Hostage update: Blair threatens to bring out the big gun — a UN resolution; Update: Iran airs footage of sailors’ arrests; Update: New hostage letter calls for withdrawal from Iraq; Update: Video staged?

posted at 11:51 am on March 29, 2007 by Allahpundit

My, things certainly are getting tense now. Yawn.

Britain said Thursday it is seeking United Nations condemnation of Iran for its capture and detention of 15 sailors and marines in disputed waters in the northern Persian Gulf…

Before telling The Associated Press said it was seeking condemnation of Iran, Britain said it had asked the Security Council on Thursday to support a call for the immediate release of the detainees…

The issue was expected to be debated Thursday at the United Nations.

Negotiator Ali Larijani said on Iranian state radio that: “British leaders have miscalculated this issue.”

If Britain follows through with its policies toward Iran, Larijani said “this case may face a legal path” — a clear reference to Iran’s prosecuting the sailors in court.

There was a report of some total awesomeness outside the Iranian consulate in Basra earlier today, but it looks like it’s less a case of Blair showing some stones than Iran trying to gin up a provocation where none exists. They’ve also reneged on their promise to release the woman sailor because, and I quote, Britain is making too much of “a fuss” about it by freezing diplomatic relations. Lest they be seen as unreasonable, though, they’re going to let British diplomats in to meet with her and the other 14.

We’re still not sure what led them to kidnap the sailors, but here’s another point in favor of the “revenge for Irbil” theory:

Iran may not send a delegation to a key meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, tentatively planned for next month, unless six Iranians detained by the United States in Iraq are released, a senior Iranian official said yesterday…

[F]ive are members of Iran’s elite al-Quds Brigade who were detained during a U.S. raid on an Iranian diplomatic office in the Kurdish city of Irbil in January. The United States alleged that they were “suspected of being closely tied” to attacks on U.S. forces. Computers, cellphones and other equipment seized there have produced intelligence on Iranian operations in Iraq, U.S. officials said.

They’ve got a dog and pony show going on outside the Iranian foreign ministry too. Here’s a taste — in English, natch, for easier digestion by its target audience. This one’s slicker, although the bearer’s unibrow isn’t nearly as impressive as the other guy’s.

Update: Mark Steyn on the impotence of great powers. I like the way Newt is thinking.

Update: They’re taunting Blair now: according to Sky News, new video of the sailors’ seizure by the Iranian navy is being broadcast. Keep your eye on that link for updates.

Update: Sky’s got the vid. Is this a reenactment or do Iranian sailors usually carry video cameras with them? Or did they carry it with them this time because the operation was planned?

Click the image to watch.

seize.jpg

Update: That sure looks like Faye Turney, the woman sailor. Safe to say it’s not a reenactment.

seize002.jpg

Update: Blair says he won’t “negotiate,” he’ll just keep talking to them incessantly.

“What you have to do when you are engaged with people like the Iranian regime, you have to keep explaining to them, very patiently, what it is necessary to do and at the same time make them fully aware there are further measures that will be taken if they’re not prepared to be reasonable.

“What you can’t do is end up negotiating over hostages; end up saying there’s some quid pro quo or tit for tat; that’s not acceptable,” he said.

The article also claims that Sky News is reporting a second letter written by Turney calls for withdrawal from Iraq, but I can’t find that anywhere yet.

Update: Here we go. Do they really have no idea how the west will receive the idea of a woman being held captive and coerced into propagandizing for a terrorist power?

Iran has published another letter allegedly written by Leading Seaman Faye Turney in which she supposedly calls for British forces to withdraw from Iraq.

The letter also asks the British Government why it allowed the British captives to stray into Iranian waters.

And it goes on to say the group is being treated well by the Iranians.

Update: Verum Serum makes the case that the video is staged.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Hmmm….

“We promise that if you don’t let them go, we will continue to talk about doing something ad nauseum.”

StoutRepublican on March 29, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Its all a show of dominance for the OTHER Gulf States.

They know that the Dems in Congress are now voting for defeat… Bin Laden’s plan is working…

Now they will humiliate Great Britain, to show their impotence. As there are no other Gulf States with the military power to stand against them… its a political dominance game.

China will not get involved, Russia is siding with Iran, France will do nothing… US is soon out of it thanks to the Dems… Britain humiliated in the Jihadist eyes…

Oh… and its driving oil prices UP, so they have more economic power and can afford more “toys”….

Win win for Iran…

sigh… dam I’m depressed.

Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 12:02 PM

UN: ‘Dear Dinnerjacket. Consider this letter to be official request to get our hostages back immediately.’

UK: Exclamation point.

Elaine: You still have no proof.

UK: Elaine, he was taking our soldiers from Iraq water.

UN: ‘I will expect all soldiers returned no later than the 18th’.

UK: Double exclamation point!

lorien1973 on March 29, 2007 at 12:04 PM

I think more people in Britain need to ask themselves WWCD?

What Would Churchill Do?

Slublog on March 29, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Yeah, because the UN resolution worked SOOOO well for getting back the Israeli soldier last summer….

Lets see, how did that work??? ohhhh yeah, Hezbollah essentialy got French Air cover out of it…

And the Israeli soldier is still held captive…

Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 12:09 PM

What would Churchill do???

pocomoco on March 29, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Oooh, a resolution! Yeah, that’ll accomplish, uh, nothing.

(btw, nice Seinfeld reference lorien)

CP on March 29, 2007 at 12:09 PM

you know, i was soaking in the belicosity on hewwitt last night and i have to speak my mind on this.

i don’t see how anyone here seriously doubts that the sailors are being treated by the book here. iran is playing a game. if we paint our faces blue and go charging in there, they win. if we keep our cool (which, it should be kept in mind, it’s noot a “we” thing, but a brit thing anyway) we can make iran look pretty small and silly.

jummy on March 29, 2007 at 12:15 PM

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21472356-601,00.html

Last line in the story….classic MSM BS…..proof is no longer a valid concept.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21472351-601,00.html

Food for thought for any stone throwers out there.

Limerick on March 29, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Hostage update: Blair threatens to bring out the big gun — a UN resolution

Well, that‘ll have the Iranians shaking in their boots.

Jimmy Carter: “I was spineless and weak against Iran when being spineless and weak against Iran wasn’t cool.”

ReubenJCogburn on March 29, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Any (real) punks out there remember the song Talk Talk by Talk Talk?

“If every sign I see is complete
Then I’m a fool in your game
And all you want to do
Is tell me your lies…”

All you do to me is talk talk.

Tru2my2 on March 29, 2007 at 12:15 PM

I know what the Iron Lady would have done.

georgej on March 29, 2007 at 12:19 PM

I say we surrount the United Nations Headquarters and block all outgoing and incoming mail. I think our enemies act irrationally because they are scared to death of the unending trail of letters they receive from the UN. Once our enemies are at ease then surely they will be thankful and we can negotiate all pressing matters openly and freely.

Zetterson on March 29, 2007 at 12:22 PM

The Iranians are certainly learning a valuable lesson from all this. Wait until they get nukes.

morganfrost on March 29, 2007 at 12:22 PM

If this is the only response that Britain is capable of, I may just grab a few marines hostage myself. I can entertain them with a barbecue in my backyard and then have a mock trial and watch the UN Press conference on my HDTV with a few beers with them.

JayHaw Phrenzie on March 29, 2007 at 12:29 PM

This is to pacify the Euroweenie wimps that Blair has to deal with. Carrots first, then the stick. I think Blair will use force if needed. One of the somewhat masculine men left in Europe.

roninacreage on March 29, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Been wondering where the UN is.

JammieWearingFool on March 29, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Sky is reporting new vids of the ‘arrest’ of the bluejackets and marines on Iranian TV.

Limerick on March 29, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Yawn.

Are these not our brothers in arms?
How much farther are we willing to let Iran probe for limits? Every inch, is a mile of Western credibility.

God, give me a gun, and a ticket to Iran.

Free Constitution on March 29, 2007 at 12:42 PM

I really do love Newt. I am reminded of the old quote…

Oderint dum metuant.
(Let them hate, so long as they fear me)

It’s a pity such a timeless truism is attributed to Caligula.

Lehosh on March 29, 2007 at 1:02 PM

AP–Update: Mark Steyn on the impotence of great powers. I like the way Newt is thinking.

I always like the way Newt is thinking. Because he thinks (unlike most political types), and he does it very well. He really understands the way the world works better than most, and he knows how to play hardball. That’s why I’m so disgusted with this “Newt is unelectable” crap. Forget the stupid “baggage,” already! He’s frickin’ brilliant, and he’d make a great president.

aero on March 29, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Funny… you know what? I’ve got that EXACT same model of Garmin GPS… its a COMMERCIAL model, not military. Definatly not NATO issue back when I was in….

Anyone active out there who can confirm??

Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 1:18 PM

It’s clear to me Iran wants some sort of confrontation, so if we attack them we are giving them exactly what they want. They get sympathy, they rally their populace (which largely doesn’t support the leadership), and we lose the high ground. I’m not saying I know what we should do, but whatever we do, it shouldn’t be what Iran is trying to convince us to do.

Finally, isn’t the main goal to ensure the safe release of the sailors? I’m sure they are being treated like kings right now so when they are released and asked about their treatment Iran will be able gloat that they don’t torture hostages, unlike the United States. We have no idea where they are being kept so if we go in their bombs flying, there is the chance we could kill them by accident or at the very least give Iran an excuse to execute them.

JaHerer22 on March 29, 2007 at 1:20 PM

Dunno Romeo13 but I can tell you my son has his own store bought one….

I also question the that it might be a reenactment….focusing on the female hostage …just like the Tehran vid.

Limerick on March 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM

maybe if he says “pretty please with cherries on top”

dalewalt on March 29, 2007 at 1:26 PM

Finally, isn’t the main goal to ensure the safe release of the sailors?

JaHerer22 on March 29, 2007 at 1:20 PM

No, its not. As horrible as that sounds you can NOT have national policy in a war held hostage.

FACT: They crossed the line and have taken Military prisoners, AN ACT OF WAR.
FACT: They have prodcast pictures of captured military members, against the Geneva Convention.
FACT: They published a PRIVATE letter from the female Sailor, once more agianst the Geneva Convention.
FACT: This government only respects strength. They have a cultural habit of taking ‘hostages’.

IMO, bombs should already be falling, that they are not is a failure of the West… and will be seen, once again, as weakness and a victory by our enemies…..

Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 1:31 PM

ALLAH, Iran’s making a profit off of this too- a financial one.

amerpundit on March 29, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Is this a reenactment or do Iranian sailors usually carry video cameras with them? Or did they carry it with them this time because the operation was planned?

I think this was a planned kidnapping as part of a psyop, and possibly a financial operation as well, as amerpundit points out.

I’d like to think American sailors & marines would have started guns blazing had they been approached like this. The Brits have got to get their grit back.

And yes, I like Newt’s idea too.

CP on March 29, 2007 at 1:58 PM

hate to agree with jhererr, but i do. this is a game. the prisoners are probably being treated to the letter of international law and then some. the confrontation on this one will be between conflicting gps coordinates.

all of you talking about face and dignity are basicly walking freely into the box iran wants us in. keep your national dignity off the table. you’ll lose it. this is a pipsqueak playing a bluff. be cool.

jummy on March 29, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Prevarication is cultural over there. The West should not believe a word from the Iranians. Where is world condemnation on this act? The U.N. once again proving what it isn’t.

Entelechy on March 29, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 1:31 PM

I can buy your argument that the long term stability and safety of the country is much more important 15 individual lives; especially when they willingly signed up to serve their country at war. But I don’t think we’ve reached the point yet where the stakes are that high and thus I believe their safe return is the most important thing right now.

Unlike some liberals, I’m not opposed to killing the people who need killing and I’m not opposed in principle to bombing Iran. But it seems ridiculous to bomb them now when it’s clear they are looking for a fight; bombing them plays right into their hands. We need something unconventional that they could never be prepared for; how about this:

Since water is such a precious commodity over there we dose their water supply with large amounts of LSD. The hate-filled Islamist-extremists are suddenly overwhelmed with love and happiness and take to the streets, shedding their burkas and dancing hippie dances all over Tehran. The government falls as the result of the “acid revolution.”

JaHerer22 on March 29, 2007 at 2:01 PM

the prisoners are probably being treated to the letter of international law and then some.

jummy on March 29, 2007 at 1:58 PM

see this

Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Geneva – review and learn – it applies to all – where is the media and the U.N.? Where are the big mouths from Europe?

Entelechy on March 29, 2007 at 2:02 PM

Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Geneva – review and learn – it applies to all – where is the media and the U.N.? Where are the big mouths from Europe?

Entelechy on March 29, 2007 at 2:02 PM

sure. that’s a fine start. honestly. that’s how this little game is to be played. begin by rebuking the international community for not taking a strong stance against the exploitation of the prisoners. make the international community take a stand against iran in this – even a typical toothless stand – because iran’s strategy is to get the international community’s sympathy, which it’ll have if we run in there guns ablazin’.

jummy on March 29, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Problem is the breakdown of International norms…

Take an embassy?? no real action…
Bomb an embassy?? get taken to court… maybe…
Take Military personel in cross border raids?… nothing…

We, in the West, have created a set of international norms which we won’t cross… and can’t seem to understand that we are dealing with a culture who by Religious Mandate, will use our own rules against us. They will continue to push the limits… while we continue to “talk” (remember that little ole Baker Report??? you don’t think THEY read it)…

Remember too, this is not happening in a vacuum. The Gulf Council has essentialy given an ultimatum to Israel which, if they submit, will end in their destruction (right of return?)… and the US Congress has just snatched defeat from the Jaws of victory…

Oil prices are now up…

and Jaheer… Might want to go read Starship Troopers by Heinlein… becuase “men are not potatoes”…

Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Tony Blair: Weak, wimpy leader who will never attack Iran.

He reminds me of a really bad “progressive” public school teacher that cannot control his students. The kids are taunting him and have no respect for him, yet he keeps trying “progressive” techniques to keep them in line.

His biggest threat will be to take them to the principal (the U.N.), but the children know the principal won’t back up the teacher.

The once great United Kingdom’s humiliation is painful to watch. The Iranians would never try this on us with a Republican president.

januarius on March 29, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Blair also said this, according to Sky News:

“We are going to have to step up pressure not just with them in the UN and the European Union, but see what further measures are necessary to get them to understand it’s not merely wrong but only going to result in further tension,” he added.

amerpundit on March 29, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Blair: Confess! Confess! Confess!
Biggles: It doesn’t seem to be hurting him, lord.
Blair: Have you got all the stuffing up one end?
Biggles: Yes, lord.
Blair [angrily hurling away the cushions]: Hm! He is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch…THE COMFY CHAIR!

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 29, 2007 at 2:29 PM

pocomoco on March 29, 2007 at 12:09 PM

You mean Ward don’t you.

right2bright on March 29, 2007 at 2:32 PM

It seems that the current concensus belief is that the Iranians are attempting to provoke us into action. Should it be? Where is the evidence for this? I’m not saying that any of us is wrong to believe this but I’m a bit skeptical of the notion that the Iranian brain trust (such as it is) came up with the brilliant theory that what’s best for them is for American MOABs to start falling on Iranian soil. Do they truly believe that it would benifit them if they got bombed? That would either reflect deep desperation on their part (ie. what would it take for us to come to such a high risk conclusion that the best strategy is to devise a way to trick our enemies into bombing US soil?) or a deep insanity. Does that not run parallel with the nutroot tinfoil hat crew who believe 9/11 was a Bush admin plot to hit its own soil in order to bolster the gvt case for war? I just find it far more likely and far more consistent with the rantings of the jihadis that the Iranian strategy is not to trick us into action but to prove to its people and the world that our reaction is minimal and gutless and weak. That is consistent with Bin Laden who predicted that we do not have the will to see this battle through to the end. It is consistent with the Mark Steyn “strong horse” theory. I just find that to be far more likely and far more frustrating.

Zetterson on March 29, 2007 at 2:35 PM

This is what our wonderful liberal friends have wrought on us. They know if we do what we should, attack, we will be condemned by “our” people as well as the U.N. people.

God help us, we can’t even protect our citizens.

Forget about the election, let’s kick some a**.

right2bright on March 29, 2007 at 2:36 PM

I’m sure they are being treated like kings right now so when they are released and asked about their treatment Iran will be able gloat that they don’t torture hostages, unlike the United States.
JaHerer22 on March 29, 2007 at 1:20 PM

Ja, please remove head from…sand. According to a former “Guest of the Ayatollah”, there are many guns right off screen. When they are not in one of these propaganda videos, they are blindfolded and separated, constantly being pressured to confess or be killed – with guns in their ears. Yea, “kingly”. And..er..ah..I don’t think those poor, constantly-tortured Guantanamees are “hostages”. Oh, that’s right, farmers plucked out of their fields.

Prime Minister Tony Blair’s official spokesman said Britain wanted to resolve the crisis quickly and without having a “confrontation over this.”

Little late for that. Oh, I guess they could just pull out of Iraq right away. Otherwise, the demands will escalate constantly.

eeyore on March 29, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Blair threatens to bring out the big gun — a UN resolution

Translation: I fart in your general direction.

smellthecoffee on March 29, 2007 at 2:47 PM

“This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.”
-Admiral Painter (Fred D. Thomson) Hunt For the Red October

BohicaTwentyTwo on March 29, 2007 at 3:03 PM

That’s it Blair… it’s past the talking stage. It’s time to cover your ears, turn your back on the Iranians, and say “la-la-la-la-la-la I can’t hear you”

No more Mr. Nice Guy

dalewalt on March 29, 2007 at 3:08 PM

amerpundit on March 29, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Oh, what Monty Python could do with this!

dalewalt on March 29, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Someone suggested a blockade, removing the ability of the Iranians to move oil out of the Persian Gulf. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Accidentally dropping a bomb on an oil well or two sounds like a good time to.

Something short and to the point.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 29, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Zetterson on March 29, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Good post…

Its like the double think on Intelligence… we get somthing juicy and actionable, but then don’t use it because we’re afraid we might not get somthing more juicy later… theres a point where you paralyze yourself… I think we are there now… and THEY see it.

Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 3:25 PM

Except for GW Bush there isn’t a leader in the free world that has the “balls” to forcefully challenge these tyrants.

rplat on March 29, 2007 at 3:35 PM

No need to get too worked up about this whole situation now if the UN is going to get involved.

This is the UN’s promise to you – If in 12 years, and after about 17 resolutions, Iran is still not cooperating, the United Nations will give Iran a very strong “or else!” coupled with another resolution.

RightWinged on March 29, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Remind me. Did Syria ever free those Israeli soldiers? Didn’t Iran sponsor that kidnapping too?

lorien1973 on March 29, 2007 at 4:10 PM

I mean lebanon of course.

lorien1973 on March 29, 2007 at 4:10 PM

…a blockade,removing the ability of the Iranians to move oil out of the Persian Gulf…a bomb on an oil well…
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 29, 2007 at 3:11 PM

I kind of wonder if Mahmood isn’t actually up for that. I don’t know if Kahmenei is “the decider” here, but I get the feeling that Ahmadinejad is ready for a punchup even before he has nukes. I think the first bomb that dropped would lead to a couple of strategic sinkings in the Straits of Hormuz to close them and establish world panic, and then Ahmadinejad leading the charge with “Mahdi, here we come!” Too pessimistic?

eeyore on March 29, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Heard this on Hannity and there is a post over at Powerline talking about Pelosi has blocked for a week a resoulution condemming Iran and supporting the British from coming to the floor for a vote.

LakeRuins on March 29, 2007 at 4:15 PM

I keep hearing this song in the back of my head lately.
“Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”
Anyone around in 1979-80 will definately remember it.
For those of you not around it’s sung to the tune of Barbara Ann by the Beach Boys.
I think we need to dig that tune up and start playing it again.

ic1redeye on March 29, 2007 at 4:26 PM

verum serum llink is broke.

jummy on March 29, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Its like the double think on Intelligence… we get somthing juicy and actionable, but then don’t use it because we’re afraid we might not get somthing more juicy later… theres a point where you paralyze yourself… I think we are there now… and THEY see it.

Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 3:25 PM

Sometimes referred to as “paralysis by analysis”. And the longer nothing happens–by which I mean, nothing decisive–the more Iran benefits from the situation. This is yet another example of “The only thing worse than looking weak is being weak.”

Heard this on Hannity and there is a post over at Powerline talking about Pelosi has blocked for a week a resoulution condemming Iran and supporting the British from coming to the floor for a vote.

LakeRuins on March 29, 2007 at 4:15 PM

That Pelousi would refuse to let the House support our closest allies, who were supporting us in Iraq when their people were taken hostage, is just unbelievable. It’s not even a controversial statement. But then her natural instinct as a liberal is to side with the enemies of America.

ReubenJCogburn on March 29, 2007 at 5:04 PM

verum serum llink is broke.

Was working for me.

Kai on March 29, 2007 at 6:28 PM

Verum Serum works for me.

But Amnesty International’s webpage is not updating for some reason. Denounces Guantanamo Bay and the military tribunals, but their plea for the safe release of the British sailors and marines isn’t showing for some reason. Is it b/c I am running an old version of IE? /sarc

RW Wacko on March 29, 2007 at 6:34 PM

Update: Jackie Mason weighs in!

saint kansas on March 29, 2007 at 6:41 PM

I think there are two very simple steps that should be taken. The first is to use a covert operation or a special forces operation to knock out the only gasoline producing refinery in Iran. There’s only one. And the second is to simply intercede by naval force, and block any tankers from bringing gasoline to Iran… I would right now say to them privately, within the next week, your refinery will no longer work. And within the following week, there will be no tankers arriving. Now if you would like to avoid being humiliated publicly, we recommend you calmly and quietly give them back now. But frankly, if you’d prefer to show the planet that you’re tiny and we’re not, we’re prepared to simply cut off your economy, and allow you to go back to walking and using oxen to pull carts, because you will have no gasoline left.

Newt Gingrich

Let me say it again:
12 or 13 .50 cal bullets and 1 smart bomb/cruise missle for iran.

tormod on March 29, 2007 at 7:05 PM

RightWinged on March 29, 2007 at 3:43 PM:
No need to get too worked up about this whole situation now if the UN is going to get involved.

Too Late!
What difference does it make where the British sailors were when they were picked up? They should have already been rescued in my opinion. The fact that there has not even been an attempt is kind of embarrassing.

kahall on March 29, 2007 at 8:10 PM

Too Late!
What difference does it make where the British sailors were when they were picked up? They should have already been rescued in my opinion. The fact that there has not even been an attempt is kind of embarrassing.

kahall on March 29, 2007 at 8:10 PM

kahall, I just want to clarify for anyone just reading your excerpt of my comment, that it was total sarcasm

RightWinged on March 29, 2007 at 3:43 PM:
No need to get too worked up about this whole situation now if the UN is going to get involved.

Was actually:

No need to get too worked up about this whole situation now if the UN is going to get involved.

This is the UN’s promise to you – If in 12 years, and after about 17 resolutions, Iran is still not cooperating, the United Nations will give Iran a very strong “or else!” coupled with another resolution.

RightWinged on March 29, 2007 at 3:43 PM

I doubt anyone got confused, but I hate the UN and I want to make that absolutely clear.

RightWinged on March 29, 2007 at 8:46 PM

Bloody Cowards doing the bidding of their captors! Don’t they give their soldiers survival and captivity training in merry old England???

SilverStar830 on March 30, 2007 at 1:40 AM

Ok I’ll be the dog to kick……
ALL this information (vids, ‘they confessed’ the letters…..EVERYTHING) comes from who exactly? The friggin Mullah express….

If any of these marines and bluejackets did something wrong I will be the first one to condemn them….but until they get back and we KNOW the other side I ain’t going there.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21472351-601,00.html

Maybe they are resisting….are the mullahs gonna tell you that? Maybe when she wrote the letter one of her shipmates was on the otherside of the camera with a scimitar up his arse. Maybe a Iranian stooge showed her a photo of her kid going to day care THIS MORNING. Maybe she just broke. Until the whole thing comes out, to call these prople cowards, is frigging BS.

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 2:42 AM

Last thing and I’ll take my drunk butt to bed….

No I ain’t Stockdale…..Neither are you.

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 3:20 AM

Seriously, do you think Iran will torture them causing serious injury if they refuse to write letters and pose for pictures on the water in a boat, or even execute them? And even if they did torture the sailors, would a properly trained and honorable soldier still aid and abet their captor enemies before they reached the point of being basically human mush? What would be the reprecussions to something like that happening to those sailors if they were tortured and/or executed? And why is the female the only one being used like a 5 dollah ho? Look at the video of her. She’s grinning, kickin’ back, havin’ a smoke. She sure as heck doesn’t appear to be under duress chum. I’m waiting for the video of her accepting Mohammad as her savior.

…and as you stumble off to bed in your stupor I leave you with this final question:

Whatever happened to “name, rank, and serial number” … AND NOTHING MORE?

SilverStar830 on March 30, 2007 at 3:56 AM

Jeez, I hope this video will help. It has a little AmeroBrit with some French mixed in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zihBeGuKlDU

dingoatemebaby on March 30, 2007 at 4:40 AM

Even though the Iranian people are disgusted with amahloonyjob, I am sure they are nationalists to the end. If we bomb them or blockade their fuel and one person dies, they are very likely to put aside their differences and focus all their frustrations on the coalition. I don’t know if Persians culturally react that way, but it make sense that they would.

I also believe that the government has taken a hit with their citizenry for their involvement in providing EFP’s into Iraq, and by extension, getting their country in more hot water with the USA. IF we bomb Iran, then Iranians now will have the absolute moral authority to continue to be involved in Iraq and their citizens are behind them 100%. Again, culturally, will Persians respond that way?

But then again, bombing them into submission is a viable option, and I do know that culturally they respond to those whom are the strongest.

csdeven on March 30, 2007 at 5:50 AM

People, people, people

Iran is the new superpower and they are announcing it to the world! Get over it!

/sarcasm mode off

TwinkietheKid on March 30, 2007 at 8:52 AM

Blair’s vacillation reminds me of what critics of Woodrow Wilson’s “Too proud to fight” philosophy before WWI called, “The Wilson Tango:”

- One step forward;
- Two steps back;
- A side step;
- And a moment of hesitation.

This is what you get, however, if you subscribe to any form of John Kerry’s “Global Test”(TM) as a prerequisite for using military force. The test-givers – who are not the foreign enemy, but your own country’s political left – hand you a checklist to complete beforehand:

- Have you gotten UN approval?
- Was that approval unanimous?
- Have you gotten approval of your domestic opposition?
- Did you let your political opposition in on your strategy?
- Have you tried every conceivable form of negotiation?
- Are you sure?
- Have you gotten approval of “the allies?”
- Was that approval unanimous?
- Have you tried sanctions?
- Did you give those sanctions enough time to work?
- Have you tried incentives?
- Did you give those incentives enough time to work?

And on and on.

Failure to check any box will, of course, invalidate any kind of military action in the eyes of “the world community,” erase any kind of “goodwill” you might’ve had for being a victim of aggression, and justify branding you as a “cowboy” and a “warmonger” engaging in a “war of choice” just like BusHitler.

If you fall into the “checklist” trap, the problem is that while you’re working down from the top of the list the people making the list are constantly adding more checkboxes at the bottom, because they’re not acting in good faith. They know they won’t fight for anything (“Nothing to kill or die for,” as John Lennon put it), so the whole purpose is to keep coming up with reasons not to use force.

Tony Blair is filling out checklists when it comes to Iran. So are we. And the Iranian mullahs are laughing at us. Can you blame them?

It doesn’t help matters if you’re militarily weak and getting weaker, which unfortunately the Brits are these days. Nor is it helpful when your enemy knows that you’re weak, because then bluffing isn’t an effective option.

On a related point, I disagree with those who think that if military force is used, that the Iranian people will suddenly find themselves 100% behind their theocratic oppressors. History shows otherwise, if – and this is a big “if” – the force used is sufficient to inflict a decisive defeat on the totalitarians. Yes, initially nationalism would rally the Iranians behind the mullahs, but if a sharp, undeniable military defeat follows that support will collapse and then the mullahs will be in trouble from their own subjects.

“The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility. Hit first! Hit hard! Hit anywhere!!”
- Lord of the British Admiralty Sir Jackie Fisher, early 1900s

Conversely, policies like “gradualism” and “proportionate” response are idiotic, because while they inflict pain on the enemy’s population, they don’t result in the necessary crushing defeat of the totalitarians – so that population never has sufficient reason or a realistic opportunity to overthrow their oppressors, and every reason to stay angry at us. This is what happened to us in Vietnam with our “gradualism” strategy, sand what just happened to the Isralis with their “proportional” response to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

What’s truly pathetic about the present situation is that the Brits should know the truth of the above, because they’ve already successfully demonstrated it in the Falklands conflict not so long ago: An unpopular Argentine oligarchy, already tottering over its failed social and economic policies, embarked on a strategy of foreign provocation and militaristic adventurism to deflect the people’s attention away from themselves. When the Brits responded forcefully, initially the Argentine people rallied behind the oligarchy, but when humiliating defeat soon followed that support quickly turned to intense anger at their own government and that government fell soon afterward.

The Brits seem to have forgotten their own history – while there are still many people alive who made that history, including the Iron Lady herself. Worse, they seem to be denying the lessons of that history, and to be substituting failed policies like appeasement instead (which is also highly disturbing, because there are still Brits alive today who can attest to how well that worked out in the 1930s).

Not encouraging.

“You were given the choice between war and appeasement. You chose appeasement, and you shall have war.”
- Winston Churchill, 1930s

Anyway, sorry for the long post, but this really bugs me to see happening.

Spurius Ligustinus on March 30, 2007 at 9:00 AM

OH NO! Please Please, not another UN resolution. How cruel can the UN be to Iran. Maybe just a timeout would be better than the harsh resolution.

Wade on March 30, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Sanctions are based on Western logic, he argued. “But when states have missions that are bigger than life, they are not obeying the basic rules of logic that Western civilization obeys.”

Israel Will be at War by Summer, Politician Says

TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2007 at 10:02 AM

This is the Brits fight. We should provide whatever intelligence they need but then we should just hold their coats while THEY do the fighting. I like Newt’s idea of bombing their one and only gasoline refinery and then blockading any gasoline tankers from getting though. Kewl idea.

I would expand it to taking out one dam, bridge, or oilfield per night until they capitulate. Think of all the great hand-wringing comentary from the Dhemocrats and the Dhrive by media, what fun!

Mojave Mark on April 2, 2007 at 2:03 AM