Posted on 03/28/2007 9:14:34 PM PDT by DTAD
I'm not talking here about the soldiers who are brave warriors without a doubt. I am talking about the politicians who are looking for any way to avoid confronting Iran despite the outrageous kidnapping of their Marines. I don't know if you have followed the comments made by British officials, but it's disgusting. Even the opposition is saying they don't want to retaliate because that might help give Amhednutjob more popular support, and pointing to his party's poor showing in municipal elections. As if somehow the Iranians will throw the Islamofascists out of power if the West only does nothing. And that's the Conservatives! The left is even more feckless. It's sad that a nation that could turn every Iranian military base into smoking craters in a hour has decided it's helpless to confont the modern day Nazis. Churchill must be rolling in his grave.
It's also my opinion that Mecca must be destroyed.
I am convinced that the UK still has some serious stones.
But these politicians are still the same politicians who backed America into going to Afghanistan and Iraq. They aren't wimpish. This is a delicate situation. A gung ho attitude is NOT what is called for. This is tricky. Very tricky. The Brits obviously want the Iranians to appear in the wrong (which they clearly are) and the less gung ho blow 'em away attitude they show the more worldwide support they will get.
These captive sailors and marines obviously are not being mistreated. If that changes then I'm sure so will the British response.
""It's also my opinion that Mecca must be destroyed.""
I think all religions should be done away with. Religion is the root cause of much of the world's problems. We should all go back to worshipping the land, the sun, the moon etc. Things that are actually there. That made sense. Imaginary gods don't.
"This is a delicate situation." This is tricky. Very tricky."
So, it's like "nuanced", huh?
Sheesh.
If the reaction that got these people grabbed in the first place doesn't meet your definition of wimpy i'd hate like hell to see what does.
Fighting using half measures is the very definition of wimpy
And wringing your hands and mouthing platitudes on the sideline as you wait for the rest of the world to approve of you or feel sorry for you is down right stupid. Actually ALL of the above is WIMPY and STUPID.
We pounded the living crap out of Germany and Japan, killed off their war mongering war supporting people in wholsale lots---and we haven't had a peep out of them in sixty years
But ever since then everything has been "tricky, very tricky" and look at where we are, and, more importantly, where we are inevitibly going. Believe me, there won't be anything "delicate" or "tricky, very tricky" about anything when we finally get there.
TalBlack,
You sound like a typical armchair general. You know nothing. Mouth all mighty with no brain behind your mouth. It's the ugh ugh caveman attitude with people like you. If you can't see how delicate this is then I just pity you. Go back to reading your G.I Joe comics son.
""We pounded the living crap out of Germany and Japan, killed off their war mongering war supporting people in wholsale lots---and we haven't had a peep out of them in sixty years""
LOL, and how many years did it take to FINALLY do something about Germany and Japan?? They were building up for years and years and were left to get on with it for a long while. Britain appeased Germany under Chamberlain in the beginning while America was sat on their arses doing feck all until Pearl Harbor so don't talk so damn wet.
It's the gung ho hit without thinking kind of childlike attitudes such as yours that causes friendly fire and other cocked up scenarios.
THINK before you enage your brain.
Bull. Your ignorance just waved a red flag and pointed to itself screaming "Here I am".
Newt, in an interview, suggested that the British should inform Iran that their single gasoline refinery would be reduced to rubble in 48 hours if their soldiers were not back in their hands -- first privately, to give them an opportunity to save face, then publically, to elicit pressure from the citizens of Iran. That alone should bring the Iranian economy to a halt.
When the refinery was rubble, the British announce that they were imposing an embargo on gasoline entering Iran. Within 30 days, there would be no vehicle traffic, which would kill the Iranian economy.
The mullahs would not survive.
Correct. They have exactly one refinery, which we should bomb. Then we should blockade their coast adn mine thier harbors to keep oil from coming in -- or going out either.
Then bomb their nuke facilities and increse our military presence near the Iran-Iraq border.
This is a Reaganaut strategy, making their economy suffer and at the same time making them have to try to keep up militaryily. It should collapse them.
We should also arrest their entire UN mission as spies, ship them to Gitmo, and hold them until the Mad Mullahs cave. What a bunch of phony holy men!
What justification do we have to do these things, you might ask. After all, they're Briatain's military personnel.Well...
They committed an act of war against Britain, our ally.
Under the terms of the NATO treaty, to which we and the Brits are signatories, an attack on one is an attack on all. Thus, by attacking a British ship, they attacked the United States too.
Thus we hvae every justification to actas if the attack were on us directly.
Correct. They have exactly one refinery, which we should bomb. Then we should blockade their coast adn mine thier harbors to keep oil from coming in -- or going out either.
Then bomb their nuke facilities and increse our military presence near the Iran-Iraq border.
This is a Reaganaut strategy, making their economy suffer and at the same time making them have to try to keep up militaryily. It should collapse them.
We should also arrest their entire UN mission as spies, ship them to Gitmo, and hold them until the Mad Mullahs cave. What a bunch of phony holy men!
What justification do we have to do these things, you might ask. After all, they're Briatain's military personnel.Well...
They committed an act of war against Britain, our ally.
Under the terms of the NATO treaty, to which we and the Brits are signatories, an attack on one is an attack on all. Thus, by attacking a British ship, they attacked the United States too.
Thus we hvae every justification to act as if the attack were on us directly.
A similar trick worked on Pete Rose!
Like Presidnet Reagan did in the 1980s.
These kidnappers will use every word of discussion against us and the hostages and every bribe attempt will foster more kidnaps and murders. There's only one way to deal with them, and that way is silent in words.
Good; they can make Iran appear in the wrong for a year or so.
I see echoes of the 1979 hostage taking here (in which Ahmedgenocide, AKA Hitler in a Headscarf, participated) and echoes of the U.S.S. Pueblo. (As Rosie O'Donnell would say, "Google it.") We cannot permit either of those situations to be replayed. But that seems to be where Phony Blur's policy is headed.
When the refinery was rubble, the British announce that they were imposing an embargo on gasoline entering Iran. Within 30 days, there would be no vehicle traffic, which would kill the Iranian economy.
And I woudl add, mine their harbors in case anyone manages to run the blockade.
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.