Iran the british navy and what should be done.

[dumpster56]

I have got to wonder what is wrong with the west?

27 years later from the 1979 hostage mess, Amadinijad WAS a ringleader and our government has said NOTHING!

The British went to war over the Faulkland islands!!!

I gotta say it might be time to circle the wagons and tell the Iranians they have 2 weeks to hand over the sailors or all bets will be off.

My question is are we too weak to go after Iran?

[CCdaCE]

What Faulkland islands you talkin' about? (in a New York/Noo Joisey accent?)

We don't have the warm bodies )soldiers) to go after Iran. We gotta get ourselves outta Iraq/Afghanistan first. No offense to the soldiers.

Maverick had it all backwards in Top Gun if we were to apply this to Iran. Too close for guns? Switch to missiles.

-CC

[dumpster56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCdaCE What Faulkland islands you talkin' about? (in a New York/Noo Joisey accent?) We don't have the warm bodies )soldiers) to go after Iran. We gotta get ourselves outta Iraq/Afghanistan first. No offense to the soldiers. Too close for guns? Switch to missiles. -CC

Warm bodies, yes just what I have been talking about. When I bring up a draft I get blasted by ex military here on this forum. Hey if we are at war with people who want us dead then we should close the borders and build a 5 million man army and tell the world we mean business. Right? Or am I wrong?

[CCdaCE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888 Warm bodies, yes just what I have been talking about. When I bring up a draft I get blasted by ex military here on this forum. Hey if we are at war with people who want us dead then we should close the borders and build a 5 million man army and tell the world we mean business. Right? Or am I wrong?

How far is it going to go? Kill 'em all?

War is hell, a Draft sucks.

Pretty soon, you end up with a war that "nobody" wants (few Americans seem to want it) fought by people that don't want to be there, etc., etc.

I think it's best to let the SEALs/Special Forces/"Smart Weapons"/etc. handle taking out individual, specialized targets.

After saying all this, I believe it's more a matter of 'political will' than numbers of boots on the ground.

Maybe I've never pulled a trigger or watch too much TV. Go drink a beer at a VFW or American Legion. Some of them have "been there".

-CC

[samclem]

It is hard to know which part of the story is the most pathetic. The British were in Iraqi waters on a UN Mission (enforcing Security Council Resolution 1723). As of today, it appeared unlikely that the UN would even issue a statement demanding the release of the sailors seized while taking part in a UN mission. UN--gotta love 'em.

I think the broadcast by the Western media of the "confessions" of the prisoners is deplorable.

Invading Iran is not the answer. At this point, all that can be done is continued pressure and crafting a face-saving way out for the Iranians (recognizing that this operation might very well have been conducted by the Revolutionary Guard without advance approval).

But, you can bet the UK and every other member of the MNF is reviewing their boarding procedures, to include the amount of backup needed and assuring the ROE allows for appropriate use of lethal force if Iran interferes again. Nobody else wants to get into this same situation.

[Texas Proud]

This is a British exercise... and they should issue a warning that it is an act of war... and that a response will be coming if they do not turn them over...

The only problem with this is that they just might kill them which is NOT what is wanted...

We still have all our 'other' weapons that are now just sitting around not being used... the air force and the navy can take out almost all of the military sites and the major bridges, oil facilities etc without a boot on the ground.. Kind of like what Isreal did to Lebenon (sp??) but by a factor of 10 to 100...

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888 The British went to war over the Faulkland islands!!!

Remember who the British fought in the Falklands War, or, La Guerra de las Malvinas as the Argentines tended to see it. Argentina was a long way both in terms of military/naval power and geopolitical importance from Iran. Iran and Russia are major sources of natural gas into Europe and as the North Sea declines they are getting more and more important.

What does the US export to compare? Brangelina??

If I were sitting in Spain I think I would be for Iran in that war.

Mrs. Thatcher had started a build up of British forces as part of her campaign to rebuild the power and international prestige of the UK. The Falklands dispute gave her a great opportunity to practice projecting power half way around the world, against an rather unthreatening nation. Plus everyone hated the Argentine government, creator of the disappeared ones.

I believe the British wound up losing over 200 men, so it wasn't a walkover by any means.

If we were to attack Iran the outcomes would be very hard to guess. One outcome might be Russia coming to the aid of the Iranians, at least by increased weapons and planning assistance. Another possible outcome might be closure of the straights of Hormuz.

Then all you oil bears would have even longer to wait. (Come to think of it, I hope none of you oil-bear-boys put your money where your mouths were a few years back.)

ha

[Mwsinron]

Let Israel take care of it.

[dumpster56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mwsinron Let Israel take care of it.

It would then really be an american problem.

[frayne]

One word, diplomacy !

[2soon2tell]

Newguy,

I think if we go into Iran with guns blazing it might be a case of winning the battle only to lose the war. I think the Brits will offer Iran a face saving compromise that will end up with the release of the sailors and marines.

[janeeyre]

These so called "confessions" -- deplorable indeed!

Where are all the folks who spoke out about AbuGrab (spelling) and the Geneva convention Iran tortures their own people, therefore, can you imagine what they have done to coerce those soldiers into prepare those statements.

What is McCain saying?

[JohnEyles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by janeeyre What is McCain saying?

Does anybody care ? Not me. The man has lost his crediblity, his reputation
for telling it like it is, by things like endorsing the Chimp in '04 and kissing up
to the religious right recently to bolster his chances for nomination. I also
believe he made a bargain with the devil in '04 that he'd back the Chimp
in exchange for nomination in '08; the fact he could do that after what
Chimp's folks did in South Carolina in '00 (the "illegimate" black child)
makes me wonder if the guy has any balls or a soul.

He was one Republican I could actually imagine voting for; no longer.

Anyone else know why Guiliani is considered a "great leader" just because
he didn't completely panic on 9/11 or scurry around the country like a
frightened bunny the way the Moron in Chief did ?

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by janeeyre These so called "confessions" -- deplorable indeed! Where are all the folks who spoke out about AbuGrab (spelling) and the Geneva convention Iran tortures their own people, therefore, can you imagine what they have done to coerce those soldiers into prepare those statements. What is McCain saying?

General survival training teaches enemy prisoners will be treated lower than the lowest citizen of the capturing force. I would have to say the woman sailor will not be wantin' any male companionship for a very long time (maybe the male sailors won't either), even after mental health treatment, unless she is able to block out the torture. Even then she will have a very difficult time maintaining a stable relationship.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford Anyone else know why Guiliani is considered a "great leader" just because he didn't completely panic on 9/11 or scurry around the country like a frightened bunny the way the Moron in Chief did ?

The easiest way to answer this is to compare him with a poor leader. NYC was attacked unexpectedly resulting in a huge disaster for the city. Guiliani's response was acceptable. Look at New Orleans after Katrina hit it. The storm was expected, yet the hurricane disaster preparedness program was not implemented, causing a huge disaster. After the fact all the mayor and Governor could do is blame the federal government for not providing help sooner.

[laurence]

Quote:

Originally Posted by janeeyre These so called "confessions" -- deplorable indeed! Where are all the folks who spoke out about AbuGrab (spelling) and the Geneva convention Iran tortures their own people, therefore, can you imagine what they have done to coerce those soldiers into prepare those statements. What is McCain saying?

Indeed, I am certainly against some of our country's practices in recent years, but I hope no one thinks I confuse our troubling incidents with the deplorable regime in Iran. These actions on their part are despicable, and frankly I think a map of sites to be targeted by the British Air force would be an appropriate diplomatic message to Iran at this point. As Samclem points out, the fact that the U.N. can't even muster a strongly worded message in defense of troops carrying out a U.N. mandate shows how sad an institution that body has become.

If I remember correctly, the loss of that war eventually led to the toppling of the Argentinian government. I can't imagine the current hot-head President of Iran would be around long if Britain took out a billion dollars worth of installations.

[bssc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence If I remember correctly, the loss of that war eventually led to the toppling of the Argentinian government. I can't imagine the current hot-head President of Iran would be around long if Britain took out a billion dollars worth of installations.

If you may remember, at the same time, the US Government was sending 100s of millions of dollars to another country who had attacked Iran. Our friend was a guy named Saddam Hussein. Through the 8 years, Iraq did some $350 billion dollars of damage. But, as Wikipedia notes, "rather than turning against the Ayatollah's government as exiles had promised, the people of Iran rallied around their country "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_war

[janeeyre]

The UN has positioned themselves for some serious bashing. They should have condemned what is essentially a hostage taping but they failed to do so. Perhaps, they are looking to the future when we leave Iraq and Iran emerges as the middle east powerhouse complete with a nuclear weapon.

[chinaco]

Two words! Energy Independence. We need to work towards that goal.

Iran is back up to its old tricks... take hostages.

As far as what to do about the incident... Don't send in troops, use cruise missle diplomacy. Now we have the excuse to take out those nuclear plants.

[dumpster56]

We are not going after Iran right now Because of OIL.

Yes that is correct, we have no b@lls right now. The Iranians fought an 8 year war with saddam. Now this time these people are nothing more than a large suicide bomber.

President Bush who has lost all credibility still needs to tell the american people the truth that war with Iran if it happens IS a necessity. That the american people will have to sacrifice since the 14% middle eastern oil we get will stop indefinatly, that gasoline rationing and a military draft will be mandated and yea the big dance will commence. will Russia enter to help Iran? I doubt it, however the world will sit by and watch. The british should destroy the Iranian Navy one ship a day until all their people are released.

So how does this all sound??