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
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
12 comments:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I quite like this Ahmadinejad fellow. Certainly more interesting than your average ayatollah.
If we made Iran glow in the dark back in '79 when they seized our embassy we wouldn't have these troubles today.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Post a Comment