Iran:
Since it involves British sailors, we should work with the Brit's but...
I would like to see a swift and severe retaliation. Demand the immediate release and begin sinking Iranian ships [navy] until they are released. Taking hostages is an act of war, parading them on the TV is against the Geneva Convention.
Unfortunately, the response will likely be a 'politically correct' one. We could solve similar problems occurring 1/2 a world away by closing the boarders. Stop the flow of illegal aliens across the US boarders and stop the flow of arms/terrorists across the Iran / Iraq boarder.
Thanks for the workouts both physical and mental.

ratt

Check out why Hackleman joined the Army in 79. Sad how history repeats.....

Born in New York City on November 21, 1959, John Hackleman was raised in Honolulu, Hawaii, from age four until he turned twenty-four. Whilst at school, John was not interested in the more traditional American sports that lured most kids his age, such as baseball, gridiron and basketball.
"Back when I was about eight or nine years of age I started doing Judo – mainly for self defense and to learn how to fight. Martial arts were all I ever did. In high school I was already a Golden Gloves boxer and I was fighting in kickboxing. That was my whole sporting thing. Judo was my first style and then I did Shotokan Karate. I continued with Judo for a little while and was doing KaJuKenBo at the same time. I stayed with my instructor, Walter Godin, from when I was nine or ten until he died two years ago," says Hackleman.
A mixture of Karate, Judo, Kempo and boxing, KaJuKenBo originated in Hawaii in 1947. The system was created by five martial artists who wanted to improve their street-fighting techniques, and the style has grown in popularity internationally ever since.
Due to his outstanding contribution to the art, 10th degree black belt John Hackleman will be inducted into the KaJuKenBo Hall of Fame in July, 2004.
"In 1985, when I moved from Hawaii to California, I switched it from KaJuKenBo to Hawaiian Kempo. I added some things to it took away some things and started calling it Hawaiian Kempo. I took out the katas and the forms and I threw in more natural fighting techniques and conditioning. Now that’s my style. Like if you see Chuck (Liddell) with the tattoo on his arm, that’s the logo for my school."
Hackleman says back in the ‘90s other martial artists began calling their style Hawaiian Kenpo, but he is the only instructor to spell his Hawaiian Kempo with an ‘m’. In Japanese, the letters ‘m’ and ‘n’ have the same symbol, so the art can be spelt either way. John has been spelling his art as Kempo since 1985.
"Ours is a little more hardcore. In Hawaiian Kenpo they still do forms and stuff like that. When you see the guys such as Chuck fighting, that’s Hawaiian Kempo. Mine has always been a mixed martial art ever since I started it."
While still living in Honolulu, John served in the United States Army from 1979 – ’82. "I actually joined up because of the hostage situation in Iran. I thought it was time to go. But by the time I got out of basic training, the hostages were released. And I was like, ‘Shoot! I’m stuck in the army with nothing’ to do.’ Then when I arrived at my duty station, I got really lucky. The guys that were in charge of me - my captain and my first sergeant, they knew that I boxed. So they said, ‘Why don’t you try joining the army boxing team, and then that’s all you’ll have to do.’ They actually helped me get on the team, and for the rest of my time in the service all I did was box."
During his time on the US Army boxing team, Hackleman won the state and regional Golden Gloves and numerous national titles. This success led to his turning pro and fighting for Don King. John achieved a record of 20 fights with 17 wins: 15 by knockout.
Having developed a reputation for being super-fit and a very hard man, Hackleman then chose to pursue a career in kickboxing. And as with everything he does, through his willpower, determination and general warrior spirit, John pushed the boundaries of his new fighting art, and was rated the world’s # 1 kickboxer in the ’80s.
In 1986 Hackleman opened his now renowned gym, The Pit, and immediately attracted some of the world’s best fighters. While working as a registered nurse, John also ran The Pit, and made it a place where people could learn a no-nonsense martial art and conditioning program. "I never let lack of money come between you and Kempo. All I ask is that you give Kempo and The Pit the respect and loyalty it gives you. Confidence, loyalty, and humility are what I expect from all Pit Monsters," became John’s motto.

Their actions simply prove how delusional and pathetic the leadership of that country is. I think with our defense resources being stretched as is, I would say put Britain at the tip of the spear for any action, with the U.S. backing in the ways we are able. In this situation there at least seems to be support from virtually every Western country and then some, as it is an absurd act on Iran's part. Of course, the ideal situation is to have Iran release them, and then the world can continue to think they are insane without bringing any bloodshed.

Thanks for the video.. what are some good hand strengthening exercises?

Iran:
Its funny this hostage thing comes at a time when Russia has changed its position on Iran's nuclear development... to not supporting it.

It really sucks they do something so easily accepted as passive... It's like Iran just shoved the West as they were walking by, and is now standing with its chin out with all of the world watching, like at recess in grade school. Who's going to throw the first punch? Which spectator is going to break up the fight? Who will join in? We know we can bring out our rocks on strings and annihilate them...

Blockade all shipping into and out of Iran in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea. Release 'statements' from Iranian trading partners whose access we block that they denounce the Iranian aggression against the 'peace-loving' people of the West. Arrest all Iranian diplomats in the US/Britian. Release 'statements' from them that they are being treated well, allowed religious freedom unknown to them at at home, and denouncing the imperialist aims of Iran. Seize all Iranian assets worldwide. Release 'statements' from the banks/institutions that they have acted independently, as a form of protest against the violation of the Geneva Convetion. Re-assemble the roadside bombs manufactured in Iran IN Iran, and when Iran shows satellite pictures of our operatives doing so, deny the pictures are taken within Iran and insist they are in fact in training facility in Arizona. Unleash Israel and allow them to bomb Irans nuclear facilities, and then claim that, like the Holocaust, the bombings never happened. In other words, take strong actions and then blat

Some people on other websites are noting that there are many indications of iminent action, by the U.S., against Iran. Several have noted that the arrival of a third carrier group to the area will correspond with the next new moon cycle.

The Ayatollahs are going to have to be dealt with sooner or later and it's looking more likely that it will be the former rather than the latter.

"US should respond by invading Iran"...yeah, because the last invasion is going so well...man. And I'm sorry to say, but I think the current administration has used up our "against the Geneva Convention" chits for the next couple of wars, unfortunately.
I already lost a friend "over there" and I'm damn sick and tired of doing WODs named after men we've lost while they were in the service, so if you don't mind, I prefer not to lose any more, thank you very much.

One team-one fight! The Brits need to lead the way and we should be right there with them whatever their decision. Taking hostages in foreign waters is akin to terrorism and cannot be tolerated. Let the "aggresive negotiations" begin!

Someone last time pointed out that Iran has only one refinery. Was that Apolloswabbie? Anyway we should take that away from them in some manner until they release the hostages. Hmmm...refineries by the sea needing coalition control without infrastructure destruction... sounds familiar. I think we may have done that before...

I posted this a few hours ago on the last rest day comments:

Well boys and girls...The 15 British Sailors can be tried for for violating international law. Since they (2 or 3 of them at this point)decided to (for whatever reason) apologize to the Iranian people, they have already testitied against themselves.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070331/D8O76O400.html

#6 Court
I think everyone prefers to not lose anymore but the question is "How should the US respond to Iran's taking 15 British Sailors and Marines hostage?"
Your respone doesn't answer the question, unless doing nothing is your answer????

Joe

A warhead a day 'til they come home.

As of now...Do nothing.

violence begets more violence. seems to me that in this day of modern warfare there needs to be less 'lets bomb the sh*t of them' and more diplomacy. there is no doubt our country's national defense/offense is superior to the rest of the world. the threat of war should be enough to open the doors to the path of diplomacy. the other option is what we've done in iraq and that has not gotten the world to where we need to be. again violence begets more violence. i'm sad to see the bomb them till they succumb posts because that is essentially what we've done in iraq and that has solved a whole lot, yeah? just something to keep in mind, if someone held a gun to your head or a knife to your throat would you read anything put in front of you regardless of how you felt about it? not everyone is william wallace. what you see is not always what you get in this day and age.

For the most part I agree with water ratt. These Brits are under a unified American command, therefore we should respond as if Americans had been taken, with the Brits leading the way. Destroy their navy utterly, let the punishment fit the crime.

The Iranians kidnapped the British sailors to test Western resolve. Acts like this will only continue/escalate if the West doesn't show resolve(and I'm afraid we won't).

Best case scenario, we demand the sailors release and implement a total naval blockade if Iran fails to comply in 24 hrs. Take control of Iranian ports and their airspace the next day and begin destruction of infrastructure the following day with NO plans to rebuild anything after the fact.

As for the return of 15, I would tell them to keep the three cowards who already 'confessed'.

Sink an Iranian ship every 15 minutes until they are released.

After their ships are gone, destroy an Iranian military base every 15 minutes until they are released.

Then tell the Brits that next time they see Iranians come to capture them they are to fight back like warriors and not submit like Peace Corp members.

As for Rob_M's comments on keeping the 3 singing Brits. I say we demand their return and England should try them for treason instead.

Diplomacy ended when they 1-took those guys as hostages, 2- refused to release them after a week, and 3- paraded them around on TV, essentially making a spectacle of them. We all know what happens after diplomacy ends, THE PIPE HITTERS COME OUT

rob_m sweet. from the comfort of your computer i love how you can condemn the "three cowards who already 'confessed'" i would love to see you switch places one any one of those 3 and when you choose to 'confess' i will be the first to post a comment on how chicken sh*t you are.

again people, this is politics not gang warfare. no one has been harmed here. north korean has admitted to having nukes and why did we not invade them vs invading iraq which after 5 years we've still have no proof of 'weapons of mass distruction' which is why we are there in thefirst place? i am an american and i'm sad to admit that we are no more than thugs. yeah retaliation should come swiftly especially cuz no one has been harm in this whole incident. pathetic.

Comment #8: "The 15 British Sailors can be tried for for violating international law. Since they (2 or 3 of them at this point)decided to (for whatever reason) apologize to the Iranian people, they have already testitied against themselves."

Coerced confession obviously so they it can't be used against them.

Comment #18 : "yeah retaliation should come swiftly especially cuz no one has been harm in this whole incident. pathetic."

So it is OK to kidnap and nothing should be done unless someone has been harmed. Got it.

Those sailors are hostages. They need to be rescued.

Ok guys, I'm a day behind. Which shoes for the powercleans: Brooks Beast running shoes, or Chuck Taylors high tops? Thanks.

Consequences! As contrasted to the lack of consequences which contributed to the Iraq situation since the first Gulf War, the dismal graduation rate in the inner city, the continued onslaught of illegal immigrants, and so forth. The Brits should inform Iran of the consequences they will have to endure if the 15 sailors are not released by a pre-determined date. Once that deadline has expired they have only themselves to blame. If Saddam had allowed the inspections to continue he would still be alive and ruling Iraq. No more pacifying the world’s nutcases.

mike, in response to 1 and 2. sure diplomacy ended after 1 and 2. what is your definition of hostage? is illegal held at gitmo and not released after 2 years considered hostage? read the news magazines like TIME and you will see what i'm talking about. yeah they were not paraded on tv but our government did not need them for that purpose, instead we took pics of them naked on leashes stacked on top of each other for fun. this whole thing is fubar so to respond with military force will only escalate the situation. we had TWO buildings destroyed in our country and we are up at arms. our response is to destroy TWO entire countries and their infrastructure under the guise of 'establishing democracy'. all these wrongs makes nothing right.

for #18

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack

I am a United states Navy sailor in Iraq right now with the British Navy, and they are not soldiers like our Marines. If you were "captured" by Iran unless you have had the proper training, who would be saying whatever you felt neccessary to keep yourself alive. And by the way they were not in Iranian waters, so why would they apologize for something they didn't do? Probably because there is someone standing there with an AK-47.

Will,

By your same 'logic', I love how you can call me "chicken sh*t" from the "comfort of your computer". The anonymous nature of the internet creates easy courage but I would be about as likely to betray myself and country to Iran as you would be to maintain your insults if we were face to face.

#15. I agree with MCC. Why wasn't the captain of the HMS Cornwall permitted to blow the Iranian boats out of the water? The Cornwall's captain and the commodore of the Brit task force aren't allowed to defend their own men? I have read and heard that the captain was overruled by the the Minister of Defence. If that is true, he should bear the responsibilty and step down. And to hear the weak talk coming from Tony Blair is disheartening, to say the least. As it stands now, the US should stand ready to help but the Brits need to nut up and Blair needs to shut up about coming up with a plan for the Iranians to "save face" while releasing the hostages. Apparently there is a reason why the Iranians went after the Brits and not the US.

sick of it, "So it is OK to kidnap and nothing should be done unless someone has been harmed. Got it.

" again ask the detainees/hostages/prisoners at gitmo what their definition of KIDNAP is. again, this is not our fight. this is a british incident. we support them if thing escalate because they are our allies. it's obvious that anyone who says WE should do this or that has never been in any position of signifcant consequence or power.

rob_m, please reread and understan i did not call you chiken sht from the comfort of my computer. i said " i will be the first to post a comment on how chicken sh*t you are" should the roles be reversed. please also read brandon B "And by the way they were not in Iranian waters, so why would they apologize for something they didn't do? Probably because there is someone standing there with an AK-47."

Will..

I think it solved a whole lot in Iraq.

Iraq is WMD free, right?
Saddam and his sons are gone.
4 years of fighting and the numbers of Casualties we have lost is something we could have only prayed for in past.

Mistakes...sure.

Catastrophy...hardly.

More Americans were lost in one day in a lot of "Battles" in our history...let alone a 4 year operation as complicated as Iraq.

Perspective.

The best part of this discussion continued from last rest day is that it seems to have animated Dale.

Looks like SERE training needs to be expanded to the conventional troops and fast.

Sick of it...

If they are tried by Iran what they said can be used against them...Iran ain't America.

Will, who is being held hostage in Gitmo?

first off, mu mistake it is our fight because our marines our involved. regardless, diplomacy is our best path. this was the route we took when our socalled enemies were on equal footing with us during the nucular era. it is only because we are militarily superior to the rest of the world that americans can take this position of lets just use might. it's wrong because it will eventually come back to bite us in the ass.

cctjoey,
1. by most accounts iraq was wmd free BEFORE we invaded unless you can prove otherwise

2. yes sadaam and his sons are gone yet atrocities in darfur and north korean (who admited to wmd) existed/still exist during our campaign in iraq

3. i have no comment except are you crazy

mistakes...absolutely

catastrophy...without a doubt

as for "More Americans were lost in one day in a lot of "Battles" in our history...let alone a 4 year operation as complicated as Iraq."

modern warfare, so we are led to believe, are more 'surgical' in nature and not wars of attrition like in the past.

i just want our soldiers home. we have flexed our military strength and it has not worked as it should. we have screw'd this whole thing up as i've seen it and we have no recourse but to see it through but to escalate it military by involving iran, which btw they LOVE, is not the best way

cctjoey, if you read any of the news magazines, time, newsweek, etc. will understand what i am talking about perhaps not gitmo.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/detention.htm

Will,

Are you saying that because the war in Iraq has not gone as well as we would have liked that we should just accept the 15 hostages in Iran? Its ok to kidnap our people because we made some mistakes next door? Our message needs to be that it is NEVER ok to kidnap Americans or Brits (or Canadians...) If you kidnap our people, you must pay!

Comment 31: "If they are tried by Iran what they said can be used against them...Iran ain't America."

CCTJoey, you said they could be prosecuted under International Law. I corrected you and said no because the confession was coerced. Now it sounds as if you are trying to correct me and arguing that they can be tried in Iran? Iran is holding them as hostages and coercing the confession out of them. They aren't going to be tried. Iran has already concluded they broke the law. There is no need for a trial in Iran.

Will wrote,
"cctjoey,
1. by most accounts iraq was wmd free BEFORE we invaded unless you can prove otherwise."

You are wrong here...most foriegn intelligence services thought there were WMDs

"2. yes sadaam and his sons are gone yet atrocities in darfur and north korean (who admited to wmd) existed/still exist during our campaign in iraq"

Different strokes for different folks...NK has China on its back...the US going in to NK has larger consequinces than Iraq. Your understanding of world dynamics is proving weaker by the post.

So do you think we should go into NK or Darfur

"3. i have no comment except are you crazy
mistakes...absolutely
catastrophy...without a doubt"

History will tell...

"as for "More Americans were lost in one day in a lot of "Battles" in our history...let alone a 4 year operation as complicated as Iraq."

modern warfare, so we are led to believe, are more 'surgical' in nature and not wars of attrition like in the past."

Thanks for the lesson in modern warfare there Slappy, I would have never known that (roll eyes)

"i just want our soldiers home. we have flexed our military strength and it has not worked as it should. we have screw'd this whole thing up as i've seen it and we have no recourse but to see it through but to escalate it military by involving iran, which btw they LOVE, is not the best way"

Well then, what is the "best way"

The problem you seem to have is... you are lost in confusion of facts and your interpretation of events.

Numbnuts taking pics of prisoners in Abu Grabe is not the same as the Iranian Government taking British Sailor hostages and feeding the video to the media.

"we had TWO buildings destroyed in our country and we are up at arms. our response is to destroy TWO entire countries and their infrastructure under the guise of 'establishing democracy'. all these wrongs makes nothing right."

This is a silly comment as well, perhaps you would like to explain it better.

This is our fight...you need to wack up and sack up. This is not politics.

You posts analyze this situation like a fifth grader who has heard sound bites.

I get you don't think a military option is prefered...I think we all agree, however you are using some very "selective" information to base your mostly wrong assertions and comparisons.

I think it is great you have an opinion, but be advised you are not on a board with meatsticks...many of us are in the middle of this.

This war is no doubt different than any other. The reasons for what we've done in the past can and will be argued, but we must always react in the present unsure of the future. It is often that politicians have to make a choice between something really nasty looking and something that could lead to an even nastier thing.

I think the consequences of doing nothing are huge, far worse than reacting with force. It's like saying its OK to take hostages. Its a morale boost for terrorists. I don't think Iran's politicians share our view of 'political correctness'. They won't see the "better man" part of doing nothing. We might be bigger, it might be unfair, but we can't stand to be kicked in the nuts right now.

Sick of it...
Currently they are being detained and interogated. They have not ben tried yet. The Iranians are posturing to try the sailors in Iranian courts with international law as their ability to conduct a trial.

Read the article I posted.

Now I know the "hostages" of which you speak. Its that guy across the river from the Tier 1 IED site who vapor traced positive and had a spool of detcord in his garage next to his boat (with no fishing equipment). Probably also the guy at the chicken farm with 7 quadcons of weapons and IED supplies. Oh yeah, the guy with the big antenna on his roof that overlooked another Tier 1 zone with 14 cell phones and 3 car alarms in his closet is probably a "hostage" too. If I had seen a single detainee that didn't have a pile of evidence against him, I would agree with you.

sorry that last one is for Will if it isn't obvious.

my opinion on this situation is that everyone here in the us and britian is afraid of "public opinion". screw public opinion. we should be more like the isrealis. they dont f@#*k around when it comes to things like this.

Will...

The following was posted at Globalpolicy.org, which is the site you referenced above.

"Global taxes can address serious global problems while at the same time raising revenue for development. A tax on carbon emissions could help slow global climate change, while a tax on currency trading could dampen dangerous instability in the foreign exchange markets. The revenue from these taxes could support major programs to reduce poverty and hunger, ensure primary schooling for all children, and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other major diseases. Unreliable donations from rich countries will not fill this need, estimated by the UN to cost tens of billions per year. A global system of revenue-raising must be put in place to fund genuinely international initiatives."

To the Conservatives and Libertarians in the crowd, this tells us all where you are coming from...besides telling me twice I need to read Time and Newsweek.

Thanks for playing...

Will.. if the detainees are Iraqi and the Iraqis don't want them back on the street, what does that tell you?

If the detainees are not Iraqi and the Iraqis don't want them back on the street, what does that tell you?

These guys don't fall under Geneva Conventions, as no country is at war with Iraq or the US at this time. Furthermore, no country's are claiming these guys except for a few Iranians who got busted a few weaks ago.

You really need to research this situation.

I get that people are being held, but who are they to be turned over to? Should the Iraqis be forced to turn loose a bunch of murdering thugs simply because they don't have jail space and other countries don't want their garbage back?

Screw 'em

That is ridiculous. all of it, especially: tax currency trading? wow. that might be the dumbest thing I've seen. Trading allows businesses to mitigate currency risk! Think about the added cost of a tax being passed on to consumers. The cost of helping those people will rise with all other costs.

thanks for reading that CCTJOEY.

CCTJOEY,
Are you saying the detainees the US is holding are not affiliated with any country? Do they claim to be a member of a country? Are they employed by a foreign gov't?

If this is all true, then does the Geneva Convention apply to them?

The constant ratcheting up of rhetoric between the Western States and Iran reminds me of two drunk guys in a parking lot before one of them gets the nerve to throw the first punch. Here's a thought to chew on. Unlike the the guys in the parking lot about to throw down, in this case none of the the people doing the shouting will get scratch on them. Oh yes yes here's the part where you tell me there's various dynamics in play, global tensions and such, terrorist calls, and geopolitical consequences. And if you feel that those or perhaps other arguments are valid and need to be defended with your life or even better the lives of those whom you don't even know, then to you dear pawn i say move one square toward the enemy line.

I'm thinking we should urge the Brits to bring back Maggie Thatcher. Were she in charge, Iran would already be little more than an oil-rich British territory.

Thank God for a rest day!

The first response in a situation like this is retaliation.

Unfortunately there may be a broader agenda here which is keeping US hands (and Britains) tied.

I read recently that China buys 25% of Iranian oil (as well as heaps from every other oil producing nation on the planet).

The Chinese are making lots of rumblings about dumping the hundreds of billions of excess US dollars they have have in favour of currencies that are not in free fall like the US dollar, and gold.

They are already very dependent on foreign oil, and are building up a bigger strategic reserve because of the possible interruptions to supply.

If the US bombs the heck out of Iran, particularly its oil infrastructure, it will piss off your biggest foreign creditor, China.

If as a result of this shock to their energy sources the Chinese decide to bite the bullet and take the losses a sudden disbursement of Dollars would cause, the US economy would go into free fall.

And let's not forget the real reason why the US invaded Iraq anyway - it was because they were pricing their oil in Euros, not US dollars. Once the world makes a complete shift away from the US dollar as the ultimate reserve currency (which is already happening at an accelerating rate) the salad days will be over.

The Iranians are selling oil in Euros not dollars now, and more and more of their buyers prefer to pay in Euros, including the Chinese.

Other "rogue" oil producers like Russia, Nigeria and Venezuela are watching with interest. If the US allows Iran to keep selling oil in other currencies apart from US dollars, they will follow suit.

Oil buyers will dump their US dollars for other currencies, or they will sell their own goods and services in contracts priced in other currencies so they can buy oil cheaper.

Iran is going to try and stuff the US economy with the Middle Eastern ruthless rat cunning for which they are famous.

If it works (which it probably will given history and the weak responses so far by Britain and the US), they don't need to use terror on US soil to create mayhem, just inflate your currency out of sight by keeping you busy in Iraq for a few more years.

Big Ben will just keep the presses rolling to pay for it all, thereby creating monster domestic inflation.

The 15 Poms are just pawns in a much bigger game - my view is they will get home in one piece eventually.

If the west blinks first, and I reckon they already have, we all better rig for stormy economic weather.

Cheers

Nathan:

I agree with you, friend. Although I'm not quite sure what part of kidnapping British soldiers qualifies as rhetoric, we should stop ratcheting it up and simply get to the bombing. Start at the Gulf of Oman and don't stop 'till we (er, I mean the "pawns") get to the Caspian.

Then we should have lunch.

Send in the special forces together with the Brit SAS to rescue the hostages. (This is exactly why we have special forces, right ?). After the 15 are safe, give the Iranian govt. 12 hours to "save face" and officially release the Brits. The arabs and Joe Public will be none the wiser on what happened in the background and it doesnt matter since the end result is the same.

CCTJOEY,

I agree with you, but slow the roll man. A third carrier group takes up residence in the gulf. The nearest Iranian warship is either taken and it's crew held, or if the potential losses for allied forces were too great, arrange a long term vacation with Davey Jones for 'em. Then blockade Iranian ports so that not so much as a quart of gasoline goes in or oil comes out.

And all the while feed 'information from reliable, trustworthy sources' to Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times that none of that is happening. They can't figure out what's real anyway.

You are clearly right about more casualties coming in one day in previous military engagements than have come from four years in Iraq. A major, by many accounts the major, destabilizing figures in the middle east are gone due directly to US intervention.

Fourteen UN resolutions and Iraq's non-compliance by way of hide-and-go-seek with inspectors they had agreed to host and allow free access to suspect sites for several years coupled with irrefutable evidence of the use of chemical weapons on the Iraqi Kurds up north should end the debate about their existence. Saddam's admittance to their existence coupled with the fact that artillery shells carrying warheads with traces of those exact munitions were found in remote areas of Iraq is probably decent substantiating evidence. How is it this debate even continues?

God Speed Warrior.

Man you guys, Listen I am here in Iraq right now, as are 100,000 other US forces and i bet that if you ask any of them what this war is about they will tell you, the people in this country are greatly deprived, everyone can watch what CNN puts on the television and make there own opinions but I work with Iraqi's everyday and they Love the fact that we are here and we offer them Jobs and money for there Families. these people are the exact same as you and me. They all have families and they need to put food on the Table. There are some pissed off people, that sadaam is gone, and thus the war rages on, but what point do we just leave the rest of the country behind to fend for themselves? They aren't malitia men capable of fighting a civil war they are farmers, mechanics and all sorts. What we are doing over here is a good thing and I am proud to serve here and help anyway that I can. As are a lot of other American sons and daughters!!

Well...first of all, of course they are gonna get away with it. There is no way the US or anybody else will attack Iran with military force over 15 sailors. You simply dont have the resourses. The US is getting their asses kicked in Irak and Afghanistan, they dont need to gettit kicked by the Iranian as well. And by the way...they seem to treat their captives ok. Its not like being locked up five years without charges in Gitmo and then getting released on terms that you dont talk about bad treatment, or having to pose naked with a dogcollar or being forced to give your fellow inmate a blowjob...no wait that was americans doing it to Iraqis...that is for peace and freedom...sorry...

We didn't go to war over the 50 hostages held by Iran back in '79 - 80', so I don't think we'll do it now over 15 British sailors and Marines. The Iranians know this. The problem is really complex when it comes to Iran because the Revolutionary Guards are on their own program and the central government doesn't appear to have a whole lot of control over them. In Iran, you have mullahs, the Amhadinijad government, and the Revolutionary Guards running the show. I don't think I've seen Amhadinijad speak to the issue yet, has anyone else? He's a nut case, no doubt, but he may not have been behind this. Now, though, his government has to support the Revolutionary Guards, or risk losing their support.

Since the Iranian "diplomats" captured by the US in Iraq a few weeks back were really Revolutionary Guards, this is payback. By not capturing Americans, the Iranians are playing a chess game to see how we respond to this incident involving our closest ally. The Iranians may not be smart, but they aren't stupid.

What to do? Sit back and wait this out a bit. As much as I'd love to see a few tactical strikes on some high value targets in Iran, I think diplomacy will resolve this issue here and is the proper course of action. (Though publishing a target list in the NYT and Wash Post would cause the Iranians to think harder about their next move.)

Oh, and for those who even think of comparing this to Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, this isn't even in the same league. When you capture enemy combatants, you hold them. We didn't try Germans we captured in WWII, we held them until the war was over. Why is this war any different? As for Abu Ghraib and the mistreatment of prisoners, we're dealing with and have dealt with our soldiers who failed to treat properly those held under their watch. End of story, end of comparison.

Remember the January attempt to take US hostages, when an Iranian snatch team posing as American security guards kidnapped five U.S. soldiers inside an Iraqi army base? That went awry and all 5 US soldiers were killed. The taking of British hostages is part of a larger Iranian strategy, not an isolated incident. So why did they take the hostages?

In this analysis it would be naive to believe that the Iranians think the way we do. They do not. Their leaders have publicly stated that they would be willing to suffer nuclear attack & lose half their own country if they could destroy Israel in the exchange. Their leaders have publicly stated that they welcome an all out war with the West & Israel because it will signal the arrival of the 12th Imam.

Iran is deliberately provoking the west because they want war. If this incident doesn't provoke the west into action, and it likely will not, then there will be another and another and another. Also, Iran correctly perceives that the west does not have the stomach for a fight, and they delight in bullying the impotent great powers.

As for the question, what to do? I hope and pray that we have been doing it for years, and that is to arm and train Iranian dissidents and send them back home to topple the regime, & to give them every possible assistance, because the only solutions to the Iran problem I see are revolution inside Iran or all out war with the west. If we are to avoid the latter, we need to buy time in this incident with the usual diplomatic BS, while doing all possible to accelerate an internal revolution.

The first thing we should probably do is figure out:

1. What is international law involving naval trespass?
2. Were the British sailors trespassing?
3. If so, why? If not, why would Iran claim that they were?

I don't think any discussion about "what to do" is even intelligible without answering these three questions.

It's hard not to be sarcastic about people who reference Time magazine as an authoritative source about international law.

What's the implication if, when dealing with any foreign policy proposal they disagree with, a person's consistent answer is "the US messed up Gitmo, WMD predictions, and Abu Gharayb, so America can only do what I want done, not what you want done"? The absurdity of that line of argument is clear if you take it back to Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy. None of them would be exempt from that type of criticism, because foreign policy of super powers is nasty, difficult and challenging for anyone of any party. Mistakes are common, while getting foreign policy right is uncommon and often not recognized for many years.

Please, it's one thing to argue for more diplomacy - and if you do so, perhaps you can spell out what you think the US or UK would offer through diplomacy to get what we want from the Iranians - but it's absurd to simply point out past mistakes as if that means the US and UK have to run around with tails between our legs in perpetuity.

Since no one that I’ve heard is making a serious suggestion that we should “invade” Iran, I suggest that not be brought into the discussion. It implies either significant ignorance of the issues, or a deliberate injection of mis-information into the discussion.

As to the question for today, I think the post the other day reflecting Newt G’s proposal is the hole card (i.e., tell the Iranian regime behind the scenes, give up the hostages or the US erases your gasoline refining capability and exposes Iran’s true vulnerability). The Iranians are already rationing and importing refined product because their pathetic management of their infrastructure the last 30 years has left them with no alternative. As Newt pointed out, they have one refinery producing ‘gasoline.’ The whole country would grind to a halt after one small strike. They also export all of their oil through one terminal. They are incredibly vulnerable. Their offensive capability isn’t to be sneezed at but their command and control is 3rd world standard; just better than non-existent. Inter-agency inter-operability? Not sure why for a people as smart as they are, but they don’t seem to even know this concept.

To understand the actions of the Iranian regime, one has to understand that it is a dictatorial, religiously motivated ruling group that is tenuously clinging to power over a restless, frustrated, repressed citizenry that is not in love with the Islamic Revolution any longer (not to mention the 40% minority populations of various types who would like to be independent of Iran). They want food, water and fuel and the chance to say and do what they please. But the regime is in many aspect unconcerned with worldly aspirations – they say things like “We would rather see this land burn than submit to the West, this is just land after all, we pursue something much greater.” They have endeavored to create a closed country, like N Korea, to prevent Western “contamination,” and it has made them poor and pathetic, dependent upon the price of the oil for virtually all their income. They have little indigenous capability to improve their oil or water infrastructure, or to manufacture the components they need to continue their nuclear quest.

Because they are in a sense very smart, they have developed asymmetric attack capability – terrorism from several continents, low tech angles like ASCMs, mines, swarming attack boats, etc. They have a military capability that can close the Straits of Hormuz, having learned from the spanking the US Navy gave them in the late 80s that their ‘blue water force’ isn’t up to the task. They cannot be trifled with, but they are still astonishingly vulnerable to conventional attack.

A side note – after they can make no refined fuel, how much nuclear capability will they be able to develop? If they cannot sell oil, how much terrorism will they be able to export? Curious they are willing to take this risk.

The counterpoint is – is the West ready for the risks to the oil market that will come following an attack? Are Bush and Blair ready to defend all the targets Iran might strike out at if they decided it is time for the devil’s dance they’ve been courting? Iran’s regime has claimed to have the “we’d rather rule in hell than serve in heaven” attitude. They cannot build, but they have a certain amount of ability to destroy and create chaos. Better to face it now, or later after they gain nuclear capability?

Also worth considering is, as always, ‘why now?’ Is it because Iraq is shifting away from their influence and the surge has worked to some degree? Is it the second round of sanctions? Is it the multiple rounds of financial hits they have taken, to include falling oil prices? Is it nothing more than to jack up the oil prices? Are they ready to stir the pot and build some anti-West Muslim spirit through out the region?

Whatever the Iranian motivation, if you desire a diplomatic solution, you must assume they are using this stunt to get something – are you willing to give it to them in exchange for 15 Brits? If so, what dance will they make the West do with their next stunt?

I don’t have any genius insight, but I hope if the powers that be decide that it is time to prescribe a kinetic solution for the ailments Iranian’s freak leaders are causing world wide, that they all the fecal matter into one sock first, to minimize vulnerability around the region. It could be a serious hornet nest if stirred, which is not to say it should not be stirred. It reminds me of the saying, “When you wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy but the pig does not care.” Maybe it is time to get some old clothes on …

1LTBLUE, man... you smoke bad stuff.. Here, take a fiver and go buy a GOOD joint that won't give you a bad trip like that...!!

1LTBLUE is either a troll or a liberal. Until we can figure it out, I've got him in my sights.

(It's interesting that insanity, vandalism, and positions on major issues for nearly half of all American's are a challenge to differentiate.)

They deserve whatever they get. They shouldn't be there in first place. If they had the balls to sail in the Hudson Bay or the Gulf of Mexico then they would be at our mercy. Those Brits including us are in Persian Gulf which is in their back yard. You can't blame these people. Would anyone posting here do any differently?

We have enough problems in our own backyard that need to be fixed first before involving ourselves in other people's business....

Does anyone else find it strange that we are the most murderous culture in human history trying to show other countries how to live????

Spend a week in Camden, NJ or East LA and then come back and tell me how important these worldly issues really are.

We're like the 300lb overweight out of shape personal trainer telling people to workout MY way and follow MY eating program.

forgot to realize, WE have our own problems that need to be attended first..

Why should we listen to you, Steve? You're part of "the most murderous culture in human history." Mind your own business!

"And I'm sorry to say, but I think the current administration has used up our "against the Geneva Convention" chits for the next couple of wars, unfortunately."

Truly sorry about your losses in Iraq, I lost friends in 9/11. It's a war and has been for awhile, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, and this is pre-bungled leadership (or post-bungled leadership depending on which prez you think bungled.

Anyway on that 'giving up chits' comment, why is it the US can never complain about gross actions against it simply because it has erred in the past as well, but when we do err we cannot use the same excuse? Abu Graib? Bad behavior no doubt. Did anyone say "well, you have to understand the anger of the American Soldiers after the beheading of Daniel Stern". Flushing the Koran down the toilet? Inexcusable insult to Muslim's religion. Do we say "but given Muslims had recently burned down synagogues in Jerusalem, burned American Flags, burned our president in effigy, called us Infidels and OUR culture morally bankrupt" the action was understandable?

If our actions in Abu Graib lost us 'chits' then certainly Iraq/Iran/Muslim behavious has lost them 'chits' as of course has French/Russian/Chinese/et al lost them 'chits'. Either *each* incident is inexcusable and the actors held accountable or there is no accountability since we can go back forever A can blame B and B can blame C. For some reason however, in today's global context, A (currently being Muslim/Arabs) get a pass on every action based on any actual or percieved prior American actions. And it is ONLY because we hold our selves to a higher standard, and therefor they hold us to a higher standard too.

Iranian behaviour was inexcusable, and their actions beginning to end are a violation of the geneva conventions and international law. Period. THEY are to be held accountable. Not us.

You're right Randy...everyone, including myself, should mind their own business. AMEN to that!

"Does anyone else find it strange that we are the most murderous culture in human history trying to show other countries how to live????"

as compared to say Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, or 6th to 145h century Islam?

I agree. Let's stop telling other countries how to live. Let's stop feeding them, sending humanitarian aid, exporting democracy (you can't have the benefits without the 'culture'), and exporting technology. Let's see how the rest of the world lives without our medicine, drugs, technology, agriculture, politics, and advice.

Okay, now that Steve's gone, the adults are free to talk.

Brandon B and CCTJOEY and all the others in harms way,

Thanks for doing what you do for our country and thanks for the perspective of someone with boots on the ground. I'll value your opinions over any Time article that Will can refer us to any day.

Will down plays the fact that "we had TWO buildings destroyed in our country and we are up at arms" and says "our response is to destroy TWO entire countries and their infrastructure under the guise of 'establishing democracy'. all these wrongs makes nothing right."

Actually we had TWO towers of the World Trade Center destroyed and the Pentagon was attacked and if not for the courage of a few citizens on another flight, we would have had the Capital or White House destroyed. Oh by the way, over 3000 citizens killed that day.

Our response was surgical and has not destroyed TWO entire countries. Fanatical Muslims have destroyed TWO entire countries after the fact. We've attemted to fix infrastructure that was damaged during the campaign, but every Iraqi citizens that helps us is murdered or has drills run through their joints by Sunnis who are pissed they are no longer on the Saddam gravy train. It could also be the Al Quida that are doing the killing and torturing, but then you'd have to admit some kind of link between our fight in Iraq and the fight against global terror.

Iran feels that the US doesn't have the stomach for the fight. I wonder where they got that idea. Probably from House and Senate votes and "non-binding" resolutions for the troops to withdraw that TIME and the NY Times loves so much. Iran is mistaken in their belief that the US will abandon it's allies. I wonder if they would be acting as tough as they are if we had a united front back home.

Remember that feeling of unity we all had on September 12th, 2001? Well, some of you have forgotten it and need to find it again. Otherwise, you'll be to blame when America has more buildings destroyed and more people killed on our own turf.

Be safe!

MC

Will,
I'm not usually a rest day poster, but your attitude about only having TWO buildings destroyed got me fired up. In your opinion, How many building should be destroyed before the US should act?

MC

#60/1LTBLUE Troll: nice one for April fool's day.

All these points are interesting and many are valid. I especially liked #50, although I don't agree with the entire statement, in the end it usually does come down to money. However if China dumped enough of the U.S. dollars they are holding to put our economy into a free fall, it would significantly hurt theirs and the rest of the worlds so I seriously doubt they will do that.

On to the question at hand, it is simple. They are not our people. We back whatever play the British make because they have done the same for us.

Personally I'd have given Iran a deadline as soon as I confirmed my troops were not in their waters and once that deadline passed, I'd have leveled their nuclear reactor and sent in the Ox and Bucks along w/SAS to secure the hostages or if I don't know where they are, then I'd just kidnap as many of the high level clerics I could locate.

it's interesting that hackleman said you should always keep a tight fist, as opposed to Bruce Lee's theory that you're loose right up until the point of impact. Then again, it would be interesting to see Chuck Lidell go toe to toe with Bruce Lee. I wonder who'd win.

I think we should take a first step: Destroy Iran's single gasoline refinery. Ideally, the British should do this themselves, with the US quietly providing any background assistance Britian requires.

This approach has the advantage of not forcing us to enforce a blockade that the Chinese, Russians, and Germans will not respect. It minimizes casualties while maximizing the pain on Iran. It puts all the pressure on the Iranians, while asking nothing of the rest of the world.

The Iranians will be reduced to importing gasoline at considerable additional cost. The British can explain that additional steps will follow, if the hostages are not released.

#73 I like it.

Sunday April 1st - Brand X WOD

3 Rounds

5 Minutes on the elipitical machine
15 Preacher Curls
15 Leg Extensions
15 Calf Raises

Did curls in the squat cage with the olympic bar...what a pump I got in my biceps. Wore my belt and gloves too!

Time 60mins

Oh No! I hate the elipitical, it gives my quads a real burn, but for 5 minutes!! I did the eliptical yesterday for 2x1 minute. This is going to be a tough one, thanks DavidE!

#67 Randy, did I strike a cord?

Don't worry you'll get over it. Thats what big boys with smart brains do. Besides, your sophistication and high intellect is no match for people like me. Your way ahead of the game!

LOL.

I just want to clarify, I am NOT in Iraq right now. I normally speak in terms of GWOT, not Iraq. However, their aqre definately a lot ot posters that pop up that are thereright now who have opinions worth everyone's consideration as they are eye-balling the elephant right now.

My request is that we make an atttempt to be accurate on timing of events that happened in the past and intentions. Who did what, basically.

Many feel they can re-write history be saying the same stuff over and over that is not true.

"Bush lied, thousands died..." etc. etc.

The hive-mind does not belong here...if you can't back up the assertions with some sort of credible source you will get called on it.

“How should the US respond to Iran’s taking 15 British Sailors and Marines hostage?” Should, indeed! Should in what context? Should in the sense of winning the War on Terrorism? If so, then we ought to mend the multitude of errors that got us into the present no-win mess.

If you were seriously ill, would you stay with a doctor who said whatever you had was incurable? That is Doctor General David H. Petraeus. He is the military leader who says the war is not winnable militarily. His policy is set out in the Counterinsurgency manual. It is to Clear, Hold, and Build. It has an offensive component, but in name only. Petraeus is all polish and no spit.

We set out on a War on Terror with no definition of terror, no identification of the enemy. Only by watching which way we went could we decide which way we were going. Terror did not include bombings by the Irish Republican Army. At first, and maybe still, it did not include Palestinian bombings in Israel!

Bush got a declaration of war in September 18, 2001, and it included his power to take the war anywhere he wanted. Then two years later he asked Congressional permission to take the War on Terror into Iraq! This became PL 107-243, and it set the stage for the enemy at home to make two wars out of one. Now they’re making the war into a civil war, for whatever propaganda advantage that might have.

The War on Terror had no territorial boundaries. But Petraeus is Head of Multi-National Force—Iraq! This is commonly known as the Coalition. Does he report to a Multi-National Force (Global)? Who is running the War on Terror—Global?

Should in the sense of punishing the enemy? When we invaded Iraq, we softened the target with air power, taking over in a cake-walk, scattering the enemy army to the winds. We targeted the enemy with the Deck of Cards (great military planning, eh?), and set about to take each one out. That was fairly successful. That mission was indeed well enough accomplished.

The war was never about clearing and holding. It was never about the numbers of troops to clear and hold. It was about naming the enemy and punishing him. Bush, not Rumsfeld, got lost. The quagmire is in the White House. Too bad about Tony Snow. He is half the Administration's IQ.

We are about to lose the war, but not because of any military defect. It’s not for lack of armor, or lousy conditions in Bldg. 18, or insufficient troops. Wars and battles are never designed around troop levels. Mission comes first. The upcoming jihad victory is because of the US loss of will and domestic treachery. The enemy is in Congress.

The AP quoted Henry Kissinger today, 4/1/07, “‘A “military victory” in the sense of total control over the whole territory, imposed on the entire population, is not possible’”. Apparently, this was because of “The faceless, ubiquitous nature of Iraq's insurgency” and religious factions, as the reporter interpreted it.

First, Henry, how about a military victory in the sense declared by the Commander in Chief – a democratic, self-sufficient Iraq? Is that impossible? Henry, do you contend that is a failing of democracies or of Arabs?

Second Henry, why is the enemy faceless? Who is responsible for putting a face on him, and why doesn’t he?

The first rule of warfare is take from the enemy what he most values. That can’t begin to happen with a faceless enemy. Here’s a starter list for the new Deck of Cards:

• Muqtada al-Sadr, Jaysh al Mahdi (aka the Mahdi Army), (did he escape from Iraq?),
• Harith Al-Dhari, head of the Sunnis (given sanctuary in Jordan),
• Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah (given sanctuary in Syria)
• Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Hamas, Gaza
• Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda
• ____TBD_______, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
• Farouk Kaddoumi, Fatah
• _____TBD______, Wahhabi
• Abu Ayyub al Masri, aka Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, al Qaeda, in for the late al Zarqawi
• Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Badr Corps of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq;
• Ahmadinejad and his Ayatollah puppet masters, suppliers of troops and weapons into Iraq, killing Coalition forces, and destabilizing the country.

The people on the list operate with impunity. They risk nothing they value. They will commit terror forever. New ones will rush in to take the place of those who die of old age. This didn’t happen under Saddam, the Democrats would say. After all, Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler loved little children.

The Iran hostage crisis reinforces the role of Ahmadinejad and his Ayatollahs as enemies. The taking is another form of terrorism – kidnapping, demonstrations, all played out for the media.

The war is being lost at home for failure to win in the field. The Democrats are having a feast over the US corpse – the Peace Corpse. Terror is all about communicating fear. It is a media phenomenon. It has reached the Democrats, already predisposed to toppling Bush’43, even if means taking down the US and the Mideast. The post-modern Disloyal Opposition.

By taking no action, Bush admits the Coalition is a fake. Hey, Boss, Coalition forces were taken!

Bush might help Blair take a decisive (i.e., anti-diplomacy) action, and support it from the Air and Sea. Bush needs support, and he should try to manufacture support out of this otherwise petty incident.

What Petraeus’ counterinsurgency plan is going to accomplish is to enlarge and move the perimeter of the battle. It’s already moving out of Baghdad and into small towns, and now into the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

Bush should remind Petraeus that his assignment as Commander, Multi-National Force – Iraq, is not limited to the borders of Iraq. That: he should put forth plans in response to the taking of the Coalition hostages. That: the plans should include taking from Ahmadinejad what he most values.

First, take from Ahmadinejad is entire his air defense system. We have a strategic need to have unfettered air power over Iran, and coalition hostages is just the incident to justify what needs to be done. We should probe his air defenses, and then take out his radars and missile systems. We should harass the Iranians with regular, low altitude, high speed flyovers in Teheran, preferably during prayers. Next, we should rubblize, as opposed to glassify, each Iranian nuclear facility.

P.S. #80,

We should drop leaflets all over the jihadists showing cartoons of Mo (and Curly) Hammad, and bare headed Arab women. They should say in Arabic: "The US lubricates its weapons with pork fat."

It's all about public relations.

For those advocating war with Iran: What makes you think that we can win the war with Iran when we can't even win the war in Iraq? What will war with Iran accomplish except millions dead(and the death toll will be in the millions) and further destabilization of the worlds energy supply. Unlike Iraq, Iran's government has the full support of it's people and it will not be overthrown without huge loss of life, American and Iranian.

Allen,

I think most would say we did win the war with Iraq. It's the time after the removal of Saddam that has been categorized by most as a loss.

I'd say we won the initial war and time will tell how the rest plays out. By the way, we are already fighting with Iran, since they have Republican Guard in Iraq, training and equiping the insurgency.

MC

Jeff,
I see your point and agree with your analysis.

From what I can tell you are asking through your clarification:

Why are we not pursuing anymore?

Why are we building fortress walls, instead of routing the enemy?

All roads lead to the western nations' domestic scene. Throughout Europe you have a nuetered leadership that is taking a pounding from the Left-of-center and the Islamists. Sometimes in conjunction. Even Australia is having a "see-saw" struggle for self-preservation as it deals with national security and the idiocy of thier left-of-center and Islamists.

Our own country is dealing with a shadow administration with Madam Pelosi at the helm, traveling the middle-east undermining the elected administration. As well, we have Imams trying to sue people for reporting that they were acting like idiots on an Airplane. It almost seems like a contorted effort to weaken our sense of what is right and wrong. Recalibrate our collective sense of what is suspisious or creepy, even stiffle our internal warning signals as humans. This is disguised as tolerance.

Sir, I agree with your assesment of "over-there", however it is "over-here" that is my larger concern. With so many people willing to excuse the world's worst behavior with some sort of sympathy mechanism, then in the same breath paint fellow Americans who are working hard to keep them safe as the terrorists. It is beyond moral equivilancy for many...it is like they have gone to the other side.

Several days ago I posted the "Protesters" burning the flag and soldier effigy. Many on the south-paw side explained that those people were not with them, that they care about the troops. That those people were Anarchists.

My response was simple...Why did the "anarchists" feel comfortable doing it around you? Why did you not stop it/them? Why do those people not attempt those things at a "Gathering of Eagles" rally? The answer is clear.

There has been of late (5 years or so), that I have begun to notice, a growing bonding of Far Lft and Islamists as it relates to anti-semitism. This is very obvious at the University level where free-speech has been squelched through a weird mix of political correctness and "justified" violence (protests) throughout North America.

There is an ownership component to this behavior, and the leeft side of the isle owns it. The lft in Congress have squandered the Democrat party and hijacked functioning of the legislative branch, by ignoring the duties they are prescribed to do and atttempting to take over the executive branch through bogus legislative manuevering and baseless hearings.

Regardless if GEN Petraeus and the troops are successful or not on the ground, the
fight is being lost here in the States. Perhaps, President Bush will realize he has nothing to lose and to do the right thing. The librals will never love him, but 10 years from now we will be able to look back and show he was right to push forward. Much like Reagan took a beating, later to be admired by most of America for his unwavering stance in the face of tyranny.

Sonner or later we will wake up and see that this is an issue of Liberty in our own country as well as a fight for Democracy in a foreign desert.

Iran, well...further isolation for now through embargo. Those sevice personnel and all personnel must know that we will not let foreign countries kidnap our people and get away with it.

Timeline needs to be given..."48 hours for release or all talks are off and you will be out of gasoline with-in 30 days."

That simple: A or B.

Yesterday I got to listen to one of our Past Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Hayward, along with another 4 start ADM Smith, and two other distinguished Naval Officers. I know that I don't know much about the response of America with IRAN, but I learned that I trust my superiors in the Joint Staff along with my chain of command to make those smarter, top dog, decisions.

In my view, this action is a test by the Iranians. Prior to this, the talk had been of bombing their nuclear facilities. There were times within the last few years they had to take that threat seriously. Now, what they are looking at is an aggressively pacifistic and defeatist Congress in the U.S., an embattled Blair, and a decent hope of a Democrat in the White House come 2009, 4 months after the Dem's want us out of Iraq at the latest, and within a year or so of when they might be able to manufacture a nuke. Nobody really knows, but they are likely within a couple years.

So it's easy to imagine a conversation at a table covered with various kabobs and pilafs where Abdul says to Mahmoud:

"You know, this Bush fellow, he's a serious fellow. He could do a lot of damage to us."

Mahmoud replies: "Nonsense. When has anyone--even Reagan--done anything to us? He sold us weapons for goodness sake. That's like a female dog pointing its' butt at you. It's mating time. We blow up 300 Marines, and he shells Beirut. The moron. We start a war with Israel, firing rockets into their civilian populations, and our guys are the ones who wind up looking like heroes. These idiot bleeding heart women believe whatever footage is put on the news, and whatever lies we tell them. They even know we are helping kill their troops, that American lives are being ended with direct Iranian help, and still they do nothing. They have never stood up us. And they won't now. I tell you what, remember those boats you said were interdicting our shipments of bombs to Iraq? The ones close to our water. Get some good guys, and go get one tonight. We'll claim it was in our water, and the useful idiots in the West will believe us. Bush conceivably might do something, but Blair, no chance. They are two thirds fallen already. Before this century is out, we will have Sharia there. Do it, and I will show you that the tiger has no teeth."

Absolutely nothing. They're not our sailors. It's unfortunate, but it's not our family.

How ironic that I had finished reading Mark Bowden's "Guest's of the Ayatollah" when the hostages were seized.

The Iranians think that they can just spit on our faces and all of international law, this is totally unacceptable.

Personally I feel that we should give them ten days, then start destroying military targets. Nothing is going to scare the Iranian government more then being turned into a sitting duck with no military.

If they decide to harm any of the hostages, then we destroy every single oil refinery in the country. We need to send the same message to the prison were they are being held as we did during the hostage taking of Kurt Muse in panama, if anything happens to the hostages no one walks out alive.

We owe these men and women more then to just let them rot.

a couple things first:
RPO comment 11: "A warhead a day 'til they come home." I love it!

Brett comment 12 "As of now...Do nothing." Holy SH%@& I hope America remembers your big plan for when you get taken hostage. Perhaps the military can code name your plan "The Valium Response AKA ThreatCon Valium."

At any rate, anyone who has read my posts before knows that I am no lover of the occupation in Iraq and neither am I fan of America or anyone else getting involved with military actions over seas...BUT with these Iranian clowns the answer is clear that only extreme, sudden and sustained violence will fix this.

Violence may not be "right" (whatever that means to each of us) but it is the only thing they understand. Much like other topics that have come up on the board I think we should personalize it: What is someone took my son or daughter or ___FILL IN THE BLANK___? Would I go to ThreatCon Valium or would I retrieve my gun and start killing people who I thought needed killin'?

Let's face it people...Sometimes people just need to be killed. Agreed? Okay then, lets get to work.

And for those of you who fall inbetween Brett's ThreatCon Valium plan and the nuke option, how about taking away that patch of dirt that has all of Iran's oil under it? Kind of like reparation for the 15 abductees. Let us not forget one thing: they started it and they will keep doing it until it is not worth it to them.

TtN

My respect for the British Royal Marines just plummeted with one of their "confessions."

The Iranians really seem to get off on taking hostages. They probably don't like the fact that some of their guys have been snatched in Iraq.

Bottom line: it's a British issue. Let the Brits do their own bidding. Let the Israelis do their own bidding, too.

How quickly people have forgotten 1979. By a delayed, and failed, response to their taking of the US embassy, Carter showed the Islamic world that the US would not respond the way we needed to to prevent this stuff from happening again. Tehran embassy, Beirut Marine barracks, WTC '93, Khobar towers, '98 African embassy bombings, USS Cole, 9/11, see a pattern repeating????

Howdy,
Work
{PC and PP 60x1x10, 70x1x4, 80x1x3, 90x1; PCJ 90x1, 100x1, 105x1; PC 110x1x2 (weight in kilos) and PU (35#'s)x17}.
Bdw. 85kg...

Agreed: the 15 hostages are part of a larger strategy and the underlying minefields of international affairs with the distant, but relevant, China and other would-be players in world economics/politics/power strugles. Also, the sailors are part of the coalition operating in the area and therefore the responsibility of area commanders to properly support/recover. I have every confidence that they will.

Up for debate: Allowing a low-level instigation to drive military and political decisions. The smoke screens are everywhere today. What's important are the faces of power in the region that have so much to gain as their rivals are killed off or their brand of extremism takes hold. They are fighting to keep the breeding ground open that brings them more followers. The new deck of cards that #80 lists for us wants nation-building to fail. They want instability and somebody wants to get more than peacetime market prices for a barrel of oil.

We have to successfully bring the unthinkable to a place like Iraq in order to contaminate the rest of the area with enlightenment/peace/civilization. What should we do about the sailors? We shouldn't listen to popular "wisdom" or school-ground fight experts. We shouldn't listen to impulse, emotion, surrender-monkeys, blame-america first-ers, or those in favor of glass parking lots. We should trust the leadership, the military commanders, and the others that will commit and act on the problems of the world. 15 hostages are not the problems of the world. I pray for their safe return and I pray for and I am grateful for the others that currently serve with them. Hostages are preferable casualties to those we cannot get back.

I am worried that some have begun to think that war is the business of the U.S.; rather than the business of spreading stability to others, sometimes at the cost of war. Please spare me the return "absurdity" comments and consider the deeper realities that make it true. Derka, derka, derka . . .enlightenment. . . can't-we-all-just-get-along? Instability will continue to have higher costs. We better get comfortable with being uncomfortable, stand up when called upon, and appreciate that from those who have been given much- much is expected.

2-0 out

#48 Randy - You're dead right.

Thatcher would have acted by now. She had more balls than Blair will ever have, as she proved when she gave the order to sink the Belgrano, a decisive point of the Falklands War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

On another point, anyone who talks of those sailors "singing" as if its their real viewpoints being written down, needs a brainscan.

12K row.

Steve:

It's "chord," "that's," "are," and "you're."

LOL.

Randy

In time all the troubles and the uncertainty will be resovled.We live in a day of right is "wrong and "wrong is right.There is not now or ever will be a perfect answer to this war,we can not change what has happened nor can we rewrite what will happen as we are on a journey written about along time ago.We must all look into our own heart and find peace in the saddness around us.War is never a welcome thing but often a path one must take for the good of this world to not be over shadowed by the evil that is growing.The British sailors are going to have to be dealt with by there own country but also supported by us.It is easy to sit safe in our own chairs and say what we would do in there place but we are not in there place!.So if we but only pray for there safe return we are putting it in the hands of the most high God and he will help us all through these difficult times.

In time all the troubles and the uncertainty will be resovled.We live in a day of right is "wrong and "wrong is right.There is not now or ever will be a perfect answer to this war,we can not change what has happened nor can we rewrite what will happen as we are on a journey written about along time ago.We must all look into our own heart and find peace in the saddness around us.War is never a welcome thing but often a path one must take for the good of this world to not be over shadowed by the evil that is growing.The British sailors are going to have to be dealt with by there own country but also supported by us.It is easy to sit safe in our own chairs and say what we would do in there place but we are not in there place!.So if we but only pray for there safe return we are putting it in the hands of the most high God and he will help us all through these difficult times.

OOPS" hit my button twice posted twice,also did fridays 5k today in 34:50

We should look after those sailors, like they are our own. Britian takes the lead diplomatically, however, we lead the coalition.

"Return them in 48 hours or you will be out of gas in 30 days"

#90 Boss Hogg "My respect for the British Royal Marines just plummeted with one of their "confessions.""

I'm fascinated...please tell me:
How many times have you been taken hostage by Iranians and refused to read their scripts?

Iran is a net exporter of crude oil. No big secret there. However they are a net importer of refined gasoline since they only have one refinery in the entire country.

A simple proposition would be to engage in a blockade and blow up the refinery.

Minimum casulties - could even be a pre-announced attack. Maximum economic effect.

Ratt said it. And James D said it too... Boss Hog, I bet gaining your respect is the least of their concerns... as it should be.

Have you seen the new fake-confession footage? it's being aired on bbc world right now. with bogus maps, they have to point at maps and say "yes, I was here in Iranian waters."
we gotta get them out NOW.

A lot of the people in this discussion have been arguing over whether or not we were justified in going into Iraq…Of course the two issues are linked but whether we were justified in going into Iraq is behind us. We are in Iraq AND Afghanistan – our forces are stretched and now Iran is pretty much asking for it. The question asked how the U.S. should respond to Iran’s actions against Great Britain.
It appears to me as though we have been waiting for either an implosion or an explosion of the Iranian regime since the overthrow of the Shah. Some argue as though it looks as if the youth of Iran might actually stand up to their radical ISLAMIST government resulting in an implosion of the regime. I personally don’t see that happening (any time soon at least) – however I’ve never been to Iran so the only information I can base my opinion off of is what I pick up from the bullshit media.
I think we have to ask ourselves several questions. First, does Iran pose a threat to the United States and other Western nations? Second, does Iran pose a threat to our goal of establishing a stable democracy in Iraq? We also must consider the consequences of not properly dealing with Iran right now. I am not suggesting that I know how to properly deal with Iran, I am saying a decision needs to be made – are we going to take military action, or are we going to allow them to continue to grow stronger and continue to cause trouble in the region?
I think Iran does pose a threat toward stability in the region and perhaps even to western nations. This [the kid napping of British sailors/marines] might be the excuse we need to take military action…
We also need to take into consideration that this is not our problem. These are not 15 U.S. sailors and Marines, they are British. I think the important thing to note out of this is that it is not our place to decide the course of action to take here – it is that of the U.K. If Britain desires to go ‘hot’ with Iran, I am in full support of the United States militarily getting involved.
This brings up another issue. With the unpopularity in the war in Iraq – if the U.K. did want to take military action against Iran, I suspect there might be some protest in the United States (that we need to stay out of that conflict). Would our government agree to support the U.K. militarily? I’m sure many of you agree that for the United States to turn our backs on G.B. would be a slap in the face.
Personally, I am not looking to establish a stable democracy in Iran, rather I’d like to make them pay – bomb the hell out of those radical f*cks until there’s nothing left. Again though, that may not be the best course of action.
It’s a messy situation – no doubt about that. I definitely think that it would be better for us to deal with Iran now, rather than in 10 years…

Back from Buffalo.

From SFSC "Ms. Leslie"
21-18-15-12-9-6-3
PU
85# Back Squat
Shoulder press (subbed HSPU, toes over Smith)
Sit-up

26:37

Fought the clown on every PU set after first. Will try to run tomorrow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsuooIpnArQ

Bill O'reilly talking about this same topic.

#4

I think the Russians are in it for the money. Begins and ends with Mafia ethics.

As far as hand exercises rosstraining.com books are on the crossfit level for quality and value.

a few ideas .......

First, keep in mind Hackleman knows what he's talking about but if you throw said punch to do damage in a real situation be fully prepared for hand fracture. (You might consider grabbing an object - any object - and taking a few classes in Filipino (Kali) weapons and drilling a couple of times a week; in training on bag, sparring, whatever, hands are ALWAYS protected)

Second - regular (3-4x a week) hand miniworkouts. Rope climbing, towel pullups, fingertip/fist pushups. Barbell forearm curls, reverse curls. Dumbbells in general (farmers walk ..) Sledgehammer high reps on a tire. Kali drills with heavy sticks or axe handle. Squeeze a tennis ball or bucket of rice, work both grip and reverse grip (i.e. take a sheet of newspaper and crumple it up, then uncrumple it up, with one hand), or just grab your own wrist for a few seconds alternating with full extension of fingers.

Iran hostages - at some point in time show of shocking and awing strength with finesse is warranted. I'm far from a liberal but think Bush & Co have been far from finesseful or intelligent in their prosecution of the defense of the civilized world. Has Iraq weakened our readiness, and is it true Rumsfeld should have thrown massive volume early on as is often charged? Yes, those are 2 separeate but related questions. I would really like to know.

As far as the hostages "confessing", I think Joey has a good point, that it's quite possible these folks have never been through counter-interrogation training. On how to resist the various forms of torture, which can take the form of unrelenting 40 hour interrogations, with no physical contact, and of course as many ingenious variations as human evil can concoct.

I would hazard a guess that if you took any 15 soldiers of almost any military, and put them through what the Iranians will claim was not torture, but which could objectively be classified that way, you could get 3 to crack, if they had not had the training. Even with the training, most people have a breaking point, but it's much farther along.

Bottom line: the focus needs to be on what the Iranians did, in my view. We are dealing with sociopathic children fully capable of and intending to develop and use nuclear weapons aggressively.

Call me crazy, but is Iran not a sovereign nation? Do they not have the right to defend their waters? So the question is, were they indeed trespassing? If they were, you can forget all the talk about bombing, nuking, and attacking. The UK should try asking, apologizing, a massive onslaught of diplomacy.

What would the US do if an Iranian boat was caught just inside the 3 mile zone? Even if they just drifted over, I should hope that we would apprehend them or destroy their boat and all souls onboard.

IF...(and I do mean "IF")... the UK sailors were in the wrong place, Iran is well within its rights. I would be inclined to say that Iran was lying if the f***ing British didn't look so bloody sincere when they describe their transgressions for the camera. If Iran took them in international waters, sure, blow them to hell.

But if we took a little more time to observe the rights of other nations, we might not find western nations so unpopular around the world.

Have you seen the videos? These do not look like tortured men. Jose Padilla looks like a tortured man.

And no, I have never been captured by a foreign nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrizio_Quattrocchi

Alright, I've held out as long as I could, but I guess I'll add my own highly opinionated, somewhat passionate, and largely uninformed missive (since that seems to be the pattern here):

This whole thing stinks. If diplomatic measure by the British fail, then it should be their responsiblity to extricate said hostages. The facts surrounding the arrests are still murky. Why should the U.S. start bombing another country when our military resources are already stretched thin with no clear or attainable strategic goals? This seems like a convenient segue to send more good troops into the meatgrinder to satisfy the whims of politicians who are more crooked than a bag of snakes. I don't condone appeasement, but cripping Iran is not an appropriate response. After four years of combat, we've done little or nothing to make the Middle East, the U.S., or the world a "safer" or more "secure" place. Bush lied, played up the emotions of a wounded nation, and helped orchestrate a debacle that has cost 3,200 American lives so far. Are we seriously considering military intervention in Iran when closure in Afghanistan and Iraq is nowhere in sight? Blind allegiance to our leaders and misguided nationalism is as dangerous as the fanaticism of terrorists.

"Why do you do this looking at the speck in your brother's eye and don't notice the plank that's stuck in your own?" - JC

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Gen. D.D. Eisenhower

"The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."
-Gen. D. MacArthur

39/195

ran 3 800 meters
3 sets of 50 sit-ups
3 sets of 50 Supermans

"The US is getting their asses kicked in Irak and Afghanistan, they dont need to gettit kicked by the Iranian as well."

In fact the US is NOT getting their 'asses kicked', certainly not in the traditional sense that would imply. The US was able to conquer a country half way around the world, something a country that shares their border was not able to come close to doing in over a decade.

If the point actually WAS to destroy the government and take the place/resources over, without regard to their population or wishes, believe you me it would have been done, end of story, years ago.

If you look at the 'report card' the times publishes each year, including the latest, the basic *facts* are this;

US forces have remainded basically the same

Coalition forces have dropped precipitously

Shiite and Sunni insurgency forces have grown by a factor of 10 at least.

American casualties in this scenario have *dropped*, as has our wounded/killed ratio.

Please consider the above carefully, and imagine if we had no rules of engagement (as the enemy does) and didn't care a whit about their (or our soldiers) or the civilians lives.

What HAS happened and occured is the Iraqi civilians have been killed by their own countrymen in every inreasing #s, in what the papers like to call an 'insurgency' but which is actually just a bare naked power terrorist power grab. Every time we go in a neighborhood to *build* businesses so people can be self-sustaining, 'insurgents' blow them up. Everytime we get a nuclear facility running, insurgents destroy them, same with electircal and utility facilities. Every time we help a family, insurgents kill them.

Is that getting our asses kicked? How would you suggest we combat that? A country of savages (yes savages) are busy killing their own mothers, daughters, sons, brothers and fathers, not on the battlefields but in marketplaces, video-rental stores, places of worship, schools and hospitals.

Is that 'getting our asses kicked'? How do you stop someone from kicking their own ass I ask you?

We managed to get 11 million Iraqis to brave DEATH to vote for a representative government at the cost of American lives. Is that getting our asses kicked?

We managed to topple, capture and execute a man who was responsible for genocide on the scale of Darfur AT LEAST, is that 'getting our asses kicked'?

"having to pose naked with a dogcollar or being forced to give your fellow inmate a blowjob...no wait that was americans doing it to Iraqis...that is for peace and freedom...sorry..."

Why is it the same Americans who bring this up and apologize to everyone about it never bring up or ask for apologies from Muslims who SAWED of Daniel Stern's head, who burn our flags, bomb our churches, castigate our culture, president and citizens? What are they doing it in the name of?

When people like you and Bill Moyers somehow imply a moral equivalence between beheading and cartoons I wonder if I am living in the right country.

5 min double-under practice

35# kb jerks:
10/10-2/2-8/8-4/4-6/6 --4:15
Rest--2:45
10/10-4/4-8/8-2/2-6/6 --4:35
Rest--3:30
10/10-8/8-6/6-4/4-2/2 --4:15

#107, Bill W,

"So the question is, were they indeed trespassing? If they were, you can forget all the talk about bombing, nuking, and attacking. The UK should try asking, apologizing, a massive onslaught of diplomacy."

And if they were not in Iranian waters, then what? During the Cuban missle crisis, the Russians insisted there were no missiles in Cuba, but of course there were. We provided photographs, because we could. Today, we can do even better (and so can the rest of the world). There is no real debate about the location of the ship. Given the precision of satellite navigation, all countries involved know within a few feet where the ship was. Debating the location of the ship is about like debating whether 9-11 was an inside job.

The first set of coordinates provided by Iran showed that the ship was in Iraqi waters, and when this was pointed out, Iran quickly produced a new set of coordinates two miles from the first.

Michael... you are livubg in the right country.

They are not.

Ref: British hostages.

If an independent source could state the British sailors were in Iranian or Iraqi water, that would resolve the issue for me:

If in Iranian water, the British should apologize.

If they were kidnapped from Iraqi water, then the Iranians should apologize and pay some kind of compensation to Britain and each sailor.

My coment # 114 should have been addressed to #108, Bill W.

This point needs to be made. If those Sailors were operating in Iranian waters purposefully....there would not have been a FEMALE with them.

Iran, There like the new bully on the block trying to pick a fight, and the only way to deal with a bully is fight back. But, we (the rest of the world) have to be really carefull, because when we were kids the bully may have a pair brass knuckles, or numchuckies, but this bully is enriching uranium to build a nuke so that mean diplomacy is the only way. I know that may be two contradicting statements but if we rush into this we may have another Iraq in the making (a war without an end). Sanctions and Peacetalks are the smart thing to do. Back in mid-evil times an army wouldn't just storm a castle and waste all there resources fighting against an enemy who is at full strength they would starve them out, cut off there supply route lay seige and wait until they give up. What they are doing is unexcusible, but it doesn't make sense to not try and settle like edjucated adults. By the way if your wondering I'm in the military and have been in harms way, and the soldiers best weapon is not his/her brawn or strength in the field but his/her wits there ability to reason and do the right thing.

RE: Bill W. #108...
Iran being a sovereign nation is not germane to how the 15 soldiers are being treated, e.g. made to draft letters and apologize on TV. You use the term "defending their waters." Could you bring us back on point and tell us how the Brits were showing aggression. I mean, the word defend would imply one is in fear of attack or being attacked. The Brits were ambushed, correct? If someone cuts across my property because they didn't see the boundary should I then capture them and parade them around my living room at gun point and make them apologize in the name of self defense?

According to Bill W: “So the question is, were they indeed trespassing? If they were, you can forget all the talk about bombing, nuking, and attacking. The UK should try asking, apologizing, a massive onslaught of diplomacy. “

Well Bill, IF they were, then an apology is in order, but the actions on the part of the Iranians are certainly grounds for a military spanking. Oh, and no rebuilding afterwards. Just break the place; they can rebuild it later after the dust clears.

Bill W also said: “What would the US do if an Iranian boat was caught just inside the 3 mile zone? Even if they just drifted over, I should hope that we would apprehend them or destroy their boat and all souls onboard.”

Bill, you and I both know if we found them in our waters we would give them green cards and medical benefits and if they were wounded during the “capture” we would then let them collect disability benefits from the federal government. We would then give them zero interest loans to go to school (but not make them learn English of course). Oh yeah, if they claimed any type of distress or injury during the "capture" then we would reprimand the soldiers who effected the capture, gotta send a message you know...I mean, isn’t that they do down in Texas (for those who saw Lou Dobbs tonight) when boarder agents shoot smugglers. (note to coach: please consider the border agent fiasco for a rest day…it’ll be huge)

I digress: then Bill said: “IF...(and I do mean "IF")... the UK sailors were in the wrong place, Iran is well within its rights. I would be inclined to say that Iran was lying if the f***ing British didn't look so bloody sincere when they describe their transgressions for the camera. If Iran took them in international waters, sure, blow them to hell.”

Didn’t LOOK sincere…come on now Bill, do you really believe that….how sincere would you look if you were captive? Really?

This is no longer about where the friggin boat was, it is about what is happening to 15 soldiers being held by a bunch of wack-jobs.

Hari -

If they were not, then Britain should give them a strong warning, a short period of time to comply, and then the UK and her allies should take military measures.

"Given the precision of satellite navigation, all countries involved know within a few feet where the ship was."

That's probably not true. Satellites do not cover every square inch of the globe at every moment: the odds that there is a timely photograph of the scene is remarkably unlikely.

If the UK Navy is anything like the USN and USCG, it is likely that their small boats have local GPS devices that usually do not store the trip data after the power is shut off. They probably reported back to their ship every 10-30 minutes; depending on sea conditions and specs of the boat (I'm guestimating 20 knot speed, but it could be as much as 50 for a speedy smallboat) their position would only be known by the British Navy within MINIMUM 3 nautical miles; they could possibly have no reliable records within 25 miles.

Were their radios working? Did they show up on British radar? Did their GPS device function? Did they use LORAN-C or did they shoot a compass?

Since they were captured by Iranians, Iran would have exact coordinates. I'm not saying they're telling the truth, but I am saying that I haven't seen any data to convince me that GB is right and Iran is wrong. (Maybe you know something I don't: feel free to link.) The fact that the sailors just gave up without a fight makes me think that they were in the wrong: I know that no US ship would just roll over, unless perhaps they were genuinely in the wrong.

Let's see what develops.

#114 good post.

You know the issue here is they were not in Iranian waters, period. Even the Iranians screwed this up the first time and backtracked on it. Iran is playing a game of cat and mouse and we are not doing a very good job of keeping up and haven't been since 1979.

On the issue of Iraq, lets just say that Saddam dies of natural causes in March of 03 and there is no invasion. How many people think that Iraq would not be in a very similar situation five or ten years later that it is in today? We have two major ethnic groups and two major religions which split the country into three different powerful factions. Wait this sounds a little familiar? Think Yugoslavia.

So whine all you want about how badly we have screwed the Iraqi people but I honestly believe this would have happened sooner or later anyway. The fact of the matter is, it is probably better and more stable because we are there, such as how post #112 pointed out they had 11 million people vote in free elections.

The thing with arabs is that they push and push to see how much they can get away with.

If the U.S. just simply nuked Iran back in '79 during that hostage crisis, the arabs would have gotten the message not to mess with the west. Then, we would be better off today. (ok, maybe not nukes, but something that was decisive, destructive, and over the top).

They continue to be uppity because they know they get away with it. Look at all they have done, and Mecca/Medina are still standing. it's absurd.

Pretty interesting that today they have decided to challenge Bush... they must know something I don't because Bush has made it clear he's not someone to mess with.

Could this b