For the record my personal preference would be to see HMS Cornwall slam a Harpoon missile down onto the deck of one of those pathetic IRGC gunboats as an indication of Her Majesty's Governments mild displeasure at the recent turn of events, with the promise of more of the same to come should the Iranians be so foolish as to retaliate or harm the hostages.

Posted by: Ardashir Khan at March 24, 2007 8:25 AM

When Britain first, at heaven's command,
Arose from out the azure main,
Arose, arose, arose from out the a-azure main,
This was the charter, the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain:

Rule Britania!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must in their turn, to tyrants fall,
Must in ,must in, must in their turn, to tyrants fall,
While thou shalt flourish, shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Let's hope Britain remembers this when dealing with the Iranians.
May God keep the sailors safe.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at March 24, 2007 8:25 AM

Intern all Iranian nationals in Britain. Grab a few of the noisier Khomeini-ite Iranian clergy serving Shi'ites in the West and threaten to choke them with lard until the hostages are released.

Posted by: Kepha at March 24, 2007 8:49 AM

Iranians are taking on the Brits and l am sure howling with laughter at the stupidity of the Brit military brass and government. will the Britt government grow a spine, or will they remain neutered.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 24, 2007 9:07 AM

In any other time, this act by Iran would be viewed as an act of war.

Posted by: Foehammer at March 24, 2007 9:08 AM

How could the British let this happen--again!!! They are supposed to be a military force, yet "brag" that their troops were captured "peacefully" without firing a shot. See http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/24/iran.uk.sailors/

The last time a military displayed similar incompetence was when the French surrender to the Nazis without firing a shot!

Posted by: Silmarel at March 24, 2007 9:47 AM

Soldiers obey orders, they have rules of engagements, the soldiers were ordered not to fight if in a confrontation with the Iranians. This shows how disciplined the UK troops were, even if it was a stupid policy at this point.

And please stop attacking the French, they have sent an aircraft carrier haven't they?

The French defeat by the Nazis was due to strategic and tactical errors and the huge advantage that the German tactical innovations had given them. The French did not have time to learn those lessons, the Brits did.

Posted by: Daffersd at March 24, 2007 9:57 AM

Iranian Islamic theocratic state of exporting terrorism is culpable in the killings of hundreds of U.S. and Allied soldiers. Then they thumb their noses at the world again with aggressive behavior like this in order to jockey for more influence. The time is long over for discussions and talk.

Posted by: Foehammer at March 24, 2007 10:54 AM

The 15 Brits were on water-craft (either their small craft or the larger vessel which they had boarded for inspection). It is a very difficult to launch any defensive action (other than close quarter self-defense, e.g. against an attacker while aborad vessel being inspected) while in such a situation (where does one duck for cover or move for better counter-attack position while on a small craft?). Neither is their mission one of offense, i.e. they were not prepared for a combat situation or -in this case an act of piracy. As their government has not declared war on the Persians -yet- they cannot fight -even in their own defense.
Their mission is as inspectors for contraband items on suspect sea-going vessels -only. They are authorized by international agreements to board and inspect suspect vessels. The Iranian terror-masters in this case -and in general, again- are violating international law/convention and should be rebuked for doing so by the international community (unless the i.c. no longer supports its own conventions and laws).
If politicians of U.K. and U.S. were leaders they would begin grabbing more and more of the many Persian illegal fighters in Iraq (sanctioned by international agreement).

Posted by: TINBH at March 24, 2007 11:08 AM

I'm not exactly sure these Brits made the right move surrendering. no one wants to throw away their lives needlessly but the fact of the matter is they should have considered the fact that they are probably going to be tortured and kept for 444 days or who knows how long.
IF they had fought back, yes the Brit sailors and marines probably would have all died but then Britain, the USA and perhaps other freedom loving nations would have what they need to forcefully stop Iran for good.
Now the British get to negotiate and show signs of weakness.

Posted by: Avatar at March 24, 2007 11:12 AM

Be sure - the British Marines and Sailors made the best decision possible under those circumstances.
Imagine yourself in their situation (try standing steady on a small craft to fire a weapon).
Imagine not knowing who or what was upon them.
Do they shoot first without knowing who it is they are shooting at (be certain that the IRNG did not approache them with their identification in full view and likely they were not hailed via radio, etc. and apprised of their impending doom)?
Can you imagine the international outrage on the side of the Persian terrorists if the Brits had fired first - and particularlly if Persian pirates had been killed. The Iranian terrorist regime would have declared war and received full support of what now passes for international concensus had any of the British attempted to self-defend. By acting as they did - not giving the Persian islamosupremacists any reason to gain any more than they have from this illegal activity -these men did a superior job.
And they are not suicide lunatics as are jihadi. If one prefers suicidal tactics - better to root for the islamonazis.
They stand much better chance of suviving as "bargining chips" in the hands of Iranian terrorists (who are of a nation state, which has now acted against international law and can be held to more easily than stateless/state-sponsored terrorists) than they would as POWs (which they are not) and better chance of survival than had they attempted a suicidal self-defense (had they had time and even the slightest chances).

Posted by: TINBH at March 24, 2007 11:37 AM

TINBH,
Seems to me your prescription is survival at any cost. Typical these days, we see it everywhere. If we just surrender maybe they will not chop off our heads. The Americans and Brits as far as Command goes are pathetic. I can not express how happy I am not to have to work under these PCMC Commanders. These are their rules of engagement, the enemy has different ones, but never mind we are modern American commanders who never won a war in 60 years! We are good at what we do (or don’t do).There are no Greene’s, Sherman’s, or Patton’s any more. This is all part of the same problem, poor leadership and sensitivity to the enemy that is unprecedented in the history of warfare.
It's not only the army the AF drops leaflets warning enemy troops to leave their equipment and flee, they will always be able to construct ieds to kill our soldiers later at their leisure. If our men do their job too well they get this…
“Marine Unit Ordered Out of Afghanistan’
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-ap-marines-afghanistan,0,2004596.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

Of course you will probably agree with that decision as you have the other, being either a leftard an islamist, or just plain scared s***less.

I have the ultimate respect for our fighting enlisted men, some of their commanders IMHO are cut from the same cloth as burtha or scarry.

Posted by: tgusa at March 24, 2007 12:13 PM

My instinct was correct, Ahmadinejad had no idea this was going on. This does not bode well as the hardliners are now with the Supreme Council pushing this past Ahmadinejad's overt responses.

In translation, the government of Iran is not in control any more. They have deemed it necessary to drive a wedge between American and British unity and think hostages will do this.

I will repeat, the British United States policy should be Blair coming out and saying the UK will not be held hostage by state sponsored terrorism. The UK should then launch a missile strike on Quds bases and NATO should then be ready to take out Iran when they respond.

The US and France have the firepower in the gulf and the USS Boxer is sitting there just waiting to take over the Iranian oil fields. The Boxer is an invasion task force and is why it is on station.

Oh and to repeat an earlier post. These Brits are seperated now and chained to individual nuclear targets as human shields.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 24, 2007 12:35 PM

"The US and France have the firepower in the gulf"

My thoughts excactly. Why didn't the U.S. Navy surrond those Iranians and tell them "backoff or get sunk"?

Where's Halsy and Nimitz when we need them?

Posted by: walterc at March 24, 2007 1:22 PM

We are not fighting for America any longer, we are fighting for sharia law. We need to wrap up the wars we are fighting now before we begin another. This is a global guerilla war and the commanders don’t get it. They all look like civilians, they will shoot, rape, mutilate their own and blame it on us! We don’t have any Halsey’s or Nimitz’s, we have Elmer Fudd and Mr. Magoo. Do you recall the P-3(ASW aircraft) that collided with the Chinese fighter and subsequently landed in China where the Chinese proceeded to disassemble the bird of its super advanced technology during the Clinton years? Perhaps one of the greatest blunders in modern history yet nary a word was spoken of it. The Captain probably got a medal when he should have been drummed out of the service. Surrender in the name of saving yourself and a few others regardless of the damage it causes to hundreds of millions in your country has for a long time been sop.
"There are few generals that have run oftener, or more lustily than I have done…But I have taken care not to run too far and commonly have run as fast forward as backward, to convince our enemy that we were like a crab, that could run either way.”
Nathaniel Greene, Gen. USA, the epitome of guerilla warfare.
“It seems to be a law of nature, inflexible and inexorable, that those who will not risk cannot win.”
John Paul Jones, Capt. USN

Posted by: tgusa at March 24, 2007 1:50 PM

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Wait a minute. Isn't the British Navy now under the command of a Paki Admiral? If yes, the surrender of this once proud Navy is done, in the name of multiculturalism no less.

Kinda like having Gen. Abizaid in command of the US Army in Iraq.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 24, 2007 2:12 PM

Speaking of weak-tit military command, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the top U.S. commander in Afghan, just expelled a US Marine Special Operations company from the country cuz he didn't like their violent response to an IED attack launched against them by Moslem activists.

It seems that some apparent civilians got killed during the fight.

When will the US Navy stop building mosques and analyze enemy tactics, you know, the part where they fight from amidst civilians so as to tug at military ethics from a bygone, pre-Jihad era in Western Civilization?

To wit, the 34 Day War in southern Lebanon, where we saw the cowardly spectacle of murdererous Hizbullah attacking Jewish civilians, and then showing the Islamic nerve to whine to the ever- sympathetic Western media about apparent civilian losses in and around their Kayusha firing positions...

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

Hey, how's that murder trial going against the Marines who killed a couple of apparent civilians in Iraq? This is the court martial trial sanctioned by George W. Bush.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 24, 2007 2:24 PM

..the 4 carrier groups(including one French) are
very vulnerable..(or so I am beginning to believe)

Myth Of US Invincibility
Floats In The Persian Gulf

"During the summer of 2002, in the run-up to President Bush's invasion of Iraq, the US military staged the most elaborate and expensive war games ever conceived. Operation Millennium Challenge, as it was called, cost some $250 million, and required two years of planning. The mock war was not aimed at Iraq, at least, not overtly. But it was set in the Persian Gulf, and simulated a conflict with a hypothetical rogue state. The "war" involved heavy use of computers, and was also played out in the field by 13,500 US troops, at 17 different locations and 9 live-force training sites. All of the services participated under a single joint command, known as JOINTFOR. The US forces were designated as "Force Blue," and the enemy as OPFOR, or "Force Red." The "war" lasted three weeks and ended with the overthrow of the dictatorial regime on August 15.

At any rate, that was the official outcome. What actually happened was quite different, and ought to serve up a warning about the grave peril the world will face if the US should become embroiled in a widening conflict in the region."
http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm

Posted by: Madduck at March 24, 2007 2:28 PM

"If the games had been real, it would have been the worst US naval defeat since Pearl Harbor."

..from above war game analysis..

Posted by: Madduck at March 24, 2007 2:34 PM

If you are trying to tell me that Iran is capable of destroying the West in a shooting war then I think you should go and lie down in a dark room for an hour.

Posted by: Mert at March 24, 2007 2:47 PM

This cannot be true!

I did not see them, but in the last month the BBC did a couple of documentaries on and from Iran saying how wonderful the Iranians were and how they were constantly misrepresented in the west!

Posted by: Fred at March 24, 2007 2:52 PM

Madduck, that made pretty sobering reading and is certainly a possibility based on the area. I hope that the core of the fleet is standing off a bit further away and the learnt the lessons from that war game rather than bursh it under the table.

I hope that the British sailors do not have much operational knowledge...

Posted by: Daffersd at March 24, 2007 3:12 PM

To go from Reagan’s Navy to where we are now, it took a Clinton to get us here. China and her sub threat is, HUGE. Clinton closed down entire asw bases, he ravaged the USN and the Marines. He was also very close to the Chinese, some might even say he was in bed with them. His minions exported high tech to the Red Chinese even though it was illegal. That depended on what the meaning of “illegal” was. And now some want to do it all over again. If you ever look up and see a Chinese nuclear warhead coming down on you, you won’t have to ask, how’d they do that?

Pearl Harbor, think about that for a moment. A quiet Sunday morning in December when an unprepared military did a decent job of responding in spite of the circumstances, vs. planned in detail war games, good lord every relic needs to go. Hmmm, didn’t they do something similar after Pearl?

Mert,
What happens if the Chinese hordes come swarming at us ala Korea only this time they have a large navy? I don’t like it anymore than you but the fact is we had been gutted long before 9-11. The peace dividend that wasn’t.

Posted by: tgusa at March 24, 2007 3:13 PM

Who says the Chinese are lining up for a fight?

Posted by: Mert at March 24, 2007 3:28 PM

I’m sorry tgusa but I fail to see the connection between selling somebody arms and starting WWIII.

HMS Sheffield was hit by a French missile fired from a French plane. On the other hand the General Belgrano started its life as the USS Phoenix. Should Maggie have declared war on America and France for supplying the enemy? Hell if that was the case Britain would be sunk! We’d sell weapons to Martians if we could find any with a cheque book.

And anyway does the Chinese man or woman on the street have any burning hatred of the West?

Posted by: Mert at March 24, 2007 3:41 PM

Mert,
Who says they aren’t? Have you been following the buildup? Are you aware of how many have been caught here in the USA working in high tech environments and transferring high tech secrets? Why, supposedly they want to sell us junkie electronics and other cheaply made goods so why the aggressive buildup? Gotta think ahead or we might lose all of ours. We may or may not realize the impact of our actions in the future although history is littered with the bodies of those who failed to make a critical connection.

Posted by: tgusa at March 24, 2007 3:48 PM

Hey don’t get me wrong, I’m not waving a peace in our time paper here. But I fail to see why China would choose the Islamists as the vehicle to carry them into a global war against a power equal to their own, without good reason, and at the cost of a large portion of their manufacturing economy.

Better they sell their arms to our enemies for large profits and combat experience, than fight us over the Mullahs in Iran.

Remember, it is not as though the Americans have no guilt in these matters. Russia may have held Afghanistan for quite a while if it wasn’t for stinger missiles and CIA money. Just like Russian and Chinese money and weapons in Vietnam.

The major powers have been playing games since WWII. I believe they would rather play their games in other people’s countries because the result of playing the home team could be the nuclear destruction of your homeland and not somebody else’s.

So, if you’re asking me to believe Iran can rely on Russian and Chinese military support in the form of boots on the ground. I have to say no. That is a war for another generation to fight

Posted by: Mert at March 24, 2007 4:11 PM

TSUGA writes:
"Of course you will probably agree with that decision as you have the other, being either a leftard an islamist, or just plain scared s***less."

A little personal aren't you tsuga - considering you have no idea what you are talking about and to whom you direct your insulting and ad hominem attack.

The western fighters - fight smart not as islamolnazis or your "lefttards" -which is in almost clueless manner. You fight always when possible and don't when it is better to save yourself and your people -in order to live to fight another day. That's not whimping out- or leftist idiocy - it's called intelligence.

Points above were made to support the 15 souls who now sit somewhere in islamofacsist hell - precisely because of "left-tard" mentality - which prevails -NOT IN MOST OF THE MILITARY - but everywhere else surrounding.

The 15 should not have committed suicide - as it would -under current wide-spread mentality of idiocy - prove nothing but a futile effort.

Additionally - the islamonazi-Persians are the ones who have already lost this little battle - as they did nothing but take hostages -again- via their typical nancy-fashion of only attempting any fight when all odds are in their favor - or enough women and children are around to hide behind.

So layoff the 15 men about doing something stupid and islamic - like suicide - until you are willing to mount your own non-pc suicide missions vice "virtual battle" on internet for a civilization of people, which in most part would neither benefit - nor give a "lefttard's" wind for their actions.

Posted by: TINBH at March 24, 2007 4:15 PM

I never said they should commit suicide, but given the situation with Iran, what were they doing there in the first place? I feel for these men, but if we are to play the hostage game we will lose! That was an act of war and the failure to respond will set a precedent that the west cannot afford. We are talking about the future of us all and I try to keep that in mind what ever I am doing. During Vietnam they tortured POWs and we did nothing in response so we set a precedent and now we can expect it. We can also expect that nothing will be done in response. As usual.

Posted by: tgusa at March 24, 2007 4:31 PM

"what were they doing there in the first place?"

as stated all over in the news - they were in the "Shat al Arab" waterway - which also represents the border between Iran and Iraq and is in continual dispute by Iraq and Iran (water changes land borders always). Therefore the 15 were comming from the Iraqi side and boarded vessel -most likely also on Iraqi side - but the Persians -likely dispute and therefore claim it was on their side.
The 15 were not on a "covert suicide mission deep behind enemy (Iranian) lines". They were acting in perfect legitmate fashion conducting internationally sanctioned inspection of vessels.
So -for the final attempt- the Iranians look stupid - internationally- for violating territorial boundries, taking hostages, etc.

"During Vietnam they tortured POWs and we did nothing in response so we set a precedent and now we can expect it."

Have a look at some history (non-leftard cultural marxist type) and you will see that a very heavy price was paid by the NVN communists and non-communists alike (including innocents) for what was done to our POWs.
BTW - that response elicited appropriate reactions -each time- until the truely cowardly of this nation took charge of government. For a quick lesson on what this means -check any "news story" to see the exact same thing is happening again.

"We can also expect that nothing will be done in response."
Not so fast to this conclusion ...

One will make a much better warrior for the cause of Western Civilization if one makes use of all information and opportunities to learn - e.g. via JW/DW.

Posted by: TINBH at March 24, 2007 4:50 PM

TINBH,
Do you think it is the common perception among our enemies (or even here in the USA) that we did something about the treatment of POWs? I wonder what percentage of the country even knows that POWs were tortured. Conversely much of the world thinks we are systematic torturers as ridiculous as that may be.
“British sailors admit entering Iran waters: Iran military”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070324132921.v0bpjlp8&show_article=1
Who would have thought they would claim this?

Posted by: tgusa at March 24, 2007 6:01 PM

Makes one wonder just what HMS Cornwall was doing while all this was going on? Are we to believe that they were clueless about the Iranian presence? Did they just mis-understand Iranian Intentions?

These small boats would serve no purpose being far from the ship they opperate from.

Are we sure they haven't become feed for Roosters yet?

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 24, 2007 6:20 PM

RE: tgusa at March 24, 2007 06:01 PM

Apparently as few know about that as you: "During Vietnam they tortured POWs and *we did nothing in response* ... ."

And why is that tsuga? Who owns your brain?

BTW, speaking of candle burning at both ends:
your example of a US Navy aircraft "surrendering" to communist chinese is full of half-truths.

During what war did this incident take place?
Oh -there was no war, just another international incident provoked by the communists chinese against aircraft operating well within all limits international convention and laws-during peacetime - and hoping it would gain much more than it did for their idiotic causes (and to temper the utter embarrassment their dumb pilot brought upon their nation). BTW - how long were those personnel held and tortured by the CHICOMs?

"Surrender in the name of saving yourself and a few others regardless of the damage it causes to hundreds of millions in your country has for a long time been sop."

Again - in which war did this action take place?
How much damage has it done to "hundreds of millions" in this country?

It seems you like to sacrifice lives of good decent US military personnel with abandon. Are you willing to do so? And how long might you be willing - in same or similar situation.

What military s.o.p. of the USA or other ever advocated suicide missions; i.e. the captain of said plane should kill himself and all of his crew and for what purpose? To save the great war effort against the commuist Chinese...oh yes, there was no war, but that doesn't mean our military personnel shouldn't kill themselves as tsuga implies. In fact suicide is a punishable offense in the US military. Are you aware of that fact?

And more...

"Do you recall the P-3(ASW aircraft) that collided with the Chinese fighter..."

Wrong - the chinese fighter purposely and very stupidly attempted to bump the aircraft (law of physics action=reaction and bigger mass wins over smaller almost everytime, thus tiny bump by little commiechinese fighter got bigger reactive bump from US aircraft = stupid fighter pilot -now forever interred in the cold watery depths of the South China Sea...).

"... and subsequently landed in China where the Chinese proceeded to disassemble the bird of its super advanced technology during the Clinton years?"

YHGTBK: Not even a single percentage as much as that Clintonistas outright sold, traded and given to the chicoms... . Again - why do you so wish that US military personnel -or any for that matter- kill themselves for such ridiculous reasons?

"Perhaps one of the greatest blunders in modern history yet nary a word was spoken of it."

Do read some history before invoking any such claims.

When you're ready to put down that x-box controller for whatever war simulation game you're playing we'll see you on the front lines of the battle field tsgua. On second thought - don't show up. You will be a danger to yourself and any would be commrades in arms (who wouldn't even let you do a suicide mission even if you could-in fact would demand you be left back at home base cleaning the potatoes).

Posted by: TINBH at March 24, 2007 6:41 PM

TINBH
FO, on second thought dive on a potato, if you can locate one.

Posted by: tgusa at March 24, 2007 6:50 PM

Exactly the answer expected of "generalisimo" tsuga.
Try the non=personal less emotional approach to commenting. It is less "leftard" and or islmaic.

Posted by: TINBH at March 24, 2007 6:54 PM

Glad to be of service.

Posted by: tgusa at March 24, 2007 6:59 PM

Parachute, yes every crewman was assigned one, that is unless they were already sold to china. There was no choice between landing in china or suicide. You are disingenuous and I won’t buy in to your leftard view of history so call me any names you like, portray me in any way you see fit it, twist my words to fit your posts, I don’t care. It only proves you are indeed, well, you know what you are. BTW why do leftards tell others to not get personal/emotional just after they get personal/emotional? Mental Illness?

Posted by: tgusa at March 24, 2007 7:48 PM

now the iranians are gonna charge them with espionage.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at March 24, 2007 9:08 PM

http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm
Posted by: Madduck

Consider the source: rense.com

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 24, 2007 9:37 PM

Intern all Iranian nationals in Britain. Grab a few of the noisier Khomeini-ite Iranian clergy serving Shi'ites in the West and threaten to choke them with lard until the hostages are released.
Posted by: Kepha

You are reading my mind.. tied them up with ropes made of bacon. Feed them bacon bits and pork rinds.. and Chinese dog food until we get the sailors back.

If the sailors are harmed then these Shiits will have to suffer the reciprocal fate.

If we can prove them to be agents of the iranian state they are fair game just as they did to these sailors.

Will bLiar have the guts? Or is Galloway running things over there?

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 24, 2007 9:41 PM

All the Armed Forces need to develop defencive measures that can be effective against an enemy can use a true thinking guided weapon.

From front line Iranian Sappers with 40-50lbs. of Explosives charging the front lines.

Attacks like the Cole Bombing. 30 footers with 1000 lb. Bomb in place of a crew of 4.

Small prop Planes Rigged the same way. Even front line Aircraft Loaded for Bear on a one way Mission. Use em or lose em.

For Ships to operate in the Gulf reasonably safe. Would probably require occupying and controlling a stretch of Iranian territory 20-50 miles deep, along the entire western Coastline of Iran.

I really doubt that any Commercial Ship in the Gulf has any means of point defence. So it only takes one crazy, in a speed boat of some type, with a 1000 pounds or more, to make a really big impact on the life of Captain and Crew.

They even showed these Boats in one of their "War Game Films"

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 25, 2007 9:36 AM

Well, is it Iran just pushing the west..or is it possible that it is just another case of piracy, dont laugh, read below...
More than 1100 incidents of piracy have been reported worldwide since 1999 ...

Pirates were well-known in the history of the United States, but even though there is once again a rise in pirates attaching ships, the media is fairly quite on the subject...- the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic Barbary states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.
Even on February 25, 2007 Pirates hijacked a cargo ship delivering UN food aid to north eastern Somalia.

PPI | Trade Fact of the Week | March 10, 2004
Piracy Rates Are Rising..
Number of pirate attacks on ships, 2001: 335
Number of pirate attacks on ships, 2002: 370
Number of pirate attacks on ships, 2003: 445
Last week alone, according to the International Maritime Organization, pirates attacked seven ships.

Posted by: Gaye at March 25, 2007 10:41 PM

Wasnt it Hillary Clinton who sold many secrets and military high tech secrets to the Chinese which although was illegal there has been no steps from the Bush government to address this treason..

Posted by: Gaye at March 25, 2007 10:52 PM

evidently there was a cargo on the ship that the Iranians did not want discovered..

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 26, 2007 9:30 AM

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE THAT A BUNCH OF ISLAMIC TERRORIST HAVE THEIR MEN??

Maybe England has already got their women in burkas and don't like short skirts anymore

I saw how the monsters were treating the Brits and looked like the mulsum terrorist tapes

Have the British people all on prozac or what??

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL MULSUM TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM IN ANYWAY AMEN

Posted by: Catherine at March 27, 2007 5:40 AM