Will America "loss?" This is a good question. They have a string of recent frustrations surely, but I'm not positive that they classify as "loses." With so many victories, it's difficult to gauge how many "loses" they've had, except that in the impending war with Iran, American will surely "loss."

What´s wrong with these puftas? Did they forget to bring limes on board?

How are Her Gracious Majesty Forces going to react, if the Iranians transform the 15 "heroic" sailors into human shields on their nuclear facilities???

It is obvious #11 is anti American and anti Bush and wants Bush out. As far as picking a fight with Iran., It will make my day.

I heard that England is sending in Austin Powers International man of Appeasement and if that does not work Blairs only other option is a soccer match.

B"H If Iran thinks it is winning brownie points at the UN for taking the British military hostage, it is wrong. That is no way to win favors, and the US military as far as I know is "no wimp" under President George Bush. But Great Britian is a close ally of the United States now, and this is clearly an act of belligerance that impacts the United States NATO alliance with Great Britian. The United States has treaty obligations with Great Britian for mutual self-defense, and some could consider the hostage taking an act of war. Israel did and launched the war against Lebanon for the hostages taken from the Lebanese border. I think the most effective thing the British and United States could do at this point is back Israel versus Lebanon which is basically controlled at this point by Hisbullah. I miss the days where I could talk to friends in Lebanon who had to evacuate during the war because basically they were Christian and not welcome by Hisbullah which I think is Iranian-backed. Full backing would be to stop pressuring Israel to give up territory. The United States and Britian in fact need Israel to expand territory. It could be in Gaza where Hamas (that has Iranian backing) is active in its violence. It could be in Lebanon, supporting missions to uproot and destroy the hidden missiles that are eventually set to be fired on Israel, the only true ally of Great Britton and the United States in the region. The alliance between Israel, the United States, and Great Britton is founded on a mutual love of freedom for the individual and a mutual love of G-d over the centuries and indeed mellenia for Israel. The ship needs to be redirected. The Secretary of State may need to come home for some consultations on the new direction. Because taking British hostages in my mind has racheted up the conflict a level and that ratcheting deserves an appropriate response. The United States cannot afford to hide an act of war against its close ally, Great Britton any more than it can continue to ignore the rocket attacks on its great ally, Israel. I can give up sweedish chocholate, but Persian rice is delicious. It is good that Passover is coming up. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for me to make the separation.

Has anyone thought about the fact that this Arab Iranians government may actually be looking for an attack from the west? look, with the way the situation is in Iran ( economically and socially) maybe this Arab run government is looking for an attack of some sort in order to gain popularity by way of rising patriotism. This Arab run government is actually under a lot of pressure from its own people. People have lost trust and faith in these mullahs. I think the best and most rational way to deal with this government is a regime change.

One, Iranians would not attack the Americans, period. Iranians are smarter than that, trust me on this one. Two, this brave general, "who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged", is not telling you is that his forces were probably right there and did not raise a finger to help the friggin Brists. Go figure.

Do you not have any honor? Why let the enemy seize you that easy,may be you are not armed then.

You are right,because USA is very rich everything BUT patience

They will surrender,i want to see it on the future.I don´t believe still your words.

I'm quite sure the Americans would have fought back rather than accept capture. That says nothing about the ability or bravery of the British troops, but about the differing rules of engagement. Britain maintains diplomatic relations with Iran -- so far -- and can at least try diplomacy. I think that's a mistake, but I at least understand it. America, on the other hand, is officially known as "the Great Satan", and after the disastrous hostage taking of the Carter Administration, would be staggeringly stupid to give the Iranians a second stab at hostages. I also find it hard to believe that Iran was not aware that the American Rules of Engagement made taking American hostages both unlikely and potentially very embarrassing. The milder British Rules of Engagement, on the other hand, made them ideal candidates for exactly this sort of thing. The humiliation instead is all on the British side -- so far. So I'd say the more "sophisticated" British approach serves British soldiers and the British nation very poorly in this instance. Why doesn't Britain simply state that hostile actions against their military automatically free their military to fight back? This whole incident would have been over long ago.

the perception of neo cons the whole world should agree with them or else...' just like the speech 'either you are for us or you are against us' what arrogance. I really disagree with bush bec look at the mess he created & he want us to clean this macaca he created yet he does not want to admit it & blames everybody & he behaves like a dictator-he thinks he is above the law, wants to expand powers. finally, he is institutionalizing corruption, greed. yes he should be impeached!