and cancer proof.


Viva mushunguli power

Allahu akbar

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Gurey
Blacks contract Mellanoma at a higher rate than whites.

I say the Brits should sink the Iranian Navy to prove a point.