Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iran's Bluff Humbles Britain
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | April 8, 2007 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 04/08/2007 5:24:27 AM PDT by Tom D.

Iran's Bluff Humbles Britain

April 8, 2007
BY MARK STEYN Sun-Times Columnist

Watching Tottenham Hotspur fans taking on the Spanish constabulary at a European soccer match the other night, I found myself idly speculating on what might have happened had those Iranian kidnappers made the mistake of seizing 15 hard-boiled football yobs who hadn't got the Blair memo about not escalating the situation.

Instead, as we know, the mullahs were fortunate enough to take hostage 15 Royal Navy sailors and Royal Marines. Which were which was hard to say upon their release. The Queen's Navee had been demobbed. The token gal was dressed up as an Islamic woman and the 14 men had been kitted out in Ahmadinejad leisurewear. Which is not just a ghastly fashion faux pas but a breach of the increasingly one-way Geneva Conventions. But they smiled and they waved. Wave, Britannia! Britannia, waive the rules!

The Associated Press reported the story as follows: ''Analysis: Hope For More Iran Compromises.''

Well, if by ''compromise'' you mean Tehran didn't put them up for a show trial and behead them, you might have a point. With this encouraging development, we might persuade them to wipe only half of Israel off the map, or even nuke some sparsely occupied corner of the Yukon instead. With the momentum of this "compromise" driving events, all manner of diplomatic triumphs are possible.

Tony Blair was at pains to point out that the hostages were released ''without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature.'' But he's missing (or artfully sidestepping) the point: Tehran didn't want a deal. It wanted the humbling of the Great Satan's principal ally. And it got it. Very easily. And it paid no price for it. And it has tested in useful ways the empty pretensions of the U.N., the EU and also NATO, whose second largest fleet is now a laughingstock in a part of the world where it helps to be taken seriously.

I'm always bemused by the correspondence I get from readers arguing that there's more going on than meets the eye -- that the British and Americans wanted to keep things cool this last week because it's a massive head fake to distract attention from all kinds of covert activities already under way to overthrow Ahmadinejad, and Assad, and a bunch of other fellows. Even if it were true (which it's not) that Valerie Plame's crack commando units are rappelling down the walls of every presidential palace from Sudan to North Korea, in a media age what matters is not only what's going on behind the scenes but the scenes themselves. And scenes of British servicemen fawning on Ahmadinejad along with scenes of a headscarved Nancy Pelosi doing the same to Bashir Assad project a consistent message.

Even if there is more going on than meets the eye, what meets the eye is so profoundly damaging to the credibility of great nations that no amount of lethal special ops could compensate for it. Power is only as great as the perception of power. The Iranians understand that they can't beat America or Britain in tank battles or air strikes so they choose other battlefields on which to hit them. That's why the behavior of the captives gives great cause for concern: There's no point training guys to be tough fighting men of the Royal Marines when you're in a bloody little scrap in Sierra Leone (as they were a couple of years ago) if you allow them to crumple on TV in front of the entire world.

So in 2007 the men of the Royal Navy can be kidnapped and "the strong arm of England" (in Lord Palmerston's phrase) goes all limp-wristed and threatens to go to the U.N. and talk about drafting a Security Council resolution. Backstage, meanwhile, deals are done: An Iranian "diplomat" (a k a Mister Terror Kingpin) suddenly resurfaces in Tehran after having been reported in American detention, his release purely coincidental, we're told. But it's the kind of coincidence that ensures more of your men will be kidnapped and ransomed in the years ahead. And, just to remind the world who makes the rules, six more British subjects were killed in southern Iraq even at the moment of the hostages' release. The Iranians have exposed America's strongest ally as the soft underbelly of the Great Satan.

The most noticeable feature of the last two weeks has been the massive shrug by the British public. Some observers attributed this to the unpopularity of the Iraq war: Those nice mullahs wouldn't be pulling this stuff if Blair hadn't got mixed up with that crazy Texas moron. But it seems to me a more profound malaise has gripped them -- the enervating fatalism of too many people in what is still a semi-serious nation with one of the world's biggest militaries up against an insignificant basket-case. The traditional British position was deftly summed up in the chorus of an old music-hall song:

"We don't want to fight but, by jingo, if we do

We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too . . ."

Or, to modify Elvis, they weren't looking for trouble but, if you looked right in their face, they'd give you some. In theory, they still have the ships, the men and the money, but something intangible has been lost. "Jingoism" is not merely a mindless swagger but a kind of assumed national confidence of which the fleet and the sailors and the cash are merely the tangible embodiment. Take away the confidence, and the ships and men and money avail you nought. You want a diplomatic solution? Fine. But, if you believe (as Europe and half America does) in ''soft power,'' it's important to remember it depends on the world's belief that you're willing to use that power. Looking at the reaction to this incident by the United States, European Union, United Nations et al., Iran will conclude that the transnational consensus will never muster the will to constrain its nuclear ambitions.

Europeans and more and more Americans believe they can live in a world with all the benefits of global prosperity and none of the messy obligations necessary to maintain it. And so they cruise around war zones like floating NGOs. Iran called their bluff, and televised it to the world. In the end, every great power is as great as its credibility, and the only consolation after these last two weeks is that Britain doesn't have much more left to lose.

© Mark Steyn, 2007


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Philosophy; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: dhimmitude; iran; islamofascism; marksteyn; nationalpower; nationalresolve; royalnavy; terrorism; uk; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
Stein hits another nail squarely on the head.
1 posted on 04/08/2007 5:24:28 AM PDT by Tom D.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

The sun has set on the British Empire.


2 posted on 04/08/2007 5:28:12 AM PDT by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.
With this encouraging development, we might persuade them to wipe only half of Israel off the map, or even nuke some sparsely occupied corner of the Yukon instead.

He's awesome.

3 posted on 04/08/2007 5:30:06 AM PDT by mainepatsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

That was pretty brutal, but mostly accurate. It is hard to accept the TV behavior of the hostages, and even harder to accept the rules of engagement.


4 posted on 04/08/2007 5:30:34 AM PDT by Sender ("She is the friendly face of America; where Condi frowns, Nancy smiles." (Syria))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

bttt


5 posted on 04/08/2007 5:33:15 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

I believe that it was Richard Nixon who said that Credibility = Power X Will. Since the relationship is multiplicative and the will is zero (or very close to it), I’ll leave it to you to figure out how much credibility the West has.
Anybody up for bringing Pelosi to trial?


6 posted on 04/08/2007 5:40:42 AM PDT by Smber (The smallest minority is the individual. Get the government off my back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

This should be required reading for any Western political leader who wants to preserve our way of life.


7 posted on 04/08/2007 5:41:23 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.
Stein hits another nail squarely on the head

Whats that!?? Mercenaries captured some brits to attempt to foment the tv-bots into insisting Pres. Bush invade Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea so a dim can be selected to rescue our troops??

8 posted on 04/08/2007 5:47:14 AM PDT by 100-Fold_Return (Startin' to catch on the conspiracy is no "theory??")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sender
...and even harder to accept the rules of engagement.

This is what bothers me the most, about Britain and the U.S. It's past time, when provoked to ratchet things up and take care of the problem.
9 posted on 04/08/2007 5:47:35 AM PDT by YellowRoseofTx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

I would like to ask, seriously, if the result would have been any different had the sailors been American.

Personally, I have been convinced for quite some time that we no longer have the stomach for a fight - and that our divided status as a nation has allowed patriotism, nationalism and jingoism to become dirty words.

Those that hate those concepts fail to understand that they are necessary if a nation or a culture is to survive - they are not based in mere rhetoric. That a LACK of patriotism or nationalism does not signify a more sophisticated, cerebral approach to life, but rather a letting down of the guard necessary to maintain the freedoms we fought so hard to achieve and maintain in past generations.

I fear this lesson will be learned the hard way. The very hard way.


10 posted on 04/08/2007 5:49:41 AM PDT by StatenIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smber
Anybody up for bringing Pelosi to trial?

If this country has the stones to convict her for treason in time of war, I'm with you.

11 posted on 04/08/2007 6:01:29 AM PDT by Marauder (The height of hypocrisy: Congress upset because someone lied to them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.
the enervating fatalism of too many people in what is still a semi-serious nation with one of the world's biggest militaries up against an insignificant basket-case.

I just don't get it either Mark.

Man-o-man did Iran make out from this incident. Their political capital SKYROCKETED from this little bit of piracy!

12 posted on 04/08/2007 6:08:22 AM PDT by HeartlandOfAmerica ("Global warming" and "Climate Change" are the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated by confidence (wo)men!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StatenIsland
I would like to ask, seriously, if the result would have been any different had the sailors been American. We have never seen American Marines or other forces conduct themselves so shamelessly while in captivity...then to make matters even more terribly comical to take advantage of their shame so instantly once they had kissed enough ass to get out. This isn't to say that we won't ever see it but so far not yet.

We have seen the American government act shamelessly though when faced with those thugs. Witness the 83 Marine Barracks bombing where instead of making Iran pay, we tucked our ass between our legs and scooted out of Lebanon.

On the other hand just recently American and Iranian forces clashed when they tried to kidnap American Fighting forces...the Iranians died. Reminds my of that F/A-18's nose Art after 9/11 "Hijack This!".

13 posted on 04/08/2007 6:12:13 AM PDT by PierreLegrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: StatenIsland
"Personally, I have been convinced for quite some time that we no longer have the stomach for a fight..."

Well, we certainly had the stomach to start a fight in Iraq, probably mostly as a reaction to 9/11. However I think we've temporarily lost the stomach for another one, due to the length of time we've been there without decisive overall victory.

I don't think we've really got the combat troops available to start another war, and I don't think the UK has enough for even one war on its own.

But my opinion is that the US Navy would not have sat idly by and let its people be led into captivity like the RN did.

If it had happened I'm not sure what Bush's reaction would have been, he took the diplomatic route during the Chinese incident, but I believe he of all people understands the dangers of allowing radical Muslims to achieve victories against our troops.

14 posted on 04/08/2007 6:14:58 AM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

This excellent Steyn column needs to be printed out, rolled into a fine tube, and rammed up Neville Blair’s bottom.


15 posted on 04/08/2007 6:32:54 AM PDT by mkjessup (Rudy Giuliani '08!! -- "an aborted fetus in every pot, and no guns in any garage!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PierreLegrand
We have seen the American government act shamelessly though when faced with those thugs. Witness the 83 Marine Barracks bombing where instead of making Iran pay, we tucked our ass between our legs and scooted out of Lebanon.

Let me help you out with that Pierre. For the record, the Beirut barracks bombing took place in October '83, and our Marines were still in Lebanon in early '84, that ain't 'scooting out of Lebanon' pal. Reagan did eventually order the evacuation of Marines in Beirut to Navy ships anchored offshore, but that was in consultation with our allies who were also attempting to stabilize that region.

However, if you want to demonstrate your technique of tucking your ass between your legs, that would be almost worth paying a cover charge for, usually it's just the tail that gets tucked in back there, lol
16 posted on 04/08/2007 6:42:19 AM PDT by mkjessup (Rudy Giuliani '08!! -- "an aborted fetus in every pot, and no guns in any garage!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cannonette; Chgogal; murdocj; Chickenhawk Warmonger
Power is only as great as the perception of power.

The Iranians have exposed America's strongest ally as the soft underbelly of the Great Satan.

But it seems to me a more profound malaise has gripped them -- the enervating fatalism of too many people in what is still a semi-serious nation with one of the world's biggest militaries up against an insignificant basket case.

Take away the confidence, and the ships and men and money avail you nought.

In the end, every great power is as great as its credibility,

Enervating fatalism is what happens to your domestic target audience when you fail to conduct strategic counter propaganda.

Happy Blogoversary!

17 posted on 04/08/2007 6:48:03 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group -- Distributed IO and counter-PsyOps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

One of his finest, I might add. :-)


18 posted on 04/08/2007 7:27:07 AM PDT by jcs1744
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
19 posted on 04/08/2007 7:28:11 AM PDT by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

LONG AGO!


20 posted on 04/08/2007 7:28:58 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

Greece, Rome, Spain, France, and now Great Britain.

Great powers do not last forever.

Iran’s action did not cause the end of Great Britain, it pulled back the covers to expose the decaying corpse.

I have a theory that a person (or a nation or a culture) must stuggle a bit each day to stay healthy. Once life gets too easy we get fat, flabby and lazy; we begin to die.

It is the constant fight that keeps us alive.

Will the U.S. follow Great Britain into history? I don’t know, but I fear we are soft.


21 posted on 04/08/2007 7:53:47 AM PDT by live+let_live ("God is a mathematician with an eye for art.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

Appeasement offers no pride in the appeaser, only shame!


22 posted on 04/08/2007 7:55:50 AM PDT by Bobbisox (ALL AMERICAN OLD FEMALE FREEPER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: live+let_live
Will the U.S. follow Great Britain into history?

Will? With or without amnesty, this country has irrevocably changed.

Riddle me this: to which country have a lot of soccer holligans (ie British brawlers) relocated?

Australia will be the shining star in future centuries. Completely empty, completely protected, 10,000+ miles of coastline.

And it's genetic stock was built upon, and will be restocked by, fighters.

23 posted on 04/08/2007 8:10:44 AM PDT by Chuck Dent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

The US Navy would have stood by and allowed US Marines to be captured when ordered by the politicians in central command or the White House to stand down.

The fact that Sadr is alive today and calling on the Iraqi military and police to turn against us shows the limits place on our soldiers by the PC politicians. If you go to war you have to take it to the enemy if he is in Tehran, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Limiting the exercise of our power to Iraq and Afghanistan has created a mess where the enemies are free to act outside the borders we define.


24 posted on 04/08/2007 8:26:48 AM PDT by Soul of the South (When times are tough the tough get going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

15 hard-boiled football yobs who hadn’t got the Blair memo about not escalating the situation.

I doubt the yobs would have heeded the Blair memo. ;)


25 posted on 04/08/2007 8:32:28 AM PDT by kalee (The offenses we give, we write in the dust; Those we take, we write in marble. JHuett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

Na, just Oprah, don’t get angry and cause an international incident, just light a candle!


26 posted on 04/08/2007 9:06:22 AM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South

I agree with you about the politicians. When the trouble occurred in Fallujah, followed by the emergence of the Mahdi Army, Bush was unwilling to allow our troops to take decisive action. That lack of action may have lost us Iraq, and by extension, peace in the Middle East.


27 posted on 04/08/2007 9:14:10 AM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: StatenIsland
I would like to ask, seriously, if the result would have been any different had the sailors been American.

First of all, our ROE not only allow self-defense, but our doctrine requires it. "Don't give up the ship." still means something in the USN.

28 posted on 04/08/2007 9:18:13 AM PDT by SampleMan (Islamic tolerance is practiced by killing you last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.
National power is more than just military power. Its national resolve. If that's gone, all the ships, tanks, guns and men will be just so much a collection of ceremonial parade accessories but not a serious military. If you don't have the will to to use it, having it is entirely beside the point. That's the principal lesson of the UK-Iran showdown. It wasn't much of a showdown and what Islamic radicals have seen is the West has the military strength but inside to put it in Osama Bin Laden's now famous words, "they are as weak as a spider's web." The Muslim radicals may not have much in the way of an army but they have the will to die for their beliefs. They have that resolve that has completely disappeared in the UK.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

29 posted on 04/08/2007 11:21:59 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan
How do you compromise with Islamofascism? The Left thinks given the right body language and a few concessions, they will give up their 1400 old jihad that easily. If you're willing to submit to dhimmitude, I suspect a swift accomodation with them can indeed be reached.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

30 posted on 04/08/2007 11:29:38 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
I've never forgiven Reagan for not dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran after our hostages were released. That would meant 9/11 would have never happened and we would all be living in a much safer world today. The Iranians have gotten away with torturing and killing Americans and breaking all the rules of civilization and they've never paid a real price for their thuggish behavior.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

31 posted on 04/08/2007 11:34:44 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
Let me help you out with that Pierre. For the record, the Beirut barracks bombing took place in October '83, and our Marines were still in Lebanon in early '84, that ain't 'scooting out of Lebanon' pal.

Well gee aren't you mister helpful. Fact is the Marines suffered the worst loss of life since Iwo Jima and Casper Weinberg Defense Sec for Reagan called off a strike against the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon because he was afraid our Arab "friends" might be a little upset with our avenging our soldiers murder at the hands of the very same folks who took the British cowards. He further showed his Arabist colors when he was still denying that the Iranians had anything to do with the bombing years later. And you are treading further into disinformation land when you say "eventually" they weren't eventually withdrawn they were withdrawn in Feb 84. Which was exactly like scooting out with your ass or tail between your legs.

Furthermore the only people who actually retaliated for that attack were the French who did indeed have the balls to bomb the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Barracks. Reagan for all of his tough talk had an administration filled to the top with Arabists.

The major point being that the US Government under Reagan, a man I consider to perhaps be the greatest modern US President, did in fact allow the Iranians to get away with murdering us in record numbers..often...since we best not forget the embassy bombing prior to the Marine Barracks.

Thank you please play again.

32 posted on 04/08/2007 12:19:03 PM PDT by PierreLegrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PierreLegrand
Yep. A nuclear bomb in 1981 would have permanently solved our present predicament. To me, wiping such a hateful regime off the face of the earth would have been worth the price.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

33 posted on 04/08/2007 12:30:54 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PierreLegrand
Pierre, you should try reading it exactly as Reagan wrote it down instead of putting your own spin on it:

"As 1984 began, it was becoming clearer that the Lebanese army was either unwilling or unable to end the civil war into which we had been dragged reluctantly. It was clear that the war was likely to go on for an extended period of time. As the sniping and shelling of their camp continued, I gave an order to evacuate all the marines to anchored off Lebanon. At the end of March, the ships of the Sixth Fleet and the marines who had fought to keep peace in Lebanon moved on to other assignments. We had to pull out. By then, there was no question about it: Our policy wasn't working. We couldn't stay there and run the risk of another suicide attack on the marines. No one wanted to commit our troops to a full-scale war in the middle East. But we couldn't remain in Lebanon and be in the war on a halfway basis, leaving our men vulnerable to terrorists with one hand tied behind their backs. We hadn't committed the marines to Beirut in a snap decision, and we weren't alone. France, Italy, and Britain were also part of the multinational force, and we all thought it was a good plan. And for a while, as I've said, it had been working."

The major point being that the US Government under Reagan, a man I consider to perhaps be the greatest modern US President, did in fact allow the Iranians to get away with murdering us in record numbers..often...since we best not forget the embassy bombing prior to the Marine Barracks.


You conveniently overlook the fact that had Reagan engaged in a full scale military conflict in the Middle East that he would very likely have been dealing with an equal and equivalent intervention by the Soviets who were very much still in business in '84.

And to put your criticism of Cap Weinberger into perspective, Reagan had this to say about that:

"Although there was some resistance from Cap and the Joint Chiefs over whether we should retaliate, I told him to give the order for an air strike against the offending antiaircraft batteries. We had previously let the Syrians know that our reconnaissance operations in support of the marines were only defensive in nature. Our marines were not adversaries in the conflict, and any offensive act directed against them would be replied to. The following morning, more than two dozen navy aircraft carried out the mission. One crewman was killed and another captured by the Syrians. Our planes subsequently took out almost a dozen Syrian antiaircraft and missile-launching sites, a radar installation, and an ammo dump. When the Syrians fired again at one of our reconnaissance aircraft, I gave the order to fire the sixteen-inch guns of the battleship New Jersey on them. Two days later, we had a new cease-fire in Lebanon, a result, I'm sure, of the pressure of the long guns of the New Jersey - but, like almost all the other cease-fires in Beirut, it didn't last long."

Neither Cap Weinberger, nor Reagan were running away with their 'ass tucked between their legs'.

Thank you please play again.

Sure Pierre, I like a good game of Whack-A-Mole, I'll bet waiting to see which hole you pop up out of next time.

Happy Easter.
34 posted on 04/08/2007 12:39:16 PM PDT by mkjessup (Rudy Giuliani '08!! -- "an aborted fetus in every pot, and no guns in any garage!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I've never forgiven Reagan for not dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran after our hostages were released.

I am, and have been as much in favor of nuking the mullahs in Tehran as anyone, but if Reagan had taken such an action in '81, an actual nuclear response to Iran, the Soviets (you remember them I'm sure), bordering Iran would not have taken kindly to the radiation and fallout, and there is always the possibility that an American nuke release that close to the old USSR could have triggered a Soviet nuclear response on the United States.

There is a time and place for the use of nuclear weapons. That was not it.

Now it is.
35 posted on 04/08/2007 12:42:36 PM PDT by mkjessup (Rudy Giuliani '08!! -- "an aborted fetus in every pot, and no guns in any garage!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

The Iranian lunatic was allowed to humiliate Britain. He pissed right in their teeth and the whole world knows it. It’ll be a miracle if he doesn’t do it again, real soon.


36 posted on 04/08/2007 1:19:06 PM PDT by Graymatter (FREDeralist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StatenIsland

“I would like to ask, seriously, if the result would have been any different had the sailors been American.

Personally, I have been convinced for quite some time that we no longer have the stomach for a fight - and that our divided status as a nation has allowed patriotism, nationalism and jingoism to become dirty words.”

The result would have been the same. The treasonous left has already said in writing they will not support war against Iran. Their are two groups of people on both sides of the pond. Those whom know we are fighting for our lives and everything we have worked hard for and our forefathers paid for in blood. The other group wants to ignore the threats, not just simply hoping it goes away but being treasonous, supporting the enemy by purposely holding back our military might to deal with the problem while it is small. It is human nature to not want peace over war, but the countries we are dealing with want war, these include Russia, China, Syria, Iran & North Korea. Our oil producing allies are changing their tune of support because of our recent weakness. Iran will now feel emboldened to attack the West & Israel with nukes to usher in the 12th Imam. We will suffer greatly and fully unite but such a shame it will cost the earth billions of lives, instead of a recession and probably 100k total dead now.


37 posted on 04/08/2007 2:21:14 PM PDT by iThinkBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

“Let me help you out with that Pierre. For the record, the Beirut barracks bombing took place in October ‘83, and our Marines were still in Lebanon in early ‘84, that ain’t ‘scooting out of Lebanon’ pal. Reagan did eventually order the evacuation of Marines in Beirut to Navy ships anchored offshore, but that was in consultation with our allies who were also attempting to stabilize that region.”

Don’t forget that Reagan rebuilt our military and sent 1/3 of Iran’s fleet to the bottom of the ocean in 87 or 88. HE didn’t forget :) Note how we saw Iran doing nothing after that for quite some time. How about Libya? A bloody nose by Reagan and another balsey POTUS was enough for him to figure out he had enough of the ‘attack the great satan’ foolishness.


38 posted on 04/08/2007 2:25:25 PM PDT by iThinkBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
You conveniently overlook the fact that had Reagan engaged in a full scale military conflict in the Middle East that he would very likely have been dealing with an equal and equivalent intervention by the Soviets who were very much still in business in '84.

You must be a leftist you distort reality so well...try this little refresher course on what happened and then get back to me.

REAGAN: Those who directed this atrocity must be dealt justice and they will be.
ROBERTS: He rejected a Marine withdrawal.
REAGAN: If we were to leave Lebanon now, what message would that send to those who foment instability and terrorism.
ROBERTS: His words became empty promises, abandoned within months.
MCFARLANE: Well, I wrote that language, and I took it seriously at the time, and intended and believed that he intended to fulfill it.
ROBERTS: At the end of the week, the first caskets began coming home. The next week, on a damp and dreary day, Ronald and Nancy Reagan went to the Marine base at Camp LeJuene to mourn, along with a grieving nation.
MCFARLANE: He always took very personal the loss of life of any American, especially servicemen.
ROBERTS: By now, American intelligence had traced the seeds of the attack to a barracks in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, where Hezbollah was holed up. The Navy was ready to strike back.
LYONS: We went ahead and made up the plans. We had the photography. It was a great radar target. There's nothing else around. And we were going to take out all 250 of them.
MCFARLANE: The president called the National Security Council together. He was convinced himself that the target was responsible in the Bekaa Valley, that Hezbollah had done the deed, and that's where they trained and were armed.
There were arguments, disagreements. Weinberger disagreed, thought it would have a very negative impact on our relations in the Arab states. The president said, "Well, I believe we have to do this."
LYONS: We had the planes loaded. It would have been a minute and a half strike, in and out in a minute and a half, and we would have sent the message that everybody was waiting for us to send. We never got the orders to launch.
MCFARLANE: I was awakened at home by the situation room, with the word that the attack had been aborted. I was speechless. I said, "By whom?" and I was told the Secretary of Defense. I was thunderstruck. I went down to the office and called Cap right away and asked him, what in the world happened? He said, "Well, Bud, I believed it was a bad idea, and it would have done us great harm." and I said, "Cap, the president of the United States approved this."

ROBERTS: When McFarlane told Reagan, he said the president was at a loss for words. That Cap Weinberger, now deceased, had been a close friend and ally of Reagan since their California days. Reagan would forgive and forget.
MCFARLANE: At the end of the day, the president was so captive really to his feelings of loyalty for Secretary Weinberger that he let it cloud his judgment.
ROBERTS: The terrorist attacks continued. Soon, new truck bomb attempts at the French and American embassies in Kuwait. In Beirut, the Marines were hunkered down behind new defensive barriers, doing little or nothing. The White House seemed paralyzed.
MCFARLANE: And Cap said we simply ought to withdraw.
ROBERTS: While the fighting in Lebanon grew worse, Reagan was talking tough, right up until the end. In a radio address early in February, he called the situation in Lebanon "difficult."
REAGAN: But that is no reason to turn our backs on friends and to cut and run. If we do, we'll be sending one signal to terrorists everywhere. They can gain by waging war against innocent people.
ROBERTS: Yet only three days later, the president would order the Marines out. No speeches this time. The announcement was handed out, as Reagan landed in California, to go on vacation at his ranch.
By February 26th, just four months after the bombing, the Marines had retreated from Beirut, back to ships offshore. Survivor Jack Anderson was glad to see his fellow Marines heading for home, yet was disappointed.

JACK ANDERSON, FMR. U.S. MARINE: I really wanted to see us do something to the people responsible for the car bombing. You know, hopefully in the end, they get theirs, but not at the hand of the Marine Corps this time.
ROBERTS: Coming up, Beirut's deadly lesson for today's war on terror.
LYONS: As soon as we suffer casualties, we will cut and run. We are a paper tiger.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: U.S. Marines approaching sacred ground, Beirut, Lebanon, where 23 years ago they lost so many of their own. But for these Marines, touching ground has even more meaning, because so many belong to the same unit attacked in 1983.
Like their comrades before them, these Marines have come in peace. Their mission? To evacuate Americans. Still, the lore of Lebanon is not forgotten. It is here where the Marines paid the ultimate price.
PERRY: Would you think that over a period of 23 years that the United States military, the memory of the barracks bombing would have faded. It hasn't. When Secretary Rice talks about perhaps a peacekeeping force, the first question in a U.S. officer's mind is, does that mean us? No one in the military wants a replay of 1983.
ROBERTS: Retired Lieutenant General Lawrence Snowden called the barracks bombing an act of war.
SNOWDEN: We wanted to strike attention in the hearts of the Defense Department, and others, that this is a way of warfare that we've got to face in the future and we're ill-prepared at this moment to deal with it.
REAGAN: I received the report of the Long Commission last night --
ROBERTS: President Reagan a day before the report went public.
REGAN: The report draws the conclusion that the United States and its military institutions are by tradition and training, inadequately equipped to deal with the fundamentally new phenomenon of state-supported terrorism. I whole-heartedly agree.
ROBERTS: Again, Reagan promised to stand firm.
REAGAN: Now, one fact, though it's already obvious, the problem of terrorism will not disappear if we run from it.
ROBERTS: But that's what the U.S. did. Four months after the bombing, the Marines left Lebanon.
MCFARLANE: I think he understood very well the withdrawal of American forces, anywhere, at any time, is a negative signal, a sign of weakness. Shortly thereafter he acknowledged that we're going to pay a price for this downstream.
ROBERTS: At a price that, many believe, the U.S. is paying for today.
SNOWDEN: I think the terrorists had good memories, and they remember that, when we were pushed up against the wall, and they successfully attacked us like that, there was a demand for the troops to come home, and they did.
MCFARLANE: To absorb such a horrific loss as the Marines suffered in Beirut, without reacting, implies that you can attack the United States and not pay a price for it. That we're too weak, irresolute, politically paralyzed, and that is intolerable for a great power.
ROBERTS: Somalia, 1993, a Blackhawk down, 18 soldiers killed after a fire fight with local militia. This picture of a soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu had an enormous impact on public opinion. Six months later, President Clinton pulled the troops out. A decision that Osama bin Laden later claimed emboldened him to strike out at America. OSAMA BIN LADEN, FOUNDER, AL QAEDA (through translator): After a little resistance, the Americans left after achieving nothing. They left after claiming they were the largest power on earth. They left after some resistance from the powerless, poor, unarmed people whose only weapon it s their belief in Allah, the Almighty.

39 posted on 04/08/2007 2:51:13 PM PDT by PierreLegrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PierreLegrand; All
You must be a leftist you distort reality so well...try this little refresher course on what happened and then get back to me.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us


Oh my ribs, you call me a *leftist*, but you're quoting CNN, with the abysmal John Roberts of the whistling dentures, who also editorialized in that 'special' report,

"That same week, the U.S. invaded the small Caribbean nation of Grenada, a minor crises now largely forgotten."

A MINOR CRISIS?

The Soviets and Castro were establishing a new beachhead in the Carribean and it was a 'minor crisis'?!?

Gosh Pierre, you don't think John Roberts and CNN had an agenda do you? You don't think they might have had a vested interest in using Bud McFarlane to trash Reagan do you?

Ye gawds man, you call me a leftist and then cite a leftist cable network to try and prove your point?

Thanks for the laugh! LOL
40 posted on 04/08/2007 3:37:41 PM PDT by mkjessup (Rudy Giuliani '08!! -- "an aborted fetus in every pot, and no guns in any garage!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

So then you are saying that they misquoted transcripts? Can you show any references from any of the players claiming that CNN misquoted them in the bloody transcripts? Hey sorry it doesn’t fit your version of reality but there it is.


41 posted on 04/08/2007 4:09:50 PM PDT by PierreLegrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PierreLegrand; iThinkBig

If you are as conservative as you say you are (and btw, nice website), surely you will agree that anything coming out of CNN ought to be viewed with great skepticism. The transcript you have provided provides quotes from McFarlane, Snow, etc., but the majority of that transcript is nothing but editorializing by John Roberts and painting the picture CNN wants to put on display.

I have noted that since the U.K./Iran debacle this past week, there is a growing tendency on the part of some individuals to try and paint Ronald Reagan as somehow being negligent or less than engaged in the early years of the Islamofascist war on the United States, and yet the fact remains that Iran released our hostages the day Reagan was sworn in, and that wasn’t because they thought he was nice guy and easy to deal with, far from it. Reagan actually sank the better part of the Iranian navy as mentioned by poster ‘ithinkBIG’ above, so while the U.S. actions following the Marines barracks bombing of ‘83 can be debated ad infinitum, the fact is that Reagan remained engaged in the Middle East, the U.S. did not leave Israel to fend for itself, when it came to the Straits of Hormuz, we kept them open and Iran paid the price for messing with us in that area, we bombed the Libyan bozo Gaddafi, and this all took place under the shadow of the continuing Soviet threat in the waning years of the Cold War.

I note also, that McFarlane (quoted extensively in this CNN ‘report’) was only Reagan’s National Security Advisor for the better part of two years, ‘83 to ‘85. I have to also question just how stable McFarlane is, as he tried to off himself with valium in ‘87 claiming he ‘failed his country’ due to the Iran-Contra nonsense. That isn’t rational behavior, and I think it means that his statements ought to be viewed with at least a slight degree of skepticism. How many of his recollections are accurate? Who can say? I can’t, and neither can you. I’m not saying McFarlane is the bad guy, far from it but it would be absolutely SOP for a yellow journalistic enterprise like CNN to take advantage of someone who had been through that kind of trauma, both personally and professionally. I think the entire CNN ‘product’ is questionable.

If someone wants to put the blame on somebody for the current jihad that the West is facing, they need look no further than the traitor Jimmy Carter who set the whole thing in motion starting with the betrayal of the Shah.

Reagan responded to the threat of terrorism more than appropriately in the context of fighting (and winning) a larger conflict, i.e., the Cold War against the USSR. George H.W. Bush might have achieved 91 percent approval ratings, the liberation of Kuwait, and all that goes with it, but he royally screwed up when he let Saddam remain in power, and history will validate that.

The eight year vacation from history that defined the Clinton/Gore years allowed our enemies to prepare for, and ramp up their plans to attack America and begin the current global jihad, and just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, Clinton played his sexophone while his administration treated terrorism as a ‘law enforcement’ issue. That is what led us to Mogadishu, to embassy bombings, to the U.S.S. Cole, and finally to 9/11. The blame for that can be squarely laid on the shoulders of Clinton & Company.

As for Reagan’s response to the Marine Barracks bombing in ‘83, he most definitely did not ‘cut and run’ as some latter day analysts want to portray it. There is a reason for their desire to portray Reagan that way: by doing so, their friendly ‘Rat cowards and buffoons look a bit less negligent.

Were mistakes made during the Reagan Administration? Of course there were, no Administration is fault free. But these convenient post-mortems of the Reagan years while we are engaged in the current war on Islamofascism serve only one purpose, to demoralize conservatives and boost the fortunes of the left.

Sorry pal, I’m not buying into it.


42 posted on 04/08/2007 4:57:21 PM PDT by mkjessup (Rudy Giuliani '08!! -- "an aborted fetus in every pot, and no guns in any garage!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

Yeah.... I think the bottom line is that they surrendered without firing a shot.


43 posted on 04/08/2007 5:00:59 PM PDT by kjam22 (see me play the guitar here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noHy7Cuoucc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smber
I believe that it was Richard Nixon who said that Credibility = Power X Will. Since the relationship is multiplicative and the will is zero (or very close to it), I’ll leave it to you to figure out how much credibility the West has.

This is how much power, will and credibility the West used to have during the height of the Roman Republic:

In 168 B.C., Antiochus IV invaded Egypt, a Roman ally. The Roman Senate voted to support their ally and sent a Roman ambassador, Popillus Laenos, to demand that Antiochus withdraw from Egypt.

Unarmed, the Roman ambassador met Antiochus at the outskirts of Alexandria and read the Roman Senate's demand that he withdraw form Egypt.

Antiochus pompously responded that he was a mighty King of Syria, that he could not be pushed around, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera..

Popillus calmly listened to the Syrian King's diatribe and then took his walking staff and drew a circle in the sand around Antiochus. Popillus then said, "Do not step out of that circle until you give me an answer to take back to the People and Senate of Rome."

After a stunned silence, Antiochus then declared, "I will do as the People and Senate of Rome request." Antiochus withdrew his army from Egypt and the war was over.

In my opinion, this was the Roman Republic's Finest Five and a Half Minutes.

44 posted on 04/08/2007 5:13:23 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
I am sorry to say the Pierre is correct....

Reagan did nothing...he could have killed scores of Iranians but decided to fire a few shells from a distant ship...

American blood is cheap, now and than...that is the message you Americans are sending the world...

45 posted on 04/08/2007 7:33:33 PM PDT by forYourChildrenVote4Bush (911 Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
First let me say that we probably agree on a lot more than you know. But lately these last couple of years I have become disenchanted with politicians in general. From my point of view just because I disagree with Democrats does not make me a Republican, nor vice versa. While I tend to agree more often with Republicans its usually that I am settling on the best of two bad choices. Not that the Republicans are actually either what I consider moral or particularly bright. The long and short of it is I don't like politicians as a class of people. They are a necessary evil not an answer which I believe allows me to see the evil that both sides commit.

Admittedly the Democrats are a lot closer to terribly bad than the Republicans but neither one of them is invited to date my daughters or sell me a car. Having said that let me say thank you for the compliment on my site...now back to the show. hehe...in case you forget what  you said you will be indented, bolded, and italicized...jus cuz.

If you are as conservative as you say you are (and btw, nice website),

Whether I am or not is up to me. Whether others think so does not concern me.

surely you will agree that anything coming out of CNN ought to be viewed with great skepticism. The transcript you have provided provides quotes from McFarlane, Snow, etc.,

Yes but the problem you have is those quotes back up what I was saying not what you were saying. Here let me demonstrate...

  1. LT. GEN. LAWRENCE SNOWDEN (RET.): We had every reason to believe that Hezbollah was the unit that did the job. And we do know that the operation had the support of the Syrian government, and the Iranian government.
  2. ROBERTS: A civil case in 2003 did just that. The judge ruled the suicide bombing was carried out by Hezbollah, with the approval and funding of Iran. Retired Admiral James Lyons testified U.S. officials intercepted a message from the Iranian ambassador to Syria.

    (I include the Robert's quote for clarity because Admiral Lyons puts paid to the fantasy of Casper that he was holding on to in 2000 that we still didn't have proof of Iran's involvement)

    ADMIRAL LYONS: This is the smoking gun. There was proof positive to coordinate their attacks against the multinational force, and in particular, the United States Marines.
  3. LT GENERAL SNOWDEN: There was a real concern that if there was an accidental discharge of a weapon, some, quote, "innocent civilian" might be killed or wounded in that parking lot, but in hindsight, it was not a good idea.

    (This is comical and should be remembered when we laugh at the British for not firing on the Iranians, our Marines did not even have their guns loaded)
  4. GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FMR. VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're not going to let a bunch of insidious terrorists, cowards, shape the foreign policy of the United States.

    (Laying the law down...or was he?)
  5. REAGAN: Those who directed this atrocity must be dealt justice and they will be.
    REAGAN: If we were to leave Lebanon now, what message would that send to those who foment instability and terrorism.

    (More laying the law down...but there is a fly in the ointment)
  6. ROBERTS: By now, American intelligence had traced the seeds of the attack to a barracks in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, where Hezbollah was holed up. The Navy was ready to strike back.

    (Again I include Roberts only for clarification)

    ADMIRAL LYONS: We went ahead and made up the plans. We had the photography. It was a great radar target. There's nothing else around. And we were going to take out all 250 of them.
    NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR MCFARLANE: The president called the National Security Council together. He was convinced himself that the target was responsible in the Bekaa Valley, that Hezbollah had done the deed, and that's where they trained and were armed.
    There were arguments, disagreements. Weinberger disagreed, thought it would have a very negative impact on our relations in the Arab states. The president said, "Well, I believe we have to do this."
    ADMIRAL LYONS: We had the planes loaded. It would have been a minute and a half strike, in and out in a minute and a half, and we would have sent the message that everybody was waiting for us to send. We never got the orders to launch.
    NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR MCFARLANE: I was awakened at home by the situation room, with the word that the attack had been aborted. I was speechless. I said, "By whom?" and I was told the Secretary of Defense. I was thunderstruck. I went down to the office and called Cap right away and asked him, what in the world happened? He said, "Well, Bud, I believed it was a bad idea, and it would have done us great harm." and I said, "Cap, the president of the United States approved this."

    (Maybe you are too young to remember I don't know but Casper Weinberger was what has been known as an Arabist. Grover Norquist is also one as is James Baker. Which is actually irrelevant to the argument since our argument revolves around whether the Reagan Administration failed to punish those who killed US Servicemen)
  7. REAGAN: But that is no reason to turn our backs on friends and to cut and run. If we do, we'll be sending one signal to terrorists everywhere. They can gain by waging war against innocent people.
  8. REAGAN: Now, one fact, though it's already obvious, the problem of terrorism will not disappear if we run from it.
  9. MCFARLANE: I think he understood very well the withdrawal of American forces, anywhere, at any time, is a negative signal, a sign of weakness. Shortly thereafter he acknowledged that we're going to pay a price for this downstream
  10. SNOWDEN: I think the terrorists had good memories, and they remember that, when we were pushed up against the wall, and they successfully attacked us like that, there was a demand for the troops to come home, and they did.
    MCFARLANE: To absorb such a horrific loss as the Marines suffered in Beirut, without reacting, implies that you can attack the United States and not pay a price for it. That we're too weak, irresolute, politically paralyzed, and that is intolerable for a great power.

    (Well ok that laying down the law stuff is ok when its just talk but when it comes to steel to flesh...hmmm)
    1. Lets summarize shall we?
      1. Marines put into a desperate situation with a pitiful ROE: Check.
        1. Unarmed Check
      2. Marines get attacked and killed in numbers not seen since Iwo Jima: Check.
      3. Government officials talk smack: Check
      4. Government officials back down: Check.
      5. Terrorists emboldened: Check.
    2. Well done Reagan administration.

 

but the majority of that transcript is nothing but editorializing by John Roberts and painting the picture CNN wants to put on display.

Gee that was quite a bit that I just posted and it is pretty damning that the Reagan administration blew it. Remember that I worked on the Reagan campaign...didn't mention that did I?

I have noted that since the U.K./Iran debacle this past week, there is a growing tendency on the part of some individuals to try and paint Ronald Reagan as somehow being negligent or less than engaged in the early years of the Islamofascist war on the United States, and yet the fact remains that Iran released our hostages the day Reagan was sworn in, and that wasn’t because they thought he was nice guy and easy to deal with, far from it.

I was under the impression it was because he was making deals to release the hostages. But you think it was they were scared of the US? Or him personally before he had even gotten into office? If that is the case then having their Proxies blow the crap out of the Marine Headquarters/Barracks seems contradictory.

Reagan actually sank the better part of the Iranian navy as mentioned by poster ‘ithinkBIG’ above, so while the U.S. actions following the Marines barracks bombing of ‘83 can be debated ad infinitum, the fact is that Reagan remained engaged in the Middle East, the U.S. did not leave Israel to fend for itself, when it came to the Straits of Hormuz, we kept them open and Iran paid the price for messing with us in that area, we bombed the Libyan bozo Gaddafi, and this all took place under the shadow of the continuing Soviet threat in the waning years of the Cold War.

I didn't claim he did everything wrong just that he didn't do the Marine Barracks right.

I note also, that McFarlane (quoted extensively in this CNN ‘report’) was only Reagan’s National Security Advisor for the better part of two years, ‘83 to ‘85. I have to also question just how stable McFarlane is, as he tried to off himself with valium in ‘87 claiming he ‘failed his country’ due to the Iran-Contra nonsense.

You sure that you are not a leftist? Because that attack was straight out of the playbook. Attack the messenger not the message...for shame.

That isn’t rational behavior, and I think it means that his statements ought to be viewed with at least a slight degree of skepticism. How many of his recollections are accurate? Who can say? I can’t, and neither can you. I’m not saying McFarlane is the bad guy, far from it but it would be absolutely SOP for a yellow journalistic enterprise like CNN to take advantage of someone who had been through that kind of trauma, both personally and professionally. I think the entire CNN ‘product’ is questionable.

Perhaps you missed the other personalities:

If someone wants to put the blame on somebody for the current jihad that the West is facing, they need look no further than the traitor Jimmy Carter who set the whole thing in motion starting with the betrayal of the Shah.

Absolutely no argument there...the worst President of the last 100 years. Perhaps the worst President of all time.

Were mistakes made during the Reagan Administration? Of course there were, no Administration is fault free. But these convenient post-mortems of the Reagan years while we are engaged in the current war on Islamofascism serve only one purpose, to demoralize conservatives and boost the fortunes of the left.

No actually if we don't acknowledge mistakes we will continue to make them. Matter of fact that is exactly what we are doing as we watch President Bush continue the proud tradition of NOT holding States accountable for terror. Am I glad about Iraq and Afghanistan? You bet. Was WW2 over after we invaded Morocco and Sicily? Nope. The left will be defeated by our deliberate drive to defeat our enemy. Not by our halfway measures to appease them as well as defeat an enemy whose main purpose in life is our complete and utter destruction. But the left is another subject...maybe you can school us on your tactics...hehehe.

46 posted on 04/08/2007 7:35:58 PM PDT by PierreLegrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PierreLegrand
Oh Darn I forgot that Bin Laden was quite happy about our cut and run in Lebanon.

“We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions.” [ABC News, 5/28/1998]

This is still happening...we have not yet struck back at Iran for killing our soldiers either in Lebanon or in Iraq or probably in Afghanistan. Exactly how long will it take?

47 posted on 04/08/2007 7:39:44 PM PDT by PierreLegrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4; Cannonette; murdocj; Chickenhawk Warmonger
“Watching Tottenham Hotspur fans taking on the Spanish constabulary at a European soccer match the other night, I found myself idly speculating on what might have happened had those Iranian kidnappers made the mistake of seizing 15 hard-boiled football yobs who hadn’t got the Blair memo about not escalating the situation.”

LOL, ain’t THAT the truth?

Seriously, the thought of sinking every Iranian ship simultaneously crossed my mind. How would you have like that Cannoneer? You would have been stuck right in the thick of things dealing with the aftermath of my temper tantrum.

48 posted on 04/08/2007 8:20:25 PM PDT by Chgogal (Vote Al Qaeda. Vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PierreLegrand

Those are powerful arguments you’ve assembled, and yet I still take issue with the characterization that we ran with our ‘ass between our legs’ (not going to let you forget that, lol), because that is simply not what happened. If Reagan had issued an immediate order to get all of our forces out of Lebanon the very next day after that bombing, THAT would constitute cutting and running, ala Jack Murtha but that isn’t what happened.

I agree with you that a stronger response was needed, and in retrospect Reagan should have either asked for Cap’s resignation or fired him when it became apparent that Weinberger was not on board with what Reagan wanted done in the area of retaliation.

Don’t think for a moment however, that I have any leftist leanings, my questions regarding Bud McFarlane were legitimate, and you know that if we were talking about a hypothetical Sandy Burglar in that position who had tried to kill himself, that there would be people raising the same issues about just how stable he might be. As I said, McFarlane wasn’t the bad guy, he was arguing FOR retaliation, Weinberger blocked it. But if CNN was exploiting McFarlane in order to smear Reagan, that would not surprise me in the least.

What I am reminded of in this exchange we’re having is how easy it is for anyone (including you or me) to look back and say with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that we should have done this, or should have done that, but I recall Reagan saying words to the effect that his Administration would take responsibility for any mistakes that were made, if they at least were given credit for what they did RIGHT.

Your view on this post-mortem on Reagan policies regarding terrorism in general and Lebanon in particular is that we benefit when we identify errors made, and take steps to be sure those errors aren’t repeated. I’m in full agreement with that approach, but remember also that when such ‘analysis’ is presented by the premiere conservative-hating, left-leaning, and disloyal cable network of all time, the question must be asked “who benefits”?

You might say that America benefits if we avoid errors in the future. That may yet be the case. But when CNN and their affiliated America-hating brethren broadcast stuff like this, their agenda is NOT to ‘avoid errors’ in the future, their agenda is to retrospectively slant and taint history as THEY wish it to be portrayed, the focus being concentrated on what went WRONG in the Reagan years, not what went RIGHT, to emphasize mistakes, not the successes, and by so doing, they inject their ideological meme into the public consciousness to be parroted, repeated and embraced as gospel by those who work tirelessly to bring about an American defeat and a collapse of our way of life.

What we need as a clearly enunciated national policy, is that if terrorists mess with the United States, they will be killed. No ifs, ands or buts. They will die, and hopefully as horrible a death as is humanly possible. It should be an unconditional policy, which covers individual terrorists and their cells, to rogue states like Iran that seek to destabilize the entire Middle East. No negotiations, no conferences, no initiatives, no ‘road maps to peace’, I say bullsh*t on all of that yak-yaking, the best way to end the scourge of Islamofascist terrorism is to kill each and every last one of them, sparing NO one.

That’s the way I see it.

By the way, interesting note on your work in the Reagan campaign, did you also work in his Administration? I’m sure you have some stories to tell, I hope you’ll share them.


49 posted on 04/08/2007 8:58:46 PM PDT by mkjessup (Rudy Giuliani '08!! -- "an aborted fetus in every pot, and no guns in any garage!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: forYourChildrenVote4Bush

See my post #49.


50 posted on 04/08/2007 9:02:18 PM PDT by mkjessup (Rudy Giuliani '08!! -- "an aborted fetus in every pot, and no guns in any garage!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson