BREAKING: Iranian Revolutionary Guard Force Captured in Saudi Arabia: Act Of War?

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Well whatever, my point is that America and allies have carried out numerous 'acts of war' against Iran and Syria.

We aren't at war and if Iran/Syria hasn't declared war in response to something that we have done, then it wasn't an act of war.

Around here I quite often read that "sanctions are an act of war" and other such bollocks. How is it that acts of war are supposedly being committed all over the place without there being any actual war to speak of.


Well if that is the case, please address the OP's title which says an 'Act of War'.

I mean you guys take not understanding context to a whole new level at times.

That was my ENTIRE point, the OP is saying 'act of war' yet people jump in with pedantic comments when you try and point out another side of the story.




posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Well if that is the case, please address the OP's title which says an 'Act of War'.

There is a question mark behind "Act of War" in the thread title. I don't know exactly what he/she meant because I don't live inside their brain but my interpretation of the thread title is the OP posing the question of whether or not Saudi Arabia would decide that whatever the Iranians were up to constituted an act of war. I don't necessarily think that it is a good question and I'm not a fan of term 'act of war' either.


I mean you guys take not understanding context to a whole new level at times.

That was my ENTIRE point, the OP is saying 'act of war' yet people jump in with pedantic comments when you try and point out another side of the story.

I thought that this was your point:

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
my point is that America and allies have carried out numerous 'acts of war' against Iran and Syria



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
It's only an act of war if harm is brought upon them or if they are not released.



Then it was an act of stupidity on Iran's part to send them in harms way if they weren't prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions in the first place...



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
So the US sent a team of spec ops in to Iran guess who would be calling it an act of war!

Bunch of hypocrites.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Well if that is the case, please address the OP's title which says an 'Act of War'.

There is a question mark behind "Act of War" in the thread title. I don't know exactly what he/she meant because I don't live inside their brain but my interpretation of the thread title is the OP posing the question of whether or not Saudi Arabia would decide that whatever the Iranians were up to constituted an act of war. I don't necessarily think that it is a good question and I'm not a fan of term 'act of war' either.


I mean you guys take not understanding context to a whole new level at times.

That was my ENTIRE point, the OP is saying 'act of war' yet people jump in with pedantic comments when you try and point out another side of the story.

I thought that this was your point:

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
my point is that America and allies have carried out numerous 'acts of war' against Iran and Syria


Yes, in the context of how the OP used the term 'act of war'.

You brought out the technical details but please be aware the context I used the phrase.

Not only that, acts of war can be carried out without war being officially declared.

Hence, armed conflict is regarded as an act of war- as is happening in Syria as the US and her allies continue to send rebels into Syria to fight the regime they want to topple. That constitutes quite literally, an act of war.




edit on 22-10-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Yes, in the context of how the OP used the term 'act of war'.

You brought out the technical details but please be aware the context I used the phrase.

What?


Not only that, acts of war can be carried out without war being officially declared.

Hence, armed conflict is regarded as an act of war- as is happening in Syria as the US and her allies continue to send rebels into Syria to fight the regime they want to topple. That constitutes quite literally, an act of war.

Essentially an 'act (or acts) of war' constitute all or part of the argument in favour of declaring war. In other words, a country can use virtually any action or perceived action on the part of another country as a rationale for declaring war on that country. Without an accompanying declaration of war it is merely 'an act' and once war has been declared it is still only an act of war from the perspective of the country declaring war and not in a definite or legal sense, because the term is legally meaningless. The term becomes increasingly valueless when you consider that many countries' domestic laws do not even require a formal declaration of war, never mind the observation of perceived 'acts of war' before war is declared.

So whilst 'act of war' might be some flavour of the month term around here or it might sound good, it actually means very little. Existing in a scenario in which there is not a de facto state of war between the countries involved or a declaration of war, the use of the term is completely erroneous.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maes2
 



but I am sure if Jimmy Carter had waged a war against Iran then you would call him the first worst president of USA !

He approved a rescue mission that was an utter failure. It was I'll-conceived and poorly planned, which made execution impossible.
Ross Perot, on the other hand, was instrumental in rescuing people in his employ that were trapped in Iran (albeit under different circumstances) during the same time period. He was a businessman, not the POTUS, and he did not have the entire US armed forces at his disposal.

as I know the operation eagle claw failed because of sand storm and collision of their helicopters with each other !
I do not think that they did not check the weather condition, anyhow it was a big venture and Carter lost it to sands !
they made an agreement after 444 days that is called (Algiers Accords) which I think all of them have forgotten that !
anyhow could not they sit and talk to end that crisis far sooner instead of Pertinacity !!?



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by maes2
 
Not being the POTUS, it is easy for me to say, I know, but....

I would have delivered an ultimatum to Iran within three days of their taking of our embassy and personnel.
'Release our embassy and personnel within 24 hours, or suffer the extreme consequences of your failure to do so.'



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maes2
 
Not being the POTUS, it is easy for me to say, I know, but....
I would have delivered an ultimatum to Iran within three days of their taking of our embassy and personnel.
'Release our embassy and personnel within 24 hours, or suffer the extreme consequences of your failure to do so.'

this is what Carter did ! or you mean a large war, but I think in that time Iran itself was the only USA's military base in the middle east, so USA was not ready to start a large war, however it supported the enemy of it's enemy (Saddam) to wage a war against Iran but after eight years nothing special happened, instead Saddam attacked Kuwait after Iran, like a knife that is cutting it's own handle !



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by maes2

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maes2
 
Not being the POTUS, it is easy for me to say, I know, but....
I would have delivered an ultimatum to Iran within three days of their taking of our embassy and personnel.
'Release our embassy and personnel within 24 hours, or suffer the extreme consequences of your failure to do so.'

this is what Carter did ! or you mean a large war, but I think in that time Iran itself was the only USA's military base in the middle east, so USA was not ready to start a large war, however it supported the enemy of it's enemy (Saddam) to wage a war against Iran but after eight years nothing special happened, instead Saddam attacked Kuwait after Iran, like a knife that is cutting it's own handle !
He never delivered extreme consequences.
He sucked.
You don't think that we had any military bases to launch effective strikes on targets in the Middle East at the height of the Cold War?
We also had aircraft carrier battle groups back then.

ETA: I think one B-52 run across Teheran would have had a great effect on the decision-making process there.
edit on 22-10-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by maes2

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maes2
 
Not being the POTUS, it is easy for me to say, I know, but....
I would have delivered an ultimatum to Iran within three days of their taking of our embassy and personnel.
'Release our embassy and personnel within 24 hours, or suffer the extreme consequences of your failure to do so.'

this is what Carter did ! or you mean a large war, but I think in that time Iran itself was the only USA's military base in the middle east, so USA was not ready to start a large war, however it supported the enemy of it's enemy (Saddam) to wage a war against Iran but after eight years nothing special happened, instead Saddam attacked Kuwait after Iran, like a knife that is cutting it's own handle !
He never delivered extreme consequences.
He sucked.
You don't think that we had any military bases to launch effective strikes on targets in the Middle East at the height of the Cold War?
We also had aircraft carrier battle groups back then.

yes and that helicopters had flied from that aircraft carrier. but the truth is that USA always would relied on Iran to control that part of middle east, even in arab countries so it did not expect to loose it. anyhow a carrier is not enough for a real war. moreover what about Soviet Union. consider USA waged a war against Iran and soviet union cooperated with Iran then what would happen ! that cold war would lead to a big warm war !!! so USA played wisely regarding war. it supported Saddam, but the point is that a war was not the solution at all !



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by maes2
 


Hello.
I mean, knock knock.... HELLLLLOOOOO in there.

You realize that we had planned missile and B-52 strike plans against the Soviet Union during that time period. The thing that prevented us from striking Iran hard was a wooosy-butt Jimmy Carter.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maes2
 

Hello.
I mean, knock knock.... HELLLLLOOOOO in there.
You realize that we had planned missile and B-52 strike plans against the Soviet Union during that time period. The thing that prevented us from striking Iran hard was a wooosy-butt Jimmy Carter.

well I did not know this, but I think USA thinks and prepares the situation and then goes, if it wants to decide for a war during a night .....
still I think they were not ready for a war, they had lost their premier alley in the middle east ! during these 30 years they could not make it up with other allies, they were confused and fearing that soviet union would capture Iran, however the revolutionaries were not so friendly with communists so USA orchestrated a group against Iran from arab countries to even soviet union, but they agreed to just support Saddam not to involve a war directly.
yes even soviet union cooperated with Saddam far more than Iran, so you should not blame USA, they did their best, they could unite all the former unfriendly countries to stand against Iran but middle east is complicated, it is always boiling and you should always expect anything unbelievable !



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   


middle east is complicated, it is always boiling and you should always expect anything unbelievable !
reply to post by maes2
 

You got that stuff right!
Very complicated.





top topics
 
27
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join