digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

BLAIR: UK Soldiers were not in Iranian waters

news.yahoo.com — British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Sunday that 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran as they searched for smugglers off the Iraqi coast had been outside Iranian waters, and warned that Britain viewed their situation as "very serious."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Babykitkat, on 10/12/2007, -97/+15Can we say false flag operations
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -7/+62By who? Britain and Iran both say their guys were involved. The dispute is over where it happened, not who did what.

      If you mean to say that Britain intended to and did cross into Iranian waters, that's another matter entirely, but that's not called a "false flag" operation.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
    • OneManArmy, on 10/12/2007, -91/+29"warned that Britain viewed their situation as "very serious.""

      I guess now, Blair and Mr. Bush have _their_ reason to mount their next war. This has to be one of the most obvious political maneuvers I have seen. The timing of this whole thing is just pretty weird too. When Bush/Blair are vowing war on Iran, Iran "happens" to capture some British soldiers.

      War IS Terror. Get the ***** out of Iraq and enough already with those dirty tactics.
    • dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -78/+26UK/USA want war with Iran. They have been talking about it for MONTHS now. It wouldn't surprise me if they pulled off a false flag terrorist incident to make it happen.

      I mean .. anyone remember when Bush/Blair wanted to fly a plane painted with UN colours low over Iraq in the hope that Sadam would shoot it down and they could declare war ?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush-Blair_memo

      We really can not trust our governments.
    • chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -12/+75This isn't the first time Iran has taken UK troops and the last time it didn't end in a war.

      This is Iran trying to flex their nuts as the UN. Almost daring somebody to do something stupid do they can look like the good guys and drum up support in the area. Much like the Israel-Lebanon conflict last year.
    • badteeth, on 10/12/2007, -49/+20Can we say conspiracy "theorist" *****?
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -17/+34"Can we say conspiracy "theorist" *****?"

      What's the conspiracy theory?
    • cs02rm0, on 10/12/2007, -78/+27BLAIR: Iraq has WMDs
      BLAIR: UK Soldiers were not in Iranian waters

      Guess I'll have to believe Iran then.
    • thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -36/+100>BLAIR: Iraq has WMDs
      >BLAIR: UK Soldiers were not in Iranian waters

      >Guess I'll have to believe Iran then.

      No, the answer is you'll have to attend a class in logic, sorry.
    • randf, on 10/12/2007, -13/+57Can you say hostage taking, plain and simple?
    • badteeth, on 10/12/2007, -18/+39"What's the conspiracy theory?"

      Any time I've ever heard anyone mention anything with "false flag" in the sentence, the conversation always ends up as a lecture involving the melting temperature of steel, and the lecturer is always a stupid ***** who goes around quoting made up facts by non-existent sources. My comment was a response to babykitkat's retarded, open ended defecation/remark, who was implying that these captured soldiers do not exist and this is just a publicity stunt to gain support for a possible war with Iran, which is incorrent but more importantly, stupid.
    • sonycam, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29Even if the sailors *were* in Iranian waters, Iran isn't doing itself any favours by keeping them hostage. From a country which wants to produce nuclear arms, they're clearly sticking two fingers up at world authority right now which leads me to believe that war is imminent sometime in the future.
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23"UK/USA want war with Iran. They have been talking about it for MONTHS now. It wouldn't surprise me if they pulled off a false flag terrorist incident to make it happen."

      The UK is not going to engage in war with Iran. The domestic political situation and our entanglement in Afghanistan and Iraq make it politically and militarily impossible for Blair to push a war.

      If there is war, then it will be without the UK's involvement.
    • LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17My opinion? Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

      It's good policy for the British government to engage in very heated negotiation talks right now, hoping for the safe return of all prisoners, and clearing up the miscommunication of where the boat was at the time. HOPEFULLY opening up communication for the easy handling of future disputes

      In the MEAN TIME, the British government should be having private meetings about search-and-rescue missions, and war-readiness.

      Make no mistake - this COULD result in war. However, it's in everyone's best interests that they talk, piss, moan and return them.
    • DesScorp, on 10/12/2007, -20/+33You "false flag" people are idiots. Seriously. You're honestly taking sides with the IRANIAN GOVERMENT here? Pack up and move to Tehran for awhile, *****. See how much you like it there. Bastards.
    • dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -17/+11have u so quickly forgotten all the lies that took us into Iraq ?
    • ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14To the two Iranians that made posts about the situation; thank you. And believe it or not, I knew that before you even posted. This is not an issue between people (Iranians and British, or Iranians and Americans). This is a situation between out of control governments. I hope that this situation resolves itself, because I am sick of American troops (and obviously British and others) being forced into situations that get them killed for no good reason, American forces (and others) killing (on purpose or accident) innocent civilians, and the planet having a terrible perception of America (and Britian, etc) right now.

      I hope all of us can regain control of our lunatic governments...
    • JES63, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Can't some of you creative writers work in a Halliburton angle or something? "False flag" is so overdone.
    • directedition, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5I'm pretty sure there was a crappy Bond film about this.
    • appetite, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1when i heard about this, the first thing i thought was that it was a maneuver of some sort to make iran look ready to invade. despite everyone in here saying it's just some coincidence, i still believe that. there've been too many coincidences. war with iran is such a ridiculously stupid idea, yet we keep edging closer and closer to it. makes me damn sure that somebody with some influence really wants a go at it.
    • appetite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I don't know how anyone with more than half a wit could say this isn't planned by the Western war machine. It's just sooooooooooo obvious.
    • cyberpass, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Sorry for stepping into the debate a little late...but....lets not forget the iranians that were captured/kidnapped/whatever in Iraq by coalition forces...They apparently had diplomatic immunity and where in iraq under the guidance of the Iraqis themselves...Its in my opinion that iran will use these british solidiers are bargaining chips to trade the iranians back....Damn americans ***** everything up...all you ***** americans that voted for a racist son of a bitch(twice) should go get a ***** education...
    • Cleanlyness, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3***** uk
      they're going to start a nuclear war! ***** brits!
    • DownSyndrom3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@cyberpass

      I would rather you get a better education. Your punctuation is horrible. You don't need 3+ periods at the end of each sentence.
    • boybunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Bliar!

      Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

      Who is the greater fool? The fool, or the fool who follows the fool?

      Good thing I had the brains most of you did not have. I saw straight through the lies of Afghanistan and Iraq. I was out with placards BEFORE the wars trying to educate the sheeple. Only retards blindly follow the medias propaganda. That's right! RETARDS!
    • Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"A spokesman for Britain's defense ministry said they were not releasing the coordinates."

      Why the hell not? Vital piece of information critical for the world's understanding of a dangerous international incident. I guess that's something the great unwashed don't need to know eh spokesman?
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As much as it could be something of the of false flag nature. I highly doubt it. I mean I can see how you would factor that. Of course you wouldn't hear about a 15 special forces squad. But its more likely to they would pick something alittle bigger.
  • eclipse007, on 10/12/2007, -9/+154As an Iranian I need to clear up a couple of things:

    1- The guy who said Britons will be used in *****-fights is a total retard, has no authority and is one of the most hated people in Iran.

    2- Five hundred students who protested in support of detaining Britons consist an extremely tiny minority of Iranian students supported by government and protected by them. If other students were given a chance to demand freedom of British soldiers I bet thousands would have done that. Right now, they will be shot at and arrested if they do such a thing.

    3- Same thing happend in 2004 (fewer soldiers detained back then) and they were freed in a couple of days. I was truely amazed by the amount of spin that Fox and CNN put on this story and tried to imply as if war has started.
    Hopefully this will be over in a week or two.
    • spoiled1, on 10/12/2007, -57/+8Two fools (Bush-Blair) don't make a smart, and certainly three of them (add Ahmedinejad "BBA") won't make any smarter either.
      I hope this foolishness by BBA won't lead to any war.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26And depending which historical precident you want to view...

      Maybe it will be over in a year or so.

    • Caluen, on 10/12/2007, -6/+56I love getting proper statements from people who know more the the vast Majority on a subject.. Thanks Eclipse007
    • break99, on 10/12/2007, -41/+12this is an act of war. period.

      I trust the response will be appropriate. Time to take care of the trash.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5As an Iranian, you should be embarrassed by your president and his actions, much like people in the US should be embarrassed by Bush and his actions. Iran's president actually makes Bush look liberal in comparison.
    • kayakto, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6why there are people in this world - bush, kim jong il, iran's president - who want to destroy our happy world..
    • Kommy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Christ, if we have a happy world, I'm certainly not aware of it.
    • NoHandle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@geekee:

      Yes, yes and oh my? Liberal?

      We are ashamed of Bush and Blair, but don't go stating that your own government is liberal when you have forced religion upon everyone and this very thread is making mention to the fact that individuals who oppose the state end up in body bags.

      I hate the way the western media is portraying Iran as a monstrous nation. If you see any interviews with real Iranians, or meet real Iranians, you will quickly discover that it is all a facade to fool us. That said, they really do need to do something about their current government, political situation and give up on making nuclear weapons. We all know they are making them, otherwise they would be building CANDU reactors, which, cannot aid in military grade nuclear weapons.
    • jpop, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Re. CNN and FOX (and any of the other media). I'm not surprised at the spin. Look up yellow journalism. They WANT a war so they can report on it.
    • MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Christ, if we have a happy world, I'm certainly not aware of it."

      Kayakto's point is that the majority of the people in the world can actually find happiness (if they want), and that the governments are responsible for a lot of unhappiness and international disconnect.

      But that's kind of a catch 22 IMO. Maybe most people can find happiness because they HAVE a government. Don't know.

      It's definitely tough for me to figure out since I'm an American. Opportunity, conveniences, and comfort is part of the way of life over here. When I see Americans that are miserable and have bad attitudes, I just want to shake them and say "what the hell is wrong with you?".
    • Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31. I hear this whenever any Iranian official speaks. I ALWAYS hear that a majority of Iranians do not support him, and that most Iranians love the west. Its been going on for YEARS this rhetoric. If its true, why don't you Iranians take control of your freaking country already. And if its not, which I am beginning to suspect, stop trying to lie and cover for the radicals that run your country.

      2. WHERE ARE THE STUDENT PROTESTING THE TAKING OF HOSTAGES? ALL i have ever heard from Iranians is how no matter WHAT their government does, that a majority of the people do not support the action. This is total BS. Unless you have absolutely 0 control over your own damn country, why dont you change the people who do all of these things you don't approve of? Of COURSE, this is simply a whitewash, trying to make it seem like most Iranians are supportive of the west, while most of them simply tacitly support what their government does.

      3. The amount of spin? A supposedly neutral (yea right) country took prisoners and paraded them around on TV as captured war criminals. How was the world supposed to take it? Do you not remember the hostage crisis of 1979, cause believe me the rest of the world still does.


      Overall, I am sick and tired of EVERYTIME something bad happens involving Iran in ANYWAY, people come and comment about how a majority of Iranians do not support the action/government. Claiming that can only last so long, eventually people will see through the BS. If Iranian people did oppose the taking of British soldiers, did oppose the buildup of nuclear weapons, did oppose the assisting of the insurgents in Iraq, did oppose the supporting of hezbollah and Hamas, THEN THEY WOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Unless of course you are claiming that Iranians are the most spineless people on this earth, which I truely don't believe. I believe that they either support these things, or they are apathetic to them.
    • boybunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2eclipse007

      For complete clarity can we have complete disclosure?

      I am not saying you are lying, or that you are on one side or another.

      Are you currently living in Iran? What is your political leaning? Is any part of your income from any governmental or "charity groups"? Are there any other points of interest that would be relevant to the public that may have a bearing on your opinions?

      The reason for this is simple. I am just sick to death of defectors arriving in countries and bad mouthing the people they hated enough to immigrate for decades after the fact. I myself have left my country because I hate their lifestyle and society. Many people have. In todays reality though the defectors from Cuba, Iraq and other countries find they can cause real pain at home by lying about weapons or the views and political leanings of the other citizens that did not defect.
    • PinkTacoDigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thank you. I don't understand it, a lot of idiots out there want to bomb and invade Iran as if they are a country full of Taliban fundamentalist. I've said it many time, Iran is probably the most likely country to have reform. I don't agree how Iran is run, but the people are very educated and progressive, given the region. Give it time, we didn't blow up half the world to end communism. Going to war with Iran is not going to make the war in Iraq or against terrorism any easier. I hope cooler heads prevail in this one. When American spy pilots got captured in China, we didn't start WW III, so there's no reason to here.

      I hope one day the the West is led by competent leaders that realize that they are better serve with better political and diplomatic maneuvering that's backed by a strong army, then using a strong army to support poor leadership.
  • Tarnum, on 10/12/2007, -14/+27The detained UK Soldiers were not in The Gulf of Tonkin, Blair says...
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7I think Iran is the party in this case making stuff up to escalate a war.
    • wm2010russ, on 10/12/2007, -19/+5honestly, England could barely beat the Argentinians in a war, why the hell would they want to declare war on Iran? theyd get their asses handed to them
    • leoedin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Considering britain sent a task force of 2 aircraft carriers with only 20 fighters between them, I'd say this is a completely different situation.
      Argentina fielded it's entire airforce and Navy, while britain only sent a few of its ships. The Falkland islands are 8000 miles away from the UK, most of the distance across ocean. Britain has no airbases nearby.

      On the other hand, Iran is right next to Iraq - a place full of airfields, fighters, bombers etc. The gulf is full of ships, and the area is full of soldiers. The two are completely different places, with entirely different logistics.

      The Iranian army is made up of 350,000 or so soldiers, however the vast majority are conscripts. by contrast, the british army is made up of 150,000 or so highly trained men. In addition, the UK has the Navy and air force, which entirely outnumber the Iranian forces in terms of technology.

      While Britain would certainly not be capable of sustaining occupation of Iran, it would almost certainly be capable of taking out any major threat and leave Iran without any armed major armed forces (in a similar way to Iraq was left after the first gulf war).

      Oh: And it's Britain or the UK - Scottish soldiers make up 13% of the armed forces.



    • OriginalLucid1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9That 13% represents the number of Scottish bodies in the military. In ability, the number is closer to 50% The Scots have always been excellent fighters.
    • insomuchas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Toppling the Iranian government would be a piece of cake for the US.
      An occupation would be a nightmare.
      Iran could only hold its own against Iraq for a decade. A standoff.
      The US toppled Iraq in 3 days. The US currently has Iran surrounded.
      The official Iranian military would last about 1 week tops.
    • hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"The detained UK Soldiers were not in The Gulf of Tonkin, Blair says..."

      LOL! You bet me to it. ;-)
  • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -37/+37he also said iraq was an imminent threat.
    • cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -21/+27Many leaders did, you dip *****.

    • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8so he wasn't the only one to lie. doesn't make it less of a lie.
    • appetite, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7I don't understand where people's memories have gone. If we end up in war with Iran, it's because somebody in the US wanted it to happen and made it happen.

      This is like cornering some wild animal because it has sharp teeth. Leave the damn thing alone and no one will get hurt. Unfortunately, if we don't leave the damn thing alone, somebody won't make off with bags of money.
  • lys3rgic, on 10/12/2007, -43/+17Blair clearly will use this as something to make him gain popularity in Britain at a time when his career is failing dramatically.
    • dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36he only has a few months left in office anyway.
    • Gerolsteiner, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2You say that as though it were a bad thing. He's a politician. If he manages it right, then maybe he can at least have one gold star on his folder before he leaves Kindergarten.
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10"Blair clearly will use this as something to make him gain popularity in Britain at a time when his career is failing dramatically."

      I live in Britain, and I can tell you that Tony Blair's popularity is zero. The electorate hate him and his own party hate him. He will leave the job in a few months with his legacy being the invasion of Iraq. Invading Iran would only cement his position as the "war Prime Minister" who sacrifices British troops by sending them into war at the behest of America.
    • knightmare01, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4eh he

      @kronix2

      well, look at who voted bush. bush lied about a lot of *****, and he won the election BECAUSE of christians. just remember, it's not america's war. it's bush's war. bush's and the religious right.
  • ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -33/+7its not like we will ever know the truth anyways cause we all know that truth is in the eye of the beholder

    truth != fact
    • chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -15/+21GPS. nuff said.
    • leszek, on 10/12/2007, -50/+7I totally agree with chris, the gps signals are controlled by the US and can be modified.

      Maybe the British soldiers believed they were outside Iranian waters based on gps (modified by US) while they were in fact inside Iranian waters.

    • randf, on 10/12/2007, -15/+46gps signals controlled by the US? remove tinfoil, breath deeply, think about what you're typing.
    • porcupus, on 10/12/2007, -18/+16uh, do some research before making comments. GPS is owned and operated by the U.S.
    • leszek, on 10/12/2007, -23/+18"The satellite constellation is managed by the United States Air Force 50th Space Wing"

      "The US military has developed the ability to locally deny GPS (and other navigation services) to hostile forces in a specific area of crisis without affecting the rest of the world or its own military systems."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps

      If the US military has the ability to locally deny GPS, don't you think they also have the ability to modify the GPS signals locally ?

      With the kind of evil gov. the US got in the last years isn't it far fetched to imagine that it is the perfect plan to start a war with Iran ?
      Trick the British soldiers to sail into Iranian waters and hope for blood and dead (that you can blame on Iran).

      I didn't say that it happened that way, but it is something to consider.

      digg me down now.
    • tonton2012, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Yes the GPS satellites are in fact controlled by the US.
    • Bluto11262, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9
      I totally agree with Randf

      "remove tinfoil, breath deeply, think about what you're typing."

      leszek, maybe your the father of Anna Nicole Smiths baby, maybe you flew one of the planes into the WTC but Scottie beamed you out at the last second, maybe your a moron!
    • Gerolsteiner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Forget GPS, consider Britain's vast network of spy sattelites (though not as large as the US network). They don't need us to pinpoint, they've already got that all taken care of.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Satellites send out a ping unique signals. GPS receivers are able to figure out their position through comparison of how long it takes for the signal to arrive from the neighboring satellites. Split second difference is enough to make the determination. The receivers do not communicate with the satellites. It is impossible to have a localized hijacking without affecting pretty every receiver that communicates with the satellites in the area.
    • chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10so in the time it takes the navy to he hijacked the US will go back in time and change every satellite they own to manipulate GPS data. Thus rendering every device every made using GPS useless until they switch them all back?

      yeah, that's what they'll do. I'm sure Santa can lend a helping hand in this plan.
    • randf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I'm quite familiar with GPS signals and that it is a US satellite system. However, GPS being owned and operated by the US doesn't imply that the US can selectively "instruct" a single GPS to suddenly be wrong by X amount of feet/yards/miles.

      The accuracy of the user's GPS depends on the technology of the GPS unit and it's ability to differentiate the time coding for the various signals received from the satellites. There isn't a unique signal aimed at each device telling the device where it's at.

      All satellites just send out the same info to any unit bothering to listen. As per the wiki article, even the Selective Availability (SA) was disabled years ago.

      Military units get daily "GPS weather" briefs to forecast the daily errors (see wiki article) and compensate for that. Mil-spec GPS users can detect/compensate for enemy spoofing.

      So the idea that the US can "control" and "lie" to individual GPS receivers as part of yet another conspiracy, without affecting GPS receivers in the entire OIF theater, is ridiculous. Conspiracy nuts, you can start burying me now.

      edit--several have beaten me to this explanation
  • exodii, on 10/12/2007, -1/+95As an Iranian (living in Iran) I agree with eclipse007. For Iran, the government and the people are two separate things. Nobody wants war, and we can only hope this will be over peacefully, without our government doing something foolish.
    • xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -15/+39Sounds like Iran and the US have more in common than we would like to admit.

      But my personal feeling is that this will amount to nothing but a potential apology from one side to the other. More than likely, the UK will apologize since it is their people in danger. All in all, nothing to see here, politics as usual.
    • Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -25/+31"...the government and the people are two separate things. Nobody wants war..."

      Exactly the same here in America.

      Our government is basically a gang of war profiteers, and they will find a way to start a war with Iran even if they have to lie. They did it before, and they'll do it again.
    • R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -15/+31Wow, if you replace the words in your statement:
      America = Iran
      American = Iranian
      Your feelings mirror my own!
    • vmerc, on 10/12/2007, -32/+10As an Iranian living in Iran, you and all of your so-called not-the-government people need to stop the excuses, and DO something about your government. If not, then you're responsible for whatever YOUR government does. Over here in the USA we have elections, and in case you didn't know our President and Congress will both be going through a lot of changeover soon because we are not happy with what they are doing. Imagine that! Over there in Iran you guys have elections, and somehow the government is never what the people want...
    • brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -22/+19@R34C7

      The difference? Iran has never overthrown the government of the US or its neighbors nor does it have military bases in over 100 countries around the world while monotonously repeating to everyone how nice and trustworthy they are.
    • satost, on 10/12/2007, -47/+6You sound like a reasonable guy...

      Have you ever committed an honor killing?

      Do you believe it is okay to rape a woman because she has her face uncovered?

      Tell the truth now....
    • Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35@satost

      He could just as easily ask you if you've ever been involved in a drive-by shooting.

      Every culture has it's dark side, but resorting to stereotypes proves nothing.
    • exodii, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30@vmerc:

      We have no choice. Iran is a theocracy. It's not like people haven't stood up to the government before, but just like eclipse said, everyone who does is either arrested or shot. I believe I speak on behalf of (almost) all Iranians when I say that if it were up to us (the majority) things would be much different.

      @satost:

      I laughed out loud when I read your post. I do not know if you were trying to be funny or not, but I suggest you do some research about Iranian culture (and no, reading fox news articles does not count as research). We are not Arabs. Iranians hate arabs.
      'honor killing' ? you're joking, right? If you think women here get punished for uncovering their face then you need to walk in the streets of Tehran -- I think you'll be surprised.
    • ZeroFresh, on 10/12/2007, -16/+11@exodii
      As an American (living in America) I can only hope that our government gets purged of the pig-headed, greedy, soul-less old men that are willing to do anything to fatten their own pockets. Even if it means turning the entire world opinion against the country they claim to love and putting other country's civilians in danger because they don't like an equally idiotic government.

      @vmerc
      You don't honestly believe that our votes count for anything do you? LOL. It's not your vote that counts, it's who counts your vote.
    • exodii, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Anyway, I'm encouraged by the (mostly) positive comments towards Iran.
      Sometimes I can't help thinking that if it were up to the people of the world, rather than the governments, things would be a lot better. I guess that, in the end, the best one can do is hope for peace.
    • loquax, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Exodii--
      First off, please excuse idiots like "satost" they are usually products of either a poor government run school OR they are products of a theocratically run Evangelical school that probably has more in common with some of the madrasah schools of the Taliban than what they would admit. Second, I am married to a Lebanese chick, and thank you for pointing out what most people forget-- the "Middle-East" is way more diverse racially, ethnically, religiously, linguistically etc than most Americans are aware of. In fact the only thing that seems to be in agreement among the Middle-Eastern people is that they will not agree with each other for a variety of reasons, and when they do agree and are allied it can be seemingly illogical (e.g. Sunni Syria and Shia Iran). Lastly, thank you for also pointing out what should be obvious to everyone in the wake of World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, etc. that a country and a people are not the same thing as a government. I am no pacifist, and I realize that sometimes war is tragically necessary, but if we want to end most wars, it requires us to THINK and OBJECT when old men who only seek power begin to needlessly rattle sabers. One can only hope Viagra gives enough confidence to these old bastards to cease and desist with sending young men into battle.
    • tpodr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20While traveling around Cairo (I'm American), I find myself in an elevator with a Libyan businessman. The usual conversation: "where are you from?" "America, and you?" "Libya."
      We stare at our shoes for a moment. Then the gentleman points out "our leaders don't get along.'

      That one simple statement summed up so much. I am sure, if there had been time for a cup of coffee, we would have only discovered how much our concerns overlapped. No doubt his concerns are like the concerns of most people: first family, second work, thirdly hometown and only then does geo-politics matter.
    • porcupus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0I agree completely. The only reason the U.S. government is set up the way it is, is because of lack of communication and the need to elect people to represent your area. With the technology age in full swing, the majority rule effect should be implemented more and more. I don't need old men deciding my fate anymore, especially ones who are being legally bribed to vote certain ways.

      Iran from the research I have done is quite a bit like the U.S. Iranian people I meet seem to have good heads on their shoulders.
      My hope is that when my generation takes over, we will see some drastic change in our government that only really worked as intended hundreds of years ago.

    • Chromatik, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6@ vmerc

      "Over here in the USA we have elections, and in case you didn't know our President and Congress will both be going through a lot of changeover soon because we are not happy with what they are doing. Imagine that! Over there in Iran you guys have elections, and somehow the government is never what the people want.."

      You're serious? Speaking as someone who lives in Ohio I feel that is utter *****. Before we as Americans get all high and mighty about our electoral process you may want to consider the people voted against Bush yet he was re-elected courtesy of those who "represent" we the people anyway. The way you explain it used to be the way it was to be sure. Yes Bush will be gone soon unless he finds away to override term limitations. And yes those lining up to replace him will not fix what has been broken. You say we are going through a changeover soon. I say the puppeteer is merely about to change puppets. For both of our sakes I hope I am wrong.
    • DesScorp, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8Brickbat, you're a ***** moron.

      "The difference? Iran has never overthrown the government of the US or its neighbors nor does it have military bases in over 100 countries around the world while monotonously repeating to everyone how nice and trustworthy they are."

      Yeah, Iran has a sterling diplomatic history. Those hostages were really just voluntary guests of the Ayatolla for 400+ days, eh? And the money and arms they've been pumping to Hezbollah in Lebanon is no problem either?

      You just jumped in on the side of a government whose leader wants to bring on the apocalypse so that the 12th Imam can arrive. Congratulations. You're now in the proud company of people that said Hitler was right, Stalin was a good leader, and Pol Pot was just "an anti-imperialist".

      *****.
    • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Chromatik

      The GOP will certainly not win the presidency just like they lost in the house and senate. Bush had supporters 2 years ago, most of whom jumped ship now. If you don't think anyone supported Bush then you need to get out of your bubble. Your defeatist, victim attitude does us no good in trying to get him removed and have positive change in the country.

      Also, vmerc was right. America can/has/will change government, but there is no way for the people of Iran to remove the supreme ruler. He serves for life.
    • madmack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@exodii:
      quote: "We are not Arabs. Iranians hate arabs".

      As an Arab, thanks for hating us. But don't generalize that we all rape our women and honor "honor killing". You should feel ashamed, a country as powerful as yours went into ruins because of your stupid fundamental leaders. Yet, the "arabs" that you so hate, have advanced and became a world economy. Look at Dubai, Kuwait, Bahrain to name a few. I am from Qatar, and let me tell you. not only do we not "kill women who cover their faces" but we also have tourists tanning in our beaches with their bikinis.
      please don't generalize. Learn not to hate your neighbors. I don't hate you. I hate your government.
    • Chromatik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ catalysis

      "The GOP will certainly not win the presidency just like they lost in the house and senate. Bush had supporters 2 years ago, most of whom jumped ship now. If you don't think anyone supported Bush then you need to get out of your bubble. Your defeatist, victim attitude does us no good in trying to get him removed and have positive change in the country."

      I apologize if I seem to have a "defeatist, victim attitude" but being a bit burned from the last election in my state I am rather pessimistic in regards to the "go vote and change things" mentality.

      I never said he didn't have support. He had plenty of support from lobbyists, war profiteers and a great many ignorant US citizens, and while it may be less according to the latest CNN figures he still has plenty of support. We are all victims of our own system in allowing it to get this far. I am not saying it cannot change. but simply removing Bush won't change things. There are plenty in line to take his place. A complete overhaul of our current political structure is needed. And replacing one ***** with another won't help. Referring to republicans vs. democrats as the primary issue is a joke. There are no true Republicans or Democrats in power from what I have seen. Only Liars, Lawyers, and Con Artists, as it would seem you have to be one to get ahead and survive in the political arena If you think that a Democrat in office and a Democrats having the House and Senate will make everything ok you're the one in the bubble. There has to be a balance and the scales tipped one way or the other is assured to be problematic.

      "Also, vmerc was right. America can/has/will change government, but there is no way for the people of Iran to remove the supreme ruler. He serves for life."

      - vmerc stated

      "As an Iranian living in Iran, you and all of your so-called not-the-government people need to stop the excuses, and DO something about your government"

      - He told them to do something and you said they can't. So he's saying to opposite thing you did and you agree with him? It would seem you are confused, or perhaps I have misunderstood your statement?
    • PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@porcupus
      "With the technology age in full swing, the majority rule effect should be implemented more and more. I don't need old men deciding my fate anymore, especially ones who are being legally bribed to vote certain ways."

      I'm assuming you would favor majority rule as long as it went your way, correct? If a christian majority decided that pre-marital sex and abortion were wrong, and it was "the majority rule" would you be so willing to go along with it?

      I understand your frustration. Believe me I've had the same feelings since the Nixon administration. However, rule by majority is definitely not the way to go. I believe that back in the late 20's or early 30's that a Herr Hitler had a majority rule didn't he. Didn't turn out too well did it.

      If you don't like the people in office now, vote them out. That means getting off your ass and working for the candidate of your choice. Convince others to either do the same or bring them around to your way of thinking.

      Personally I'd like to see a retirement age in Congress of about 65 so we could get some of the vampires and zombies out of there.
    • brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@DesScorp

      Names like ***** just show how stupid you are. Compared to the hostage crisis, the overthrow of their pro-West President and the subsequent murder for tens of thousands of dissidents is slightly worse...wouldn't you say?

      I am so tired of this *****. Learn some history idiot. Also, I am not saying the Iranians are great. I am just saying that on Balance, the US has done far worse.

      Perhaps another example? The US government is so afraid of other countries having nuclear (nucular to you) weapons yet the only country to ever actually use them (and still try to justify that use is?

      There are several million South Americans that might be able to tell you how their relatives were "disappeared" by puppet regimes put in place by which North American superpower?

      Now show me what Iran has done. How many countries have they invaded? How many nuclear bombs have they dropped?

      You are not a *****...whatever that is. You are just stupid.
  • DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Someone call Richard Marcinko!
  • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -22/+21If Iran can take 8 British soldiers hostage without ANY consequences, I guess Iran thought they could take double the British hostages next time and expect the same consequences....nothing. Wonder what Iran will do to the Brits next time? There WILL be a next time if there aren't any consequences.
    • DesScorp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Ace, that's a good point. If there are no consequences to their hostage-taking, then they're just going to keep on doing it.
  • gfreeman223, on 10/12/2007, -38/+22To all you conspiracy theorists who like to blame your own governments and your own people: IRAN IS THE OBVIOUS AGGRESSOR HERE.

    If you haven't noticed all the propoganda being spewed out by our enemies, muslims extremists are pretty intent on bringing death to the west and America... The whole blowing up westerners and cutting off their heads with rusty knives did not just suddenly happen after the (admitedly) flimsy pretenses to invade Iraq.

    Iran also was keen on helping the US invade Afghanistan in the early days of the WOT, given that they were the primary supporters of the Nothern Alliance against the Taliban. Unfortuantely, now that Mackmood Akcahamadninjabalad the self righteous, evil, and handsome charmer is running that country, we're going to have ourselves a shooting war.

    AWESOME! A country that has a real army we can crush and destroy, and not have to worry about "nation building", "insurgencies" and all that *****.

    BRING IT!
    • sokz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+32You sound like you're getting off on this war stuff. There's nothing remotely great or "awesome" (in you so intelligent words) about "crushing and destroy"ing a country (again, your words). If you think the Muslim world and its leaders are the only ones spewing out propaganda, committing violent acts and picking fights you seriously need to check just how you absorb information. I think the ***** being troff fed to us is getting to you.
    • zachlac, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9Iran is the aggressor, but I think we're all smart enough to know that the Iranian people don't want a war. We may have to attack Iran if they continue to obviously build towards nuclear weapons, but we must separate their people from the government.
    • garvallagh, on 10/12/2007, -15/+11@gfreeman223
      Errr, when was it exactly that America won its last conflict ?

      Phynodedotnet raises a vaild point as well

      Yeah bring it on, send more of your young engineers, doctors and teachers so they can get their legs blown off, sensible approach.
    • mrlost117, on 10/12/2007, -25/+16Iran hasnt been the aggressor in 500 years...

      America on the other hand...
    • porcupus, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6just look at what the U.S. has done. Aggressor, lol. Is it their fault that they want to build a nuclear arsenal in order to gain some political say? Why is the U.S. the only ones allowed to have nukes?
      We are the ones that actually use them BTW.
    • hmmmok, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@porcupus
      when did Iran say they want a nuclear arsenal?

      I thought their nuclear program was for energy, or are you saying that Iran is just lying and full of *****?
    • ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Iran is the aggressor? Depends on how you think about it. I am not condoning the kidnapping of British soldiers, but I will say that right now Iran is surrounded by American troops (and others)....literally. They are in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both sides. And with our nutty president, I think Iran is worried for a good reason. I really hope this issue is resoled peacefully, because going to war with Iran is not going to make ANYTHING better in the world. Just like going to war in Iraq has not had a positive outcome.
    • mrlost117, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@ everyone who dugg me down


      look it up
    • myfreepress, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@mrlost117

      You look it up. I will even supply some key words for you.

      Support hezbollah embassy hostage taking 444 days beirut barracks marines

      and my favorite: "Death to America"
  • evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -22/+8well there you go. bLIAR said it so it must be true, right. uh huh..
  • phynodedotnet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Can anyone who knows something on the subject (bar 99% of Digg users) speculate on why two rafts doing patrols in Iraqi waters wouldn't have immediate support, particularly since there 2 US carrier strike groups in the vicinity?
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28Rules of Engagement most likely stated that they were not allowed to fire on a "neutral" party unless fired upon. I'm not 100% certain what their ROE are but given my limited knowledge of the subject and the Commodore's praise of how the sailors handled the situation according to the ROE I am at least 99% sure.

      Since the UK is not at war with Iran and has no intention of being at war with Iran, it would not be wise to have a Frigate or the boarding crews open fire on Iranian troops who could be victims of a misunderstanding.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Rules of engagemnet most likely forbid firing on any "non-combatant" (read iran) ships. Thus allowing the government to say "look, they attacked us".
    • SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Its an excellent question. Im ex-army and so can't speak to naval operations, but from what i've seen, even mundane boarding operations like the ones the British were doing almost always have a heavier ship nearby (frigate/destroyer) and possible air support from a helicopter of some kind. However, that type of situation might apply only in deeper waters, not in the very unique geography of this very narrow waterway. The rafts might have been operating alone from a land base, not a ship one.

      It likely the US carrier groups were no where near the location...as they are definitely deep water vessels...not something you are going to see in a risky narrow passageway.



    • akatherder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Because we aren't at war. If they were taken in Iranian waters, going to rescue them would be an invasion and a declaration of war.

      It doesn't sound like there was any shots fired. Just an awkward confrontation and the Britons taken as prisoners.
  • CapTylor, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5This is just posturing by both the British and the Iranians. I don't trust either to tell me where those guys were, and it is entirely possible they were both right -- the solders were in waters claimed both by "Iraq" and Iran.

    It will likely be a bunch of bickering, followed by the troops being returned. Neither side can afford an escalation, and neither side wants it. What Iran is doing is the international "Get off my lawn" tactic. Unfortunately, it's hard to blame them after recent local history, but it's also true that it was done in a foolish manner.
  • nihilite, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10Quick question - were these british sailors rowing around in a dingy? Why did they allow themselves to be captured?

    I saw a picture of the ship they were on, and it looks quite capable of kicking some asses. Instead of surrendering to the Iranians and following them into Iranian territory, wouldnt they want to call in support to confirm their location and that they did not violate Iranian waters? Don't these things have something like a GPS on them? Seems like it should be very simple to verify exactly where it was and when it was there. Any car with a low-jack on it can do that - why can't a ship that probably cost a couple hundred million dollars?

    Can't help but think this is yellow journalism. Something about this smells of *****.
    • garvallagh, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0one word.......

      Silkworms
    • foopirata, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14One word: escalation

      Iran saw what Israel did to Hizzb'allah for two soldiers. They wouldn't dare firing a silkworm - the whole of their coastal batteries would be obliterated in minutes by well placed naval artillery fire and possibly cruise missiles.
      I think Iran may be a lot of things, but dumb is not one of them.
    • sonycam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They were held at gunpoint.
      They didn't have a large boat, it was a large speedboat - didn't look like it had any guns, and they couldn't be used anyway.
      The way I see it happening, their speedboats get close to the Iranian boat, the Iranian boat (who should be friendly) gets their attention, then aims their guns at the British boat and demands that they surrender. So although it would've made sense to have radio'd in, if the Iranians knew what they were doing, the British wouldn't have had a chance to.
    • wibblewobble, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1yeah why indeed.. oh didn't Mr Bliar say :

      'A spokesman for Britain's defense ministry said they were not releasing the coordinates.'

      can anyone tell me why not?? surely this would end this debate once and for all... unless somebody is lying...

    • Damhna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Sonycam

      Indeed they were on two fastboats (which were actually equipped with high caliber weapons) and were detached from the main force.
      They actually boarded the Iranian vessel and were finished their inspection and were then surrounded and detained by a larger number of Iranian vessels.
      Whether or not they had the firepower to fight their way out of the situation is moot, they had no orders to use deadly force and had to comply according to their own regulations.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's a simple answer. They don't want to escalate a non-violent situation to a potential war starting one. The boarding crews would have been armed well enough to have defended themselves if they were attacked first. The frigate could have obliterated the Iranians and the base they sailed from if they were attacked first.

      Britains Navy is not allowed to start a full scale offensive conflict.
  • imauser, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25Why would they be in Iranian waters, can anyone actually explain? Lets look at the 'theory':

    "They were on a spying mission"

    - Why would you employ 15 people in several large and noisy boats for a spying mission?
    - What could they possibly see by venturing a mile or so into Iranian waters which they wouldn't be able to see from the air with a UAV, spy plane or satellite? =
    - Why would you use uniformed soldiers on a navy boat to spy when it would be plainly obvious that you were going to be caught?
    - Why not simply take plain clothes sailors on a private vessel to do this?
    • evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -25/+7they gave them a stupid mission just inside iran KNOWING theyd be arrested. whats so hard to understand about that? soldiers follow orders and maybe they didnt even know it was iran they were in themselves. they may have been given the coordinates and gone there and then all it takes is someone to tip off the iranians, and there you have your little excuse youve been looking for to invade. very simple. in fact israel did the same thing with lebanon. their soldiers went into lebanese territory, they were arrested (not kidnapped as the media liked to say) and there you go, an excuse for war. theyve already admitted that war was planned many months in advance, all they needed was an excuse.
    • byronm, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5They could have simply been bait. No one will ever know until a book is written about it 25 years later when these sailors retire. There is no reason these boats couldn't have turned around and went home had they seen an un-identified ship approaching them so the whole issue is dumbfounding. Was there a distress call? Was there prior communications? What would have caused them to get boarded? Do other ships get boarded by iranians? Was there something on the ship that would have caused it to get boarded? The whole thing is fishy.
  • badteeth, on 10/12/2007, -44/+1should have fought harder, pussies
    • SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24shutup, idiot
    • stevensj2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22"should have fought harder, pussies"

      Your mother should have, as well. A little more resistance on her part would have done good for ours.
  • Xill, on 10/12/2007, -35/+13Well, sorry Blair but lying tu us to transfer enormous profits to industries resulting in the death of thousands of innocent civilians sort of made you lose credibility...

    I trust the Iranian president more.
    • badteeth, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20Yeah, trust the guy who openly states the holocaust was a myth. Western leaders may not be perfect, but I'm willing to bet you haven't visited any of these ***** you defend with such effort.
    • mezzamorphis, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22are you listening to what you are saying?
      The Iranian president wants the destruction of Israel, seeks nuclear weapons, etc etc

      How can you say you "trust" the Iranian president more. Come on man don't be blinded by ideology, and don't state statements so extreme to make a point. You don't like Blair, fine. That's your opinion, but if you "trust" The Iranian president more, go move there. (I'm sure you would never want to.)
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12The Iranian president is pushing money and weapons into this conflict, perpetuating tensions in the Middle East. He is by no means innocent, just very adept at manipulating the media and feelings of disgruntled Americans.
    • ponchietto, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6The same iranian president who denies olocaust?

      Maybe we should simply not trust both of them...
    • punx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@Xill,

      You ***** liberal moron. This country is going to ***** because of pussies like you. Congratulations, *****.
  • reed311, on 10/12/2007, -17/+11Also there are weapons of destruction in Iraq and Saddam was inolved in 9/11.

    I'm going to have to side with Iran on this one. I am in no way saying Iran is a good country or anything else similar to that. I am just saying that the Brits probalby were in their waters at the time and and Iran, understandable, has a right to guard their territory.
    • cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10If you want to put it that way, this is the same Iran that denies the Holocaust and entertains David Duke.

      Apparently, your memory only includes things that would qualify you as an apologist.

      You are a ***** idiot.
    • randf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"I'm going to have to side with Iran on this one" ??

      you'd get more respect if you'd say "I'm flipping a coin on this one", rather than explaining your "logic"
    • PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@reed311

      So if they did venture in to Iranian waters, why not just sail out there with the big gun ship and tell them to get the hell out? What actual espionage can you perform that far out from land?
  • warhorse, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I'm with you Xill.
    Also, I f*cking hate the video advert on this page, come on digg team, get rid of them.
  • flink405, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16Islamist Website Instructs Mujahideen in Using Popular U.S. Web Forums to Foster Anti-War Sentiment.
    http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD150807
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5You are not allowed to post that. Its offensive as half the people here fall nearly directly under the outlined category's.
    • Mossberg, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3pffft.
      MEMRI?? Are you ***** kidding me?
      That just proves you're a gullible idiot.
      You might as well have quoted a tabloid.

    • Andysan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow! I wonder how many Digg posters are imposters?
    • dftpnkezln, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thank Christ there arent organised teams of neo-con idiots trying to foster pro-war sentiment on popular web forums.

      LGF anyone?

      ...and seriously, MEMRI? Was that supposed to be intentionally hilarious or are you just oblivious to how completely discredited that site is?
  • neko6, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10The Iranians aren't afraid - Europe was almost entirely against Israel's response to bombings and kidnapping by Hizbullah. The Iranians thus know they are too pacifistic to respond violently to this kidnapping, why should they give in?
    • byronm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Europe was entirely against Israels response for reasons you simply choose to ignore (the very reasons that created Hizbullah to begin with). Perhaps you should look at the problem and before you attempt to know who is best at solviong it. Until then put the pom poms down.
  • satost, on 10/12/2007, -21/+9The cool thing is that if the U.S. goes to war with Iran it won't be a "boots on the ground" operation like Iraq and Afghanistan. It will just be a series of aircraft raining down bombs and destruction until the only weapons left in Iran are rocks and sticks.
    • mezzamorphis, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1are you being sarcastic?

      Cause if ever comes to it (i pray that it doesn't) I'd rather have our troops be out of harms way.
    • byronm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17"the cool thing"... oh lord what has the world come to when annihilation is "the cool thing"
    • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14dropping bombs all over the place on everyone is a "cool thing"?
    • DrawingTheSun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5you should see real warzone pictures, and what people look like after bombs have went off near them, i bet you won't be calling a bombing campaign "cool" after that
  • Specul8, on 10/12/2007, -18/+8To the United Kingdom: We the people of the United States of America stand fully behind and support you- you are truly one of our GREAT allies!!!
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Oh, woop-dee-doo... I feel sooo much better...

  • frodsteamin2, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5If thats how they wanna play, we can play that way to. plain and simple. These guys that abducted the britain soldiers dont even answer to the Iranian gov't, so lets just kill them all and get it over with.
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Cannot happen. In this day and age, when a more prominent power has its sovereignty violated - they really cannot respond as human nature dictates. An increasingly idealistic and unconnected sect of citizens, bore from an easy life without many real world troubles lack the ability to comprehend geopolitics with any rationality. In more developed country's these people are a minority, but a very vocal one, and thus prevent their respective nations from talking proactive measures to defend interest. I believe that this stems from the inability to comprehend that evil can manifest itself many humans, and that not everyone thinks like themselves. The enemy's of these developed nations recognize this and fully exploit the advantage, thus crippling the ability of a developed nation to conduct war and global affairs effectively.
  • richofsilence, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11Sailors and Marines are NOT soldiers.
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17You boneheads are digging him down when he's right. Iran captured sailors and marines, NOT soldiers.
      Here's a little lesson (follow along).

      Soldiers are in the Army.
      Sailors are in the Navy.
      Marines are in the Marine Corps, and the Marines are part of the Navy.
      ....Golfers are in the Air Force

      Everyone who writes or reads news should be required to study that before getting a job. I see the terms misapplied way too often.
    • ropers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It depends on whether you have a broad or narrow definition of "soldier". As an isolated statement, saying that sailors and marines are not soldiers is certainly misleading.
    • joelito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have always wondered why there's so much disrespect for the Airmen in the Air Force.
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Not disrespect, just inter-service rivalry and a good-natured jab.
    • richofsilence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm actually an Airman and I didn't take his comment as offensive!

      To call these individuals soldiers is disrespectful. Use the correct terminology or don't discuss them at all.
  • antifolkhero, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Act of war.
  • shm1, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11Much as I dislike the idiots who run most of the middle east, I'm very skeptical about anything which the Bliar says.
  • motters, on 10/12/2007, -16/+11Like I believe anything Tony Blair says. WMDs? 45 minutes, anyone?
  • dontdiggthis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Iraq told Iran to let them go, we can all stop worrying now...I see that happening real fast (insert loads of sarcasm tone here)
  • WookieInHeat, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10"Iran hasn't been the aggressor in 500 years...

    America on the other hand..."


    Iran hasn't directly attacked any one in 500 years, but hasn't been the aggressor? They just use hit and run and proxy tactics, ever heard of Hezbollah? Why? Because they are weak.
    • sonofdy1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Iran hasn't existed for 500 years. Ever heard of the ottoman empire? Geezzz people pick up a freaking book.
  • ropers, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Leader A and B are both leaders of powerful countries with a rich history. They are making statements that contradict each other.

    Leader A: Has in the past made pretty outrageous statements.
    Leader B: Has in the past made even more outrageous statements.
    Leader A: Has made statements that were seen as threatening another country with war.
    Leader B: Has also made statements that were seen as threatening another country with war.
    Leader A: Has unambiguously threatened to attack another country.
    Leader B: Has not unambiguously threatened to attack another country.
    Leader A: Has attacked another country.
    Leader B: Has not attacked another country.
    A whistleblower about how leader A led his country into war died in mysterious circumstances. His death was ruled a suicide, but questions remain. An inquest into the substantive content of the informer's whistleblowing was never held.
    Leader B has not led his country into war died and no whistleblower died.

    Who would you rather believe?
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Leader B arms terrorists and denies the Holocaust occurred. You'd rather believe him?
  • bully306, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22To all you goons who are going "omg bliar lied to us about WMDs i should believe an iranian crackpot leader instead":

    1. Blair said Iraq had wmd based on intelligence- which turned out to be wrong- he didn't go over there himself and mooch about looking for them and then report back to home.
    2. Blair is only repeating what the British Navy are saying- i.e. "They were not in Iranian waters".

    A lot of stupid fools on here, all gagging to bash their own countries and even support action on our troops. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I also notice the "British when i feel like it brigade" are out in full force. don't like Britain- leave! Do us all a favour.
    • Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5You obviously haven't heard of the Downing Street memo which showed that the "intelligence was being fixed around the policy" in the run-up to the Iraq war.

      It's ok though... Now that you've been educated you can change your opinion accordingly.
    • techweenie1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15I'm behind Britain 100%...to all of those who are making cheap shots at Blair, have you forgotten that Ahmadinejad has made the claim that his scientists have found the cure for AIDS?!?

      http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3360816,00.html
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12Iran must be loving all of the support it is getting out of the lies Bush and Blair made.

      You're all so pissed off with the shepherds that you'd actually let the wolf in to spite them. That is a really dangerous mindset.
    • mortrix, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5No one should be ashamed...

      It has become increasingly difficult to believe anything these days.

      We now know that our intelligence for going to war was wrong. How ridiculous is that! Those mistakes should have never been made! How can the world's leading super power make a decision like going to war using faulty intelligence?

      You need to be less forgiving of this administration for its mistakes.
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -9/+61 Blair told us these WMD's were unarguable FACTS. That was a lie.
      2 I very much doubt that Tony is just uttering the line given to him by the Navy. He would have access to the facts. He would know where they were, and why, by now.

      I find your last comment to be stupid and arrogant in the extreme. I personally love my country, but I am saddened by the stupidity of our leaders. I think the better solution would be throw Blair out.
    • Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"Iran must be loving all of the support it is getting out of the lies Bush and Blair made. "

      If you can't see by now that the war against Iran will serve the exact same corporate interests as the war against Iraq, you probably never will.

      Don't let your irrational paranoia push you into supporting another illegal, immoral, and unnecessary war for profit.
    • punx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@bully306,

      That's how I feel about Americans who bash their own country like a bunch of mindless idiots. Just the thought that Americans are actually slinging ***** at their own country to people other than other American's make me ***** sick. They will even say the Middle East (in general) are peace loving, because the people are peace loving. Yeah, right. You had better ask yourselves what kind of society turns out so many terrorists,( And don't give me the Timothy McVeigh *****. Look what we did to that *****.) and how they are punished. They aren't, they are idols. So, all of you Americans who hate this country, get the ***** out. Go live in Tehran, because talking ***** won't change anything. Go out and ***** vote if you don't like it. I will bet at least half of you bitching about Bush didn't bother. ***** liberals.
    • aAnaRchY, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2bully306--> Why YOU don't do us all a favour and get the hell out of Britain? Is people like you who have make Britain looks like a 3th world country!
    • bully306, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0How do i? Suggesting such a thing makes you look very silly and a bit of moron to be fair.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fine, I won't let my paranoia get the best of me, I'll use my relentless logic instead.

      You act as if no one ever had bad intentions unless it was the US or the UK. Hitler was just a porr guy who got bullied on so the US could ramp up its economy and end the depression right?
  • distortedturtle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0mytlv.com distortedturtle
  • punjabimobboss, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Blair and Bush are two bastards who should go marry each other. Accordingly, I bet Blair is lying about this just to cause public outcry against Iran and thus conjure up more reason for Bush to go to war with Iran. Blair lies.
    • Gullop, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8That is a really good educated opinion there, you *****.
  • jdun, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5This is what the UK gets when its military, civilians, politicians are made up of liberal/leftist pussy. If this happen to the US Marines, our Marines will ***** those Iranians up and then invade their country.

    Europeans don't know how to fight anymore. Good luck at holding back the Islamic hordes.
    • punx, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4They don't hold them back. Look at the rape problem in Sweden by muslims, the riots in France, a judge in Germany not allowing a Muslim woman a quick divorce from her Muslim husband because he is allowed to beat her in their society/religion, etc. They aren't holding them back, they are allowing them to take over.
  • ColinY, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Can I just point out the timing of this - UN Security Council was talking for weeks about the sanctions they passed on Saturday. Surprise, surprise, British soldiers taken roughly the same time.

    Why?

    "Well, maybe we can trade the freedom of these people that invaded our waters for some easing of the sanctions..."

    Why British?

    "Well, you see - we don't want to start a war, but we do want to make a point."
  • combustion8, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5two words.. carpet bombs.
    • easy4lif, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2won't come to that.


      my guess


      Delta force, SAS or Mossad

      will run a rescue operation
  • edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Once again - we have no moral high ground.

    If the British troops were in Iranian water - they deserve what they get. They shouldn't have been there. If they weren't - well, maybe this is fair play considering what the US/Britian have been doing with suspected terrorists around the world.
  • jubbagets, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Yeh what Iran should have done really was to make a Guantanamo style prison to take British soldiers there without trail or release date and blindfold them, chain them, deprive them of sound and light and restrict their movement and then maybe a little waterboarding might be fun. What do u people think? or is that slightly unfair?
    • kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@JUBBAGETS, what makes you think that is not going on right now?
  • aAnaRchY, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"BLAIR: UK Soldiers were not in Iranian waters" If Blair told this, then it means that UK Soldiers were On Iranian waters. Oh and one more thing: As England is today, Iran is a more democratic country.
  • jubbagets, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1In redrawing the map of the Middle-East for the benefit of Western political and economic gains and in selecting Pro-Western leaders to rule muslims with varying cultures and religious beliefs, the West guarantees that the future of the Middle-East will be plagued by civil strife, regional wars and foreign occupation. This has been going on since World War 1, industrialized nations realised that Black Gold was going to be needed and secured. The Middle-East contains huge reserves of Oil, Oil and more Oil.
  • Smurph0404, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Iran knows there is a chance that the US and Britain might want to attack them sometime in the next few years. Iran is doing this to try throw a wrench in the plans for an attack. By pulling crap like this Iran can attempt to control when the US and Britain attack if they attack at all. It is better for the Iranians that we attack them hastily and with poor planning than if we take our time and figure out exactly what we need to do. This is something they learned by watching the Iraq war. It's been five years since we invaded and kicked the crap out of Saddam's government, but we still may loose the war.
  • gazwilwah, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Bush has lied, cheney has lied, Runsfeld has lied and Tony effin Blair has lied.

    And yet you people still swallow what these guys come out with! whats wrong with you?

    9/11 was an inside job, 7/7 was an Inside job
    The war on terror is a fake and the war In Iraq was started on a lie and the forthcoming war with Iran is going to be based on bullxxxx!

    How much more you gonna take before you wake up?
    • randf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4the real question is how much more rambling "inside job" BS from loons am i gonna take?

      answer--no more from you. {clicking block icon now}
  • bluenash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@eclipse007 and exodii
    let me echo your statement, please.

    As an American (living in the USA) For the USA, the government and the people are two separate things. Nobody wants war, and we can only hope this will be over peacefully, without our government doing something foolish.
  • geoffg, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Can we please just let Iran nuke the ***** out of Israel so this whole thing can be done already?
    • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7i don't care which side you support, killing innocent civilians is worse than terrorism.
    • geoffg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Tell that to the Zionist occupiers. Oh and by the way killing innocent civilians with intent IS terrorism.
    • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3you don't fight occupation and apartheid with genocide.
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I swear, there needs to be a version of Godwin's law for people who start spouting "Zionists!!!!"
  • geoffg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0In other news Bush seems to think E85 is the future. Talk about a bait and switch while he preps for war with Iran. He thinks he has us all tricked but we know better, cause we're smarter then Bu$h Co. LTD. E85 is just another trick to keep us consuming and consuming and consuming till all the planets resources are gone in the name of bourgeois greed. The revolution draws nigh.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/26/bush.automakers.ap/index.html
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While I think you're an idiot. I do agree that E85 is useless... Because with Corn it takes more energy to produce the ethanol... However, with sugar cane, it's very viable, and Brazil sure has shown it to be very useful.

      But someone needs to school you in the head with a brick that explains what Corn (and sugar cane) is... It's a RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE. That is... We don't have to wait 400 million years for it to turn into some black soupy stuff that can make your vespa go VROOM VROOM... or rather PUTZ PUTZ.

      To call Ethanol a "BAIT AND SWITCH TO KILL THE EARTH" just shows you as an idiot.
    • punx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0holy crap, geoffg, do you REALLY not understand the idea of RENEWABLE energy?
  • erikfotherland, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Has anybody ever heard of the USS Liberty? The Israelis make the Iranians look like pacifists.

    Dozens of sailors from the unarmed American radio ship were brutally massacred by Israel, machine gunned to death in their lifeboats and on a burning deck by unmarked Israeli airplanes and torpedo boats. Israel was angry that America refused to enter the mid-east war on Israel's side so first Israel tried to blame Egypt for the attack on the USS Liberty. They didn't count on survivors getting the word out that they heard the crews on the unmarked Israeli torpedo boat speaking hebrew (the israeli pilots were careful to speak in Arabic over the public radio channels that the USS liberty detected)

    It was the only fatal incident at sea never fully investigated by Congress.
    This is the website of the survivors, they share their stories and ask for justice.

    www.ussliberty.org
    • punx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@erikfotherland
      It is more likely than not that Israel knew they were attacking an American ship...just wondering what the hell it has to do with Iran taking British sailors hostage? Oh crap, I get it, you are either muslim or Mel Gibson. The jews are responsible for all the wars and atrocities in the world, right? Subject: Iran, got it now?
  • Aharoni, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I wonder how long it would take before someone starts blaming Israel.
  • punjabimobboss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ gullop:

    You're just naive.
  • kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Screw the middle east, and all who inhabit it.We have done a lot of things their we should not be proud of, by the same token we have been asked by many countries to be involved so we have done what we have done.Some good , some bad.our ex politicians are up to there asses in deals with places like QATAR and the U.A.B and you can not forget that fun loving group of Saudis.
    We are the butt boys for most of these groups, doing what they themselves are not willing to do, we pay the price.
    When is the last time you saw a ***** Saudi get involved in any dispute other than mouthing off.
    We keep letting this ***** go on, and we always get the raw end of the deal
    I know in my heart things will change very little , We have subjugated ourselves to the whims of despots and ***** and we seem to pay the price, ***** em all.May they all go down in a blaze of glory so my grand kids can learn about the middle east like I learned about the Aztecs, a society that is no more.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.