Can we say "Gulf of Tonkin" now?

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10724

Aye! We need more commodores like the ones who chased Captain Jack Sparrow. Savy?

Thanks Bryan! The Jihad needs more like you!

Blah ... not to repeat myself, but Iran's been the target all along. Surround via Afghanistan and Iraq and give the mullachracy a squeeze. The insurgents in Iraq have pushed us beyond our hopeful, initial time table and now the Iranians are taking advantage.

Feel free to thank the Dems, as well, for all the progress reducing squabbling.

... in all fairness, I'm sure, militarily, our plans/execution could have been better.

"Thanks Bryan! The Jihad needs more like you!"

I think at last count the islmofascists had something like 60+% of the poll respondents supporting them.

Great Britain no longer exists. In her place, we now have a Frail Britain thanks to the Socialists/ Liberals that are rotting her from within.

In his conversation with Dr. Bill Bennett this week, Sen. Jon Kyl made an interesting comment. Sen. Kyl asserted that there are those on the left that believe that the U.S. needs to be 'slapped down' (aka lose military conflicts) periodically so that we are less apt to assert ourselves on the world stage. Given the recent polls that showed that 34% of the Democrats surveyed hoped that the surge would fail, I believe Sen. Kyl may indeed have a valid point.

Is there a single spine left in London?

The left will not get it until they are forced to wear a Burka and eat Hummus and Baba Ghanouj all day. Wait. They eat Hummus and Baba Ghanouj now?>

Poll Question: Do you support the unsurgency killing Iraqie women and children?

The liberal party in England dismatled the military just like the lefties tried to do here. ww

The left may not get it, but they can remember. Can't believe the justice dept, can't remember shit. Kyle claimed 122 times yesterday he couldn't remember. Sounds like maybe something in the water is screwing up the memories there. Is there a single spine left in the justice dept?

You, sir, are a yellow cur!

The latest report is that the Britons were ready to fight off their abductors. ... However, at the last minute the British Ministry of Defense ordered the Cornwall not to fire, and her captain and crew were forced to watch their shipmates led away into captivity. ... He [Blair] has been a consistent "softliner" on Iran's nuclear program, supporting the Europeans' search for a diplomatic solution and repeatedly insisting that any military options be taken off the table.

They might as well slash their military budget. It is useless to have a Ministry of Defense if you don't have the will to defend yourself.

And yet -- no weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower. In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn 1978 (Harvard address)

bryanD, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a respone to a supposed attack from North Vietnam on American forces, but was in effect American forces shooting at nothing but open water and radar ghosts. That the Democratic President and Democratic Congress upped this to get us in Vietnam probably escaped your reasoning.

No, this incident is closer to the Pueblo incident, in that naval forces were captured in international waters unlawfully. Further, the Pueblo was captured by the DPRK at the instigation of the Soviets to get at a cryptographic machine and its key that was onboard to match the one they got from the spy John Walker. If anything, this shows that you don't know much about history, and further shows that you are willing to use this lack of knowledge. The fact that seizing assets of one country is an act of war also escapes you.

You didn't expect bryanDirtbag to know that did you M'60?

Hey Bryan, you ever hear of "Gulf of Tonkin"? Google It!

Mikey60

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was an excuse for war; so is this, potentially.

And these weren't "international waters", but "disputed", ideal for "incidents" to occur.

Your Pueblo analogy is false, so irrelevant.

kevino-I happen to love that speech. I'll see your Solzhenitsyn quote-and raise you an Ayn Rand-

Observe the nature of today's alleged peace movements. Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, they keep screaming the the nuclear-weapons race should be stopped, that armed force should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity. Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist specturm, from welfare statism to socialism to fascism to communism. This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed.

Consider the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the brutality, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter perpetrated by dictatorships. Yet this is what today's alleged peace-lovers are willing to advocate or tolerate-in the name of love for humanity.

The waters were only "disputed" by the people who kidnapped the British sailors.

International agreements settled the matter long ago; the waters were recognized as Iraqi territory, so that not only were the British clearly not guilty of "trespass", the Iranians clearly were guilty of an incursion into Iraqi waters.

My favorite quote on this issue so far:

Another American official yesterday said that plans were underway to move rapidly to escalate economic pressure and other measures on the Iranians. "The Iranians are going to be shocked to find out how badly they have miscalculated," this official said. "Remember, Jimmy Carter is not the president of the United States these days."

Of course, by not interfering, the Brits have left it absolutely clear that Iran was the aggressor.

Ghost Force (Hardcover)
by Patrick Robinson

http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Force-Patrick-Robinson/dp/0060746912/ref=bxgy_cc_b_img_b/102-7228079-8282528?ie=UTF8&qid=1175280213&sr=1-4

in which a debilitated Royal Navy cannot retake the Falklands after a second Argentine invasion. Most of the techincal details about the disability are, unfortunately, true.

Mr. Definition(sic) typed,
"International agreements settled the matter long ago"

A link?

"It is up to each country to decide their borders," said Farhan Haq, a U.N. spokesman. "The United Nations does not draw borders"

"Tehran and the new Iraqi government have never signed a treaty to replace the Shah of Iran's agreement with Saddam, meaning control of the waterway remains a matter of dispute...The problem is that nobody knows where the border is," Potter said. "The British might have thought they were on their side, the Iranians might have thought they were on their side."

http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/032407dnintiranbritain.d2fc20f.html

It is amazing the lengths of which bryanD will go to apologize and make excuses for a corrupt, rogue regime like Iran at the expense of a country like England.

I guess it should be expected from such a feeble mind that also thinks 9/11 was an inside job.

Your opinions are worthless bryanD, you have no objectivity.

Ahhhhh, but he has an objective: Defeat the Weat!

errr ... West.

J.R.,
What exactly is corrupt about Iran?

You don't know?

Ah.

You don't care.

This is a pathetic end to a great nation. One who withstood Hitler on her own! Yes, her glory days are gone, at least for the time being. All I ask is that if you're not in Iraq to win, get the hell out. We don't need our allies giving us more trouble than the terrorists...

bryanD,
What exactly is not corrupt about Iran?

Rory:

Thank you. That's a good one.

That Iran claims something doesn't make it so. Why defer to them so happily?

The sailors captured can *not* be considered spies as they were in uniform. Trespass, even if it were true and not Iran seeing how far it can push, does not make anyone into spies.

Taking a woman out of her uniform (the men are still wearing theirs) and making her wear a head-covering is so much as calling her a whore and is as offensive as if they'd stripped her bare and paraded her in front of the cameras naked.

At what point do we get to insist that other cultures respect the west, respect us? Why do we have to bend over and take it and mewl and grovel when it comes to their sensibilities yet expect absolutely nothing when it comes to their burden to understand and respect our culture?

And if she says, fine, whatever, give me the bloody head scarf and a cigarette, it doesn't change the statement about women as property and about their value. Not only should women here and in Britt

And it's beyond shameful that the sailors were allowed to be taken. They are made subject to public ridicule and a public spectacle (against the GC there, ain't it) and humiliated as people look at what they are doing, cooperating with their captors, making statements, apologies, and all sorts of things that the GC says they don't have to do and which soldiers and sailors have suffered incredible and prolonged torture to avoid doing in the past.

Considering that they were abandoned by their leadership I don't expect them to even *have* to be tortured or hurt or threatened into statements, but it doesn't change how a lot of people see them for it. It's like getting screwed over again and again. First by your commanders and then by everyone else.

Not only should women here and in England be upset, but men should too, since declaring property is declaring that women here don't belong to you either, even if we don't see "belong" in the same way.

Bryand: ""It is up to each country to decide their borders," said Farhan Haq, a U.N. spokesman. "The United Nations does not draw borders."

Ha ha ha!

Bryand continues to impress with his ability to demonstrate profound ignorance.

Bryand, I suggest you google "Law of the Sea Treaty", read up on it's rules, and note who the signatories are.

Of course, I know this will be difficult for you as you spend all your time linking to "reputable" sites like "anti-war.com" and PRAVDA!!!

Pravda! Old habits are hard to break, aren't they bryand?

drago:
Territorial waters are 12 (?) miles out and dependent on other factors as well. BOTH sides are claiming the area. Not considered open sea.

Again, you are missing the context, BryanD

Or willfully equating Iran and Iraq and moral equals.

Either way, you are amusing but very, very far from accurate or convincing.

"Or willfully equating Iran and Iraq and moral equals."

That's fairly accurate as far as putting the kabosh on the PNAC blueprint for war.