Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#6
![]()
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
On topic war story....... | General | |||
Just a few names... | General | |||
The true meausure of a sailor's newsgroup. | ASA | |||
The On-topic war, Part II, (very long) | General | |||
British Army Collusion in Nelson Murder | ASA |