The Cowardly British Lion

It's been almost a week now since the Iranians committed an act of war by seizing 15 British sailors and marines off the coast of Iraq. When will the feckless, impotent, appeasing, self-hating West respond to this outrage?

How shameful of Britain that they allow these 15 hostages to be paraded and humiliated on t'v' in violation of international law, the Geneva codes, and all normal military and civilian standards.

How shameful of Britain that they don't respond, despite that female soldier being forced to write a phony letter, make a phony video statement, issue a loathsome apology, and wear one of their sand-nigger tablecloths.

Why doesn't "Great" Britain seize 150 or 1500 hostages in return? Why aren't the ships that kidnapped those British nationals resting at the bottom of the sea? Why isn't Teheran burning?

Post 1

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 9:22pm

Where's Burt Lahr When You Need Him?

This entire incident and the lack of immediate response which it has drawn makes me so ill that I am almost glad that I am without TV and broadband access.

The commander of the ship who withheld fire and allowed his own men to be captured should not be brought up for court martial. He should commit suicide in disgrace. As for Tony Blair's inaction, I am simply dumbfounded. Publishing pictures after the fact to prove that you let your own men be kidnapped, rather than having published pictures to show why you blasted the Iranian pirates out of the water?

Again, there is such a thing as an act of war, and although this is not Iran's first, it is so incontrovertible as to be almost blinding. Forget about measured retaliation. Blair should have invoked the NATO self-defense pact, and called for general elections if he didn't get parliamentary support - or resigned. With the NATO charter invoked, we could have tested whether France was still a member, annihilated the Iranian regime, and ended the so-called Iraqi insurgency in one fell swoop.

Ted Keer

Post 2

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 6:27am

I wondered how they let a boatful of these idiots capture them! They just refused to fire? What the FUCK?

Post 3

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 4:17pm

Might it be that the West is baiting for a Gulf of Tonkin type incident?

Post 4

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 5:36pm

If so, why don't the Iranians just defuse the issue by letting the hostages go? End of incident.

Sam

Post 5

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 8:49pm

Sam asks:

If so, why don't the Iranians just defuse the issue by letting the hostages go? End of incident.

Fair question. It might be that Iran's own hardliners are ready for a conflict too. Much of what the Iranian goverment has defiantly done and said over the last couple years seems to have no other purpose than to taunt the West.

The fact remains that you always need a publicly viable justification (even if its weak) to go to war in a democracy. The last poll I saw about American support for a war with Iran was about 10%. The Iraq war has proven to be a political disaster, and a seemingly unprovoked strike on Iran would be political suicide - especially in light of the aftermath that experts predict about skyrocketing oil prices (and the resulting economic shockwaves).

Post 6

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 8:17am

Pete:

The last poll I saw about American support for a war with Iran was about 10%.

... a seemingly unprovoked strike on Iran would be political suicide

Exactly right. The West has persistently demonstrated that it has no will to confront Iran and Iran can do anything it wants in defying international law. Pacifism prevails.

Sam

Post 7

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 9:49am

Pete and Sam are right.

The will to go to war was drained away with our invasion and resulting quagmire in Iraq. That kind of public will is of a limited quantity and it was wasted.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are proven supporters of terrorism and Iran is building a nuke and has publicly made credible threats.

I only disagree with Sam when he says it is pacifism that will rule. No, it is that the current president and congress no longer have the nation's trust when it comes to going to war and waging the war and we feel war-weary from Iraq.

Post 8

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 10:26am

The Naked Death Wish

Poll Numbers? Gulf of Tonkin?

So-called Objectivists who want to use their familiarity with Rand to justify pacifism, to imply what? - that there is some secret cabal in Washington which manipulated Iranian forces into seizing a British boat? - or to ignore the fact that America elects a President and a Congress who should execute their representative duties based on fact, established law, and national interest, and not on [the strength of] poll numbers should stop couching their nonsense in pseudo-Randian jargon (when they even bother) and should reread the "Anti-Conceptual Mentality," should study some world history, and should get their heads out of their arses.

Rand once expressed exasperation with a student to whom she had explained why the oil industry should be deregulated. Unable to generalize, he then asked "what about the coal industry?" If anti-communism is an easily accepted tenet of Objectivism, why should anti-isl*mism not be so obvious as not to need explanation? The communists wanted to rule the earth, but they didn't want to die and go to the afterlife. M*slims are the purest expression of the naked death wish on this earth. Pussyfooting around with them, when the Objectivist stance on communism was hard-line hawkish pro-active self-defense is not only absurd, it is morally bankrupt.

I suggest that those who don't find Rand clear enough on the responsibility of our government to act aggressively in our self-defense [regardless of past mistakes] and to stop appeasement of all kinds then try Reading George Orwell's "Who are the War Criminals?" There, my pacifist appeasement-supporting surrender-monkey friends, [here and elsewhere] you will see that they are you.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 3/31, 9:41am)

Post 9

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 12:12pm

If the Brits had made a real issue of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a British citizen, in 1988 by the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran I believe the mid-East situation would be entirely different.

Image:Salman Rushdie.jpg

Post 10

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 12:16pm

Ted,

Re: "The Naked Death Wish"

Thank you. I agree with every sentence.

Post 11

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 9:18am

Where were these people when Iran seized them? The dispute seems to be that they were in either Iranian waters or Iraqi waters. One thing we do know for sure is that they were thousands of miles outside of British territorial waters. What were they defending?

If you are in somebody's backyard, don't blame them if they don't want you there. The ploy of sending troops into disputed territory has long been a dupe to get people to support wars. This kind of trickery is hardly original, but there are still plenty of people willing to fall for it.

Post 12

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 10:43am

Ted,

Who here has advocated that poll numbers are the proper basis for determining whether a given policy is a good one? That sure was a lot of hot air against a non-existent argument.

I simply suggested that there might be some baiting for a causus belli that can be reasonably sold to the public at large. The word 'might' implies that I offer it as one possible explaination, that it's not certain. The question was, why did the Britts stand down? It was assumed by people on this thread that they were simply cowardly or altruistic. I proposed what I thought was another possible explaination. It's that simple.

Governments do these types of things, even the U.S.  The fact that Operation Northwoods was even on the table for the US government back in the 60's should give Americans pause about goverment justification for wars. Can you offer me one other motive for plotting something like Northwoods other than to get the public on board for a war that would have likely been unpopular?

The Bush administration does not exist in a vaccum. There are no Objectivists guiding American foreign policy. Pragmatism exists among the people currently in power.  In case you didn't notice, politicians and political parties like to stay in power, and domestic political considerations DO come into play when politicians make war. Just because you don't like that fact, that doesn't make it any less of a fact.

In general, it seems likely that the decision has already been made to hit Iran. I evaluate everything currently happening with that presumption, hence my possible theory on this particular issue of the Britt's stand down.

I recommend reading Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward. This book shows how the Bush adminstration had long ago signed off on invading Iraq while at the same time they were acting like they were exhausting diplomatic channels first. I find this book credibile because even the Bush 2004 campaign website put it on their "recommended reading" list.   Overall, the similarities with the current situation with Iran are striking.

Post 13

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 12:11pm

Also amazing is how Andre's use of the term "sand-nigger" went totally unchallenged. Shame on you, Andre.

Post 14

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 12:33pm

I simply suggested that there might be some baiting for a causus belli that can be reasonably sold to the public at large.

Reminds me of a scene in 300.

Spartan soldier: "But sire, the Persians may kill you (in response to a Persian offering of dialogue to King Leonidas)

King Leonidas: "If they kill me all of Sparta will go to war. Pray to the gods that the Persians are that stupid"

I'm also put off by Andre's racial slur. I don't think it was necessary.
(Edited by John Armaos
on 3/31, 12:35pm)

Post 15

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 2:12pm

I can say that Andre's use of the racial slur did not go unnoticed. But I'm glad that Pete made sure it didn't unmentioned.

Racism and calls for violence often go hand in hand.

Post 16

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 2:33pm

Racism and calls for violence often go hand in hand.

And the two can and often are mutually exclusive.

Post 17

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:27pm

Grand Dragon Zantonavitch is up to his old tricks again, eh? I noticed the air was smelling particularly of burning crosses this morning...

"Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men."

I am not going to insult everybody's intelligence by attributing that quote. Go away, Andre, you're a racist, I've been saying it for years and it's disgusting. I don't want you here.

Moving on to more substantive issues:

M. Baker - the British government has said (and provided GPS screenshots) of where the ship was located (in Iraqi waters, by the way). So, I guess it was Iraq's backyard and should have been the government of Iraq's business if that ship belonged there. But your Rockwellian attitude ("The West is imperialist pigs! Long live the resistors!") probably means that's not good enough for you.

Nice try with the "disputed waters" thing, though...if the waters are disputed (truly disputed, which the International Boundary Research Union, the UK, US, Sweden, United Nations and Australia all say its not...but I know, I know, they're a bunch of imperialist liars)...anywho, if the waters are truly disputed, then what right did the Iranians have to seize the British? Seems to me that if you're going to say the British are in the wrong, then so are the Iranians. If the boundaries of my backyard are under dispute, I am certainly not going to just shoot or seize someone in that area, because I don't know how to legally operate...exactly how the Iranians should have acted.

Don't know why I throw my pearls of wisdom before swine like you, but there you go. Do with it what you will.

Post 18

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:44pm

John,

I said,

Racism and calls for violence often go hand in hand.

For whatever reason, you chose to object to that position. Maybe you are just attacking any position I take because you are pissed at me. It isn't that you support racism, I know that because you said you were also put off by Andre's racial slur. If you aren't pissed at me, maybe it is because you need to support the initiation of violence to justify your views of war.

In the statement I did say "often" not "always".

The good thing is that I'm being taught to be more precise. I'm talking about the initiation of violence - not just any use of force. And I'm talking about calling for the initiation of violence as a part of a movement as opposed to any single individual.

It is true that an individual can initiate violence without ever being a racist. It is true that a person can be a racist and never call for the initiation of violence.

I'll restate it,

Racism and calls for the initiation of violence often go hand in hand in ideological movements.

Can you name a single movement that is known to be racist that didn't call for violence? I'm not saying you can't, but the link is most often there.

Or can you name a single movement that is known for calls to initiate violence that wasn't also known for having many racist members? I'm not saying you won't find one, but the link is often there.

There is a good psychological reason that supports that link - it is easier to attack someone if you have mentally branded them as less than human. The same concept that made slavery possible. If you can call someone a derogatory name you can pretend they haven't as much worth and so it isn't as big a deal to mistreat or kill them.

Post 19

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:53pm