Certainly, I agree.
Reminds me of the Rhineland, back in the 30's. There's a certain kind of person who pushes, and tests, just to see what they can get away with.
Slap them down early, and you have far fewer problems.
It is simple as one poster said they want human shields. Would our leaders in the 40s or 50s allow this? Would our great ally the UK allow it?
Never but since we live in a time where our so called leaders are more interested in appeasing these maniacs then defend our country or help our allies. So Nancy Pelosi I bet she thinks if we just look away everything will be fine and if that does not work maybe a nice tea party.
I guess we just have to wait for another attack for this country to wake and figure out our ememies are playing us like a piano and will continue to until we get some stones to defend our culture and our right to live on this planet and not be concerned what the islamo facists think or do.
Well said. It bothers the hell out of me. This entire episode infuriates me, including the oh so mild approach of the MSM.
Also remember that prior to the hostage crisis, students had briefly seized the embassy in February of that year. That made the embassy staff complacent that the students would soon leave. They didn't. So I wouldn't place much hope in the early release of the 15 Brits. This little contretemps could get to be very, very big.
Now, that said, a very important news item from last week got virtually no play in the media, regarding Iran:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2625206&C=mideast
High-level Iranian and Saudi officials have exchanged visits over the past few weeks in an effort to defuse ethno-sectarian conflict spreading in their volatile region. Saudi King Abdullah bins Abdul Aziz and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad met here March 3. The meetings followed January and February meetings here and in Tehran between Ali Larijani, who is secretary-general of the Iranian National Security Council, and his Saudi counterpart, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan.
“There is too much at stake for each party, and the regional problems have become interlinked with one another and thus harder to deal with,” said Abdulwahab Badrakhan, a political analyst based in Doha, Qatar.
The two oil-rich nations are an unlikely peacemaking duo. Saudi Arabia is a predominantly Sunni Muslim Arab state with strong ties to the United States, while Iran is a predominantly Shiite Muslim Persian country that supports Shiite militias in Iraq and Lebanon and leads an anti-Western axis with Syria.
But “Riyadh sees the chances of war increasing by the day with no practical solution in sight for the standoff between Tehran and Washington over Iran’s nuclear problem, and thus Saudi Arabia wants to make sure it will not be part of any future regional war,” said Anwar Eshki, director of the Middle East Center for Strategic and Legal Studies in Jeddah.
So, Eshki said, Saudi leaders told their Iranian counterparts to cool it.
“Tehran was told that it had to adhere to the will of the international community and to help resolve the mounting sectarian tension in Lebanon and Iraq in order to escape any military confrontation with the West,” he said.
The Saudis also told the Iranians that if they responded to U.S. attacks by striking out at Persian Gulf Arab states, these countries would enter the war on America’s side, he said.
Saudi leaders are not sure Tehran will react to their message.
“Most hard-line Iranian leaders have not yet taken any action to defuse the tension in the region and have kept their rhetoric on the nuclear file very high and non-compromising,” said Assad Shamlan, a political science professor at the Saudi Diplomatic Institute.
Yet after the meeting, the mood was cautiously optimistic here.
“The fact that the Iranians have been seeking Saudi help to quell the tension is a proof that Tehran was really scared and wants to halt this madness,” Shamlan said. Tehran senses that its popular support in the region is slipping away, Badrakhan said.
“Iranians realize now that the tide is turning against them, with more Arab countries becoming uneasy with their increased military threats and their radicalization of Shiite communities,” he said. “This situation is depriving Iran of Arab and Muslim support or sympathy that Tehran would need at the time of a U.S. attack.”
Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz have all spoken in the past year of an Iranian-controlled Shiite crescent coming into shape in the Middle East with Syria’s help. And Arab governments fear that Iran would become a hegemonic power if it acquires nuclear weapons. END.
So, plain and simple, Iran did not get anything near what it wanted out of the Saudis. The Saudis, instead, told Iran that if they want a war, Saudi Arabia will side with the U.S. The meeting broke up early, from what I read elsewhere, and he returned to Tehran. Next, he intended to come to the U.N. Why? Simple. It was his last hope. As a final slap in the face, the Russians pulled their workers from the site of the nuclear reactor they're building, and then cut off fuel deliveries all together. Why? Because Iran, like a subprime borrower, couldn't pay the bill.
Next thing you know, 15 British soldiers are taken hostage on false pretense and charged with espionage. Given the recent moves by Ahmadinejad, his humiliation on the world stage, and perhaps a financial crisis in the Tehran government, the table is set for an irrational man to do something entirely irrational. Whereas in 2004, it made sense to release them, the Iranian government may not feel there's much to lose. I don't like their prospects at this point. If, God forbid, these men are executed, all bets are off. But with the rhetoric intensifying this weekend, it's clear that Ahmdinejad's postponement of the U.N. speech ha snothing to do with visas and everything to do with Iran's next move...