Hostage Fears Over Troops Seized By Iran

Times Online ^ | 3-24-2007

[UKrepublican]

One thing is for sure. They're making one hell of a mistake.

[Ieatfrijoles]

What's British for Blue Ribbon Panel?

[Mr. Mojo]

".....perhaps seeking to use the captives as hostages in the increasingly tense stand-off between the West and Iran over its nuclear programme.

No perhapses about it.

[Cicero]

The time to resist was when it happened. I suspect there were stupid rules of engagement that prevented the troops from defending themselves. Now the Brits have another Iranian hostage crisis on their hands.

[nuconvert]

My guess is that they will be traded for the IRGC who are being held

[RunningWolf]

Also, this should bring the Dems WOT surrender bill screeching to a dead halt in the Senate.

[RunningWolf]

Get ready for T. Blair to put the stomping on Iran.

[Ieatfrijoles]

Stephie and Russert are probably livid that they're going to have to use valuable broadcast time on this subject Sunday morning.

[Sherman Logan]

I suspect there were stupid rules of engagement that prevented the troops from defending themselves.

Mounted heavy weapons versus sidearms was another good argument against fighting back.

An M-16 against a 50 caliber isn't a good bet.

[zarf]

Not a chance. Iran will get it's way.

A good old western apology followed by a group hug and a promise not to do it again.

[ARE SOLE]

I have wondered why we didn't seem to be hurting Iran back for the support they give Iraq's terrorists. Then General officers started disappearing. This is a stunning development and we should expect action of some sort very soon, to utilize the new wealth of intelligence we are no doubt enjoying. We would need to use it while it's hot, so to speak.

As for the Brits, it would be impressive if the SAS were to blow up Iran's single domestic source of gasoline. The country including it's war machine, such as it is, would grind to a stop. And the masses might have had enough.

Regards.

[SampleMan]

Mounted heavy weapons versus sidearms was another good argument against fighting back.

The U.S. Code of Military Conduct does allow for surrendering to a stronger force because the outcome looks poor. I doubt the Brits does either.

[Scarchin]

Two words solve this problem:

KA BOOM!!!!!!

[mass55th]

Can't they exchange Chuck and Camilla for the sailors?

[lawnguy]

As tensions rose on the Iraqi border, the US House of Representatives set a deadline of August 31 next year for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq.

The gutless, cowardly traitors in the house show their usual good timing; and notice how this is reported as a firm deadline, rather than the meaningless theater it was.

[GVNR]

"WOT surrender bill"

I suspect that the reason for loading up the bill with pork is to insure that the bill won't pass.
Instead, I believe that the two reasons the bill was put forward are:

1. To placate the whacko left that acts like a bunch of leftover hippies and believes that we have no business interfering in another country's affairs and that all the world would be at peace if America would just stop being so imperialistic.

2. To make a public show of their "perceived" power in the Senate, and to use both public opinion and the "drive-by-media" in attempt to increase the political pressure on President Bush.

[Mark17]

Get ready for T. Blair to put the stomping on Iran.

I don't think there is a snow balls chance of that happening. Unfortunately, these guys are expendable. I hope Iran gets stomped on, but I don't think this will cause it. If Blair gives them an ultimatum, then we will see.

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

Guess its time for the SAS to storm some more Iranian property!!!

[oldbrowser]

I wonder if Iran remembers that Argentina made a similar mistake in the Falklands in the 80's.

I expect a much bigger backlash from the British if their men are not returned quickly.