Posted on 03/25/2007 5:17:55 AM PDT by Dog
The Argentinian military leaders also underestimated the 'British response'. Recapturing the Falklands was a logistical impossibility, yet the British pulled it off.
And I believe the punchline from Churchill went something like this. 'They have chosen dishonor over war, and now they shall have both.'
Thanks, I enjoyed that!
I don't recall making a 'strong post'? I've only highlighted the UK's record in not giving in to hostage takers. With regards to your second post:
When US personnel were captured by Iran a while back, the US did nothing different to us. They have also done nothing to stop Iran's disgraceful arming of insurgents. So why is the US there?
Actually if you ever read the book by the late COL Charlie Beckwith, the original creator of the US Army's SFOD-D (Special Forces Operational Detachment- DELTA), spent a year with the SAS operating in Vietnam. He went back and created what is popularly known today as Delta Force.
SAS Operator Andy McNabb has written two books on his experiences with the SAS, one was called Bravo Two Zero and I highly recommend it. The other was a pre-quel called Immediate Action, also an excellent read. Thereafter the SAS clamped down on McNabb and other asipiring authors.
The place has at least three US fast attack subs on station.
The commander who allows his troops to be seized without putting up a fight should be drummed out of the service. Would you want to serve under such a commander when he has to ask for permission to save you? Just what the he!! Rules of engagement are these fools operating under in this hostile region? Idiots
That is probably the most ill informed opinion I’ve seen on this site in years! Where would WWIII come from. Don’t you realize that we are already in WWIII! Just who do you think would be on Iran’s side? Who are Iran’s allies? The simple answer is that there is no one willing to go to fight this country over Iran. Please try to use a modicum of logic before you respond in an illogical emotional outburst.
Unfortunately the real dynamic of a "Low Intensity Conflict" is quite different. In comparison WWII while long and bloody was a snap. Battle lines clearly drawn. Enemy largely in one place at a time and wearing identifiable uniforms....yada yada yada. Today it's not quite so simple. Today the bad guys strike like the cowards they are and slip away like smoke. Much as I rail against the entire populations of countries like Syria and Iran, I find it a bit much of a stretch to advocate the atomization of every man woman and child who obviously has no link to terrorists and just happens to be living in a country with a terrorist nutjob for a President.
Even if the tangos managed to detonate a nuke (a la 24 w/Jack Bauer) on US soil, how many of you would walk next door and smoke your Arab neighbor in retaliation? Not me. It's not quite as easy as you might think.
Even in the act of kicking a$$, we're still going to lose some considerable numbers of American soldiers. Enough to make the losses in Iraq pale in comparison. The only way to win a war is to invade the country and seize the land itself. It has been thus since the dawn of time. All the high tech weapons in the world have made the job of the infantryman a little bit easier, but still necessary.
I have a pretty good feeling how Rudy would handle something like this if it happened to the US.
First he would fire the commander of the ship and second he would give them 6 hours to release the captives and then start the precision bombing of their economy. A couple of damns here and a few bunker busters there and the game would be over.
Just an FYI; there is talk about how bombing the uranium enrichment sites would cause wide spread release of radioactivity, well for all of you whimpy handwringers out there, we are working on blowing up the sites and containing the resultant contamination to those underground sites.
Quarantine the country, let them drink their oil.
One thing: if they're talking to you assume they are lying. It's in their book.
War warning?
Well, the iranians feel they got what they wanted when Hesbollah captured the israeli soldiers. A war that bombed lebanon backward 50 years so now the remaining sheep are properly conditioned against "the enemy". This is what they may want out of the UK/US now, to head off any revolutions.
This game of diplomacy has been going on for some decades with the middle-east. The kidnapping of military personnel is a clear and present danger as far as I'm concerned. However, as a commoner I don't think any move should be made by the US or the UK until those respective governments let their peoples know just what in the world is going on to delay or prevent an immediate rescue. Is it some sort of military maneuvering in the area, the oil, crazy maniacs running the place, planned terrorist attacks in the UK or US?
I don't want to start WWIII, but I am sick of all the secrecy, while in the meantime westerners are being kidnapped, killed, bartered with or whatever. Our governments seem to be using their people as cannon fodder, and I'm tired of it.
We have the military and weaponry to end these problems almost immediately, but we refrain from using them at any and all cost.
I think the Russia threat is overhyped. Russia is in it for whatever wealth they can squeeze out of their customers. Once things go to blows they'll back off, but continue to provide substandard military equipment.
In my opinion I think the time to show the World our true military and economic might should happen soon.
Please don't suggest that people DON'T have something at stake here just because their children aren't draftable!
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.