The Cowardly British Lion

My response Steve was that a call for violence, specifically in this case where Andre rightfully calls for Britain to act to a clear act of aggression from Iran, does not necessitate one use a racial slur. The two are mutually exclusive and should not construe a call for action in one's rational self-interest as necessarily meaning one is a racist, as racism has nothing to do with a retaliation to a clear initiation of force. But I'm glad you make a distinction with the word violence, and differentiate between retaliatory violence and initiatory violence. There is nothing immoral with the former but every bit immoral with the latter.

Post 21

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 4:08pm

I found one map which supposedly shows the location of the ship:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/msmap.jpg

Post 22

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 6:10pm

Having spent a fair amount of time at sea (about 15,000 miles of deep water sailing), and being familiar with British naval practices (months of study at a British sailing center in Cowes), I would say that there is no way they didn't know exactly where they were. The Brits have a lot of respect for their seafaring traditions and I have a lot of respect for their practices.

I conclude that if they were in Iranian waters, they knew it and it was for some purpose and they got caught.

But much more likely, they were NOT in Iranian waters and the Iranians are wrong (and probably lying).

I agree that neither side cares about facts anymore. But I think Iran is as evil a country as we will ever see and I'm loath to ever sanction any act of theirs without real careful consideration.

In the moral arena it is wrong to hold up Iran and Britain as if they were equals.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 3/31, 6:15pm)

Post 23

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 6:53pm

This is akin to the news images I saw:

Post 24

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 8:29pm

This is what I got. From this one, it definitely looks like they could been in the waters of either nation. Apparently, no boundaries in the water have ever been defined.

Naturally, I wonder how the British would react if any Iranian ships were in Irish waters in the Irish Sea or in French waters in the English Channel.

Post 25

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 11:12pm

Uhhh, M. Baker, no, it really does not look like they could have been in either one. Your map and mine both validate the British claim.

Your question is really blatant context-dropping. You may not agree with the Iraq conflict, but there is one going on, one in which the British are patrolling the Gulf. Britain is in what you call "disputed" waters in the middle of supporting the Iraq conflict; Iran would be doing, uhh, what exactly that far north? Iran would have no business anywhere close to there; Everyone in the world knows exactly why there are British in those "disputed" waters. You (nor Iran) make not like the reason, but that does not give Iran the right to start seizing actors in that war in Iraqi (or disputed) waters.

Also, why are we asking how the British would react? I bet you that if the Iranians came rolling up to French waters, the French would take care of it themselves, thanks very much.

You're trying to draw moral equivalence where there is none, Jack, and you're not doing a very good job. I'd knock it off and go back to, I don't know, blaming the U.S. for everything or something.

Post 26

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 7:43am

The term in Post #1 was a cultural slur -- not racial. It was also an accurate, if colorful, description. And it was an insult. Dictionary.com defines this as "an insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark." Does anyone find it unwarranted or undeserved? The culture attacked was Islam.

John Armaos writes:

"I'm also put off by Andre's racial slur. I don't think it was necessary."

What about the way Muslims describe Westerners? What about the clear thing in their hearts?

As for it being "necessary" -- what do you think about the terminology the American soldiers used to describe the Germans and Japanese in WW II? The only Objectivist or person of quality -- other than the entirely inhibited -- who even might have refrained from speaking thus is myself. That's because I save it for appropriate spots.

Steve Wolfer writes:

"Racism and calls for violence often go hand in hand."

Very true. But first you have to find a racist. I'm the least bigoted person on the planet. (population 6,500,000,000)

Post 27

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 8:54am

No Andre, generally the term sand-nigger is a term that specifically refers to Arabs or people of Middle Eastern origin, and has little to do with cultural, or religious reference but to a racial reference.

Second, while yes many Muslims call westerners names far worse some also hang 14 year old girls from city construction cranes for the crime of being a rape victim, while others saw people's heads off. Do you advocate we do these things as well as use racial epithets? I don't think it makes any sense to justify any action because well hey, our enemy does it too?

As far as the soldiers of WW2 using racial epithets on the battlefield, I think I can forgive them. I feel a little conflicted about that as what a warrior needs to do to psyche himself up for the heat of battle, is something I can't relate to as I've never been in any armed conflict. Perhaps when it is time for war, to dehumanize your opponent is the only way to deal with the psychological trauma some feel when they take a human being's life. I don't really know.

But Andre we are not in the heat of a battlefield, we are on a message forum engaging in intellectual debate, very different context. If I was by your side in the heat of battle fighting our common foe, I would not bother telling you using a racial epithet was unnecessary. But that's not where we are.

Post 28

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 10:54am

Andre,

John has said everything that needs to be said on this issue. I hope if you have any doubts you'll just reread his post.

If, as you say, you aren't a bigot, then you'll take what has been said here to heart and use far more care in choosing the words you use. And you'll own up to an error instead of making attempts to justify the use of a racial slur. From the time I was just a little boy I was told, "Two wrong don't make a right."

Post 29

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - 6:05pm

It sounds like the Britons will be released soon. I'm sure the warmongers are terribly disappointed by this one.

Post 30

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - 6:06pm

I bet you that if the Iranians came rolling up to French waters, the French would take care of it themselves, thanks very much.

The French--take care of themselves? This may be the funniest thing I have read on this board.

Post 31

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - 8:44pm

On "Edition" (a foreign news channel on cable TV), Tony Blair stated -- about Iran's release of the hostages after 13 days of captivity -- that he has no hard feelings.

:-O

Ed

Post 32

Thursday, April 5, 2007 - 3:28am

:-O
Ditto

I'll bet those sailors have a few...especially the female, who was forced to cover her head with an ugly babushka thing.

How comforting it must be for them to hear this from the Prime Minister. How enlightening to the whole British fleet.

Shame shame shame.

Post 33

Thursday, April 5, 2007 - 12:04pm

You know, M. Baker, I thought paleo-con isolationists such as yourself prided yourself on history.

Although it's fashionable to bash the French, they are a nuclear power with a sizable and relatively strong military. While the capitulation of their forces in WWII came as a shock, De Gaulle prided himself on being in charge of the French Free Forces, who served honorably against Vichy France. De Gaulle's insistence on independent strength is also something that reverberates strongly in France. I do not agree with their reflexively anti-American politics (akin to how I do not agree with yours), but they are a strong and proud people. And they don't fuck around with anybody...those so-called "lily-livered liberal sissy French" sunk the Rainbow Warrior when it interfered with nuclear tests in New Zealand. The French military has close to 400,000 troops and the Gendarmerie.

So yes, the French could take care of themselves, that's for sure.

Post 34

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 9:40am

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1259413,00.html

And now we have the news that these soldiers were in these waters to gather intelligence. Just about every border expert has also said that the waters were in dispute.

Post 35

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 11:26am

I want to claim my neighbor's property. Does that make my claim a legitimate "dispute?"

Please, Chris.

Post 36

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 11:40am

What the hell is a "border expert"? I didn't realize the subject matter of "borders" was complex enough to warrant "experts"?

Post 37

Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 4:30pm

So yes, the French could take care of themselves, that's for sure.

There is one way that they are taking care of themselves. France is actually one of the most pro-nuclear power countries in the world. They sell electricity to other countries in Europe.

Perhaps, this is one reason that France doesn't care much about what goes on in the Middle East. Maybe they just don't care about the oil.

This, of course, is the most peaceful and best long-term solution to the "problem" of Islamic terrorism. Stop buying oil from the barbarians and let them all die of starvation.

Post 38

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 12:03am

Why is it necessary for Amahdinejad to still be holding the British hostages, Chris, in order for us to respond to his and his regime's various and continuing acts of war over the last three decades? I came of age during the Iranian hostage crisis. Iranian saboteurs and weapons are found daily in Iraq. Iran is crossing Iraq's borders constantly. Why we do not have a treaty with Iraq saying that so long as they maintain a free society we will help them protect themselves from enemies foreign (Syria, Iran, et al.) and domestic, I don't know. I don't know whether the understanding of statecraft among the cynics, anarchists and pacifists on this list is better or worse than that of the current administration or its enemies. Since the Department of War became the Department of Defense, any clear thought on such matters has largely been non-existent. War is the hostile violation of the sovereignty of another nation, and we have been at war with Iran since 1978.

Of course, some people can't think abstractly or on principle, can't think beyond the range of the moment, or have other hidden agendas. As a person who advocates that we acknowledge the fact that we are already at war with Iran, and that we do something about it before any action becomes too costly, I am of course disappointed that once again the West has proven itself a paper tiger bearing pink gift baskets in the m*slim press. Am I upset that those British soldiers are free? No more upset than I am that they won't be able to sell their stories to the public.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 4/12, 10:15am)

Post 39

Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 12:31am