Blair: Sailors weren't in Iranian waters

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Blair: Sailors weren't in Iranian waters

By PAUL AMES, Associated Press Writer
56 minutes ago

BERLIN - British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Sunday that
the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran were not
in Iranian waters and warned that Britain viewed their fate
as a "fundamental" issue.

The group was seized at gunpoint on Friday, and the Foreign
Office in London said British officials do not know where Iran
is holding them.

"It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial
waters," Blair said at a news conference in Berlin, calling
the situation "very serious."

"I want to get it resolved in as easy and diplomatic a way
as possible," he said, but added he hoped the Iranians
"understood how fundamental an issue this is for the British
government."

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/british_seized_iran

[GregD]

1. I heard on the radio (AAR) yesterday

that they admitted being in Iran's waters.

[zerox]

3. That's only what Iran claims...

Iran claims that they admitted being in Iranian waters; there's a big difference.

[Henny Penny]

46. You're right... but Tony "known for his truthfulness" Blair has

set the record straight!

The beeb , by coinkydink had a tv crew on the frigate taking footage of the vessel being checked out. Of course the bit they showed on the telly was just the boat and a little bit of sea... I'm sure they could show us more. A bit of coastline maybe??

The frigate had helicoptor support no doubt taking footage... Just show us the video... I mean I'd hate to be relying on anyone with Tony's form for anything.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

116. Which is also an ambiguous statement.

Iran: Were you here?

Brits: Well, sorta.

Iran: Iranian waters!

Brits: Actually that's internat...

It's the government of Iran and Tony Blair. Someone is full of shit. Quite possibly both of them.

[Eugene]

4. **Iran says** that the sailors "confessed."

Iran has claimed a large number of instant confessions
of U.S.-backed enemies in recent weeks. Iran has
given no outside access to the captured personnel.

[CJCRANE]

33. Bushco

have released a number of "confessions" in recent weeks too, from terrorists who may or may not have been tortured. I know two wrongs don't make a right, I just can't take the moral high ground on this one.

[saigon68]

115. Of course they CONFESSED-- A little WATERBOARDING

Loosens most tongues.

They also confessed they drew a moustache on the Ayatollah's poster.

[NGC_6822]

118. You get my vote for most humorous post!

[saigon68]

126. Thanks

LOL

I wonder if any of the so called "adults in charge" have a sense of humor.

[DanWithAngel]

23. did aar mention

that the soldiers are being paraded around like prize animals? or that they can not make any contact with home? as for the soldiers "confessing" to being in the iran pool was it hinted that that may have been (gasp) tortured into submission?

if iran thinks their actions will unite the peace loving Americans into believing them then iran may want to listen to its own people and adjust their strategy.

[GregD]

26. no, none of that was mentioned

[katsy]

30. peace loving americans...

like the ones who gave us GITMO?

Or maybe the ones releasing the photos of saddam's dead sons on teevee (the parading around as such)... or even saddam's "dignified" hanging?

Remember abu gharaib and the nekkid pyramids?

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Zhade]

34. Anything to back up your assertions?

Like, you know, evidence?

[DanWithAngel]

47. assertions don't end with a question mark

like, you know, my questions?

[hoboken123]

112. Fox News would be proud?

Post the most amazing drivel, just end it with a question mark?

Nice.

[coalition_unwilling]

84. We torture and murder our detainees. So why shouldn't Iran get to torture its

detainees? Doesn't Kant's notion of the universal applicability of a moral precept,i.e., if a code is moral for one, it should be moral for all, have relevance here?

[Hieronymus]

97. I thought of that too.

How could Britain or the US protest .. both advocate torture. :eyes:

[0rganism]

121. We're so far off the moral imperative these days, Kant is hardly relevant

Bushco operates somewhere between Machiavelli and Hobbes, with a little bit of Pope Urban II thrown in.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. The boundaries are in dispute Mr. Blair.

Your forces were boarding an Iranian vessel in disputed territorial waters when they were seized. Your 'coalition' has been holding five Iranians seized from an Iranian consular office in Iraq at the beginning of the year. Perhaps you ought to stop with all the bluster.

[kenny blankenship]

12. I know this for sure: they were a loooong ass way from Britain

which is where they should be.

[coalition_unwilling]

85. "Ding" -- in my best Randi Rhodes imitation n/t

[youngdem]

14. Bingo. Perfectly stated.

[techtrainer]

17. They were boarding an Iraqi vessel, not Iranian

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Yesterday I read 'Iranian'

however today's search of the ever-shifting news and information indicates that all national designations of 'the merchant vessel' have simply vanished. I give up on exactly who's flag if any this purported ship was purportedly flying when allegedly boarded by purportedly British commandos somewhere in the disputed waterways between Iran and Iraq.

[Solo_in_MD]

21. Check your facts

- It was not an Iranian vessel
- It was the Pasdaran, not regular Iranian Navy

Probable Outcome:
- The UK will get the sailors and marines back within another week
- The stop and seach effort will continue with a big brother for escot
- Pasdarn has two choicee:
* Get stupid/try it again with the escort present/thier gunboats would be sunk
* Be smart/Wait until the escorts are withdrawn/repeat the cycle

[Warren Stupidity]

25. yesterday it was an iranian vessel, today who knows?

"The UK will get the sailors and marines back within another week"

depends on the status of the five Iranians we are holding. Given the other events of the end of this week, it seems the Iranians are going to the bunkers in general.

"The stop and seach effort will continue with a big brother for escot"

perhaps.

The Shatt al Arab is a river/delta region. This is not the best area for big war ships, on the other hand it is an ideal tactical ground for light fast boats. I don't think our navy really wants to fight within this region. Note that both sides were using small boats. A British frigate was some distance off from the actual incident. The standard boarding tactic is to use inflatabiles launched from a frigate in the gulf to board ships in the waterway. I see no reason why the Iranians would be deterred at all from continuing to harass and obstruct British operations in the disputed waterway.

[DerBeppo]

31. I don't think it was ever reported as an Iranian ship.

All the reports I read labeled it as Iraqi from the start.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. I checked about 6 reports this morning and all flags

have been oddly erased from descriptions of the 'merchant vessel'. I swear I read Iranian yesterday, but as I said I cannot find a single reference to the flag of this vessel anymore. We are truly living in Orwell's world, where history is re-written in front of us.

[anotherdrew]

40. I'd swear it said Iranian at first too. maybe it was just headed to an Iranian port ? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

42. Another poster thinks its japanese.

I know what I read yesterday, and I know that today I cannot find a report that claims any flag at all. The bits dissolve and reassemble in front of our eyes, rearranged into the latest official version.

[IsItJustMe]

134. I notice this kind of crap all the time in our msm. It makes you wonder. A work of wisdom

regarding our msm. Don't believe anything you here and half of what you see.

[ohio2007]

27. Another most likely outcome, the Brits will allow themselves to be humiliated

as they did in 2004. From another article excerpt;



<snip>
There is nothing to be gained in provoking a confrontation, because that would be playing into their hands. But neither should we let them have it all their way. We tried that before and we're still trying to get our kit back."

The smaller-scale precedent, the taking of six British marines and two sailors on the same waterway in June 2004, was a painful lesson. The personnel were only returned after they had been paraded blindfold on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally. Three years on, the government is still pressing Iran for the return of its boats and kit, including valuable radar equipment.

<snip>

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=462812007
A proper Englishmen will swallow his pride, ignore the Geneva Convention article about treating uniformed prisoners as oddities ( which the Iranians will do for public consumption at home ) and get the prisoners released. Iran will keep the 'booty' as a war prize

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. The vessel was Japanese

By Terri Judd, aboard HMS Cornwall in the Persian Gulf

All changed dramatically yesterday morning when 15 Royal Marines and Navy personnel, including one woman, approached a Japanese merchant ship suspected of smuggling second-hand cars into the country without paying tax. Suddenly, their inflatables were surrounded by boats of the Revolutionary Guards and they were overpowered and taken into Iranian national waters.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2388857.ece

A reporter aboard the warship from which the British sailors came is going to be the most accurate.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. That is the third flag attributed to this vessel.

So far this 'merchant vessel' has been described as Iranian, Iraqi, and now Japanese.

This vessel, by the way, has also been described as a dhow. Why would a dhow fly a Japanese flag?

The whole thing stinks.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. But it is the one we actually have a report for

rather than people's memory. And the report came from the warship concerned.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. You have a link for that?

And 'the warship concerned' simply means this particular report came from the British Ministry of Silly Walks. I believe nothing at this point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. See post #39 for the link

Terri Judd is a reporter for The Independent newspaper (the Belfast Telegraph and Independent are part of the same newspaper group). See http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2387844.ece for the same article in The Independent.

By the "warship concerned", I meant the frigate from which the RIBs came - HMS Cornwall.

[muriel_volestrangler]

101. You'll like this - add another nationality into this

This is today's report from the same reporter who said it was a Japanese vessel:

A senior coalition official rebutted the claim yesterday, revealing they had interviewed the master of the merchant dhow the patrol had boarded, who confirmed the Navy team were clearly in Iraqi waters when they were apprehended by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. "We have statements from the Indian master of the boarded vessel, which was anchored in Iraqi waters, to say they were alongside it when they were detained," the source said.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396029.ece

Of course, an Indian master doesn't necessarily mean an Indian vessel; but she is now calling it a 'dhow' too, which doesn't sound Japanese. I've written to the Independent, asking them to clarify what they've been telling us, but haven't had a reply so far.

[NGC_6822]

117. Indian flagged ship

I just picked this up off of AlJazeera a few minutes ago. It refers to a US report, but I haven't attempted to run it down yet.

"It was an Indian-flagged vessel. It was suspected of being involved in automobile smuggling ," said commander Kevin Aandahl, a spokesman for the US Fifth Fleet.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8906525B-87E9-4A77-A25D-D75FB9CF6E29.htm

[Henny Penny]

48. How strange that given the state of Iraq today...

the issue of unpaid car tax should be of such importance...

[Marrah_G]

103. I would not want to be a female prisoner in Iran.

[cali]

62. No. They were not boarding an Iranian vessel. Where do

people get that? NO source has reported anything like it. In fact, all sources say that it was a Japanese vessel with second hand cars that they were trying to avoid paying duty on. Google it yourself.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. The initial reports said Iraninan.

Then it became Iraqi. Now it appears to have been transformed into Japanese. Google shows what is in the bits right now, but them bits change.

It is also referred to (or was recently referred to) as a 'dhow'. Why would the Japanese be operating a dhow?

When the 'facts' keep changing on a daily basis it is a sure sign that bullshit is involved.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. he said nothing about his 15 marines, though

and with Blair, like bush, hair splitting is a favorite technique of misdirection and deceit.

[LynnTheDem]

6. "Saddam could stay in power if he disarms peacefully."

"If military action proves necessary, it will be to uphold the authority of the UN and to ensure Saddam is disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction, not to overthrow him.

It is why, detestable as I find his regime, he could stay in power if he disarms peacefully."
http://www.sundayherald.com/print31827


Yeah, I believe ya, Tony bLiar.

[Laughing Mirror]

7. They were in OUR waters

Everything on this planet is ours ours ours. We are the good guys, everybody else is the bad guys. Do not dispute this. This is not open for discussion. We are entitled to everything you can see touch taste and smell. We have the most military might and if you get in our way we'll apply our shock & awe treatment, for starters.

So there.

[Sterling]

51. Tell me how Iran are "the good guys"

Please tell me how much you would like to be part of Iranian society rather than be stuck in our shitty hell hole of a country. It's greta that Americans are introspective enough to see our flaws and unfair policies but take a look at every other fucking government on the planet and tell me which one you would prefer to ours. I bet Iran is not one of your top choices. I would agree that most of the people responsible for the violence in Iraq ME in general are "bad guys". Unless blowing up Innocent civilians on purpose is something the good guys do. Or kidnapping people and drilling holes in their bodies and leaving their bodies for the relatives to find is something that you think good guys do?

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

53. USA! USA! USA!

Were #1!!!!!! Praise Jaysus!!!!!!!!


:sarcasm:

[leftynyc]

58. Your answer is childish

I see the flaws of my country and work to try and change them. Others simply make snarky remarks from their keyboards. Are you saying you would like to live in Iran...do you think you'll be a freer person there (are you a woman)?

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

90. Why does it always come down to that question?

You know damn well what I meant by that reply. Just because I don't advocate war as a first, second, third and last resort doesn't mean I think the boogie man of the month is an admirable person, or his country a paradise. I really don't give a fuck what the Iranian government does with their country. None of my business, if the citizens of Iran want a different government that's up to them. You see, I'm not one of these people who will say with 100 percent certainty that the US of A is the almighty #1 country in the history of the universe and we know what's best for nations and societies that predate ours by thousands of years.

[leftynyc]

94. You immeditately conflated criticism of Iran

with thinking the US is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I stand by considering your reply being childish. I take a back seat to no one when it comes to thinking this is the worst administration in my lifetime (I'm 46). But trust Iran??? A country that treats their women like crap and kills their gays. They are a shithole.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

127. So then your going to put your faith in Tony Blair?

Look I agree neither side seems very trustworthy, but I'm not about to trust a man who allowed his country to be lead into war by the "worst administration in our lifetime". Since you are 46 you will get to watch a U.S/U.K war against Iran from the comfort of your living room, not too many people my age will have that luxury. Really, is it worth it? I would suggest you worry about your own country, and its treatment of women and gays. Let Iranians worry about theirs! Change is possible in Iran, the current government is not that popular, and the young population which is a majority wants reform. However, if the U.S, U.K, or Israel does something stupid you can bet your bottom dollar Iran will remain an Islamic Republic for generations to come. Just because they don't like their government doesn't mean they won't fight and die for their country.


Sorry if you didn't like what I had to say, these replies were not just to you, but to "Sterling" as well. I don't like Americans who have never set foot outside their country claiming other nations as "shitholes".

[Megahurtz]

132. Excellent Post!

:applause: I Totally Agree!

And I would like to highlight what you said: "Since you are 46 you will get to watch a U.S/U.K war against Iran from the comfort of your living room".

The trouble is, way too many people in the U.S. these days live a pretty Cush life, and they have no idea what life can be really be like for other people outside of their box.

Well said!:bounce:

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

133. Thank you!

The above poster repeats her concern for women and gays in Iran. That's noble for sure, but who does she think war will hurt the most? The Mullahs? Ahmadinejad? Aggressive war only hurts people who are the most vulnerable. That would be the women, gays and ordinary people who never did shit to any American or Brit. Lets not forget that Iran can actually defend itself from an invasion, but I guess our 46 year old friend won't have to worry about getting her ass shot off charging toward Tehran. Na, I bet she will be on this message board, or one like it waxing about her concern for women and gays in war torn developing countries. Countries in which hers helped destroy. Ah, but what the hell do I know, I'm just a childish poster on a message board.

[DemVet]

100. Again...well said. n/t

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

128. Thank you for your articulate opinion. n/t

[Megahurtz]

82. Lol! n/t

[ronnie624]

72. The "good guys",

under the current circumstances, would be those who are not stomping around the world, waging war against other nations. Has the fact that it is the United States, that is the aggressor in the region, somehow escaped you? On the day Iranian warships appear off the coast of the US, perhaps I'll change my view.

As for Iranian society, I think it would be best, to leave that to the Iranians.

[coalition_unwilling]

86. I'd prefer Scandinavian governments to ours, for starters n/t

[DemVet]

99. Then get your ass out.

What is preventing you from moving?

We're trying to turn this country around.

People like you do nothing but pay lip service.

Get with the program.

[coalition_unwilling]

107. Why don't you go back to Nazi Germany while we're busy

recommending destinations for DU posters?

[coalition_unwilling]

87. Let's see. When the USAF drops bombs from its B-52s, ithe US

is completely innocent when those bombs kill civilians because the USAF didn't "do it on purpose"???? Give me a friggin break.

[leftynyc]

95. Who said completely innocent???

What's with the black and white way of seeing the world. Why can't they both suck?

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

129. Why can't certain people acknowledge the fact

they both suck. That reply above was to "Sterling" not you.

[DemVet]

98. Well said n/t

[IsItJustMe]

135. A suggestion, quit watching FAUX.

[Webster Green]

8. Blair no longer has any credibility about anything..

He blew that a long time ago by signing on with the chimp.

[kenny blankenship]

9. "they were, in fact, a full 45 minutes away from Iranian waters"

"by dinghy. Rowed by a one-armed octogenarian."

[ohio2007]

15. where did you find that ?

Three countries have borders in the narrow strip of the waterway.




<snip>
While Iran has much to gain in Iraq, it is also concerned by the splintering away of the Basra-based Fadhila party from the ruling Shiite coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA). The fracturing of the Shiite alliance hampers Tehran's ability to do business in Iraq, and Iran suspects the British, who are based in Basra, may be behind Fadhila's parting with the UIA. Going after British forces represents a low-cost operation in that the Iranians are unlikely to face any serious reprisal. And while the Iranians eventually will release the 15 British personnel, they will only do so after ensuring Tehran's message has been relayed.
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/iraqcommap.php

the issue has nothing to do with the bargaining chips grabbed by the revolutionary guard.

[kenny blankenship]

19. just testing your memory dear

try and think back, when have you heard Mr. Blair's government say something controversial about 45 minutes?

[Zhade]

35. You don't remember blair's bald-faced lie about Iraqi nukes hitting the UK in 45 minutes?

The poster's point was that blair is a known liar.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

141. the lie was about WMDs hitting the British military base in Cyprus

[redqueen]

89. hahahaahahahahaha

:thumbsup:

[MLFerrell]

10. Reality: Yes, they were.

Casus Belli don't just fall out of the sky, y'know. Provoking illegal and immoral wars requires a certain amount of finesse. You need to learn the dance, Phony Tony, before you start inventing steps of your own. :eyes:

[TankLV]

11. Why should I believe a PROVEN liar like you, poodle boy?

On one hand we have Iran - good god help us...

On the other hand, we have PROVEN War Criminals who have no compunction about lying and have been caught in too many lies to remember them all...

On first glance - I go with Iran...

[DanWithAngel]

24. you go with iran?

i wonder how far that would float if you lived in iran and stated publicly that you "go with America"?

on first glance, i'd say not to far.

[Zhade]

36. Well, let's see - go with the proven liar blair, or wait until actual evidence.

Hmmm. Such a hard choice...

[DuaneBidoux]

66. The fact that there is even a debate here shows how much Bush and Blair have fucked it all up.

There would have been debate with either Clinton or Papa Bush, sure. But their credibility was angelic compared to Bush Jr.

Here we are considering the possibility that a fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship is on a par with our own country in morality truthfulness. Why? Because a diarrhea of lies have poured out of our pResidents mouth for six years now.

It is a shame. Nobody in the world has done more to help Iran achieve its territorial goals than this idiot rPresident who has hamstrung and weakened our foreign policy and military on a pointless war to the point that we barely have the ability to respond to truly serious situations anymore.

[JTFrog]

104. Blame

it on the adminstration that cried Wolf.

Before this administration you would have seen more of the world's outrage at Iran. But because of all the lying done by Bush and Blair, this is the reaction that one would expect. It's not like they haven't twisted the facts to suit their purpose in the past now is it? And hasn't Bush made it obvious he's got the hots to go to war with Iran?

[Richard Steele]

124. We go with the TRUTH, Dan. Wherever it happens to be.

Just one of the many things that separates us
from the Repubs. Kinda like punctuation, y'know?

[leftynyc]

59. Yes, by all means, believe the

lunatic that denies the Holocaust.

[DuaneBidoux]

67. Exactly. Personally I'm for putting Bush and the lunatic into a room and letting them duke it out.

If the Iranian and American people were lucky they might actually kill each other.

PS: this is not (for any CIA trolling) a threat against our beloved rPresident. It's a crazy fantasy which I would never, in any way shape or form, considering helping to bring about (Edited to make sure I don't get arrested).

[ronnie624]

73. Nonsensical.

Iran does not have its navy positioned off the coast of Great Britain, nor is the government of Iran currently threatening other countries with attack, nor are they conducting aggressive covert operations in the UK or the US, nor has Iran invaded countries bordering either the UK or the US.

I think it's pretty obvious which side is completely lacking in credibility.

[DuaneBidoux]

81. Your right, absolutely.

But I don't think the Iranian president is any more trustable than our own. I would never trust any Islamic fundamentalist who denies the Holocaust.

But don't get me wrong--"our" guy is bad enough.

[ronnie624]

92. I did not mention Ahmadinejad

in the post to which you replied. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was no more than a child, when the US destroyed a parliamentary democracy in Iran, and aided to power a dictatorship, friendly to US business and strategic interests.

This isn't about 'our guy' versus 'their guy'. This is about US/UK foreign policy with regard to Iran, and the obvious attempts by the former, to create a pretext for attacks against the latter. The policies of the Bush administration, leave no doubt about their intentions regarding Iran

It really is possible to resist the nationalistic tendencies, despite the daily reinforcement by propaganda.

[DuaneBidoux]

105. You see, I'm not sure it isn't "our guy" vs. "their guy."

In fact, I'm not sure it isn't that 90% of the time that conflict arises. When everyday people of all stripes from different cultures and countries get together there is rarely not immediate empathy and tolerance.

It is when certain ego driven people get into office (in any country) that the world tends to have problems. Our agressive foreign policity toward the Middle East did not originate on the street among the average man, it did not originate in some symbolic consruct known as "the country" --it originated with individuals at the top.

It was not the country that decided to lead us into an unnecessary war, it was several men at the top. It does matter what people a country has at the top.

[Kagemusha]

13. I don't believe any of them.

I don't really freaking care who's telling the truth (if anyone). They're uniformed soldiers, there's not gonna be any trial for insurgency or silliness like that. This is posturing and it really annoys me how Republicans seem to be eager for a shooting war to start over an incident like this. And for what?

[ohio2007]

18. It is all about posturing

But it has more to do with the EU and what they are doing about Iranian sanctions.If the Iranians really had it in for the US, wouldn't they grab some US military operating along the border farther north?

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070323/23iran.htm

They didn't make a big deal about that one, maybe they failed to get a response of 'hot pursuit' they were hoping for.

[Zhade]

37. As if you have ANY idea what they were hoping for.

Let's not pretend you can read minds, 'kay?

[ohio2007]

55. ,,,,right.......

As if you think they are playing with a full deck

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53577

[no_hypocrisy]

16. The Big(ger) Picture

An Iranian General "disappears". Later it is found that he "defected" to the "Coalition" (meaning the price WAS right). And what does the Iranian General bring with him? Military strategies and maps. Admittedly his location is not known at this moment, but it can be safely surmised, he's "contributing" to the "Coalition" and its military.

So, who would know better about Iranian territory, esp. with respect to waterways? Yep. The General knows how far non-Iranian military can venture before Iran would have to intervene for trespass at best, incremental invasion at worst. British troops advised how far to venture toward Iran with the expectation they will be confronted, "captured", and an international incident created. At this point, with Bushco running out of time (666 days until his scheduled exit, not to mention Blair later this spring) and trying to "start" something with Iran to "justify" another military "exercise", this incident is not at all a surprise except for its crude and obvious maneuver.

[ohio2007]

22. Iran has two military entities, the revolutionary guard and regular armed forces

That one defecting general is the only one on record. Several members of the Iranian top brass have disappeared while in Turkey in the past several monthsbut that has been underreported for whatever reason.

The question is;
Are they/were they "loyal" to the revolutionary guard or the regular Iranian forces ?

Grabbing the 15 Brits is a desperate act by the revolutionary units. They are loyal to the mullahs over all others. The mullahs must be concerned about information being obtained from the five guardsmen taken in Iraq some time ago.

[Solo_in_MD]

28. They have been reported as being Pashdaran not regular navy

[muryan]

29. from all things ive read it appears

as much as i dont want to believe what tony blair is saying i believe he is telling the truth. this looks like another propagana medium for iran. The unfortunate thing is that they might be trying the soldiers for espionage. And considering that one of them is a woman i cant have any high hopes for the outcome of that trial if it were to be carried out. We will just have to see what happens

[Henny Penny]

49. You don't want to believe what he is saying..... and yet...

you swallow it hook line and sinker. Or should I say Stinker...?

WHY??????????

[marshall]

68. that confuses the hell out of them

Don't the Arab countries always freak out at the thought of women working alongside men as soldiers? It adds an interesting layer to this whole fiasco.

[chang0]

38. Blair is a liar like bush

[wellst0nev0ter]

44. Bliar (n/t)

[Sterling]

50. Iran seems to being trying to give the reason Bush needs for war.

It's hard to imagine a country with leadership even worse than ours currently but these guys are winning the prize and pretty much guaranteeing a war with the US possible even the UK.

I personally have never respected Iran for their hostage taking tactics and in situations like this, unlike the invasion of Iraq, there is a valid reason to go to war. We should have done so in 79 when they took hostages then. No country that behaves like a terrorist group should be help unaccountable. And please are the pathetic "but we are the biggest terrorist" shit for someone who cares. I think people who think that way should move to places like Iran and enjoy the society they find so superior to our own.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

54. Here are some links that you might want to look at

www.goarmy.com
www.usmc.mil
www.navy.mil

[leftynyc]

96. Let me get this straight.

So anyone who prefers living in the US to a place where honor killings are legal and rape victims can't get justice. Where gays are hanged....should join the military? Have I got that right?

[DuaneBidoux]

110. No don't join the military if you prefer America to an Islamic Republic

Only join if you think it's your duty to go over there and try to fix them.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

130. No, not what I said at all.

Man you sure are a one trick pony. Why are you going to bat for Sterling? What I'm saying is that anyone who gets their world view from watching John Wayne Movies, or listening to Toby Keith CD's should by all means take a trip to their local recruiter.


To answer your last question, you don't have ANYTHING right.

[Megahurtz]

114. Snicker! n/t

[go west young man]

56. It's highly possible this is a "Gulf Of Tonkin" type incident

that could be used to escalate the conflict. The Iranians have every right (as would we if they were off our shores)to patrol their territorial waters. Jane's Defense Weekly reports the boarded vessel as a "Dhow". Link here: http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jni/jni070323_2_n.shtml A "Dhow" looks like this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhow That particular type of apparently unflagged vessel seems awfully convenient for the British Navy to use. The 4 sailors and 11 marine commandos were in RIBs. Rubber Inflatable Boats. RIBs are often used to drop off commandos ashore when conducting covert ops. Why should we suddenly believe the British are telling the truth? And as for the Iranian hostage situation. Didn't we install a dictating Shah who basically did our bidding for their oil who they overthrew and got rid of thereby establishing their own theocracy? Granted it's a theocracy and there are better forms of government but our bad policies helped to bring it about much the same as is now happening in Iraq.

[DuaneBidoux]

70. The entire history of the Middle East is one white Christian country or another meddling with

resulting disasters for all involved. For some reason when the invasion of Iraq was being considered the French seemed to recall this lesson better than the British (perhaps because Algeria is such a recent disaster for the French and Algerians).

Whatever the case the inevitable conclusion must be drawn: Fuck around in the Middle East and you've got about a 95% probability of having a pile of shit as the result.

[MLFerrell]

61. "No country that behaves like a terrorist group..."

Please explain what you mean.

[DuaneBidoux]

109. You're right. America is not the biggest terrorist. Bush is.

That "man" has never dropped a bomb on someone's head where it had my name on it.

[IndianaGreen]

52. Those are disputed waters that after the Gulf War no one complained about Iran's claim

The Western press only mentions half the story, and the gullible public that still believe in Blair, will swallow yet another lie.

Another point, why are the Brits engaged in search for smugglers? Smuggling has been a way of life in the Middle East for millenia.

[NGC_6822]

60. A United Nations poke in the eye

After reading all 59 posts on this thread, I'm truly astounded that not one person has mentioned that the British were carrying out an officially designated operation to control smuggling in the region.

Equally amazing, are all the foolish accusations about "Blair the Liar" and all the normal hallucinations about concocted conspiracy theories. Fair enough, but can't anyone mention the most obvious conspiracy theory, ie. at the moment the Brits were captured, the UN Security Council was preparing to level new sanctions against Iran for their uranium enrichment program. The Iranian flame-heads want to apply some pressure of their own against the international community.

Whether you believe this theory or not, it is THE MOST OBVIOUS POSSIBILITY, and it shouldn't take 60 postings before it is discussed.

[Robbien]

64. This is the first post where conspiracy theory is mentioned

and where the first conspiracy theory is posted.

Nice, you call all other discussion a conspiracy theory and then you present a out there theory about Iranian flame-heads (what, did you think using rag heads would give you away?).

So you now want all other discussion dropped and are yelling that your conspiracy theory should be discussed.

[go west young man]

69. Yeah sure we should all trust Tony Blair.

Tell that to Dr. David Kelley. Also can you explain how the Iraqi military witnesses to this event has it wrong? Link to Telegraph UK article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/24/wiran524.xml
Article excerpt: The border between Iran and Iraq runs along the waterway and the Iranians say that British had crossed onto their side, a claim supported by Brigadier General Hakim Jassim, the Iraqi military commander of the country's territorial waters.

"We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control," he said.

A British diplomat in Teheran denied the charge: "We still maintain they were in Iraqi waters when they were picked up."

[DuaneBidoux]

71. Who "officially" designated the operation?

What taxes did they (the Iranians) not pay?

I'm against talking about "America" doing something to Iran or "Iran" doing something to America. What we have are two conflated testosterone driven lying dictators in Bush and Ahmadinejad (well, three if you count Blair).

Like I said above, let's lock them all in a room together with knives until they either come to an understanding or slash each other to death (metaphorically speaking)(edited to prevent any possibility of my arrest).

[NGC_6822]

74. UN sanctions

I am just flabbergasted. Are you following the news at all about what is happening in the U.N? It is currently in the daily headlines. The Security Council, comprised of 15 nations, is tightening sanctions against Iran more and more. This is about much more than the U.S. or the U.K. Stop being childish about Blair and wake-up to the international community.

[go west young man]

75. By news do you mean CNN, Faux, and MSNBC?

Do you mean the companies that cheerled the Iraq war? Do you mean the BBC and the The British Press that also led the English people to believe they could be attacked by Iraq? You handle seems to indicate you were in the Navy. You can't honestly tell me you are gullible enough to believe everything in the press these days. Granted Iran is no angel but all that we and the rest of the U.N. do in the Middle East is nowadays wide open for criticism. The emporer has no clothes. How about answering some of the above questions that were posed to you instead of throwing out media talking points? It's about oil,it's about China and Russia and strategic control of the region. The nuclear issue and the terrorism issue are not nearly as important for the U.S. They are just a ruse to keep the american people's support for the terrible things we do in the Middle East.

[go west young man]

76. And one other thing I Googled your handle. Is this you?

209.157.64.201/focus/keyword?k=democracy I found many posts by a NGC 6822 at Free Republic. Just curious if your the same person.

[go west young man]

77. This is what that address leads to.

Free Republic
Home · Browse · Search Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skip to comments.

Some People Still Love America
Self | NGC 6822


Posted on 09/05/2006 1:39:45 PM PDT by NGC 6822


You might be interested to hear that some people in the world still love America. My wife and I live in Belgium and two weeks ago we drove over to the Belgian coast to see some friends. They live in a small beach village called Middlekirk that happened to be holding a little festival to celebrate the end of the summer season. The theme was the American West. Everyone was dressed in cowboy and cowgirl clothes, six shooters on their hips, line dances everywhere, entertainers playing and singing country-western music, more than a hundred outdoor grills cooking hamburgers, hotdogs and sausages, American flags, Texas flags, shirts that read "Arizona Rangers Line Dancers," "Texas Rangers Line Dancers," and outlaws on horses riding through the streets! Oh, and I almost forgot--a mechanical bucking bull.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: BELGIUM; CELEBRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1 posted on 09/05/2006 1:39:46 PM PDT by NGC 6822
< Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: NGC 6822
Oh, and I almost forgot--a mechanical bucking bull.

They really did go all out.

2 posted on 09/05/2006 1:40:45 PM PDT by JamesP81 ("Never let your schooling interfere with your education" --Mark Twain)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: NGC 6822
all sane people love America.



3 posted on 09/05/2006 1:41:15 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (live until you die. then live some more.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: NGC 6822
I've got one too...
We rent a place in Atlantic City, this summer a Canadian family remarked on how much they love the States, and along with their friends, vacation in a different state twice a year to get the great feel for their American neighbors - God Bless American.


4 posted on 09/05/2006 1:44:33 PM PDT by fml
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: NGC 6822
Wow! Thanks for the uplift!



5 posted on 09/05/2006 2:09:28 PM PDT by Hound of the Baskervilles (A)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


Free Republic
Home · Browse · Search Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.

[NGC_6822]

79. For your information

From the tone of your newest posts, it appears that anyone who doesn't agree with your myopic view of the world must be attacked rather viciously, and indeed, on a very personal basis--web searches, background investigations, suspicions. WOW, you are paranoid.

Anyway, to clear the air:
1) My handle is NGC_6822 which refers to a nearby neighbor of our own Milky Way galaxy. (I have an interest in astronomy which I have mentioned before on DU.) I chose the handle for the amusing reason that, "If things got much worse on this planet, NGC_6822 is where I would like to go." Now, with you, the handle choice is less amusing.

2) I do post on Freeper sometimes--and I don't think I'm the first-- but more often on DU, because I find the discussions quite lively, and I am interested in reading many points of view--apparently unlike you. I don't know if you are aware, but aside from Democrats and Republicans in this country, there is a class of people known as Independents. They like to study all sides of an issue. Try it and you might be surprised to learn something--just as I do.

3) In line with 2) above, I also try to read a wide variety of publications. Since you only mentioned a few of the leading ones, I'll give you a start on a few others.
a) Try www.worldnews.com You can find publications from all over the world.
b) www.refdesk.com also takes you to just about anyplace in the world.
c) I read Aljazeera regularly on the Internet and often find that it gives more info than CNN or BBC. My theory is that the big networks are NOT into supporting the big companies as you have brain washed yourself into believing, but rather are interested in protecting their own worldwide news markets. Thus, they don't want to offend too many people in the world and hold back on many details. (Witness CNN going hat in hand down to Israel and apologizing for being to hard.) To get you started, here is a link to a news story on Aljazeera today: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3301851A-536B-415F-A956-3C005E91B0BA.htm
d) There are many presses in Europe like La Monde (I read a bit of French), but to help you, here is an article today from Der Spiegle in Germany interviewing the foreign affairs minister of Iran. Read the whole thing; you should find it interesting, then maybe we could have an intelligent conversation instead of this nonsense. http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,473862,00.html

I hope when you are finished, we can get back to the thread and cut the personal attacks. That is the rule on DU.

[go west young man]

80. Personal attacks like your quote above:

"Equally amazing, are all the foolish accusations about "Blair the Liar" and all the normal hallucinations about concocted conspiracy theories." Yeah that's intelligent debate. I'm glad you read Der Spiegel and Le Monde and Al Jazeera. But do yourself a favor and check out the board of directors of all the major U.S. media corporations at Wikipedia and you can see that our mainstream media here in the states is in bed with big banks, big buissiness and the Bush administration. My myopic view is apparently shared by many. I am glad you do post here and I wish you well. The heart of this debate is about credibility when it comes to the Iranian issue. You implied 59 previous posters were fools. I just rebutted you. I'm not paranoid. I'm just using the internet to debate.

[NGC_6822]

88. Iran is a Threat that is recognized by the international community, period

I did go overboard and load the 59 posts all in one basket unfairly; I apologize for that, as many many contributed something other than pure innuendo. A particular example was muriel-volestrangler on posts 39, 43 and 57 that contributed specific, researched material that was exceedingly helpful. This is the kind of thing that I visit these sites for; I often miss it elsewhere.

I take your suggestion about studying corporate board members; my attention has been more focused on the movements of nations within the UN. On that score I hope you understand the following:
1) The UN Security Council is made up of five permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK and US) plus ten other rotating members taken from the General Assembly. (South Africa holds the current chair of the Council.)
2) As you have pointed out, Russia, China, and the US if you will, and France for me as well often block resolutions for addressing security and human rights violations (Darfur is an extreme example), because of their frantic need for oil to keep their economies going.
3) The significant point about last Saturday was that all of these nations including the ten temporaries put all of their national interests aside (and this is really rare), and unanimously voted for the SECOND escalation in sanctions against Iran to pressure them into stopping their uranium refinement program.
4) Furthermore, the draft resolution that they passed was drawn up by the five permanent members PLUS GERMANY. Quick review: China, France, Russia, UK, US, and Germany. Notice that four out of these six are from Europe.
5) So, I apologize again, my patience just ran short when I read repeatedly about the Blair and America bashing. IRAN IS A VERY SERIOUS THREAT, AND IT IS RECOGNIZED AS SUCH BY NEARLY THE ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. Anyone that doesn't understand this should start trying to learn.

[go west young man]

91. Fair enough I probably went a bit overboard myself.

Thanks for your helpful links above and welcome to DU! I'm from the U.K. myself and I truly believe Blair has a credibility problem after the Iraq fiasco.

[DuaneBidoux]

106. They are a threat. Can you imagine how threatening we would be if the entire

Iranian Navy was patrolling twelve miles off our coast? We are also being incredibly provocative.

[NGC_6822]

125. Time clock in Iran?

Has it still not sunk in that this is a solid international movement against Iran? Nobody is worried about the Iranian navy EVER threatening our shores. And only the journalists are muttering about a possible threat of a nuclear tipped missile striking at Israel, or somewhere, and --as they say-- that won't happen because such an act would bring the world down on their head. So, don't worry, be happy.

What nobody wants to talk about publicly (but, all top security personnel in the West know very well) is the possibility of Iran gaining a nuclear technology that allows them to put the material for dirty bombs into the hands of home-grown terrorists. Europe is in a far more dangerous position than America because of the large Muslim populations that from time to time show very disquieting tendencies--such as a year ago when they were burning a thousand automobiles a night around France for months. For these reasons, the Europeans are pulling together (for a change) and trying to tighten the screws on Iran in the UN security Council. The Europeans tried to go the diplomatic road for two solid years with Iran, deeming themselves far more progressive and civilized than the Americans. At the end of that two years, the Europeans had achieved ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I MEAN ZERO! Now the Europeans are getting very nervous as the uranium enrichment continues relentlessly. The clock ticks closer and closer to potential catastrophe every day.

Of course, one solution would be to follow the advice of some posters here. Just ignore the problem and accept the Iranian contention that their work is only for peaceful purposes and they have total control and internal accountability over all their endeavors. In other words again, "Don't worry, be happy!"

[DuaneBidoux]

137. We cannot ignore it. Unfortunately it will probably have to wait until we

have a government with credibility who has not lied it's way into crisis after crisis for six years running. When we have such a government perhaps we will get many of our allies back and the world can respond in a meaningful, intelligent, and if need be forceful way.

Whether or not we would be threatened by the Iranian navy is actually not the point. What is the point is that if THE NAVY OF ANY FOREIGN POWER TROLLING ANYONE'S WATERS WILL DO NOTHING MORE THAN PROVOKE AN AGRESSIVE RESPONSE AND PROBABLY STRENGTHEN, NOT WEAKEN THE RADICALS IN POWER. Conservatives virtually always stay in power by finding new enemies so let's give them an easy one?

A little understanding that countries as well as people will virtually always refuse to be intimidated by anyone simply makes it obvious that nothing that is being done now is resolving the situation--one conservative I admire greatly because he understands this is Patrick Buchanan.

I can't speak for anyone else on this website but personally I would hope that we are sending spies into Iran (who unlike most in this administration at least speak Arabic) to truly understand what is going on. By the time we get a new president (of either party) that will hopefully have some credibility with the international community then maybe we can take actions that can actually be effective.

The bottom line is that this country has been significantly weakened in every way in the last six years and it may well take decades to undo the damage done.

What I can never understand is why conservatives think other conservatives abroad would EVER respond differently to intimidation than they themselves would respond. The goal is not to strengthen radicals in a country but to strengthen their liberals. Iranian leadership is hated by the Iranian people--our best chance of success is to try and make the government untenable. It was a strategy that worked extremely well with the Soviet Union (a war which we won without a shot ever being fired). Is this the only way that will work? Of course not. Military force may indeed be necessary. Are we ready, in fact are we able, to truly respond militarily now? Our military is exhausted and too small to do the job being asked of them now. Bush has left our military in shambles and poorly prepared to respond to any crisis. Iran has three times the area of Iraq and an attack would, again, do nothing but strengthen the Iranian conservatives by getting the populice all riled up, patriotic, and resistent. Help the people grow tired of their leaders not support them by feeding a patriotic frenzy. I think I have elucidated the feelings here, often unstated, of many posters. It is an understanding the Bush Sr. understood. Bush junior is flailing along still as clueless as he ever was.

[NGC_6822]

143. Amadinejad, Tony Blair, and the price of oil

You have raised many points that are especially interesting to me and I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with you. Some I agree with, while others I have questions and/or doubts. My problem here is that I see a possible lengthy exchange if we get into the subject, and it's not exactly germain to this thread, which isn't fair. I wrote a rather long article last September for DU that precisely describes my concern about Iran. You don't have to read it, but we could use it as a place to exchange ideas if you wish. Just go to the site and say "Hello" and I'll pick you up. Any others are invited as well. The title is "What Threat Does Iran Pose?" and the link is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=116x13235

Relative to this thread about the British sailors, I would just like to throw one more idea into the pot. I've heard that sometime around the end of last summer, Cheney went to Saudi Arabia and reached an agreement for the Saudis to start pumping more oil. Apparently, the plan was that Amadinejad was routinely making bizarre comments about Israel, the US, the Holocaust, whatever, and that had the effect of scaring the markets into fears about an impending war. In other words, Amadinejad could shoot off his mouth, shake up the oil market, the price of oil would go up, and more money would flow into Iran to strengthen the economy and help with the nuclear program.

In fact, shortly after the Cheney/Saudi meeting, the Saudis increased their output, and sure enough the price of oil steadily declined. Amadinejad began to feel the pinch. Now, I'm wondering if the new incident with the British sailors might not be an attempt by Amadinejad to ring Tony Blair's bell and reinstate the oil market jitters. The price of oil has been rising again in the past few days which I'm sure puts a smile on Amadinejad's face.

It's too early to tell if this is a valid analysis, but it's going to be interesting to watch.

[DuaneBidoux]

108. I travel abroad quite frequently and indeed have found AMERICANS to be well liked.

Americans being liked has never been the problem. We are friendly, optimmistic people and individuals always tend to respond in a friendly manner to that.

The pariah involvede here is Bush, Blair, and their lying dishonest ways. People don't trust America the country, not Americans the people. Our foreign policy in the last 6 years has not reflected our ideals. I believe this WILL BE corrected in '08 regardless of what party's candidate is being elected because Americans are exhausted from a meddling foreign policy that does more harm than good and is based on lies.

[IsItJustMe]

136. Good work 'Go west'. I say B U S T E D lol

[DuaneBidoux]

111. Of course the biggest poke in the eye of the UN was when Bush went to war without UN authorization.

For some reason the right wing wasn't worried about poking the UN in the eye then.

You can't try and delegitimize the UN when it suits your purpose and then suddenly pay attention when it does. They either have legitimacy or they don't.

If the UN specifically authorized the Brits and the Americans to troll off Iran's coast then great.

I'm unsure (even as a liberal) whether it is in our interest, or any other country's interest, to give legitimacy to a global organization that has the power to override our sovereignty, but I do know one thing: when it comes to the UN the Bush administration (as usual) has been the biggest American hypocrite of all--ignoring them when it suits their purpose, paying attention when it suits their purpose.

[yellowcanine]

65. Tony's problem is that his credibility is shot as a result of association with the lies of the Bush

administration. Lying down with dogs and flea infestations, etc. come to mind.

[jayfish]

78. Iraqi Commander Says British Boats May Not Have Been In Iraqi Territory.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/4657558.html

But the Iraqi military commander of the country's territorial waters said the British boats may not have been in Iraqi territory.

"We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control," Brig. Gen. Hakim Jassim told AP Television News in the southern city of Basra.

"We don't know why they were there. And these British troops were besieged by unknown gunboats, I don't know from where," he said.

Let the drips begin.

Jay

[coalition_unwilling]

83. "The Little Boy who Cried Wolf" -- anyone remember that story???

[AJ9000]

93. Would not surprise me if this was a special ops team carrying out a covert mission.

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. Blair: Efforts to free Navy captives could enter 'different phase'

Now this, on Tuesday morning, is ratcheting up the rhetoric a bit:

'What we are trying to do at the moment is to pursue this through the diplomatic channels and make the Iranian government understand these people have to be released and that there is absolutely no justification whatever for holding them,' said Blair.

'I hope we manage to get them to realise they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase.'

Asked what he meant by a 'different phase,' Blair said: 'Well, we will just have to see, but what they should understand is that we cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized when actually they are in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate, patrolling perfectly rightly and in accordance with that mandate, and then effectively captured and taken to Iran...'

The most important thing is their welfare, I am trying to get this resolved in as diplomatic and sensible a way as possible,' he added.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1283334.php/Blair_Efforts_to_free_Navy_captives_could_enter_different_phase

[Javaman]

113. *cough* * cough* BULLSHIT *cough* *cough* nt

[Richard Steele]

119. So, were they in BRITISH waters?

If not, then what the hell gives the British Navy
the right to be boarding any ships there?

[Megahurtz]

120. Good Point,

which many don't seem to get.

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. United Nations Security Resolution 1723 give them the right for Iraqi waters

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8879.doc.htm

[Richard Steele]

123. Thanks, Muriel!

:hi:

[ShortnFiery]

140. Now CNN is playing up the woman captive. Sick Whorish Media!

:grr: :puke: Yeah, they'll be playing up the rape scenario. :(

[Stella_Artois]

138. The UN

We do respect the UN's mandate don't we ?

Because picking and choosing when or when not to take into account what the UN says is what Bush does too.

[Richard Steele]

142. Thanks, but Muriel Volestrangler already answered my question yesterday. nm

[pokercat999]

131. Sure and the check is in the mail......eom

[ShortnFiery]

139. It's all a "he said, she said" ... So if the Emperors say (Bush and Blair) that the hostages

were in Iraqi waters, that settles it!?!

Well that's a resounding "YES" according to CNN's news model. She's eating up the Pentagon's crony's briefing by Barbara Star. :puke: