A Lesson For America

Time was when no one would want to risk crossing the Royal Navy:

The Royal Navy of the United Kingdom is the oldest of the British armed services (and is therefore the Senior Service). From the early 18th century to the middle of the 20th century, it was the largest and most powerful navy in the world, playing a key part in establishing the British Empire as the dominant power of the 19th and early 20th centuries. During the Cold War, it was transformed into a primarily anti-submarine force, hunting for Soviet submarines, mostly active in the North Atlantic Ocean. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, its role for the 21st century has returned to focus on global expeditionary (blue water) operations.

I doubt Iran will be too stupid in attempting to make a point over the area in which the British sailors were captured:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Iranian naval vessels on Friday seized 15 British sailors and marines in disputed Persian Gulf waters off the coast of Iraq, British and U.S. officials said. The detentions come at a time of high tension between the West and Iran, which accused the British of intruding on its territory.

but clearly the sun does now indeed set upon the British Empire. And if the pathetic, appeasement-minded Democrat leadership we now have in Congress has its way, it'll soon set on America as a superpower, too.

Comments

[Phoenix]

Ring, Ring:

"Hello. Great Twitain here."

"This is a fanatic religious person speaking."

"Do tell."

"Aren't you close to the EU?"

"I say. What are you getting at?"

"This is a wake-up call. Thank you."

[templar knight]

I'm just curious. The British were in a war zone, in open conflict, patroling the Gulf and boarding ships. Am I missing something here? Were these soldiers armed? Why didn't they engage the enemy? Why not call for help? Why surrender?

[Phoenix]

It was a set-up. They were out numbered. Ahmadinejad cancelled his trip to the UN - not that we didn't have something to do with that by holding up the visas for his aides. But for sure he didn't want us keeping him here until they let the UK sailors go. They'll probably use the sailors for a swap for the Iranians we captured in Iraq. No matter - stupid move all the way around. For them, that is.

[Buzzy]

Well if it keeps President Amanwalksintoabar out of the US then it's not all bad.

The bad thing is, Iran will insist that the UK leave Iraq and Afghanistan and adopt sharia law and they probably will.

I take it that "300" hasn't played in the UK yet.

[Darth Malice]

Bush and Blair need to wipe them out before they leave office.God knows what kinda pacifists will replace them.

[daveinboca]

Ahmedodojihad controls the Rev Guards [as opposed to the IRanian Navy, which he might not have full control over]. This dwarf maniac should stop his games like the UN visit which was "cancelled" because of spurious visa claims. The Russians aren't buying his BS any longer and the UNSC is going to spank this naughty little monster tomorrow.

Fifty years ago, the Brits would have given these violent reactionaries the thrashing they deserve, but most of the world consists of nasty losers who hate successful Western countries, so the crazy midget might get away with it in the eyes of world opinion [But who cares about what Venzs and Cubans and leftardo Third World train-wreck countries think?].

[Purple Avenger]

The sun is setting on pretty much all of western Europe.

[Jeff]

Doesn't anyone think this is really bad?

It's an act of war to take soldiers from another prison outside of your own country. I don't want to see war, but maybe we can swoop in bomb the nuke sites, get the soldiers and get out. That's if all goes well... but that is definately an act of war.

[nova]

Don't worry the Brits will take care of this quickly. If you don't believe it see what happened in the Falklands.
When the Queen gets pissed she sends the fleet and those in the way will suffer.

[BobinStamford]

"maybe we can swoop in bomb the nuke sites, get the soldiers and get out"

Wow, a Mensa member AND a brilliant military strategist. The Greater Buffalo Area is lucky to have you.

[Purple Avenger]

I recommend the Soviet style response. Its something the crazy mullahs will understand.

[Jeff]

"I recommend the Soviet style response."

Like a Blitzkrieg, except with no concern with the safety of your men of civilians? At this point, Iran has basically declared war on Britain, it sounds as good as anything.

"a brilliant military strategist."

I know, you libs would rather that the Brits just give their troops up for the sake of peace. I would imagine that in school, you were the kid who people would throw spitballs at, but instead of fighting back, you would go home, cry, and try and figure out how to appeaase someone that doesn't desire peace.
So what do you say we do B(i)S? Send Iran 15 of our troops, I'm sure the libs would be glad to get rid of a few of those... after all it serves our troops right for going along with Bush's illegal and immoral war for oil, right? Really, how do we deal with this? Diplomacy? Iran doesn't want to talk. Even though you took a jab at me (even though I never claimed to know a thing about military strategy, and neither do you), you don't offer a darn thing.
You must of found it logical when those kids lobbing spit balls at you said, "Bob is an idiot." And you asked why, and they said, "just because."

Right? After all, the way you act, an attack doesn't need to be justified by logic, or facts.

[micah]

THis "confession" by British soldiers was no doubt obtained through devices similar to those demonstrated in the movie, "SAW". ~
Why do we even waste time on this creep: A-jad?!

[Jon G]

It's happened before. I'm sure the Brits can get their soldiers out without resorting to full-scale war:

In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days.

[Fred Beloit]

Jon, would you mind being captured, of course without a guarantee you would be released in three days?

[Fred Beloit]

Jon, do you know why Iran seized the Brits? Because when they seized them previously, they paid no price for their villainy, that's why. There is a simple lesson here that must be relearned every few years it seems. Some people do not learn it over a lifetime.

[Jon G]

I can't read minds, so I have no idea why they captured the soldiers. This stuff happens every few years - the previous British incident, China forcing down the US plane, the Pueblo.

So just exactly what are you proposing? That the Brits skip diplomatic negotiations and just nuke Iran?

[Phoenix]

The problem with upping the ante on the perceived weak western nations - as Ahmadinejad has repeatedly done - is that sooner or later that 'weakling' is going to get pissed. It is the nature of the westerner to sit back and let things slide. History proves that over and over.... at least since the days of British colonialism. But waking a lazy giant is not a good thing.

I never thought of the fact that the so-called hold-up on Ahmadinejad's aides' visas might be part of this plan. That means it was more of a set-up than I thought. I also think I heard the Revolutionary Guards were involved in taking the sailors. ? This is all bad news for them.

[Fred Beloit]

The only nuke going off in our comments, Jon, is the one in your head when one takes the positive side in a debate about self-defense.

[Fred Beloit]

If I wanted to play in your game I would have asked, what are you proposing, Jon, that the UK let Iran capture any of its forces they wish to and destroy the entire UK Navy? But of course I wouldn't do that.

[Fred Beloit]

I'm sorry to keep on like this, Jon, but I do love your example of the Pueblo. North Korea was, is, and will continue to be a festering sore to the world and its own people. We have had troops on their border for well over fifty years with no date of withdrawal even contemplated. This is kind of a Murtha deployment tactic test in real life. They are not over the horizon in Okinawa, however.

[noodles]

If I'm reading this correctly; Royal Marines boarded an Iranian ship in Iranian waters (or 'disputed' waters). Likly the Iranian cargo-ship Captain radioed that his boat was being boarded by armed marines of a foreign military. The Iranian Navy responded to the distress call and arrested the boarding party. Assuming this scenario is correct, it seems like a reasonable and prudent action to me; if I were an Iranian Naval Officer I would certainly arrest them for boading an Iranian-flagged ship (an act of war) and for violating Iranian-teritorial waters.

It is convienant that the Royal Marines were taking this action the day before the UN-SC voter for additional sanctions against Iran. Of course, none of us knows the real story and the Brits are as likely to lie and claim they were in Iraqi waters as the Iranians are that the Brits were in Iranian waters.

[Jeff]

In response to the fact that this happened in 2004. The world has changed a lot since then... no much more to say. Ahmadinejad was saying that Israel was doomed... but his really backed up that threat now, with his nuclear program. So yeah... the fact is that the troops are there now. I wonder what Code Pink has to say?

[Jon G]

"The only nuke going off in our comments, Jon, is the one in your head when one takes the positive side in a debate about self-defense."

I have absolutely no clue what that means.

OK - I'd negotiate. My first goal is to get my troops out alive, not do something stupid and get them killed.

So Fred, what's your plan?

[Jeff]

So Jon, then in theory if Iran decided to keep the soldiers indefinately, they could escape war. So now the best way to prevent war is to kidnap another nation's soldiers.

[Jeff]

I hate linking but this does not look good.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece

I am afraid that Franz Ferdinand is about to be assassinated.

[tally]

i nominate jon to negotiate the sailor's release, and noodles to be the liaison officer. boy, that will really show those iranians.

[Jon G]

You may want to read the link below as well. I have now idea if it's true or not - no one at our level has a clue what's actually going on over there. I do know the war we're presently in hasn't gone according to plan and we don't have the troops to fight another one.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1530527.ece

[scarshapedstar]

Send in the... wait, the Marines are already tied down. Well, at least they have a hostile dictator right next door... aww, conflabbit!

[Jeff]

Yeah Iranian Generals were in Iraq, without any right to be there. Umm, so what are you saying we are being bogged down by Iran, therefor we should surrender to Iran (releasing the Generals is just that). If you don't think that Iran is talking a page from the terrorists, you know nothing. This is designed to isolate America, and you bought into it fully Jon.

[Buzzy]

I'm waiting to see if the UK is past saving. If they go the diplomatic route and kneel down to kiss Aramlamadingdong's butt then there is little or nothing for the world to do but count the UK out as a dhimmi state, once loved but now gone.

But if the UK still has even a bit of the old Churchill "stiff upper lip" and guts then Iran may have bitten off more than it really wants to chew and this incident could well be the one that marks the beginning of the end of the Islamofascist Iranian regime.

Should the UK decide they see fit to still exist as a nation it will be interesting to watch exactly who lines up with them or with Iran (and exactly who keeps their mouths shut).

I'm also interested in watching who says what in US politics. Our Democrats may love mouthing vile things about our own government and our allies in time of war but always before they have discovered their patriotism and some semblance of right and wrong when push comes to shove. In other words, they vote for the war before they vote against the war and they fund the war while swearing they will defund the war.

So, the ball is in the UK's court. The world is waiting to see just how irrelevant they have become. I'm hoping that they rediscover a sense of themselves but you never know.

One thing is certain in my mind. If England decides to stand up to Iran over this the USA must come to her aid along with the rest of NATO.

[Jon G]

Buzzy - I'd respond but you're still an idiot.

So Jeff, what exactly do you want to do? Apparently negotiations are out. So do you want to invade? Air attacks? Nuke them?

[hobo]

A little late with this, but regarding the Brits getting tagged by the Iranians, the Brit crew leader admitted they were in Iranian waters just prior to being taken into custody. However, they were in neutral waters when nailed by the Iranians.

The Brits were in two rubber dinghy's and not carrying much firepower when quickly surrounded by two Iranian gunships with 20 and 50 millimeter cannons.

This scenario is rather strange, because the Americans have plenty of small but fast and heavily armed water craft in the vicinity and even some larger and maneuverable ships that could encircle the Iranian ships without firing a shot and demand the Brits to be released. Could have ended up being a "stand off" with the Iranians being highly embarrassed. Another scenario would be that a couple of Cobra gunships could have confronted the Iranians.

Somehow, someone didn't want any shots fired which leads me to believe that there is a bigger payoff lurking somewhere. My feeling is that the Brit sailors will be used as pawns.

[Fred Beloit]

Jon, my good friend, you asked me so here is my plan. (I must confess right now, however, that my knowledge of military technology is not up to date.) I would deploy slightly larger and sturdier vessels, than the rubber rafts described in the news, sent from the UK or wherever. These would be armed with quad 50 cal machine guns and modern light artillery or missiles. I would station two carriers, a heavy cruiser, and maybe two destroyers over the horizon, one with attack fixed wing attack aircraft and one with attack helicopters aboard. Then the smaller vessels would continue the kinds of missions they conducted previously when the UK forces were captured, only more aggressively and slightly within Iran's waters. As soon as the Iranian craft fell into the trap, I would launch the fighters and helicopters and direct the smaller vessels to open fire on the approaching Iranians and order the helicopters to attack as well. I would then send the fighters off to hunt down and sink every Iranian military vessel in range. It is called war, Jon, and that seems to be want Iran wants.

[Jon G]

Congrats Fred - you're 15 hostages are probably now dead and your "plan" probably just ignited a regional war that we don't have the troops to fight. We can't even win the war in Iraq - how the hell are we supposed to also take on Iran which has 400,00+ in its army? You're "plan" is a recipe for disaster.

[Fred Beloit]

Don't forget all those you are in favor of killing in Afghanistan, Jon. Also, don't forget you are a self-described chickenhawk. But I won't hold that against you. With their Navy mostly destroyed Iran certainly won't be able to attack the UK. Do you think they could parachute a big enough army into the UK with the great air force they have there? And go look at a map. Iran is just about surrounded by guess who. Yes, us. Now tell me, what could we negotiate about with that bunch?

[Jon G]

They don't need to attack the UK, they have plenty of targets much closer to home. They pump almost 3 million barrels of oil a day into the world's economy which we can ill-afford to lose. Look at the map, they border the major oil shipping lanes. It has twice the population of Iraq, a nation we've been unable to tame, and an army of around 400,000.

So what happens if after you attack Iran, they decide to stop pumping oil? How do you think the US and World economy will react to losing those 3 million barrels of Iran oil? I'm gonna guess gas prices will skyrocket and the stock markets will dive. Then maybe they decide to close the oil shipping lanes, destroy the oil pipelines, and attack the Saudi oil fields?

[Phoenix]

"How do you think the US and World economy will react to losing those 3 million barrels of Iran oil? "

Drill in Anwar? Sink some oil rigs in the gulf? Do the shale thing in the midwest? Get some of our own oil going for a change?

Oh, wait. Libs won't allow that because it might hurt a reindeer and their view of the seashore.

Saudi Arabia can pick up the slack. No doubt they'd like the chance. Or we can move faster on getting Iraq's oil out there. Maybe Iran stopping their pumping would be a good thing. Too bad their country would starve to death, though. I'm sure starving the population would be worth the political points.

[Fred Beloit]

To say they would stop pumping oil is wrong. It would be as if, out of anger at me, you said you would quit your job and run out of income.

[Raging_Dave]

I'd love to see Iran's oil pumps shut down. Maybe then they wouldn't have the money to fund terrorism all over the globe.