On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article .com,

Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:15 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

It's not strange... you think the Iranians just had sidearms or
something?

And you think the brits were packing pop sicyles & bubble gum?
The team surrendered Jon.... Never mind, you do not have a clue.

Umm... you were making the point that you couldn't understand why they
didn't fight back. I said that the Iranians were probably well-armed.
Now, you say they were surrounded. Sounds like not dying was the right
thing to do. Do you not have a clue?


Where did I say they were surrounded?
And do you expect to loose every fight?



Probably. You don't have to actually hit someone to get a
confession. Everyone knows the "confession" would be coerced, so why
go through the actual beating.

Would you confess to another country if you did no wrong?

If I was threatened with torture, especially if I knew that no one
would believe it. Would you prefer to have your fingernailed
extracted until you tell them what they want to hear anyway?

Fingernail extraction before dis-honoring my country. Knowing my
commrades in arms are on they way to my rescue.


Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Typical response from a Bushkin. When Carter tried to freed the
Americans, he was called a wimp.

The whole operation was a major cluster F*&K Jon. A totally botched
snatch and grab, when we should have used overwhelming force. Flaten a
few dozen palaces and see how fast they return hostages. You can even
call the assholes and give them enough warning to clear the target
site.

Typical response if you don't value human life. So far, they haven't
killed or likely tortured anyone.

Typical bend over and take it liberal attitude.
If we delt with Iran in 1979 then maybe hostage taking would not be so
popular.
Did you miss the part about calling ahead and letting them know the
targets so they can clear them?

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different.

Both were terrorist supporters that needed to be delt with.

Bush lied about the reasons for attacking Iraq. If he would have said,
because he's a bad guy and he's torturing/killing his own people, then
maybe he wouldn't have 25% support and actually did the right thing
for the right reason. Saddam was contained and not a threat to us.

But, keep telling yourself he was if it makes you feel better.

Keep your blinders on Jon, if you think he was a honest guy willing to
live up the the surrender treaty he signed then go and keep thinking
that if it makes you feel better.


We should
have gone after the latter. Instead, we went after the former. A war
of choice rather than necessity. 3000 US soldiers dead, 25K wounded,
100s of 1000s of Iraqi innocents dead, and civil war.

You left out the 3000 killed in NY. And the many thousands of kurds
gassed by Saddam.

And, we attacked the Taliban and Al Queda in Afganistan. Nothing to do
with Iraq.

BTW, how come you're not so upset about the 100s of 1000s in Darfur
who are being killed by terrorists there? Or, do they not count
because they have darker skin?

I'm waiting for France or Russia, or Germany, China, Japan, Mexico,
Cuba, or Canada to deal with Dufar.

Joe


--
Capt. JG