Posted on 03/31/2007 11:42:51 AM PDT by DBCJR
Tony Blair’s getting angrier every day. But if past Iranian hostage takings are an indication, he may be upset for a while. The American-embassy hostages were held for 444 days, and the Israeli soldiers kidnapped last year by Iran’s Hezbollah puppets still aren’t free.
Blair is threatening to escalate to a “different phase,” but Iran’s leadership knows something that most Americans don’t. Two months ago, Britain’s government announced plans to mothball almost half its naval fleet due to defense-budget cuts. Much of its existing navy is already so degraded; it would take over a year to get into action. According to the British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, senior naval officers say that the cuts “will turn Britain’s once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defense force.”
In fact, the British naval forces have been so neglected; the U.K. probably couldn’t pull off the Falkland Islands mission today. The world’s fifth-largest economy now supports an army that ranks 28th in size.
What are they thinking?
Continued below
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Amen brother. He hosted a sham hearing.
If he tells us why, I might consider him.
Being President might be his reward for letting Clinton off the hook.
It wasn't YOU who said or implied "Iranian satellite photos".
That was why I put it in double quotes; and why I specifically added the two idjits in the 'reply to' box.
The "LOL" is at the Satellite photos, where did you get them from the Iranian Propaganda mill? Go back to sleep. Nuke Iran! in response to your truthful claim that the photos PROVE the Brits were in Iraqi waters.
You really should read more carefully before calling me a 'liar', especially since I agree with your positions, and did not at all, in any way, contradict nor criticize YOUR post.
It was a ridiculing of the illiterate, i.e. 'the Illiterati', responders to your post.
Please don't tell me that yet another poster, out of way too many on here already, needs basic remedial reading classes.
How did he let Clinton off the hook?
Be ready.
>Like the USSR?<
No. Like Russia and China.
Perhaps you did not read my comment, as the "absolutely nothing of substance" remark would indicate. Fred said volumes in inuendo, the mark of an accomplished statesman, especially in foreign affairs. Communicating intent with deniability is an art that perhaps you missed.
Accomplished statesmen are not what we need anymore.. We have "accomplished statesmen" coming out our ears all Graduates Summa Cum Laude for the Chamberlain High and Quisling University.
What we need are Killers...
W
I don't remember
Good answer to avoid the backlash but you already posted FDT let Clinton off the hook. So you let information go into your brain without first bothering to check its validity. Alot of people are that way, they're called lemmings.
He did not let Clinton off the hook.
He threw the book at Clinton on the obstruction charge.
The following link will make you realize that behind all that folksy Southern charm of Fred Thompson is a legal intellect of the highest order:
http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml
Vanderbuilt School of Law should be very proud.
" It wasn't YOU who said or implied "Iranian satellite photos"."
You replied to me, DBCJR, whether you meant it for someone else or not.
I apologize if you were offended. I don't think offensiveness has a place in intelligent discussion.
My rely was to you, but to point out how others jumped on you for supposedly taking Irans side, when it their own failure to understand what you had posted. I added them to the post, per board protocol when talking to some one about another's posts.
Did you note that the one went so far as to say that the Iranians should let the Brits rot in jail forever, since the photos you mentioned proved they were in Iraqi waters?
As you may guess, I dislike comments based upon one's own egregiously careless reading; and I'm seeing it more & more here, along with the knee-jerk, non sequitur replies on serious topic threads.
The continent is becoming more united in terms of its national security policies. The EU has become a political reality that is eroding the individual sovereignty of the members. The Euro is an example of how the economies are being tied together. Trade policy, national secrurity policy, and foreign policy are becoming more multilateral.
I have more in common with you (and you with me) than with a guy sitting in Finland, Malta or Latvia.
Up to a point. But the trend is that you will be wedded more closely to them than us. Once the UK signs on to the Euro and the EU's proposed constitution, you will have more in common with the other EU members. Also, under the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties, there is free movement of people and labor between EU countries. As an American, I am treated by the UK differently than if I were a resident of an EU country.
If you wish to talk about Britain then fine, but the rest have nothing to do with me, any more than you should feel responsible for the policies of Mexico or Canada.
The UK is a member of the EU and NATO. Its national security and foreign policies are shaped by both institutions. I will refrain from using Europe and instead use the EU.
My point was that "there's many a slip between the cup and the lip." Much can happen within the next 17 years that could derail those plans of building new submarines for the Trident. The UK's declining expenditures on defense must be weighed on the availability of resources in the future and priorities. I can see a future labor government opting out of having nuclear weapons and relying on the US to provide the nuclear umbrella similar to what Japan does.
If Islam is so great and Allah so wonderful - show your face and stop hiding behind towels, ski masks, and hoods!!
Cowards!
Oh wow you did research! So you found that he switched his positions to suit the moment. Now go read how your boy rolled over and played dead for Glenn and the other dems.
Apparently it is you who is the lame basher, the one with a candiate, oh make that a non candidate who can't explain your support so you resort to childish name calling.
Once again you prove why FR and most of its members have become a pathetic joke on the internet, thanks to you and your ilk the place is suffering from a lack of credibility.
I agreed with you, but I have faith that he learned a lesson...pray///pray.
This is proof positive that the socialists are slowly getting what they want; a reduced military capacity replaced by a buildup in white flags. This will eventually happen to the USA also if the Dems are allowed to continue.
You have zero credibility until you provide credible backup.
Of course you will not provide such backup because there is none.
And that means you have zero credibility while you rant away from your little corner with your keyboard.
No thanks, we had a glimpse of Fred Thompson in action when he caved in to John Glenn during the Senate hearings. Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats would walk all over him."
I don't think so.
I put FDT in the category of "Fool me once: shame on you.
Fool me twice shame on me.
I don't think the Demorats are going to fool him twice.
So what's your contention? The British Navy has suffered no real cuts in funding or effectiveness? It is as strong as it has ever been?
At this point, it seems "Fred" is the only pseudo-candidate with a snowball's chance of making the Oval Office his own. Most of the others have too much baggage, or are artificially elevated to electability by wishful fantasizing.
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.