|
|
Post by princelh on Mar 31, 2007 21:13:32 GMT -5
After Iran kidnapped those 15 British sailors, the Western Governments are doing nothing to get them released. If Reagan was around, he would sit off shore with a Battleship flotilla and shell Iran at will. If that wasn't working, he would send the B1 bombers in and bomb them back to the stone age, like Libya.
If Thatcher was still Prime Minister of Britain, she would be sending a huge flotilla of Naval vessels and show the Iranian's that they're small potato's in world politics. No sailer's, than bombing would resume.
Our so called Western Leaders need a penis transplant!
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 31, 2007 22:06:08 GMT -5
The last time Iran kidnapped "Westerners" didn't JTF2 go in and get them out? Maybe we only need a Liberal PM.  |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 1, 2007 9:41:21 GMT -5
Where have all the cowboys gone, anyways?
With each passing day I am more and more convinced that the invasion of Iraq was the biggest mistake in international politics since... geez, Kaiser Wilhelm giving Austria carte blanche to wipe Serbia off the face of the map? When did the West lose the initiative in this battle? When did Arab and Islamic leaders become so smart??
This is brilliant provocation on the part of the Iranians, in my opinion. They almost can't lose. They can;
* Drag out the hostage crisis for weeks, even years, as they did the last time around, humilating Western leaders and winning praise and allies in the fundamentalist (and not so fundamentalist) Islamic world.
* "Negotiate" a settlement, return the sailors and promptly declare "victory" thus humilating Western leaders and winning praise and allies in the fundamentalist (and not so fundamentalist) Islamic world.
* Just for fun, provoke the West into a third front, after Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps by doing something really crazy like executing one of the sailors. The West will have no choice but to attack militarily, but with both Blair and Bush facing historic popularity lows, with the populations of both countries now firmly entrenching AGAINST their own leaders, and with both countries mired in a bloody, and already unpopular war in Iraq, Iran might actually win. Sure, public sentiment in the US and the UK will be aroused against Iran in the first few weeks, but as the bodies pile up on both sides (if they thought Iraq was difficult to pacify, Iran is about a million times worse), how long will that sentiment last? Especially if radical Muslims around the world leap into the fray, and the long anticipated West versus Islam war third world war REALLY gets going?? Yes, the West is stronger militarily than Iran, but as Israel can attest to, with their attempts to get their hostages released, sometimes being stronger militarily isn't enough.
With the first two options, Iran wins no matter what. With the third option they provoke an end-game scenario and who knows who wins that one...
|
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Apr 1, 2007 10:09:35 GMT -5
Then they can wait 13 years for a Conservative Prime Minister to get them out. I remember the last Canadian, being held in Saudi Arabia. It was the British Ambassador who got him freed. The Liberal governments here did nothing!
As far as I'm concerned, a full scale bombing mission needs to be done, to destroy their nuclear capacity, military and leadership. To hell with the howling fundamentalist Muslim mob. They only understand violence, so lets give them what they want. Open wide and swallow!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2007 10:53:23 GMT -5
Where have all the cowboys gone, anyways? With each passing day I am more and more convinced that the invasion of Iraq was the biggest mistake in international politics since... geez, Kaiser Wilhelm giving Austria carte blanche to wipe Serbia off the face of the map? When did the West lose the initiative in this battle? When did Arab and Islamic leaders become so smart?? This is brilliant provocation on the part of the Iranians, in my opinion. They almost can't lose. They can; * Drag out the hostage crisis for weeks, even years, as they did the last time around, humilating Western leaders and winning praise and allies in the fundamentalist (and not so fundamentalist) Islamic world. * "Negotiate" a settlement, return the sailors and promptly declare "victory" thus humilating Western leaders and winning praise and allies in the fundamentalist (and not so fundamentalist) Islamic world. * Just for fun, provoke the West into a third front, after Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps by doing something really crazy like executing one of the sailors. The West will have no choice but to attack militarily, but with both Blair and Bush facing historic popularity lows, with the populations of both countries now firmly entrenching AGAINST their own leaders, and with both countries mired in a bloody, and already unpopular war in Iraq, Iran might actually win. Sure, public sentiment in the US and the UK will be aroused against Iran in the first few weeks, but as the bodies pile up on both sides (if they thought Iraq was difficult to pacify, Iran is about a million times worse), how long will that sentiment last? Especially if radical Muslims around the world leap into the fray, and the long anticipated West versus Islam war third world war REALLY gets going?? Yes, the West is stronger militarily than Iran, but as Israel can attest to, with their attempts to get their hostages released, sometimes being stronger militarily isn't enough. With the first two options, Iran wins no matter what. With the third option they provoke an end-game scenario and who knows who wins that one... And what makes you think that this was an "accident"? C'mon BC, use your well oiled lateral thinking. You know what they say.......... If you want to kill the shark, you send in lure to bring it to you. It, being a shark, does not and will not see the difference between bait and food. The Nimitz carrier group is steaming for the Persian Gulf next week to join the Stennis and Eisenhower group. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Apr 1, 2007 10:56:07 GMT -5
Then they can wait 13 years for a Conservative Prime Minister to get them out. I remember the last Canadian, being held in Saudi Arabia. It was the British Ambassador who got him freed. The Liberal governments here did nothing! As far as I'm concerned, a full scale bombing mission needs to be done, to destroy their nuclear capacity, military and leadership. To hell with the howling fundamentalist Muslim mob. They only understand violence, so lets give them what they want. Open wide and swallow! A conflict has never been won using a strategy of air strikes only... they have to be won on the ground. Vietnam and Iraq are two recent examples. The US is stretched so thin in terms of finances, manpower and political will that a pre-emptive strike against Iran would be a disaster. Do you really think Iran is sitting there and saying "come and bomb us". This country is far more prepared than Iraq. In addition, the US spent most of its global good will. Other than small pockets of support, the US is perceived as an aggressor who is using its military power to protect a low cost oil supply (and an opulent lifefstyle) at the expense of the Arab and Persian worlds). And don't forget, Iran has close ties to Russia and China. I don't think we can imagine the consequences of a bombing Iran. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2007 11:08:09 GMT -5
Then they can wait 13 years for a Conservative Prime Minister to get them out. I remember the last Canadian, being held in Saudi Arabia. It was the British Ambassador who got him freed. The Liberal governments here did nothing! As far as I'm concerned, a full scale bombing mission needs to be done, to destroy their nuclear capacity, military and leadership. To hell with the howling fundamentalist Muslim mob. They only understand violence, so lets give them what they want. Open wide and swallow! A conflict has never been won using a strategy of air strikes only... they have to be won on the ground. Vietnam and Iraq are two recent examples. The US is stretched so thin in terms of finances, manpower and political will that a pre-emptive strike against Iran would be a disaster. Do you really think Iran is sitting there and saying "come and bomb us". This country is far more prepared than Iraq. In addition, the US spent most of its global good will. Other than small pockets of support, the US is perceived as an aggressor who is using its military power to protect a low cost oil supply (and an opulent lifefstyle) at the expense of the Arab and Persian worlds). And don't forget, Iran has close ties to Russia and China. I don't think we can imagine the consequences of a bombing Iran. It's a fallacy to think that regimes can not self implode. The Greek junta did it in 76 the Russians regime did it in 92 amd so on. You don't have to destroy the country to break a regimes back. The younger Iranians are getting totally fed up with the mullahs and their Blackshirts (revolutionary gaurd). If this is handled carefully enough, the Iranian people will finish the job. And to top it off, out goes Chaney and the Bush administration blunderers and in comes one of the best geo-tactician on the planet. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Apr 1, 2007 11:47:30 GMT -5
It could also be argued that the far flung empire of the US is also in danger. I am not against the US but I fear that they are spread far too thin in many areas and just as one of their opponents collapses another rises to take its place. And there are no shortage of regimes willing to fill that role.
Unfortunately the US has not embraced the concept of negotiation and comprise. They continue the use of blunt force and antogonize many political entities around the world
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 1, 2007 11:55:04 GMT -5
And what makes you think that this was an "accident"? C'mon BC, use your well oiled lateral thinking. You know what they say.......... If you want to kill the shark, you send in lure to bring it to you. It, being a shark, does not and will not see the difference between bait and food. The Nimitz carrier group is steaming for the Persian Gulf next week to join the Stennis and Eisenhower group. ;D Brilliant lateral thinking... my only question is, who is doing the fishing? Let's see, the Iranians float a trial balloon last year, using their proxy fanatics in Lebanon to provoke a much more powerful military into a fight, just to see how well that works. To the amazement of all, it works rather successfully. So now, they do the exact same thing, this time on their home turf, with much larger stakes. The sharks are coming, they've taken the bait. As with Hezbollah and Israel, the Iranians have no intention of trying to beat the US and/or UK militarily. They're fighting much smarter than that. It's a fallacy to think that regimes can not self implode. The Greek junta did it in 76 the Russians regime did it in 92 amd so on. You don't have to destroy the country to break a regimes back. The younger Iranians are getting totally fed up with the mullahs and their Blackshirts (revolutionary gaurd). If this is handled carefully enough, the Iranian people will finish the job. And to top it off, out goes Chaney and the Bush administration blunderers and in comes one of the best geo-tactician on the planet. What makes you think Cheney and Bush can handle this carefully (and who is the best geo-tactician you speak of)? What in their previous experience makes that even remotely likely? Yes, younger Iranians long for change (a missed opportunity, when Bush labelled Iran an Axis of Evil, if you ask me), but so were the Iraqis, and the Iranians will not welcome the Americans as "liberators" any more than the Iraqis did. They may not love their government, but they love their children, and when the latter start showing up in morgues as "collateral damage" it won't be the mullahs they blame. Iran has a population of close to 70 million, more than double Iraq's. The Iraqis were never known for being overly enthusiastic fundamentalists, whereas a significant proportion of Iranians are. Any war with Iran may be won on the battlefield, but it will be lost just about everywhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2007 12:12:53 GMT -5
It could also be argued that the far flung empire of the US is also in danger. I am not against the US but I fear that they are spread far too thin in many areas and just as one of their opponents collapses another rises to take its place. And there are no shortage of regimes willing to fill that role. Of that their is no doubt. Many an empire have collapsed by over spending of fighting endless wars. But... It's not that the US does not have the military capability to fight these wars, it's that it's going to cost them finiancily. On the other hand, the US is in a unique position where it's money is accepted at face value world wide and to a large extent, finiancing these wars by printing more of it. And here's the catch, as long as it is a super power, it can keep printing and fighting, the minute it backs down and no longer seen as the 800 pound gorilla, it's money starts to be questioned too. Unfortunately the US has not embraced the concept of negotiation and comprise. They continue the use of blunt force and antogonize many political entities around the world Unfortunatly, the Iranian situation is not like the Iragi or Afganistan situation. Iran has clearly stated that it has visions of the Second Persian Empire by dominating the Middle East and by definition, the worlds economic blood. Yes, it's about oil. If anyone has any illusions how oil can be used as a weapon, then they have to look no further then how Russia is using their oil weapon right now. Now imagine a regime that is a hundred time more radical and a thousand times more anti-Western having control of Middle Eastern oil. Add to this TWO super power in the making just anxious to step in and "help" themselves. Does one need to believe in conspirecies when it's obvious that China and Russia would dearly love to see the US decline? I will state here clearly and without reservation, I have no problem fighting for my economic life and I have no problem seeing people die because of it. If Canada was the main source of oil or food on the planet, then only a fool or an idiot would believe that the rest of the world would not kill us if we tried to control them with it. It's about survival. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 1, 2007 12:15:22 GMT -5
And the majority of the West population will believe pretty much any spin the U.S. administration puts on it via CNN and Fox News.
And then it's flip back quickly to catch the latest on what's really important: Anna Nicole Smith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2007 12:33:06 GMT -5
And what makes you think that this was an "accident"? C'mon BC, use your well oiled lateral thinking. You know what they say.......... If you want to kill the shark, you send in lure to bring it to you. It, being a shark, does not and will not see the difference between bait and food. The Nimitz carrier group is steaming for the Persian Gulf next week to join the Stennis and Eisenhower group. ;D Brilliant lateral thinking... my only question is, who is doing the fishing? Let's see, the Iranians float a trial balloon last year, using their proxy fanatics in Lebanon to provoke a much more powerful military into a fight, just to see how well that works. To the amazement of all, it works rather successfully. So now, they do the exact same thing, this time on their home turf, with much larger stakes. The sharks are coming, they've taken the bait. As with Hezbollah and Israel, the Iranians have no intention of trying to beat the US and/or UK militarily. They're fighting much smarter than that. The Hezbollah won the war only in their minds and those that believe they won. By any other account, they lost. Their people live in ruins and they live by begging for money. GREAT victory.  If that is the type of war that Iran can win, then it's fine by me. It's a fallacy to think that regimes can not self implode. The Greek junta did it in 76 the Russians regime did it in 92 amd so on. You don't have to destroy the country to break a regimes back. The younger Iranians are getting totally fed up with the mullahs and their Blackshirts (revolutionary gaurd). If this is handled carefully enough, the Iranian people will finish the job. And to top it off, out goes Chaney and the Bush administration blunderers and in comes one of the best geo-tactician on the planet. Iran has a population of close to 70 million, more than double Iraq's. The Iraqis were never known for being overly enthusiastic fundamentalists, whereas a significant proportion of Iranians are. Any war with Iran may be won on the battlefield, but it will be lost just about everywhere else. You are assuming that the US is going to go for a ground invasion. They don't have to. All they have to do is keep the military pressure up and make the Iranians react more and more. What has the seizure of the Brits? NOTHING. It's letting things stew until things get out of control. Call it the Reagan Doctrine........and it worked to perfection with Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 1, 2007 14:19:42 GMT -5
After Iraq, I'm amazed that anyone could still think a military conflict with Iran would be a good thing. How can the Democrats lambaste the Bush administration for going into Iraq while tacitly supporting the buildup to a war with Iran?? It's no wonder 60% of Americans don't vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 1, 2007 14:35:44 GMT -5
Any war with Iran will have the US sitting on the sidelines supplying Israel with whatever they need to get the job done ... Israel will have absolutely NO reservations about wiping Iran off the map, world politics be damned. They wouldn't even bat an eyelash at the thought of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 1, 2007 15:29:58 GMT -5
A conflict has never been won using a strategy of air strikes only... they have to be won on the ground. Vietnam and Iraq are two recent examples. The US is stretched so thin in terms of finances, manpower and political will that a pre-emptive strike against Iran would be a disaster. Do you really think Iran is sitting there and saying "come and bomb us". This country is far more prepared than Iraq. In addition, the US spent most of its global good will. Other than small pockets of support, the US is perceived as an aggressor who is using its military power to protect a low cost oil supply (and an opulent lifefstyle) at the expense of the Arab and Persian worlds). And don't forget, Iran has close ties to Russia and China. I don't think we can imagine the consequences of a bombing Iran. And to top it off, out goes Chaney and the Bush administration blunderers and in comes one of the best geo-tactician on the planet. Who is this geo-tactician HA? (I refuse to call you leafsrule  |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Apr 1, 2007 15:38:07 GMT -5
As an Iranian friend of mine once told me "Everything in Iran is political". With that in mind, I'm beginning to wonder if this whole issue is a matter of internal politics rather than just baiting Great and Little Satan.
It's pretty common knowledge that the system of checks and balances in Iran consists of the secular vs the religious executive, each with moderate and extremist elements. It's down to Ahmadinejad who is supported by the IRG and the Basij, vs the religious authority as personified by Al Khamenei - a comparative moderate who supported Ahmadinejad's predecessor's policy of dialogue with the West.
I'm been thinking about the real reason behind of all this and why now. What if Ahmadinejad's fiscal recklessness and unpredictable foreign policy are starting to create problems internally? Perhaps some of the more moderate mullahs are now starting to openly question some of his policies? What better way to maintain or extend power than by creating an external crisis? Even better if you can control events to a certain extent. If that is the case, then the seizure of H.M.S. Cornwall's boarding party is an astute political move to counter any opposition, imo. If you consider the Embassy hostage crisis and the subsequent Iran-Iraq war as examples, both served to rally the country around Khomeini, regardless of religious fervour or previous loyalty to the Shah. Ahmadinejad was an active participant in both events and knows how to make this work effectively in an Iran that already has a siege mentality.
My thinking is, then, that by thumbing his nose at Britain and the U.S., not only does he gain prestige internationally, but he especially gets to solidy his authority at home and continue his support for Shia extremism and Syria. Plus, he may just get those five captured Iranians back in an exchange. What better pawns than the British with their limited rules of engagement and reluctance to get further involved in a hugely unpopular war in Iraq? It's also doubtful that a soon to be leaving Blair would want to leave his successor a shooting war with Iran. It also could explain why the Basij and IRG were involved and not the regular Iranian armed forces.
I doubt Palmerston-like gunboat diplomacy is the solution. If anything, any shots fired means Ahmadinejad wins and Iran can potentially become a much more serious adversary. Any country that can enthusiastically and repeatedly send thousands of unarmed children walking hand in hand across a battlefield to set off land mines, as they did against Iraq, deserves careful consideration and likely won't be intimidated by three carrier groups off the coast or the threat of an air strike.
Being patient is a win-win, imo. If Iran (read IRG) harms the hostages or provokes further hostilities, the moderates win and could force a change. As HA alluded to, economics and Gulf politics means time is not on Ahmadinejad's side. Meanwhile, the British and Americans were simply outwitted.
|
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Apr 1, 2007 16:11:10 GMT -5
I remember Reagan bombing Libya and Khadafi back to the Stoneage in one day. 22 years later and they still have not recovered. That was in response to the Terrorist Bombing of A United States airliner over Lockerbee, Scotland. This kidnapping of soldiers worked against Israel and should not be allowed to stand unpunished by the Brits. China and Russia will do nothing, because Great Britain is on the moral high ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 1, 2007 16:19:31 GMT -5
Any war with Iran will have the US sitting on the sidelines supplying Israel with whatever they need to get the job done ... Israel will have absolutely NO reservations about wiping Iran off the map, world politics be damned. They wouldn't even bat an eyelash at the thought of it. You are right: Israel would call it self-preservation; the Arab world would call it unjustified aggression. Reading The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood by Rushid Khalidi. Not very flattering. The Palestinians are pawns in the hands of the Arab world -- Iran, Jordan, the Saudis have no use for the Palestinians other than to use them for political points. Palestine is just a place to direct Israeli attention and weaken their defenses (doesn't say this in the book [yet], just my feeling) and it works. If the Arab world really cared about the Palestinians (not the cause, the people) then they'd be supporting with food and resources, not just guns. Of course, the Israelis haven't done anything to help their own cause, through non-negotiation and aggression. The few Palestinians I know who managed to escape Israel (where they worked in peace just scant years ago) spit on the ground at the mention of Israel, where once they were proud to live there. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 1, 2007 16:29:19 GMT -5
I remember Reagan bombing Libya and Khadafi back to the Stoneage in one day. 22 years later and they still have not recovered. That was in response to the Terrorist Bombing of A United States airliner over Lockerbee, Scotland. This kidnapping of soldiers worked against Israel and should not be allowed to stand unpunished by the Brits. China and Russia will do nothing, because Great Britain is on the moral high ground. Moral high ground nothing. If it suits them they'll be there. If they can gain an advantage they'll be there. Besides, what morality are you talking about? Sorry, bombing Libya back to the stone age does not strike me as being highly moral: "let's make 'em pay, let's make 'em all pay, just for living there". Justifies 9-11 from the other side, if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2007 16:31:30 GMT -5
And to top it off, out goes Chaney and the Bush administration blunderers and in comes one of the best geo-tactician on the planet. Who is this geo-tactician HA? (I refuse to call you leafsrule Robert Gates. The plan in it's simplest form is to devide Iran and Iraq into smaller and less threatening states. Much like his CIA training dictates, he intends to do this by engaging Iran on multiple fronts and without any rhetoric or fanfair. The lack of White House rhetoric is telling me that his influence and plans are well past the planning stage. What to look for now is quiet from the White House, what looks like pro-Arab support and what appears to be American distancing from Israeli support. What will be happening behind the scenes is more secterian violance, support from Arab states for anti-Iranian action, support for radical groups inside and outside Iran and Syria and possibly a shooting war or at least some kind of violance between Arab states. Devide and rule by Reagan Doctrine. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2007 16:39:20 GMT -5
I remember Reagan bombing Libya and Khadafi back to the Stoneage in one day. 22 years later and they still have not recovered. That was in response to the Terrorist Bombing of A United States airliner over Lockerbee, Scotland. This kidnapping of soldiers worked against Israel and should not be allowed to stand unpunished by the Brits. China and Russia will do nothing, because Great Britain is on the moral high ground. Nobody has ever sided with the people that bomb them. Short of a nuclear response, Britain can not do anything of significance and most probably will make matters worse. However, this action does wonders for anti-Iranian, pro war feelings amongst the Brits and fringes the pacifists. Calls of cowardice in the face of the enemy and appeasement do not and will not sit well with ANY Brit. A shark will always be a shark and it can not help but take the bait. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2007 16:45:22 GMT -5
I doubt Palmerston-like gunboat diplomacy is the solution. If anything, any shots fired means Ahmadinejad wins and Iran can potentially become a much more serious adversary. Any country that can enthusiastically and repeatedly send thousands of unarmed children walking hand in hand across a battlefield to set off land mines, as they did against Iraq, deserves careful consideration and likely won't be intimidated by three carrier groups off the coast or the threat of an air strike. Being patient is a win-win, imo. If Iran (read IRG) harms the hostages or provokes further hostilities, the moderates win and could force a change. As HA alluded to, economics and Gulf politics means time is not on Ahmadinejad's side. Meanwhile, the British and Americans were simply outwitted. A direct shooting war is not Gates favorite course of action and it goes against the Reagan Doctrine. Keep the pressure up, show force but don't use it overtly and beat the enemy within. Reagan Doctrine.......
Under the Reagan Doctrine, the U.S. provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist resistance movements in an effort to "rollback" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to serve the dual purposes of diminishing Soviet influence in these regions of the world, while also potentially opening the door for democracy in nations that were largely being governed by Soviet-supported autocrats. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 1, 2007 17:26:25 GMT -5
I remember Reagan bombing Libya and Khadafi back to the Stoneage in one day. 22 years later and they still have not recovered. That was in response to the Terrorist Bombing of A United States airliner over Lockerbee, Scotland. This kidnapping of soldiers worked against Israel and should not be allowed to stand unpunished by the Brits. China and Russia will do nothing, because Great Britain is on the moral high ground. Moral high ground nothing. If it suits them they'll be there. If they can gain an advantage they'll be there. Besides, what morality are you talking about? Sorry, bombing Libya back to the stone age does not strike me as being highly moral: "let's make 'em pay, let's make 'em all pay, just for living there". Justifies 9-11 from the other side, if you ask me. Not only that, but Britain has no grounds whatsoever for their claim that they were not trespassing in Iranian waters, since the boundary between Iraqi and Iranian waters has never been agreed upon by the two countries. The boundary that Britain claims not to have crossed is pure fiction. It exists only in their imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 1, 2007 17:29:10 GMT -5
Reagan Doctrine.......
Under the Reagan Doctrine, the U.S. provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist resistance movements in an effort to "rollback" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to serve the dual purposes of diminishing Soviet influence in these regions of the world, while also potentially opening the door for democracy in nations that were largely being governed by Soviet-supported autocrats. Yeah, that worked out sooooo well in Afghanistan, didn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 1, 2007 17:50:27 GMT -5
Where have all the cowboys gone, anyways? The last great one is currently serving in the White House. Possibly the worst decision since Israel's interpretation of the Belfour Declaration. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2007 19:16:03 GMT -5
Reagan Doctrine.......
Under the Reagan Doctrine, the U.S. provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist resistance movements in an effort to "rollback" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to serve the dual purposes of diminishing Soviet influence in these regions of the world, while also potentially opening the door for democracy in nations that were largely being governed by Soviet-supported autocrats. Yeah, that worked out sooooo well in Afghanistan, didn't it? Neocon exuberence for a "New World Order" rather then Reagan Doctrine. On the other hand, you can't enact a doctrine form an office chair ten thousand miles away. Russia was surrounded by the West, Iran is surrounded by Iraq and Afganistan. |
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Apr 1, 2007 20:37:31 GMT -5
Britain was not doing anything to the Iranian's. They are just using this b.s. kidnapping to gain points in the Arab world. These "dogs" need to be muzzled and this is a perfect opportunity to do so. No need to invade, just hit their nuclear program and armed forces, plus take out the top Mullah's while their at it. If they still want to bark after that, then hit them harder and let them sleep in their rubble.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 1, 2007 20:54:58 GMT -5
Then they can wait 13 years for a Conservative Prime Minister to get them out. I remember the last Canadian, being held in Saudi Arabia. It was the British Ambassador who got him freed. The Liberal governments here did nothing! I still remember Bill Graham gingerly coming down the steps of parliament to announce Bill Sampson's release ... and taking credit for it. In fact, the only two-word phrase Sampson had for the Canadian representative at the airport would be in violation of this board's code of conduct. BTW, it was Prince Charles who intervened directly. Benjamin Netanyahu should win the next Israeli general election especially because of the black eye Israeli troops took against Hezbollah. He said he'll take out the Iranian nuclear program in it's entirety if it poses a threat to his country. And since the Iranian leader has already stated that Israel should not exist ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 1, 2007 21:04:01 GMT -5
The Hezbollah won the war only in their minds and those that believe they won. By any other account, they lost. Their people live in ruins and they live by begging for money. GREAT victory. If that is the type of war that Iran can win, then it's fine by me. No sure about that, HA. Hezbollah took on a country that defeated the combined Arab armies of several countries in several wars and easily beat them. But, it was the first time Israeli forces really had no strategy. They basically walked into Hezbollah sights (direct quote from Netanyahu). They won't make that mistake again, especially withe the rest of the Arab world watching. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Apr 1, 2007 21:18:32 GMT -5
All of the bleeding hearts want to give Iran the benefit of the doubt. They play with the Liberal minded with that scenereo all day and all night long. We don't need to waste forces on them. Just blow up most of their important infrastructure and let them use the next 20 years to get back to where they are now. There is a lot of bitterness from many in Iran, against the current regime Use a surgical strike of all of their military capability and the little guys may take the que to overthrow this regime.
|
|
