"If any are in doubt, we are seeing a repeat of 1938 right before our very eyes."

What we are really seeing is the preparation for the entrance of the anti-christ. But forget about what the nations will or won't do, keep your eyes on the Christ for He is coming soon. There are missionaries undercover in Iran who are not praying for military action, they are begging heaven for souls.

Also, remember when God bargained with Abraham for Sodom's fate and the Lord agreed that if there were ten righteous in Sodom He would not destroy it? Well there are many more than ten believers in Iran so we as Christians need to pray for their protection and that God would grant them power to reach the Iranian people.

You see, it all depends on your perseption.

By the way I subscribe to Khomeini's view of commitment to God wholly without compromise and nationalism. It is a shame his commitment is to a demon and not the One True God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Finally the President of Iran's desire to wipe out Israel will come to nothing without America's intervention, the Lord God Almighty watches over His covenant like a shepherd watches over his sheep. The Lion's claws of vengeance are now distended and about to pounce on all his enemies, so relax, stand still, and see the salvation of our God!!

I'd heard about the de-escalation rule and thought it was a spoof.
I agree, we've been at war for years with the RoP.
Great post

I really enjoyed this well-argued post by PRCalDude.

I would like to point out that Britain's adoption of the "de-escalation strategy" is directly linked to its state-sponsored socialism, and the resulting negative economic consequences thereof for its insufficient military spending in times of war or conflict.

In socialistic countries, goverment spending occurs at almost every level in almost every area of life. Government replaces the individual, and socialism replaces the private free market model. That is why personal income tax rates in Europe are so outrageously high, compared to the USA.

My point is that government intrusion ("gov. payments")in almost every area of life, under the socialism model, necessarily leads to the abandonment of an "offensive-minded" , pro-active armed forces strategy. This leads next to the "de-escalation strategy." If there are not sufficient funds available for armed forces or military action, then your military leaders, in effect, are committed to a defensive posture only. After all, if a nation's leaders ***do not "spend to win"*** (concerning a future conflict or war), then the consequence is that in effect you are "spending to be defensive only." The lack of sufficient finances for military spending arises in socialistic countries precisely because the socialism model is committed in principle to government intrusion ("gov. payments") in almost every area of life.

For example, look at Britain's 1982 Falklands War with Argentina. It is well-known that that particular brief war was immensely costly for Britain, leading some to conclude that over a long stretch of time, Britain would have likely lost that war due to negative economic reasons alone (in the same manner that the USSR "lost" the Cold War precisely because the USSR could not "keep up" with the USA in economic spending on military, armed forces, etc).

This post is not meant to belittle Britain's military.

Rather, the intention here is only to point out that the socialistic model, over time, hinders a nation's ability to "spend to win" concerning future conflicts.

Instead, the lack of sufficient military funds contributes to a "spend in order to just be defensive only" posture.

Take a moment, and think about what would happen if socialistic Britain really did (and rightfully so) confront Iran over its kidnapping of British citizens. What would happen? Maybe Iran would escalate a little bit, causing Britain to send a carrier fleet or two. Or maybe Iran would take action, forcing Britain to declare war? Can Britain economically "win that war" when all of its financial resources are already economically "tied up" in other areas? Can Britian economically "spend to win the war" when its over-taxed citizens are already taxed at astronomically high personal taxation levels?

The USA, though not perfect by any stretch of imagination, nonetheless, does not have an identical economic model (of socialism) with Britain. In the USA, the individual & corporations (free markets or private sector) contribute payments to certain sectors, causing government spending to be reduced, leaving more monies to be available in times of conflict.

If the socialistic model prescribes a "spend in order to be defensive only" mentality, should we really be surprised when Britain refuses to confront a Third World nation like Iran over its recent kidnapping of British citizens in neutral waters?

Should we really be surprised that socialistic countries tend to adopt an "appeasement Chamberlain" approach towards armed conflicts?

Britain no longer rules the waves, the United States does. Britian and Allies of the U.S. can no longer approach any war footing without first appeasing the United States diplomatic circles.

My point is that Blair may very well want to embark on a military solution, but I'll bet the U.S. state department is talking him out of it.

Question is, who's side is the U.S. state department really on?

Granted, Foggy Bottom (U.S. State Department) has always been rumored to be full of "appeasement folks."

I never want to defend the U.S. State Department, which I have read, has a "mind of its own" and often hinders policy.

But I wonder, if Bush would have been elated if Blair had sent some fireworks over Tehran. It would be nice to see a European country show some backbone for once.

Not sure if I agreed with the "cowardice" or other comments.

Claiming that would certainly fly-in the face of British experiences in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and elsewhere.

The British were just operating according to INTERNATIONAL LAW.

What this really is AN UNLAWFUL ACT.

I am incensed about it and the the recent unlawful TV footage.

Finally rest assured. Britain is far from a spent force. Indeed we still have a very capable military...

Lets just see what happens now...

I hope Americans support the return of our servicemen. Remember who have been there since the beginning (pre-9/11) with no questions asked...

Iran's strategy of "divide and conquer" is not going to work this time ... q.v. the last Spanish elections and the rail explosions...

M,

I certainly appreciate your reply.

There was a time when Britain respected no international law - it sailed under its own laws. As it should. Britain has been a great force for good in the world. International law is determined by the thugs of the UN. Admiral Nelson is now rolling in his grave. We absolutely support the return of your servicemen. We hope that both of our governments grow spines.

"it sailed under its own laws"...
Well... the worlds certainly changed and so has Britain - but most of these very laws were made for the good of all peoples... general rules of conduct to prevent this sort of thing happening in the first place.
But even so - you always see Britain engaging with other countries and cultures. After the <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter" title="Atlantic_Charter"> America taught the UK some things that we probably needed to learn politically/culturally... and I'm sure the "relationship" has gone both ways in the past 60 years.
Go all the way back and look at the Magna Carta - a forerunner document for the US constitution...
We were there along with the US at the founding of the UN... and helped set it up. We helped with the declaration on human rights... etc etc etc... I could write pages in this way.

I see the Iranian government as it stands as some sort of throwback to the middle-ages ... a "theocracy" although in this case armed to the teeth and with WMD aspirations... with implied threats to use them also - "wipe Israel off the map"... I was shocked enough by that... but look... Iran doesn't care! Can we really be sure they won't if they did get a WMD??

I find it a tragedy for persian and arab culture that a small "elite" have hijacked Islam and politicised it to the level they have...

On the one hand there was the Taliban/Al-Qaida (as close to religious fascism as you can get... then Saddam Hussein a secular(with religious undertones when it suited them)-dictator in Iraq and then finally the Theocratic-dictatorship of Iran.... each time has seen the manipulation of religion to sure-up political power...

I mean we could debate all this forever. What I have finally given up on - with annoyance - is the numbers of people whom SELECTIVELY write "a history" of events that suit their agendas. It happens all the time ... every day... with certain political groups (in my own country) being the being the worst. Usually these groups have been the first screaming "action now!" - but strangely are those usually protesting "stop the war!" when action's perposed.q.v. Zimbabwe (2007) or numerous other places...

This is particularly apparent - because people are being "educated" to mistrust or simply have no faith in the institutions they help elect ?!?!! - what a paradox! I see most of the Anti-Americanism here now - is due to a small number of usual suspects at it's centre. Some of the very people who (unspoken) don't like the UK either! They like very little above themselves. Selfish as they are.

All I'll say is that Britain - a very open democracy. Looking at it's current political leadership... operating within the law in all respects.
- is fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan (Helmand province)... a major commitment under a Nato/UN mandate
- is fighting / peace-keeping in southern Iraq again UN mandate
and is really"over committed" - trying to keep the peace world wide with our American, Canadian and Nato allies (in which some "usual suspects" have been sadly lacking in support!!!)...
But at the end of the day - who is going to do it..? I see far to many sociopathic and overly ambitious politicians in the international arena... showing not much has changed since the cold-war... just the names and faces are different really.
All I'll say is that the US and UK have to remain at the backbone of the UN - no-one else will...

As we have historical precedent agreements that lay out our objectives for human development in the face of belligerence/tyranny, does anyone see that in the US or UK... because I don't, and I don't see it eminating from them either!
<A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter" title="Atlantic_Charter">
Can these "hostile nations" say the same? I don't think so. Other than there own survival... they care not a jot for their citizens in reality.

M,

What good is international law if it's only followed by Western countries? Who enforces it, the UN? Name one Islamic country that believes in it? The US and Britain enforce it. It is time to do so here.

Islam has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists? Have you studied the Quran and Sunnah? I highly suggest, for your own health, that you buy and read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades." It's over on my sidebar. Islam is Arab culture. There is nothing peaceful about it. Here's my favorite quote from the Qur'an: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. " Surah 9:29. People make this statement with complete ignorance as to what Muslims actually believe.

M: "What this really is AN UNLAWFUL ACT."

What this really is, is an act of war.

But I trust that Blair is above acting rashly. There may be a diplomatic solution in the works that will forego a war. Whether this is good or bad is debatable.

However, average Americans are fully behind Britain and average Americans do respect the bravery and resolve of the average Britan.

We should also remember that there is much more going on here (both politically and militarily) than us average bloggers know.

Dear m in UK:

Welcome!!

Thanks for your insightful comments. While I mentioned Chamberlain above, many of us Americans have not forgotten the men and women of integrity in the British armed services. We have not forgotten courageous British leaders such as Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher.

We stand with Britain.

You have our full support.

Related response:

My response to “Headscarves and Outrage : The Crimson Blog”
http://www.thecrimsonblog.com/2007/03/29/headscarves-and-outrage/

I had some of these same thoughts - the Hi-jab is a religous symbol for one thing.

Double standards here - why aren’t the “Stop the War lobby” (in the UK hijacked by “RESPECT” and what I, being as middle ground politically as you can get would call, “neo-communist”) and Guantanamo protesters (mostly originating from the Middle East and 1st generation immigrants to the UK), Amnesty International and all the others making the same points as they’ve mind numbingly made over the past 4 years????? But I feel with a large degree of double standards themselves.

I agree - sat here in the UK - with all your points John.

All I can say is that watch out for the “peace” lobbyists - trying to turn all this onto the UK government - i.e. it’s their fault.
The only fault they have (UK gov) is not spending enough on National Defence… and haven’t for too long.

I hope Americans realise what this actually is, an attempt to split the UK and US allies? By pressuring the UK in this way…
Iran is now demanding an apology of the UK… how amazingly audacious is that? Trying to humiliate the UK internationally…

This is typical of the Iranians… using BY-PROXY ARMIES to attack their enemies q.v. Hezbollah and current activity in Iraq.

This seizure - Americans must realise is really a challenge to the US - because by seizing allied forces they can try and split the two countries positions. “Divide and conquer”.
If this were a seizure of the US troops I guarantee that the planes and cruise missiles would be being readied right now… The Iranians know this and went for a “softer target”.
This was a deliberate act by them - carefully calculated.

I will certainly not be pleased in my own government - if they bow to the Iranians illegal -”thuggery”. In this obvious attempt to make the UK look impotent. The junta in Argentina made this same mistake in 1982.

Unlike most of our European neighbours - faced with this or threats or anything - British only strengthen their resolve. I feel the “Iranian theocracy”… are in the process of “biting off more than they can chew”….

The PROPOGANDA in a “3rd Letter” directed to “THE BRITISH PEOPLE” has been published…

More grammatical and language errors…

More geopolitical statements.

Iraninan-Theocracy - WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL??????