Heading for war with Iran? (Brit press gets mad)

I start to wonder whether it might not be time for us to get as nasty with other countries as they do with us.

As we wait anxiously to see what will happen to our 15 hostages - for that is what they are - in Teheran, we should feel undiluted rage at the behaviour of other countries and institutions towards us.

Mind you, when those third parties witness the drivelling weakness of the Foreign Office over the last week, and in particular the pathetic show put up by our Foreign Secretary - who must surely be just about the worst in our history - who can blame them?

There is no doubt the 15 were in international waters when captured, or that they were undertaking a United Nations mission in pursuit of upholding UN resolutions. Yet the best the UN itself can do is pass a weak-kneed resolution describing its “grave concern”, rather than a tougher one calling upon all nations to “deplore” Iran’s behaviour.

This is all the fault of Russia, to whom Mr Blair routinely cosies up, and whom the civilised world invites to its annual G8 summit meetings. Russia seems to think it isn’t worth “deploring” the kidnap of our sailors, so we had better start to show Russia what we think of it: by uninviting it from the G8 this year, and every year until it learns some manners.

When not busy ordering the murders of his opponents, Vladimir Putin seems to enjoy hobnobbing with the leaders of civilised countries, so such a sanction would hurt.

We don’t have the means to engage in gunboat diplomacy with Iran, and any special forces operation would be fraught with risks both for the hostages and their rescuers.

For the moment, ever-stricter sanctions on Iran seems the only answer. America is resolute about this. So too, oddly, is the world’s greatest sanction-busting nation, France. So the scope for tightening the economic ratchet on Iran, and the means to do so, look healthy.

However, we should be under no illusions about the effectiveness of such weapons.

Saddam Hussein, after all, was put under sanctions for years. Real hardship was caused to his people, but almost none at all to him and his ruling clique.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran has already threatened Britain about our involvement of “third parties” - that is, the UN - in the present dispute, showing his utter contempt for that organisation.

He would treat sanctions with similar disdain, happily cutting off the noses of his own people to spite their faces. And all the time, the threat he and his inherent instability pose to us all would never cease growing.

Whatever the immediate outcome of this crisis, Britain has some hard decisions to make. Is it worthwhile, any longer, to work through the United Nations?

So long as a morally warped nation like Putin’s Russia calls the shots in the Security Council, no.

We can make debating points about how odd it is that Putin deplores Islamic nutters when they attack his forces but is relaxed about them attacking ours, but in the end there is no point in bothering.

If we are going to continue to try to be a player in the Middle East, then we have to throw in our lot with the Americans, for no-one else makes the blindest bit of difference there.

The capricious, and indeed downright wicked, behaviour of the Iranians towards our sailors confirms one other thing: that the civilised world cannot let the Ahmadinejad regime develop nuclear weapons.

It is not just his oft-repeated enthusiasm for wiping Israel off the face of the earth that should worry us: it is what this madman might decide he wants to do to anyone else within range.

This is no time for our clueless Government to be mothballing the Navy and cutting down the other services. For, at some stage, Iran’s lethal contempt for the rule of international law is going to mean war.

Maybe the "British Lion" isn't asleep, after all. I wonder what it will take to really piss him off?

I'm not sure, but I thought the following graphic was apropos for this thread.

Click image for much larger version.

"I like your half full approach compared to my half empty."

In a world where the West was united in it's politics against tyranny such as WWII and shortly thereafter, my approach would have been what MacArthur suggested, bomb and invade back to the stone age. Half measures is all we have but at least it may get us past this horrible socialist leadership we have on both sides of the pond.

Bush also will attack Iran using air and naval power that is within his power and again, Congress can do nothing.

I hope your right. I just feel that now he is acting like a dog thats been beaten. Your right about Congress having no authority to call in a Naval strike, but financing it is another story.

103 posted on 03/30/2007 12:13:33 PM PDT by Bommer (Global Warming: The only warming phenomena that occurs in the Summer and ends in the Winter!)

Russia seems to think it isn’t worth “deploring” the kidnap of our sailors, so we had better start to show Russia what we think of it: by uninviting it from the G8 this year, and every year until it learns some manners.

WoW! Now, that will really get their attention, won't it? /s

When not busy ordering the murders of his opponents, Vladimir Putin seems to enjoy hobnobbing with the leaders of civilised countries, so such a sanction would hurt.

...His ego only perhaps.

104 posted on 03/30/2007 12:19:28 PM PDT by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon))

"It looks like Pelosi is busy stabbing it. :-("

Well, it'll be interesting to see how badly Her Highness NancyP puts her foot in her mouth over there. ;-)

That is, if she remains at liberty and survives long enough to say anything publicly...

I think this move will impact her image badly regardless.

"We are going to destroy their nuke program and probably their air, force and navy while we are at it."

Hopefully, we'll also target the camps they are using to train terrorists for Iraq, and the barracks,depots and camps of their miserable Revolutionary Guard. Kill thousands of the bastards as payback.

Well, IF we attack.

at some stage, Iran’s lethal contempt for the rule of international law is going to mean war.

Better now than when they've got nukes.

108 posted on 03/30/2007 11:40:22 PM PDT by T. Buzzard Trueblood ("left unchecked, Saddam Hussein...will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton)

According to contacts of mine (Pakistani), it is being refered to as the "Holy War". A decisive war/battle that will be over in only a matter of hours.

Not sure where the target is yet, but from what I heard it is not Israel which surprised me.

For the last few days I have been unable to get any more info - nor do I have means to ascertain its validity

“I hope your right. I just feel that now he is acting like a dog thats been beaten. Your right about Congress having no authority to call in a Naval strike, but financing it is another story.”

If Bush hadn’t been villanized, you would see a coordinated air and ground assault to overthrow the mullahs in Iran. An air strike to slow them down is all we got. This will bite us hard later on in time and I believe we will see a regional war go nuclear with Israel and later a flash point in NK turning into nuclear WWIII. All preventable by showing our enemies we mean business instead of simply talking and be considerate of their feelings.

“Hopefully, we’ll also target the camps they are using to train terrorists for Iraq, and the barracks,depots and camps of their miserable Revolutionary Guard. Kill thousands of the bastards as payback.

Well, IF we attack.”

They certainly are due for some short painful payback, that is for sure. Who knows? Perhaps they will go the way of Libya but I doubt it.

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.