I thought it was because some Iranians were captured in Iraq and then Iran had been waiting for an opportunity to return the favour, but the opportunity never came so then they hatched a plan to simply manufacture the opportunity instead?

How was is the bigger mistake.

Opening fire while in the waters of another nations is like a decleration of war. And no matter what you say they were in Iranina waters according to Iran and that is all that would have mattered to the rest of the world if Britain opened fire.

The hostages were given back, and nothing bad happened BECAUSE the Cornwall didnt do anything.

The rest of the world can not go screaming war after one diplomatic failure. We dont all want to end up in a mess we cant solve.

No, opening fire in another nations waters is no way near a decleration of war, but is of course somthing to be taken seriously.

I wonder what Britains policy would be if it was Iranians accidently in their territory? I would think they would just inform them of their mistake and escort them back to international waters.

Why would it matter what they do as long as it doesnt encourage more fighting.

Well it matters because if Britain or Iran want to complain about what the other is doing then you might wan't to know who the hypocrits are. My bet is on Iran for that one!

US troops detained several Iranian "military advisors" in Iraq. Detaining foriegn combat troops in a combat area is not the same as taking hostages on the high seas.



So if the Iranians say that their territorial waters extend 100 miles offshore we should accept that? What if they claim the entire Persian Gulf as Iranian waters? Saying so doesn't make it so, nor should we accept it as such.



I'm not saying we should have gone to war. But the fact that "Cornwall" didn't even move is a show of weakness. They could have done something, but to choose to do nothing shows that we are worried about what might happen next, not what is happening now. This will probably affect Iran's willingness to make the next aggressive move.



Peace through superior firepower often encourges less fighting, not more.

Nicely put there Oz... I would think that anyone who plays this game knows about superior firepower and what it can accomplish! Even though real life 'shouldn't be this way', it sadly is and it also makes perfect sense. If my stick is bigger than your stick are you really going to chance taking a swat at me? I doubt it... but there are some stupid people out there.

That's why I support military spending. Could the money be spent on better things? Sure. But if we don't protect the country we won't have anything at all. Sad, but true, since the cavemen were waving femurs at each other (see "2001: A Space Odyessy").

Or of reason



Your right, it seems to be working fabulously in Iraq.



Ofcourse it doesnt, but for that one single conflict it mattered, even the sailors admited to the fact they were in Iranian waters, not because it was the truth, but because it kept them and Britain out of trouble.

I'm not a politician so I may be speaking out of turn but military spending by one country causes military spending in other countries. the most complex systems ie the american missle system is easily thwarted by cheap defensive measures already proven by Russia and besides Bush said it was a war on TERROR. A highly manouverable stealth jet is not going to help against some guerilla fighter with a field rifle but what do I know I build houses. Please do not take this offensevley

First point is that military spending is usually associated as a percentage of GDP, so even though one country may spend 20 million on military and another spends 20 billion, no one is concearned if they are both spending 10% of GDP.

Second point is that yes there is a bit of overkill in the technology, but i do not think this is an issue at this point. If America was fighting a serious enemy, you know, as in WW2 kinda thing then it could end up being too expensive to sustain such high technology. It might be wise to have low technology options that can be churned out in large numbers in a massive war of attrition, but i think they might call that one Armageddon?

at the moment the states spend more on military than practically every other country in the world combined and unfortunately the american economy is not in such fantastic shape. I may have my facts incorrect however. but one still has wonder who they are planning on invading next maybe us to the north should start stockpiling nuclear weapons as well. I mean we are one of the richest energy countries on the planet.Again I apologise if this offends anybody

If you have a warship in the Persian Gulf as a show of force, then to allow it to do nothing while a small craft abducts your military personnel is absurd. If it is reasonable that "Cornwall" did nothing, then "Cornwall" shouldn't have been there at all. If "Cornwall" shouldn't be there at all, then no military force at all should be there.

That's a valid argument - would the region be better off if we didn't interfere at all? I don't think so, but it is certainly open for debate.



If we are preventing a civil war with resulting high civilian casualties, then it is working. Did we cause the civil war by removing Saddam? Perhaps. If you are arguing that we should not be causing any civilian casualties, then would it have been acceptable to leave Saddam in power while he was torturing and killing his own people? Was his decision to gas the Kurds acceptable to you?



So we should all agree to an expedient lie to stay out of trouble? Look at how Neville Chamberlain handled Hitler in the 1930s and then tell me it is always best to appease agressive rulers.



Its arguable. The stock market is at record highs and the economy is growing, even while we are throwing billions into Iraq. I saw an interesting chart in Newsweek yesterday. In the 1970s defense spending was 60% of the US budget. Now, even with Iraq, it is about 25%. Currently entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) are 60% of the budget. If there is a drag on the economy, look there.



At this point our military is so overextended I doubt we could invade Staten Island right now.

Sorry Oz, I can't agree with this. Saddam's 'extermination' was very minor in numbers compared to the death and destruction we are causing. Besides all of that, the main event you are raising is the 'gassing of the Kurds', which, if memory serves me, was done in retaliation AFTER an attempted assassination. Now, whether his actions were warranted or not, I do believe that in this country (the US), to kill, or try to kill, the President incurs the penalty of death if they wish to pursue it, correct? Right or wrong Saddam was doing what he felt was 'just' for lack of a better word. Still, there weren't nearly the amount of deaths 'at his hands' as there have been since we invaded. On top of that, I believe that a civil war was 'instigated' to a degree by military planners. Don't think that they didn't know all of the ramifications of their actions before 'going in', and don't think that they didn't bank on the Iraqi's killing eachother, thus 'enhancing' our 'need to be there' philosophy, since no one can keep civilian populations under control like the Americans can... except for maybe Israel.
Bottom line, we ARE NOT supposed to be the 'world police'. I don't think the men and women who joined the armed forces (mainly for college reimbursement, which to me is totally the WRONG reason to join the military)were told that they would be 'world police'. My money goes towards DEFENSE of this country, the key word being defense. There is nothing 'defensive' about our military attacking targets all around the world, and don't give me the "need for pre-emptive strikes" theory either. If that holds true then we should just nuke the entire world, except for our slice of heaven of course, because sooner or later, someone, everyone, will be gunning for us. Why wait?
These arguments over whether we should be at war or not have 'lost their luster'. Regardless of why, how, or what will happen next, we need to bring the troops home, put this chapter in our history behind us (yet again), put Bush, Cheney and the other Neocon whacko's on trial for crimes against humanity (at the least!), hang them, and then move on to take care of the homefront and issues within our country, like all of the illegal aliens or the welfare system or the gap in working wages or the rising gas prices/oil crisis or our energy issues or our political system or our healthcare system... shall I continue?

Again, money that 'doesn't exist' except in someone's ledger. So the stock market is at record highs huh? Based on what? Real gold backing real paper or theoretical, non tangible assets looking good on paper/tickers? I doubt the numbers are based on actual gold sitting in our reserves, which would have to be there to back the paper push right? Yeah, sure it is. And our economy? How is it 'growing'? Sure, five hundred McDonald's opened up country wide and now there are hundreds of demeaning six dollar an hour jobs on the table... gee that is good for the economy, now if only I could afford the Big Mac to help pay all of those unskilled laborers. I get a little pissed when people refer to the economy as 'growing' when all that is being produced is service jobs. Waiters, waitresses, maids, and food servers... yeah, what I want my economy built and reliant on.
I don't have the stats or the figures, but now it's your turn to 'show me'. Show me where the economy is growing and then show me how it is growing. What kind of jobs cropped up? Who got raises? Where is the supposed trickle down effect (aside from the piss trickling down the rich man's leg and onto my head)? Please Oz, show me the light so that I may become a respectable republican such as yourself!
Seriously though, are there any numbers to back up your claims? I want something tangible, not theoretical.

Actually, when I read this after I posted it I wondered how long it would be before I got shot down. If we removed Saddam for humanitarian reasons then we should be removing dozens of other leaders around the world, and we aren't. And clearly we can't build a nation from scratch.

But to not have responded to Saddam's threats would have been a mistake. The Muslim world has seen what happens when hollow threats are made against us. There was a horrible cost involved, though, and we never had a plan for rebuilding, which was a huge mistake.



So when whats-his-name Hinckley tried to kill Reagen we could have gassed Washington? I'm not OK with that.

Here's a question for debate - is there any situation that would warrant military action against a soveriegn nation short of actual agression against the US or an ally? Because by holding that strict a standard we were wrong to declare war against Nazi Germany. Should we never interfere in the internal workings of another nation, no matter how foul or threatening?



I know we have disagreed about conspiracy stuff in the past, and I'm not sure of it here. You would have to think the government knew how complicated this would be, and they were warned. So if they did this on purpose, this is what was planned? My question for these theories is always what the goal was. This was the goal? Surely this isn't just about money for Halliburton. It can't be.



Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Not always, but sometimes. I think. Maybe.

The fact that the GNP is growing and unemployment is at record lows is generally pointed to as signs that the economy is growing. Check the "grumpy as hell" post for some great debate about what these numbers really mean.

From the US Bureau of Labor Employment Cost Index

Series Id: CIU1010000000000A (B,C)Not Seasonally Adjustedcompensation: Total compensationsector: All Civilianperiodicity: 12-month percent changeIndustryocc: All workers

Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual
2001 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2
2002 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.3
2003 3.8 3.7 3.9 3.9
2004 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.7
2005 3.6 3.2 3.0 3.1
2006 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.3
2007 3.5

Average compensation has shown a 3.0 - 3.5 increase per year for the last six years.
So if we kept the same job we should expect a 3% raise every year.

In the last ten years I have been promoted twice, as has my wife, which has a positive impact on our standard of living.

United States Economy at a Glance
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007
Unemployment Rate (,1,) 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5
Change in Payroll Employment (,2,) 196 226 162 90 177(,P,) 88(,P,)
Average Hourly Earnings (,3,) 16.99 17.07 17.10 17.16 17.21(,P,) 17.25(,P,)
Consumer Price Index (,4,) 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4
Producer Price Index (,5,) 1.6 0.7 -0.6(,P,) 1.3(,P,) 1.0(,P,) 0.7(,P,)
U.S. Import Price Index (,6,) 0.4 1.1 -1.2 0.4 1.5 1.3
Employment Cost Index (,7,9,10,) 0.9 0.8
Productivity (,8,) 2.1 1.7

Footnotes:
(P) Preliminary
(1) In percent, seasonally adjusted. Annual averages are available for Not Seasonally Adjusted data.
(2) Number of jobs, in thousands, seasonally adjusted
(3) For production and nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, seasonally adjusted
(4) All items, U.S. city average, all urban consumers, 1982-84=100, 1-month percent change, seasonally adjusted
(5) Finished goods, 1982=100, 1-month percent change, seasonally adjusted
(6) All imports, 1-month percent change, not seasonally adjusted
(7) Compensation, all civilian workers, quarterly data, 3-month percent change, seasonally adjusted
(8) Output per hour, nonfarm business, quarterly data, percent change from previous quarter at annual rate, seasonally adjusted
(9) Includes wages, salaries, and employer costs for employee benefits.
(10) See Footnote C on www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/cimapnote.htm

Data extracted on: May 15, 2007

Source : U. S. Bureau of Labor

Unemployment is staying low, hourly wages are rising, and the COnsumer Price Index is relatively flat. I would say that this show a growing economy, but your comment about poorly-paid service jobs generating the growth is well taken. I haven't been able to find any job creation statistics. I can't wait to see how you respond, as always!

well the answer, my answer anyway, is patently 'yes.' of course we should get involved at some point. all this nationalism be damned, there are cases when a good man cannot abide by atrocity for the mere sake of convention.

my problem isn't that we're involved with the rest of the world, it's when (as well as how). i simply can't believe all the high-minded talk about what we're doing in Iraq. if we were there to dipose a tyrant, then our military would never get a break. we don't do this sort of thing for democracy, since we've historically undermined democracies and supported autocracies at least as often as the reverse.

if you put all the talk aside, it's obvious to me we're there for money. or rather, more control of natural resources, but it still boils down to the dollar.

are you sure that's not in "Poverty, an Economic Necessity?", or am i missing another fun game of splitting numbered hairs?

I bow before your intellect, Dys!   



I agree. The goal was probably to establish a US-favorable government as a means to stabilize the region. I think that has been publicly stated, too, or words to that effect. But what do we do now? I'm starting to lean towards backing a faction, any faction, just so the civil war ends and someone (anyone) can win and peace can break out.

yea... but when we were looking for someone (anyone!) to oppose the Ayatollah, we picked Saddam. what do we do now? that's a tough one. we led ourselves into a really tough situation. i know i'd certainly be reaching out to the international community more than we are, and in the spirit of asking for advice and cooperation, not political support and blind agreement with what our government decides. i think we tend to fall on our face when we go to the international community because we ask for puppets, not partners.

You know the old saying Oz, follow the money. 



I haven't been able to find any myself, but I really haven't tried lately. As far as your 'promotions' or whatnot, congrats. This is the way it is supposed to work. Maybe in my fields it is just 'different'. Let me explain. I work in a dealership parts department. After ninety days I received a 10% raise, which took me from a whopping 8.50 to 9.35 an hour. After one year I received 1.00 more and the promise that I would never receive another raise, ever. It is like this in A LOT of dealerships, as well as other vocations. I am not the only one who is 'capped' in my earnings. Almost all of us are, period. We can either live with it or move on but right now, the mortgage needs paid so options are limited. The ONLY thing we get is an added week of vacation time after three years, taking us to two weeks and then another week added after ten years. That is it, seriously. Should I change careers? Maybe, but again, the opportunities aren't abundant here in Pittsburgh so people tend to stay where they are and make do as there is too much at stake. Maybe fifteen years ago, but not today, not for me.
Sorry for not being up to snuff with these conversations lately, and especially today. TLHeart's comments in another thread have pretty much set me to boiling and I am more in a 'flaming' state of mind than an intellectual one, if you know what I mean buddy!    

Just to add... my net profit numbers for the year last year, just me, was 380,000.00. This is PROFIT of which I see nothing but my hourly. Hell, we don't even get OT because one single guy in our department is classified as 'commission' pay scale so the office manager feels that is her loophole out of paying OT on the rest of us regular hourly guys... who work 50 hours a week, not 40.  

Damn, Stormbringer. That really, really sucks. Nothing like a mortgage to focus your priorities, huh?

Do you get to move up to another position at some point? They can't be telling you you've hit the end of the line after a year, can they? There must be something else.

My jobs over the years have not always been the most glamorous and I've taken a few jobs just because I needed a paycheck. But I've never had a job that I thought was a dead end. You've got it tough. Well, in 30 years you can retire!    Assuming that Social Security is still there...



Yeah, but France and Germany are already in bed with the Iraqi oil industry and they don't see any need for change. Like Stormbringer said,



The European nations are done risking their troops in what has deteriorated into a civil war, a war that they feel we caused. Maybe they're right.

Some people believe the civil war has been going on for thousands of years.



While I have my doubts about the war, I hardly think it's a crime against humanity.



That ledger can, however, be turned into real money. And regardless of whether that money is backed by gold, it can still be exchanged for various types of resources.



Nope. The key is to recognize that your job is not the only job in the world, and to learn the words "here's my two weeks notice." We also have something called an "education system" that allows you to gain this stuff called "knowledge" that allows you to obtain a job with better pay.

And, frankly, I wouldn't take my boss's word as the final word. I'm perfectly willing to go above my boss's head and ask HQ directly if they offer higher level positions I'm qualified for. And oh, yeah, if I'm not qualified for something I like, I do my best to obtain the qualifications necessary.

Personally, I'm always willing to find a new place to work if I hit a barrier at my current place of work. There are lots of opportunities out there for a satisfying job.

again i may be speaking out of turn but same problem up here. with the amount of new immigrants (55% of toronto and almost all af vancouver) they are cheap and in renovations since the early 90s ive probably taken a 20000$ drop in pay. almost impossible to get into university when you support a wife and young son. with the amount of lost jobs from manufacturing going to china and the rest of the cheap labour force areas people have to work so if they have a stationwagon and a barely legal ladder they undercut my prices and will work for 50$ a day. and then the taxes, but I DO WORK HARD BECAUSE MILLIONS ON WELFARE DEPEND ON IT.