April 4, 2007

Iran releases captured British soldiers

As your mother might say, "Now, isn't that nicer than fighting WWIII?" This was shaping up to be the stupidest conflict since the War of Jenkin's Ear, but, fortunately, sanity prevailed, although, as happens distressingly frequently, Iran's President Borat gets to act saner than America's President Bush.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

13 comments:

tommy said...

What a shame! I was hoping to see the spectacle of enraged British college students storming the Iranian embassy in London and seizing Tehran's diplomats in retaliation. And doing it all armed with only pocketknives.

The credit may belong less to Ahmadinejad than to some more pragmatic members of the Iranian government who thought this whole scheme was a bad idea. Reportedly, Syria also claims to have played middleman in the dispute.

Then again, maybe we just gave in.

David Davenport said...

There you go getting Left wing, Steve.

Why do you have to drag Pres. Bush into this affair, the way any party-line Democrat would?

And how do you know that George Jr.'sdidn't help get the Brits released by his firm statement backing Britain last weekend, and by his refusal to negotiate over the release of the five Revolutionary Guards captured in Irbil?

By the way, aren't those so-called Royal Marines and that sailor woman soft and slack-ass looking? One suspects the British military nowadays is more Hollywoodian legend than reality.

Trev said...

By the way, aren't those so-called Royal Marines and that sailor woman soft and slack-ass looking? One suspects the British military nowadays is more Hollywoodian legend than reality.

I believe 7 were actual Royal Marines, the rest navy personnel of various stripes. I realise, however, that the Brits cannot compete with the Americans for toughness. Look, for instance, at that Steven Seagal film Under Siege. Even the ship's cook in that was a bad-ass motherfunster.

Anonymous said...

Syria played a role in the release? You bet they did! After Nancy Pelosi went over there and batted her eyelids at that Assad guy,(and did God only knows what else!)he was putty in her hands.

Anonymous said...

Steve -- GWB is your kryptonite. Your fatal flaw. Yes he's often an idiot but then so are most politicos. In this instance he was less idiotic than everyone else.

And no, we are still drifting towards war with Iran. Just like the world drifted towards war with Hitler in the 1930's but loved peace so much they put off the ugly job till defeat was almost certain. This was Iran's arming of the Rhineland.

The deal was trading Iranian "diplomats" i.e. spies caught running guns and money to Al Qaeda in Iraq to kill US troops for the 15 British Hostages.

Meanwhile the UN, EU, and "soft power" doesn't mean spit. Because Iran can seize the Brits any time they want. Brit's military is like an NGO with toy guns and useless at either.

Iran's nuke program proceeds apace. They'll probably make an announcement in a month or so.

Iran also has global reach. They don't have or need aircraft carriers, B-2 bombers, and cruise missiles. They have Hezbollah active in every continent except Antarctica, able to reach out and blow to hell Buenos Aires Jews for the hell of it, or Americans here at home too. All through a deniable and experienced terror paramilitary organization.

What this whole exercise has proved is how toothless and useless transnational organizations are: NATO, EU, UN, ICC, etc. How useless and one-sided the Geneva Conventions are (apply only to us, not to them). But how strong and effective International Islam is. How it works in tandem with the illiberal left to destroy Western values and nations.

The appropriate lesson is that there is no substitute for the nation-state, strong, effective, with national unity and purpose and it's values and symbols revered. Plus lots of military spending and the will to use it. Britain's navy is smaller than Belgium's (less than 40 ships) and is not even useful as a coast guard. Making Britain defenseless from any attacker who wants their stuff (people as slaves, territory, etc). Morocco if it so desired could conquer Spain, France, and the UK in a few years absent US protection.

Britain and Europe's military is that hollow. Non-existent. A bunch of rich people unwilling to fight for what they have next to dirt poor people in North Africa.

green mamba said...

Kidnappings and forced confessions = sane; saying "Give them back" = insane? Plus, it seems the Iranian president videotaped another bizarre anti-Western rant to go with his "gift" of releasing the soldiers. It's clear to me who the more dangerous and less sane party is in this affair - it's the criminal regime that instigated it in the first place.

Cedric said...

I quite like this Ahmadinejad fellow. Certainly more interesting than your average ayatollah.

Anonymous said...

If we made Iran glow in the dark back in '79 when they seized our embassy we wouldn't have these troubles today.

Anonymous said...

So help me my fellow paleocons, I watched Bill Kristol on FoxNews for a few minutes after Ahmadinejad released the soldiers. If you turned the volume down, and watched the neocon archduke's body language, you could tell he was just heartbroken. It was so obvious. He really was dissapointed that this couldn't escalate into a war with Iran.



My sometimes cynical old-self thinks that getting in Iraq, and actually HAVING a resistance might have been part of the neo-cons plan all along (but not Bush's, he's way to stupid to think that far ahead). The resistance could then be blamed on "neighbors" that the neo-cons wanted to subdue anyway.............like Iran and Syria.

Rapture Reverends are only slightly behind in warmongering for an Iranian war than the mullahs. Its a wierd time in politics.

Miles

tommy said...

I have to agree with Derb on this one. I was really surprised by the utter lack of resistance on the part of these sailors. They didn't look like they were under much duress. Of course, the utter unwillingness of the British to defend themselves against an aggressor is even more surprising.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad this situation is over. There was a real danger of it dragging on and turning ordinary Americans, not just neo-cons, against Iran.

NPR did its best to smooth things over - labeling the Brits "captured" (a word that implies wrongdoing on their part a la "captured fugitive" or "captured behind enemy lines") rather than "abducted," which they use to describe al-Qaeders detained by the CIA in Europe.

NPR also tried to tamp down indignation against Iran by making the UK and Iran look equally belligerent. For example, they called the British position "hard line" for insisting that its sailors were in Iraqi waters. Americans love an underdog, and it was necessary to keep the UK from looking like one.

However, the neutral rhetoric wasn't having its desired effect on enough of the public opinion, so thank goodness this is over. One less talking point for the neo-cons.

Anonymous said...

"If we made Iran glow in the dark back in '79 when they seized our embassy we wouldn't have these troubles today."

Do you wonder why they want a nuclear deterrent.

tommy said...

Do you wonder why they want a nuclear deterrent.

Well, considering the fact that we did not nuke them back 1979, considering the fact that we didn't even come close to doing that, I would have to say "yes." This, after their repeated involvement over the years in terrorist acts aimed at the United States.