More Iran....

[Gumbeau]

Newt Gingrich proposed this solution.....

    HH: Now let’s get to the first major issue of the day, which is Iran. Mr. Speaker, if the United Kingdom feels obliged to use force, if diplomacy fails to get their people back, will you applaud?

    NG: I think there are two very simple steps that should be taken. The first is to use a covert operation, or a special forces operation to knock out the only gasoline producing refinery in Iran. There’s only one. And the second is to simply intercede by Naval force, and block any tankers from bringing gasoline to Iran…

    HH: Would you do, would you urge them…

    NG: And say to the Iranians, you know, you can keep the sailors as long as you want, but in about 30 days, everybody in your country will be walking.

    HH: So how long would you give them, to give them that ultimatum, the Iranians?

    NG: I would literally do that. I would say to them, I would right now say to them privately, within the next week, your refinery will no longer work. And within the following week, there will be no tankers arriving. Now if you would like to avoid being humiliated publicly, we recommend you calmly and quietly give them back now. But frankly, if you’d prefer to show the planet that you’re tiny and we’re not, we’re prepared to simply cut off your economy, and allow you to go back to walking and using oxen to pull carts, because you will have no gasoline left.

    HH: I agree with that 100%. Would your recommendation to the United States President be the same if Iran seized our forces?

    NG: Absolutely. I mean, the reason I say that, it is the least violent, least direct thing you can do. It uses our greatest strength…you know, the mismatch in Naval power is absolute. And so you don’t have to send troops into Iran. Everybody on the left is waiting for conservatives to say things that allow them to run amok and parade in San Francisco, and claim that we’re warmongers. I want to avoid war by intelligently using our power to eliminate the option of sustaining an economy, so that the Iranian dictatorship will be shown to be the hollow dictatorship it is, so the people of Iran decide they’d like to have a decent government with real electricity and real gasoline, so they overthrow it. And I want to do that without risking a single American life, or being engaged in a single direct confrontation. And Naval power lets you do that.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Well, lets think this thing out here.  IF the ships were in Iraqi waters, then we are asked to believe that the Iranians crossed the lines to kidnap the Brits.  That would mean that, a couple of Iranian patrol boats out smarted the defenses of the HMS cornwalls radar, sonar, air support for the boarding party.  I am supposing that the Cornwall didnt send 3 rubber dingys out of sonar and radar range, even if the air support was asleep at the wheel.  So, IF they were in Iraqi waters then the Brits need to surrender immediatly to Iran and take their idiot arses back to England.  IF they were in Iranian waters, then they need to apologize to Iran for the accident.  I see no other alternative.

Theres more to it than that.

They were very close to Iranian waters. So it can be safe to assume the Iranians regularly play patrols boats nearby. They may have occasionally wandered over the 'line' to probe what the Brits would do.

They may have also required advice from further up the line before firing upon Iranian boats. If the boats sailed into those waters without firing first I'm guessing the Cornwell was asking for advice. If they didn't get an OK to shoot before the iranian boats got near the freighter then the iranians already won. Cornwell is not going to open fire on boats with hostages.

The best thing the Brits can do is apologize and ask for the crew back. Then any future iranian boat that sticks its nose 1 foot into iraqi terrority gets blown to hell. Get the crew back then start playing hardball with the iranians.

[Joachim]

Who is HH?

[bj229r]

nice summation by Mark Steyn

So what's the U.N. doing about this affront to its authority and (in the public humiliation of the captives) of the Geneva Conventions?

Short answer: Nothing.

Slightly longer answer: The British ambassador to the U.N. had wanted the Security Council to pass a resolution ''deploring'' Iran's conduct. But the Russians objected to all this hotheaded inflammatory lingo about ''deploring,'' and so the Security Council instead expressed its ''grave concern'' about the situation. That and $4.95 will get you a decaf latte. Ask the folks in Darfur what they've got to show for years of the U.N.'s "grave concerns" -- heavy on the graves, less so on the concern.

Yet, like the Americans, the British persist in trying to resolve real crises through pseudo-institutions. A bunch of unelected multinational technocrats can designate an entire continent as "citizens of Europe" but, as Pat Buchanan wrote the other day, "dry documents, no matter how eloquent, abstract ideas, no matter how beautiful, do not a nation make." Similarly, the West's transnational romantics can fantasize about "one-world government," but, given the constituent parts, it's likely to be a lot more like Syria writ large than Sweden. In fact, it already is.

And, at one level, the obstructionists have a point. Russia's interests in Iran are not the same as the United Kingdom's: Why should it subordinate its national policy for a few British sailors? Conversely, why should we subordinate ours to transnational process? If saving Darfur is the right thing to do, it doesn't become the wrong thing to do because the Chinese guy refuses to raise his hand. And Darfur is an internal region of a sovereign state. If the Security Council cannot even "deplore" an act of piracy on the high seas, then what is it for?

The U.N. will do nothing for men seized on a U.N.-sanctioned mission. The European Union will do nothing for its "European citizens." But if liberal transnationalism is a post-modern joke, it's not the only school of transnationalism out there. Iran's Islamic Revolution has been explicitly extraterritorial since the beginning: It has created and funded murderous proxies in Hezbollah, Hamas and both Shia and Sunni factions of the Iraq "insurgency." It has spent a fortune in the stans of Central Asia radicalizing previously somnolent Muslim populations. When Ayatollah Khomeini announced the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, it was not Iranians but British, Indian, Turkish, European, Asian and American Muslims who called for his death, firebombed bookstores, shot his publisher, fatally stabbed his translator and murdered anybody who got in their way.

So we live today in a world of one-way sovereignty: American, British and Iraqi forces in Iraq respect the Syrian and Iranian borders; the Syrians and Iranians do not respect the Iraqi border. Patrolling the Shatt al-Arab at a time of war, the Royal Navy operates under rules of engagement designed by distant fainthearts with an eye to the polite fictions of "international law": If you're in a ''warship,'' you can't wage war. If you're in a ''destroyer,'' don't destroy anything. If you're in a "frigate," you're frigging done for.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/321825,CST-EDT-steyn01.article

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Theres more to it than that.

They were very close to Iranian waters. So it can be safe to assume the Iranians regularly play patrols boats nearby. They may have occasionally wandered over the 'line' to probe what the Brits would do.

They may have also required advice from further up the line before firing upon Iranian boats. If the boats sailed into those waters without firing first I'm guessing the Cornwell was asking for advice. If they didn't get an OK to shoot before the iranian boats got near the freighter then the iranians already won. Cornwell is not going to open fire on boats with hostages.

The best thing the Brits can do is apologize and ask for the crew back. Then any future iranian boat that sticks its nose 1 foot into iraqi terrority gets blown to hell. Get the crew back then start playing hardball with the iranians.

And when you're getting raped in the ass, do you stop it?  Or do you ask for a reach around?


It's the wrong course of action to ***** foot around with the muslims.  The moment the brits were taken by the iranians, 4 buildings in downtown Tehran should have disappeared.  And then 2 more on the hour, every hour should have been whiped off the face of the earth culminating in the capital buildings on the 24th hour after the abduction.

If the iranians hadn't returned the british sailors by then, the real destruction would begin.

[ghi]

Iran is encircled  by US bases, it  would be eassy tgt,

[tedrbr]

It's all WIN-WIN for the people in power in Iran.

If they get England to cave in, they win, having shown how tough they are and they are a power to reckon with in the region.

If England (or U.S) attacks them, it gathers support among the Iranian population in common defense.

They still have the nuclear card to play in the world scene.  They know no one has the troops to send into their country.  

The British Marines have become pawns in geopolitics.... expendable pawns as far as those holding them are concerned.  



Then there was the whole "Democrats ending the war" sentiments.  Not a very realistic solution.
U.S. pulls out --> The various forces vying to power go all out.  
Sunni/ Shiia;  Kurd/ Arab/ Persian;  secular/ religious;  tribe vs clans; endless power struggles going on.  The lid comes off altogether.

Suddenly a barrel of oil is going for $150+ and the economies in Europe and the U.S.A. go tumbling down.    

Say all you want about "no blood for oil", but that is exactly what it comes down to when it comes to the Middle East.  Energy for the western world.   Were it not for oil, would anyone care if the various factions killed each other en mass in the Middle East?  Hint: Darfur.

Democrats will say what is popular in preparation for the next elections.  To actually pull out after making such a mess of things in Iraq, only invites a larger disaster.  Of course, they may be dumb enough to do it anyways.   Ranks right up there in the stupidity of trying to fight a war in the middle east by western standards.


ghi, Iran can be attacked easily, but all they need to do is block oil out of the Persian Gulf.  Iran may not win in that case, but neither will anyone else.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Gunthr
a few days before the capture of the Brits, the Ayatollah said something significant, to the effect of, the west has interfered illegally in the rights of Iran to pursue nuclear power, now we may feel free to act illegally.

i feel for those Royal Marines and sailors because i think they are going to be in Iran for a long time, whether Britain apologizes or not.  they are POWs in the war on terror (is it pc to say war on terror?)  

so far, western politicians have no way, and no will, to deal with the Islamist mind.  Iran will encourage Blair to make a fool of himself by apologising, but that won't get the hostages back.  in fact, i think an apology alone would probably seal their fate.

Well said Gunthr.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
And when you're getting raped in the ass, do you stop it?  Or do you ask for a reach around?

It's the wrong course of action to ***** foot around with the muslims.  The moment the brits were taken by the iranians, 4 buildings in downtown Tehran should have disappeared.  And then 2 more on the hour, every hour should have been whiped off the face of the earth culminating in the capital buildings on the 24th hour after the abduction.

If the iranians hadn't returned the british sailors by then, the real destruction would begin.

Oh yeah I agree. I'm saying the the sailors back then play hardball. Any iranian gunboat pokes its nose over the border gets a missle. No questions asked no warnings.

[RedTop]

Not to worry....it's all gonne be taken care of soon...Iran will no longer be a threat....Iraq will be done...and we can alllllll rest easy that the Dems. have saved us and are looking out for all of us.....just read this below...I mean they know BEST what is good for all of us and whats good for this nation.


Fox News article


WASHINGTON —  Two Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce legislation when the Senate returns from its spring recess next week that would effectively cut off funding for the troops in Iraq and require them to be redeployed from that country by March 31, 2008.

The legislation by Majority Leader Harry Reid and Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold is the "next step" in the Iraq debate, a spokesman for Feingold told FOX News on Monday. The new legislation essentially gives a hard deadline to language passed by the Senate last week in a supplemental war spending bill.

The supplemental war spending bill listed March 31, 2008, as a suggested goal for withdrawing all U.S. combat troops from Iraq. The new legislation would reinforce that date by preventing funding for the mission after that deadline.

"No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008," reads the measure.

Like the earlier bill, which passed 50-48 in the Senate, the Feingold measure also requires the president to begin redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment. It makes exceptions for funds designated for targeted operations against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups; security for U.S. infrastructure and personnel; and training and equipping of Iraqi security services.
“Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the president’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the president to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq," Feingold said in a written statement.

The earlier spending bill must first be reconciled with a House version that calls for redeployment by September 2008. President Bush has said he would veto any spending bill that has a declared timetable for withdrawal. He also criticized the bill for piling on billions of dollars in special home state projects.

At the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino said she doesn't know what polling led Reid to change his mind about "standing with the troops."

"Well, there's just these shifting sands when it comes to the Democrats and their decisions," she said. "It's almost shifting so fast, it's like a sandstorm."

Reid said if the president does veto the supplemental bill, he "will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”

More Than One Reason for Veto

On Monday, House Minority Leader John Boehner released a letter to the president signed by 154 Republicans vowing to sustain his veto of any war supplemental spending bill that contains pork-barrel spending Democrats added to secure its passage.

The letter is a by-product of the closed-door meeting Bush had with House Republicans last week. Boehner had been lobbying the White House to oppose the Democrats' war-funding bill not only because it sets a timeline for troop withdrawals but also because it's stuffed with billions in non-emergency farm aid, extraneous items for the U.S. Capitol like asbestos removal and guided tours, plus $100 million for security at next year's presidential nominating conventions.

Boehner and members of the GOP leadership team began collecting signatures for the veto letter after last Thursday's White House meeting with the president and gathered more than enough support to sustain a veto in less than three hours. Boehner said he believes virtually all of the 201 House Republicans in the 110th Congress will vote to sustain a veto purely over the extra spending.

Asked Sunday why war spending legislation contained funding for projects like peanut crops and cricket infestations, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel acknowledged Democratic leaders "needed the votes."

He said the bill lost Democratic support because "people thought we went too far and others because we didn't go far enough. And so a lot of things had to go into a bill that certainly those of us who respect great legislation did not want in there."

[Toad]

Happy Days are HERE again!
The skies above are CLEAR again!


Robert Novak: Democrats return to tax and spend

The breakdown of the bill on the House floor today (resembling the Senate version) raises taxes an average of $1,795 on 115 million taxpayers in 2011. Some 26 million small-business owners would average $3,960 more in taxes. The decreased number of Americans subject to income taxes will all be paying higher taxes, and 5 million low-income Americans will be returned to the rolls.

Enjoy!

[Hazzer]

The Israeli,response to hizbollah was considered unsuccesful and may well lead to their leaders fall from office,it was planned long before the offence & many innocent lebanese were killed & Hizbollah gained more support.The Iran/Iraq border was in dispute - long before the illegal invasion by Bush & Blair- by both sides so both sides may well be right on the incusion/non incursion depending on whose map your looking at. Sabre rattling will only mean they stay in custody longer.

          The Holocaust denying waco running Iran is laughing and enjoying are response ,the more we rise to the bait the longer they will be held.

          Holocaust denying wacos Blair & Bush digging in deeper wtg.

[lazs2]

when the average persons tax burden goes up a couple of thousand bucks a year for social programs like feeding and sheltering illegal aliens and giving algores company money to stop the sun from heating the planet...

Then you guys can come back and tell me how it makes no difference what party you vote for.   That they are exactly alike.

lazs

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Hazzer
The Israeli,response to hizbollah was considered unsuccesful and may well lead to their leaders fall from office,it was planned long before the offence & many innocent lebanese were killed & Hizbollah gained more support.

Israel was unsuccessful because they were too soft with the hezbollah.  Had they gone all out and created a giant rubble parking lot, then they would have won.