Stick A Fork In Britain, She's Done

You'll find several Telegraph stories linked at the top of this story, each more dispiriting than the next. They have headlines like:

Leader: A weak Britain becomes a target for tyrants

Niall Ferguson: Iran targeted the Security Council's weakest link - us

Iran's defiance makes Britain look powerless

How can the Government find a way to free the hostages in Iran?

The article I linked is possibly the most disappointing of all.

Ministers are preparing a compromise deal to allow Iran to save face and release its 15 British military captives by promising that the Royal Navy will never knowingly enter Iranian waters without permission.

The Sunday Telegraph has learnt of plans to send a Royal Navy captain or commodore to Teheran, as a special envoy of the Government, to deliver a public assurance that officials hope will end the diplomatic standoff.

Forget that it was an act of war, just think of it in criminal terms. A man takes your wife or your daughter hostage, does who knows what to them, then insists you and they were responsible because you allowed them to walk around looking appealing. To free them, you promise to not allow it again, ending the matter.

What is it that you have accomplished other than eroding any sense of decency or law? Nothing, that's what. And I fear it is what we increasingly have to look forward to from a once proud ally. Britain is done.

Their socialist system can't support a resurgence of their military, including their Navy, which one Brit recently characterized as no more than an adequate coast guard. And their chief battle in the war on terrorism is already taking place within their borders. Under siege and unable to project power around the world, the future of any vital Britain we once knew is very seriously in doubt. While the root causes are domestic moves weakening them as a state, that only made them vulnerable. It is radical Islam that's now positioned to take advantage and which may ultimately do them in.

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

Anyone wanna wager as to how many terrorists Dan just emboldened? They all read blogs, doncha know.

[Buzzy]

scar, everything you post emboldens the Islamofascists and makes a mockery of the freedom that we have in the United States. Your joy at our enemies victories is shameful and sick.

[Dan Riehl]

They aren't his enemies, Buzzy. He and they are America's enemies.

[old trooper]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevil_Chamberlain

Someone needs to remind the Brits that the Neville Chamberlain school of diplomacy was a failure.

Tyrants need to be confronted, not negotiated with.

[Aussie]

'Singapore was a disaster waiting to happen. A so-called island fortress there were no defences except 2 large guns facing out to sea. They could not be turned round. The airfield at Salito was bombed and all the aircraft destroyed and the RAF were immediately evacuated. The Prince of Wales was destroyed and sunk in the Straits, so we had no air defence whatsoever.

We had no jungle training and our uniforms were designed for the desert, which had been our destination. Can you imagine the difference between pale khaki and jungle green?

We were issued with maps that turned out to be the Isle of Wight - having to obtain a local map from a school wall and spent 2 days and nights making copies!

We then began digging weapon pits facing the mainland. There were no other defences...'

1942...

http://www.throughthenight.co.uk/singapore.htm

[Purple Avenger]

"Anyone wanna wager as to how many terrorists Dan just emboldened?"

Fewer than Pelosi licking Assad's jackboots I'd imagine.

[seekeronos]

If the UK keeps waffling on dealing with its Islamist problem, neither the Liberals (UK) nor the Tories will be able to stop the groundswell of support that picks up for the BNP.

[Aussie]

If you lot don't behave I'll... I'll vote for the BNP, that's what!

Oh yes, that will scare them.

[BobInStamford]

The British are now learning what happens when you join a former male cheerleader's 'coalition'. Surge on, may the liberations continue!

[Phoenix]

None of us knows the plans. The first objective is to get the hostages out alive.

Nothing wrong with eating crow to get what you want. It's the revenge factor that is yet to be determined. I look forward to it. Does anyone really think Iran gets to set the rules?

You know what a dog does when it gets kicked around beyond its level of tolerance. It's usually bloody and it's usually a complete surprise to the bully.

[BobInStamford]

Tough talk just like the brave cheerleader. Sad. Hey, here's another rat jumping off the sinking ship.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070401/pl_nm/bush_dowd_dc

Stay the course, heros!!

[Stan]

Aussie, thanks for that link, an relative of mine died in the fall of Singapore, we never got the whole story except the survivors went up to the railway, few returned.

[bloodrage bob]

must differ, phoenix. the first objective is NOT "get the hostages out alive", not when the hostages are uniformed military personnel. folks who volunteered to wear the uniform; carry weapons; go into harm's way; and be the (sadly, sometimes killed in action) military instrument of britain's foreign affairs.

the *first objective* here is to punish the iranians for committing an act of war upon a sovereign nation: great britain. to impress upon them the penalty for pissing off the big dog. to convince them to wander off bloody and dazed, vowing *publicly & humiliatingly*,to *themselves and the world*, never to make THAT huge mistake again.

in the larger scheme of things, those captured (why were they allowed to be captured?) sailors & marines are to be fought for; striven (strove?) to got back, and all that. but they don't outweigh the duty their nation has to defend itself and react to acts of war. maybe that sounds harsh; maybe that sounds cold. but i'll bet any serviceman worth a damn would heartily agree. it's been the rule since at least roman times: one doesn't negotiate with terrorists and pirates. one kills the crap outta them, and anyone stupid or foul enough to harbor them. or associate with them. or do business with them. etc etc. i'm sure the liberal weenies are even now squealing robotically, "fighting back is just what they WANT you to do!"

no....what they WANT is just what's happening: they want britain - the hated infidels - to crawl on their bellies. what they DON'T want is to be thrashed/bombed/etc for their misdeeds. they've taken a calculated risk: they think the brits will crawl rather than fight.

looks like they're right.

[Jon G]

So Dan, I'm curious what your plan for getting the hostages out alive is.

[Jon G]

You've chosen your moniker well, Bloodrage. Perhaps you can lead the charge?

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

At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. A grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers, Soroush said, "Mr. President, I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

[Phoenix]

BB,

I understand what you're saying. I just think the stakes are different this time. With relentless news propaganda, things could go awry in seconds and be portrayed the world over. The perfect example? Israel in her attempts to fight Hezbulluh a few months ago. Israel was crucified and couldn't fight the 'old fashioned' way. Israel is perceived as weak. That's okay for now.

There is a Machiavellian element here that is worth noting: Know thy enemy and use clandestine means to undermine his image. Not for one second do I think Iran's image will win in this crisis. Britain (and we) are fettered by the potential image of 'allowing' hostages to be killed just so we can inflict damage borne out of outrage. It's a face-the-world game we're playing, and we won't lose it in the end. Neither will Israel.

[Phoenix]

Jon,

Your last sentence - I think that is one of the primary thoughts in the minds of every 'good- guy' leader in this mess.

Does it strike you as ironic that Iran, already in turmoil with many citizens against the government, would solidify into one solid block of western-hating radicals if they were attacked?

Do you think when we're attacked again we will solidify into a solid block of patriotic Americans ready to defend our country at any cost? Or do you think we are past the point of becoming Americans again?

[BobInStamford]

You cons need to get a grip. Try losing one war at a time, please.

[Dan Riehl]

"your plan for getting the hostages out alive is"

Clear a nice wide path with a few tactical nukes, airdrop in 15 rad suits and tell the sob's to start walking. How's that?

[Capitalist Infidel]

Bob's utter hatred for the military is stunning!

[Dan Riehl]

"your plan for getting the hostages out alive is"

More seriously, I'd have given Iran a 24 hour ultimatum to release them. At the same time, I would have advised all foreign diplomats and press they too had 24 hours to leave Iran, after that we could not guaratee their safety.

After 24 hours and on a rolling schedule I would start decimating their air defenses, oil and nuke facilities, ports and military resources on a daily basis.

[Jon G]

That's not a plan, that's economic suicide.

[LOL]

"Clear a nice wide path with a few tactical nukes, airdrop in 15 rad suits and tell the sob's to start walking. How's that?"

Sounds like a wonderful action-movie storyline. Or perhaps a video game

[LOL]

these posts just indicate how out of touch with reality Dan is

[Jon G]

"Clear a nice wide path with a few tactical nukes". That's morally reprehensible.

[Dan Riehl]

That's morally reprehensible.

You and the rest of your friends who can't seem to pick some mullah's ass hairs out of your teeth fast enough is the only morally reprehensible thing around here. It's weak little jerks like you that allow these criminal regimes to get away with their criminal behavior.

[Purple Avenger]

"That's not a plan, that's economic suicide."

For Iran.

[mkultra]

"After 24 hours and on a rolling schedule I would start decimating their air defenses, oil and nuke facilities, ports and military resources on a daily basis."

You would, huh?

I see. Wonder would happen next.

How about:

(1) The price of oil would immediately triple. How's that sound? What do you think $10/gl. gas would do to our economy, not to mention every other oil-dependent (read developing and developed) economy? It would be economic meltdown on a scale not seen since the Great Depression, and probably worse.

(2) Certain and immediate death for hundreds if not thousands of American and British troops in Iraq. Do you think the Shia militias, the Iraqi domestic security forces, and most of the army would sit idly by as their fellow Shia were decimated in Iran? Hardly. And they would be joined by a better part of the Iranian army, which would quickly poor over the border.

Right wing nut jobs simply don't understand the degree of Iranian influence over our Shia "partners" in Iraq. They never have. If you declare war against Iran, then you declare war against the Iraqi government and 60% of the Iraqi people, i.e., the Shia majority.

(3) The immediate shutdown of our supplies lines through southern Iraq. Amateurs talk tactics, experts talk logistics.

(4) Certain hostile reactions by Syria and Hezbollah and the very likely possibility of regional destablization with its unforseeable but likely horrible consequences.

(5) Tacit backing of Iran by China and Russia, and all the serious implications that would follow.

And that's just for starters.

Dan, you don't have a clue, do you?

[Purple Avenger]

People like Jon have a place in Iran...

...swinging from the gallows. They simply don't understand that they won't be spared even though their types are not spared on a daily basis.

[Purple Avenger]

"What do you think $10/gl. gas would do to our economy"

Ain't gonna happen. The military option eventuality is already built into the price right now.

[Zifnab]

Wow, Dan. You've done an excellent job of playing the April Fool. Congratulations.

But in the spirit of the holiday, let's let a comedian retort your whine-fest:
Terry Jones of Monty Python fame gives us his take on the circumstances the British soldiers held hostage in Iran are enduring.

" Guardian: No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay. Read entire article here."

[mkultra]

'Ain't gonna happen. The military option eventuality is already built into the price right now."

Oh yes, the oil markets operate so rationally that open warfare in the Persian Gulf between Iran and the US/UK would have no effect on world oil prices. They have already factored it in.

Let's see, who would know more about that subject, the Purple Avenger, or (from the BBC last June 21):

****

Iran war 'could triple oil price'

World oil prices could triple if the West's stand-off over Iran's nuclear programme escalates into conflict, the Saudi Arabian government has warned.

The Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, said such an event could send prices spiralling from their current level of about $70 per barrel.

Iran is the Opec cartel's number two oil producer and analysts fear it could halt exports if the dispute worsens.

Tehran is currently examining proposals aimed at ending the diplomatic impasse.

Strait of Hormuz

"The idea of somebody firing a missile at an installation somewhere will shoot up the price of oil astronomically," Prince Turki told a conference hosted by the United States Energy Association.

He warned that any conflict involving Iran would threaten the Strait of Hormuz, through which most Middle East nations export their oil.

Tankers carry 17 million barrels of oil through the channel every day, according to the International Energy Agency.

****

Let's see, whom to trust on this one, the Purple Avenger, or our Saudi Allies? Hmmmm. That's a tough one.

God, the cluelessness of the nutjobs knows no bounds.

[Jon G]

A death threat from a guy hiding behind a alias, how courageous.

You just took 3 million barrels a day of oil off the market, widened the war in the Middle East and created a whole lot more terrorist pissed off at the US.

And the price of gas ISN'T going up? What fantasy land are you in?

[TS Alfabet]

mkultra, i see that you are drinking from the iranian kool aid.

iran is nowhere near as powerful or as competent as you think. ratcheting up the pressure on Iran is the only way.

A temporary spike in oil prices is acceptable, especially when we release the strategic reserve of oil and make it clear to Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states that they need to pump a little extra oil to make up for the reduction of Iranian crude; Iranian exports are not irreplaceable. Our economy is far more resilient than you give it credit and Iran's economy is already sick; without oil revenues, Iran's economy dies.

You want to talk logistics? Iran's terrorist buddies don't do anything without getting paid and with foreign capital dried up and no oil revenue, there is no money for Iran's henchmen, either in Lebanon or Iraq. Syria will quickly switch sides if they think for a minute that the mullahs are going down because Syria and Iran are natural enemies.

Iranian troops pouring across the Iraqi border? Please. Massed troop formations are the very kind of killing grounds that the USAF and Navy specialize in obliterating very easily. Air superiority is a b***h.

If you have been paying any attention you would know that the Iraqi shiites are ARABS and very different from Iranian, PERSIAN, shiites. Although there is no doubt that Iran has managed to bribe and intimidate a significant number of shiites in Iraq, there is nowhere near the kind of numbers needed to pose any real threat to US forces in Iraq.

Middle East cultures only understand force. The strong side and the weak side. Iran is deliberately trying to show, after several, humiliating defections and setbacks in the last few months, that it is the strong side. Neither Britain nor the US can afford a weak response to the Iranian aggression.

[Zifnab]

"ratcheting up the pressure on Iran is the only way."

The only way to what? Pick yet another fight with another country that has virtually nothing to do with 9/11? "Secure" more oil, and by "secure" I mean "destabilize the market for"? Toss another country into a five year civil war that costs us another half-trillion dollars and gets another 25,000 of our armed service members maimed or worse?

"Ratcheting up the pressure" didn't work on Iraq. Bush still went charging in, guns blazing. America isn't "Ratcheting up" anything more than the prelude to yet another failed war.

[BobInStamford]

Again, I would caution you patriots from starting a new war until you finish losing the one you're fighting now.

[Buzzy]

If the decision were mine regarding the hostages I would utilize a blockade of all ports and means of products entering or leaving Iran. Our Navy can blockade the straits, Afghanistan and Pakistan will cooperate as will the various 'stan's in the former soviet sphere. Turkey will most likely cooperate in this move knowing that the alternative is open warfare. Russia and Tehran are a bit cool with one another right now and they might even stop sending them weapons. Food and humanitarian supplies could be allowed in by air and a huge communications campaign with the Iranian people and the Islamic world at large would define this action's goals and objectives (the release of the hostages with a promise of noninterference with coalition military operations in the straits).

I believe that the UN Security Council might even be persuaded to agree to this knowing what the alternative would be.

[noodles]

RE: "Why were they allowed to be captured?"

Well, the assault/boarding teams had just boarded an Iranian-flagged ship and were in Iranian or arguably "disputed" waters. Likely, the Captain of the HMS Cornwall didn't think blasting the big guns or launching a few anti-ship missiles was particularly prudent. Also, as part of the MTF-I he likely needed permission from the Americans.

Seems to me Iran was within it's rights to arrest foreign military units boarding their merchant ships. However, considering the fact that these are "disputed" waters the Iranians should have seized the boats and weapons and then immediately released the marines to the custody of the British embassy in Tehran. At this point the Iranians just look like belligerent goofballs.

[Darth Malice]

The West is dying,no doubt about it.

[James Stephenson]

Woah there noodles. Even the Iranians know they were in Iraqi waters. The original Iranian report listed the exaxt spot pin-pointed by the Brits. Seems that while the Navy personel were re-boarding their ship, in other words at a very un-tactical situation the Iranians illegally captured them. While in Iraqi waters, there is no dispute about this. Unless you were just using those quotes to make a mockery of these disputed waters.

[Phoenix]

Every leader in the ME is on high alert hoping like hell Britain and the U.S. will take down Iran. Disaster to them would be western powers NOT doing anything to put Iran back in her place. Syria is probably praying for it. No telling what kind of threats Iran has placed on that dufus Assad to make him the laughing stock of the world.

God.... what kind of thinking goes on in the mind of liberals that they can't see the forest for the trees?

[TMLutas]

Iran imports 40% of their refined products from India and Turkey. Taking out refineries but leaving their crude export terminals entirely alone would:

1. Leave them even more dependent on foreign refined product.
2. Make it imperative to generate the foreign currency necessary to buy the refined product to avoid an economic collapse
3. Make Iran continue to ship crude out.

It's virtually unheard of for a major oil nation to lose significant amounts of oil due to leakage from pipes. Iran's oil infrastructure is so poorly maintained that they lose about 8%. Taking out refineries in Iran will not be hard. Buying large amounts of refined product so the prices spike there just before the refinery strikes would make it even more devastating to the Iranian economy.

In short, the Iranians can be made to feel pain all out of proportion to what they will inflict in retaliation. The question is whether the UK government of the day is smart enough to run one of the scenarios that will use that fat to the UK's advantage.

[Jim,MtnView,CA,USA]

It is not so bad that the Brit gov't is acting weak-kneed about it all. There may be diplomacy, even tough diplomacy, going on behind the scenes.
But all decent people should be raising holy h*ll. The Brits can say "we don't know how long we can hold them back...".
But there are not enough decent people in Europe. The Germans or French? Not likely. The BBC and Fleet Street? Yeah, right.

Dan's right about one thing. Iran gets away with stuff because they have oil. Take away the oil and their support will dry up. Will it cause painful economic dislocation? Of course. But that will happen anyway, sooner or later.

[celebrim]

"At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. A grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers, Soroush said, "Mr. President, I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

Is there any evidence that the regime is going to have trouble lasting 20 or 30 years as things stand now? Is there any evidence that continuing control over the primary schools and the media and every other facet of life by the current regime is going to result in a less radicalized Iran than the one we have now?

Do you suppose that we can make the Iranians to love us, especially those born after the revolution and fed a state controlled diet of hatred of the West since the time that they could speak? Do you suppose that by being forebearing we can convince rural Iranians that we are in fact being forebearing, or will they not rather be convinced that what they are told by their leaders and TV's is true - that the West is weak and ripe for conquest?

Do you think the President of Iran is joking about these things? Do you not think that he is serious? He has publically stated that he is convinced that Britain will surrender without a fight. One is reminded of a certain Osama Bin Ladin's declaration that the US would surrender without a fight.

Let say that you manage to get the Iranians to hand over your people having done nothing more embarassing than ketowing to the Iranian theocrats, publically telling your allies in the Arabian pensuela that you can do nothing to protect them from Iran, and admitting that you were in the wrong when they kidnapped your soldiers from international waters? Do you suppose that this is going to make the situation better in the future? Do you suppose the Iranians will be content to stop with that? Did you suppose that the last time Iran did this that it would be the last time? You mention the many ways that Iran might make life difficult for Britain. Supposing this is true, why would it not be in the interest of Iran to continue pressing and pushing? If in fact Iran is gauranteed to win the war, as you have suggested that they are, why would it be in Iran's interest to back down? If Britain backs down, do you think that it will be the end of it? What do you think that they will demand next time?

You say that support for Iran from Russia and China will be solidified if Britain resists. This would change things how? Russia will support anyone that can pay them, and China will support anyone that can deliver the oil. If Britain is not interested in controlling the Iranian oil fields, then neither Russia nor China gives a damn what happens in Iran.

Lastly, I agree with Suroush. If Britain drops one bomb on Iran, it would certainly bolster the Iranian regime.

But I don't advocate dropping one bomb.

[celebrim]

"At this point the Iranians just look like belligerent goofballs."

Did it never occur to you that the appearances here were not in fact decieving? In fact the situation is exactly as it appears. The Iranians are belligerent goofballs. They have publically declared thier wish to restore the Persian empire, to reclaim sovereinty over the whole of the Islamic world, to destroy the West, and they plan to accomplish this by bringing about conditions in which it will be ripe for the return of the 'hidden Iman'.

"Well, the assault/boarding teams had just boarded an Iranian-flagged ship and were in Iranian or arguably "disputed" waters."

This is false. The Iranians themselves originally reported the correct position of the vessel. Only when the British navy pointed out that this was firmly in Iraqi waters, did the Iranians report a new position three miles from the one they originally challenged the British over.

"Likely, the Captain of the HMS Cornwall didn't think blasting the big guns or launching a few anti-ship missiles was particularly prudent. Also, as part of the MTF-I he likely needed permission from the Americans."

Again, quite wrong. The Captain of the HMS Cornwall and the boarding team itself was under strict orders to not start shooting. The rules of engagement the Royal Navy was operating under prevented them from firing back. To get permission to fight back required getting permission from London. Effectively, the British government had given orders to the boarding team that in just such a situation they should surrender.

American permission to fight back was not required, and had it been asked for it would have been granted anyway. Interestingly, the American rules of engagement require boarding teams in a similar situation to fight back, and to continue to fight while there is any possibility of resisting - successfully or unsuccessfully - to prevent just the sort of situation from occuring that the British are in. America, from experience, would much rather be dealing with a shooting war than a hostage crisis.

[Don]

Hey Genius, when the U.S. was faced with a similar situation in the "Spy Plane" incident ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-China_Spy_Plane_Incident ) at the beginning of Bush's term I don't seem to recall us threatening, much lesss using, force to resolve the situation. I'm in favor of administering an attitude adjustment to the Iranians as well but to rag on the Brits when we caved in a similar situation is asinine.

[celebrim]

Hey Genius, when the U.S. was faced with a similar situation in the "Spy Plane" incident...

Similar? Yes, I suppose in very broad terms.

Iran is not China. This means you are dealing with a totally different set of ideologies, and these different ideologies shape what you can achieve diplomatically. If this was China or some other country, my analysis would be totally different.
The Hainan Island incident was not a repeat of similar behavior on the part of China. That's a pretty important point. Once is a mistake. Multiple incidents are more likely deliberately planned aggression.
The Hainen Island incident did not appear to have been planned by the Chinese. To me, this the overriding difference. The Hainen Island incident was brought about by a mistake by a Chinese pilot. Especially in light of the timing, there is a good deal of evidence that the British marines were taken hostage as part of a deliberate plot in order to blackmail the British government and/or its allies.
Our people showed no signs of having been coersed. Interogatted, yes, but within what the US considers 'reasonable' (if not necessarily for a valid reason in this case). Compare with what we know of the behavior of the Iranians in 2004. Moreover, the Chinese never threatened to execute our people, which is certainly the implication of Iranian threats to put the marines on trial and which they did in mock trials/executions in 2004.
China did not stage an attack on the US embassy in China as part of their continued esclating threats, nor if they had have would such a threat be taken as seriously given the context.
In my recollection, China did not attempt to blackmail the US on larger issues by making threats against the safety of the crew.
China allowed the prisoners to be visited, and thier location was not secret.
China was not currently engaged in hostile action against our forces elsewhere in the world.

If the UK could get the Iranians to back down with something similar to a 'two apologies letter' in which the UK said nothing substantial and which it was clear that the UK wasn't going to say anything about doing anything wrong and that that was all Iranians would have to save face by, and if the UK made it clear to the Iranians that further stunts on thier part would be met with all due military force, that would be an acceptable ending IMO. But good luck with that. The Iranians aren't going to let go as easily as they did in 2004.

[bloodrage bob]

i'd be happy to "lead the charge", jon. provided i get to make the rules of engagement, and shoot on sight any limp-wristed liberal pussy journalists i catch supporting the enemy. and *I* define "supporting the enemy".

and what will you do, jon? will you hang back on the sidelines, and critique? whine? make your snarky little comments? or will you just join the rest of the comfort women, and give blowjobs to the soldiers?

[David]

It is a shameful day when the price of life and freedom is measured against the price of a gallon of gas. Y'all who think that way just keep going down that road. Some day it will be your life vs. the price of gas and you will get little sympathy or support from the rest of us.

[TMLutas]

David - The price of gas, at the margin, *is* human lives. The higher transport fuels cost, the more they stress the poor all over the world. Cheap gas extends the areas that can be serviced by motor transport and can deliver sick people to doctors among other things that gasoline makes possible. Mobility can be and is life to somebody every day of the week. The number of US lives that are at the margin is a very small part of our population but it's a fairly large part of the world population. Thus ends the marginal economics lesson.

It's irrelevant, of course. If we were looking to really lower the world price of gasoline, we'd have cozied up to the mullahs and the dictators even more. Planting your lips firmly enough on their backside would have yielded cheaper crude. That we didn't do so is an indicator that something else is going on.