« The House Democrats Get Enough Votes to Pass Surrender Bill | Main | Tony Snow to Undergo Surgery »

Iran Holds 15 British Sailors and Marines Hostage

The Iranians said the 15 British sailors and marines were in Iranian waters. The British say they were in Iraqi waters. I'd believe the Brits over the Iranians any day of the week.

Iran says it took 15 British servicemen hostage at gunpoint because they had crossed into Iranian waters.


The eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Marines were seized by Iranian troops while carrying out a routine inspection in what the British say were Iraqi waters.

According to reports on Iran state television, the British envoy has been summoned to the foreign ministry in Iran to discuss the "illegal entry into Iranian waters of military personnel".

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has asked Iran for "a full explanation" for the detention of the British servicemen and demanded their "immediate and safe return".

They were taking part in a routine operation boarding merchant ships when they were taken captive by Iranian naval vessels.

The Iranian ambassador Rasoul Movahedian was summoned to the Foreign Office in London following the seizure in what was described as a "brisk but cordial" meeting.

Mrs Beckett said: "We have asked for a full explanation on what has happened and we are leaving them in no doubt that we want the immediate and safe return of our personnel and their equipment.



TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iran Holds 15 British Sailors and Marines Hostage:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Britain: Iran seizes 15 sailors, marines

Comments (77)

They may want to this "misu... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

They may want to this "misunderstanding" sorted right quick.

Tolerance for Iran is running a little short these days.

The story COULD be as descr... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

The story COULD be as described, but remember the SAS commandos dressed in Arab clothing and black wigs? Dig beyond my Establishment link, and you'll find they were driving a car bomb. Delivery intercepted. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/20/wirq20.xml

Fark off, bryanD. Let the r... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Fark off, bryanD. Let the rational people mull over an act of war by Iran, tinfoil is not required at the moment.

bryanDirtbag you are dumber... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

bryanDirtbag you are dumber they people give you credit for. You are getting worst then those that go by the name moose-lums. Scumbag.

Iran has been emboldened by... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Iran has been emboldened by the Bush Doctrine. The British have already announced their bug-out, and every day our capacity to respond is diminished by attrition and poor planning in Iraq.

Our only hope, is the Democrats.

JI: Can you "mull" on the w... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

JI: Can you "mull" on the way to a recruitment office. The S/sgt on duty will be happy to buck you up when you get there. They'll by you lunch and put you on a plane and you can be bending over by this time tomorrow.

Barney, if the democraps ar... (Below threshold)
Jay:

Barney, if the democraps are our only hope, then we're in deep shit.

BarneyG2000:<b... (Below threshold)

BarneyG2000:

Iran has been emboldened by the Bush Doctrine. The British have already announced their bug-out, and every day our capacity to respond is diminished by attrition and poor planning in Iraq.

Our only hope, is the Democrats.

If I didn't know you better, so to speak, I'd think that post was meant as parody. Would that it were!

Iran has been embo... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
Iran has been emboldened by the Bush Doctrine.

In english please.

The British have already announced their bug-out, and every day our capacity to respond is diminished by attrition and poor planning in Iraq.

That would explain the surge. And that it's working.

And contrary to popular belief, our capacity to respond is alive, well, and deadly.

Our only hope, is the Democrats.

Our only hope, perhaps. For what? I have no idea.

Iran has been emboldened... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Iran has been emboldened by the Bush Doctrine.

Yet voting on timetables, denouncing the war, revealing secret programs, bashing the military in the press, calling the President "Hitler", calling for the closing of Gitmo, all of that and much, much more does NOT embolden terrorists? Yep, makes perfect sense.

Our only hope, is the Democrats.

Ah, and all finished off by eviscerating a perfectly good sentence with a comma splice.

"..calling for the closing ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"..calling for the closing of Gitmo,.." funny you should write that Peter. Here is what Sec Gates has to say on that:

Mr. Gates urged that trials of terrorism suspects be moved to the United States, both to make them more credible and because Guantánamo's continued existence hampered the broader war effort, administration officials said.

Mr. Gates's arguments were rejected after Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and some other government lawyers expressed strong objections to moving detainees to the United States, a stance that was backed by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, administration officials said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/washington/23gitmo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


Incase you missed it; here is the money quote:
Guantánamo's continued existence hampered the broader war effort,

Barney: "Iran has been embo... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Barney: "Iran has been emboldened by the Bush Doctrine."

Well, gee, that certainly explains the Iranian seizure of the American Embassy in 1979....Wait... maybe it's just a tad more complicated than that.......nah, that was the fault of the Bush Doctrine.

Barney: "The British have already announced their bug-out, and every day our capacity to respond is diminished by attrition and poor planning in Iraq."

Uh, yeah, right. Our "capacity to respond is diminished by attrition and poor planning in Iraq".

Absolutely correct. It would be so much easier to respond if we "redeployed" all of our troops back to America (or, even better, Okinawa!!)

Of course, none of this is true, but isn't playing fun?

"And contrary to popular be... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"And contrary to popular belief, our capacity to respond is alive, well, and deadly." Herald

You want to explain that to us?

What is going to happen to the 150K soldiers in Iraq, when Iran invades with 500K soldiers? What do think the Shiia in Iraq are going to do when Bush attacks Iran?

Do you think that we can conquer Iran by dropping bombs and sending cruise missiles?

Barney: "You want to explai... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Barney: "You want to explain that to us?"

Well, it can be "explained" to you, but I doubt that he can "comprehend it" for you.

Barney: "What is going to happen to the 150K soldiers in Iraq, when Iran invades with 500K soldiers?"

Well then, we would have to surge about another 100k grounpounders along with no less than 3 CSG's (that's Carrier Strike Groups for guys like you who've never served their country.) You have apparently no understanding of the actual firepower and force-multiplying power the US Military can bring to bear against an untrained, seriously underequipped Iranian force. They are even more of a paper tiger than the formal forces of the former Iraqi Army (including Republican Guards.)


Barney: "What do think the Shiia in Iraq are going to do when Bush attacks Iran?"

"when Bush attacks Iran"?? I thought you just wrote that Iran was going to invade with 500k troops. Can't you keep your ridiculous, contradictory hypotheticals straight?

Barney: "Do you think that we can conquer Iran by dropping bombs and sending cruise missiles?"

Is your scenario now that we are "invading Iran", or that Iran is sending 500k troops into Iraq?

I think people assume when ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

I think people assume when Barney says "our," he means the U.S.

A carefully analysis of his original statement does not show that in the slightest. . .

Conquer - no. But there's ... (Below threshold)

Conquer - no. But there's no real reason to CONQUER Iran.

Obliterate? Definitely. And the Brits have nuclear subs with MIRVs too.

However - I find it difficult to believe that Iran would try to invade Iraq at this point. They've seen what we can do - and so far we really haven't broken out the big stuff.

Barney,Yo... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Barney,

You want to explain that to us?

Yes.

If Iran were to invade Iraq, what do you think would happen to Iran? How much enriched uranium blown into the air does it take to make the place unlivable? Not much.

Do you think that we can conquer Iran by dropping bombs and sending cruise missiles?

I never said to 'conquer', I said to respond, and quite frankly Barney, our capacity for response is far greater than theirs in both power and severity.

Barney: Per usual, and none... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Barney: Per usual, and none to my surprise, you missed the point of my sarcastic post.

You didn't really think bar... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

You didn't really think barneygoogle was smart enough did you? LOL

I think you guys better stu... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I think you guys better study-up on Iran's military capabilities. Iran is not going to sit by and do nothing if Georgie-Boy launches an attack. Iran has a very sophisticated military.

Is it as good as ours? Of course not, but we are not talking Saddam level either.

We have 150M US service men and women that would need protecting. The Persian gulf is not that wide, and Iran could shut it down.

Check out their missiles (ground to air and ground to sea), and attack sub capability.

How in the hell are we going to supply our forces in Iraq with the Gulf shut down? Are we going to fly it all in? Drive in from Saudi Arabia?

Y'know, Barney, people made... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Y'know, Barney, people made similar arguments as to how we could not defeat Saddam's military. They also misunderestimated our capabilities, much as you are doing here.

Barney,The issue i... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Barney,

The issue is this: Iran cannot stand militarily to the U.S. and they damn well know it.

Shut down the Persian Gulf and you've managed to get every country that gets oil from the middle east on the wrong side of the conflict.

Not to mention how to keep it shut down without shattering under the pressure of repeated Coaltion strikes.

They can choose when they want to start the war, but they cannot choose when to end it.

One last thing, Re... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

One last thing,

Remember Barney, we were talking response as per your original post, not "Georgie-Boy" launching an attack.


Everyone have a good weekend.

" 'Our only hope, is the De... (Below threshold)
grammar police:

" 'Our only hope, is the Democrats.'

Ah, and all finished off by eviscerating a perfectly good sentence with a comma splice."

Peter F:

Comma splices join two complete sentences with a comma. Removing the comma, in this case, would not leave you with two complete sentences.

Conclusion: You are a fool, who should not lecture people about their puncuation.

Barney, people made similar... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Barney, people made similar arguments as to how we could not defeat Saddam's military. JI

O-Really! Who would that be? I seem to recall that most people thought we would finish off the Iraq army in weeks (not even months).

Iran has effectively built up their defenses. Saddam's military was seriously eroded by the first Gulf war and ten years of sanctions.

" 'Our only hope, is the De... (Below threshold)
grammar police:

" 'Our only hope, is the Democrats.'

Ah, and all finished off by eviscerating a perfectly good sentence with a comma splice."

Peter F:

Comma splices join two complete sentences with a comma. Removing the comma, in this case, would not leave you with two complete sentences.

Conclusion: You are a fool, who should not lecture people about their puncuation.

Barneygoogle sounds like Al... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Barneygoogle sounds like Alan "eyebrow" Combs. Excuses excuses. When did you get back from Iran barneypoo?

I don't think the question ... (Below threshold)
crazylibs:

I don't think the question is whether the U.S. can win a war with Iran. The question is, is such a war good for America?

Our military is engaged in protecting the new Afghan goverment, and trying to promote stability in Iraq. Those goals would surely be interupted if war with Iran broke out. While I have no doubt we would win, the 400K troops iran has would infelct pretty severe causties before we re-grouped and retaliated.

The damge of that retaliation, would of course be massive, I'm pretty sure would leave Iran in ruins. This would probably further fuel mideast anger at The U.S. and encourage terroist attacks against the U.S. Many radical groups concluding that terroist attacks are the only way possible to strike at America. Our prestige in the world would further diminish as most of the world (Whether it is right or not) would look at the U.S. as the aggressor. This thing would just bad all around.

Barney, Barney, Ba... (Below threshold)
macofromoc:

Barney, Barney, Barney, you're parrotting the same cold war talking points that Libs made during the cold war. The enemy is too strong for us..

Interesting, too that you should bring up Iranian Attack Submarines. Do they posess any Nuclear Attack Subs. I don't wanna hear about any Diesel Power attack Subs. That's so 1940's. Tell us about the successes and failure rates of the missles and rockets. Firing weapons for television cameras is one thing... it impresses people like yourself who are easily impressed by America's enemys.

Comma splices join two c... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Comma splices join two complete sentences with a comma. Removing the comma, in this case, would not leave you with two complete sentences.

No, moron, that's the function of comma; not what a comma splice is.

Our only hope, is the Democrats.'

This is a complete sentence; this is not two independent clauses joined together. For dramatic effect, if he wanted to put a comma in, then he would need to insert a conjunction. The comma is unnecesary and an structural error.

Conclusion: You are a fool, who should not lecture people about their puncuation.

You are an asshat who knows squat.

" 'Comma splices join two c... (Below threshold)
Grammar police:

" 'Comma splices join two complete sentences with a comma. Removing the comma, in this case, would not leave you with two complete sentences.'


You are truly a fucking idiot. Is this the problem with other Republicans, An inability to learn?

Here are some links to help you out.

http://depts.dyc.edu/learningcenter/owl/comma_splices.htm

From that link:

Grammatical Error: This comma splice has two independent clauses or complete sentences joined incorrectly by only a comma.

Reasoning: The first part of the sentence ("Today I am tired") is an independent clause or complete sentence, and the second phrase ("I will take a nap later") is also an independent clause or complete sentence. The two sentences need to be joined by more than just a comma.

A second site:

http://ace.acadiau.ca/english/grammar/comma.htm

From that site:

The grammar crime: Comma splices join two complete sentences with a comma.

Question: How do we know we have a comma splice?

Outlaw
Joey went to the grocery store, he needed to buy eggs for supper.

This sentence is incorrect because "Joey went to the grocery store" and "he needed to buy eggs for supper" are both complete sentences. A comma alone cannot join two sentences.

Your mother was an asshat and you still are a fool who needs to shutup about puntucation.


Peter that's likel... (Below threshold)
macofromoc:

Peter that's likely to leave a nasty bruise

Comma AbuseCommas in... (Below threshold)
macofromoc:

Comma Abuse
Commas in the wrong places can break a sentence into illogical segments or confuse readers with unnecessary and unexpected pauses.

12. Don't use a comma to separate the subject from the verb.

An eighteen-year old in California, is now considered an adult. (incorrect)
The most important attribute of a ball player, is quick reflex actions. (incorrect)
13. Don't put a comma between the two verbs or verb phrases in a compound predicate.

We laid out our music and snacks, and began to study. (incorrect)
I turned the corner, and ran smack into a patrol car. (incorrect)
14. Don't put a comma between the two nouns, noun phrases, or noun clauses in a compound subject or compound object.

The music teacher from your high school, and the football coach from mine are married. (incorrect: compound subject)
Jeff told me that the job was still available, and that the manager wanted to interview me. (incorrect: compound object)

15. Don't put a comma after the main clause when a dependent (subordinate) clause follows it (except for cases of extreme contrast).

1. She was late for class, because her alarm clock was broken. (incorrect)
2. The cat scratched at the door, while I was eating. (incorrect)
3. She was still quite upset, although she had won the Oscar. (correct: extreme contrast)

There are five interactive exercises on using commas that you can try:

Wow, so much discussion abo... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Wow, so much discussion about grammar and dramatic pauses. There was an error in my sentence. I used the singular "is" with the plural "Democrats".

Also, a diesel/electric attack sub would be very effective against oil tankers.

Also, a diesel/electric ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Also, a diesel/electric attack sub would be very effective against oil tankers.

Not quite so much as a nuclear attack sub is against diesel/electric.

barneyRUBBLE</stron... (Below threshold)
marc:

barneyRUBBLE

I think you guys better study-up on Iran's military capabilities. Iran is not going to sit by and do nothing if Georgie-Boy launches an attack. Iran has a very sophisticated military.
****
We have 150M US service men and women that would need protecting. The Persian gulf is not that wide, and Iran could shut it down.

First of all RUBBLE, heed your own advice. You "better study-up on Iran's military capabilities" because it's plain to the most casual observer you're clueless and have pulled a few more dingleberries from the area of your sphincter.

Check out their missiles (ground to air and ground to sea), and attack sub capability.

You've been very impressed by the Iranian press releases showing film clips of their "war games" haven't you RUBBLE?

First of all forget any delusions about their missle capability. The two carrier battle groups negates that threat via the four Aegis Cruisers who can detect, track, classify and shootdown any airborne threat to an unclassified range of 250 miles. And BTW their system can do all this "hands off," if need be. Very few or no humans needed when the system is on full auto mode. (although that would never happen)

Secondly... their "attack subs?!!!! Buwahhhhhahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!

Here asshat, this is their sub inventory. They have a "fleet" of three Russian-built Kilo class boats?

They are not, I repeat for possible cranial penetration into your thick, partisan and delusional skull, they are not "attack subs." In fact when any of the three leave their base in the Straits of Hormuz they are under surviellence immediately and continually.

In the event of hostilities their lifespan would be about 10 minutes, or less due to being decades old technology and being so noisy when underway they can be heard hundreds of miles away via sonar the second they turn a screw.

How in the hell are we going to supply our forces in Iraq with the Gulf shut down? Are we going to fly it all in? Drive in from Saudi Arabia?

Shut it down with what RUBBLE?
They attempted the same during the Iraq/Iraq war they failed in the long term. Moreover a shutdown hurts them more than anyone else.

Their "war machine" would grind to a halt because the they have a near zero capability to refine all the oil they possess. They have to import gas and diesel fuel.

A Gulf shutdown is only purposed by clueless idiots such as yourself RUBBLE, and not so incidentally the Mullahs.

Go about other business RUBBLE, this subject is obviously WAY over your head.

marc, tell me what country/... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

marc, tell me what country/company is going to send their tankers through the Gulf in the middle of a war?

because the they have a nea... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

because the they have a near zero capability to refine all the oil they possess. marc

According to Oil and Gas Journal, Iran has a combined capacity of 1.64 million bbl/d. Major refineries include: Abadan (400,000-bbl/d capacity); Isfahan (265,000 bbl/d); Bandar Abbas (232,000 bbl/d); Tehran (225,000 bbl/d); Arak (150,000 bbl/d); and Tabriz (112,000 bbl/d). Gasoline demand is forcasted to be growing at around 11.4 percent per year. Other crude oil refineries are in Kermanshah, Shiraz and Lavan Island.

I guess "zero capability" is not what it use to be?

Stop barney...your strawman... (Below threshold)
marc:

Stop barney...your strawman is stuffed to bursting level.

There will be no war.

For arguments sake if there was the Iran/Iraq tanker war is instructive here also.

First of all no "countries" send oil thru the Gulf, companies do.

And even if they did 80% of the WORLD's oil flows thru the Straits of Hormuz. Do you really believe the Mullahs want to go that route to piss off all those countries, many that are sitting on the sidelines of the current dispute, but would be added to the chorus of those advocating the removal of the Mullahs?

Secondly, few if any companies ceased transport of oil in the tanker war. All tankers were escorted from point of origin thru the Gulf and the Straits and into the Arabian Sea by U.S. and allied navies.

Did the flow of oil slow" Yes. Did it stop? NO.

And I'll also note in your sad knee jerk reaction to being made fool of for a complete lack of knowledge of Iranian capabilities you ignore Iran's lack of oil refining facilities.

Again, there will be no war, and there will be no blockage of the Straits of Hormuz.

"you ignore Iran's lack of ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"you ignore Iran's lack of oil refining facilities." marc???

Are you talking about the nine refineries they don't have?

Installations and capabilities of NIORDC:
Nine crude oil refineries in Tehran , Tabriz , Isfahan , Abadan , Kermanshah , Shiraz , Bandar Abbas , Arak and Lavan Island .

Our only hope, is the De... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Our only hope, is the Democrats.

I stand corrected. This sentence is NOT a comma splice. I was under the poor assumption that a comma splice could also be an inappropriately placed comma. I was wrong.

However, the sentence still contains a uselessly retarded unnecessary comma.

P.S. "Shut up" is two words per m.w.com. So there... ;-p~~~~

Peter that's likely to leave a nasty bruise

No, not really.

OK asshat, at least you cou... (Below threshold)
marc:

OK asshat, at least you could be honest enough to QUOTE me not MISQUOTE me.

My words, near zero your quote of my words zero capability

So, on that note you can go screw yourself. And I say that with the possibility you may actually enjoy it.

You can post there list of refining facilities til your blue in the face, it means exactly dog squat.

Director of the International Affairs Department at National Iranian Oil Company Hojatollah Ghanimifard had recently put the average gasoline imports in the first four months of the year (started March 21) at 13.5 million liters a day, which showed an increase of 52.5 percent compared to the figure within the same period the previous year.

Government had had to pay dlrs 316 million for the imports in the said period, which has been unprecedented in history of gasoline imports by the country.

Iran's refining capability in NEAR ZERO in relation to waht they need just to keep ars and trucks on the road and by extension food in the markets.

Google "irans fuel use" there's a lot more to lay your arguement to waste.

And here's the complete and utter destruction of your delusional idea of a Gulf shutdown by Iran:

Iran 'facing disaster' over collapsing fuel exports

As I said before, go find something more productive to do, your WAY out of your league on this subject.

"First of all no "countries... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"First of all no "countries" send oil thru the Gulf, companies do." marc

Boy are you striking-out. According to this:
http://www.intertanko.com/about/annualreports/2005/5.html

10% of the tankers are owned by countries.

honest enough to QUOTE me n... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

honest enough to QUOTE me not MISQUOTE me. by marc

Let's look at your statement:

"And I'll also note in your sad knee jerk reaction to being made fool of for a complete lack of knowledge of Iranian capabilities you ignore Iran's lack of oil refining facilities." marc

You said this asshole: "..lack of oil refining facilities". I did not misquote you so apologize or fuck off!

"P.S. "Shut up" is two word... (Below threshold)
grammar police:

"P.S. "Shut up" is two words per m.w.com. So there... ;-p~~~~"

Ahh, so we are even. We'll call it a draw.

If Iran keeps tweaking the ... (Below threshold)
Allen:

If Iran keeps tweaking the tail, so to speak, don't forget we have a President who will tweak back. Hopefully this time it won't be mismanaged. Iran does not have a clue the firepower the US can unleash upon them. Their armed forces would be screwed from the word go.
And if it happens, one well placed small nuke on their capital would solve one hell of a lot of problems.
I don't think Iran is that stupid, but who knows what they might do. We gave their president a entry visa into the US for the UN. We don't have to let him leave. Something to think about, huh?
How are they going to shoot down the stealth bombers when they can't see them on radar, and the radar and command & control will be the first part to go.

Nice diversion asshat! So y... (Below threshold)
marc:

Nice diversion asshat! So you want to move the goalpost to the phrase "lack of oil refining facilities"

"Lack:"

1. deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary: lack of money; lack of skill.
2. something missing or needed: After he left, they really felt the lack. -verb (used with object)
3. to be without or deficient in: to lack ability; to lack the necessities of life.
4. to fall short in respect of: He lacks three votes to win. -verb (used without object)

Hmmm, lets see.. Iran is "deficient" of oil refining facilities.

Yep it works for me. And so does "deficiency or absence of something needed" I.E. Iran does not and has no future prospects to meet their refining needs.

Wanna try moving the goalposts again?

" or absence " That means ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

" or absence " That means ZERO!

1.64 million barrels per day (refining capacity) compared to imports of 13.5 million liters. 1 barrel is equal to 117 litters or 192-million liters.

Is that your definition of near zero?

Just man-up and admit that you are wrong.

Barney: "I think you guys b... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Barney: "I think you guys better study-up on Iran's military capabilities."

Thanks for the advice. Of course, many of us "guys" have studied up on Iran's military capabilities, seeing as how we are military officers with combat experience and staff officer training (in addition to the umpteen courses in history, strategy, and enemy capabilities (by our intel buddies.))

But hey Barney, feel free to keep lecturing us on the unstoppable juggernaut that is the Persian Army. It's really ...uh...entertaining.

Barney: "marc, tell me what country/company is going to send their tankers through the Gulf in the middle of a war?"

Uh, the "middle of the war", as pertains to Naval action in the Gulf, will last about 24 hours, since the total engagement time necessary to wipe out Irans naval assets would only take about 3 days.

Seriously.

Allen: "Iran does not have ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Allen: "Iran does not have a clue the firepower the US can unleash upon them."

Actually Allen, they do have a clear idea of the firepower that can be unleashed upon them, which is why they will continue to "participate" by using intermediaries, front groups, and by selected actions against small allied groups (like the Brits.)

What they would never do is pretty much every scenario that General Barney has offered up (Iran invading Iraq with 500k troops (I almost spit up my Soda when I read that one since it doesn't even pass the "spit-take" test), creating the conditions for a US invasion of Iran(not even a possibility, however, selected military strikes, thats a different story), etc.

Since Barney and guys like him have never served their country, they are unaware of the fact that the Iranian "Leonidas'" are not 10ft tall.

Just the idea of large scale manuevers by Iranian forces engaging with the US conjurs up images of the "Highway of Death" from Gulf War I. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Drago,I hope they ha... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Drago,
I hope they have a clear idea of our firepower, but you also (I may be wrong on this) have to remember that they are still living in the stone age when Mohammad was the all powerful. As much as I hate and detest any armed conflict, this maybe the one that would really be justified.
Pissing off the other Arab countries, yes that may be but I think they would damn well sit up and take notice that the BS is over, clean up the terror acts that they have created.

The Muslim countries need to join our present century, not relive the 13th. In other words, get the fuck out of the stone age or we may send you back there once and for all.

The only thing they respect is power, Iran would be a good proving ground for our power. Watch how fast the Muslims would quit their BS if that did happen.

Now I could be wrong on all of this, but I don't think I am. If I pissed off some lib's, TS, same as the righty's, it's what I think.

Just man-up and admit t... (Below threshold)
marc:

Just man-up and admit that you are wrong.
Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 23, 2007 07:59 PM

Under two conditions, maybe. If I have the time to waste feeding a troll.

1. You first apologise to me for misquoting me THEN diverting attention to another quote to "prove" your point.

2. You apologise to Hojatollah Ghanimifard ( Director of the International Affairs Department at National Iranian Oil Company) for being such a liar in your opinion because obviously YOU know more about Irans problems than he does.

Now go away little boy.

Barney,You're inco... (Below threshold)

Barney,

You're incorrect on multiple points. The fact is that Iran imports much of its refined oil products. The point being is that don't have adequate refinery capacity to sustain themselves (which was the original posters point).

As far as Iran sending in 500k troops...
If this was 1914, you might have a point, but heads up battles (and sending in 500k troops would certainly be heads up) aren't decided by troop counts - they're decided primary be technology and tactics. The Iranian military wouldn't stand a chance in a heads up battle against the U.S. military. The Iranians know this and that's why they're acting through small guerrilla groups such as Hizb'Allah.

OK guy, Iraq was a walk in ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

OK guy, Iraq was a walk in the park. Now let's see what 40MM Iranian insurgents will do. You think that we can secure the Persian Gulf while fighting wars in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, and you call me names? You think that Iran will have problems with fuel, and we wont?

Barney,You have to r... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Barney,
You have to realize that if this would happen, it would be over in less than one week, and Iran would be on it's knees. That is if it's not mismanaged like Iraq has been. Now if it's mismanaged, who knows? But one sure way is to destroy the whole country, just like what happened to Germany and Japan.

Yes, some innocent people would be killed, but they let their leaders, like what is happening here, go their way. With our air power, plus missiles, all going off at once, Iran would not have a chance to squat,shit, & wipe. Also, we are not using our air power or naval power, so to speak, in Iraq, Afghanistan.

I know I'm probably alone on this, but that is why we need a draft, finish high school, 18 years old, men and women, get drafted. No frigging excuse because daddy is a rich wheel, or political connections, etc. They all serve their country. But that will never happen, Demo's hate the military, and the repugs won't serve when they can find someone else to go for them. But what the hell, a person can dream, right?

General Barney: "OK guy, Ir... (Below threshold)
Drago:

General Barney: "OK guy, Iraq was a walk in the park."

Historically speaking, this is accurate. The fact that, as a nation, we CHOOSE not to destroy Iraq like we destroyed Germany and Japan, in no way detracts from this reality. (although, strictly by the numbers, one would have to give some consideration to Henry V at Agincourt. At least I would, but then, I'm a big fan of Shakespeares Hank V)

Barney: "Now let's see what 40MM Iranian insurgents will do."

Again, are you assuming that we would need to conduct a full scale invasion of Iran to secure vital areas of operations? Upon what do you base this assessment?

Barney: "You think that we can secure the Persian Gulf while fighting wars in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, and you call me names?"

We could, in historical terms, quite easily secure the Persian Gulf in just a few days. It would take no more than a few days to completely neutralize Iranian anti-ship missile capability, it's EAD system (that's Enemy Air Defenses for guys like Barney who've never served their country), and obliterate their entire Naval OOB (that's Order of Battle for guys like Barney who've never served their country).

Admiral Barney: "You think that Iran will have problems with fuel, and we wont?"

We could easily conduct operations to seize Iranian Gulf Oil platforms, selected regions with Oil bearing assets, and simply knock off-line all major refining and distribution networks for the Iranian network.

So, yes. Quite simply, to do the above, would not be a huge stretch.

Of course, since Barney believes the Persians are not 10ft tall, but 30ft tall, that this would be impossible.

Note that I am not suggesting we take and hold major Iranian cities. That would simply not be necessary.

For what its worth, I believe all of the above actions would be strategically counter-productive in the short-term since it would enable the already-disliked regime to garner greater internal support. The "military reality on the ground" would be unchanged, but the political position of the Government would be strengthened (again, in the short-term.)

Much better to "threaten" the above actions in private communiques while supporting indigenous revolutionary groups within Iran to keep them off balance.

Truth be told, I really don... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Truth be told, I really don't believe that Barney is actually that stupid.

I just think he simply gets caught up with all the most current "talking points" and lacks the experience and wisdom to see that when he regurgitates them to individuals who have seen more than he, that it's quite easy to shoot him out of the water.

But hey, I get it Barney.

You think the war was a mistake. Pretty much all the leftists agree with you, most of the liberals agree with you, many of the "centrists" (whatever that means to you) agree with you, a disturbing number of "conservatives" (in my opinion) agree with you, and most of the Libertarian-Righties that I know agree with you.

It's just that you are ill-equipped to explain fully why you are "correct".

But thats alright. Whenever I hear you bleating something ridiculous, I can sort of figure out where you might be coming from by recalling critiques I've heard from those who are actually "much more in the know".

IMO, it's not going to take a lifetime to see where these crazy-ass Islamo-fascists are going and what they are capable of.

It's either "1936 all over again", or it's not.

I happen to believe it is.

drago the neo con, you just... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

drago the neo con, you just don't get it. Sure we could hit Iran hard, and disable most of their infrastructure, but then what? Two carrier strike groups and 150K troops in Iraq will defeat Iran?

You are just like Bush. The war will be easy, but what about the post war?

Are we just going walk away? Do you think that Iran will just say "were sorry" "we will be good"? Fat chance! They will strike our interests in Iraq, and then will be right back where we started.

Commodore Barney: "drago th... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Commodore Barney: "drago the neo con,"

Again, neo-con yet remains "undefined". Why? Is it like pornography to a Supreme Court Justice who simply "knows it when he sees it"?

I mean, from the latin, neo- (meaning new), and con- (short for conservative), how is it that I, a lifelong conservative am a "neo-con". I'm much more a "paleo-con" than a "neo-con".

The left keeps using words that have zero functional meaning, rendering them "meaningless", like much of their bombast.

Barney: "you just don't get it. Sure we could hit Iran hard, and disable most of their infrastructure, but then what? Two carrier strike groups and 150K troops in Iraq will defeat Iran?"

Who said anything about "defeating Iran"?

Are you having reading comprehension difficulties? I was speaking directly to your queries regarding
a) securing the gulf while conducting simultaneous operations in other areas
b) protecting our "fuel" resources while disabling theirs
and
c) addressing obvious capabilities of the US vis-a-vis the Iranians in the event of larger scale military operations.

I specifically said we would not need to occupy major Iranian cities nor did I address the criteria for determining "victory".

Barney: "You are just like Bush."

I am much better looking and a better athlete. BTW, you must have missed where I specifically, SPECIFICALLY, stated that it would be better to do to the Iranians what they are trying to do to us: operate via proxies.

Barney: "The war will be easy, but what about the post war?"

The post war? Per the circumstances I outlined above, we would have complete master of the Persian Gulf, we would have more than adequate access to oil supplies, the Iranians would not, the already declining oil revenues the Iranians required would dry up even quicker, we would probably only occupy the few outlying strategic locations for a short period of time prior to exiting and/perhaps demolishing the infrastructure when we left.

Am I going too fast for you?

Barney: "Are we just going walk away?"

We could easily walk away from those areas we had no intention of remaining in for extended periods of time. We would still have mastery over the Gulf.

Barney: "Do you think that Iran will just say "were sorry" "we will be good"? Fat chance!"

Irrelevant. They would be reduced to operations in the one area in which they might still have capability: that of activating, as far as possible, their brethren in Hamas, Hezbollah, selected Shiite militias in Iraq, as well as the Sunni groups they have also supported in Iraq (something the left still can't believe happens.)

Barney: "They will strike our interests in Iraq, and then will be right back where we started."

Right back where we started? Not possible under the above conditions.


Barney, I'd love to stay an... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Barney, I'd love to stay and chat some more, but the lovely and talented Mrs Drago insists, INSISTS MIND YOU, that I retire with her forthwith in order to ...er...discuss serious matters of state......or watch the end of the basketball games presently being shown on your fantastically capable American Cable Telly system.

(My wife is in the cable business, so that last line was a bone I've thrown to her.)

barneyRUBBLE:O... (Below threshold)
marc:

barneyRUBBLE:

OK guy, Iraq was a walk in the park. Now let's see what 40MM Iranian insurgents will do. You think that we can secure the Persian Gulf while fighting wars in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, and you call me names? You think that Iran will have problems with fuel, and we wont?

Short answer... NO!

Long answer, count the number on this list of the top 15 oil importers to the U.S. are in the Arabian Gulf.

One of the small number (SAUDI ARABIA), assuming you can count that high, will do anything it can to increase it's, or others oil production to keep the U.S. supply flowing.

barneyRUBBLE again jumps the logic trains tracks:

"You think that we can secure the Persian Gulf while fighting wars in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, and you call me names?"

How many U.S. Navy ships are on station to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Answer none, with the exception of surv flights and some close air support for troops on the ground.

However there are approx 20-25 U.S. Navy ships (based on 2 carrier groups) to patrol the Arabian Gulf in addition to allied ships and their sole mission is to secure the Gulf.

Again,your clueless about US military matters, their capabilities or why they are in the Gulf.

The Iranians would claim La... (Below threshold)
Carl:

The Iranians would claim Lake Michigan as Iranian waters if they could.

Note, marc, the Israeli gui... (Below threshold)
kim:

Note, marc, the Israeli guided missile ship that the Revolutionary Guards hiy at the outset of the last little dust-up 'over there'.
=================================

I'll remind Barney it took ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I'll remind Barney it took Iran 8 years to subdue Iraq.

It took us a month TWICE to do the same thing. And it's only because we didn't go all out and just level everything.

Barney, there is not a country on the planet who can keep up with us. If we attacked Israel, it wouldn't last long, either. We are so far ahead and so much more advanced than anybody else that it causes problems collaborating with other countries' militaries.

If we decide to unleash a WW II-like attack, we'd level the entire Middle East almost immediately.
-=Mike

I see our village idiot con... (Below threshold)
Richard Romano:

I see our village idiot continues to post here--BarneyG.

America's fault, never mind the Iranian dictatorship that continues to defy the world community, much like Saddam did.

BarneyG, AMF! (Think carefull what this stands for)

"How many U.S. Navy ships a... (Below threshold)
crazylibs:

"How many U.S. Navy ships are on station to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?"


No doubt U.S. ships are capable of doing massive damage, but to win any war you HAVE to send troops on the ground. That means taking troops from Iraq or Afghanistan.

What do you think the result of that will be?

Do you think if we pull troops from Iraq a civil war will not break out? if not, then why do we need a surge?

Do you think the regrouping Taliban might look at it as an opportunity if we pull troops from Afghanistan?

How many troops will it take to defeat the 400 thousand Iranian troops? Have to pull them from somewhere. Then after we win, we have to secure Iran, and Iraq, and Afhanistan. Probably fight an insurgency in Iraq, in Iran, and in Afghanistan.

Do you honestly think fighting a war on 3 fronts is good for the U.S? Do you honestly think this is some kind of walk in the park? Iran's army is a lot stronger than the Iraqi army was. We will suffer far more casulities, We will defeat the Iranina army, but then we will have to secure the peace. How are we going to do that when we are having ( I hope you will grant) difficulty doing this in Iraq? By pulling troops from Iraq and putting them Iran?

What happens when Foreign muslims flock in Iran to meet the crusader? What happens when Even more nations start to look at the U.S. as an aggressive empire?

Sure we can defeat any army in the mideast, but is this really the best option?

crazylibs:No d... (Below threshold)
marc:

crazylibs:

No doubt U.S. ships are capable of doing massive damage, but to win any war you HAVE to send troops on the ground. That means taking troops from Iraq or Afghanistan. What do you think the result of that will be?

Another strawman stuffer. Why continue an argument over something that won't happen?

There will be no Iranian-U.S. ground war.

Got it asshat?

The Israeli ship had missil... (Below threshold)
kim:

The Israeli ship had missile detection and deflection equipment. Originally the Israelis said the ship was off duty and returning to port. Right, ignorant as I am, I saw through that. Later it was disclosed that they were not 'calibrated' for the missile the Iranians sent. Interesting, no? I'll bet the commanders of our four guided missile ships in the Gulf now have their systems 'calibrated'. And I'll bet someone slightly regrets showing their hand.
===========================

"Got it asshat?"Fi... (Below threshold)
crazylibs:

"Got it asshat?"

First off your mother is a whore. Secondly Your sister is a whore and thirdly speculate on the outcome of something is not setting up a strawman it's thinking. You should try it sometime.

Got it asshat?

Whatever happened to your m... (Below threshold)
kim:

Whatever happened to your missile detection and deflection software, crazylibs?
===============================

I don't own any.... (Below threshold)
crazylibs:

I don't own any.

another hostage crisis, the... (Below threshold)
deja vu:

another hostage crisis, they will be used like pawns. iran cant be bombed fast enough

Those damn towle spooks! Wh... (Below threshold)
Metal Marine:

Those damn towle spooks! Who do those sand coons think they are? The british have been by our side and now it's our turn to be by their side!
Iran, watch out for America! We are gonna kick your ass!

To Mark the asshat! Your an... (Below threshold)
Metal Marine:

To Mark the asshat! Your an assbitch! Shut the fu** up and move to Iran sissy!
And if you don't like it! Bring it on punk! I'll knock you past to Persian Gulf maggot!!!

Heralder, your post reminds... (Below threshold)
Noodles:

Heralder, your post reminds me of someone else.

They can choose when they want to start the war, but they cannot choose when to end it.

Does "penciled in" and "mission accomplished" ring a bell? Maybe Iran can't choose when the war will end, but neither can the US and I am really, really sceptical if the US can do anything besides blowing shit up. The initial aim of building up a democracy inside the middle east is getting unlikelier every day and with every further bomb they drop.

The warmongers are firing u... (Below threshold)
J.Monti:

The warmongers are firing up wars with no put out. Preemptive wars are just for killing civilians, there's no other real aim.

The 15 British servicemen a... (Below threshold)
Tarik Hussein:

The 15 British servicemen are a bunch of sissies for "confessing" and "apologising" on Iranian television, and the Iranians are a bunch of creeps for making them (forcing them?) to do so.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy