In article .com,
Joe wrote:

On Mar 26, 9:22 am, katy wrote:
Joe 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?

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

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.

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. When Ronny Raygun traded arms for
hostages, no one seemed to care.

Heat? Well if the rest of the world feels it's wrong to liberate
people from a tyrant like Saddam, and go after mass murders like Al
Queida then thats their problem. We do not need thier approval. Let's
face it, they are jealous of America, so the only way they can feel
good is to imigrate and become American, or find ways to try to
tarnish our accomplishments.

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different. 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.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article . com,
Joe wrote:
Isn't the current leader if Iran one of the hostage takers back in
1979?
Seems I saw something showing him leading blindfolded Americans
around.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...7388169832.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3Den%26sa%3DG

No. It's a different guy... this is very old news.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On Mar 26, 12:04 pm, Martin Baxter wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
We
don't need to step one foot into their country. Just overfly and bomb
them back into the stone age.

Unfortunatly, judging by their barbarity, they already are in the stone
age. We just need to waste the lot of them; radical militant muslim =
waste of skin and good air.

Cheers
Marty

It would seem with modern tools we could prove it is Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad in the photograph. You can look at the eyes and tell it's
him. No doubt. To bad the statute of limitations is up, we could grab
him at the UN and put him on trail for kidnapping.

Joe

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:33:38 -0700, Joe wrote:


Remember how fast these thugs let the hostages go when they knew Regan
was taking the helm?

Sure, all those arms Reagan sold them must have scared the hell out of
them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

Or, my personal belief, Bill Casey committed treason to get Reagan
elected.

http://consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

In article . com,
Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:04 pm, Martin Baxter wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
We
don't need to step one foot into their country. Just overfly and bomb
them back into the stone age.

Unfortunatly, judging by their barbarity, they already are in the stone
age. We just need to waste the lot of them; radical militant muslim =
waste of skin and good air.

Cheers
Marty

It would seem with modern tools we could prove it is Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad in the photograph. You can look at the eyes and tell it's
him. No doubt. To bad the statute of limitations is up, we could grab
him at the UN and put him on trail for kidnapping.

I guess you just are much better at this than the combined efforts of
the CIA and State Dept. Good for you.




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article ,
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:33:38 -0700, Joe wrote:


Remember how fast these thugs let the hostages go when they knew Regan
was taking the helm?

Sure, all those arms Reagan sold them must have scared the hell out of
them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

Or, my personal belief, Bill Casey committed treason to get Reagan
elected.

http://consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

And then suddenly died right before being questioned... ya gotta
wonder.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On Mar 26, 12:15 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article .com,

Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 9:22 am, katy wrote:
Joe 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.

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

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?

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.

When Ronny Raygun traded arms for
hostages, no one seemed to care.

Heat? Well if the rest of the world feels it's wrong to liberate
people from a tyrant like Saddam, and go after mass murders like Al
Queida then thats their problem. We do not need thier approval. Let's
face it, they are jealous of America, so the only way they can feel
good is to imigrate and become American, or find ways to try to
tarnish our accomplishments.

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different.

Both were terrorist supporters that needed to be delt with.

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.


Joe

--
Capt. JG

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 26, 9:52 am, Martin Baxter wrote:


I wonder what the hell the Capt. of the mother ship was doing.
Cheers
Marty

Tea and crumpets most likely.

Joe

C'mon Joe, be fair. His hands were tied by the socialists in power in UK.
They have not even been able to find out where the hostages are being held.
What was wanted was quick decisive recovery action while the hostages were
still nearby but the Uk government would have hung theat Captain out to dry
if he had done that on his own initiaive and it was unsuccessful..

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