What to do about Iran? Options

[Hartmann]

Not us of course... What should Britain do about Iran if they refuse to turn over their sailors and marines? I personally think a good warning of "You have seven days, then your only refinery that produces gas will mysteriously stop working, if they aren't returned after that, then seven days later all ports will be cut off"

I think the facts are pretty clear, no matter what the Iranians say. They first gave a point of capture within Iraqi waters, then changed their minds and said it was a point within Iranian waters.


[edit]I don't know why this got posted in Local, Campus, and Techsan Events[/edit]

[woody]

bush should pull the troops out of iraq





then send them to Iran to piss off the Dems

[schwab]

i was looking into a ski trip there next christmas

but i assume this thread isnt about that

and i hope they wouldnt do anything to the refineries....that would suck

[Hartmann]

and i hope they wouldnt do anything to the refineries....that would suck

Not for us, not for the Brits... Just for the Iranians. Iran already doesn't produce enough gasoline for the country, they import most of the refined stuff.

[cupcake]

kidding...but not really.

everyone knows Iran wants to use this deal as political leverage, and if the Throne tries a diplomatic solution they are essentially giving merit to acts of terrorism...albeit a nation state type of terror tactic. unprovoked kidnapping is terrorism. period.

don't give them a timeline. send in the SAS and let them do what they do far better than anyone on earth. leave a big smoking hole and secure the captives. Not a full-scale 'big army' invasion...an unapologetic clandestine raid. like 20 minutes on the objective type of deal. the sheer psychological impact of these types of raids are hard to measure due to the lack of embeds and CNN's nosey ass, but they are severe.

after that, Hartmann's plan sounds pretty good too.

[pebkac]

Yeah, I'd support the blockade idea. And I would support US assistance in the mission.

[Testm0nkey]

i was looking into a ski trip there next christmas

is that a smart idea?

[Hartmann]

Yeah, I'd support the blockade idea. And I would support US assistance in the mission.

I don't know how I feel about U.S. assistance.... I think I would support logistical but that's about it.

The world needs to understand that this isn't an imperialistic setup and that this is Iran's fault, so the further the U.S. can stay away, the better (IMO)

[pysex]

1. The U.S. SHOULD NOT be involved in any military action against Iran.....at this time.

2. Great Britain should, as cupcake put it, "leave a big smoking hole". To me, kidnapping any troops and making threats is an act of war.

3. Schwab....it was nice knowing you bud.

[cupcake]

we have enough irons in the fire as-is, and our reputation is on the downhill slide.

last thing we need it to get wrapped up in trying to get England her troops back. fuck that.

the Brits are badasses and less lilly-livered than us anyways...they can handle it.
______________

I get this feeling that Schwab's familiarity with UAE has given him an unhealthy sense of confidence in regards to the ME.

I don't know when the last time he was over was, but the ME is a changed place from 4 years ago...I mean UAE is still nice, but why anyone would want to vacation in a hostile country like Iran is beyond me.

[schwab]

we have enough irons in the fire as-is, and our reputation is on the downhill slide.

last thing we need it to get wrapped up in trying to get England her troops back. fuck that.

the Brits are badasses and less lilly-livered than us anyways...they can handle it.
______________

I get this feeling that Schwab's familiarity with UAE has given him an unhealthy sense of confidence in regards to the ME.

I don't know when the last time he was over was, but the ME is a changed place from 4 years ago...I mean UAE is still nice, but why anyone would want to vacation in a hostile country like Iran is beyond me.

2 months ago

either way, ive known quite a few americans that have gone there to go skiing, the people for the most part have no problem with americans....but either way, i doubt i will be going by the way things are escalating...we couldnt get things worked out this last christmas so it probably wont happen

[cupcake]

you went to iran 2 months ago?

or you went to UAE 2 months ago?

[Testm0nkey]

aside from general hatred of america, the violence, brink of war by going skiing there you are paying to spend time there. its like humanitarians going to resorts in Burma for vacation

[Aaron]

It's been a bad month for Iran and (hopefully) it will get a lot worse.

First the UN resolution geared towards stopping their efforts to enrich uranium, and now the dumbfucks capture British troops (according to all accounts except the Iranians) in Iraqi waters.

It's like they're jumping up and down and squealing in a high pitched voice, "Attack us! Attack us!"

I give it a week, maybe two. If Iran doesn't free the troops by then, Britain will get them herself. I just don't see Blair issuing a sham apology just so the dumbass Iranians can save face.

[Mommy]

[FORSAKENR320]

I AGREE WITH CUPCAKE


send in some people that know how to raise hell who's only job is to be belligerant and raise hell, and don't try to restrict them with any rules or honorable forms of combat. scare the living shit outta that country and make it tear it's self apart.

[Seussninja]

NUKE THEM BACVK TO THE STONE AGE GIT R DUN

[cupcake]

wow...

breeching their defense and seizing their troops is the same thing as destroying their country....

no doubt.

[Seussninja]

well you asked me

[cupcake]

silly gun totin' redneck!

[Seussninja]

silly gun totin' redneck!

In reality i'd prefer to stay out of it until we're provoked into it but I guess i'm just a stupid liberal hippie hippie for not wanting anybody else to die over trite things like cultural perception and religion.

[pysex]

wow...

breeching their defense and seizing their troops is the same thing as destroying their country....

no doubt.

we just have to treat it like the elian gonzalez case....


maybe janet reno should plan the attack

[cupcake]

In reality i'd prefer to stay out of it until we're provoked into it but I guess i'm just a stupid liberal hippie hippie for not wanting anybody else to die over trite things like cultural perception and religion.

god forever the martyr...

I don't think this particular situation really has shit to do with religion. if someone kidnapped your sister, you'd just sit there?

makes sense.

the questions was what should the british do. not us.

[chook]

Your are right cupcake, not an excuse to invade, but to raid and get those troops back.

[Mommy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_...ea/iran_britain

[Mommy]

I think this needs to be a lesson to the US...keep our soldiers a safe distance from the reach of Iran. I know we need to keep a careful eye on them, but Iran is just waiting for the US to fall into their trap like these British troops did. This is a game for Iran... see how much they can get away with. We dont need this situation to escalate to more...like a war

Thats just my two cents.

[cupcake]

a shame, but not unforeseen.

POWs (which is what they arguably are) are often coerced to admit untruths or make statements they don't fully believe. McCain did it.

[GOB]

britain is probably super fucking pissed now. this is going to get interesting.

[Mommy]

a shame, but not unforeseen.

POWs (which is what they arguably are) are often coerced to admit untruths or make statements they don't fully believe. McCain did it.

Interesting you say that because I just read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_..._terror_hearing

[Mommy]

ok so I have a question because Im just now reading news on this:

Were the soldiers in international territory or Iran territory?

[pysex]

ok so I have a question because Im just now reading news on this:

Were the soldiers in international territory or Iran territory?

England is saying they were in Iraqi waters. Iran is saying they were in Iranian waters.


Since Iran has pulled this kind of shit in the past....I believe the soldiers were in Iraqi waters CLOSE to Iranian waters and the Iranian military just swooped in and picked them up.

[Seeker]

i'll bet someone $100 bucks that the us attacks iran late next week or early the week after

[Mommy]

i'll bet someone $100 bucks that the us attacks iran late next week or early the week after

I'll take that bet

[Hartmann]

The Iranians told the British that the sailors were captured at a certain set of coordinates, the British checked the coordinates and replied "but those coordinates are inside of Iraqi waters"... The Iranians then gave them another set of coordinates that was just inside of their waters.

[Hartmann]

P.S. - at what point did Rosie O'Donnell decide that she had any kind of political or world event knowledge? To quote her "This was a setup to create another war..."

[cupcake]

I hate her and her ilk...

[Mommy]

1) the US wont get involved right now. President Bush knows that the Senate wouldnt back us getting involved, especially with the vote that just went through for us to pull out of Iraq... So ill definitely take on a bet that would make me $100 richer

2) Iran is going to keep pulling this shit. Britain, US, etc should fight their own battles as they arise (like what Cupcake proposed with Britain doing an overnight raid). Unless SEVERAL countries form an alliance to bring down Iran, it would be stupid for us (britian and the us) to do anything that can be mistaken as an act of war (bombing, etc). China and Russia have sided with the US in telling Iran to backdown, but if it came down to it, they would side with Iran in the end. Plus, North Korea and Iran have close ties. In other words, fight them as they come and keep the consequences as minimal as possible while still achieving the objective (in this case: Britain retrieving her soldiers)

[pysex]

Iran is allies with pretty much every single enemy we have.

[cupcake]

aside from the obvious benefits of such as small footprint, relative low cost, objectives acheived...the rad part about a successful raid the psychological impact it has on the enemy.

makes them second-guess themselves and lose confidence.

downside is if the raid goes south like operation eagle claw in, oh suprise, iran...frickin ooooooooops.

but the SAS wrote the book on this kind of crap...and if anyone could pull it off, its them.

[cupcake]

Iran is allies with pretty much every single enemy we have.

Iran is an enemy of the US and has been our whole lives.

Iraq has not always been.

[Hartmann]

Iran is an enemy of the US and has been our whole lives.

Iraq has not always been.

Our whole lives yes. But before the Ayatollah and Jimmy Carter, they were on good terms with the U.S... This was when Libya was our enemy.

During the Iran-Iraq war both sides operated U.S. aircraft. There are some F-4s and F-14s in their arsenal but no one knows where they are or if they are even operable (since the embargo cut off parts for them)

[Billy]

1) the US wont get involved right now. President Bush knows that the Senate wouldnt back us getting involved, especially with the vote that just went through for us to pull out of Iraq... So ill definitely take on a bet that would make me $100 richer

2) Iran is going to keep pulling this shit. Britain, US, etc should fight their own battles as they arise (like what Cupcake proposed with Britain doing an overnight raid). Unless SEVERAL countries form an alliance to bring down Iran, it would be stupid for us (britian and the us) to do anything that can be mistaken as an act of war (bombing, etc). China and Russia have sided with the US in telling Iran to backdown, but if it came down to it, they would side with Iran in the end. Plus, North Korea and Iran have close ties. In other words, fight them as they come and keep the consequences as minimal as possible while still achieving the objective (in this case: Britain retrieving her soldiers)

1) I hope you're wrong for the sake of the world. I would fully support a war against Iran.

2) Russia is too weak to support anyone. And because the China/US economy is so intertwined, China would be forced to remain neutral in an Iran/US war. Their best interest lie more with the US than the black gold they receive from Iran. They can get oil elsewhere.

2a) Iran and NK have close ties? Explain to me how NK is going to march their army over to defend Iran? Because god knows they are not capable of invading the United States. They simply do not have the naval power. And what would they gain by defending Iran anyway? They need economic relief. And they will most certainly not get that relief by helping Iran.

[Seeker]

the gulf of tonkin incident was faked to draw us into the vietnam war

the british sailors being arrested by the iranians is fake too, and part of a series of events to attempt to draw us into war with iran

[cupcake]

the gulf of tonkin incident was faked to draw us into the vietnam war

the british sailors being arrested by the iranians is fake too, and part of a series of events to attempt to draw us into war with iran

[Hartmann]

the gulf of tonkin incident was faked to draw us into the vietnam war

the british sailors being arrested by the iranians is fake too, and part of a series of events to attempt to draw us into war with iran

Yes, because the capture of British soldiers would draw the U.S. into war... Emphasis mine...

[The Fanatic]

Our whole lives yes. But before the Ayatollah and Jimmy Carter, they were on good terms with the U.S... This was when Libya was our enemy.

During the Iran-Iraq war both sides operated U.S. aircraft. There are some F-4s and F-14s in their arsenal but no one knows where they are or if they are even operable (since the embargo cut off parts for them)

Considering that the CIA masterminded and financed a military coup to displace the democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddeq and replace it with the Pahlavi dynasty in 1953, umm yeah they were are friends. Anytime you put someone in power they better damn well be your friend. That is why many Iranians feared the cancer treatments that the shah was receiving in America which led to them taking hostages in hopes of the shah being returned to Iran to face trial. The last thing the Iranians wanted was for the Americans to bring back the hated monarchy.

Britain MUST do something. They can't just let this go by without either negotiations or a special operations mission.

[Mommy]

1) I hope you're wrong for the sake of the world. I would fully support a war against Iran.

2) Russia is too weak to support anyone. And because the China/US economy is so intertwined, China would be forced to remain neutral in an Iran/US war. Their best interest lie more with the US than the black gold they receive from Iran. They can get oil elsewhere.

2a) Iran and NK have close ties? Explain to me how NK is going to march their army over to defend Iran? Because god knows they are not capable of invading the United States. They simply do not have the naval power. And what would they gain by defending Iran anyway? They need economic relief. And they will most certainly not get that relief by helping Iran.

1) I would support Iran's government being overthrown, but I would not support the years our soldiers would be over there trying to keep the peace.



2) Ummm.... ok, yeah, Since when has China ever made decisions that would benefit their economy? Hong Kong was a gold mine for China when it was turned over to them in 98. What did china do? They started limited commerce.



3) North Korea has access to nuclear weapons, which in case you didnt know this... do not need land soldiers or a navy fleet

[The Fanatic]

How exactly does North Korea intend to deliver these nuclear weapons and where to? I doubt that Iran would appreciate a nuclear bomb exploded in their territory.

[Hartmann]

Iran's government needs to capitulate due to unrest in the country, not from outside forces.

[The Fanatic]

I agree Hartmann. Given enough time, I believe that Iran will achieve democracy on its own terms.

[Mommy]

How exactly does North Korea intend to deliver these nuclear weapons and where to? I doubt that Iran would appreciate a nuclear bomb exploded in their territory.

of course, not on their territory. You dont need a huge fucking navy to bomb someone. All you need is a country that is willing to lend you a couple of ships

[The Fanatic]

It is not a "of course". A nuclear weapon could be deployed against US troops in Iranian territory. Name a country that would lend North Korea "A couple of ships". Not to mention one or two nuclear weapons is not much leverage when you consider that the united states has thousands of said weapons, it would be suicide to even attempt a nuclear attack. I don't see North Korea supporting Iran in the event of a possible US invasion.

[chook]

I don't know how I feel about U.S. assistance.... I think I would support logistical but that's about it.

The world needs to understand that this isn't an imperialistic setup and that this is Iran's fault, so the further the U.S. can stay away, the better (IMO)

Its middle east politics. Bush should of condemned Israel for invading Lebanon after it some of its soldiers were kidnapped. While giving them a high five on the side.

[jonathan83]

i'll also take Lance's $100 bet

[Mommy]

It is not a "of course". A nuclear weapon could be deployed against US troops in Iranian territory. Name a country that would lend North Korea "A couple of ships". Not to mention one or two nuclear weapons is not much leverage when you consider that the united states has thousands of said weapons, it would be suicide to even attempt a nuclear attack. I don't see North Korea supporting Iran in the event of a possible US invasion.

I dont know what you are trying to get at. My point isnt "HEY AT THIS VERY SECOND, NORTH KOREA CAN PUT BOMBS ANYWHERE SHE WANTS." My point is rather that if we build an alliance against Iran (which in my opinion would be a necessity because we have our troops so spread out right now) then Iran would also build an alliance that could consist of countries like North Korea, China, or Russia. This is all very hypothetical. I mean, in my opinion, its not too far fetched to think that North Korea has access to ships that arent her own...and that she has a significant weapon aresnal. Fortunately for us, Israel would most likely hop in on this and she have a pretty big arsenal as well.



Bottom line: The US and Britain do NOT want to fuck with Iran. It will either turn out to be another long, drawn out rebuilding like with Iraq or could turn into something way way more large scale. Thats just my projection on everything.

[The Fanatic]

I agree with you last post, it could result in world wide conflict.


I fear Russia much more than I do North Korea. Despite their weakness politically and economically, no one can deny the power of the ICBM.

[Mommy]

word

[Seeker]

after a few years into the war with iran, china and russia will invade the united states with a billion man army

[The Fanatic]

Allies aside, an invasion of Iran would be much more difficult than Iraq. The terrain is mountainous and the people belong to one united ethnic/religious group unlike Iraq.

[Mommy]

long live Russia

[The Fanatic]

after a few years into the war with iran, china and russia will invade the united states with a billion man army

The United States would unleash its nuclear arsenal before that ever happened, in effect destroying human civilization.

long live Russia

Da, Eta pravda

[Mommy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_...ea/nuclear_iran

[Psykopath]

long live Russia

Down with the Soviet dictatorship! (which is pretty much how Putin runs things there...)

[The Fanatic]

I was doing some research the other day, and apparently the communist party still exists in the Russian Federation. It is the leading opposition party as well. You can't really even compare Putin's presidency to the oligarchy of the massive bureaucratic communist regime. The only time that Soviet Russia was truly controlled by one man was during the totalitarian days of Stalin. But yeah, Putin has been much more repressive, nationalistic and reactionary than the reformer Boris Yeltsin.

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Mar 30 2007, 09:50 PM

[Psykopath]

I was doing some research the other day, and apparently the communist party still exists in the Russian Federation. It is the leading opposition party as well. You can't really even compare Putin's presidency to the oligarchy of the massive bureaucratic communist regime. The only time that Soviet Russia was truly controlled by one man was during the totalitarian days of Stalin. But yeah, Putin has been much more repressive, nationalistic and reactionary than the reformer Boris Yeltsin.

Loose generalization to his anti-Democratic methods of rule.

You know, imprisonment of political opposition via trumped-up charges, suppression of free speech, etc.

[Seussninja]

April 6th.

[pysex]

April 6th.

Grindhouse.

[Seussninja]

Grindhouse.

can't wait

[The Fanatic]

Loose generalization to his anti-Democratic methods of rule.

You know, imprisonment of political opposition via trumped-up charges, suppression of free speech, etc.

Yeah

Russia has a long history of strong autocratic rule

[Aaron]

after a few years into the war with iran, china and russia will invade the united states with a billion man army

There are a couple of problems with this hypothetical scenario.

First, Russia and China are not historical allies. Indeed, though they were both Communist countries during the Cold War, oftentimes the Russians were just as worried about what the Chinese were doing as they were with the West. This worked to the advantage of the United States as we were sometimes able to play them off each of each other.

Furthermore, the Chinese and Russians do not have the capability to send an army of any significant size to invade the continental United States. The Russians can barely operate day-to-day as it is, and wouldn't be able to logistically support an army in the United States even if, by some miracle, they were able to get it here. The Chinese have a lot of men, but their navy is far, far inferior to ours in both size and quality; Japan and South Korea have navies that are comparable to China, if that helps put it in perspective.

Assuming for the moment that the Chinese were able to build the massive amounts of transport ships without the United States finding out, they wouldn't get a quarter of the way across the Pacific before we found out.

[FORSAKENR320]

i'd like to see some poor bastard country try to invade through the gulf of mexico..... that army would have to fight house to house, block to block, earning every foot of the way.... you wouldn't have just the U.S. military to contend with, but every single person with a gun will probably join a local militia or something. the difference between us and other states is that i think as a whole we actually know how to USE our guns.

[griseyeux]

they'd have a hard time getting through Louisiana too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/ap_on_...ew_orleans_guns

[The Fanatic]

There are a couple of problems with this hypothetical scenario.

First, Russia and China are not historical allies. Indeed, though they were both Communist countries during the Cold War, oftentimes the Russians were just as worried about what the Chinese were doing as they were with the West. This worked to the advantage of the United States as we were sometimes able to play them off each of each other.

Furthermore, the Chinese and Russians do not have the capability to send an army of any significant size to invade the continental United States. The Russians can barely operate day-to-day as it is, and wouldn't be able to logistically support an army in the United States even if, by some miracle, they were able to get it here. The Chinese have a lot of men, but their navy is far, far inferior to ours in both size and quality; Japan and South Korea have navies that are comparable to China, if that helps put it in perspective.

Assuming for the moment that the Chinese were able to build the massive amounts of transport ships without the United States finding out, they wouldn't get a quarter of the way across the Pacific before we found out.

Very true.


Not to mention the problems with a "billion man army"

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Apr 1 2007, 10:17 PM

[FORSAKENR320]

they'd have a hard time getting through Louisiana too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/ap_on_...ew_orleans_guns

buying a gun for the first time and being trained all your life by countless generations to use one aren't the same...


a man dress in Banana Republic isn't necessarily a safari man..

[Hartmann]

Does anyone know if the British military has a Code of Conduct like the Armed Forces Code of Conduct?

The CoC that soldiers accept is that they will not cooperate with the enemy, even under duress. Name, rank, serial number.

Also, isn't the exploitation of prisoners a violation of prisoner rights and against the Geneva Convention?

[Mommy]

Also, isn't the exploitation of prisoners a violation of prisoner rights and against the Geneva Convention?

Yeah, im pretty sure you are right on the money there

[cupcake]

Does anyone know if the British military has a Code of Conduct like the Armed Forces Code of Conduct?

The CoC that soldiers accept is that they will not cooperate with the enemy, even under duress. Name, rank, serial number.

Also, isn't the exploitation of prisoners a violation of prisoner rights and against the Geneva Convention?

I don't know if they do or not...but I know the code of conduct oftentimes gets thrown out the porthole...I've heard too often of guys breaking and admitting shit (even making stuff up) after some coersion...see McCain...

[Hartmann]

They've been released: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm

[cupcake]

talk about pulling Briton's punk card...

yikes

[woody]

Does anyone know if the British military has a Code of Conduct like the Armed Forces Code of Conduct?

The CoC that soldiers accept is that they will not cooperate with the enemy, even under duress. Name, rank, serial number.

Also, isn't the exploitation of prisoners a violation of prisoner rights and against the Geneva Convention?

name, rank & serial number are the minimum a soldier must give when taken by the enemy under the GC.

Often POWs will give misleading information. I saw the history/discovery channel when a guy said in Vietnam (i think) what ever information he gave he factored it by 3. so instead of trying to remember the lie, he'd only ahve to remember by 3's on the truth.


And yes, Exploiting prisoners is against GC...which Iran signed

Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

[Mommy]

umm...wow

[schwab]

im curious what they are going to say the second they leave Iran....like if they were forced to write the letters, say what they said...etc...

[cupcake]

me too.

from the footage they appeared to be having a pretty nice time...eating and playing with maps and smiling and shit...

defintately not nick berg type conditions.

[The Fanatic]

name, rank & serial number are the minimum a soldier must give when taken by the enemy under the GC.

Often POWs will give misleading information. I saw the history/discovery channel when a guy said in Vietnam (i think) what ever information he gave he factored it by 3. so instead of trying to remember the lie, he'd only ahve to remember by 3's on the truth.
And yes, Exploiting prisoners is against GC...which Iran signed

The soldiers were not technically covered by the Geneva Convention because they were not technically prisoners of war. Iran is not at war with the United Kingdom.

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Apr 5 2007, 12:50 AM

[Hartmann]

The soldiers were not technically covered by the Geneva Convention because they were not technically prisoners of war. Iran is not at war with the United Kingdom.

So you've basically proved my point about Gitmo Sorry to get off topic, but it seems a lot of people want the prisoners at Gitmo covered under the Geneva Convention even though the U.S. wasn't at war with Afghanistan and the prisoners did not fight under a unified flag.

However, I think the British sailors would be covered under the Fourth Convention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

[woody]

The soldiers were not technically covered by the Geneva Convention because they were not technically prisoners of war. Iran is not at war with the United Kingdom.

So you've basically proved my point about Gitmo Sorry to get off topic, but it seems a lot of people want the prisoners at Gitmo covered under the Geneva Convention even though the U.S. wasn't at war with Afghanistan and the prisoners did not fight under a unified flag.

However, I think the British sailors would be covered under the Fourth Convention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

word

article 2

[The Fanatic]

So you've basically proved my point about Gitmo Sorry to get off topic, but it seems a lot of people want the prisoners at Gitmo covered under the Geneva Convention even though the U.S. wasn't at war with Afghanistan and the prisoners did not fight under a unified flag.

However, I think the British sailors would be covered under the Fourth Convention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

While we did not declare war on Afghanistan, for all practical purposes we invaded them. The same could be said about Vietnam.

[Hartmann]

While we did not declare war on Afghanistan, for all practical purposes we invaded them. The same could be said about Vietnam.

Yes, we invaded them but it was not anything like Vietnam or even Iraq. Afghanistan has been the model example of defeating guerrilla warfare. We are not sitting in cities like in Iraq.

What would be comparable? I would say that Somalia or Kosovo are on par with what is going on in Afghanistan. We go in, we do the initial work, then the U.N. commits people to hold the peace.

[schwab]

CNN:

BREAKING NEWS

British sailors say treatment in Iran was "humane" but they were not allowed to communicate with each other and "feared the worst."

UK sailors 'were in Iraqi waters'

And that they were forced to say everything or face prison