PW!

PW!

Uh… You know that “SkyNews” is Fox News of Europe, right? It’s a Murdoch company. I’m not sayin’ it ain’t so, I’m just sayin’….

Gee, I dunno, perhaps they’re not telling us that we’ve been told lies for years. After all, 9-11 changed everything.

On that note we’ve also recently learned that JFK’s death has been ruled an accident.

You know, I really don’t believe anything any government says at this point.

What role did Pelosi play in this whole stupid mess? Her visit to Damascus coincided nicely with the release of the hostages.
I imagine it went something like this: “The Israelis said that Bush is batshit crazy and even THEY don’t want to nuke Iran. They think that the whole British hostage crisis can be resolved without anyone pulling a trigger because, quite frankly, they are just not that into another war. Can you tell that to your friends in Iran? No, this isn’t official Bush policy. I’m just here doing congressional business and the Israelis thought that since I was in town…”

We’ve been using spy ships and planes to provoke other nations (whomever our current “enemy” may be), for most of my life. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Well…I think you’re not understanding the meaning of “intel” within the full context. These marines were not carrying out “spying” in the classic sense of the word. These folks were attached to the Cornwall, and their primary duties were to carry out ship inspections. During the course of a boarding, or just a routine patrol, whatever they might observe they would report back to their superiors.
These bits of info would also simply be known as an after-action debriefing. But not classic “intel” activities in the vein of CIA or even as discussed in Blind Mans Bluff (but still, it is a good book!)

Ghostman

Spy mission? Really? But, but, that would require an understanding of context, history and geography. Certainly not something a reporter could be expected to know anything about.

That would be sweet if Pelosi did help resolve the situation.

Gnome de Plume @
10

That would be sweet if Pelosi did help resolve the situation.

Sweet but doubtful. She was with a delegation that included a Republican, so I think we should let go of that thought.

Not to say that the fact that she’s a grown-up makes it plausible, though…

The fact that Apr 6 came and went without Iran getting bombed with tactical nukes should make us all happy.

Now we just have to get through April 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, etc

The Bush people have already decided to attack Iran. They are just waiting for the right political moment. And the Israeli government is providing intelligence to the United States. And may actually participate in the bombing and invasion.

You don’t suppose this might have been a provocation, would you? That, like, maybe would require a military response? It worked in the Gulf of Tonkin, didn’t it?

Bob in HI

I prefer the term detainee rather than hostage.

MrDoggity @ 3

Uh… You know that “SkyNews” is Fox News of Europe, right? It’s a Murdoch company. I’m not sayin’ it ain’t so, I’m just sayin’….

Oh, I know it’s Murdoch’s news. But Murdoch doesn’t dare go as hard-right with Sky as he does with FAUX in the US.

And these are the sailors talking, not Murdoch.

Gnome de Plume @ 10

That would be sweet if Pelosi did help resolve the situation.

That’s what I was thinking.

No problem here with what uniformed British forces were doing in Iraqi waters, so long as they weren’t interdicting naval traffic bound to or from Iran. If what they were doing was in Iranian waters, it would have been a violation of Iranian sovereignty, but not spying.

The usual consequence would have been a diplomatic slap on the wrist, which was pretty much what Iran and the UK exchanged. Rather more gentlemanly, in fact, than the way Mr. Bush reportedly handles his spouse, much less purported enemy combatants.

Had the Brits been engaged in sabotage, or interdicting traffic bound to or from Iran, well, either would have been an act of war, justifying an Iranian attack on the Brits. I suspect the Brits knew that.

The tragedy is that Mr. Bush tried to escalate this contretemps into a reason to attack Iran. Fortunately, the Brits said “Piss off, we’ll take it from here thanks very much.” Even Blair knew he could no longer act irresponsibly and leave Labor with any chance of staying in office. Not to mention that those fifteen would have come home in boxes.

Bob Schacht @ 14

You don’t suppose this might have been a provocation, would you? That, like, maybe would require a military response? It worked in the Gulf of Tonkin, didn’t it?

There was a Guardian article the other day about how immediately after the incident Bush & co were telling Blair that we’d do anything we could to help, and suggested various military actions all the way down to using the planned exercises in the gulf that week as extra pressure.

Clearly the neoclowns were champing at the bit.

Blair told them to BTFU and stay the hell out of it, oh and BTW cool it with the exercises. Curiously, we complied with the request.

My question is why would Fox news make a liar of Tony Blair who was all over the tv saying that the Brits were in international waters and that they were not spies? Has Fox stoped backing Blair because he’s going to lose the next election? Could bushie be next?

Ah, here’s the article.

Ghostman @ 8

Well…I think you’re not understanding the meaning of “intel” within the full context. These marines were not carrying out “spying” in the classic sense of the word. These folks were attached to the Cornwall, and their primary duties were to carry out ship inspections. During the course of a boarding, or just a routine patrol, whatever they might observe they would report back to their superiors.
These bits of info would also simply be known as an after-action debriefing. But not classic “intel” activities in the vein of CIA or even as discussed in Blind Mans Bluff (but still, it is a good book!)

Ghostman

Go read the article. The sailor said flat-out “We were gathering intelligence.” It wasn’t their primary mission, but it was one of the things they were tasked with doing.

If they weren’t gathering intelligence, why did Sky News sit on the story until after they were released?

Phoenix Woman @ 16

Oh, I know it’s Murdoch’s news. But Murdoch doesn’t dare go as hard-right with Sky as he does with FAUX in the US.

Which is a sad United States of affairs.

ifthethunderdontgetya @ 23

Phoenix Woman @ 16

Oh, I know it’s Murdoch’s news. But Murdoch doesn’t dare go as hard-right with Sky as he does with FAUX in the US.

Which is a sad United States of affairs.

Well, there’s still some laws in the UK that require news outlets to not be outright political shills… we’ve got nothing left of that in the US.

..the pressure to cross into the other side’s territory is intense, though seldom if ever (for diplomacy’s sake) openly acknowleged.

David Border wouldn’t cross that line.

Blair is slowly backing away from bush and iraq. He couldnt allow the last moments of his government to be swamped by an iranian conflict. Bush may be hoping for a war with iran, but blair wont be his accomplice this time.

earlofhuntingdon @ 18

No problem here with what uniformed British forces were doing in Iraqi waters, so long as they weren’t interdicting naval traffic bound to or from Iran. If what they were doing was in Iranian waters, it would have been a violation of Iranian sovereignty, but not spying.

The big problem, as Siun noted in her earlier piece, is that there really isn’t a set boundary in the waters between Iran and Iraq. The boundaries cited by the UK aren’t recognized by either Iran or Iraq — and the ship was actually closer to the Iranian shore than it was to the Iraqi mainland.

The usual consequence would have been a diplomatic slap on the wrist, which was pretty much what Iran and the UK exchanged. Rather more gentlemanly, in fact, than the way Mr. Bush reportedly handles his spouse, much less purported enemy combatants.

Had the Brits been engaged in sabotage, or interdicting traffic bound to or from Iran, well, either would have been an act of war, justifying an Iranian attack on the Brits. I suspect the Brits knew that.

The tragedy is that Mr. Bush tried to escalate this contretemps into a reason to attack Iran. Fortunately, the Brits said “Piss off, we’ll take it from here thanks very much.” Even Blair knew he could no longer act irresponsibly and leave Labor with any chance of staying in office. Not to mention that those fifteen would have come home in boxes.

Yup.

Monsieur le Prof @
4

Gee, I dunno, perhaps they’re not telling us that we’ve been told lies for years. After all, 9-11 changed everything.

On that note we’ve also recently learned that JFK’s death has been ruled an accident.

That is a wickedly funny place!

smapdi @ 26

Blair is slowly backing away from bush and iraq. He couldnt allow the last moments of his government to be swamped by an iranian conflict. Bush may be hoping for a war with iran, but blair wont be his accomplice this time.

Exactly. As the Earl just said, it would destroy the Labour Party for ever.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 13

The Bush people have already decided to attack Iran. They are just waiting for the right political moment. And the Israeli government is providing intelligence to the United States. And may actually participate in the bombing and invasion.

They’d be less cavalier about using military force if their children were serving. We should require military service of members of the President’s family during his term(s). If Prince Harry can serve, cannot the Princes and Princesses from the Bush Family serve?

Sigh. They weren’t hostages, they were prisoners. “Hostages” is right wing framing to further demonize Iran. It frustrates me how this propaganda continues to be propagated.

The British military personnel were wearing uniforms and engaged in military activity (and yes, enforcing UN resolutions counts. Why else was the military involved?). The dispute is whether or not what Iran did was appropriate, but they didn’t take hostages.

Phoenix Woman @ 22

Ghostman @ 8

Well…I think you’re not understanding the meaning of “intel” within the full context. These marines were not carrying out “spying” in the classic sense of the word. These folks were attached to the Cornwall, and their primary duties were to carry out ship inspections. During the course of a boarding, or just a routine patrol, whatever they might observe they would report back to their superiors.
These bits of info would also simply be known as an after-action debriefing. But not classic “intel” activities in the vein of CIA or even as discussed in Blind Mans Bluff (but still, it is a good book!)

Ghostman

Go read the article. The sailor said flat-out “We were gathering intelligence.” It wasn’t their primary mission, but it was one of the things they were tasked with doing.

If they weren’t gathering intelligence, why did Sky News sit on the story until after they were released?

And why would the soldiers be barred from telling all?

end zig

smapdi @ 26

Blair is slowly backing away from bush and iraq. He couldnt allow the last moments of his government to be swamped by an iranian conflict. Bush may be hoping for a war with iran, but blair wont be his accomplice this time.

Poodle no more? Blair woke up from his man crush just in time.

George and Tony swaggering about the Middle East, like they own the place. Colonialism, empire and the ol’ plantation mindset. It’s all about oil and to a lesser extent, tall bruised macho egos of two very little men.

puppethead @ 31

Sigh. They weren’t hostages, they were prisoners. “Hostages” is right wing framing to further demonize Iran. It frustrates me how this propaganda continues to be propagated.

The British military personnel were wearing uniforms and engaged in military activity (and yes, enforcing UN resolutions counts. Why else was the military involved?). The dispute is whether or not what Iran did was appropriate, but they didn’t take hostages.

Thanks. Will edit!

punaise @ 25

..the pressure to cross into the other side’s territory is intense, though seldom if ever (for diplomacy’s sake) openly acknowleged.

David Border wouldn’t cross that line.

Would Richard Coh-in?

Blair now cares only for his Legacy. See the N.Ireland power-sharing agreement.

BTW, either the Brits incurred into Iranian waters, or the Iranians incurred Iraqi waters.

punaise @ 25

David Border wouldn’t cross that line.

And George Bush would just snort it….

The labour party in the U.K. is about as representative of labour and as liberal as is the present day Democratic Party is to the the party of FDR.

punaise @ 25

David Border wouldn’t cross that line.

Vickie Toenails would tell you where the line was when she was a Goldwater girl and that she put it there.

Phoenix Woman @
22

Ghostman @ 8

Well…I think you’re not understanding the meaning of “intel” within the full context. These marines were not carrying out “spying” in the classic sense of the word. These folks were attached to the Cornwall, and their primary duties were to carry out ship inspections. During the course of a boarding, or just a routine patrol, whatever they might observe they would report back to their superiors.
These bits of info would also simply be known as an after-action debriefing. But not classic “intel” activities in the vein of CIA or even as discussed in Blind Mans Bluff (but still, it is a good book!)

Ghostman

Go read the article. The sailor said flat-out “We were gathering intelligence.” It wasn’t their primary mission, but it was one of the things they were tasked with doing.

If they weren’t gathering intelligence, why did Sky News sit on the story until after they were released?

I read the article, too, and I think Ghostman makes a good point. The unit had its ears open without doing anything extraordinary, not taking affirmative measures to gather intelligence. While the article quotes an expert saying this information would have been used in a show trial, that doesn’t mean that it is actually that significant in a reality-based context.

One thing that is bothersome about the recent prosecutor firings. What does this say, if anything, about the prosecutors who were not fired?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 43

One thing that is bothersome about the recent prosecutor firings. What does this say, if anything, about the prosecutors who were not fired?

yep

smapdi @ 37

Blair now cares only for his Legacy. See the N.Ireland power-sharing agreement.

Yup. He doesn’t want to go down in history as the guy who proved Orwell right by reducing Britannia down to merely Airstrip One, a satrapy of the United States when the US was ruled by greed-maddened sociopaths.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 43

One thing that is bothersome about the recent prosecutor firings. What does this say, if anything, about the prosecutors who were not fired?

It says they were loyal Bushies. Natch. Here is a question for the class: What would a loyal Bushie do?

He told Sky Correspondent Jonathan Samuels: “Basically we speak to the crew, find out if they have any problems, let them know we’re here to protect them, protect their fishing and stop any terrorism and piracy in the area,” he said.

“Secondly, it’s to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they’re here for days at a time, they can share it with us.

So, the young captain and his marines talk to the fishermen. That’s not “intel ops” in the classic sense. I think either 1) the young capt. has a wee bit of hubris in describing his otherwise mundane duties, or 2) the Brits define “intel” in a different way.

Why did Skynews sit on it? Just a common courtesy during a very tense few days. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ghostman

I have to say I don’t think Bush gives a rat’s ass about what Blair thinks or does about anything.

Given any attack on Iran, anyone want to place odds on whether or not Bush would attempt to enact martial law here at home?

Strangely, even though it would likely involve extreme measures to actually prevent direct retaliation on our soil, I have a feeling that BushCo would use such a manuever for reasons other that to protect us.

MarkC @ 42

The unit had its ears open without doing anything extraordinary, not taking affirmative measures to gather intelligence. While the article quotes an expert saying this information would have been used in a show trial, that doesn’t mean that it is actually that significant in a reality-based context.

The point isn’t whether or not they actually found anything useful, or that they weren’t trained and expert spies. The point is that their mission required them to spy.

Nathan Hale wasn’t a trained spy, and the British still executed him when he was caught after he botched his mission.

masaccio @
9

Spy mission? Really? But, but, that would require an understanding of context, history and geography. Certainly not something a reporter could be expected to know anything about.

Before the Iranian revolution, I worked for months at a time not too far from that area (about 150 miles or so north of there.) The “border” IIRC is an imaginary line running down the middle of the Shatt al-Arab, i.e. the main channel where all the rivers flow together into the sea. If you’re anywhere out in the open water, it would be practically impossible to know which side of the border you were on. I don’t think there are any marker buoys or anything to show where the border is.

Besides, the exact route of the border is probably disputed. To my knowledge, there has been no international treaty governing the course of the border since the British army left Iraq 70? years or so ago. Back in those days, someone probably just drew a pencil line on the map down the middle of the channel. No one had GPS. Heck, that was decades before Sputnik.

This is a “border” a lot like the “border” between Pakistan and Afghanistan that runs through the mountain wilds of Pashtun tribal territory. There, too, there are few people who have any idea of exactly where the border is, and few who care.

Bob in HI

And how will Tony’s legacy read?

Bustednuckles @ 41

punaise @ 25

David Border wouldn’t cross that line.

Vickie Toenails would tell you where the line was when she was a Goldwater girl and that she put it there.

once a front tier gal, always a front tier gal

HINT: The Brits were NOT HOSTAGES

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr……..

The Brits were NOT hostages.

Iran did NOT demand anything for their release.

Brits as `hostages’ is the Bush admin’s attempt to rekindle to anti-Iranian sentiment from the 1980s.

Please stop using “hostages” to describe the Brits.

Otherwise, you are parroting the Bush propaganda.

NB:

Men from Al-Dawa, i.e., the same party of Al-Maliki, conducted one of the very first suicide bombings at a US Embassy.

Seventeen of these men from Al-Dawa became the Kuwait 17.

To secure their release, Hizbollah actually took HOSTAGES.

Those were hostages.

I’m sorry OT but looky here:

http://www.technomania.com/RelatedCompanies.asp

from same server as GWB43.com. Check out the site.

The MoveOn Iraq War debate among the Democratic presidential candidates is going on right now (although it is currently in a brief intermission).

I think it is well worth listening to.

Here’s the link:

http://www.moveon.org/townhall…..n_av.phtml

Ghostman @ 47

Why did Skynews sit on it? Just a common courtesy during a very tense few days. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ghostman

It was what kept the sailors from being put on trial:

And today, former Iranian diplomat Dr Mehrdad Khonsari said if the Iranians had known about it, they would have used it to “justify taking the marines captive and put them on trial”.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 43

One thing that is bothersome about the recent prosecutor firings. What does this say, if anything, about the prosecutors who were not fired?

It says they are “loyal” bushies, and willing to go to any length to protect and defend the decider, instead of the constitution and the law.

Re: LS 55,

“The firm has handled complex Internet communications projects for The White House,”

Wolfie @ 54

HINT: The Brits were NOT HOSTAGES

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr……..

The Brits were NOT hostages.

Iran did NOT demand anything for their release.

Brits as `hostages’ is the Bush admin’s attempt to rekindle to anti-Iranian sentiment from the 1980s.

Please stop using “hostages” to describe the Brits.

Otherwise, you are parroting the Bush propaganda.

NB:

Men from Al-Dawa, i.e., the same party of Al-Maliki, conducted one of the very first suicide bombings at a US Embassy.

Seventeen of these men from Al-Dawa became the Kuwait 17.

To secure their release, Hizbollah actually took HOSTAGES.

Those were hostages.

Hit “refresh”, Mr. Grrrr — it was changed already!

LS @ 59

Re: LS 55,

“The firm has handled complex Internet communications projects for The White House,”

Terrific find. Thanks.

Tony will get the Honorable Order of the Lap Dog from QE2.

Here’s some context:

Dec. 12, 1983 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait

The American embassy in Kuwait was bombed in a series of attacks whose targets also included the French embassy, the control tower at the airport, the country’s main oil refinery, and a residential area for employees of the American corporation Raytheon. Six people were killed, including a suicide truck bomber, and more than 80 others were injured. The suspects were thought to be members of Al Dawa, or “The Call,” an Iranian-backed group and one of the principal Shiite groups operating against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Dec. 3, 1984 Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221

Kuwait Airways Flight 221, on its way from Kuwait to Pakistan, was hijacked and diverted to Tehran. The hijackers demanded the release of the Kuwait 17. When the demand wasn’t met, the hijackers killed two American officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development. On the sixth day of the drama, Iranian security forces stormed the plane and released the remaining hostages.

Iran arrested the hijackers, saying they would be brought to trail. But the trial never took place, and the hijackers were allowed to leave the country. There was no U.S. military response. The State Department announced a $250,000 reward for information leading to the arrests of those involved in the hijacking. Later press reports linked Hezbollah’s Imad Mughniyah to the hijackings.

Morris Sheppard @ 46: “It says they were loyal Bushies. Natch. Here is a question for the class: What would a loyal Bushie do?”

Teacher, I know, I know. They’d do whatever Karl Rove, or one of his authorized mouthpieces, told them to do.

Curious in Central Texas @ 61

LS @ 59

Re: LS 55,

“The firm has handled complex Internet communications projects for The White House,”

Terrific find. Thanks.

Consider forwarding that link to Josh Marshall…

Re: The sailors. They look like a bunch of young kids that were used to bait the Iranians. They were in a pretty sorry looking boat too for being “spys”. I don’t know.

Fineman alludes to “mixed news out of Iraq” on Olbermann. Mixed news? Well… I suppose so, if one calls uncontrolled chaos and civil war ‘mixed news’.

*xyz @ 65

Curious in Central Texas @ 61

LS @ 59

Re: LS 55,

“The firm has handled complex Internet communications projects for The White House,”

Terrific find. Thanks.

Consider forwarding that link to Josh Marshall…

ePluribus has SOMETHING on this. I saw it once, but can’t find it again.

Very worrisome for me wrt: ability to destroy evidence.

Anyone?

XYZ, okay, I’ll post it over there.

LS @ 55

The firm has handled complex Internet communications projects for The White House, key congressional committees, Members of Congress and state governments.

Nice find!

LS @ 66

Re: The sailors. They look like a bunch of young kids that were used to bait the Iranians. They were in a pretty sorry looking boat too for being “spys”. I don’t know.

That wouldn’t surprise me, actually. The biggest thing working against it is that Tony Blair really doesn’t want a hot war with Iran to be his lasting legacy.

former hostages prisoners

(sigh)

What a relief…..

Pls excuse the semi-restrained outburst…

It is hard, though, to see “hostages”

Iraq and Iran were always a bundled Bush package.

Ghostman @
47

He told Sky Correspondent Jonathan Samuels: “Basically we speak to the crew, find out if they have any problems, let them know we’re here to protect them, protect their fishing and stop any terrorism and piracy in the area,” he said.

“Secondly, it’s to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they’re here for days at a time, they can share it with us.

So, the young captain and his marines talk to the fishermen. That’s not “intel ops” in the classic sense. I think either 1) the young capt. has a wee bit of hubris in describing his otherwise mundane duties, or 2) the Brits define “intel” in a different way. . . .

Ghostman

The Brits have a LONG history of doing “intel” in the middle east, going back at least 200 years. Today, American military are sequestered and told never to go out alone. 150 years ago, the Brits wandered freely around, gathering all kinds of intel.

Think of Richard Burton (no, not the actor!) who learned how to speak flawless Arabic, and other languages, dressed in local gear, who managed to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca– on his own, and unarmed (well, maybe he had a dagger in his inside belt). Think of Lawrence of Arabia. Think of British archaeologists like Layard, who did their own intel while making maps of large archaeological sites.

Yes, the British have their own ideas about how to gather “intel.” Americans have only a few like that, in Afghanistan. But you don’t hear much about them.

Bob in HI

Borders dont matter to GW as long as the people are brown skinned.

Celtic Music @ 64

Morris Sheppard @ 46: “It says they were loyal Bushies. Natch. Here is a question for the class: What would a loyal Bushie do?”

Teacher, I know, I know. They’d do whatever Karl Rove, or one of his authorized mouthpieces, told them to do.

Excellent. You get an “A”.

By the way: I have no idea why the pics are now embedded into the text rather than sitting above it. I’ve tried changing it back, but it’s not working, so I suspect that’s the way the mods want it. (Sorry, mods!)

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Iraq and Iran were always a bundled Bush package.

Don’t you mean bungled? :)

Easy question. They’re hiding at least a dozen pretexts for war. They WILL manufacture a reason.

The fallout from our foreign policy is a tide of anti-British sentiment in global conflict zones

When one of my colleagues walked into a Lebanese village last year, a 12-year-old boy pointed a toy gun at her and said: “Britain is against us.” Thousands of Lebanese people blamed the British government, not just Israel, for the bombs that had fallen on their homes, because the UK had failed to press Israel to stop its disproportionate response to Hizbullah’s attacks on civilians.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm…..29,00.html

Phoenix Woman @
71

LS @ 66

Re: The sailors. They look like a bunch of young kids that were used to bait the Iranians. They were in a pretty sorry looking boat too for being “spys”. I don’t know.

That wouldn’t surprise me, actually. The biggest thing working against it is that Tony Blair really doesn’t want a hot war with Iran to be his lasting legacy.

True.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Iraq and Iran were always a bundled Bush package.

But he’s not going to get the second half. He can’t. He has nothing with which to get it, and what he has in Iraq is rapidly disintegrating.

egregious @ 78

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Iraq and Iran were always a bundled Bush package.

Don’t you mean bungled? :)

;0)

Oklahoma kiddo @
67

Fineman alludes to “mixed news out of Iraq” on Olbermann. Mixed news? Well… I suppose so, if one calls uncontrolled chaos and civil war ‘mixed news’.

Hey, some of us here in America LOVE uncontrolled chaos and all kinds of war! No mixed about it.

Phoenix Woman @ 77

By the way: I have no idea why the pics are now embedded into the text rather than sitting above it. I’ve tried changing it back, but it’s not working, so I suspect that’s the way the mods want it. (Sorry, mods!)

Relax. My favorite She who must be obeyed has been sperminting with different formats.

Morris Sheppard @
46

Oklahoma kiddo @ 43

One thing that is bothersome about the recent prosecutor firings. What does this say, if anything, about the prosecutors who were not fired?

It says they were loyal Bushies. Natch. Here is a question for the class: What would a loyal Bushie do?

Manufacture scandals like in WI and NJ.

Phoenix Woman @ 82

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Iraq and Iran were always a bundled Bush package.

But he’s not going to get the second half. He can’t. He has nothing with which to get it, and what he has in Iraq is rapidly disintegrating.

That and he has run out of soldiers.

Thanks for the edit, Phoenix Woman!

Who the hell sent them into disputed waters in rubber rafts without backup? If I’d been one of those people captured, I’d have said, “I’ll give you my name, rank, and serial number in a minute, but first, here are the GPS co-ordinates of the asshole who sent me out here on a fool’s errand. Let me punch them into your missle guidance system myself. I don’t want you to transpose the numbers or anything.”

Wonder what all those U.S. Navy boats in the Persian Gulf have on board in the way of hardware?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 90

Wonder what all those U.S. Navy boats in the Persian Gulf have on board in the way of hardware?

You don’t want to know.

Frank Probst @ 89

Who the hell sent them into disputed waters in rubber rafts without backup? If I’d been one of those people captured, I’d have said, “I’ll give you my name, rank, and serial number in a minute, but first, here are the GPS co-ordinates of the asshole who sent me out here on a fool’s errand. Let me punch them into your missle guidance system myself. I don’t want you to transpose the numbers or anything.”

You’re probably not a prime candidate for the Royal Navy recruiting. Just a guess.

OK, maybe you do

Smaller than most Navy vessels, at 180 feet, PCs still pack a lot of punch. With a top speed of 35 knots and two 25mm chain guns capable of pumping out a blistering 175 rounds per minute, as well as many other small arms, a would-be terrorist should think twice before trying to make a run past these guys.

The craft have Vosper fin stabilization system and a stern wedge to improve trim at high speeds. Kevlar armor is fitted to the command space. PC 5 and later use heavier superstructure plating. The minimum speed is 3 kts. They were to carry two 16-ft. SEAL CRRC (Combat Rubber Raiding Craft) and one 18-ft rigid inflatable swimmer delivery craft, but on completion carry only the RIB. There is a recessed platform at the stern for swimmer debarking and embarking. Displacement has grown about 15 tons during construction, but they are still much lighter than their missile boat half-sisters in the Egyptian, Omani, and Kenyan navies. Further modifications are expected to raise the full load displacement to 341 tons. They can refuel at sea, using astern fueling rigs. An active radiated noise cancellation system is to be added.

The Sperry Vision 2100M combat system employs the navigational radars and the Sperry Voyage Management System integrated navigation and control system as a combat data suite. Ammunition supply includes 2,000 rounds 25-mm, 2,000 rounds .50 cal, 2,000 rounds 7.62-mm, and 1,000 40-mm grenades. Plans to fit Hellfire missiles have been dropped. The after Mk 38 mounting has been replaced with a stabilized Mk 96 mount with combined 25-mm gun and 40-mm grenade-launchers in lieu of previous plan to fit a stabilized multi-purpose mount fore and aft; the unwieldy Mk 38 mount forward will be retained.

There were initially four interchangeable mountings for .50 cal and 7.62-mm machineguns or Mk 19 40-mm grenade launchers: one to starboard at the stern, and three on the bridge (two port, one starboard); two bridge positions are now occupied by twin .50 cal mounts. The radar intercept equipment was developed for use on helicopters. Each Mk 52 decoy rocket launcher carries 12 ready-service rounds, and 15 more rockets per launcher are carried in adjacent lockers. The decoy launchers in one unit are to be replaced by two 12-round, 102-mm ML Aviation Super Barricade rocket launchers mounted on superstructure platforms for trials.

Phoenix Woman….

Sorry guys, but this is old news, from last week.

It has NOT actually been said that the trip on which the boat was taken was a spy journey. The officer has owned to a previous one as having been one, and Sky (Faux, of course!) is clear about that.

We wrote all this last week, which is, when I think, Siun, et al, discussed the unratified water boundaries! (Incidentally, there is a stretch which is treated by both sides as if it were ratified, right at the top of the Shatt al Arab.)

It would be quite extraordinary if a group out pussy-footing around in a rubber boat wewre not gathering intelligence, whether or not they were also looking for car smugglers too.

The Iranians knew perfectly well what they were up to.

If you are at all interested in the neighbourhood, Wilfred Thesiger wrote a book called ‘The Marsh Arabs’ and there is a fascinating one from the 20s or 30s which is about Marsh Arab feuding. Autgority said it had to prtetrend to be fiction, but is real. The author’s name is Corrie. Good luck in finding it! Corrie’s some lent it to me some years ago.

Nothing here. Move on.

In my day, not RN, Army nor Marines collected “intel”; it was “information” or “intelligence”.

This from Atrios shows further media efforts, including misrepresenations, to justify a strike against Iran.

Phoenix Woman @ 45

smapdi @ 37

Blair now cares only for his Legacy. See the N.Ireland power-sharing agreement.

Yup. He doesn’t want to go down in history as the guy who proved Orwell right by reducing Britannia down to merely Airstrip One, a satrapy of the United States when the US was ruled by greed-maddened sociopaths.

Isn’t that what they mean when they say ‘Special Relationship?’

OT – Advertisers skittish over Imus scandal, pull ads

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Companies including Staples Inc. are pulling their advertisements from Don Imus’ show due to the furor over the shock jock’s on-air racial slur about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200…..s_ads_dc_2

Dru @ 88

Thanks for the edit, Phoenix Woman!

No problem! I felt kinda hinky typing “hostages” and I couldn’t figure out why. You and puppethead clarified it for me.

We may run out of soldiers, but we won’t run out of nuclear armed bombs and missiles.

From Noam Chomsky:

The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of “the Iraq effect” by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The “Iran effect” would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that “an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III.”

Olbermann: Corporate America flees MSNBC & Imus!

eCAHNomics @ 96

Yeah, but usually the US tries not to rub the Brits’ noses in it. Bill Clinton in particular went out of his way to be gracious to the UK.

o/t

per Keith

Procter & Gamble
Staples
Bigelow ATea

have all pulled ads from MSNBC/Imus

apology if prev posted

Cozumel @ 97

OT – Advertisers skittish over Imus scandal, pull ads

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Companies including Staples Inc. are pulling their advertisements from Don Imus’ show due to the furor over the shock jock’s on-air racial slur about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200…..s_ads_dc_2

That’s exactly what should happen.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Iraq and Iran were always a bundled Bush package.

Had to be. He could never keep the n and the q straight.

1,482 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Raven:

The “PC”’s are jest the little guys, the cruisers and destroyers in the battle group carry enough cruise nukes ta light up the Arabian Peninsula for a couple a hundred years.

Every day gets a bit more like a bad Sartre play…Jeezus H. keeeRIST on a God damned crutch, there are so many whackos in the chain of command startin at the top that I’m thinkin’ maybe God has finally got so pissed off he’s just left us to marinate in our own shit.

KEEP THE FAITH AND BE SURE TA DUCK!!!

Scarecrow @ 85

Phoenix Woman @ 77

By the way: I have no idea why the pics are now embedded into the text rather than sitting above it. I’ve tried changing it back, but it’s not working, so I suspect that’s the way the mods want it. (Sorry, mods!)

Relax. My favorite She who must be obeyed has been sperminting with different formats.

Thanks, Scarecrow! I wuz hopin’ that that’s what it wuz. (If I’d known that last night I would have made my moneybags graphic a touch smaller!)

Bob Schacht @ 74

It’s cold in Boston, Robt in Hawai’i! Starting with The Great Game, of course in the 19th century.

In the 50s I was 17 and where I should not be in a particularly rough section of the soukh in Damascus when a doubled-up beggar, whining, in Arabic of course, about how starving and poor he was, with a large family to feed. When he got up really close he said in the sort of English accent I have, but quielty, “I wouldn’t go down there if I were you, old chap!”

That was when Kim Philby could be found at the bar in the St George in Beyrouth pretending to work for the Times.

Re: Imus

KO is hot. It sounds like management told him to kill what sounds like a Special Comment about it.

smapdi @
37

Blair now cares only for his Legacy. See the N.Ireland power-sharing agreement.

Mmmm. The Good Friday Agreement negotiated in Ulster leading to the power sharing agreement finally settled this year.

Let’s see, that would be the result of the joint project between Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. How quickly Blair forgot what it was like to work with a U.S. President who negotiated from a position of reasonableness toward a goal that recognized the complexities of centuries’ old sectarian strife.

I seem to recall a certain Senator from Connecticut taking to the floor of the Senate in 1998. President Clinton was in Ireland at that time overseeing initial implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. While the commander in chief was on foreign soil solidifying a tremendous foreign policy triumph for Ireland, the EU and for the United States, Holy Joe showed due respect for the office of the President used the opportunity to grab headlines and become the leading “Democrat” giving thankful cover to the GOP to make “bi-partisan” attacks on the President.

That’s another thing I miss about the 90s. One wasn’t expected to support the commander in chief when peace was breaking out.

I guess stopping a war just is not a good enough example to set for the children of America.

slainte,
cl

Because the British have been hanging out in places like this for hundreds of years they know how to do things like this without starting WW III. This is also why they have, proportionately, so many fewer casualties. They know that Occupation is Aid To The Civil Power and as far as possible Winning Hearts and Minds. Acting like Audie Murphy on steroids and beating up the locals because they are just fucking towel heads and we are perfect does not cut it.

On to Iran….. anyone looked at a map to see just how big it is, and how long its border with Iraq?

1. It would take enough nukes to kill the whole world’s population to clear it.
2. If we hit Iran their guards will be over that great long border like robbrs’ dogs.
3. How do our boys get out with a mill. or so Iranian soldiers holding the airfields and the Gulf impassable because of our bombs on Iran, and,
4. It is a spit across the Gulf and Iran will flatten everyone’s oil installations to get at us.

Phoenix Woman >

“…The sailor said flat-out “We were gathering intelligence.” It wasn’t their primary mission, but it was one of the things they were tasked with doing…”

That is true of any such situation. These folks were close to an international border (ill defined as stated earlier) so one of their major tasks was to observe, remember & deliver what they saw. Very simple and very normal when in such a situation (no matter what uniform one is wearing). No need to make more out of it than has already been made & no need for hints of James Bond behavior.

All governments do this sort of stuff on a regular basis. It is part of what is called statecraft.

(Ever heard of DeSoto patrols ? Check the Pentagon Papers)

“…This is not a game.” – Lorie Van Auken (2001.09.11 widow)

Phoenix Woman, just have to tell you how much I love your posts here and on KOS. L

Peace isnt sexy, negotiations arent sexy, the UN isnt sexy, reasoned actions are not sexy.

Steroid fueled Christian Freedom Blackwater mercenaries are sexy, predictive battlespace awareness is sexy, carrier groups are sexy.
Empire is sexy.

Update to me at 55,

Lorna Doon GSA is a client…

Scarecrow @ 92

Frank Probst @ 89

Who the hell sent them into disputed waters in rubber rafts without backup? If I’d been one of those people captured, I’d have said, “I’ll give you my name, rank, and serial number in a minute, but first, here are the GPS co-ordinates of the asshole who sent me out here on a fool’s errand. Let me punch them into your missle guidance system myself. I don’t want you to transpose the numbers or anything.”

You’re probably not a prime candidate for the Royal Navy recruiting. Just a guess.

But you might get elected to parliament!

Gnome de Plume @
10

That would be sweet if Pelosi did help resolve the situation.

Ding!

btw gdp – you have email

Two new threads

maunga @ 110

Because the British have been hanging out in places like this for hundreds of years they know how to do things like this without starting WW III. This is also why they have, proportionately, so many fewer casualties. They know that Occupation is Aid To The Civil Power and as far as possible Winning Hearts and Minds. Acting like Audie Murphy on steroids and beating up the locals because they are just fucking towel heads and we are perfect does not cut it.

On to Iran….. anyone looked at a map to see just how big it is, and how long its border with Iraq?

1. It would take enough nukes to kill the whole world’s population to clear it.
2. If we hit Iran their guards will be over that great long border like robbrs’ dogs.
3. How do our boys get out with a mill. or so Iranian soldiers holding the airfields and the Gulf impassable because of our bombs on Iran, and,
4. It is a spit across the Gulf and Iran will flatten everyone’s oil installations to get at us.

But what is the worst that could happen?

Welcome, Texas Betsy. I’ve got a brief message for Cassie…do you know if she’ll be on later tonite, or may I forward it via you? Thanks…

Phoenix Woman @
82

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Iraq and Iran were always a bundled Bush package.

But he’s not going to get the second half. He can’t. He has nothing with which to get it, and what he has in Iraq is rapidly disintegrating.

The Boy King, A*P*C, Israel’s Likud, The MIC, Corporate AmeriKa don’t CARE about troop issues. Iran will be an air war, and an UGLY one, too . . . . boots on the ground are meaningless. Except for the one’s in Iraq, which will be IMMEDIATELY slaughtered to the man and woman as the entire Muslim World rushes in to lay waste to the Satan Demon. And we CAN’T risk nukin Iraq, with all that oil, not after we’ve messed up Iran.

Iran is on the table, it’s doable, and it’s just ONE excuse away from a Presidential Signing Order to engage about 4-6 hours BEFORE The Boy King tells Congress and The Nation.

The stress of this wait is NOT over. Not yet. April 17 and 18 are the next watermarks.

Then, we see how hot the pressure cooker gets for Boy King and his henchmench’s.

The trick is for Waxman and Reid and Pelosi to screw the lid down FAST AND HARD, and ELIMINATE (with help from Pentagon) any chance ShrubCo can pull the Iranian Plug.

Someone run out for more popcorn, this is gonna be a LONG film festival of a show.

Won’t be safe to breathe till July or so, I don’t think.

Edited * by Mod

TexasBetsy @
79

Easy question. They’re hiding at least a dozen pretexts for war. They WILL manufacture a reason.

Yes MA’AM they sure as hell are prepared to do so.

maunga @ 94

Phoenix Woman….

Sorry guys, but this is old news, from last week.

It has NOT actually been said that the trip on which the boat was taken was a spy journey. The officer has owned to a previous one as having been one, and Sky (Faux, of course!) is clear about that.

We wrote all this last week, which is, when I think, Siun, et al, discussed the unratified water boundaries! (Incidentally, there is a stretch which is treated by both sides as if it were ratified, right at the top of the Shatt al Arab.)

It would be quite extraordinary if a group out pussy-footing around in a rubber boat wewre not gathering intelligence, whether or not they were also looking for car smugglers too.

The Iranians knew perfectly well what they were up to.

If you are at all interested in the neighbourhood, Wilfred Thesiger wrote a book called ‘The Marsh Arabs’ and there is a fascinating one from the 20s or 30s which is about Marsh Arab feuding. Autgority said it had to prtetrend to be fiction, but is real. The author’s name is Corrie. . . .

Thesiger’s book is a real and valuable classic. Unfortunately, between the Gulf Wars, Saddam completely destroyed the habitat the Marsh Arabs lived in. Since our invasion, the Brits have been restoring some of that habitat, but the world Thesiger described has pretty much disappeared.

Besides, the area that the Brit’s boat was in was not in Marsh Arab country anyway. It was in open waters near the Gulf. Marsh Arab country is inland, and consisted of areas where flooding from the rivers (mainly along the Euphrates) created marshes.

Bob in HI

Oklahoma kiddo @
90

Wonder what all those U.S. Navy boats in the Persian Gulf have on board in the way of hardware?

I have a buddy who spent 8 years in the Navy. Saw Somalia, saw Mediterranean during mid 80’s. He KNOWS what’s on board, it’s awesome killing stuff. AND, he CLAIMS they have enough missle defense ’stuff’ to stop any thing Iran can launch . . . I still question this part.

I think if we launch on Iran, we will lose a carrier, maybe more. And the boots on the ground in the region (Iraq) will be slaughtered.

Then, there’s the role that Afghanistan and IT’S crazies and their supporters will play in it all should Iran go as a ‘do’.

Course, there’s also Russia and China. I just DON’T believe they haven’t told The Boy King to kewl his jets over doing Iran . . . They MUST have, and they must have threatened. To be a fly on some of THOSE walls, hmmmmm . . .

Any thoughts on China/Russia in this grand passion play of a clusterphuck The Boy King has created? Ladies? Gents? FDL’s Finest?

Thinking about the beginning of next week as I-day. Possible. It’s when the subpoenas and Abu come up. Hope it doesn’t happen, and think it won’t. But you never know.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 99

We may run out of soldiers, but we won’t run out of nuclear armed bombs and missiles.

From Noam Chomsky:

The results of an attack on Iran . . . .would effectively launch World War III.”

Noam Chomsky, and, Studs Terkel, are two of my fav writers/chronicler’s of all time.

The body of work those two have produced ‘outing’ the truth of the general masses on all issues of humans and their interactions is simply mind boggling. Bless them both. And thank Bhudda for them now, more than ever.

cbl @ 102

o/t per Keith
Procter & Gamble
Staples
Bigelow ATea

have all pulled ads from MSNBC/Imus

apology if prev posted

This is all so heartening! Now here’s crossed fingers and toes for Waxman and Reid and Pelosi (I STILL don’t trust their A*P*C ties, but, maybe that tie is severed later) . . .

Thanks for the update all, on The IMusk Stench.

* Edited by Mod

Phoenix Woman @ 82

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Iraq and Iran were always a bundled Bush package.

But he’s not going to get the second half. He can’t. He has nothing with which to get it, and what he has in Iraq is rapidly disintegrating.

Actually, its Iraq, Iran, Syria.

That’s the plan.

No matter how good admirals and air force generals are at combined ops and grand strategy, it is not utterly and completely ingrained in them that only a soldier with a weapon in his hand can take and hold ground. the grunt, now in a hole, holding that ground probably does not want to have to wear an NBC suit because of the radiation. Also probably, the admiral and air force general are not so likely to be ingrained with the knowledge that it is a lot tougher to fight in ruins of towns than it is in moore intact ones.

If we have nuked Iran, they have rocketed the Srab oil installations, and only a percentage of Our Boys have got out of Iraq, what will Georgy Porgy have won?

larue @ 129 — I hope you are right and Putin is having a word, and the Chinese, not liking the thought of losing oil, are suggesting selling all the dollars for 10c on the $!!

Quick EPU: Sky News has its tabloidy moments, but it’s subject to independent oversight, so it can’t go Faux. Indeed, Faux has been reprimanded for its bullshit by the UK standards commission because it gets rebroadcast on the Sky satellite.

As for why they sat on it? They might have been issued a D-notice, which is a ‘voluntary’ govt. request to not publish.

White House Wants New Czar to Oversee Wars!

http://www.reuters.com/article…..7520070411

That job used to belong to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I guess Shrub wants to outsource their work too. So what will that make Shrub? The Contractor instead of the Decider?