Posted on 07/05/2004 4:18:22 PM PDT by Pokey78
Something like that is the only thing that makes sense.
Prairie
Thanks for the ping, Pokey!
I think Steyn is wrong on this one, and that's probably the first time I've ever thought that.
I'm guessing it was very much a one way conversation with the Iranian ambassador. "We're going to give you a day or two to let them go. If you do, we won't ratchet up the rhetoric and embarrass you publicly. If you don't, than we and the United States are going to be extremely unhappy." So the "tradoff" was that the Brits don't force the Iranians to look like they're caving it to westerners, but the Brits get their guys back quickly.
If Teheran really wanted to play hardball, they'd have kept them for a few weeks to embarrass the Brits. They didn't.
Who? Quidnuc?
This postmodern world is just too weird. The British press doesn't complain about weak-backboned actions of state??
Hmmmm? I don't agree with Mark on this one.
I don't know why .. I can't put my finger on it .. but I wondered at the time the British were taken if they had been scouting just to see what strength of the defenses were along the river .. and because the Brits came with NO weapons .. I'm even more suspicious.
Maybe they got caught on purpose ..??
He has a nice British accent that you can hear on Hugh Hewitt's show on Wednesday afternoons.
Pictures, I'm not aware of.
Whoever it is, it won't be the Tories. After Thatcher, they became completely useless puppies.
The UKIP offers Britain its only hope, but it has a long way to go yet.
Tho Steyn has a major point about fleet streets willingness to accept the mistreatment of their own citizens while squalling over islamists with panties on their heads.
I havent followed this event since it occurred during my vacation, but perhaps the lack of resolve on the part pf the British government and the lack of backup by America was Meant to embolden them.
Lets face it, Iran and Syria have to be dealt with. Politically it may be best to coax them into crossing the line.
I'm sure that was the reference.
That's the salient point. Iran committed an Act of War and the Brits gave them a stern talking to - almost.
And compared to Spain, the Brits are pretty tough.
If Israel takes all its enemies with it, Europe goes too.
Just because "resolve" is communicated in the papers doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I suspect the U.S. gave Britain plenty of backup on this. IMHO, the tactic was to first try diplomacy behind the scenes so as not to embarrass Iran and make them hold the Brits longer. The Brits were released bery fast, as these things tend to go. Compare it to the China incident with the U.S.
<< This past week these pages have been filled with daily meditations on the British embrace of loserdom ..... [But] it seems to me this morbid obsession with the national loser fetish obscured the really big British defeat - to Iran, in the Shatt al-Arab water polo. [Eight Brits] ... intercepted in Iraqi waters, forcibly escorted to Iranian waters, arrested, paraded on TV blindfold, obliged to confess wrongs and recite apologies ....
Mullahs 8, HMG nil ....
.... if you'd just arrived from Planet Zongo and were plunked down at a joint Blair/Bush press conference on Iraq or Afghanistan or most of the rest of the world, you'd be forgiven for coming away with the impression that ['Blare'] is doing 90 per cent of the heavy lifting and [United States of America's] President [And Armed-Forces Commander-In-Chief, George Walker Bush] is just there for emergency back-up ....
Blair often [Is] a better salesman for American policy than [Our] President. But in the Shatt al-Arab incident for once he was on his own, and [Once-great] Britain's Number One seed was unable to return a single volley. >>
As, on its own, once-great Britain hasn't for more than one hundred years.
And, for at least a hundred years before that even then only against Gunga Din and its various other assorted colonial Fuzzy-Wuzzies, serfs, slaves and sychophantic subjects.
Seems to me Blair -- including, lately, to those hostile third-world colonialists and Brussells-based Neo-Soviets now safely-established within its own once-sovereign shores --is doing a very fine job indeed of holding tightly to once-great Britain's already long-established solo tradition of surrendering at every opportunity and to every comer -- and settling back 'till America's Blood and Treasure bails it out again.
[Just ask any grey-haired Singaporean -- any Israeli and/or any one of the enslaved millions of Arabia's one-time British "trust territories" and "protectorates" -- any formery East-African Asian -- any Rhodesia/zimbabwean -- or any of Once-FRee-British Hong Kong's recently-cravenly-surrendered-and-enslaved seven and a half million Once-FRee-British-Hong-Kong citizens!]
Great and perceptive piece, Mr Steyn.
Thanks for the ping, Pokes.
BUMPping
<< Servant of the 9
If Israel takes all its enemies with it, Europe goes too. >>
Rubbish!
If Israel takes all its enemies with it, Europe goes FIRST!
Blessings -- Brian
<< Where are the tories on this? I want to see some real toughness for a change. >>
The [Socialist] tories are squabbling about who gets the next thirty pieces of silver for surrendering the next few million colonialists into medieval slavery and serfdom -- apropos Arafat fan 'Hong-Kong' Patten's seven and a half million Once-FRee-British-Hong Kongers.
Blessings -- B A
bttt
Steyn's on target as usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.