Posted on 03/28/2007 4:23:24 PM PDT by UKrepublican
Since they didn't until they were captured and then it was involuntary, Iran has no case. The rulers of Iran are looking very foolish at the UN and at every breakfast table in the world.
Oh geeeze....I sense a firestorm of outraged freepers gathering together flamethrowers. Okay, I unilaterally and categorically APOLOGIZE to all who might be offended by my rather flip post regarding Mr. Blair!!!! He rocks.
How does he stack up against the Iron Lady Thatcher or John Major? In your informed opinions?
Oh well, I'm not clinton fan either.
As to your question, outrage is augmenting at the moment, but I can't see us going to war over this, at very least certainly not on our own.
However, the good result of this, will be when the time comes for us to stand with the states and israel vs iran on their nuclear programme, it will be soooo much more easier to convince the British people.
I would say this however, it's difficult to predict what the Iranians will do, the government here will not wait for ever, and sanctions and blocades are an option, but thats a good few weeks down the line sadly.
I have no doubt Blair would like to do more, but militarily it's incredibly difficult to see it going down that line for some time over this.
John Major?
One of the worst pms EVER.
Thatcher, on foreign policy at least, Blair is at very least in her league on that front.
LOL! Hey, Ex, I'm not the flamethrower type!
[I neglected to note that the quotes are from today's edition of the San Antonio Express-News and I could not find the link online.]
Mrs. Thatcher left a grand legacy for anyone to live up to. The first time I saw Mr. Blair [on t.v.,] he was walking in a crowd surrounded by secret service. A man advanced and began grabbing at him and shoving. In a flash, Mr. Blair cold-cocked him. It was fabulous.
He's had no party support and no support from his cabinet. He had to literally put his neck on the chopping block to back Bush. He has my loyalty. It's good that I'm not the POTUS, he'd only have to ask and it'd be done.
If the UK admits guilt, then Iran can make demands. Iran is worried because it's losing in Iraq, hence the abduction. Iran knows that if it can cause controversy in Britain and it pulls out the U.S. will be alone in Iraq.
Well, rest assured, we're finishing the job in iraq, and there is absolutely no chance of us admitting guilt over this.
Especially if Iran and Ahmanutjob remember the mistakes of the hostage crisis in 1979. The debacle at DESERT ONE with the failed attempt by the then fledgling DELTA Force has to be foremost in their minds. The SAS is the force Delta was modelled on and they are among the very best at hostage rescue on the planet. With this in mind, I'm sure the hostages have been split up and moved a good distance out of the city.
Very few decent movies have emerged about the SAS capabilities. But I remember one from the 1980s: FINAL OPTION was awesome. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it highly.
That would all depend on what the rest of the board looked like at the time, wouldn't it? Was there another Knight or Rook on the square my Knight is supposedly occupying?
Perhaps the opposing Knight or Rook was the piece that was placing my King in check. I would expect that Knight or Rook to be protected elsewhere...usually by the Queen or a Bishop.
If that protecting piece is moved to capture my Knight, will the opposing King be exposed to check?
I think there are far too many variables that could be in play to simply shoot a hole in my analogy based on your reticence to sacrifice a Knight. There are plenty of scenarios where placing a Knight in jeopardy is acceptable when the King is in imminent danger.
Aside from all that, the analogy was simply made based on GeorgiaDawg32's usage of the term 'check'. Which to me means the King is in danger.
Perhaps the term 'sacrifice' was not strictly correct in terms of how one plays chess. Should I have said, "Time to move a Knight to block."?
Or perhaps a different piece since Knights are generally best used for offensive purposes?
But it did convey my meaning rather well with regard to the situation with Iran and the role that the skipper of the boat may yet play. A man I did not wish to denigrate by referring to him as a pawn...which is why I used the term 'Knight'.
So you see...the larger discussion isn't about chess but the situation with Iran. That much is clear, isn't it?
"...sanctions and blocades are an option, but thats a good few weeks down the line sadly."
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has already terminated any talks with Iran unless they are in regards to the 15.
I don't see any similarities between Blair and Clinton.
The Clinton campaign team and James Carvelle specifically was a paid advisor to Tony Blair in his campaign for PM. He followed the Clinton battle plans (political plans) to the letter. It has been widely reported in American conservative circles that Blair and Clinton were big buddies and that moreover, Clinton's advice holds a lot of clout with Blair. They don't have to lead similar lives (Clinton being a womanizing jerk) or have the same social circles to have similar political aims. I'd like to know if Blair is a member of the UK version of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). I know that the UK rejected membership in the EU, but what was the stance of Blair on that? Was he for it? Then there is this national ID push in the UK and that if a citizen doesn't take it, they cannot travel on mass transit? Or something like that? Lots of globalistic policies that smack of a NWO seem to be taking root in the UK. Is that Blair? If it is, then he's exactly like Bill Clinton. What about the gun bans? IS Blair a gun grabber? Clinton was and is and will be (Hillary) and watch out if Hillary becomes our President and Bill takes over as Secretary General of the UN at the same time!
"It has been widely reported in American conservative circles that Blair and Clinton were big buddies"
The same has been reported about Blair and Bush.
"Then there is this national ID push in the UK and that if a citizen doesn't take it, they cannot travel on mass transit?"
Not quite, there is an ID card scheme a while away, but that is aimed at preventing illegal immigration.
"What about the gun bans? IS Blair a gun grabber?"
You simply cannot compare US gun policy to ours. British policy has always regardless of government to restrict gun ownership.
Sounds plausible.
Perhaps, but I see no harm in running the math for the altitude error that would have to accompany a GPS lat/long signal jamming trick.
Compare the math with the pilot's altimeter at the time that photo was taken (or by the size of the vessel in the picture) to see if the 91 meter altitude in the display was correct or spoofed.
Simple. Easy. Then we know if we are being set up, or if this is straight forward as you predict.
See post #297.
With all due respect, you just need a more powerful signal, which is easily done from the ground.
Even if Iran had to be in the skies to do it, they could use a UAV, purpose-built aircraft, or balloon...but a ground transmitter should easily be able to overwhelm a sat signal making those steps perhaps superfluous.
Yes, very true...but both military and civilian GPS receivers can be tricked. One just takes more effort.
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.