Posted on 03/31/2007 11:42:51 AM PDT by DBCJR
You are full of bluster but again you haven't said anything specific. Back up your allegations.
I don't know why you are so self-righteous. America said sorry to China to get their men and women back.
As for Britain's "cold reactions" to the 7/7 bombs. I don't know where you get that from. In fact it's a shameful and repulsive thing to say that's beneath common decency.
>> we had a glimpse of Fred Thompson
Then let's get specific. Unlike the libs, we prefer fact over hyperbole.
I don't know why you are treating Britain differently to America in a similar situation.
-The Iranians held your diplomats hostage for 444 days after taking over the US embassy a second time in nine months. The hostages were released just before Reagan was sworn in. Still, we did not attack Iran subsequent to their release. And the Iranians still occupy our Embassy compound and have made it into a museum.
-The North Koreans seized the USS Pueblo on the high seas and held the crew of 82 for 11 months. One crew member was killed. The ship is still held by NK and remains on our list of commissioned ships.
-The USS Stark was hit by two Iraqi missiles in 1987. Thirty-seven sailors were killed and twenty-one were injured. "We will not be intimidated," said Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. "We will not be driven from the gulf." He described the attack on the Stark as a "horrible error," and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was quick to apologize for the "unintentional incident."
-The US said "sorry" to China when China held airmen hostage for 13 days to get them back.
BTW, I am not going to act as the English - considering I am not English. :)
The US Navy is having to *sink* its older ships to prevent the Congress from ordering old rust-buckets to be forever refitted instead of buying new ships.
Practically speaking, I wish we would sell the carrier Kennedy to India, to be reverse engineered as the design for a new fleet of Indian carriers--directly challenging China's new fleet and Chinese ambitions.
It would not be a threat to the US Navy, as we are a generation or more ahead of Kennedy technology; but it would be a BIG threat to China, who are trying to build carriers based on the reverse engineered by never-very-good Russian Varyag design. The Kennedy would leapfrog India's technology to be better than the Chinese.
A win-win for India and the US.
Remember our last Labour Government, Minority, was elected because of economic issues not because we made the Gulf our own in '91.
Remember if you act like a Nancy Boy on the World Stage you get treated like a bawdy house reformer.
When were the contracts for the new carriers signed? When will the be delivered? How big are the carriers compared to 'real' carriers?
How many attack submarines do they propose to buy to replace how many? How many destroyers are they going to cut?
Why does no-one ever give specifics. If you were the British PM, what would you do in reality.
MOD: Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities
http://tinyurl.com/lx6uq
"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?"
Like the USSR?
"To expect the EU to agree on a foreign policy is to fail to realise that it is a trade bloc of totally separate countries."
I admit it was created for that purpose, but it has generated a centralized court for criminal as well as civil offenses that can overrule the soveriegnty of national law, as Italy discovered. Recently, there is a proposal to develop an EU military. Does that seem like a "trade bloc" to you?
Well, at least two of the Illiterati have shown up to prove they can neither read nor understand the difference between "Iraqi" and "Iranian" waters.
I dearly wish they WERE "Iranian satellite photos" proving the Brits were in Iraqi waters. LOL
The US would do what Britain is doing. They did the same with Iran, NK and China before it.
Yes.
Didn't think you'd be willing to post an answer to those questions. Appears that I was right. Just a link to about 2 megs of PDF files, and links to 19 other documents.
Who said "Iranian satellite photos" ? I said "satellite photos". You can "lol" all you want but adding words like that is lying. No one takes seriously Iran's claims that they were in Iranian waters. What else are they going to say? Being in Iraqi waters is a clear act of aggression. Taking sailors & marines prisoner is an act of war. The time for diplomacy was over days ago. Blair should have blockaded the Iranian ports or called upon Bush to assist. If that was not possible, in the face of the usual EU & UN impotence, the UK should have struck first (Iran's only refinery? Some plutonium enrichment sites?) and gone to the table asking if Iran wants to know how to avoid more.
Now, that is how Reagan & Maggie would have done it. But the US had a Jimmy Carter and a Bill Clinton (who was big on deferring to the UN), just as the UK has a different political environment now. In fact, if we don't tale back our government from Pelosi & Heid, and stop Hillary, we could be worse than what we see in the UK. The Brits are our friends when almost no others have been. To the Brits on this blog, you may be sensing our own frustration with a lack of American resolve projected upon you as we see the same ineptness we have seen in our own country. We should take it easy on each other. We don't have that many friends in the world anymore!
And that goes to show you haven't kept up on events and you haven't provided linkage to your assertions. In other words you're a lame basher and not worth ten seconds of anyone's time on these forums.
As far as the nasty comments you deserve them and then some. Because you're just another scam poster that clutters up a discussion board with unsubstantiated crap. That's putting it politely. The nastiness is meant to discourage you from wasting bandwidth here on FR. Go find some other shallow hole in the Internet where you can mouth off indiscriminately without being challenged.
Fred Thompson, another one heard from...
He said absolutely nothing of substance even related to the topic.. The State of Military Readiness is not at issue..
The British do not need his "Wisdom" nor would 100 Capital Ships avail them of anything right now.. It's there call. Our role is to back them in their play.
What they do need is for the President of the United States to repeat openly in any public form...
What ever Britain wants us to do to by way of force to get their men back the US will do it. Then for the US to Do IT!! under their direction if they ask.
In the mean time you know I reciently heard there are a lot of "Smugglers" and "Pirates" at sea in that region. It would be unfortunate if they were sufficiently armed and inclined to distroy every Iranian naval asset they came across. I also heard there were Leviathans that when rising to the surface could sink a ship suddenly with all hands.
Leadership Leadership Leadership... Please
W
"He said absolutely nothing of substance even related to the topic.. The State of Military Readiness is not at issue..
The British do not need his "Wisdom" nor would 100 Capital Ships avail them of anything right now.. It's there call. Our role is to back them in their play.
What they do need is for the President of the United States to repeat openly in any public form...
What ever Britain wants us to do to by way of force to get their men back the US will do it. Then for the US to Do IT!! under their direction if they ask."
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.
You are entitled to your opinion as to whether the Brits need his wisdom. Once again, perhaps you are missing the point. The communication might well be intended for third parties. When Reagan ran against Carter, his campaign sent a clear message. The Iranians got it and surrendered the hostages abruptly upon Reagan's election.
I do agree with your tactic of the US President stating clearly how we are prepared to help. In so doing, are we not also suggesting courses of action? Would that not be extending our wisdom?
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.