I seriously doubt these British soldiers were carry these.
Posted on 03/25/2007 9:27:43 AM PDT by jdm
FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran off the coast of Iraq could be charged with spying and held until the US releases five Iranian Revolutionary Guards seized by US forces in Iraq earlier this year.
Reports yesterday said a website run by associates of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had reported that the arrested Britons would be put before a court and indicted.
Referring to them as "insurgents", the site said: "If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since, according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences."
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
The boomers and other unseen Naval and Air Force assets are just part of the package.
Since Pearl Harbor, only insane rulers/despots ignore carrier task forces off their shores. The carrier task forces we have assembled near Iran make the Japanese carrier task forces on Dec 7, 1941 look very puny.
We went to war with England in 1812 for such acts. Ironic in a way.
It does not matter if they were or not in terms of the charge they are spies - spies can only be charged as such when they are OUT OF UNIFORM. Calling these men spies means they are being threatened with execution and torture in an oblique way by Iran because spies are not protected under the Geneva Conventions.
If England declares war over this issue it would be justified - justified not so much that the Sailors were captured but for the fact Iran is calling them spies - a threat to their lives.
You're welcome. I'm convinced that Islam is the 8th empire spoken of in Revelation. Here's a direct link to Joel's blog - http://www.joels-trumpet.com/ and another link to an article that I think reasons quite well (similar to the way Joel Richardson explains it but with greater detail) how there is no revived Roman empire, but rather a revived Ottoman one - http://www.greatbabylon.com/page3.html
I thought that was Roman Catholicism.
Well, if it's going to happen within a generation, it better hurry up. Actually, now that I come to think about it, a biblical generation could be forty years since that's how long the Lord made the Israelites wander in the desert.
That begs the question, why did the Brits allow it to happen??
Nothing will happen except a lot of huffing and puffing in a minority of Western capitals.
Where's Captain Decatur now that we need him?
I don't think it's a sign of the End Times. I think it's a sign of Western decadence and naivete masquerading as enlightenment.
Screw it, let's just call it causus belli and flatten the sand monkeys.
Still, poor planning in failing to provide an adequate security contingent capable of deterring aggression. Perhaps a hovering helicopter gunship? Would need precision fires to provide a decent screen to allow E&E.
In any event, even had the Rules of Engagement allowed a response, and lacking aforementioned gunship, there is little the vessel could have done. A contingent of Royal marines would have snipers available but that wouldn't be enough for cover. Raking the force with automatic cannonfire would be too much and raise the potential of incurring casualties from "friendly fire."
But SOMETHING should have been done. IMHO, the commander on the scene has to take the initiative and hang the ROE. He has the responsibility for the lives of his men. London (or DC, for that matter) aren't on the scene. The captain should be relieved for failure to do this and apply the proper amount of force to keep his men from being taken, even at the risk for starting a war. However, he did the politically correct thing which is always guaranteed to keep a career humming along by letting the GOOFS take place at the top in trying to get the personnel returned.
Sounds more like something Squidward would say.
Goodpoint.
No argument here. However, it's more difficult to decide what to do about it. Say AQ pulls off the so called American Hiroshima? They detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil. Like the current tv series "24." What then? Do you go next door to your neigbors of twenty five years who are Egyptian and just blow the whole family to smithereens? I don't know about you, but I don't think I could live with myself in even thinking about that. It's easy to condemn, but difficult to formulate a cogent and workable solution to the problem. Even in the case of Iran. Say Ahmanutjob is the source of that nuclear strike. Do we unilaterally nuke Teheran for what the leadership has done?
Well...maybe. That's what we did with both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Neither were military targets. Those people weren't active participants in WWII in any meaningful way and yet we vaporized a good portion of the city in the blink of an eye. That action possibly saved millions of allied lives...including my Father in Law and without HIM, my wife and family wouldn't be a part of my life right now.
So, yes, I think we can nuke a city in return for an identified nuke attack sponsored by a nation state. But for a stateless group like AQ? How about genocide for folks not in any way giving aid and comfort to terrorists? Does that include their kids, too? Does that include the unborn children of practicing muslims? I'm against abortion. I couldn't live with myself in condoning it for this either.
A M E N ! ! ! ! !
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.