# Iran Holding US Sailors



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/politics/10-u-s-sailors-in-iranian-custody/index.html



> U.S. officials say Iran has seized two U.S. Navy boats and detained 10 sailors.
> 
> Ten American sailors are in Iranian custody after two small U.S. naval craft apparently briefly entered Iranian territorial waters, a U.S. senior defense official said Tuesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

From the link: "The official, however, expects the situation to be resolved quickly. A senior administration official said there is nothing to indicate this was anything hostile on the part of any entity in Iran, adding that the U.S. has received high-level assurances that the sailors will be released promptly."

Let's hope so...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

One news agency reported mechanical problems, which caused them to drift into Iranian waters. But it was also reported that these were small Riverine vessels, which would be easy for one to tow the other.

I'll be interested to learn more.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I hope they are released soon. It may require another peace agreement and perhaps another 150 billion or so.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Iran could have easily released them by now. They are making a political statement by doing this. The whole story is weird and we're not being told the whole story. If one boat lost power, the other could have towed it and the chances of 2 breaking down at the same time are remote. Now they're claiming they also lost radio contact. What are the odds? They were likely spying on Iran and now Iran is holding them buying time to check out their electronic equipment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> One news agency reported mechanical problems, which caused them to drift into Iranian waters. But it was also reported that these were *small* Riverine vessels, which would be easy for one to tow the other.
> 
> I'll be interested to learn more.


Outside of combat operations I doubt towing is the first thing they would think of doing, depending on what the "mechanical problem" happened to be.

I've seen no indications of how long they drifted before the Iranian contact, or just how close together the two US vessels were when the breakdown occurred

The boats I saw on TV were at least 40 feet, so not exactly "small"


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Iran could have easily released them by now. They are making a political statement by doing this.


Maybe so, but if an Iranian military boat wandered into our space we would use it to make a political statement too.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Outside of combat operations I doubt towing is the first thing they would think of doing, depending on what the "mechanical problem" happened to be.
> 
> I've seen no indications of how long they drifted before the Iranian contact, or just how close together the two US vessels were when the breakdown occurred
> 
> The boats I saw on TV were at least 40 feet, so not exactly "small"


https://www.google.com/search?q=Riv...xKXKAhVU22MKHbWODR4Q_AUIBygB&biw=1344&bih=684


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

> They are making a political statement by doing this.


For sure and we're making one by being there.

I have a strange feeling, Iran will, for better and worse, end up on the U.S. "best Middle East buddy" list soon, along with old standby Israel. 

We're growing tired of SA, Turkey and the rest. A lot of Corporations will make money off Iran.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> https://www.google.com/search?q=Riv...xKXKAhVU22MKHbWODR4Q_AUIBygB&biw=1344&bih=684


Yes there are lots of different models
The ones they pictured on CBS appeared to be between the size of the first picture and the one with the Helipad


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

we cant afford to lose face right now. we have no friends left in the world and the rest of the world is just waiting to pounce to try to take us down as top dog.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I wonder if Obama will defend his nuclear deal with Iran tonight? With Iran holding 10 US sailors, it's going to be an awkward topic.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I wonder if Obama will defend his nuclear deal with Iran tonight? With Iran holding 10 US sailors, it's going to be an awkward topic.


I think he's just going to pat himself on the back, tell us how bad Americans are, don't hate muslims, I'm the greatest, Americans are too stupid to understand my vision, Guns is good, Global warming is worse than terrorists, so on and so forth


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Kerry started immediately reaching out to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif once he was notified of the incident, according to a senior administration official. When Kerry reached Zarif on the phone, he explained that *the boat had a mechanical problem and that the boat accidentally strayed*. Zarif assured Kerry the sailors were being treated well and would be released.


That "mechanical problem" may have been in the navigation system and not the engines.
(Assuming that story is true at all)
Other reports have stated "radio contact was lost" and then they heard from the Iranians about the seizure.

I don't know of any reason they would be on a spy mission since there's little those boats could detect that couldn't be accomplished with less obvious means such as satellites or drones.

We should know in a few hours. It's 6:40 AM there now, so it should be dawn very soon


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Thank goodness our navy is patrolling our borders to repel invasion. 


Oh, wait. This happened on the other side of the world. 


Just when I thought our military was for national defense, I'm reminded it is to create enemies so we can fight wars and spend more money. Liberals love spending money.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

If there are 10 held hostage plus the previous 4 everyone has forgot about... Time to call in Jimmy Carter.. He has first hand experience with this.

Did the clown in charge bring this up in his SOU speech ? I seem to have misplaced my remote about that time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

I just heard on TV the sailors have been released.
I'm waiting for more details


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

popscott said:


> If there are 10 held hostage plus the previous 4 everyone has forgot about... Time to call in Jimmy Carter.. He has first hand experience with this.
> 
> Did the clown in charge bring this up in his SOU speech ? I seem to have misplaced my remote about that time.


No. 
He intentionally did NOT.
He can write an entire speech about a local shooting and interrupt prime time TV to give it, but something that actually falls under the jurisdiction of Commander-in-Chief, he ignores and wants us to think is unimportant.

Carter didn't handle things well, but at least he wasn't a pathological liar and a narcissist.
If someone can give me a word to describe something of *less* value than "worthless" that can be printed here, I'd appreciate it.
:grumble:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I'm happy for the sailors and their families.
Unfortunately, the only thing LESS trustworthy on the planet than the Iranians, is Obama.
Something........no EVERYTHING about this event smells convenient and staged.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/13/politics/iran-us-sailors/index.html



> (CNN)[Breaking news update at 5:42 a.m. ET]
> 
> A U.S. official said all 10 American sailors captured by Iran are on board the USS Anzio getting initial medical checks.
> 
> ...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> I think *he's just going to pat himself on the back*, tell us how bad Americans are, don't hate muslims, I'm the greatest, Americans are too stupid to understand my vision, Guns is good, Global warming is worse than terrorists, so on and so forth


You were correct...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DJ in WA said:


> Thank goodness our navy is patrolling our borders to repel invasion.
> 
> 
> Oh, wait. This happened on the other side of the world.
> ...



Remember this is a conservative mission don't blame it on the liberals.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cool they are back.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> No.
> He intentionally did NOT.
> He can write an entire speech about a local shooting and interrupt prime time TV to give it, but something that actually falls under the jurisdiction of Commander-in-Chief, he ignores and wants us to think is unimportant.
> 
> ...


Post of the decade award.

10 Sailors are captured & this Idiotincharge makes no mention of it.
Insane.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Don't you mean 10 sailors are captured and quickly released and our president doesn't mention this minor event ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

It would seem that he should be applauded for handling this in an expedititous manner and doing nothing to escalate tensions or hostilities.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> It would seem that he should be applauded for handling this in an expedititous manner and doing nothing to escalate tensions or hostilities.


Did we forget about other 4?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> It would seem that he should be applauded for handling this in an expedititous manner and doing nothing to escalate tensions or hostilities.



Put me in the skeptic category or in with the conspiracy nuts, but as you say, that would normally be the way it would be seen...........

Having observed a few of these hostage takings over the years by Iran (11/4/79 is still a date that I remember every year) this one seemed both bizarre and contrived from the beginning.
The timing was the first thing that struck me as too convenient.
The second thing was the utter confidence from the White House that this would all be over by morning.
Knowing what liars the Iranians are, how much that gov't hates us and Obama's lack of credibility, I came to a different conclusion.

This was a set up from the git-go.
Use a few of out military as pawns, let the Iranians put on a show about how nice and reasonable they are, and do it in the 48 hours that Obama makes his last SOTU speech and the final agreement date for the Iran nuke deal.
Ya gotta admit, if it wasn't planned, it was a most fortuitous act, huh?:hrm:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

The rapid resolution & release gave Iran the high moral ground.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Although the Iranian film crew were doing close ups as the squad commander apologized for entering their territorial waters on the wide angle views of the footage at the interview, the U.S, sailor making the statement and two others I noticed appeared to be holding their hands in the same finger positions which may be the current captive performing under duress hand signal as I am sure the services update their signals periodically and some were made public knowledge as some of our military personnel flashed the signs when ordered to shake hands with politicians they didn't support for campaign photo ops over the past decade or so.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Did they ever say why two small boats were that far out to sea with no escort?

If the boats had mechanical problems, how did they sail away after being released? Did the Iranians repair the problems?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

At this point I have more questions than answers. Really feel that there is way more to the story than reported, probably will never get the whole story though.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> At this point I have more questions than answers. Really feel that there is way more to the story than reported, probably will never get the whole story though.


I agree. I don't know what was going on, but what they're telling right now doesn't pass the smell test.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

The administration did an excellent job of handling this situation.No one got hurt.:clap:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wwubben said:


> The administration did an excellent job of handling this situation.No one got hurt.:clap:


Yes, you are right, and everyone being safe is the important thing. But that doesn't help the circumstances pass the smell test.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Did they ever say why two small boats were that far out to sea with no escort?
> 
> If the boats had mechanical problems, how did they sail away after being released? Did the Iranians repair the problems?


It may have been a minor problem and it appears the main problem was navigational


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAN_US_NAVY_BOATS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


> Defense chief: US sailors made navigational error in Iran
> Associated Press Â· 1 hour ago
> ... said Thursday it appears a navigational error caused the crews of two Navy boats to stray into Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf
> 
> The navigational error cited by Carter was compounded by some sort of engine trouble aboard one of the boats, another U.S. defense official said. The engine problem did not cause the boats to go off course but apparently prevented them from evading the Iranians once the crews realized they were inside Iran's territorial waters.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Perhaps the small vessels drifted in so that the Iranians could find something hidden on one of the vessels similar to what opened records have revealed about the U2 piloted by Powers that was taken down over Russia during the Cold War to attempt to gather intelligence by even allowing an operative to be captured to get closer n the spy game .

From what I saw in the paper the Iranians towed the small vessels to their territorial water limit and turned them over to larger U.S. vessels after they inspected both small craft.

It would not surprise me if the captured vessels contained misinformation intelligence or possibly advanced nano tracking technology or such.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

*



he's just going to pat himself on the back,

Click to expand...

*Well, he is a Politician.

Regardless, one must wonder, if this situation would have been resolved, so quickly (and safely), if the world, had *not* had the recent nuclear arms and sanctions agreement, in place.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Something doesn't smell right. What were such small boats doing out there? Why were they inside Iran's waters? 

It is wonderful that our sailors were released quickly and unharmed. However I saw photos of them on their knees at gunpoint, which is in violation of international law or treaty to be treated that way. The commander apologized and apparently this video was broadcast on Iranian tv. It is against the code of conduct for a captured soldier to do this. So was he threatened/coerced into it? And then the Iranians are thanked profusely and praised for their handling of the situation, making us look stupid and weak. 

So I'm glad for the sailors they came out all right, but they way it was handled and what we are being told about it are not worthy of praise.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Something doesn't smell right. What were such small boats doing out there? Why were they inside Iran's waters?


I agree... where were the rest of the boats... Does our Navy let boats float around loose unaccounted for? Do we let our Navy personal get captured unopposed? It just does not smell right at all.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Sound's like it time, for yet another _Congressional Investigation_.

Hillary just _must_ have something to do with this.

Time is running out.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

popscott said:


> I agree... where were the rest of the boats... Does our Navy let boats float around loose unaccounted for? Do we let our Navy personal get captured unopposed? It just does not smell right at all.



Answers 
In the sea. 
Yes
No.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> Answers
> In the sea.
> Yes
> No.


Agree.

Since the boats did not appear, to have _fishing poles_ on them, it's probably safe to assume, this was some type of Military operation.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

popscott said:


> I agree... where were the rest of the boats... Does our Navy let boats float around loose unaccounted for? Do we let our Navy personal get captured unopposed? It just does not smell right at all.


They were on a scheduled mission from Kuwait to Bahrain. They weren't out joyriding. They were reported missing when they missed a scheduled refueling stop. They were being accounted for. They strayed into Iranian territorial waters due to, seemingly, human error. Yes, sometimes surrendering to a superior force when you know you're in the wrong and have violated another country's territory is the proper response. All incidents shouldn't escalate into a shooting war. Diplomats get paid to resolve these things peacefully. Sometimes people make mistakes and things are just as they seem to be.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

popscott said:


> If there are 10 held hostage plus the previous 4 everyone has forgot about...


I don't suppose those 4 being released changes anything.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-dual-nationality-prisoners-released/


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I don't suppose those 4 being released changes anything.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-dual-nationality-prisoners-released/


That was a prisoner swap, from what I heard for 6 or 7 Iranians held by the US.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> I don't suppose those 4 being released changes anything.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-dual-nationality-prisoners-released/


Yea, it does change the lives of the freed people... It is called freedom... Welcome to America. Sorry to inconvenience the administration and its insane quest to become the leading financier of terrorism AGAINST America in the world.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

popscott said:


> Yea, it does change the lives of the freed people... It is called freedom... Welcome to America. Sorry to inconvenience the administration and its insane quest to become the leading financier of terrorism AGAINST America in the world.


And I thought you were going to praise the Obama administration...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I don't suppose those 4 being released changes anything.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-dual-nationality-prisoners-released/



No, it shouldn't change anything.
They are one of our worst enemies and we are still the "Great Satan".

The fact that they were held for even one day and Iran isn't a smoldering pile of ash, means that NOTHING has changed.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

plowjockey said:


> Agree.
> 
> Since the boats did not appear, to have _fishing poles_ on them, it's probably safe to assume, this was some type of Military operation.


possibly a manufactured event to make it easier to sell the Iranian Nuclear deal to Congress. Two boats both breaking down. I am skeptical.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> No, it shouldn't change anything.
> They are one of our worst enemies and we are still the "Great Satan".
> 
> The fact that they were held for even one day and Iran isn't a smoldering pile of ash, means that NOTHING has changed.


So we should have bombed the entire country to a smoldering pile of ash? Except the location where the people were being held, of course. How nuanced. I'm sure that would have ended terrorism.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> So we should have bombed the entire country to a smoldering pile of ash? Except the location where the people were being held, of course. How nuanced. I'm sure that would have ended terrorism.


We made a deal with a president who promised to end terrorism once before. All he asked for was authorization to use military force, unlimited funds to prosecute a war, and to be able to ignore Americans' constitutional rights. It seemed like a small enough price to put an end to terrorism.

The problem is that it didn't end terrorism. In fact terrorism got worse. Not only that, but we got stuck with trillions of dollars in debt, and we never got our constitutional rights back.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Declan said:


> possibly a manufactured event to make it easier to sell the Iranian Nuclear deal to Congress. * Two boats both breaking down*. I am skeptical.


Maybe they just got caught, where they were not supposed to be.

I'd make up an excuse.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> So we should have bombed the entire country to a smoldering pile of ash? Except the location where the people were being held, of course. How nuanced. I'm sure that would have ended terrorism.


Yes.......in 1979.
Obviously this incident in 2016 and others wouldn't have happened.



Nevada said:


> We made a deal with a president who promised to end terrorism once before. All he asked for was authorization to use military force, unlimited funds to prosecute a war, and to be able to ignore Americans' constitutional rights. It seemed like a small enough price to put an end to terrorism.
> 
> The problem is that it didn't end terrorism. In fact terrorism got worse. Not only that, but we got stuck with trillions of dollars in debt, and we never got our constitutional rights back.


Exactly.
Now try what DOES work.
As Churchill said, "You can always count on America to do the right thing , after they've tried everything else."


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes.......in 1979.
> Obviously this incident in 2016 and others wouldn't have happened.
> 
> 
> ...


It's likely had we gone to war with Iran in 1979 a lot of things wouldn't have happened. Arms for hostages for example. But it sure would have been fun seeing the Soviet response. Tehran might not have been the only smoldering ruin.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> The fact that they were held for even one day and Iran isn't a smoldering pile of ash, means that NOTHING has changed.


 Some folks like to lash out and break things, which generally makes the problem worse. 
Thankfully, hotheaded lunacy like turning Iran into a 'smoldering pile of ash' is one option the President passed on.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Nevada said:


> We made a deal with a president who promised to end terrorism once before. All he asked for was authorization to use military force, unlimited funds to prosecute a war, and to be able to ignore Americans' constitutional rights. It seemed like a small enough price to put an end to terrorism.
> 
> The problem is that it didn't end terrorism. *In fact terrorism got worse.* .


 Yeah, thats what many of us said would happen, but we were labeled as unpatriotic for not going along with the neocon nitwits and thier evil schemes to sow chaos and loot the treasury.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yep.
The "what if" game has an infinite amount of outcomes.
"What if" we had continued to stay out of WWII?
That's what Churchill was referring to BTW.

Maybe the aggressors would have just stopped and made nice?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> No, it shouldn't change anything.
> They are one of our worst enemies and we are still the "Great Satan".
> 
> The fact that they were held for even one day and I*ran isn't a smoldering pile of ash, *means that NOTHING has changed.


No wonder they don't like the US with attitudes like that


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

HHHHHMMMMMMMM..

Now comes the disturbing revelation, apparently delivered by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, that the Obama administration tipped off the Iranians that our soldiers were lost at sea and requested their aid.

http://conservativetribune.com/defe...utm_campaign=DailyBest&utm_content=2016-01-16

http://100percentfedup.com/bombshel...ama-regime-led-iran-to-u-s-navy-boats-video/#

http://patriotupdate.com/woah-defen...obama-admin-led-iran-straight-to-our-sailors/


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> The "what if" game has an infinite amount of outcomes.
> "What if" we had continued to stay out of WWII?
> That's what Churchill was referring to BTW.
> ...


Says the person who started the what if game.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

popscott said:


> HHHHHMMMMMMMM..
> 
> Now comes the disturbing revelation, apparently delivered by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, that the Obama administration tipped off the Iranians that our soldiers were lost at sea and requested their aid.
> 
> ...



Disturbing ?

Are you disturbed they made good choices and it turned out well ?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

popscott said:


> HHHHHMMMMMMMM..
> 
> Now comes the disturbing revelation, apparently delivered by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, that the Obama administration tipped off the Iranians that our soldiers were lost at sea and requested their aid.
> 
> ...


Silly rabbit, that's Bush's fault........


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

popscott said:


> HHHHHMMMMMMMM..
> 
> Now comes the disturbing revelation, apparently delivered by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, that the Obama administration tipped off the Iranians that our soldiers were lost at sea and requested their aid.
> 
> ...


Living in a world, ruled by _unsubstantiated rhetoric_, seems more disturbing, but it is, what it is.



> The news came from Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, during an interview on TheBlazeâs Dana Loesch shortly after Iranâs arrest of the sailors had come to light.
> 
> 
> âI understand that (Secretary of State) John Kerry has indicated, look, when he got word, he and Ash Carter called the Iranians to help take care of our Navy guys, because they had some mechanical problems,â Gohmert said.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Living in a world, ruled by _unsubstantiated rhetoric_, seems more disturbing, but it is, what it is.


If you are going to quote Gohmert, at least try and get it ALL....

Your above quote should have included the rest...
âWhen our Navy ships have problems, we donât call Iran. We call the rest of the Navy. We can call the Air Force, the Army, the Marines, Coast Guard. We donât call Iran,â Gohmert said.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

A senior Iranian military commander in charge of the country&#8217;s Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed that the 10 U.S. sailors who were recently captured and subsequently released by the Islamic Republic &#8220;started crying after [their] arrest,&#8221; according to Persian language comments made during military celebrations this weekend.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-american-sailors-started-crying-after-arrest/


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

popscott said:


> If you are going to quote Gohmert, at least try and get it ALL....
> 
> Your above quote should have included the rest...
> &#8220;When our Navy ships have problems, we don&#8217;t call Iran. We call the rest of the Navy. We can call the Air Force, the Army, the Marines, Coast Guard. We don&#8217;t call Iran,&#8221; Gohmert said.


My point was that his _comment_ was unsubstantiated, but it really didn't matter.

At one time, we used to be interested in what is true and factual.

Now we only care about what sound's good.

I agree 100% with you and him both, on your quote above, which, coincidentally, contradicts his original comment.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

It's all a big joke. The whole story stinks. With our modern navigational and communications equipment, if 2 of these boats can get lost that easily, we have bigger problems. Then Iran films these guys for propaganda purposes, which is illegal under the Geneva Convention, and Kerry gives them a pass by saying they don't have to obey the Geneva Convention because they did not sign it. Then we learn the "prisoner" exchange was made only after the US promised not to implement new sanctions supposed to be levied on Iran for violating a UN resolution in testing missiles recently. Those people Iran were not "prisoners". They were hostages and Iran got what they wanted for them. Now a story today says 4 or 5 Americans (not soldiers) were captured by an Islamic militia in Baghdad today. The word is out, grab some Americans and the US will give you anything you want. Our government should inform the public that anyone traveling to that part of the world who is not working for our military or other government agency is completely on their own.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

poppy said:


> Our government should inform the public that anyone traveling to that part of the world who is not working for our military or other government agency is completely on their own.


From what I'm seeing from this corrupt administration.. it really does not matter even if you are in the military.. You are on your own because this group will leave your rear out there if it will hurt their image.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

popscott said:


> From what I'm seeing from this corrupt administration.. it really does not matter even if you are in the military.. You are on your own because this group will leave your rear out there if it will hurt their image.


Seriously? I'm reminded of Obama's effort to bring Bergdahl home, vowing to leave no American behind in Afghanistan. Conservatives wanted to leave him behind.

But the State Department issues travel advisories for unstable destinations.

_The Department of State warns U.S. citizens to carefully consider the risks of travel to Iran._
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/iran-travel-warning.html


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

poppy said:


> It's all a big joke. The whole story stinks. With our modern navigational and communications equipment, if 2 of these boats can get lost that easily, we have bigger problems. Then Iran films these guys for propaganda purposes, which is illegal under the Geneva Convention, and Kerry gives them a pass by saying they don't have to obey the Geneva Convention because they did not sign it. Then we learn the "prisoner" exchange was made only after the US promised not to implement new sanctions supposed to be levied on Iran for violating a UN resolution in testing missiles recently. Those people Iran were not "prisoners". They were hostages and Iran got what they wanted for them. Now a story today says 4 or 5 Americans (not soldiers) were captured by an Islamic militia in Baghdad today. The word is out, grab some Americans and the US will give you anything you want. Our government should inform the public that anyone traveling to that part of the world who is not working for our military or other government agency is completely on their own.


Post of the day award.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Seriously? I'm reminded of Obama's effort to bring Bergdahl home, vowing to leave no American behind in Afghanistan. Conservatives wanted to leave him behind.


Are you suggesting these 10 sailors deserted their post and were trying to defect to Iran?
Or were you overlooking important details in your comparison?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Are you suggesting these 10 sailors deserted their post and were trying to defect to Iran?


I'm saying that Obama has shown his commitment to not leave anyone behind, regardless of the circumstances.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Seriously? I'm reminded of Obama's effort to bring Bergdahl home, vowing to leave no American behind in Afghanistan. Conservatives wanted to leave him behind.


You and I obviously have a different view of what happened with Bergdahl.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

popscott said:


> You and I obviously have a different view of what happened with Bergdahl.


Look, the suggestion was made that Obama's actions show that overseas Americans are on their own, even people in the military. I replied that Obama has a history of leaving nobody behind.

From reading this thread it's apparent that a conservative leader would have left Bergdahl behind, as well as the people who were just released from Iran. It looks like conservatives would leave lots of overseas Americans on their own.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Look, the suggestion was made that Obama's actions show that overseas Americans are on their own, even people in the military. I replied that Obama has a history of leaving nobody behind.
> 
> From reading this thread it's apparent that a conservative leader would have left Bergdahl behind, as well as the people who were just released from Iran. It looks like conservatives would leave lots of overseas Americans on their own.


Maybe it's better to discern the difference in every circumstance instead of assuming all who want to come here are coming with good intent.

Another consideration is whether the person's actions are selfish or putting others at risk, intentional or not.
Don't forget the trades that were made in getting some of these back.
While an innocent American's life is worth saving, trades like those from GITMO should not be done.
Every time you pay a ransom, no matter what the barter is, you encourage more of the same.
It may look like kindness, but it's foolishness.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Remember this is a conservative mission don't blame it on the liberals.


Conservative means you want to conserve money and you want limited government. People like Farmrbrown are liberals, because they want to expand government power, forcibly take trillions of dollars from citizens and redistribute the welfare to defense contractors. Liberals like welfare. As Voltaire said, "War is the health of the state."

People like Farmrbrown also share the muslim hatred of Christianity. Christ taught us to love our enemies, but Farmrbrown is against that and wants to create enemies by bombing as much as possible. The secular leaders we've removed were relatively friendly to Christians, but people like Farmrbrown wanted them removed so Christians would be persecuted and would have to flee, as happened in Iraq.

If you were really a conservative Christian, you would do as Jesus said - look at the mote in your own eye. We accuse our enemies of being savages while we are killing thousands with our bombs. Jesus hated hypocrites.

Liberals like Farmrbrown believe in using government to solve all our problems. He worships government just like all those who call themselves liberal. So he is one.




> âThere is nothing conservative about war. For at least the last century war has been the herald and handmaid of socialism and state control. It is the excuse for censorship, organized lying, regulation and taxation. It is paradise for the busybody and the nark. It damages family life and wounds the Church. It is, in short, the ally of everything summed up by the ugly word âprogress.'â *- Peter Hitchens*


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

I would be interested to hear from Farmrbrown and others.

We are to fear Iran, but it appears that we have been a bigger threat to them.

Could you explain why in 1953 we installed the Shah in Iran (Operation Ajax), and helped train his secret police, SAVAK, to torture any opposition?

Why did we support Saddam in his war against Iran? Including support to his WMD program. He used chemical weapons against Iran, killing 100,000 or so. CIA jokes, "Of course Saddam had WMDs. We have the receipts!"

Why did our ship go into Iranian waters and shoot down an Iranian airliner with 290 on board?

Why do we have to impose sanctions to cripple Iran's economy? How would we respond if someone did that to us?

Why are we more concerned about Iran that has no nukes, than with N. Korea which does have nukes and makes threats against us? Do you also recommend bombing N. Korea?

Thank you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DJ in WA said:


> I would be interested to hear from Farmrbrown and others.
> 
> We are to fear Iran, but it appears that we have been a bigger threat to them.
> 
> ...


Understand that we're conditioned to fear certain groups and have outrage at certain atrocities. Normally the government makes press releases about who we're supposed to fear and hate, which makes easy news to reprint for the media.

There is no reason to fear Iran any more than North Korea, and there's no reason to have more outrage over ISIS than for Boko Haram. But we don't have economic interests in the areas that Boko Haram operates in, and we have no economic interest in North Korea.

So the government tells us who to hate and fear, and we go along with it. Evidently conservatives frighten easily, so they lead the charge.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

DJ in WA said:


> Conservative means you want to conserve money and you want limited government. People like Farmrbrown are liberals, because they want to expand government power, forcibly take trillions of dollars from citizens and redistribute the welfare to defense contractors. Liberals like welfare. As Voltaire said, "War is the health of the state."
> 
> People like Farmrbrown also share the muslim hatred of Christianity. Christ taught us to love our enemies, but Farmrbrown is against that and wants to create enemies by bombing as much as possible. The secular leaders we've removed were relatively friendly to Christians, but people like Farmrbrown wanted them removed so Christians would be persecuted and would have to flee, as happened in Iraq.
> 
> ...


Wow, that farmrbrown guy sounds like a NUT!
I wish he was in favor of smaller government (like eliminating at least HALF of what we have) , Isolationism so we stay home and MYOB, and only fighting when we're attacked - but then will full force.
I could agree with that kind of guy.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

DJ in WA said:


> I would be interested to hear from Farmrbrown and others.
> 
> We are to fear Iran, but it appears that we have been a bigger threat to them.
> 
> ...


Why?
Stupidity and greed would be my guess.
Most of that occurred before I was born and before I was an adult.
The first time I heard of Iran was in 1979.
I DID learn about the Shah and what happened to lead to that mess.
The only exposure I had about the Middle East back then was watching my parents struggle thru the oil embargo and the early years of OPEC.
I learned some of the politics involved and knew that it hurt our country no matter who was trying to justify any of it.
Did I spend most of my adult life trying to prevent it or change it?
Oh yeah. Obviously I failed.
I still have the same attitude of my youth, summed up as "Don't tread on me". I just spend less time believing gov't will change their ways.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Wow, that farmrbrown guy sounds like a NUT!
> 
> I wish he was in favor of smaller government (like eliminating at least HALF of what we have) , Isolationism so we stay home and MYOB, and only fighting when we're attacked - but then will full force.
> 
> I could agree with that kind of guy.



Wow that does sound good.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Wow, that farmrbrown guy sounds like a NUT!
> I wish he was in favor of smaller government (like eliminating at least HALF of what we have) , Isolationism so we stay home and MYOB, and only fighting when we're attacked - but then will full force.
> I could agree with that kind of guy.


Yea I'm confused also.... I am not sure I've ever seen any of your posts that reflect those ideas?????


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Wow, that farmrbrown guy sounds like a NUT!
> I wish he was in favor of smaller government (like eliminating at least HALF of what we have) , Isolationism so we stay home and MYOB, and only fighting when we're attacked - but then will full force.
> I could agree with that kind of guy.


Okay, I'm a little slow, so maybe you can clear things up.

Are you saying you actually want much smaller government, and want to MYOB, and only fight when we're attacked?

If so, I'm confused as to why you wanted Iran reduced to ashes. Doing so would require bigger government and much more spending. And Iran has not attacked us.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

DJ in WA said:


> Okay, I'm a little slow, so maybe you can clear things up.
> 
> Are you saying you actually want much smaller government, and want to MYOB, and only fight when we're attacked?
> 
> If so, I'm confused as to why you wanted Iran reduced to ashes. Doing so would require bigger government and much more spending. And Iran has not attacked us.


Because I don't tolerate a country taking over our embassy, which is invading American soil under the law, and holding Americans hostage.
They should have been given no more than 3 days in November of 1979 to release and retreat.
Reducing them to ashes would have taken one B-52, which we already own and a day of fuel and flight time.
I don't see that as an increase in bigger government, rather money well spent.
Hope that helps to make things clear.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Because I don't tolerate a country taking over our embassy, which is invading American soil under the law, and holding Americans hostage.
> They should have been given no more than 3 days in November of 1979 to release and retreat.
> Reducing them to ashes would have taken one B-52, which we already own and a day of fuel and flight time.
> I don't see that as an increase in bigger government, rather money well spent.
> Hope that helps to make things clear.


So when you say reduce "them" to ashes, who are you talking about? Just dropping one conventional bomb, or nuking the whole country? I assume you would not want to commit genocide, as you made a comment supporting our war against Hitler. Wouldn't want to be like him.

Are you accounting for the backlash from our bombing in your cost analysis? Because there are always unintended consequences of nearly all government action.

Now you say it is unacceptable for Iran to invade our embassy. But they did so after we invaded their soil and staged a coup, installing a dictator, the Shah, and helped establish his intelligence agency, the SAVAK, which killed and tortured and imprisoned any opposition until they finally revolted and took our hostages. They knew we were behind it all.

So despite all we did to them, you are saying they still deserved to be reduced to ashes?

Here is some reading on how SAVAK treated Iranians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK



> *SAVAK* was the secret police, domestic security and intelligence service established by Iran's Mohammad Reza Shah with the help of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (the CIA) and Israel. SAVAK operated from 1957 to 1979, when the prime minister Shapour Bakhtiar ordered its dissolve during the outbreak of Iranian Revolution. SAVAK has been described as Iran's "most hated and feared institution" prior to the revolution of 1979 because of its practice of torturing and executing opponents of the Pahlavi regime.
> --------------------
> Brute force was supplemented with the bastinado; sleep deprivation; extensive solitary confinement; glaring searchlights; standing in one place for hours on end; nail extractions; snakes (favored for use with women); electrical shocks with cattle prods, often into the rectum; cigarette burns; sitting on hot grills; acid dripped into nostrils; near-drownings; mock executions; and an electric chair with a large metal mask to muffle screams while amplifying them for the victim. This latter contraption was dubbed the Apollo&#8212;an allusion to the American space capsules. Prisoners were also humiliated by being raped, urinated on, and forced to stand naked. Despite the new 'scientific' methods, the torture of choice remained the traditional bastinado used to beat soles of the feet.
> ------------------------------
> Sources disagree over how many victims SAVAK had and how inhumane its techniques were. Writing at the time of the Shah's overthrow, TIME magazine described SAVAK as having "long been Iran's most hated and feared institution" which had "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents." The Federation of American Scientists also found it guilty of "the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners" and symbolizing "the Shah's rule from 1963-79." The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails."


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Thanks for the history lesson.
Let's not go back to WWI and the Ottoman Turks, all of that history is known to me. My ignorance was when I was a child, I'm now an adult and know all about our meddling in the Middle East for the last 100 years.

We were bad to them.
Now that I've made that statement, you can quit trying to "educate" the educated.

It was their choice what to do about it, and if we had it coming, maybe they should have reduced US to ashes.
I guess they missed that boat, huh?

However, if you think because I'm educated on our past misdeeds, that I am willing to allow Iranians to attack us in 1979 or Saudis to attack us in 2001, you have misjudged me.
I said I wouldn't tolerate it and I meant it.
I had nothing to do with the decisions made before I was born or when I was a child, I can only decide what to do with the ones that occur in my adult lifetime.
If a country attacks us or to put it in personal terms, if someone attacks my family or myself, they get ONE FIRM WARNING, and that's it.

They don't get a detailed description of exactly what, when or where the hammer is coming from, they had just better run for their lives.

I don't know if that makes me a liberal or a conservative and I don't care. There comes a point in time when the talking ends and action is all that's left.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Well you can't expect them to just forget because that was " so five minutes ago"!


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Thanks for the history lesson.
> Let's not go back to WWI and the Ottoman Turks, all of that history is known to me. My ignorance was when I was a child, I'm now an adult and know all about our meddling in the Middle East for the last 100 years.
> 
> We were bad to them.
> ...


What you're saying is that if a guy comes in your house and tortures and murders your kid, and you go to his house and take him hostage, then set him free, you deserve to die, and he can be let go. And we are not to discuss him torturing and murdering your kid. Does not matter because that is history.

The U.S. trespassed, set up conditions for torture and murder, Iranians retaliated by taking our hostages, set them free, and you say they should be reduced to ashes. And we are not to discuss the reasons the Iranians retaliated against us.

And since then, we have continued to trespass and kill, and will continue to do so, and the only thing you care about is exacting revenge when they retaliate. All our actions are to be forgotten immediately, then repeated. 

DO NOT BRING UP THE PAST!!!!

I'm done with this. Actually makes me sick to see what we have done, and will continue to do. Make enemies, spend money.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

DJ in WA said:


> What you're saying is that if a guy comes in your house and tortures and murders your kid, and you go to his house and take him hostage, then set him free, you deserve to die, and he can be let go. And we are not to discuss him torturing and murdering your kid. Does not matter because that is history.
> 
> The U.S. trespassed, set up conditions for torture and murder, Iranians retaliated by taking our hostages, set them free, and you say they should be reduced to ashes. And we are not to discuss the reasons the Iranians retaliated against us.
> 
> ...



No.........
To correct your analogy, if a guy came in my dad's house and tortured him before I was born, if I kidnapped that guy's kids when I grew up, I would expect to go to prison.
This reminds me of the Middle East revenge cycle of bringing Abraham into it.
It's fine to go over the history for understanding the anger, but it's what you do with your life today and tomorrow that counts. That's what your accountable for, in my opinion.
You can angrily lecture me on my ancestors deeds and all I can for it is apologize.
If you want to take it further and say you have a right to harm me because of it, go ahead.
It won't end well.

If the guy that did the crime is still around, yes, I'd try to make him pay for what he did.
If he's dead and buried, I'd let it go, not try and hurt his kids who had nothing to do with it.

Of course what you're talking about is bigger than one or two families, one crime and arguably still going on today.
If I make it all stop, I would, but I can't.
I never signed up for it and never went over there and harmed anyone.
I only advise that if they are harmed, they go after the ones responsible and leave me and mine alone.
Good advice, if it's heeded.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> No.........
> To correct your analogy, if a guy came in my dad's house and tortured him before I was born, if I kidnapped that guy's kids when I grew up, I would expect to go to prison.
> This reminds me of the Middle East revenge cycle of bringing Abraham into it.
> It's fine to go over the history for understanding the anger, but it's what you do with your life today and tomorrow that counts. That's what your accountable for, in my opinion.
> ...



America Did it. 
Thank goodness America isn't dead and gone. 
So the timeline part of your analogy doesn't work. 

Where do we go from here ?
I think not being places we are not wanted is a good first step.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Thanks for the history lesson.
> Let's not go back to WWI and the Ottoman Turks, all of that history is known to me. My ignorance was when I was a child, I'm now an adult and know all about our meddling in the Middle East for the last 100 years.
> 
> We were bad to them.
> ...


It could be said that the Iranian "student" who took control of the embassy and the hostages were attacking those who caused and were at least somewhat complicit in the Shah's rise and abuses. That being the US government. They had one major demand for the hostage's release. The return of the Shah to face charges for what he had alledgedly overseen in the abuses on certain sectors of his populace. Fast forward about 25 years and we invaded another country and destroyed its civil and physical infrastructure to deliver to the people there a leader who had done much the same as the Shah. One we refused to surrender because it wasn't "right". One we did in the name of righteousness. Neither worked out so well. I'm not sure what the lesson should be.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> America Did it.
> Thank goodness America isn't dead and gone.
> So the timeline part of your analogy doesn't work.
> 
> ...


The timeline for ME certainly DOES work.
I had nothing to do with it and wouldn't have gone along had I been there.
And yes, the lesson is clear.......



mmoetc said:


> It could be said that the Iranian "student" who took control of the embassy and the hostages were attacking those who caused and were at least somewhat complicit in the Shah's rise and abuses. That being the US government. They had one major demand for the hostage's release. The return of the Shah to face charges for what he had alledgedly overseen in the abuses on certain sectors of his populace. Fast forward about 25 years and we invaded another country and destroyed its civil and physical infrastructure to deliver to the people there a leader who had done much the same as the Shah. One we refused to surrender because it wasn't "right". One we did in the name of righteousness. Neither worked out so well. I'm not sure what the lesson should be.



.............


> I think not being places we are not wanted is a good first step.


----------

