I'm fueling up all my vehicles tomorrow.
2007-03-23 15:50:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Slow Poke 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Iran is itching for a fight. Many times over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as stated that this generation will see Armageddon. All he needs is just a little bit more time to finish his Nuke program then he can call his nation "a force to be reckon with". This guy really lost his mind...he will do anything to wipe Israel of the face of the earth...as he always puts it. If we go to war with Iran, I say in my option that would user ww3, for Russia and China will jump in and help Iran.
2007-03-24 06:44:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it was an act of war taking the soldiers from the Persian Gulf. As far as I have heard, the soldiers had a right to be there according to some declaration. I am not sure if they were truly in Iranian waters.
This is reminiscent of the hostage crisis of Carter's era back in the early ages.
In answer to your question, Yes, yes yes Iran does want to go to war or they would not be playing dangerous games.
If we do go to war, I wonder if the Dems will want to quit in the midst of it like they always do.
2007-03-23 15:15:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
i'm not for the Iraq occupation, yet to declare that Iran gets my admire because of the fact they released hostages? Hostages are released continuously international. What makes Iran so particular. I admire the Iranian clergy till now Ahmadinejad. he's a nutcase.
2016-10-19 11:39:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is a pretty serious issue. We need to be very cautious how we proceed. A war with Iran would probably not benefit the USA.
I suspect (and hope) the UK soldiers will soon be released unharmed.
2007-03-23 15:13:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by professional student 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Don't forget that if the iranian government is despotic, but Ahmadinejad is not a despot, he has almost no power, the power is divided between a bunch of mollahs, and the majority of them want to finish their life in peace and luxury... so they have no interest in a direct war, but just in low intensity actions to strengthen their power. Observe the strategy of the CIA in the world to undestand the strategy of the mollahs...
2007-03-23 21:35:21
·
answer #6
·
answered by Thom Jefferson 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well, they were violating their waters and they should not have been.
How is it we can do any damn thing we want, but other people have to live by our rules, whatever they are? We make our own rules about what our space is over the water and air!
If an Iran boat showed up in our waters what do you think would happen? A parade?
2007-03-23 15:12:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Looks that way, we'll know soon. They have a time limit on shutting down the nukes and then the UN intervenes. Any of this sound familiar yet??
2007-03-23 15:10:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by jaypea40 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
See actually they weren't kidnapped they are living it up on GW's Texas ranch till the New war starts....OOPS I shouldn't say that the conspiracy crazies will deem it fact.....oh the gullible are out tonight..they are liberal Democrats...
2007-03-23 15:45:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Iran is in a heap of trouble.....
Iran is dealing with two issues. First, Iran has captured 15 British sailors. Second, Iran has refused to cooperate with the U.N. regarding cessation of uranium enrichment.
Military confrontation may be on the horizon.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3961
In addition to the British naval vessels at the Diego Garcia atoll in the Indian ocean, there is a multi-national force in the Persian Gulf. The British HMS Cornwall aircraft carrier strike group, the American aircraft carrier strike group Bremerton-based aircraft carrier CVN-74 John C. Stennis, the American aircraft carrier strike group USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle and its task force are all in close appoximation in the Persian Gulf. The USS Nimitz may also be in the Persian Gulf as it was scheduled for its WESTPAC07 deployment to replace the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-68.htm
More details about military options can be found here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm
Iran has elicited "confessions" from the 15 British sailors they captured and may put them on trial for espionage. The penalty for espionage in Iran is death.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece
“If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.” Espionage carries a death sentence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6493391.stm
Iran's detention of 15 Royal Navy personnel is "unjustified and wrong", Prime Minister Tony Blair has said. UK officials are waiting to be granted access to the HMS Cornwall staff, who were seized on Friday, and have not been told where the group are held.
"It simply is not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters and I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," Mr Blair said.
"We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong."
On March 23, 2007, U.S. and British officials said a boarding party from the frigate HMS Cornwall was seized about during a routine inspection of a merchant ship inside Iraqi territorial waters near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway.
The seizure of two Royal Navy inflatable boats took place just outside the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, a 125-mile channel dividing Iraq from Iran. Its name means Arab Coastline in Arabic, and Iranians call it Arvandrud - Persian for Arvand River. A 1975 treaty recognized the middle of the waterway as the border.
Iranians send arms to Iraqi extremists, including sophisticated roadside bombs. This week, two commanders of an Iraqi Shiite militia told The Associated Press in Baghdad that hundreds of Iraqi Shiites had crossed into Iran for training by the elite Quds force, a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard thought to have trained Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.
Regarding enrichment of uranium, Iranian President Mahmaoud Ahmadinejad abruptly cancelled his appearance before the U.N. security council and in his stead, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki Iran spoke. He indicated that Iran was willing to continue negotiations but without the precondition that uranium enrichment must be halted.
Mottaki said, "the world has two options to proceed on the nuclear issue: continued negotiations or confrontation. Choosing the path of confrontation ... will have its own consequences. "
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070325/D8O3E7J00.html
The U.N. security council unanimously voted to expand sanctions on March 24, 2007.
The new resolution 1747 calls on Iran to comply fully with all previous UN resolutions and join negotiations to reach agreement so as to restore international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. Full transparency and cooperation with the IAEA are required. Suspension of Iran’s banned nuclear activities will elicit the parallel suspension of sanctions. The package of incentives offered Tehran last year for its cooperation remains on the table.
The full text of the draft of resolution 1747 appears at this website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6455853.stm
Iranians send arms to Iraqi extremists, including sophisticated roadside bombs. This week, two commanders of an Iraqi Shiite militia told The Associated Press in Baghdad that hundreds of Iraqi Shiites had crossed into Iran for training by the elite Quds force, a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard thought to have trained Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.
2007-03-24 04:16:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋