MSNBC BREAKING NEWS: UK says 15 soldiers detained by Iranian navy

[Air Force Cane]

"They know we neither have the will nor the forces for another war at this point"

That is just not accurate. We have several Army divisions and USMC brigades on standby and training that could be committed if we needed to.

And if some haven't realized it- we have over 3,000 planes in the US Air Force. Of which about 70 are daily supporting OIF. We also have over 100 submarines with Tomahawk missiles. And three carrier battle groups close enough to launch on Iran.

[Shallow1]

1st - I NEVER need help looking like a jack ass....

2nd - It does strike a cord. I'm so sick of the "Biased Press" blame. Major News outlets still print and report all stories. It just that we don't really want that. We want the press to report what we already agree on and don't want them to report anything that challanges us or our beleif system.

It's like elections. People always say they want to hear the issues and not the negitive advertisements, but no one watches C-span or the policy questions and debates, they do watch the 30 second sound bites, respond to the name calling, and then complain.

Really I think were saying the same thing, I mentioned both sides of the bias in my comments, I was more adressing the news only reporting what it will take to get you to watch the TV so the stations can sell advertising or reporting what they want in print so you will buy there product over another.

I do watch C-Span (I do wish they made it easier to watch and had some hot broads on there though...jk....not really) but I was just commenting on the fact that so much of the "truth" gets washed over and slanted (both ways) that unless your very motivated to pull from all news sources availible and then see the consitancies and then make up your mind on whats really going on, your just not going to get it from the main stream, thats all.

I like to hit www.iafrica.com the BBC and some asian sites as well it kinda gives you a world view on things from there perspective.

[Zen-like Todd]

AFC is right... we could bomb the living **** out of IRAN with our Naval and Air assets. Are we going to pour a few hundred thousand troops into the country? Of course not. That doesn't mean we're completely impotent militarily speaking.

[Koolblue13]

A couple weeks ago,I heard we had a couple of our Carriers parked off of thier coast. That doesn't just happen.Well,I guess it's a good thing we have all the could be perminet bases now set up in Iraq.Gee,that sure would make a great place to have settled down our military if we did have to go to war with Iran.But why would we go to war with Iran?Especially after we liberated Iraq.

[jrockster21]

:secret: pssssst, zoony: Most of those countries are now sovereign nations.

I wasn't underestimating the British, only stating the fact that we've got a bigger, better Navy...have had one since WWII.

[JMS]

I think it's interesting that the Iranians grabbed British troops. Nobody suspected the British in abducting their generals. Maybe they thought it was less provocative to grab Brits than Americans. Maybe they thought British captives would make the British public apply more pressure on the US without the call for war, than America's public pressure from American captives.

I also think it's funny Larry got attacked, for stating the obvious. Iran is retaliating for the abduction of their generals. Also if that's the case; Iran will continue to abduct soldiers. Higher ranking ones too.

Iran is famous for getting even.

Yep it's a act of war. Yep it was an act of war when we did it first.

[twa]

JMS, you presume too much.

[Slateman]

"They know we neither have the will nor the forces for another war at this point"

That is just not accurate. We have several Army divisions and USMC brigades on standby and training that could be committed if we needed to.

And if some haven't realized it- we have over 3,000 planes in the US Air Force. Of which about 70 are daily supporting OIF. We also have over 100 submarines with Tomahawk missiles. And three carrier battle groups close enough to launch on Iran.

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/usa/lockheed_martin/f-22/F-22launch2_300.jpg

Do we have any Tomahawks left over from the Iraq war?

[Air Force Cane]

Fine JMS- then it was also an act of war when they sent men into Iraq armed with Iranian EFPs before we started grabbing their guys before they started killing and grabbing our guys.

Happy now? Regardless, Iran is at war with us and has been for decades now. I hope we ARE taking out their Generals and their Air Force officers. At least then we would know the CIA is capable of doing something productive.

[Ken]

As seems to be usual with me, some scattered thoughts:

Wondering how many of the people who were pounding their chests and cheering at the thought of the US disappearing some Iranian generals, will now claim that this seizure of military personnel is an act of war.

Wondering how naval personnel engaged in border security enforcement in a war zone allowed their ship to be approached by a military vessel, and allowed their personnel to be captured, apparently without a fight.

It is actually another Gulf Of Tonkin and is absolutely no surprise to people who don't believe a word the Gov't says.

[Zen-like Todd]

It is actually another Gulf Of Tonkin and is absolutely no surprise to people who don't believe a word the Gov't says.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There's only one tool in your toolbox. Think about expanding your holdings.

[JMS]

Fine JMS- then it was also an act of war when they sent men into Iraq armed with Iranian EFPs before we started grabbing their guys before they started killing and grabbing our guys.

Happy now? Regardless, Iran is at war with us and has been for decades now. I hope we ARE taking out their Generals and their Air Force officers. At least then we would know the CIA is capable of doing something productive.

Iran is not at war with us, and we are certainly not at war with them. We say Iran is training Saddr's militia, but you know what? Saddr is not a wanted man in Iraq. Saddr and his group are part of the government of Iraq. The government we installed and currently maintain. Saddr is not an ally, but he is not wanted for blowing up our troops anymore either. His public stance is that he is critical of US involvement but is willing to sit back while we solidify shia's hold on government. That is Iran's policy too.

The vast majority of the IED are from Sunni groups not Shia groups. We escalated (if it was us, and I think we both currently believe it was us.) this problem when we grabbed those generals. We did so not because of Iraq but because we wanted information on their nuclear program. Now Iran is matching us.

It's not war, it's just escalation which is in nobodies interest. Not ours and certainly not Iran's. It's not in our interest because we can not do a decent job of occupying Iraq let alone Afghanistan. Occupying Iran which is larger than both, while we're attempting all three is just crazy talk. Expensive crazy talk.

It's not in Iran's best interest because we still have planes, bombs and missiles and can do to Iran what Israel did to Lebanon only more so.

But even this isn't in our interest. Iranians don't like the mullahs. American bombing them could appeal to nationalism and help them consolidate power more.

We need allies, we need a strategy and we need leadership. This cowboy extra judicial kidnappings and alienation of all of our key allies has to stop. We need a unified front to confront Iran on their policies, and we likely will need to give them security and economic guarantees too; just like Clinton did in North Korea before Bush reneged on them. Bush reneged on them only to return to them after his cowboy incompetence failed to move N. Korea in any meaningful productive manner. That's why today we have a more productive relationship with N. Korea. Because Bush is paying for it, just like Clinton was.

[zoony]

-----

Further note about the Iranian navy:

I've seen what look like really credible reports that, if a shooting war starts up over there, it's not a slam dunk that we could keep traffis flowing through the Persian Gulf.

While the Iranian Navy will never threaten to take control of the Atlantic, or even the Indian oceans, they do have the ability to be a very real threat when operating in restricted waters, close to shore support.

If there's a war, expect the price of oil to go up a lot, and to stay there for a good time. (And expect that we will take casualties.)

(Not saying it's not worth paying that price. But let's be aware of the price before we start.)

:laugh: that's funny.

[zoony]

:secret: pssssst, zoony: Most of those countries are now sovereign nations.

I wasn't underestimating the British, only stating the fact that we've got a bigger, better Navy...have had one since WWII.

Really? I didn't know that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:dunce: :dunce:

Next thing you're gonna tell me, the 13 colonies aren't part of the Empire either.

[Sisyphus]

Don't ever, ever, ever under-rate the Brits. There has been no more blood-thirsty, war-mongering island in the history of the world.

Look at their freaking empire for crying out loud... and that doesn't even include the 13 colonies

I pity those poor Iranian ****s. They're about to have a red hot poker shoved right up their asses with the Queen's name on the handle.

The Sun never set on the British Empire. The reason being that even God couldn't trust the British in the dark.

[zoony]

The Sun never set on the British Empire. The reason being that even God couldn't trust the British in the dark.

:laugh: good one.

[Mad Mike]

just like Clinton did in North Korea before Bush reneged on them. Bush reneged on them only to return to them after his cowboy incompetence failed to move N. Korea in any meaningful productive manner. That's why today we have a more productive relationship with N. Korea. Because Bush is paying for it, just like Clinton was.

What a load of crap. N. Korea was bending us over and still developing their weapons. Bush has done a lot of things wrong but N. Korea is NOT one of them. Remember the last election when the dems were saying we Bush was screwing up by not talking directly to them? Remember bush saying no, he wanted the chinese involved? Who was right on that one?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-10-31-north-korea_x.htm

Economic and political pressure from China was instrumental in prompting North Korea to say it would return to disarmament talks. North Korea's announcement Tuesday eased tensions that had escalated after its first nuclear weapons test three weeks ago.

[Burgold]

Any updates on the sailors yet?

[LightAgent]

Oh ****. WWIII. Quick, someone save the day!

Unfortunatly Captain America was killed several weeks ago.

[Mad Mike]

Unfortunatly Captain America was killed several weeks ago.

That's OK, we still have Bruce Willis! :munchout:

[Zguy28]

"They know we neither have the will nor the forces for another war at this point"

That is just not accurate. We have several Army divisions and USMC brigades on standby and training that could be committed if we needed to.

And if some haven't realized it- we have over 3,000 planes in the US Air Force. Of which about 70 are daily supporting OIF. We also have over 100 submarines with Tomahawk missiles. And three carrier battle groups close enough to launch on Iran.

You think the crap has hit the political fan already in America, go into Iran with ground troops and see how bad it gets here at home. This country will likely self-destruct over it. Carpet bombing is out too, think what the political fallout will be from massacred Iranian civilians? Not saying I agree with that, but just being realistic.

[Burgold]

The sad thing is this administration has so badly misspent its credibility that should the need arise it will be very hard (without a smoking gun) for them to make a case. This administration made a habbit of "crying wolf" all too frequently and it may bite us when the wolf actually comes to eat the sheep.

[Blighty Skins]

Well, our foreign secratery is a woman, so I doubt the Iranians will take her seriously. Our best hope is for her to get PMS and go really mad. Saying that, she has said she spanked the Iranian ambassador into submission and he has admited subterfuge (whatever that means). The fifteen sailors are probably plotting to overthrow the Iranian government...don't be surprised if Terhan falls in the next 24 hours. I'll keep you posted on further developments. :applause:

[Teller]

Why didn't the frigate fire onto the Iranian boats? Surely they must have a .50 cal.

Because we know how the world media, and most US networks would have dealt with that:

"Good evening. I'm Brian Williams. Tonight, a stunning report from the Persian Gulf where earlier today a British naval vessel opened fire on an unarmed Iranian fishing expedition."

***cut to some Iranian minister adding "details" to the fake story***

"Let's go now to senior political correspondent, Al Franken, and get his opinion on how this might affect tentions in the region. Al?"

Franken: "Well, Brian, let's call this what it is; a war crime. It's no wonder there's such a marked increase in jihadiism these days. I mean, when you've got the world's main powers in your backyard killing your dad because we went fishing, that's going to get a reaction."

Williams: "Indeed it is. Truly a tragic mistake by the British that could have even more tragic repercussions."

(In a nutshell, that's why they didn't fire. Period. And if it was in their SOP not to fire until fired upon, the above is why that's part of said SOP.)

[Burgold]

HH is about 75% right in how the story would probably have been framed. If the Brit vessel opened fire on an unarmed frigate and it turned out they were in Iranian waters, the Brits would have taken almost all the heat. It's ridiculous though that these guys have to think about PR or their lives.

I hope that PR wasn't a large part of their decision makng process.