Blair: Iran must free naval prisoners in days-(Or what?)

telegraph ^ | 26/03/2007 | By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor

[mkjessup]

The Lead Moderator said:

"Knock off the personal attacks."

You would be well advised to comply.

or else it could REALLY be 'Bye Bye'!

Know what I mean pal?

[LiberalBassTurds]

I never stated that I experienced the quake while on vacation. That was an hypothetical possibility.

OK, then I will repost my original question since you have now said you were not on vacation. Please respond to the following...

-=-=-

Posted by baubau to CindyDawg
On News/Activism 03/24/2007 10:01:03 PM CDT · 125 of 152

I guess it's ok to make a few jokes after the facts, especially if no one got hurt or killed.

I experienced a strong one when I was 15-years-old. Don't remember the magnitude but it must have been close to an 8 on the Ritcher scale. I remember, though back then being measured on a different scale, perhaps the Mercalli scale. I also remember being an ondulating one as opposed to an oscillating one and me and family living in a tent city for about a month and a half. It scared the bejesuses out of me. Imagine being in the middle of the street (you had to walk as far away from buildings) and waving from side to side or shaking in your bed and things falling off shelves and the house squeaking. Well, during those first shakes I don't think joking about was appropriate just as I don't think it's appropriate to joke about this one w/o knowing of the consequences. But that's me and that's how I feel.

Btw, in the one I experienced hundreds of people died.

Where in the USA were hundreds killed in an earthquake and families like yours living in tent cities for a month and a half? Sounds like the Southern Iran quake to me.

LBT
-=-=-

[LiberalBassTurds]

Thank you Lead Moderator. You may want to look at this entire thread starting around #250 as well as his posting history. This guy is a disinformation troll for sure.

LBT
-=-=

[PhilDragoo]

Can't we all just get along?

[mkjessup]

You know LBT, this reminds me of classic 'Redneck Fishing', where you light the fuse on a stick o' dynamite, throw it in the water, and wait to see if the fish were close enough for your improvised depth charge?

I just KNOW we're going to see 'filet of baubau' floating to the surface any time now! LOL

[LiberalBassTurds]

Correction to the above. Make that #215.

LBT
-=-=-

[LiberalBassTurds]

I just KNOW we're going to see 'filet of baubau' floating to the surface any time now!

LOL brother no doubt. He filleted himself with his lies. Good catch by you and the other eagle eyed FR folks.

Well I am off to bed. Night.

LBT
-=-=-

[mkjessup]

Me too. I'm heading for 'zzzzz'-land.

G'nite all.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

baubau....does this look familiar? Did you mean it when you wrote it, and just carried on too far tonite to be able to redeem yourself?

"When I realize that I've just made a mistake that can be reversed, I do reverse it."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800787/posts?page=170#170

[Centurion2000]

I'd like to hear Blair mention that the nukes are being warmed up.

[Centurion2000]

What if there were a French/Iranian 'Pearl Harbor' knife-in-the-back attack?

It would be the end of France as an active military power outside their own borders.

Brits are pretty good at sinking French ships.

[Grimmy]

I do agree with much of what you say and hope I didnt make it sound as if I am against further expansion of this war effort against our common enemy.

Actually, I do honestly believe that this war will not be won until each and every arab/muslim nation has been completely broken, reduced to ash and rebuilt into something more resembeling acceptable human culture and governance.

I also do believe to the very bottom of my heart that this will quite probably entail at least some true effort toward genocide like campaigns.

The statement I was trying to make earlier is that there is much that is interconnected and issues that have to be worked out prior to kicking this thing off, but I do not believe the preparations should be dragged out to any extent either, nor do I expect them to be.

Our military isn't as linear and simpleminded as many want to suppose. All these issues have been worked over and revisited many times in the recent past. I would bank money on that being true.

Whatever plan or action gets taken, it wont be perfect, because no plan can be when dealing with so many variables and such a fluid state, but neither will it be the cluster gaggle that those who adhere to our enemy will try to paint it as being either.

Mostly, I just wanted to speak to the need for some patience and remind myself not to pick on the Brits too much until this is over.

[ipos]

If the British do not take swift action, and these 15 people working under U.N. orders remain kidnapped, then Britain has lowered herself to third world status.

If this is true, then Britain should disban her entire international force and simply maintain a coast guard and small home defense force.

NO VIOLENCE is needed to end this crisis. A total blockade of Iran via land, sea and air would be required. This would end this situation before it even had to be enforced. Just ask any ex-Soviet!! (CUBA)

If the Iranian so-called "government" is stupid enough to challenge the blockade, then the violence will be on their own head (in more ways than one).

I don't think that the criminals and terrorists that have taken over Iran really want to be removed (like our pal Saddam and his buddies) but if they are that stupid then I guess they'll get the rope too.

[saganite]

The straying of vessels into the territorial waters of another country happen frequently throughout the world.

Just one correction to your post. The Brits were definitely in Iraqi waters. The Iranians seized the sailors and marines as a deliberate provocation. They want a war with the West. I doubt it will be resolved peacefully myself but Blair has to play out his diplomatic options first.

[AmericaUnited]

I read through all the posts and am disgusted with all of your behavior.

You pathetic little SCOLD! Next time I want a POST NANNY to scold me about my opinion, I'll ping you but till then, GO TAKE A FLYING LEAP!!!

It's obvious you're some type of uptight ah*ole who gets their panties in bunch when others are making the typical comments in jest. When someone says "We should nuke em" or "Let's bomb them into the stone age", do you really take the comments literally? If so, then you are an IDIOT@!!

If your spouse says "Oh you just broke my good (insert prized item here), I could kill you for that.", do you run to the police and file a attempted murder charge?

[Humble Servant]

"Try to read my posts in context. I was responding to someone's remarks about the UN. My #10 was in response to #5, where someone said the UN would be involved. I responded that in addition to harsh words, there'd be a time out. (What one would expect from the UN, yes?) I think all three of you owe man an apology."

My response wasn't to your post specifically as much as to a disparaging trend I was seeing. I was reading your post when it hit critical mass. I don't recall anything in what you said that didn't seem to be about Blair; if it was aimed at the UN, fire away as far as I'm concerned - although having a unanimous opposition if it is available CAN mean something, like showing the Iranian people that their regime has seriously overplayed its hand.

It might help to avoid confusion and misunderstandings if you include reference to what you're responding to. I find it awkward to try to constantly flip back and forth between posts to see what the writer's train of thought is. Just my lazy way, but it helps.

For now, no apologies. I think Blair's playing it just right, and have no doubts about his willingness and ability to use necessary force at a time and conditions of his choosing. If he is able to actually use the UN, he'd be making a silk purse out of a sow's bunghole, but God bless him.

[AmericaUnited]

And further more...


The entire and only reason we have this on going situation is due to the fact that the British Navy has an official policy of not defending themselves in this situation. JUST PATHETIC! If they had fought back, there would be an entirely different thread being discussed, i.e. how 6 Iranian ships were at the bottom, with the help of the USAF. The fact that that didn't happen is not the fault of the very courageous fighting men, but their leadership. Tony Blair is ultimately responsible. So just save it.

[AmericaUnited]

If Reagan------- were calling the shots, the Iranian Navy would have been turned into new reef material by now.

You mean like in Beirut?

No, I mean like this...from the WSJ...

It is worth recalling, however, that Iran was at its most diplomatically pliant after the United States sank much of Tehran's navy after Iran tried to disrupt oil traffic in the Persian Gulf in the late 1980s. Regimes that resort to force the way Iran does tend to be respecters of it.

[AmericaUnited]

All of the criticism aim at the British leadership is WELL DESERVED!!!

A few excerpts from the Independant...

A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.

Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."

The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: " The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"

[mkjessup]

It is worth recalling, however, that Iran was at its most diplomatically pliant after the United States sank much of Tehran's navy after Iran tried to disrupt oil traffic in the Persian Gulf in the late 1980s. Regimes that resort to force the way Iran does tend to be respecters of it.

Hey AU, looks like you put the smackdown on that sneering about 'Beirut', I hear nothing but crickets chirping!

Nice work! :)