Blair calls Iran capture of sailors ‘very serious’

Associated Press / MSNBC ^ | Sunday March 25 2007 | Associated Press / MSNBC

[elhombrelibre]

I believe the force structure in the neighborhood is far more prepared than the general public realizes, which is all fine and well. In addition for your consideration, let me add that the type of destruction I'm referring to would be carried out by missiles fired from ships and subs, bombs dropped from strategic bombers and tactical aircraft, and covert activities that would be so easy to arrange it's not even worth mentioning in a discussion about the difficulties of keeping the preparations from the media who'd alert their anti-Bush allies. Iran is far more vulnerable than it realizes. But its probably right to realize there is no will to fight in the West.

[elhombrelibre]

Thanks,

[jwparkerjr]

Good points, well taken. I have no idea of the logistics of getting that number of strikes into the area. I was thinking mostly of bombs and airplanes, not missiles. We certainly would seem to have enough of those in the area. I wonder if part of it isn't trying to figure out ahead of time what the various responses would be, not only from Iran itself, but others all around the world. My guess is the Bush team is VERY sensitive right now to the charges that they failed to anticipate all the things that could happen after the initial success of the Iraqi invasion and overthrow of Saddam. They are probably burning the midnight oil brainstorming all of the possible responses all over the world. If a few cartoons of their prophet could result in the worldwide unrest it did just imagine how they might react if we actually did something concrete to insult them, like attacking Iran.

I fear there is no alternative to handling them with force, lots of force, and if that's the case then the sooner the better. Time is not on our side. All bets are off the moment they have the ability to trigger a nuclear explosion, regardless of how small.

[elhombrelibre]

We're just about set...very soon if necessary.

[george76]

bttt

"Seriously though, did you hear the latest about Iran capturing those British sailors? The situation has gone from 'serious' to 'extremely serious', and I understand that Britain is really going to get tough now and actually cross Iran off their Christmas card list next year..."

[FreedomNeocon]

Now cut it out... I shan't taunt you a second time!

[wot_grandma]

where have I heard this before? yes Iraq.

I dont care if some Israelis get killed. I dont see any need to rush headlong into another war based on some flimsy reason

[upcountryhorseman]

It's an act of war, but the socialist Brits will just talk.

[Brit_Guy]

It is getting tiresome repeating this - as I have said on other threads - I am getting slightly miffed by the apparent impression on here that Britain lacks what I believe Texans call 'cajones'. People seem to misunderstand the UK calm approach and national trait of supreme understatement as weakness and a sign we are all talk and no trousers. Iran needs to think on this: In the last 10 years alone we have moved from talking to shooting in: Sierra Leonne, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq + 1 or 2 other incidents in Africa that don't get so much press attention. That makes us, with the United States, the most trigger happy nation on the planet at the moment. Aside from yourselves, no other nation on Planet Earth have shown themselves as willing to use force against other Sovereign states. No prime minister since world war two (including Thatcher) has sanctioned the use of lethal military force as often as Tony Blair. The Iranians are making a mistake and are foolish if they think there is a line we wont cross. We don't do the sabre rattling. But when need be we do do the sabre.

And yes, 'slightly miffed' is understatement.