http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261540,00.html

I do lay some blame on the British, they should have shot their way out. They were Royal Marines, they had a frigate near by, they should have started shooting.

Personaly I think they are desperate, and testing us.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Editorial from yesterdays Wall St. Journal.

Tehran's Hostages
Iran's act of war against our British allies.

Monday, March 26, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Advocates of engagement with Tehran often claim that the Islamic Republic long ago shed its revolutionary pretensions in favor of becoming a "status quo" power. They might want to share that soothing wisdom with the families of the 15 British sailors and marines kidnapped Friday in Iraqi territorial waters by the naval forces of the elite, and aptly named, Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

In an earlier day, what Iran has done would have been universally regarded as an act of war. It was a premeditated act, carried out only hours before Britain voted to stiffen sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program in a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution. Iran captured a smaller detachment of British forces in the same waters in 2004, claiming they had strayed across the Iranian border. It beggars belief--as well as an eyewitness account of the incident reported by Reuters--that the British would make that mistake twice, assuming they made it the first time.


In 2004, the Iranians were quick to release the captured soldiers after extracting "apologies" and marching them, blindfolded, before the TV cameras. There is reason to believe that this time the Ayatollahs might be planning a longer stay for their guests.

Earlier this month, the Sunday Times of London reported that the Revolutionary Guards newspaper Subhi Sadek suggested seizing "a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks." One possible motive: The apparent defection by Revolutionary Guards commander Ali Reza Asgari, who disappeared in Istanbul last month and is said to know a great deal about Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians may now be using their hostages as payback for General Asgari's defection--or as ransom for his return.

Given the Iranian regime's past success with hostage-taking--whether with U.S. diplomats in Tehran in 1979 or Westerners in Beirut in the 1980s--they may also figure that Prime Minister Tony Blair is willing to pay a steep price to secure release of the sailors before he leaves office later this year. Or perhaps the Iranians want to bargain with Mr. Blair's successor, presumably Chancellor Gordon Brown, whom they might suspect would take a softer line at the U.N. They may also be trying to create a rift between the U.S. and U.K. by offering to trade the British troops for Iranians the U.S. has recently detained inside Iraq.

It's also possible, as Walid Phares of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies points out, that the Iranian leadership may be seeking to draw Britain (and the U.S.) into limited military skirmishes that they think could shore up domestic support against widening popular discontent.

Another possibility: sufficiently bloodying Coalition forces in Iraq to hasten their withdrawal. The mullahs might even hope any fighting would embolden Democrats to do Tehran's bidding by passing legislation that forbids the Administration from attacking Iran without prior Congressional permission. Such a plank was contained in the supplemental war spending bill that passed the House last week until cooler heads removed it.

As with the 1979 hostage crisis, how Britain and the rest of the civilized world respond in the early days of the crisis will determine how long it lasts. Britain has already demanded the safe and immediate return of its personnel; they will have to make clear that its foreign policy will not be held hostage to the mullahs.

That does not require a resort to military options while diplomacy still has a chance to gain the sailors's release. Saturday's unanimous vote by the U.N. Security Council was also welcome, even if the new sanctions continue to be far too weak. Serious sanctions would target the country's supply of refined gasoline, much of which is imported.




It is worth recalling, however, that Iran was at its most diplomatically pliant after the United States sank much of Tehran's navy after Iran tried to disrupt oil traffic in the Persian Gulf in the late 1980s. Regimes that resort to force the way Iran does tend to be respecters of it. It is also far from certain that Western military strikes against Revolutionary Guards would move the Iranian people to rally to their side: Iranians know only too well what their self-anointed leaders are capable of.

Most important, the world should keep in mind that Iran has undertaken this latest military aggression while it is still a conventional military power. That means that Britain and the U.S. can still respond today with the confidence that they maintain military superiority. That confidence will vanish the minute Iran achieves its goal of becoming a nuclear power. Who knows what the revolutionaries in Tehran will then be capable of.

Well, don't tell that to the knee-bending liberals who are eager to make nice-nice with the Persians.

And no, I am not just referring to the Spartans and Persians circa 480 B.C.

The parallels, however, between the events surrounding the actions depicted in the movie "300" and what is happening now are just amazing.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

This is why I could never lead a country, I would take an iron fisted approach.

I'd simply release a press statement:

"The Iranians will release their hostages and issue an apology in 48 hours. If this is not done, we will send a cruise missle into a government building in Tehran ever day until they are released. If the hostages are killed we will send an ICBM."

I'd want to cut the head of the snake, nuke them, problem solved.


Its like the biggest kid on the play ground, no one steals his stuff, because if they do they will get beat up. Thats how it works here to.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Hey, if you become leader of your own country, can I be the AG?

I can assure you that the firing of any subalterns will be handled discreetly and will never be traced to you.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

Well back in middle school my friends and I actualy had this all figured out. I figure if I lead a country I will need a strong military, and a strong "personal guard" force. IE someone to go around the military once in awhile for projects that they don't want to get involved in...

But sure yeah I'll make a spot for you, I'll even throw a nice MB to every member of the government.

I could never lead a country though, I'd be a tyrant.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Send in the French Navy.

Id vote for you...

Oh dear God no!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT8jq2I0Y1E&mode=related&search=

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

It sounds great in theory, but you also have to look at the results of such an act. Mainly on what nuking Iran would do to world oil supply, and conversely the world economy. The US doesn't buy oil from Iran, but a lot of other people do. If Iran's supply was inaccessable for the next hundred years or so while the country glows in the dark, then the people who do have oil left will be able to charge a lot more for it. Not to mention the fact that oilfields in Iraq and Kuwait could be affected by fall-out as well.

Now don't get me wrong, I am all for the military option in a case like this, which is a blatant act of war. I'd much rather see a military option that targets their politicial structure and national infrastructure. Tomahawk cruise missliles could take out power plants, water purification, rail and road transport networks, airports, etc. Just leave the stuff that you need to pump and deliver oil intact. Make life hell for the average Iranian and you provide them with the impetus to rise up and overthrow their government. They've done it once in the past 30 years. I'm sure there's enough revolutionary spirit left to do it again.

__________________
Jonathan

2011 Mazda2
2000 E320 4Matic Wagon
1994 C280 (retired)

I dunno...that Exocet missle is a *****. Remember the HMS Sheffield during the Falklands War? And you get to fight from the safety of 80 nautical miles away. while flying at 500 knots. A good pilot could be touching down on the Foch or Clemenceau at the same time the Exocet pierces the hull.

__________________
Jonathan

2011 Mazda2
2000 E320 4Matic Wagon
1994 C280 (retired)

I read about this in my economics class, and I thought it was a very creative military strategy. This might be an option for your dictatorship: There was some quote that went like "The way to destroy a country is to destroy its money." During WWII, Hitler had the idea of counterfeiting huge quantities of British currency and dropping it from planes all over Britain to cause hyperinflation of their economy. He never ended up doing it, but it sure would be interesting to see the results of a tactic like that.

__________________
"There are a lot of pebbles on the beach, but there's a Little Rock in Arkansas."

Logan

1983 300D Turbodiesel
1976 300D Rustdiesel

But what would inaction cost? If we had done it way back when, would we be having trouble from the ME?

This is what has been going on with the whiz bang tech we spent money to develop. They don't care that you can hit a postage stamp on the wall and leave the house intact going thru a certain window. They appreciate massive wholesale slaughter. Give it to them. If a guy only speaks French, you cannot expect to speak in Russian and converse with him.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I believe this comment shows some ignorance of Iran as a political entity. They aren't ethnically homogenous, or religiously homogenous for that matter. There are 9 major ethnicities that make up the population, and of the Muslims there are three major sects, who hate each other pretty much the same way they do in Iraq. And with those decades of tension simmering under the surface, you know they're just ready to start killing each other in the name of whatever they happen to believe.

Now...if we only had an example of what happens when you take a country with tribal roots, multiple ethnicities and multiple discordant religious sects, and you take away the authoritarian government, potable water, electricity, food supply, rule of law and general security for person and property. Maybe a country in the middle east. I'd be willing to bet that some degree of civil war would take place, and if the country that removed the all those things DIDN'T have troops on the ground in harm's way they could just sit back and watch the whole thing implode, and then figure out how to work with whatever regime emerged.

I'm not talking inaction. I'm talking about a smart military response that minimzes your risk while maximizing your result. Make a serious effort to destabilize the regime, and you'll get a result. None of the pussy-footing that we've witnessed in the past. I'd figure the elegance of this solution would appeal to you of all people, because it clearly shows you what is in it for you. Unless all you're interested in doing is killing Muslims.

__________________
Jonathan

2011 Mazda2
2000 E320 4Matic Wagon
1994 C280 (retired)

As the British sailors & marines have proven, it isn't the tool that counts as much as the will to use it.

B