British Navy Watched as Marines were Kidnapped...

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

In the same vein as my rant from yesterday. Now more details emerge around the circumstances leading to the capture of innocent British Marines, think about the message this sends to other soldiers, sailors and Marines. Unbelievable really.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/hostage_sailors____britains_impotence_opedcolumnis ts_arthur_herman.htm?page=1

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

I'm not discounting the article, I did read it...

IF the British ship in question had indeed entered Iranian territorial waters, then the Iranian "navy", as it were, would have every right to defend their waters from any outside source.

IF the British ship in question had indeed entered Iranian territorial waters, then the "innocent British Marines" were anything but.

If the British ship in question had indeed entered Iranian territorial waters, and , once it became clear the the Iranian vessel meant harm to the British vessel, the other British ship had fired upon the Iranian vessel, that would be tantamount to "war shots" and could have instigated a much worse turn of events.

Do I HONESTLY think they were in Iranian waters? No.
Do I HONESTLY agree with the actions that occurred (no warning shots etc)? No.
Do I HONESTLY think the Iranians acted within their rights as a sovereign nation? That depends...if the ship was in international waters, what they did was piracy...nothing more, nothing less.

[LA_MERC_Spark]

I think it is a simple as this. Neither of us... Brits or U.S. can afford to enter another war right now. We are already figting battles on 2 fronts. Iran has to know that we will do what ever it takes to avoid yet another open conflict at this point. So... like your nagging little brother, they are taunting.. knowing they'll be no military respone... yet.. I mean it's a free pass to "Stand Up" the the big kids on the block without much risk.

[LA_MERC_Bacowrath]

Well I think that the problem is that the "borders" of where international waters, and Iranian waters begin and end are in the eye of the beholder. From what I read, the small craft containing the sailors and marines was heading back to their mothership, and not toward the coast of Iran. I don't think that their is ANY doubt that the Iranians intercepted this craft with the intention of being camel asses. I know one thing is for sure, and I can't speak for any other group, my platoon would have never been taken alive by the Iranians. We probably would have all died, but better that than being captured by a group of people with no conscience. They would not have come close enough to our vessel to state their intent hostile, or otherwise without having a warning shot fired. I don't understand how they got close enough to capture the craft. I have not read all of the accounts, but did the Marines contact their mothership when they saw the vessel coming toward them? If so, I think that WE would have been instructed to evade the ship at any cost, and I am SURE that a warning would have been sent to the Iranian ship from our navy. In any case, I don't believe that we would have allowed ourselves to be captured, "war shots" or not.

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

My understanding is Iran has been playing cat and mouse with Naval forces for months. Bacowrath would be a good resource to describe this type of squad brinksmanship.

The root cause of this is the unwillingness to be Politically Incorrect, IMO. The Anti-war Left has won in Britain. The fact that a Royal Navy Frigate had to:

1. Call home to ask for permission to protect it's own Sailors, which was denied, demonstrates a complete capitulation and lack of military resolve so astounding to me that I’m furious.

2. The rules of engagement are either so strident or confusing that front line officers are no longer enabled to make necessary decisions regarding the use of deadly force for something as simple as force protection. This is simply asinine.


The Anti-War left in America seeks to render our servicemen and women as impotent as our once respected and feared British forces. Why do you think the congress considers itself the Commander In Chief? Why do they hold vote after vote for deadlines and timetables? They want us to lose, because they see it as an avenue to political gain, it’s F*KCING SICK!!! And it PISSES ME OFF!

End rant.

[LA_MERC_Bacowrath]

Spark, trust me, if we have to, we have the capability of fighting on THREE MAJOR fronts. I know that from what you read in the "news"paper, or see on the Commie News Network we are stretched thin, but this is a farce. Our military contingent is to be able to fight 3 major conflicts on the globe at one time, and we do have the means to do so. The "war" in Iraq is NOT a major front, we have very little, comparatively, in the way of military resources committed to that area. The only time in the last 4 decades that we have been underpowered to fulfill our contingency was during the second leg of the Clinton era. This information comes from VERY high sources whom I am aquainted with at the Naval War College, where I was stationed. We are ok, even though the media likes to make the public panic so that they will buy more newspapers to find out the "truth" from day to day.

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

Without a clearly defined ROE for the British soldiers, or if they were put in a situation in which there was no defined ROE (which I find hard to imagine), they WOULD have to call in to ask for orders...or, that's my understanding of how things are done (read: I could be way off)

[LA_MERC_Spark]

Spark, trust me, if we have to, we have the capability of fighting on THREE MAJOR fronts. I know that from what you read in the "news"paper, or see on the Commie News Network we are stretched thin, but this is a farce. Our military contingent is to be able to fight 3 major conflicts on the globe at one time, and we do have the means to do so. The "war" in Iraq is NOT a major front, we have very little, comparatively, in the way of military resources committed to that area. The only time in the last 4 decades that we have been underpowered to fulfill our contingency was during the second leg of the Clinton era. This information comes from VERY high sources whom I am aquainted with at the Naval War College, where I was stationed. We are ok, even though the media likes to make the public panic so that they will buy more newspapers to find out the "truth" from day to day.

LMFAO! It's not about being stretched thin man....Not one time did I say we had a man power shortage. If you stick around here long enough you'll learn that I don't trust anything you can find on tabloid tv media. It's about our global image and safety. It's about political support as opposed to isolation. It's about not burning through cash so fast that out economy suffers. You can talk about how bad arse we are all day. The fact is we would really rather NOT be stuck in conflict with three countries by ourselves. The economic burden would be to great to ask of any one country.

[LA_MERC_Bacowrath]

If you remember your history, we were in a great depression at one time. We were certainly not in as great of an economic state as we are right now, hell, we are GIVING away money to people who don't even work. And, if you remember your history, it was a war that bolstered our economy, and put the US back on the economical uprise. I am CERTAINLY not saying that war is the way to pick us up financially, but from a practical standpoint, wars produce more jobs, and more supply and demand.

We currently DO have funds for a venture such as that, it is called a "war chest", and it is aside from any other funds. It is only to be used in times of great financial strain durring conflict (and as long as Starbucks is selling $4.00 coffees, and people are buying them, we aint there yet) If this current conflict is "draining us dry", as the media is reporting, we should probably stop sending billions in "foreign aid" to other countries, and call some other countries (ie: France, Russia) that owe us on the carpet to pay back billions of US dollars we have lent to them.

By the way, Spark, you seem like a prety sharp guy, and I was not suggesting that you personally take the media as gospel. I was simply pointing out that what most Americans percieve about the "State of The Union" they get from the boob-tube, or the funny-papers. I welcome debate among folk in our country, its what I fought for. Freedom of opinion etc..etc... I was in a country where if someone spoke against the current ruling faction, they and their closest family members, would mysteriously dissapear. We sometimes take our freedoms for granted here. But PLEASE don't ever take anything I say as a personal attack. I would never say anything to attack someone who was giving their point of view. That is a sacred freedom, and I would NEVER discourage it :)

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

I don’t have any doubt about the capability of US forces in any regional or multi-regional conflicts. You want to throw sand in our face? Eat a few Daisy Cutters topped of with a handful of theatre specific tactical Nukes.

I’m weary of the drumbeat of negativity from Democrats, the Media, and the Blame-America-First Brigade. I’m tired of constantly hearing what is wrong with my Country, my President and our brave servicemen. I’m sick of feeling like the doormat of the World, blamed for every shiot sandwich served on the globe, no matter whose greedy fingers really prepared it. I’m feed up with Congressmen and Senators who obviously can’t comprehend the Constitution and want to dictate Military Policy from Morton’s or The Palm. I’m tired of Rhetoric I want RESULTS!! I have enough of Republicans who can’t find the courage to support troops THEY AUTHORIZED and SENT INTO BATTLE!! I’m ready for someone, anyone to stand up and say “F*KC YOU, now lets get some Shiot DONE!”

End Rant III

[LA_MERC_Bacowrath]

Amen

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

More from another interesting War Blog... Straight from the Front Lines... "Suck that KATIE COURIC!"

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/03/from-the-advisors-bombs-in-bag/


From my days at Morgan Stanley, I learned a number of things. One is: when everyone is getting in, and getting on board it’s time to get out. A perfect example of this occurred to me in the fall of 2000. I was getting my shoes shined at O’Hare and the shoeshine guy starts giving me stock tips. He’s a ‘day-trader’ “making a KILLING”. Ok, thanks buddy I guess it’s time for me to get out of the market. The point is, the herd is always wrong! They’re late getting into the market and never prepared to get out fast enough. If everyone is doing it, do something else.

Ok I can almost see the same similarities in Iraq. The ‘herd’ is now stuck on “we’ve lost, time to get out, no more money…we kill babies” etc. Nancy Pelosi and her ilk are now giving us War advice; Senators from both parties are now passing out operational counter-insurgency tips like candy. This to me is an indication that the trend is indeed turned to favor the US and what is left of our allies. Call it a hunch, but one thing is certain to me whenever I see this type of behavior my intuition is to do the opposite.

Spring of 2001, I sold most of stock portfolio and proceeded into an Oil and Gas venture, Natural Gas was 2.25 MMCF and Kansas Crude sold at 16.00 per barrel. Lucky? Sure, but I’m a contrarian. Buy low and sell high, and the only way to do that is to purchase things that are UNPOPULAR. Right now the War is as UNPOPULAR as ever, as anything ever could be. So I’m buying in, I’m casting my lot and I’m pushing all in, and betting on a big win by the US. We shall see if my luck holds, but one thing I did like in the above article was the quote “But the general trajectory of the campaign seems to be changing, in subtle ways that may yet prove decisive.” One other Wall Street cliché I love is “The trend is your friend” It looks like the trend in Iraq is in the good guys favor, and I'm riding it.

End Rant IV

[LA_MERC_Spark]

LAFAO! Hey man... I'm not at all offended... I mean shiot.. If it were that easy I get offended every time I wake up and look in the mirror! :D The thing is this man. The situation in Iraq is not a winnable situation as I see it. It just isn't. The people we are dealing with don't play by the same kind of rule book we do. We aren't talking about storm a beach or toping a hill. Our enemy is undefined. They are "insurgents".. and they share the same face as everyone else in the area. Until the people that live there say "enough is enough! Here are the bad guys", then we are stuck in a rut. I would be VERY surprised to see any kind of successful pro western government survive in that country or any other country in the region for that matter, and that is how we win. we win if some sort of democracy wins..

Back to the topic... Iran and sailors..

Iran is surrounded by war on two sides. It is in their interest to try and show strength. To their people and others in the area. All I'm saying is snatching up some sailors, which they have done before, is not cause enough for me to justify the cost of another serious conflict. Not only would it cost us lives, but it would only serve to further destabilize the region.

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

Maybe Uncle Sam IS prepared to do the Dirty Work...I found this...

Tony Blair seems to grasp the disaster awaiting Britain if it takes the Jimmy Carter strategy on Iranian hostaging of its sailors and Marines. He warned Iran that anything less than an immediate release of British servicement would move the confrontation to a "different phase", as the US quickly filled the Persian Gulf with warships:

Tony Blair warned Iran yesterday that the dispute over the 15 British servicemen seized in Gulf waters last week could move into a “different phase” if diplomacy failed to secure their release.
His words, immediately condemned by Iran as “provocative”, came as the US Navy began its biggest show of force in the Gulf since the invasion of Iraq four years ago, with manoeuvres involving two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships and more than 100 aircraft.

As tensions rose, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, had a robust telephone conversation with her Iranian counterpart demanding immediate consular access to the captured Britons.

In an interview on GMTV, Mr Blair said: “I hope we manage to get them to realise they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase.”


Different phase -- as in "outside of diplomacy", a convenient euphemism for military conflict. Later, Blair backed down a bit from the challenge, his spokesperson saying merely that Britain would start producing the evidence which would clearly show that Iran snatched the group from Iraqi waters -- but the point got made nonetheless.

So far, though, Blair has not exactly been Margaret Thatcher in his approach. When the Argentinians seized the Falkands in the early days of her government, Thatcher told Argentina that they had two choices: withdrawal or war. She made good her threat, despite widespread skepticism that the British Empire could still fight a colonial war -- and she beat the Argentianians in their own back yard.

Blair has shown some steel, at least thus far, but Jimmy Carter made similar motions in the early days of the Teheran crisis. He just never followed through on them. It took him five months to attempt an ill-conceived rescue mission, far past the time when Carter had surrendered American prestige and power to a group of ragged students and a radical-Islamist theocracy. Not surprisingly, the same Islamists have decided to try it again with Britain, hoping that they will find a Carter rather than a Thatcher.

They may find an American Thatcher if the Iranians continue their provocations. George Bush didn't send warships to the Gulf to allow sailors to get a tan. Quietly, Bush has conducted a new effort against Iranian power in the region, capturing its agents in Iraq and daring Teheran to respond. Iran tried an indirect response by capturing the British sailors. The Americans might try something more direct in the Gulf if the Iranians pull another stunt.

Stay Tuned....

[LA_MERC_Spark]

This is EXACTLY what I'm saying folks... Words are flying back and forth. Lots of posturing. If they don't do what needs doing then Brits/we are FORCED by their actions/inactions. I also read a report that the Iranians were going to release a female today. That tells me they are set to fold.

[LA_MERC_Spark]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/28/ap3559349.html

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

Both sides are posturing...both sides to make themselves look strong, but for completely different reasons (as was already stated)

[LA_MERC_Bacowrath]

LOL...yeah Spark, I getcha :) And you, unlike many on both sides, actually seem to understand what is going on over there. Believe it or not, I am a religion scholar. (and have a degree to prove it :) ) i have studdied many different religions in detail, and the fact is PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET ISLAM. A lot has been said on this subjuct, but very little is true. I remember Pres Bush telling the American public that Islam was a peaceful religion, this could not be further from the truth. The "Islam" practiced in this country is far different than what is practiced and preached in the Middle East. Those folk over there actually follow the Koran to the letter, unlike American Islam that picks and chooses what to preach. The insurgants that keep blowing themselves up, and shooting American GI's are not extremists(by their standard), they are simply following what the koran teaches. They are not interrested in converting non-believers to Islam, but they are rather interrested in wiping all non-muslims off of the face of the earth. This creates a major problem for us. We are now battling a 1500 year old religion, instead of a government. Governments can be destroyed, a fundamental belief in a "higher power" cannot. The mistake that most make is that we think that we can change their system of beliefs, this will NEVER happen.

Now, that being said, and putting aside why the current administration decided to go into Iraq, was it the right choice? The reason that noone can answer this question difinitively is because it is complicated.

Practically: No. It is an unwinnable situation because of the deep system of religious beliefs. In order to be successful, the Iraqi government will have to change their laws, which are still based upon the Koran.

Morally: Yes. Like it or not, we ARE the police of the world, not perfect, but still the best system of government available on the planet. Regardless of all the debatable reasons why we entered Iraq, taking Sadam out of power was a must do. I wont repeat other threads that I have written, but I have seen how people who can't defend themselves are treated by dictators in other countries, and am personally willing to die defending them.

So, it is not an easy answer. There are no rights or wrongs, which KILLS us as Americans, because we want it all in black or white. Do I personally think that we should have gone into Iraq? Yes I do. After what I have experienced in this ol' world, it is usually right to take the moral ground. The moral ground is never easy, and often costly, but is is usually the right thing to do. There is the story of the guy who was at the pool and saw a little child choking on a hotdog. The guy had medical training as an EMT, or maybe a phisician...I cant remember....ANYHOO..... The man tried the Heimlich and tried to sweep the throat of the child to no avail. As the child slipped into unconscienceousness, the man had to mak a terrible, and swift decision. He knew if he did this he may have to suffer the leagal consequences, but the life of the child hung in the balance. He could not find anything sharp to perform a tracheotomy on the child, so he actually bit into the child's trachea with his teeth, and the child began to breathe again. The man was touted as a hero in the local newspapers, until he received a court summons several months later. The parents of the child sued, and successfully won a disfiguration lawsuit against the man who saved their child's life. The media, who just a few months ago called the man a hero, began to call him "the butcher". The point is, sometimes we have to do what is right at our own expense. A reporter found the man 2 years later living in poverty because everything was taken from him and asked him "would you do it all again?" The man did not flinch and said "Yes, it was the right thing to do."

[LA_MERC_Spark]

ok...here's the thing. We did NOT go into Iraq because the people were suffering under a dictator... That excuse is just plain silly. Korean have suffered MUCH worse than Iraqis. You don't see us bombing er freeing the crap out of them.. No.. Our reason is worse than that. We are at war with Iraq because the CIA and the FBI fell flat on their arses. People were provided Bad intel, and decisions were made basis that info. I mean if we were just going to start freeing people from dictators why not start with the socialist nut Chvez. My sister-in-law is about to loose everything behind that sack of shiot, and we still give them arse loads of money for oil. Why not, as mentioned before, save the starving Koreans. A people whos entire generations disappear at the first sign of "disloyalty" to the "Great Leader". A country that didn't maybe have WMD's, but actually tests same. Na... Pure and simple. Our intelligence agencies lost their motivation after the USSR went belly up, and they screwed up. Anyway... I just really hope this administration hasn't so polarized the voters here that we end up with Clinton as... dare I say.. commander in chief.. (lower case intentional)

Edit:let me add to this a bit... WMD probably the excuse we were looking to use, the REAL REAL reason, my personal theory.... You have the Afgans on board... you all ready don't like sadam... If you can find a way to some how link him to the 911 attacks or future ones maybe you can gain internation support and establish pro west governments on both sides of Iran, and right in the middle of the worst pile of American haters on the planet. Then when they look over the fence and see how happy everyone is B00m!! Seeds of democracy rooted.... just a guess mind you, but I would bet my left nut it is pretty close to the mark.

[Big_ch33se]

Glass man......the world can always use more glass....... NUKE ALL them flipperheads!!!!!!!!!

[LA_MERC_Spark]

']Glass man......the world can always use more glass....... NUKE ALL them flipperheads!!!!!!!!!


:rolleyes: She's a witch! BURN HER BURN HER!!!! LMAO!

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

:rolleyes: She's a witch! BURN HER BURN HER!!!! LMAO!


"She turned me into a Newt"....

"You're not a Newt".....

"Well...I got better..."

BURN HER BURN HER!!


LMAO CLASSIC!!

[LA_MERC_Bacowrath]

Like I said, Spark, putting the given reasons for invading aside, I still think it was the right thing to do for the people. Maybe they will screw it up again and let another dictator in, but at least they have a chance to choose now.

I agree whole-heartedly that we should start with that sleazball Chavez and work our way down the food chain. I think that it would be nice to give everyone a shot at freedom. Now, if they choose to screw it up after we give them a choice, nukem.

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

Why do we have the right to look at another country and say, "You know what? Your form of government is wrong, we'll help you change it."

Democracy (or what we call "Democracy") works here because we've had 200+ years to work on it. What audacity we must have to go someplace else and say, "You tribal people need to get it together and be like us...here's how." It isn't going to work like that.

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

Audacity? You want Audacity? The reason we can criticize these dictators like Chavez and have the right to 'suggest' changes to regimes like his is pretty simple in my opinion; Illegal immigration.

It's a helluva lot easier for Pedro to get into the trunk of a 78 Buick and flee Mexico, Guatemala, or any of the other dysfunctional Third World Nations that share this hemisphere, for the USA. Why should Pedro risk his neck and those of his family and oppose tyranny in his own back yard when the Freedom he desires is a boat ride away? He’s KNOWS that if he gets into the USA the chances of being caught are slim to none. If he keeps his nose clean, he’s golden.

Don’t tell me opposing tyranny, social and economic injustice is audacious and none of our “business”, no one was screaming ‘mind your own business USA’ when the we opposed Apartheid and lobbied for regime change in South Africa. And as far as our expertise with Democracy, what’s wrong with sharing a few helpful tips on how to make it work? Being good at something is now seen as a liability? We should shut our eyes and ears to oppression?

Our system, or what ever you want to call it, feeds and clothes and protects a vast number of men, women and children on this planet. What’s wrong with sharing our success with the rest of the world? I’m not saying impose or mandate our system, but for crying out loud Scott it works, and if more people were exposed to it, maybe there would be less hunger, less famine, less brutality, less mayhem for those less fortunate than us to deal with.

As many of you know, I’m running close to the redline right now, so if it appears I’m more easily irritated than normal, you’re probably correct. Please bear with me.

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

Apartheid was started by, and supported by, the British until the late 80's. Heck, even the US opposed sanctions against the Apartheid government in the 80's. so don't tell me that we had their best interests at heart...we were looking at South Africa as another place for free trade...regardless of how it effected the indigenous peoples.

Did I say "opposing tyranny, social and economic injustice" was audacious? No...I said that our trying to force our way of government on other people was. I am opposed to the idea that Democracy (in the form that we have it) will work everywhere. It works for us because the seeds were planted 200 years ago...not because some outside force came over here and told us, "this seems to work for us better than your form of government...you should give it a try too." Democracy ISN'T the solution for everyone...it works for us, for now, but that could all change in a moments notice.

I'm not trying to compare the two, but take for instance British imperialism in the late 1800's-mid 1900's. They went to places like South Africa, India, China etc and set up little versions of their form of government that ALL were under the direct control of the king. Those foreign countries (foreign in the sense that 1) they weren't English and 2) they had been around FAR longer than England and were well entrenched in whatever form of government that they had, regardless if it worked well or not) ALL rebelled against the idea that a form of government that wasn't THEIRS was going to work (Ghandi). England FAILED in creating a stable empire.

I never said "sharing a few ideas" was wrong...us dictating how things should be done, however, is wrong.

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

Scott, I’m not going to get into it with you. I don’t have the energy and frankly I’m tired of constantly butting heads with you. I started this thread it’s been hijacked along the way and I don’t give a flying **** anymore.

We either encourage change or influence systems of government around they globe or they change ours.

Now we “Dictate” policies? Hardly the case, really. Got an example of a dictated policy?

[LA_MERC_Spark]

It isn't fair to compare the expansion of the British Empire to the US trying to spread the idea of Democracy. We aren't forcing these people to follow our laws. We are helping them to create their own. They decided the exact structure with our guidence. It's not like we are saying "you have your government now and you answer directly to the US pres".

Our form of government is ever changing... and not for the good. More and more people in this country are SCREAMING for the government to take care of things. The idea of actual UNITED STATES is va-poo-rising and giving rise to the US. More and more federals laws and intervention. Hell look at NOLA. We couldn't even begin to take care of busines after Katrina without begging for the FEDS to get involved. We are on the road to Social Democracy just like the whole of Eurpoe. Individual States rights to govern themselves will be and is to some extent an illusion. More social medicine and welfare.. Higher taxes and fees.

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

I'm not trying to compare the British Empire to American "demo-growing". I was using it as an example of how what I see going on had been tried before failed. Well, maybe that is comparing...I don't intend for it to be that way. I realize we are getting them set up with parliaments/representative governments and not a central rule ("Emperor Bush, if you please") style of government.

[LA_MERC_Spark]

Easy fellas... Politics and Religion... two very tough subjects to discuss without threads getting hijacked and cereal being pee'd on. I enjoy a good debate. It's the only way to get to the "meat" of a topic.

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

Agreed...I enjoy discussing things and don't intend to rile anger or frustrations. Besides, I only eat cereal with grape juice in it (am allergic to milk)

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

Now I’m arguing whether or not the US imposed enough economic sanctions on South Africa?

You want it both ways Scott, on one hand you holler “Don’t dictate to other Governments!!” ….. on the other you complain “The United States didn’t do enough to stop Apartheid.”

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, which is it? Are we dictating democracy or endorsing oppression?

And I think your facts are wrong, the Reagan Administration sponsored, proposed and supported economic sanctions against the South African government in a direct effort to change it’s social and economic policies. There is no question; the official position of the US was ANTI-APARTHEID.

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

You're wanting to make this discussion about me and the topics that I bring up, when all I'm doing is punching holes in the topics that YOU bring up. You want to discuss Apartheid and the US's role in, or opposition to, sanctions and our foreign policy stance? Look back a couple posts...you brought it up.

Ronald Reagan passed the constructive Engagement Policy in direct opposition to the UN Sanctions against the South African Apartheid. It was fully supported by Margret Thatcher (2 sources: http://www.theherald.co.za/colarc/cull/cu140604.htm http://www.amanaonline.com/Articles/Adujie/P_Adujie_131.htm )

I am not complaining that
“The United States didn’t do enough to stop Apartheid.”...I'm merely pointing out, by using a topic that you brought up, that some of your assumptions are incorrect. As such, I'm not talking out of both sides of my mouth...I'm taking what you say, pointing out inaccuracies that are clear to me, and moving on.

There is no gray area for you, and that's sad. You talk about "dictating democracy or endorsing oppression" as though those were the only options. They aren't. This isn't the only discussion we've had in which it's all black and white for you. Take the time to look at this topic, form an opinion based off of facts, as you interpret them, and go from there...but RARELY in life are things black and white.

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

Whatever....You know nothing about me or how I think and see the World Scott. So please stop trying to analyze me. You.. I'm not doing this.... I'm pissed off so, I'm ending my portion of this. Feel free to continue if you wish..

Not supporting the generally ( is that more nuanced enough for you?) corrupt policies of the United Nations is poor support for your position. The US imposed it's OWN sanctions on South Africa. It is either black or white... Did the US support aparthied? No.. regardless of whether or not it supported certain UN sanctions.


Still looking for that one instance of Dictatorial US policy... Shall I hold my breath? Probably not.

[LA_MERC_Spark]

How about this weather down here lately! Boy I'm ready to get the sailboat out of the slip!

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

It snowed here yesterday and is pretty chilly today. Supposed to be 50 by the weekend! yay!

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

I'm blue from holding my breath....

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

Fine...you say you want to let it go and drop it, then come back with childish taunting. Fine...give me a bit (I AM at work, afterall)...and I'll give you instances.

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

I'm not taunting you...

[LA_MERC_Spark]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H8jv1I-3uk LMAO! :D

[LA_MERC_th33_r00k]

CARPET BOMB THE FECKING A$$HATS AND GET IT OVER WITH. DO IRAN LIKE A CHEAP PROSTITUTE ON 2 FOR 1 DAY! NO LUBE ALLOWED.

Not a rant, just an opinion.

[LA_MERC_th33_r00k]

The fact that we WILL NOT leave Iraq until they meet what WE see as a FUNCTIONING form of Gov't could easily be construed as DICTATING our will.

Please define what functioning in OUR eyes are?

[LA_MERC_th33_r00k]

Still looking for that one instance of Dictatorial US policy... Shall I hold my breath? Probably not.

To say we do not dictate our policies onto others is absurd. Look at every time we position troops now. Under banners of apparent "mis-truths". Britain cannot handle the situation with Iran, so we step in as a "big brother" to help them out. Bush has been positioning himself to try and pick a fight with Iran as much as them with us. Britain is leaving us with the bag in Iraq. Why are we not doing the same to them with Iran? Oh yeah the greater good terrorist thingy......thats right.

[waltersw15]

Spark, that video was perfect and freaking hilarious for the occasion.

I'm sure that if it made me want to go make LOVE to my wife, that it surely is going to bring Wetzny and LaTech together.

The biggest reason for not leaving Iraq until they have a stable government is "What good would it do for us to have toppled Saddam only to have another Saddam or worse take his place?" If everybody is pissed about all of our soldiers that have died so far in Iraq, how much better should they feel if there is a greater anti-American government established in Iraq?

After the sacrifice that was made to rid the threat of Saddam to Americans, I think it is only just for us to want an American-friendly government in place.

That's just coming from a Desert Storm vet, who doesn't really want to see us having to deal with Iraq every 10-15 years.

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

waltersw15, Thank you for your service....

[waltersw15]

I'm proud to have served.

I'm just glad that, for me, war is just a round of BF2, and not dodging roadside bombs, and looking out for suicide bombers.

When 9/11 happened, I'm sure that everybody who calls themself an American was ready to make some country (Afghanistan or Iraq) pay for that attrocity. Unfortunately, time has a way of causing us to forget that pain and get back into a normal routine, and we no longer understand the reason we are fighting over there.

I don't think that people who want to bring our troops home are being anti-American. Afterall, what they see as the immediate problem is the death of our troops at the hands of extremists, in a country full of people who we think hate us with every ounce of their being. People feel that we have already avenged the deaths of those killed on 9/11. What people don't realize is that what we are doing over there now, is to try to prevent more 9/11's. We need for the Muslims, who do not hate America to be in power, in the Middle East (and believe it or not, not all Muslims hate us). If the extremists are in power in the Middle East, guess what is going to be taught to the mainstream population (extremism).

This is definitely not a black and white topic, but an interesting one none the less.

[LA_MERC_th33_r00k]

I'm proud to have served.
This is definitely not a black and white topic, but an interesting one none the less.

You should be proud. What you did, and I am sure do today, came at a great cost. You may not think so now, but you will realize. You are different for serving. You have a higher understanding than most about life, and what it takes to preserve and destroy it. This is something none of us will really ever understand.

Thanks again for your service, and you are welcome anytime.

Also, Amen to the Grey comment.

[LA_MERC_Bacowrath]

Dang, this thread is still going on??? LOL....I jump ship for a day, and hop back on to find the same ol' thread being kept alive :) Well, this is what America is all about, freedom of opinion, freedom to debate, and freedom in general:) I love this country. The funny thing is, with all of our different opinions, we are all brought together by a common video game! Gotta love it ;)

[LA_MERC_YellowDog]

The funny thing is, with all of our different opinions, we are all brought together by a common video game! Gotta love it ;)


LMAO... yep thats is a strange reality when you think about it..