How Utterly Disgusting

Just look at this pathetic situation with Iran, how it developed and how it's playing out. Based upon orders from high command, the Brits sat and watched as fifteen members of their military, including one woman, were taken away. And I doubt the US would have behaved any differently.

As the crew members were surrounded in their two rubber dinghies, the Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, frantically radioed back to his own top brass for instructions.

The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire.

A quick aside, the name of the Iranian ambassador is right out of Austin Powers - move ahead my butt:

After a hurried phone call to Blair, she immediately summoned Iran's ambassador, Rasoul Movahedian, to her office to explain their behaviour.

Next, the Brits have to go begging to the International community for support. All that confirms is the weak resolve of, and lack of ability for said community to denounce such outrageous acts, let alone actually confront them.

In the meantime, Blair made a personal call to European allies, including EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, to secure a public denunciation of the Iranians' actions.

"It was impressed on everyone how important it was to raise the diplomatic temperature, rather than keep a low profile and let them make a song and dance of the situation," one defence official said.

"There is nothing to be gained in provoking a confrontation, because that would be playing into their hands. But neither should we let them have it all their way. We tried that before and we're still trying to get our kit back."

Provoking a confrontation? For heaven's sake, a third rate radical religious regime took fifteen members of your military hostage ... and you're concerned about provoking them?  What is this, the new doormat-ism diplomacy? A rhetorical question, I know.

The smaller-scale precedent, the taking of six British marines and two sailors on the same waterway in June 2004, was a painful lesson. The personnel were only returned after they had been paraded blindfold on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally. Three years on, the government is still pressing Iran for the return of its boats and kit, including valuable radar equipment.

They did something similar three years ago and walked away without paying a price. The Brits are still pathetically begging for their boat and equipment back. Their force was paraded around like goats on TV. Is it any wonder why the world can't reign in rogue regimes?

We're always hearing about what a dangerous place the world is. Is it any wonder? Our own traitorous Democrats are undermining our effort in Iraq. That fool Jim Webb and others have been looking for ways to tie the Presidents hands when it comes to dealing with Iran. I won't link it but that anti-American fool Greenwald had a post up about how this is Bush's fault because we're in Iraq. Meanwhile, International criminals are permitted to engage in acts of war without so much as a sling shot firing back.

Yes, the world is a dangerous place. And we only make it more so by refusing to confront countries like Iran and Syria by making them pay a serious price for their terrorism.

Yes, this is an act of terrorism, no matter how you slice it. Start launching bombers and cruise missiles at these idiots now and see how quick they are to take hostages next time they have a chance. Guess what? They wouldn't.

The world powers that are supposed to be the leaders of the free world are acting like dysfunctional parents, scared to death of disciplining an unruly child. Heavens, what might we do to their self-esteem.

This affair is a pathetic mess brought about by the moral weakness of the West. We could inflict all the punishment needed without putting a single soldier on the ground. Instead, allegedly good men do nothing while International outlaws have their way.

Comments

[Buzzy]

Not an act of terrorism, it is an act of War.

Someone needs to explain to me exactly why the Cornwall's commander needed to radio for instructions as his men are taken by force.

And yeah, it sure looks like the British are surrendering to Iran over this.

[daveinboca]

Let's see how long it takes the Brits to kow-tow and beg and then surrender, to the cheers of George Galloway and its Muslim Fifth Column.

[Tom W.]

"And I doubt the US would have behaved any differently."

Baloney. The Iranians attacked us on the Iraqi border in September of 2006, and our forces fired back.

And that was before Petraeus changed the ROE.

Britain's a different story, though. They've been committing national suicide since the end of World War Two, to atone for their centuries of empire.

Silly, because the people whose butts they're kissing are much worse than the Brits ever were.

[Jon G]

Keyboard Generals - sitting in front of your computer ventilating about how, if only you'd been there, you'd have kicked the s*** out of the damn Iranians. Tough like Dick five deferments Cheney. The Brits were actually THERE, so might have a bit better info about what was happening.

Buzzy - you're an idiot.

[Purple Avenger]

"The Brits were actually THERE, so might have a bit better info about what was happening."

That someone had to radio back for guidance suggests otherwise. The commander obviously knew what should have been done, he didn't know if he had the authority to do it.

Which is itself proof of waffle'ish behavior by the Brits.

The old Soviets would have played it differently. They'd have sunk the Iranian vessles then collected up any survivors of the 15, and shot any Iranian survivors.

[Mike_NH_GWVet]

Mr. Jon G are you suggesting by your appeal to Argumentum Ad Hominem (“five deferments Cheney”) that one’s ability to make sound judgments regarding courses of action pertaining to aggressive acts by countries like Iran is a function of one’s veteran status?

If so, how so?

Do you regard veterans as epistemically infallible regarding matters martial?
Do you regard veterans as having “moral authority?” If so, how is it possible that we veterans have this ethical privilege?

If a veteran agrees with those interlocutors with whom you disagree (vis a vis the Iranians) are you prepared to admit you were wrong? After all, a veteran says so.

If one is not a veteran, can he or she judge whether or not his or her country is engaged in a just war? If it is the case that you don’t agree with the privileged-status-of-veterans-implied-by-the chicken-hawk-argument, then why are you casting aspersions?

By the way, those who write the standing orders regarding situations like the one confronting Great Britain are not “actually THERE” either, but they actually are Keyboard Generals!

[Purple Avenger]

FWIW, Thomas Jefferson never spent a day in the military, yet as president somehow recognized the threat from, and managed to deal with, similar Islamic extortionist/pirates in an apparently satisfactory manner.

[Darth Malice]

Any bets when the UK becomes part of the caliphate?

[alison]

Fuck the lot of you. You are so spurious. Well said Jon.

[Fred Beloit]

Jon G, you keyboard peacenik you, I posted a comment on the plan for the Brits that you asked me to formulate under Dan's A Plan For America post. Please let me know what you think of it.

[Fred Beloit]

Alison, thank you for the very well-considered comment. I wonder if you would care to comment on Muslim colonialism and your efforts to stop it. Jon may wish to comment too.

[Dan Riehl]

Relax guys, "Fuck the lot of you," I think Alison just dropped by to let us know she puts out! ; )

[Fred Beloit]

Dan, you so spurious, and so horny too.

[vetter]

Ahh...jon "Chickenhawk" g and the ever so eloquent alison, welcome! Always refreshing to see libo/demo logic at its' finest early on. Now we just need some of the pointless "nee-ner-nee-ner" from ziffy and some meaningless prattle from y3 and the weekend will be complete!

[Phoenix]

Well, as the 'ignorant slut' of the blog, I feel the need to chime in. :)

Our own soldiers have to check with central command before they engage. It's a hardship for sure.

I don't think Britain will go begging this time. Whatever takes place, you can bet we will not know about the truth of it, but I don't think this action will be wasted at all. It's what the sissified westerners need. A few more incidents of this crap, and some heads will turn. I'm sorry for the sailors but glad for the incident.

[Jon G]

I think you misunderstand what a chickenhawk is. A chickenhawk advocates going to war as long as they don't actually have to fight themselves. Kinda like Dan and most of his supporters here where strategic thinking seems means we attack anyone that doesn't do exactly what we want.

For illustrative examples, real chickenhawks would include Dick Cheney - he supported the Viet Nam war but took, count 'em, FIVE deferments and, in his own words, had other priorities. Others include Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay. President Bush is something of a borderline case since he used the National Guard to avoid going to Viet Nam. He did protect Texas though.

And no, I'm not against war, just stupid ones. We had to go to Aghanistan. Iraq was a mistake. Iran would probably be an even bigger one.

[noodles]

MOST REASONABLE EXPLAINATION
The Captain of the Cornwall radioed for instructions and didn't want to "provoke a confrontation" because the Royal Marine assault/boarding teams were in Iranian waters.

[Fred Beloit]

Are you speculating like a liberal, noodles, or do you know something?

[Fred Beloit]

So, Jon, since you favor the war in the Afghan, I must suppose after what you wrote that you are/were in the military or are a chickenhawk.

[Captain Joe]

Reminds me that our new Centcom Commander, Admiral Fallon, was previously the Pacific commander and when a chinese sub suddenly surfaced within the security zone of a US carrier he hurriedly kowtowed to Beijing uttering "we knew you were there, we just didn't want to create an international incident". I'll bet he soils his trousers when Imadinnerjacket bluffs him with a nuke.

I love to smoke cigars while I adjust artillery fire at the moonbat loonery.

[Fred Beloit]

Well, sir, as a former MOS 1542 I always had great love, and fear, of the Artillery. The fear was not based on experience, though, thank God, but only imagination and training. Keep the salvos going by all means.

[Jon G]

No, I don't have the power to send others to war, like Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.

[Phoenix]

But Jon - Are you in the military? Have you ever been in the military? Simple question.

[Buzzy]

Guess Jon G thinks Clinton was a Chickenhawk when he sent soldiers into harms way in Kosovo, Iraq, and other places.

Doubt Jon was ever in the military. He has that whiner quality that speaks of living in his parents basement, 20 years in grad school and Frisbee at the park.

[Purple Avenger]

"assault/boarding teams were in Iranian waters."

Local Iraqi's, who know the area, assert otherwise.

[Terry Gain]

"We had to go to Aghanistan. Iraq was a mistake. Iran would probably be an even bigger one." Jon G

Think it through. Be honest and acknowledge that the enemy, formerly operating in Afghanistan, is now operating in Iraq -and since the Surge is the main source of violence. We have to finish the job in Iraq for exactly the same reason we had to go into Afghanistan.

Further, if we had not gone into Iraq Saddam would by now be well on his way to having the nuclear bomb he was within months of having when the Gulf War and then sanctions temporarily derailed his plans. (Read McGrory and Bhattia's Saddam's Bomb. It will give you insight you don't currently have.)And Libya would also be developing nuclear weapons and the A.Q. Khan nuclear network would not have been detected.

As a liberal JonG you can only see the cost of war. You ignore the cost of not taking action. You ignore what's been accomplished and prevented by the war. This is why you do not understand that the biggest mistake would be to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons-as high as the cost may be of preventing that development.

[Mike_NH_GWVet]

Mr. Jon G,
You wrote: ”A chickenhawk advocates going to war as long as they don't actually have to fight themselves.”
Now consider: A law enforcement hawk advocates fighting crime as long as he or she doesn’t actually have to fight it himself or herself
Or
An arson hawk advocates fighting fires as long as she doesn’t actually have to fight them herself.
Surely, whether we ought to fight wars, crime or fire is not to be determined by whether the advocacy is made by a soldier, police officer or firefighter? After all, the existence of soldiers, police officers and firefighters presuppose that we ought to fight wars, crime and fires.
I am afraid the chicken hawk argument can never do the logical work your argumentation wishes it to do.

[Buzzy]

I love it when the leftists automatically take the side of America's enemies and then acts surprised when we question their patriotism.

al-noodles thinks the most reasonable explanation is that the Brits were in Iranian waters while JonG sinks his own party's battleship by maintaining that only people who have been in the military can fight wars (a startling endorsement for Duncan Hunter and McCain I'd guess while exactly which Democrats have been in the Military let alone fought in battle).

And yes Terry Gain the left never looks at the cost of inaction or appeasement. That's exactly how we got to this point with soldiers dying for 8 years of Democratic inaction.

[Jon G]

Buzzy, you're still an idiot.

Since the last war hasn't gone quite as promised, I'm a bit leery about starting another one. That and we're kindof out of troops. Unless you want to reinstate the draft. Sell that one to the American people.

Losing 2 million plus barrels a day of oil off the world market is something to think about, too. I doubt the public would appreciate a major spike in gas prices.

And Saddam was Iran's biggest enemy, killing him was probably the biggest favor anyone's done them. You'd think they'd be more grateful, huh?

[Terry Gain]

Mohammed and Omar at ITM have two excellent posts up-March 22 and 23, which I highly recommend to people, like JonG and YYY, whose understanding of what's happening in Iraq continues to lag behind developments on the ground.

As for you Alison, don't bother. Just quickly depart, with a sexual connotation.

[Terry Gain]

Wrong again JonG. Iran's biggest enemy is a democracy in Iraq. This is why they are supporting al Qaeda's efforts to derail Iraq's fledgling democracy.

[Aussie]

I believe the British surrendered Singapore in 1942 for pretty much the same reason. 'Let's not provoke them by fighting back, that would be playing into their hands...'

Another brilliant piece of British strategy.

[Jeff]

Guys you are missing the big story. Monty Python writers are the new generals. Run away!

[Phoenix]

I think this action was an attempt to save face for the beleaguered Iranian government. They've lost three (?) major players to the west and half their countrymen are quietly disquieted with the government. Ahmadinejad needed something 'manly' to prove he's still in control. I bet they were looking for this chance and will use it for everything it's worth to garner righteousness and self-serving aggrandizement of purpose. I think it was finely tuned to coincide with Ahmadinejad's visit to the UN, too, so it would get maximum notice on the world stage. He used the held-up visas for his aides as cover. A ruse.

It's bait. If western powers take aggressive action, Ahmadinejad will preen and calculate how his country's rights have been invaded. Whatever is going on behind the scenes over this is tricky stuff. Which is not to say I'd not cheer and yell if we let Israel handle it like they handled Entebbe. Awesome stuff....

[Buzzy]

JonG, you obviously are more interested in oil prices than anything else (exactly what you accuse the Bush administration of).

So you suggest that no matter what the Iranians do we just let them to keep the oil flowing. Are you in the 5th grade or what.

The only folks wanting a draft are the Democrats and personally I'm not worried about Iranian capabilities should this come to war.

Big wars come out of appeasement, they always have and always will. If Hitler had been stopped at Poland millions would have been saved. Had Japan been stopped in Manchuria the same would have happened. But somehow we always listen to the idiots who counsel that we give in to the little provocations and then the medium provocations and then when it gets too much to ignore we have a huge bloodletting and millions die.

Face it, you and your kind are the Chamberlain's of this century and some day, probably soon, you'll see exactly what your limp understanding of human nature and politics has caused.

As for me, I believe that Saddam had to be taken out of power. He was killing tens of thousands of his own people and laying them out in mass graves. Where I differ with the Bush folks is that I would not have installed a democracy into Iraq. I would have allowed the Saudi's and UAE to put a moderate strong ruler into Iraq. One that wouldn't have wanted WMDs or gassed the Kurds, or shot 500,000 Shi'as but who would have opposed Iran and Islamofascism. But that's just me.

[Zifnab]

Wow. Its comforting to see that "Support the Troops" doesn't extend to any of our allies. Clearly, calling the British navy a bunch of feckless pussies is all fair and good. I wonder what would happen if they were US soldiers? Would we be hearing about how American commanders are a pack of retards and flower power hippies?

Sure, England has been our staunchest ally since the Iraq War began, but lets not slow down the shit-slinging on that account.

[Raging_Dave]

Not the British Navy, but the "leadership" of said navy. Although I doubt you'll understand the difference.

[Hard Right]

An ultimatum to release the soldiers should be made. They could tell the Iranians release them or kiss their refineries goodbye.

[goslsl]

Riehl: " I think Alison just dropped by to let us know she puts out!"

Dan's the kind of man who likes to punch his victim in the mouth while he's raping her.

[Raging_Dave]

Projection much, goslsl?

[Hard Right]

Gosls doesn't like women. Boys on the other hand... ;)

[SDN]

Sorry, alison, I wouldn't hit that with Michael Moore's dick (if I could find it). And I suspect that gosls doesn't like anything with only two legs.