15 British Captives...

I'm sure we all have seen and maybe followed the events which have recently taken place in the Persian Gulf. The capture of 15 British Naval personnel. 30 Mar 07 Update, sofar there have been three letters from the lone female of the group. Pretty amazing postal transit times IMHO, and now one of the sailors has apologized for entering Iranian waters. Nodoubt with an AK-47 pointed at his back. It's been strangely silent here, maybe of obvious reasons...

 

The event could hardly be called a coincidence, timing-wise. I would like to see the track on the boat's GPS.

 

If I remember correctly Iran grabbed some British Special Forces during the first gulf war saying that they crossed over into Iranian territory, tortured them for about 3 months and then let the ones who survived the torture go without an explaination other then you can go now .

As for the boat being off course or not either way those soldiers were kidnapped by a nation they were not at war with. Since no one was hurt or reported to be hurt sounds if they were trapped without time to respond. If so then it was preplanned. Same as the first time. When will people look at the history of these people for they really are predicatable.

 

British marines boarded a non-British merchant ship in disputed territorial waters, so nobody should be surprised that it provoked a response -- it was very predictable. This type of boarding action used to be considered an act of war. Most likely, this will eventually be resolved by a prisoner exchange, or by war. Lets hope for an exchange.

 

Just another ploy in the big scheme of things. Imagine the international upheaval if a Western country (USA or Britain) showed a detainee's face for even a moment. It's simply not done. Meanwhile, in Iran... encil:

 

Its called violating the Geneva Conventions

 

I say GB should make the following statement. Iran, either release our 15 soldiers and put an end to this stupidity. Or, we will GIVE you 15 nukes should anything happen to them. That nutcase they have running that Asylum over there needs to have his **** kicked.

 

Going nuclear is very popular in some circles. Don't like something? Can't get your way? Then just trigger world war 3 and kill several billion people and leave the rest in the stone age. Some people actually think this is a solution. I hope none of them occupy high levels of government.

 

I agree, going nuclear is a tad extreme, but it's good to have the option available with the whereabouts of 1300 or so Soviet tactical nukes missing and Professor A.Q. Khan enriching Uranium practically in every camel souk within 800kms of Karachi...

 

By Fred Thompson

Tony Blair’s getting angrier every day. But if past Iranian hostage takings are an indication, he may be upset for a while. The American-embassy hostages were held for 444 days, and the Israeli soldiers kidnapped last year by Iran’s Hezbollah puppets still aren’t free.

Blair is threatening to escalate to a “different phase,” but Iran’s leadership knows something that most Americans don’t. Two months ago, Britain’s government announced plans to mothball almost half its naval fleet due to defense-budget cuts. Much of its existing navy is already so degraded; it would take over a year to get into action. According to the British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, senior naval officers say that the cuts “will turn Britain’s once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defense force.”

In fact, the British naval forces have been so neglected; the U.K. probably couldn’t pull off the Falkland Islands mission today. The world’s fifth-largest economy now supports an army that ranks 28th in size.

What are they thinking?

The 9/11 attacks should have been a wake-up call to our allies — but they seem to have had a tranquilizing effect instead. Despite a series of both successful and thwarted attacks since then, Britain, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Germany, and Canada have actually cut their active-duty forces. And the percentage of those countries’ economies spent on defense was reduced over ten percent by 2005. Many are still falling.

Unlike much of Europe, which seems to have lost the will to protect itself and its democratic traditions, many of the new aggressors are increasing military spending dramatically. And many seem willing to sacrifice masses of their own populations if that’s what it takes to force the West into submission. (islamic submission that is!)

Let’s be clear. Iran’s kidnappings are part of a plan to see that nothing interferes with its quest for nuclear weapons. If successful, other dictatorships will follow suit.

This is not the time for the free world to neglect its own defense.

— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.

***************************************************

You can't deal with islamic jihadists. Give an inch, they will take a mile...all for the glory of their sick religion and islamic jihad. The only tactic these terrorists understand is death, and we should deliver it to them.

The last time Iranian navy messed with our interest's, Reagan had the whole Iranian navy destroyed in less than 24 hours.

Doesn't anybody have a backbone anymore to stand up against these islamic terrorist rag heads? ANYBODY??

 

It wouldn't surprise me if Iran could defeat the British, absent nukes or US aid. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. In the long run, nuclear proliferation is probably a given, and hopefully someone somewhere is developing "Plan B" to deal with it. We just aren't going to be able to militarily smash every nation that seeks to arm itself for the next few centuries. Pakistan will probably be a much greater threat than Iran once the current government is overthrown. It seems very possible that Russia is pulling the strings behind the scenes by arming and training our enemies. I think that's what we would do if an old adversary was building military bases practically inside our borders. As Nixon went to China and lured them out of the Russian sphere of influence, we need leadership that could go to Tehran and cut a long term deal. Iran is a little too western to turn down a reasonable offer -- their present leadership wouldn't survive it. Basically, all we need from them is (1) to forget about Israel, and (2) to continue to export energy to the west. There must be something they want in exchange. Now, some call any sort of negotiation "appeasement," and always prefer war to talk. But that's the way the world has worked for about 90% of history, and it could again. Of course, nobody in the current administration could pull this off, and most likely nobody in the 2008 race could either. So it will probably always remain that missed opportunity that future historians can write about when explaining how and why so many millions [billions?] of people died in the first half of the 21st century. Forget about protecting the Republic for your grandchildren. There probably won't be a Republic, and there might not be any grandchildren left either before this thing is over.

That's the choice.

 

Update: Brits to be tried. I think it's time for Buckingham Palace to extend the long arm. You know their Celtic blood is boiling. This could be a golden opportunity in disguise...
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070331/D8O76O400.html
Iranian Official: Sailors May Be Tried

Mar 31, 10:10 AM (ET)

By NASSER KARIMI

Internet Speed Test - Is Your Internet Speed up to Par? Try Our Free Speed test Now
MySpeedOnline.com


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's ambassador to Russia renewed a threat Iranian officials made earlier this week, saying 15 British sailors held by Iran could be tried for violating international law, Iran's state news agency IRNA reported Saturday.
Gholam-Reza Ansari told Russian television Vesti-24 on Friday that Iran had launched a legal investigation of the British sailors. "They will be tried if there is enough evidence of guilt," Ansari was quoted by IRNA as saying.
Britain's Foreign Office said it was checking the claim that the sailors were facing trial, but noted that the ambassador's comments didn't alter their view of what was needed to resolve the standoff.
"This doesn't change our position, we have made it perfectly clear that our personnel were in Iraqi waters and we continue to request immediate consular access to them and their immediate release," said a spokeswoman for Britain's Foreign Office, speaking on customary condition of anonymity in line with government rules.

(AP) Faye Turney, 26, the only woman amongst the British navy personnel seized by Iran, appears in this...
Full Image
Ansari's talk of the sailors and marines possibly being tried echoes comments made earlier this week by Ali Larijani, the main negotiator in Iran's foreign dealings.
If Britain continued its current approach to the standoff, Larijani told Iranian state radio, "this case may face a legal path. British leaders have miscalculated this issue."
On Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip that the case had entered a legal investigation phase, state television reported.
Ansari also reiterated Iran's stance that the British government could resolve the crisis by admitting the sailors entered Iranian waters.
"If the U.K. government admits its mistake and apologizes to Iran for its naval personnel's trespassing of Iranian territorial waters, the issue can be easily settled," he said.
The diplomat claimed the British government had escalated the crisis by taking the matter to the U.N. Security Council rather than resolving it on a bilateral basis.
Britain has frozen most contacts with Iran and referred the issue to the U.N. Security Council, which expressed "grave concern" on Thursday over Iran's seizure last week of the Britons.
The British sailors were detained by Iranian naval units March 23 while patrolling for smugglers near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that has long been a disputed dividing line between Iraq and Iran.
Iran appears intent on sending a message of strength as it faces mounting U.N. Nations sanctions over its uranium enrichment program, which the U.S. and other nations suspect the Islamic Republic is using to develop nuclear weapons.
On Friday, a captive Royal Marine was shown in new TV footage apologizing for being in Iranian waters, and Tehran made public a third letter supposedly written by the only woman prisoner among 15 Britons seized by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Faye Turney.
Britain sharply denounced Iran over the treatment of the captives - a clear sign both sides were hardening their stance as the crisis entered its second week.

 

Sad thing is that the republicans have had thier gonads cut off so much in the press that it may be politically impossible for them to lead our nation against Iran now. That opportunity may have been lost years ago. If Clinton was president right now I am sure the B-52 bombers will be dropping carpet bomb patterns along the entire coast line of Iran. Saudi Arabia would love that and only a democrat president with Saudi backing could pull it off now.
All I could see us doing with the current political undercutting is provide support in any British operation.

 

Oh Andy, it's not that bad. I suspect in s short time (by 2008 and most definitely before 2012) the current political mix will change yet again. While the press sure didn't help spread the intended message (so-to-speak) of the Republican Middle Eastern agendas. I reckon it (the press) will also be the undoing of the Democrats.

The qualities of ineptitude, cluelessness, and corruption are with us now more than ever. Just look at the news... Aren't you as a citizen just tickled pink that your elected officials (Nancy Pelois et al) are touring Jerusalem and Holy Land tourist sites??? Congressman Ellison is going to get a private tour of the Dome of the Rock. I suspect if asked about the junket their response would be "Ms Pelosi needed a BIG (enviromentally safe) airplane and, we're all helping with our tax dollars..." The original important portion of the trip will be near it's end when they visit Syria, and Saudi Arabia. I'm sure she really get their attention there, LOL...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/31/politics/main2632160.shtml

 

Well since I have the viewpoint that Syria like Iran is behind most of the American Soldiers deaths in Iraq the only thing I can hope for is that Nancy decides to stay there so we can win this war. She may be more deadly then chemical warfare.

Seriously thru the only American planes going to Syria should be ones firing missles.
That is one nation where if you took out the minority dictatorship leadership, the Assad family are members of the minority Alawite sect, the whole Baath party military machine will fall into chaos.

Hey Midas, good to see your type again

 

:loud: Uninformed rhetoric laced with overt partisan biases.

 

the only American planes going to Syria should be ones firing missles.
That is one nation where if you took out the minority dictatorship leadership, the Assad family are members of the minority Alawite sect, the whole Baath party military machine will fall into chaos.

 

I'm not sure what good the Geneva Convention is...

I think its a joke...

I mean, the actions of the rest of the world and the Our own Press tells us that only The American Troops have to follow it...

 

When is the civilized world going to finally get it??

"True" muslims really believe they are acting and fighting for their allah. They are willing to die for it and don't give a rat's behind about any other religion, the Geneva convention, country unless it is written in their koran.

This is the enemy the civilized world faces. You can't appease these animals. You can't deal with them and the only thing they understand is death...which they gladly relish.

Yes, we are in a world war against these animals and until western civilization "gets it", we will lose to these animals. Maybe, not in our lifetime...but no doubt within a 100 years.

 

I heard a week from Tuesday...:goofer: