Cheshire-cheese-eating surrender monkeys

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by dddooo, Apr 6, 2007.

  1. Goody Bagful Of Dishonor

    IT WAS a fitting image of the 14 wimps and a sob sister arriving back in the United Kingdom yesterday: skulking away with pink goody bags in hand.

    The color was no accident - although yellow would've been more appropriate.

    The released hostages weren't allowed to make any more statements. Apparently, the Blair government feared they'd repeat their lavish praise of their Iranian captors.

    Look, we're all glad they're home safe, if not necessarily sound. But why on earth is Britain, the land of the legendary stiff upper lip, celebrating cowards who clambered over one another to shame their country?

    ...

    Tehran won this match. Hands down. Contrary to the "wisdom" of Western pundits, the hostage catch-and-release strengthened the hard-liners' position and image, both within Iran and throughout the region. Ahmadinejad not only knew how much he could get away with, he knew when to bring down the curtain.

    He worked his scam so well, I almost admire the jerk.

    Earlier this week, I had dinner with a retired American Marine colonel who worked with and respected the Royal Marines. He could only shake his head.

    Several times, he had started to reach for the phone to ask his old counterparts if there was some insider explanation for the conduct of those Cheshire-cheese-eating surrender monkeys gushing their thanks to Ahmadinejad and the Iranian people for all the hospitality.

    My friend, a man with a chest full of combat ribbons, never made the call. He knew the answer. And he didn't want to add to the shame of the splendid Royal Marines with whom he'd served.

    Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer who has covered multiple conflicts from the front.
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/0406200...l_of_dishonor_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
     
  2. Obviously it would be much better if several of them were dead in a firefight, Blair retaliated with air strikes and Bush joined the party leading to full scale war.

    Some people are idiots.
     
  3. i think they were genuinly fearful for their lives. it has emerged the guys or at least one of them was on an intel gathering mission and may have thought the iranians could figure of had already figured that out. they are young and probably inexperienced, what do you expect, dddooo.
     
  4. Obviously it is wonderful as it is, not only the kidnapping went unpunished but it was actually rewarded. Not only Ahmadinejad but every rogue regime in the world now knows that it can be done and it pays.
     
  5. i think they were genuinly fearful for their lives.
    When american or israeli troops fearful for their lives do something stupid like accidentally shoot a civilian you are far less understanding and forgiving.


    it has emerged the guys or at least one of them was on an intel gathering mission...the iranians could figure of had already figured that out
    Intelligence gathering in Iraqi territorial waters is absolutely legitimate and was part of the UN mandate. Nevertheless confessing in intelligence gathering was the worst way to prevent Iranians from figuring it out.

    they are young and probably inexperienced, what do you expect, dddooo.
    They are not a high school soccer team, they are Royal Navy for Christ's sake. Yeah, I expected more from them. Anyway, the article is mostly not about the cowardice of those 15 wimps but about the cowardice of the British government and entire british/european terrorist/kidnapper appeasing society.
     
  6. Then why did the chickenshit let the hostages go?

    Because Ahmadinejad is the gutless wimp. No guts, no glory.

    He didn't want to see Iran turn into the next Iraq.
     
  7. Sure. If Iran would of held them any longer they would of been in trouble.

    And they knew it. That's why they let them go.

    And how did Iran get "payed" for this? They looked stupid to me.

    Little dog biting the big dog's ass... for fun I guess. Iran is a
    scared little country begging for attention. That's all...
     
  8. Then why did the chickenshit let the hostages go?
    Because they milked the situation for all it was worth. They did not need hostages, they had no intention of killing them, they could not care less whether 15 lowly british sailors live of die. But they royally humiliated the Brits, pulled off a great publicity stunt and likely got political confessions that we'll never know about.

    Because Ahmadinejad is the gutless wimp. No guts, no glory.
    Don't underestimate your enemies (Iran), don't overestimate your friends (the UK).

    He didn't want to see Iran turn into the next Iraq.
    Tony Blair pretty much excluded the use of force to resolve the crisis. Ahmadinejad had nothing to fear.
     
  9. Why not underestimate Iran? Have they built any nuclear bombs lately?

    Maybe Israel will drop a few on their heads one day.

    That is what Iran is afraid of...:p

    They are also deathly afraid of the US. We are sitting right next to
    them. I don't see any of them sitting right next to us or Britain...:D
     
  10. Watching Tottenham Hotspur fans taking on the Spanish constabulary at a European soccer match the other night, I found myself idly speculating on what might have happened had those Iranian kidnappers made the mistake of seizing 15 hard-boiled football yobs who hadn't got the Blair memo about not escalating the situation.

    Instead, as we know, the mullahs were fortunate enough to take hostage 15 Royal Navy sailors and Royal Marines. Which were which was hard to say upon their release. The Queen's Navee had been demobbed. The token gal was dressed up as an Islamic woman and the 14 men had been kitted out in Ahmadinejad leisurewear. Which is not just a ghastly fashion faux pas but a breach of the increasingly one-way Geneva Conventions. But they smiled and they waved. Wave, Britannia! Britannia, waive the rules!

    The Associated Press reported the story as follows: ''Analysis: Hope For More Iran Compromises.''

    Well, if by ''compromise'' you mean Tehran didn't put them up for a show trial and behead them, you might have a point. With this encouraging development, we might persuade them to wipe only half of Israel off the map, or even nuke some sparsely occupied corner of the Yukon instead. With the momentum of this "compromise" driving events, all manner of diplomatic triumphs are possible.

    Tony Blair was at pains to point out that the hostages were released ''without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature.'' But he's missing (or artfully sidestepping) the point: Tehran didn't want a deal. It wanted the humbling of the Great Satan's principal ally. And it got it. Very easily. And it paid no price for it. And it has tested in useful ways the empty pretensions of the U.N., the EU and also NATO, whose second largest fleet is now a laughingstock in a part of the world where it helps to be taken seriously.
    ...
    So in 2007 the men of the Royal Navy can be kidnapped and "the strong arm of England" (in Lord Palmerston's phrase) goes all limp-wristed and threatens to go to the U.N. and talk about drafting a Security Council resolution. Backstage, meanwhile, deals are done: An Iranian "diplomat" (a k a Mister Terror Kingpin) suddenly resurfaces in Tehran after having been reported in American detention, his release purely coincidental, we're told. But it's the kind of coincidence that ensures more of your men will be kidnapped and ransomed in the years ahead.
    ...
    In the end, every great power is as great as its credibility, and the only consolation after these last two weeks is that Britain doesn't have much more left to lose.
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/331879,CST-EDT-STEYN08.article
     
    #10     Apr 8, 2007