Britains Great Military Tradition

If I wasn't convinced Britain was done for with the whole hostage debacle, I'm convinced it's gone now. Evidently nothing means anything anymore. World affairs are being reduced to entertainment TV fodder. File this under chapter 11 in the moral bankruptcy file.

If Britain is a bellwether, the West is lost.

The 15 British military captives who were released by the Iranians have been authorised by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to sell their stories.

MoD officials claimed that the move to lift the ban on military personnel selling their stories while in service was justified because of the “exceptional circumstances” of the case. The hostages are expected to earn as much as £250,000 between them.

The story of Faye Turney, 26, the only female among them, is expected to be the most lucrative. She could profit by as much as £150,000 from a joint deal with a newspaper and ITV.

The MoD bracketed the hostages’ 13-day captivity in Iran — including appearances on state television by some to admit straying into Iranian waters — with winners of the Victoria Cross.

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

"World affairs are being reduced to entertainment TV fodder."

Words fail me.

[Rick Moran]

Dan:

I agree with you. But didn't our female POW (name escapes me) sell her story? The Pentagon sure made a big deal of it and I think she sold the story to one of the major tabloids.

[Northerner]

Yes Rick, but of course to Dan that's different. If an American does it, it's OK and the way it should be. But if a foreigner does the exact same thing, it's the end of civilization as we know it.

Welcome to this blog.

[Terry]

I assume that Rick is referring to Jessica Lynch above. A major difference between her case and that of the Brit is that Ms. Lynch didn't participate in an enemy created media story betraying her fellow service personnel, her country and long-standing traditions of duty, honor and country.

[Zifnab]

Dear Dan,

Why do you hate me?

Love,
Capitalism

[Vonny]

Lynch was DISCHARGED honorably, THEN her story was sold. Big difference between being enlisted and a private citizen when it comes to profiting from your service.

[Capitalist Infidel]

Vonny, don't expect the vicious America hating leftists here to understand the difference.

[LOL]

Rick Moran:

You don't seem to understand. She went on TV, alive instead of dying bravely. I know, as sure as I'm pressing these keys down furiously, that I was a sailor and the Iranians tried to capture me I'd shoot first and kill as many mooselimbs as I could. I would die a patriot, a hero.

I have just 6 words for you:

http://www.brainshrub.com/blogmedia/images/2006/jan2006/get-a-brain-morans.jpg

[Phoenix]

That's pretty tacky. I think the Brits have set a record for book-release. It hasn't been a week since they've been home and it's gone from world crisis to tabloid fodder. I'm hoping the military has a purpose in letting this happen, but I can't think of one.

[bloodrage bob]

so lets recap: the liberals, furious at ANY criticism of a non-american, ("foreigners are superior to us! teacher said so!!"), are squealing "jessica lynch!" at those of us who suggest that the captured, amazingly talkative british "soldiers" who mewled like kittens on iranian tv; who later smiled and waved and clutched tightly their BRIGHT PINK goodie bags/purses given them by their "torturers" upon their release; who praised themselves for cleverly not defending themselves....are somehow less than admirable. as is their MOD: a more craven bunch of idiots can hardly be imagined outside of a DNC meeting room.

did poor sweet jessica appear on iraqi TV, pointing out where she'd "done wrong"? did she "apologize to the iraqi people"? did she say something to the effect of "we were being bad people"? you know: like those brit uniform-wearing pussies did?

no. she didn't. still, i can understand liberal attempts to confuse the issue by bringing her up. she WAS captured. she WAS wearing a uniform while captured. and she DID sell her story. evidently liberals feel there's enough similarity there to cloud that whole 'british perfidy & cowardice' thing they're (of course) defending so vigorously. ("at least they knew that violence begets violence! defending themselves and acting honorably would have just made the situation WORSE!!")

reason # 888353553 to despise liberals, i guess. samo samo.

[Dan Riehl]

"But didn't our female POW (name escapes me) sell her story?"

There was a book, a TV movie, etc. after she ws discharged, she was 3 months in hospital recovering and the movie dealt mostly with her being rescued by special ops. I'd argue Lynch was much more a victim and not a propaganda tool for the enemy at all, some accounts suggest she was raped. I understand the point, Rick - but have fewer issues with Lynch making a few bucks. All early donations, many over months, were suggested to be directed to charity by her family.

The only upseide of the Brits might be using popular culture to demonize Iran prior to any action by the US on their nukes. Still, the Brits seem to have discovered celebrity through their short ordeal, in which they "suffered" far less than most any comparable hostage I can recall. Finally, Lynch was a legitimate POW, not a hostage told to behave like a civilian.

[91B30]

Even if Jessica Lynch had've disgraced herself (and she didn't BTW) it's not like the rest of her unit-of maintenance troops let's be clear, not commando-trained Royal Marines-failed to put up a hell of a fight. Patrick Miller was awarded the Silver Star for his actions that day (not that anyone knows it in our celebrity obsessed culture). The Brits were ordered not to fight back-OK-but it's not asking too much of them to refuse to allow themselves to be used by their captors for propaganda purposes. You don't have to be "Rocky" Versace or James Stockdale in captivity, but grinning like a damned idiot is just too much for some of us to swallow.

[cole]

please.. we do it here all the time~ Americans are the WORST!!!

[Vonny]

Do what here, and why berate yourself. Americans are the BEST! There is code in the military that prevents soldiers from discussing events with the media w/o special permission. This likely extends to movie and book deals as well. Sooo since I always follow the money, and there is half a million on the table, and Iran was suddenly soft on captured Brits, and the story rights contracts were ready to sign as soon as wheels were down on the island... sounds like a big fat kickback to me! Watch this one, and don't be surprised if some cash flows back to Iran.

[Vonny]

Do what here? What are you talking about cole? And why berate yourself. Americans are the BEST! There is code in the military that prevents soldiers from discussing events with the media w/o special permission. This likely extends to movie and book deals as well. Sooo since I always follow the money, and there is half a million on the table, and Iran was suddenly soft on captured Brits, and the story rights contracts were ready to sign as soon as wheels were down on the island... sounds like a big fat kickback to me! Watch this one, and don't be surprised if some cash flows back to Iran.

[Zifnab]

"sounds like a big fat kickback to me!"

You think Amedinijad sold them out for movie royalties? Wow, that's a new conspiracy theory.

[Phoenix]

I wonder if some clever-speak went down in negotiations that the hostages were not to get on TV and speak badly of Iran. Only six of the fifteen spoke, and they were mild in their thrashing of Iran - almost scripted. Maybe having the fifteen write books right away is one hell of a kick-in-the-face to Iran which might not have expected books to come out so fast. Ghostwriters will have to help, and if the fifteen spell out truths that make Iran look really bad......... Well, the books will spread the word faster than a few minutes on TV where images are evanescent and rolled over by the next big story. Books stay around and get shared......... Just a thought. It may be a brilliant move on the Brits part. And do it fast while the emotionality and recall of the hostages, themselves, is high.

[templar knight]

Hmm...Northerner, do you see the distinction now, after having it spelled out for you? Big difference, and apologize to Dan.

[LOL]

i see so Sailors serving over in Iraq = Cowards

Cons pressing down furiously on their keyboards = brave

got it

[bloodrage bob]

and libtards frantically squealing "retreat! surrender! give up and run away as fast as we can with our panties around our ankles!!"?

how do we classify *them*, LOL?

[LOL]

oh i see, so you're brave for wanting someone else to fight for you

[bloodrage bob]

no, twit, i just want islamic evil fought. i disagree entirely with how it's being done. my way would be MUCH MORE...."vigorous", shall we say.

YOU clowns, of course, would rather run away mewling than fight. leaving the field to your victorious friends, the islamotards.

i know linear thinking is tough for liberals - that's one reason why they become liberals ("no math requirements! or thinking either!!") - but what exactly do you twits imagine the islamotards will do if we run away as you advise? will they settle down to live in peace with the world family?

or will they do what they've been doing for centuries: continue their attacks on western religions/civilizations/anyone they perceive to be weaker than them wherever they sense weakness? see: most recently, darfur.

[91B30]

LOL-some of here have served in Iraq, but don't let that stop you from throwing the chickenhawk card.

Asshat.

[LOL]

"your way" Ah i see, your way is telling others to fight it for you

The irony of your post is that Darfur is muslims fighting muslims. And it's the liberals that are ignorant? Get a clue buddy, the Iraq war has done nothing but advance the agenda of radical Islam.

[LOL]

11 GIs died on sunday so you can feel safer bob. How come you aren't serving? You sound like a young healthy person.

[bloodrage bob]

y'know, LOL, i had every intention of eviscerating you and your snarky little whine about 'only soldiers are allowed to have pro-war opinions'.

but why bother?

1) if you're that stupid as to hold such a profoundly childish opinion, it'd all go over your head anyway
2) 91b30 already said it: "you're an asshat", LOL.

i'll let you go now: i'm sure you have islamic fundamentalists to blow. make sure to remember to ask them not to hurt you when they take over, ok?

[LOL]

'only soldiers are allowed to have pro-war opinions'.

I never said this, nor was it my point. I just don't like it when the people talk about courage and cowardice fail to demonstrate any of their own. Your posts are nothing more than macho posturing and it's pathetic

[bloodrage bob]

sure you did, LOL. you just lack the balls to put it in a form that's that plain-spoken. anytime you or one of your doltish ilk run up against someone who thinks iraq's a much better place for combat operations than, say, *manhattan*, you immediately squeal the old 'chickenhawk' canard. "ooooh, i see. you're so brave, wanting someone else to fight for you."

YOU wrote that, dipshit: it's just a few posts above. i just cleaned up your childish spelling and punctuation.

what's it like living without a spine, LOL? what's it like defending the same islamotards who routinely oppress/kill women and gays, people you liberals claim to stand up for, in the name of their tawdry little pseudoreligion?

(cue dean wormer voice:) spineless, dumb and hypocritical is no way to go through life, son.

[LOL]

No, my point is that your language is laced with ideas of courage and machismo, when you don't even know what courage means. In your bizzarro world, British sailors actually serving as part of the mission in Iraq become cowards. You like to pretend you are on the side of courage and bravery, but where in your own actions are you courageous?

The only coward I see here is you, terrified by "islamotards".

[bloodrage bob]

ah hah hah, it's always good to argue with spineless liberal peabrains. ("i *like it* when the weenies picket me: it proves i'm not one of them" - ted nugent)

the DISDAIN for the words "courage" and (let us translate here) "manliness" is truly amazing, LOL. your contempt for these outdated paternalistic male-oriented concepts just comes pouring through your keyboard. just like the prof told you to think. i can almost *hear* the lisp as you type furiously, lips moving as you try to sound out the unfamiliar big words.

and, of course, you being a liberal, it's not too much a stretch to see that your hatred extends to ideas like "honor", "bravery", and "self-defense", too.

so ya figure that i, sad armchair warrior wannabe lame-o that i must be, (why else would i be mouthing these tired old words?), don't know at all the meaning of the word "courage", do you? (chuckles paternally) then why don't you share YOUR definition with the class, LOL?

be sure that it includes your thoughts on a proportioned and courageous response to 9-11, mind. we breathlessly await.

[LOL]

you don't even know what these words mean. The closest you've seen to combat is when you had to tear open a durable cheetos bag. I don't hate these words, I find it pathetic that you attribute them to yourself in spite of the fact that you do nothing to earn them.

[bloodrage bob]

what's that, LOL? gonna dodge answering a direct question? preferring instead the classic liberal technique of making a pompous speech mixed in with an insult, and then running away like a bitch? go figure.

ok, show of hands: who DIDN'T see that coming?