Middle East News
Mar 25, 2007, 15:11 GMT
Iran says all British detainees in good health (Roundup)
And Also
Similar articles
- Royal Navy resumes boarding operations in northern Gulf
- British defence secretary says "sorry" over sailors' debacle
- Captured British sailor's Iran diary banned by ministry: Times
- Blair says allowing sailors to speak to media was "not a good idea"
- Iran "to reveal truth about British captives in documentary" (Extra)
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Five Britons captured on yacht by Iran's navy, London says
- 2. Iraqi general assassinated in disputed city of Kirkuk
- 3. Hezbollah chief says US role is diminishing in the region
- 4. Lebanese Shiite cleric lashes out at Swiss minaret ban
- 5. Czech intelligence: Saddam ordered Prague attack
Via BuzzFeed
Older Talkback
page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Idiot Ali: Take an economics class ya puke! If the USA is doomed, do you really think your so called , more than likely fabricated investments, are going to be worth spit?! Think again! You'll be out on your ass, scratching shit with the rest of the chickens.Of course, you'll fit right in, ya dumb cluck! However, you have nothing to fear, Crapical Ali, because the United States will never be doomed, nor will it ever fall. It will be here long after the likes of you and your anti-American coherts have been turned to dust! As far as your views on Iran are concerned, please feel free to divulge yourself of any interests in the United States, and move to Iran. I'm sure you'll find a few butt-buddies that will let you DRILL with great enthusiasum! Now it's my turn to laugh. HA HA HA HA HA HA
Blue Lady and Tony from Belgium - GREAT Comments!
Robert Fisk is indeed, as Tony says, a great journalist on the subject. I highly recommend him as well.
By the way, oil prices are re-acting and are up, as expected. Also, Russia is continuing support for the reactor in Iran.
So, seems to me like Russia is where the real direction should be focussed. Why hasn't the US media, Bush, or Blair even whispered contention for Russia? Could it be that Russia controls major oil and natural gas reserves to Europe? Hmmm.
Russia remains the sole Super Power able to even hint at confronting US Hegemony. Looks like they're doing it!
The tangled web of lies continues....
Hello Veteran! Great comments! Shows how little you know!
The US is facing major financial problems and is busting at the seems as we speak! Debt, debt, and more debt! Am I safe to assume you're sitting on a mountain of credit card debt, home equity debt, and new car debt? All at the same time your health bills go through the roof! Ha.
Go buy US bonds! Ha ha ha. I'll buy my gold instead. We'll see who's begging in the streets 10 years from now!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Comical Ali
Seems to me some people are losing their marbles and have nothing to say but insults.That of course only demonstrates an irrational mind and lack of arguments .Nothing to oppose to that.
Two points I would like to mention A mistake from the navy is possible of course.THose who say that in the age of modern tecvhnology it is to be outrules should investigate the incident in which an iranian airliner taking of from Bandar Abbas was shot down by an american destroyer killing all aboard.At that time the US government has lied about the incident claiming the aircraft was decreasing altituse and appeared to be on a suicide mission to sink the destroyer.It quickly appeared however that the figures and observations gtiven by the US government were wrong and aimed only to disguise that a terrible mistake had been made costing the lives of a lot of civilians.All that was caused by an inexperienced shipcrw operating under strain and aboard of a vessel unsuited to operate under these climatological conditions.Temperature aboard of the ship was about 40 C.
Another incident was the starting point of the bombing of North Vietnam ,it was called the Tonkin Incident.Now that one was deliberately staged by the CIA in order to find an excuse to bomb North Vietnam.
Lest I forget another incident involved israeli aircraft bombing an american destroyer in the mediteranen claiming they mistook it for an egyptian vessel.There too a lot of casualties occured .
Now tell me again the British vessel could not have made a mistake .
What good did it do Saddam by running his mouth, making threats, and defying the UN? How come the President of Iran is walking the same path? Feed the maggots.
Chicken Ali: No, you are not safe to assume that I have debts. I, like you, have made investments, that are paying off quite well. What they are, and what they consist of, is neither relevant, nor any of your business. As far as this country being in debt is concerned, I think that you'll find that the United States has in the past been in debt, but, we always bounce back. Our country is tenacious, determined, and will remain strong, despite morons like you, who would love to see the opposite. 'Dream on, Ali-oop'! By the way, dufus. Your investment in gold is a good trump card. However, have you ever tried eating it? Trust me, if the world goes to hell in a hand basket, you'll be surprised what gold will not buy. Food would be in short supply, and your fools gold would be a great substitute for fishing sinkers. At any rate, sticking to the topic, I hope that the British hostages are returned safely, and I hope that war is not in the cards. On the other hand, there has got to be a limit to what the country of Iran can get away with. God bless the UNITED STATES, and it's Allies.
Tonni from Belgium - great comments. I couldn't agree more.
Who actually 'knows' what happened to the UK sailors? History shows deceit should be expected. But, who is deceiving? Us? Iran? Russia? UK? Not sure. They are all players in this chess game.
I am impressed with the show of strength of the Iranian govt. They are not backing down one bit. Compare this to Saddam prior to the US invasion who really tried to avert the invasion, knowing the lies of the Bush Administration. But the Iranian gov't sure is adding fuel to the fire so to speak.
I cant help but wonder what the true underlying intentions on all sides are?
Comical Ali
To 'The Veteran'. You are quite comical! We should call you 'Comical Joe'!
Yes, what your investments are is important. What are your key assets and why? I'm happy to divulge my asset postions: Gold/Silver, Oil, Oil Drillers, Alternative Energy, and Healthcare. Seems like a winning punch considering world demographics and affairs, yes?
Read my earlier comments on debt levels in the US, you moron. Debt per person in the US is $166,000. Add up your family's portion of the debt! A family of four owes $664,000. That's probably more than the debt on your house!
Gold, my man, is the key. As this 'situation' in Iran develops, watch gold rise along with oil. It is in fact me who will gain, and you, I'm not so sure. Don't worry, I'll hire you to clean my ocean front property after I buy it for pennies on the dollar! Ha ha ha ha ha.
Comical Ali
'Aaaah, well, sorry, I cant feed sanctimonious clown into babblefish and have it spit out an English translation.' (The sanctimony is clearly mutual and there's no cause for personal jibes, in any case...)
Anyway, I apologize for my typos. Here is the clarified version:
'Iraq’s American-backed attempted invasion of Iran for 8 years in the 1980s was identical [to Iraq's independent invasion of Kuwait, which the United Nations - Including America - deemed illegal.] Please read my posts before responding to them. '
The 'international community' I refer to is the hundred-some signitaries of the united nations, and in particular the members of the elite U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL...
(You know, the source of legal and moral authority from which American foreign policy derives it's theoretical & legal intervention mandates, and without which there can be no such concept of the 'rogue state'....)
Without codified law, and without a community that abides by the law, there can be no such thing as a criminal, since moral imperatives are entirely subjective. (Some think abortion, homosexuality, and racial integration are morally suspect; others think that capital punishment, meat-eating and SUV's are morally suspect. Whatever. It's all subjective.)
Democracy is supposed to be the prefered modern arbiter, and not unilateral brute force (hence the objection to Saddam). The U.N. was a (highly flawed) attempt at international democracy; but when American authorities encountered majority opposition to a pet project, they abandoned that attempt at democracy, in favour of unilateral force. Their enemies are following suit, period.
'Saddam hadn't put up Abu Nidal, al-Zarqawi, gassed the Kurds, ect at the start of the Iran/Iraq war.'
Nope, he was merely an ex-terrorist and murderous dictator who rose to power through assassination and purges, who idolized Stalin and openly endorsed the very same totalitarian repressions considered so unattractive about cold war Communist regimes.
As for his military excesses, they were done with the full (if passive) understanding of none other than Donald Rumsfeld at the time...And were apparently not considered sufficiently abhorant to warrent regime change. ('After all, Saddam WAS our friend') lol
Bottom line:
America sponsored the open and illegal violation of one nation's sovereignty of another, when it was in their interest, invoking the very same flouted law a few years later, to condemn the very same act by the very same agressor...
'Business as usual, as it has always been. Ergo, the last legal ‘war’ was with Iraq, in the ‘80s.'
OOOh, I thought you used the word 'actual' So there terrorism is 'illegal'. At least you concede that.'
(-: Of COURSE terrorism is illegal; as are unilateral 'pre-emptive' invasions outside U.N mandate. America has engaged, indirectly (just like other superpower proxy wars and espionage) and now directly, in all of the above. Just like everybody else....
' We have helped the Iraqis establish a democratic government and write a constitution which has been voted on twice by the population. The Iranians have done their best to undermine it by subsidizing both sides of the sectarian conflict. They have also done their best to kill our soldiers and Marines, as they have done in Beirut (peacekeeping mission) and in Saudi Arabia (At the invitation of the Saudi government) I am not surprised that you cant see a difference here in the policies and motivations, It would appear that you only see what you wish to.'
America's policies are, as with all national governments, concerned primarily with national interest. The fact that it is turning out to be a fully counterproductive and cost-intesive enterprise seems to have come as quite a shock to it's architects, not least the now-resigned Rumsfeld (remember all his confident predictions at the beginning?).
WW1 was about powerful allied national factions competing for control & prestige, WW2 was about powerful nations defending their interests from a particularly formidable & ambitious new player, and Vietnam was a case of unilateral shadow boxing with imaginary global threats in the midst of a regional struggle, in aid of that national interest. The list goes on.
No one nation ever gets to control the international environment for long, particularly when it comes to ideological coercions imposed on foreign cultures. Just because many Iraqis hated Saddam is no guarantee that they necessarily embrace every facet of America's version of democracy, or the many economic & political strings attached to it. America would do well to listen from time to time as well as yell. That's how Rome did it. (and even THAT wasn't forever).
'I make no excuses for Iran’s repressive theocracy,'
ON THE CONTRARY, that is all you have done here to fore.'
Nope. I merely point up the hypocracy in the methods of certain powers to remake the world in their own image, by force - a process which successive nations, regardless of ideology, will understandibly resist. The project is doomed to fail, for the same reason Britain's power monopoly declined.
Iran's current government is most undesireable. There are a great many Iranians who dislike it, at home & abroad. But then, it's not like Bush & the NeoCons are exactly representative of a unanimous American worldview...
' A 'nuke' isn't something you can pick up off the street on the way back from the playground. It is not an easy thing to develop. (I would have already had one if it were...pesky neighbors) What is unrealistic is the idea that this 'repressive theocracy'which often displays it's 'brutality' and 'madness' can be dealt with if they are welding an Atomic bomb.'
I agree - it would have been much more convenient if the militant right wing movement had not swept to popularity in Iran, and if a more moderate paradigm had taken hold. However, since for some (unimaginable?) reason Iran has come to view military force as increasingly necessary, they are embracing what probably appears to them as the strongest nationalistic voice among 'wimpy' left-wing moderates. That's what people do when they get scared - the undecided suddenly become militant...
Where was I? Oh yes...Get used to it. In the absence of some kind of objective international body for arbitration, superpower accountability and democratic recourse, nuclear weapons will continue to be a high priority for both 'good nations' and 'bad ones'.The totalitarian measures necessary to universally enforce the ban are the one thing that will tend to unite the warring lesser powers in common interest (assuming even western populations are prepared to endorse those meausures). So I repeat, good luck. (-:
''Nope. America’s nuclear arsenal is definitely the most advanced. '
Boy you can turn on a dime can't you, Your original statement was that we posses the largest, I guess you looked it up and found that you are wrong. Now it is the most 'advanced'. Bit of a difference? No?''
Now, you're just sparring. (There was no distortion intended, I'm just not making myself clear enough for you to grasp it).
'Advanced' includes proliferation, never fear. Technologically, systemically, doctrinally, and industrially. America, by their own assertion, has the greatest nuclear weapons capability of any single nation on the planet, commensurate with her generally superior conventional military establishment.
''since the disbandment of the Soviet Union into separate states, Russia’s arsenal has been considerably reduced, whereas Americas has remained at par or better'
Wrong, the USA has reduced the size of its arsenal to late '60's size, You are just wrong on that.'
(sigh)Par or better with the RUSSIAN arsenel, throughout.
Obviously, America would never allow herself to be outclassed in terms of strategic nuclear arsenel (of all things!) by any other major player. Nor have they.
So if we can put sophistry aside, my point was that America's attempts to retain control over the world's nuclear arsenel, coupled with her aggressive and fully unilateralist military posture, makes her position hypocritical.
'Iran is still in the early stages of superpower meddling.'
Well they learn fast, terrorism from Argentina to Lebanon. All the more reason to nip them in the bud.'
Yes, indeed - they have yet to reach superpower status - That requires nuclear weapons. (You don't have to be good, or right, or fair, or altruistic to be an assertive player in international politics- You just have to have the bomb...Though being good at ideological rhetoric and sanctimonious propaganda also helps).
''Yes, it’s certainly a drag when the younger siblings get too big to dominate.'
Not my siblings... Yours?'
(lol) I like your sense of humour. You know very well what I meant...
The tribe of America is the eldest in a litter of bickering infants, the latest generation of emerging powers breaking away from the vestiges of their declining parents...Etc etc etc....
America is enjoying the temporary supremacy that most of the others have enjoyed at one time or another. She wasn't the first, won't be the last.
''and now the tables are turning again.'
Your analogy is completely false. Iran is not a 'colony' of the USA....It is rather disgusting that you would even attempt to draw the comparison.'
Again, ideology and regional popular priorities are subjective. The point being, no country gets to make the ideological rules for the others for very long; and the lesser powers always rebel. History decrees it. (In due course, secular forces would rebel and probably overcome a global coercive theocracy, as they did at one time or another in Iraq, Lebanon, and in Pre-revolutionary Iran - or even post-catholic Britain.) America is no exception.
' 'Shia conflict revolves around regional concerns and objectives, mostly in relation to the repressed Shia majority in Iraq by the remnant's of Saddam's sunni elite. '
Before bin laden Hizbollah killed more Americans then any other terrorist group.'
Yes - but mainly regionally, and only to the degree that American regional interests impact their projects, and American (or other foreign)targets present themselves.
Hizbollah has a regional agenda which has little or nothing to do with America per se, unlike the broader ideological objectives of Al Qaeda. They share a hatred of American foreign policy and intervention, and certainly have parrallel local tactical interests, but are essentially pursuing different goals. (If Al Qaeda were to rule the world tommorrow, one of their first local objectives would be to repress and abolish rival Shia political and ideological influence). It's a lot more complicated than 'Muslims hate our freedoms'.
Your Talkback on this Story