The Left Slowly Sinks Britain

[jetsetter]

Rue Britannia

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, March 30, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Hostage Crisis: Britain's response to Iran suggests the British lion now keeps its teeth in a jar. Would Winston Churchill have responded to the kidnapping of British sailors by running to the League of Nations?

Time was, the HMS Cornwall or any other British warship would have simply blown the Iranian motorboats that seized 15 British sailors out of the water. But these are the days when Western leaders run to the United Nations seeking meaningless resolutions of condemnation.

The problem with the West is we never get it. We never grasp the fact that appeasement, conciliation and endless negotiation do not work and that the only time documents achieve peace is when the words at the top read "unconditional surrender."

It's been 28 years since our embassy hostages were paraded on Iranian TV, and it was that weakness on our part that had tragic consequences for decades to come, culminating in the attacks of 9/11. This time it's British sailors, and every enemy from Osama in his cave to Ahmadinejad in his bunker is taking notes.

Maybe it's fitting that the British sailors were kidnapped almost literally under the guns of the Cornwall. If so ordered, the frigate could have blown the Iranian Revolutionary Guard flotilla out of the water.

Along with her sister ships Cumberland, Chatham and Campbell, Cornwall is slated to be mothballed as the British government does what no foreign enemy could ever do — sink the Royal Navy.

Two months ago, Britain announced that almost half its fleet of 44 warships will be mothballed due to defense budget cuts. British naval forces have been so degraded it is doubtful they could pull off 1982's Falkland Islands mission today.

This time next year, according to plans, the British navy that once ruled the seas will be roughly the size of the Belgian navy. According to the London Daily Telegraph, the cuts "will turn Britain's once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defense force."

Last month, Blair announced that 1,600 British troops will return from Iraq in the next few months, further reducing Britain's presence to about 5,500. At their highest point shortly after the defeat of Saddam Hussein, British forces numbered over 40,000. The world's fifth-largest economy now supports an army 28th in size.

The mullahs in Iran clearly see today's Britain, beset at home with threats of terror, as a weak link in the war on terror. They have their own domino theory: Pry Britain away from the coalition of the willing, and it will speed up America's decline as well.

The commitment to defend freedom is not a school dance; no nation can afford to say it's tired and will just sit this one out. Britain should know this from its own experience. No piece of paper, no capitulation to tyrants, ever brings peace in our time.

Britain has stood with us and often stood alone with us. To be fair, she now hears voices in America calling for retreat from Iraq, even from the world stage, and sees her ally going wobbly. It would behoove us both to remember the words of Winston Churchill in another dark hour when the West faced another gathering storm:

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

I'm less concerned about the Iran/Iraq situation than I am about the reduction of Britain's armed forces. This is not the time to be timid and withdraw into one's self.

[Firecat]

Alright, because everything, with the exception of the state of the British armed forces, is a load of garbage.

Negotiations and diplomacy can be just as successful (or unsuccessful) as war, but for the most part they go hand in hand.

There are reasons why the British can't blow the Iranians out of the water over this recent situation. For one, it's not even clear whether they were actually in Iraqi or Iranian waters to begin with.

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly;

That's not even applicable to Iraq, let alone Iran.

[nomix]

What he said.

I am a firm believer of having strong armed forces, but today, with only the possibilty of terrorist acts, and some illegal fishing to take care of, not a cold war and a Red treath to the east, having a very extensive Navy isn't what I'd put at number one, in front of social conditions and such.

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by nomix

What he said.

I am a firm believer of having strong armed forces, but today, with only the possibilty of terrorist acts, and some illegal fishing to take care of, not a cold war and a Red treath to the east, having a very extensive Navy isn't what I'd put at number one, in front of social conditions and such.

He said that he agreed that the British armed services are in poor condition.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

He said that he agreed that the British armed services are in poor condition.

Yes, I know, I agree on that.

And I added my personal additions to what he said.

[Cobol74]

Problem will solve it self - no one wants to join up with the chance that if they successfully get through training alive (Deep Cut);

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...2&id=470302006

they will be sent to some god forsaken hole to get themselves shot at. They will not have the equipment (bullet proof vests, secure communications equipment and desert camoflage) nor the artillery, air power or numbers to do the job they were sent there to do. They get wounded and get sent to an NHS hospital (Birmingham) where they get poor treatment, waiting in a queue with people who do not like them and abuse them, whilst there is a complete military hospital empty (Haslar, OK was Navy but still military) - so that the government can shut it in 2008

"I keep telling people that there is no demand for a military hospital, now you wounded go away and join a queue in Birmingham".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle1555507.ece

[RUU-CHAMA]

Yeah, with Russia building itself up back into a c*******t state, China ready to go to war over Taiwan. Both these nations were giving weapons and aid to Iran before this kidnapping business started and were hobbling any sanctions the U.N. was putting together. How long have we been negotiating with N. Korea? How long have we been negotiating with Iran? Iraq is bad but when I listen to the news I hear that there was another bombing in Baghdad,Baghdad,Baghdad. The country is as big as California and if I heard that every city was on fire then I would say that Iraq is bad. I do agree that the British Army is making a mistake by cutting back. In 1912, except for some skirmishes for independence, nobody could believe that war would break out. In 1932, with WWI over, nobody honestly believed that another World War would come. When the Prime Minister before Churchill came back from negotiating with Hitler everybody said negotiating works. When Stalin negotiated with Hitler everybody breathed a sigh of relief. So just because things seem peaceful now does not mean that things stay peaceful, but by that time everybody's army's have deteriorated and the soldiers will not want to leave home. Blair and Bush are idiots for how they are carrying out the war, but they are not idiots for calling a spade a spade. I should move to Australia because that leader seems to get it. (The views are solely the options of this raving lunatic and do not reflect the options of this website, Rosie O'Donnell, Hugo Chavez and Mr Ahmadinejad)

[tigger]

Originally Posted by RUU-CHAMA

Blair and Bush are idiots for how they are carrying out the war, but they are not idiots for calling a spade a spade.

My thoughts exactly. Going into Iraq was the stupidest &%$#ing thing i've seen well, ever. You can't fight an ideology with a gun. Iraq posed no threat to us. I don't believe Iran currently does either, but those shits are up to no good. Supposedly it will still be another 10 years before they will have a fully developed nuclear weapon. I guarantee that Israel would never let them get that far. The US probably wouldn't either, those nuclear facilities would get bombed to hell and back before they complete a bomb.

Although I think it was a stupid, idiotic war to pick in the first place, I also think that we can't leave. If the "Allies" leave Iraq there would be a power vacuum, and I think the infighting would only increase. This hostage crisis saddens me. Whether Britain was in Iranian waters or not they should not have allowed themselves to become hostages, that is pathetic. They're the Royal &%$#ing Navy, they're not supposed to be a bunch of pansies.

[Goose+]

Having to defend/keep places like the Falklands and Gibraltar isn't good either.

[AnGuRuSO]

The guy seems to only be worrying about the reduction in Navy ships for sentimental reasons. Are ships really that important anyway? Its funny, this guy thinks Iran's focus is on the UK, but it really must be on the US of A.

Who gives a fuck abuot these 15 sailors anyway? They're probably having a better time in captivity then they would be, and there are soldiers dying everyday, does this guy give a fuck?

[Cobol74]

Iranians hate the UK way more than they hate the US actually, ask any Iranian, (went to college with some). Even when the Shah was in power (he started the Nuclear arms acquisition project BTW) they blame the UK for all their historical ills.

[jetsetter]

The guy seems to only be worrying about the reduction in Navy ships for sentimental reasons. Are ships really that important anyway?

Yes, very. Without ships you basically have nothing.

[swek]

If you think Labour is left you're in for a surprise.

[phuckingduck]

Originally Posted by Cobol74

Iranians hate the UK way more than they hate the US actually, ask any Iranian, (went to college with some). Even when the Shah was in power (he started the Nuclear arms acquisition project BTW) they blame the UK for all their historical ills.

On this note, being too lazy to go look up the history for myself, wasn't it the UK for the most part that broke up the middle east almost arbitrarily in the 20th century; which lends itself to the ethnic violence we see today? Or am I just making this up and talking out of my ass?

[tigger]

Originally Posted by phuckingduck

On this note, being too lazy to go look up the history for myself, wasn't it the UK for the most part that broke up the middle east almost arbitrarily in the 20th century; which lends itself to the ethnic violence we see today? Or am I just making this up and talking out of my ass?

I think you're right. After the WWI defeat of the Central Powers, the Ottoman Empire was broken up. The Treaty of Versailles, dictated by Britain and France, cut up the Ottomans chunk of the middle east. I think that included Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, etc etc.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by tigger

Whether Britain was in Iranian waters or not they should not have allowed themselves to become hostages, that is pathetic. They're the Royal &%$#ing Navy, they're not supposed to be a bunch of pansies.

I've been thinking about this a lot. What exactly are the rules of engagement? (in both cases, Iraqi or Iranian waters). If it was an American ship, what would the outcome have been?

And the behavior of the soldiers while in Iran. Confessing, apologizing, shaking hands and thanking Ahmedinejad....when it doesn't appear that they were tortured into doing so. Thoughts on that?

[zenkidori]

We don't really know WTF is going on so it's hard to have any thoughts on it. All any of us can do is speculate. You can't really hope know what is going on based on a few video clips Iran has released.

[nomix]

There is only four groups that knows exactly where the ship were.

The Iranians, the British government, the US Government (I presume) and the British servicemen and woman.

So let's leave it at that, and stop speculating, since no one here really know squat about it.

Unless someone can find a picture from google world, and I hardly doubt that. Would be fun, though.

[Firecat]

We'll see what the soldiers say in the coming weeks.

Nomix. That's why I asked what the ROE are in both instances. Or rather, in either case what should/could have been done.

[nomix]

That would be interesting, yes.

As for the soldiers, I would not say that their word is everything either, military personell can be ordered to say something, can't they?

If not, I refrain from that argument.