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 ...
Seems like some non-supporters have been confused about theirs from other posts I have read here.
The issue is the surface fleet, not subs.
"The article is a plant to gain support for more military spending. The Telegraph is a Conservative paper. Notice how it mentions France will have a better Navy. This is to get people angry. Think about it.
I do agree with the general sentiment myself though. However, we will have to wait for a Conservative Government before these wrongdoings are corrected.
BTW, I am probably closer to London than you! "
You probably are. I do not profess to understand that psychology. The Brits do need a Maggie as much as we a Reagan.
What we need is someone who has executive experience, preferably a Governor.
But Rudy is a former Mayor and he ruled a "city-state" of eight million people and turned it around so he's the best candidate right now.
Even if I'm uncomfortable with Rudy's liberal pet issues.
We need a free world Police Force, not under United Nations Control, under control of essentially the United States President. Fred Thompson should be the first President to expand this organization dramatically. An expanded NATO.
World Wide Membership in NATO (membership subject to being acceptable to the membership committee), and you cannot be in NATO unless your military is within (3) levels of your economic standing in the world.
You've got 5 years to comply, with visible immediate progress, next fiscal year.
You country supplies one quick reaction force of 10,000 men per country as a minimum (with Airlift).
If Britain is number 3, the need to be 6 or better in Military Standing.
Japan and Austrialia, and other countries added to membership.
Then when a country like Iran takes hostages, they take on the new NATO, (the entire roster of free Nations with fully military quick reaction force). And we bypass the United Nations, the United Nations will essentially left to die on the vine, like rotten fruit.
Look I am no supporter of Iran but if the british military were in fact in their waters it is perfectly legal to ty them as spies and shoot them.
I certainly hope that the British sailors were not in Iranian waters. If so they are in really big trouble.
If we were smart we would attack Iran and liberate it. I hope the administration has a plan for this.
But what ever the outcome, the article Fred wrote was supported by facts at the time.
Yes, I now see you're closer to London than I. Which means I'm closer to Tennessee and Wash DC than you. So I have a dog in this presidential hunt.
My dog don't like Rudy.
Woof!
"Look I am no supporter of Iran but if the british military were in fact in their waters it is perfectly legal to ty them as spies and shoot them."
Satellite photos show them clearly within Iraqi waters.
Thats too bad. The iranians could keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.
Yes he is .. and I hope he realizes it.
Exactally! That is what is hard to believe of not taking place. Fire one across their bows, for crying out loud! Do something instead of getting on the phone and asking what to do while watching your shipmates being taken by thugs. Completely embarrasing and frustrating.
Doesn't it occur to anyone else that all NON-COMMUNISTIC countries, including this one, have been on the slide for several decades while the Communistic countries have been THRIVING? Bring it up and all eyes roll. Now, with public ed in this country dumbing down the minds of our children, thus our future; mass entertainment numbing down morals; Congress passing laws that protect the butchering of innocent life; American companies outsourcing for greedy reasons; the MSM is nothing but a bright Red manipulation machine - the question is: WHAT DO BILL C., GW BUSH AND TONY BLAIR KNOW AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT? Both countries have cut back severely on defense over the years - why? To our detriment, FREE countries have become hugely overrun with immigrants who do not have the welfare of USA and UK or even EU, at heart - why?
All FREE countries are being browbeaten by radical Islamic, Communist, nations who hate us, our way of life, our freedoms WITHOUT much protest - why? It's time for eyes to stop rolling and to focus on UNITING, rather than being systematically fragmented; to organize our own defense, or we can say goodbye to life as we know it. And may God again bless America, even though she has strayed so far from her original sovereign intent.
The thing that is happening to most of the West is that in peacetime Social Spending & Entitlements gets to grow so damm big and so fast that the Military spending always gets the chop.
My point is that his implications are deliberately misleading. He is implying Iran is doing this because of the Royal Navy. That is rubbish.
He is also implying that there is something strange with the UK having only the 28th largest army in the world. That is not new. Even when Britain ran 650 million Indians they did so with less than 20,000 people.
Vietnam and Iraq show that even America struggles to invade nations, do why would the UK have an army big enough to pretend it could do that?
Britain should have a capability to defeat terrorism, win flashpoints or destroy a nation completely. I think that is the policy they are looking at.
PING
During Senate hearings on what issue?
UN Issues Memo on Hostage Crisis in Iran
In response to Iran’s seizure of 15 British naval personnel in Iraqi waters, the U.N. Security Council issued a statement of “grave concern.” The UN rejected the United Kingdom’s request that the statement “deplore” Iran’s actions.
Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, explained the UN’s criteria for official statements. “‘Deplore’ would be too strong at this point,” Ban said. “If someone had been injured, then we could justifiably ‘deplore’ the action. This would, of course, be escalated to ‘gravely deplore’ if someone had been killed.”
“Now,” Ban continued, “if Iran carries out its threat to put these people on trial we would have to consider a statement of ‘admonishment.’ If, as some in Iran have demanded, any of these captives were executed, we would then be authorized to escalate to ‘grave admonishment.’ As you can see, the language of diplomacy must be properly nuanced to fit the situation. It is not an easy skill to learn. Many of us have devoted a lifetime to perfecting it.”
In related news, Tehran’s Interim Friday Prayers Leader, Ahmad Khatami, mocked Britain as “a ‘has been’ nation that must accept its humiliation by the great and powerful Iran if it hopes to avoid total destruction. They will bow before Islam or they will die. That is their only choice.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
I may be crazy, but I still think that there is a possiblity Iran could be changed from within. It may not be a great possiblity but out of the trio of N.Korea, Syria and Iran..Iran is more developed, educated and capable of having an internal overthrow without drifting into chaos.
Sadly, I have no faith that the CIA is even capable of providing useful intel much less assisting in such a move. There is a lot going on in Iran under the surface, but the CIA would just as likely screw up any opportunites.
Wasn't there an article or blog or something suggesting Iran is doing this in order to protect itself from WITHIN Iran because the natives are restless? That Iran believes the US and UK have no stomach for invasion, but might be goaded into doing something that could be spun as an attack on the Iranian people. Interesting theory.
Iran isn't Iraq, it all depends on if the younger generations get riled up enough to kick the door down.
The biggest task for the next President SHOULD be complete overhaul of the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, NSA etc..even the top levels of the Pentagon right on down to the ridiculous turf wars between active and reserve. The question is, which President would actually do it. Newt has talked of this, and would try to do it. But he can't get elected. Too bad.
I might be temped to think that if he'd done nothing else in his life than be in the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body", but he's done other things in his life than be a Senator.
Heh, I might even be TEMPTED to think!
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.