Posted on 03/24/2007 4:10:06 PM PDT by bnelson44
"If the decision was made March 18 to make the capture, doesn't this seem to refute the statement that they were in Iranian waters?
No, it doesn't.
Intelligence agents routinely cross territorial waters. The decision was made, I think, knowing full well that agents would be crossing into Iranian waters.
|
the empire ain't what she used to be, they are trying to decide if they want to be more like the french or more like pakistan
_______________________________________________________
I believe the Brits are French because if it has taken this long to respond then they might as well forget doing anything. One would think that there is a plan for different situations that might arise. If there isn't, then heads should roll.
|
Can you please give me an example of when the British have bargained with terrorists? I can certainly remember the US doing so (e.g: Iran in 1980). Britain has been arguably tougher in its foreign policy than the US since WW2. The U.S. political leadership ran away from Vietnam. Gave in to Iran. Retreated from Beirut in 1983. Reteated from Somalia in 1993. The brave U.S. military has been betrayed on numerous occasions by weak US leadership. The pro-Iraq war Conservative Party are also leading in the British polls at the moment just as the anti-Iraq war democrats are doing so in the US.
Thankfully, Britain is not Germany, Italy and Spain. We have a record of dealing severely with those who take hostages.
That would be a good first start. Sink every armed vessel we see. Then seize the Iranian offshore oil rigs. See if they want to trade some Brit sailors for their rigs
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.