Wackypants Ahmadinejad says he's freeing the kidnapped British soldiers

After he gives his Iranian troops who captured them medals of honor of course... WaPo - Iran today announced the release of 15 British sailors and marines it seized two weeks ago in disputed waters of the Persian Gulf, ending a diplomatic crisis with a bit of political theater that included a chatty, smiling round of goodbyes between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Britons. In a surprise turn of events, Ahmadinejad in a Tehran press conference first awarded bravery medals to an Iranian commander involved in seizing the British seamen on March 23, then announced that the captives were being freed as a "gift" honoring both the Easter holiday and Muslim celebrations commemorating the birth of the Prophet Muhammad. "I announce their freedom," the Iranian president said, according to a translation of his press conference aired on CNN. "They will be free after our meeting. They will go to the airport and be with their families." Wackypants also took the media spotlight and used it to poke fun at the West by questioning our family values because we allow women to join the armed forces and also jokingly pleaded with Blair to not be mad at his soldiers for their remarks that Iran broadcast saying Britain was at fault. As if Britain would actually bring legal action against them for statements made while be held captive, basically a POW. But that's what you get from a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur... a lame sense of humor after reckless acts of war.

Newsflash! Rosie O'Donnell is an idiot

I know, I know... You're saying "Tell me something I didn't already know..." But if you still need covincing check out this clip from The View where she says 9/11 was a fake, she believes the Iranians are the victims, we should impeach the president, and that there is basically no good and evil. You know... standard stuff... So the Brits and Americans staged this British hostage situation to instigate a war... Nevermind that the Brits have come out and given the exact coordinates where their boat was. It took Iran two tries to make up coordinates that were in Iranian waters; funny how the first set they publicized were actually in international waters. The second set was two miles away, and, you guessed it, in Iranian waters. Despite that lie, despite their lies that they'd release the lone female marine held hostage, despite their refusal to allow UN and IAEA inspectors verify their "peaceful" nuclear program, despite the fact that they've taken hostages before, despite their involvement in supplying Iraqi insurgents with weapons that are killing Americans, despite their desire to destroy Israel, one of our greatest allies, Rosie still trusts them more than she does our own government. Well if Rosie trusts them, heck... that's good enough for me... Still, heaven forbid that we actually apply a universal set of standards to Iran's behavior and label them as "bad" or "evil". Those poor Middle East countries just can't get a fair shake from the right wing media machine... Then Rosie goes all Loose Change on us and all but says that 9/11 was orchestrated by our own government. Starts saying that we should get a couple Harvard physicists who'll say that Tower 7 was brought down by demolition. Hey Rosie: Screw Loose change. How about that Popular Mechanics article debunking the conspiracies propogated by you leftwing moonbat lunatics. You want one or two Harvard elites who'll play to your fantasy. Popular Mechanics consulted more than 70 experts from across the country. But I'm sure that's easy to ignore since it doesn't jive with your warped view. You want to get pissed, get pissed at the terrorists who killed nearly 2,000 Americans without provocation on 9/11. That's right, no provocation. We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan. Wackypants Ahmadinejad wasn't even in power yet. So don't blame Bush for doing his best to bring justice to the terrorists and the countries that support and harbor those terrorists. So what's next Rosie? Global warming is a reality?

Iran interrogates captured British soldiers

And why hasn't their been any sort of response yet? TEHRAN, Iran - Iran said Monday it was interrogating 15 British sailors and marines to determine whether they intentionally entered Iranian waters. Britain denies its personnel had left Iraqi territory when they were captured and detained by Iran. British Prime Minister Tony Blair ‘s office sought to play down fears that the incident would deepen tensions with Iran, which threatened to charge the 15 with illegally entering its territory. The seizure of the British service personnel has deepened troubles between Iran and the West, which is concerned about Iran‘s nuclear program and accused the country of interfering with the U.S.-led war in Iraq . According to Iranian state television, Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi did not say what Iran plans to do with the sailors and marines, but he said they were being interrogated. He said the British government was accountable for the group‘s actions. Iran rejected British requests to visit them, warning they could face charges for allegedly entering Iranian waters — charges that Blair‘s office has repeatedly rejected. Britain‘s Defense Ministry would not disclose details of positioning equipment carried aboard the craft that sailors were using when they were seized, but said it was "categorically certain" they had not strayed into Iranian territory. As much as I'm a fan of Tony Blair, he hasn't adequately responded to this. This is in every sense, an act of war. Diplomatic talks while a great option, shouldn't be the only option. Perhaps a naval blockade or a precision strike on a republican guard training compound... Something that says these soldiers lives are more important than some soundbites and a couple rounds of diplomatic talks. Their capture deserves swift a decisive action.

Iran seizes 15 British soldiers

Bombing of Tehran starts in 5 minutes. At least it should. That's an act of war. March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Iran seized 15 British sailors and Marines who were conducting "routine boarding operations" in Iraqi waters, the U.K. Ministry of Defence said. "The boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters," the ministry said in an e-mailed statement. "We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level." Iran's foreign ministry confirmed seizing the Britons "for investigation and questioning" and said it was because British sailors have illegally entered its own territorial waters "a number of times," Agence France-Presse reported, citing Iranian State television. They better get all 15 soldiers back in a timely manner without a hair on their heads out of place. Otherwise you can bet Iran gonna be up to their neck in in shit courtesy of British and US marines.

Britain sends a prince to Iraq

Prince Harry will be fighting for his country in the GWOT in Iraq. Forbes - He's the redheaded son of the late Princess Diana, the rowdy royal known more for dancing until dawn than waking for battle. But Britain's party prince, Harry, is getting his wish and is being deployed to Iraq this spring with his Blues and Royals regiment. Royal officials announced Thursday that the 22-year-old prince would fight for his country, confirming feverish tabloid speculation about the future of the best-recognized tank commander in Britain. His regiment is expected to set out in May or June for a six-month tour. Harry, a second lieutenant, has been trained to lead a team of 12 men in four armored reconnaissance vehicles and could become the first British royal to see combat since his uncle, Prince Andrew, flew as a Royal Navy pilot in the Falklands War against Argentina in 1982. This has of course been all over the MSM lately and deservedly so, but for the wrong reasons. You can hear the newscaster's hand-wringing when they say, "Won't Harry be a huge target for the insurgents?" Sure it's easy to have a brain-fart moment and say of course he'll be a big target, but I think that's giving a little too much credit to the insurgents. How are they going to recognize Harry? I don't think he'll be wearing a crown in the field, or have anything else on him that's going to make him stand out as a Prince of England. It's not like Medieval times when the royalty wore royal garbs into battle. He's going to look like every other tank commander Britain has over there. And when I'm sure by the time a terrorist gets close enough to recognize him, I'm sure his men will make short work of the would-be terrorist. That brings up another good point. His men, knowing who Harry is, are going to fight until their last dying breath to protect their commander, which could very well make it even more difficult to get to Harry. You don't think one of them would throw themselves on a grenade to save him? Take a bullet? They'll stop at nothing to protect him. So good luck Harry. Be safe.

British General say Iraq is worse because we're there

But did General Richard Dannatt really say that? In the Daily Mail interview, Dannatt said: "I don't say the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them." Britain should get "out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems," he told the newspaper. First off the Daily Mail is well known for its opposition to the conservative government’s policies… Think New York Times… Second, what’s he really saying here? Is he discussing Britain’s popularity around the world or the current climate of unrest in Iraq? Sounds like the former, but regardless, is that really true? Will things around the world get better if foreign troops leave Iraq? The Iraqis don’t think so, and I don’t think Muslims around the world will all of a sudden be at peace as soon as we leave Iraq. They flew planes into the WTC long before we were in Iraq. They bombed the USS Cole long before Iraq. They bombed 2 American embassies in Africa long before Iraq. And here’s a host of others’ opinions on the necessity of the Brits (and our) presence in Iraq. And now the good General has come back out and clarified his comments that appear to have been taken out of context saying that the troops should come home soon, Gen Dannatt said there was not "a piece of paper, however thin" between him and the government. The general refused to back down on the substance of his remarks and to some degree compounded them. "I am not a maverick in this sense. I am soldier speaking up for his army. I am just saying come on, we can't be here forever at this level," he told Radio 4's Today programme. "I have got an army to look after which is going to be successful in current operations, but I want an army in five years time and 10 years time. Don't let's break it on this one." In another interview, with Sky News, Gen Dannatt said: "The army is exceptionally busy so I want to see this mission successfully concluded, but I also want to make sure I've got an army that's not so exhausted that it's still there and can do the job in five years' time, in 10 years' time ..." And again the paper tries to take his comments and infer ulterior meanings from them, but all he’s doing is looking out for his troops, and acknowledging commonly held beliefs that we’re not going to be in Iraq forever, but while we’re there, we’re there to win. These are hardly that inflammatory. We’re there. We’re needed. And we’ll be there for several years, but not at the same troop levels we have now. Use your heads people. The Iraqi army and police force are growing and quickly become more and more capable. We’ll get there…. It’s just a matter of when.