How embarassing for Britain and humiliating for the families of these pitiful excuses for soldiers! While the main-stream media are absurdly fawning over the released hostages and praising Iran for the peaceful resolution to this crisis, I have a few indelicate questions that nobody but people like me in the pajamas media seem willing to ask:
1. Why didn't the British sailors/marines defend themselves? (Can you imagine U.S. marines letting themselves get kidnapped without a fight?)
2. Why in heaven's name didn't the British destroyer blow the Iranians out of the water when they threatened the sailors?
3. In what British military sensitivity training manual does it allow soldiers to apologize on world-wide TV to kidnappers for crimes that weren't committed?
4. Do you think that the Iranians are more or less scared of coallition forces after seeing how the cowering British dealt with the kidnapping?
5. Am I the only one who's embarassed by Tony Blair's weak attempt at bravado once the hostages were safely home? Yet while they were being held, all he did was lick Ahmadinajad's boot like a sissy and bleat about "peaceful resolutions" and "Iran being an honorable and proud nation".
This whole situation was handled wrongly by every party except Iran...they handled it perfectly to suit themselves. Now they're emboldened to act further to test the resolve of the West.
Winston Churchill is spinning in his grave this morning.
UPDATE: Royal Navy personnel seized by Iran were blindfolded, bound and held in isolation during their captivity.
This is the headline today as these "soldiers" tell their tale of the unspeakable horrors of captivity. Blindfolded, bound, and isolated....OH THE HUMANITY!!!
Gimme a break!
14 comments:
When dealing with a country who's people place zero value on other lives, and especially hate the western culture, one must act accordingly. The coalition should not put personnel in places they can't function. Since all personnel are trained to handle these type of situations, they should have acted/reacted accordingly. Iran must be controlled and controlled quickly. If allowed to fester, this country will continue to strike at the coalition forces resulting in casualties and hostages. If the brits can't handle it, then get out of the way and send in the big boys to do the job. We need a strong presence in the Middle East, one that is dominating and fearful. Our military needs to have marching orders that include elimination of an insurgent,if need be, as well as the ability to take all necessary steps to fulfill a situation completely. These Iranian's should have been fired upon and eliminated immediately and then let the politicians sort out the disagreements.
Exactly. I heard that the Royal Navy, once the greatest and most powerful navy on Earth, had to call in the attack to headquarters and wait for permission to take action. Of course by the time #10 Downing Street made a decision, it was way too late. Did Britain learn nothing from Vietnam? You cannot micromanage a war from an office back home. If you have soldiers in a hostile zone, they must, must have the autonomy of self preservation.
This is unbelievable to me, and sadly I think it's only the beginning of the end of the British Empire as a force in the European region. As the Muslims agressively colonize each and every country of old Europe, they will fall with a whimper rather than a roar....exactly like their soldiers were taken hostage...with a whimper.
In our lifetime I fear, the US will stand as the sole resistance to Muslim colonization of the Christian world.
My wife and I wondered last night, what kind of world our grand-children will grow up in. Old Europe is a bellwether of the coming Muslim storm.
Why not nuke both Europe and the muslims, Ed? You start to sound like a liberal.
Sadly the cat is out of the bag. If we could have seen what was coming 20 years ago when the radical Muslims were forming in Iran, I would have supported a pre-emptive nuclear strike on them, but cry babies in this country would have howled.
I don't see liberalism in my worry about what the world will look like in 50 years. Seriously, communist China will control Asia, Socialists will control South America, Africa will be backwards and hopeless as it always has been, and the Muslims will in all likelyhood control Europe (Eurabia). So tell me, who is left that is friendly to the U.S.?
"So tell me, who is left that is friendly to the U.S.?"
In other words; nuke 'em all!
I beleive that nuking the entire world is overkill. Most of the world is incapable of even token resistance from our military might, so leave them be. Just destroy those that need it and move on. Your turn K.Rider.
Nuke 'em all? I never said that. There will be a few contries who are friendly to us...Australia, Japan, New Zealand maybe.
The problem is that most of the countries who aren't openly hostile to the U.S., are at least dramatically weakened by political correctness...Canada, U.K., Scandinavia.
The obvious solution is to become energy independent. If we do not require a drop of middle east oil, we won't have to care what they think or do with the oil price. As it stands, they have us by the short and curlies. We need their oil and they know it, so we have to handle them with kid gloves.
But for our oil dependence, we could theoretically nuke the Arabs without consequence. That kind of threat would seriously focus the minds of otherwise radical Sheiks who pine for our downfall.
Ed, they would not "pine for our downfall" if we stopped occupying their countries.
I enjoy your differing input. Oh, but you are wrong this time Paula!
I just returned from a business trip to Malaysia. The Muslim Malaysians absolutely abhore the United States of America. To the point that my local counterpart introduced me as Canadian, not to hurt his business. Last time I checked we don't occupy Malaysia (although they have some nice beach front property for sale now and are trying to lure Euros and Cannucks to have 2nd homes there).
We are hated by many cultures that differ from ours because of the unbridled success we have had.
I wonder how many people defect from countries each year? Of the 100% defectors what percentage comes to the USA and what percentages go elsewhere? I'l bet that we get 95 % or better every single year. I think you might want to consider defecting to the middle East, Paula. You could don your robes and remain silent as a second class citizen. I actually would not wish that on anybody.
Yes bob, I acknowledge that there are people around the world who are jealous of our success, and would do us harm simply because of it; however, to think that we can impose our way of life on civilizations who have existed exactly as they do now, for thousands of years, is beyond arrogant.
Iraq will never be a self-functioning democracy, no matter how boldly Bush insists it will be. Just like in the Balkans, the minute we leave they will start killing each other again. So what is the point of involving ourselves in their business?
As for your smart-assed remark about robes, a hajib would look better on me I'll bet, than your # "3" Earnhart tattoo, tank-top, boot-cut Wranglers, and John Deere hat does on you.
Paula: You immediately dropped to the gutter with the last part of your response. I did not insult you or your physical make up at all. I merely suggested that if the Muslims had their way you, as a woman, would be a 2nd class citizen (nay a piece of property) with no rights and especially no voice. I did not slur you, as you did me. If I choose to make an off color comment you will know it. By the way, you seemingly have a remarkable amount of knowledge about male NASCAR fan attire. Are you a racing fan ?
FYI: I sport nary a tatoo, I do not own a tank top or any Wranglers,and the only John Deere logo in my posession is on my 9020T tractor I just bought for the farm.
You suggested that I might consider defection. How should I have taken that? You started the personal attacks.
Getting back on point, I don't like the way women are treated by Islam any more than you, but women's sufferage in Saudi Arabia doesn't constitute grounds for invasion.
If in a couple of years, Iran threatens her neighbors (read Israel) with a nuclear strike, I would support a preimptive strike to prevent it.
If I had to choose a driver to like, it would be Jeff Gordon. He probably doesn't have any tattoos or tank-tops either.
I regret my choice of words. I have reread my comments and you correctly pointed out the reference to defection. My mind was ahead of my typing and, unfortunately for me, my point was made incorrectly. I did not however refer to you, personally,in a derogatory manner ,nor have I ever stated that the opinions you espouse are "smart-assed" (to use your words).
You pointed out that we agree on the poor treatment of women in the Muslim culture; but the only way to correct that is to westernize their thinking. If we stay out of these areas of the world, then nothing will change - ever.
When will it be acceptable for us to enter other cultures/countries? Are we not being invaded and having major changes to our way of life by Muslim terrorists, and Mexican/Latin immigrants?
Yes we are being invaded, as Ed has ranted about endlessly, but that doesn't give us the right to be the 800lb gorilla to everyone else in the room. We should solve our problems in ways that are right for ourselves.
I do support gently nudging other countries with carrots, not sticks, into seeing that democracy and freedom are part of the natural human condition. We can't clobber them with freedom and democracy before they're ready for it.
Post a Comment