That is the exact opposite of my point. If George Will says one thing and Charles Manson says the opposite, we can tell who is telling the truth. The same reasoning applies when the British say one thing and the Iranians say another thing. You're obviously not a diplomat. The Brits are preserving their option to say "well, maybe we were in Iranian waters", which would be a lie, but it would also allow the Iranians to save face and give them justification for not executing the British sailors. Once the British publish proof that their sailors were in Iraqi waters, the Iranians have no reason not claim the opposite and execute them.
You do indeed have to say nothing as it clearly indicates you can't bring anything forward or have a adult discussion by claiming things that aren't true... which leads me to... My position on whom crossed whoms borders is neutral in this thread, you may have a reading problem like the one above you should you want to put me into that box. If there is one getting owned here, it's you on numerous times I'm off to having diner now... Stay cool.
Why did Iran give coordinates that proved the sailors were in Iraqi waters then changed the coordinates to make the sailors position indeed be inside Irainian waters once they were proved wrong?
In a conflict between good and evil, it is morally wrong to maintain a centrist position. As Edmund Burke said, "All that is essential for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." The point you are attempting to make is exactly the one described in this video.
It has never stopped you from posting. Please tell us in what branch of armed forces are you fighting the devil and bad bad terrorists? P.S. Being a general in your xbox games doesn't count.
It's dead simple, one says this and the other says that. Not believing either side about who crossed whoms borders is not morally wrong, condoning the action taken by Iran would be morally wrong! A harmless (Seriously, what could they possibly have done?) group of Naval personal in Iranian waters trespassing a couple of miles inward (Should this be the case) is not a justified reason for execution or imprisonment. Question is what can be brought forward to pressure the Iranians to release the Sailors? Iran wants Britain to lose face by their public admission and apology and this can result in two scenarios. 1: The release of the sailors 2: The continuation of the planned trial with the "punishment" they have in store for the guilty verdict which is not even a question of "If" after a admission from the British Government. A source of evidence to prove the Iranian coordinates where wrong at that stage is not going to help the Sailors as the recognition and acceptance of such possible evidence/proof is only a cause for Iran to lose face in a big way. They have two additional "confessions" planned for tonight to take place so you can understand that turning on their stance they are in now will most likely not happen. All Britain can do is to use a outside party to have the outcome come to scenario 1
Once again Julian invades a topic to insult, whine and otherwise stray off topic. I remember the last time Iran pulled a stunt like this. Are we going to have to wait 2 years pussy footing around foolish demands by terrorists? Had Iran taken US soldiers this would be all over by now and so too would Iran. Iran seeks nothing more than an excuse to provoke the world into a war with her. But isn't that the mantra of every 4th world nation of ingrate shit bags now-a-days? The Quarn in this instance seems to be a recipe for human destruction. Just think if the people of Iran were actually allowed to speak, things would be much different. My first inclantion is nuke the bastards and ask questions later, but all we would end up doing is sinking to their level. The people of Iran really need to step up here and take control of their country and their lives back from Islamic terrorists who appear to be running their country.
Bahahaha... who would that be? The U.S. and Britain are the countries people turn to when they are in trouble? Who can the U.S. and Britain turn to -- other than each other? No one. We're the responsible adults in the family of nations.
Responsible adults is kind of a overstatement, you would just have to have a look at Iraq to come to the undeniably conclusion that this war was not an act of responsibility. But besides that and not wanting to go off-topic, a third party such as Turkey to mediate between Britain an Iran seems to me like a good strategy. An outside mediator is always a good course of action with both parties having a fight. What would you have in mind Will? Military action? Your outlined scenario and that is in case of "evidence" that can be put forward doesn't sound plausible to me and besides that there has to be "evidence" in the first place. So what other options would there be? Trade sanctions?
It takes one to know one. Julian, the adults are talking. Why not take your useless bantar back the DMOZ threads.
I hope you are not referring to little willy and yourself, the 2 scared little boys hiding under the bed, peeing in their pants from the thought of bad bad terrorists coming to get them.
Well, they are certainly not defending and supporting them like you are. I find it strange that gworld focuses so much of his diatribes on "little boys" and "peeing in their pants" and how large their testicles are and such. Very disturbing to be so concerned with such things. How about you save those kinds of things for your Yahoo chat sessions, gworld?
And here comes the "brave" ex-corporal with many years experience of peeling potatoes and giving out pamphlets in front of high schools.
It seems you are the one who likes to play with the little boys and talk about war, killing and encourage their fantasy about being a man.