The leader of IRAN is so frustrated with the West's inability to recognize an invitation to war! He's going, "Whats a dictator got to do to get a war started these days"?

Exactly the response I'd expect out of a chickenhawk like you, roho, you jackass! You damn right wing nutjobs haven't ever seen a war you don't like, have you! Hell, nuke 'em! Why the hell not, right?? This capturing of BRITISH soldiers, which Iran also did in 2004 and released them a few days later, is an OBVIOUS act of war against the, uh, United States? Haven't you assholes learned anything in the last 4+ years?? You have to actually have a REASON to go to war with somebody. And after Iraq, it's going to have to be a damn good one! If this rogue president of ours uses force on Iran and basically starts WWIII, the impeachment proceedings better start the next day.

Yes, you do need a reason to go to war. For example, the kidnapping of military personnel outside of your territorial waters. That's a cassus belli for Britain. The US, being Britain's ally and at liberty to respond to aggression against allied forces in the Gulf, would also have legitimate cause.

Yeah, I guess you're right, Robin. And according to that logic, we should have bombed the ever loving hell out of China back in what, 2001 I think, when they forced one of our spy planes to land and subsequently interrogated our troops and ripped apart our plane. What do you think? Grounds for war?

And tell me. What effect do you think it would have to go lob bombs at Iran? So we can wave our foam finger, "we're still #1"?? Give me a break, Chickenhawk. You're all just bloodthirsty. It's sickening. And so self-righteous!

I'm British, I don't think we wave foam fingers that much.

Cause for war is not necessarily reason to go to war. Iran has given legitimate cassus belli to both the UK and the US, and yes, China gave legitimate cassus belli to the US in 2001. The cost/benefit of declaring war on China would not have been particularly good. Obviously you take practicality into account as well - that's political and military realism.

But you appear to be demanding the opposite - a total denial of the fact that military action and diplomatic strength are a relevant and important part of international politics. What's sickening to me at the moment is that Iran is holding British troops hostage, putting them on TV to parrot scripted "apologies" for their legitimate actions, and who knows what else. And the only action that's occurred is Tony Blair saying "well, that's bad, give them back" and the ever useful UN putting together a resolution to say that they disapprove.

What you seem to fail to understand is that there is not a single step from absolute placation and appeasement to full scale invasion and nuclear attack. Britain, and hopefully the US as well, need to be putting forward a far harder and less compromising stance against Iranian action. This is a country that is seeking nuclear capability, has leadership which has a stated aim of destroying Israel, which is destabilising the Middle East region through terrorist sponsorship, and which has now kidnapped British troops. And the international reaction is to cower and try to placate them? That's just crazy.