Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iran Frees Detained British Sailors
Breitbart/ AP ^ | Apr 4 12:46 PM US/Eastern | NASSER KARIMI

Posted on 04/04/2007 9:58:35 AM PDT by IrishMike

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-230 next last
To: IrishMike

Mahmoud, the Magic Persian,
Lives in Tehran.
He gave Tony Blair an Easter Gift”
For Not-So-Great Britain.
Mahmoud the Magic Persian...


151 posted on 04/04/2007 1:55:18 PM PDT by CDB (The Democrats "support the troops," in much the same way that a wet tissue paper jock strap does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Ok peeps, here’s what gives. Pelosi went to Syria. Coincidence? The MSM will now report that it was Syria talking with Iran that led to the freeing of the hostages. Diplomacy works and that is why a Democrat should be President and why Bush is a cowboy. Bets?

No bets here. I think you're as close to a bullseye as anybody is going to get.
152 posted on 04/04/2007 2:02:12 PM PDT by mkjessup (If Reagan were still with us, he'd ask us to "win one more for the Gipper, vote for Duncan Hunter!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: oakcon

How heavy was it ?

Did it stop them from posing for holiday pictures in sharp new suits gifted by their Iranian friends.

Smiling and waving to the cameras in fact. Thats what surrender looks like these days i guess.


153 posted on 04/04/2007 2:02:50 PM PDT by Axlrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: RDTF
where did they get the suits?

More importantly, what has become of their uniforms and sidearms? Probably on propagandic display somewhere in Tehran.

154 posted on 04/04/2007 2:08:09 PM PDT by Tarkus2040 (Only a conservative nationalist party can save America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: IrishMike
Rush on the hostages yesterday:

RUSH: Well, Winston Churchill is having a scotch in his grave right now asking the question: "How did 15 British sailors and Marines give up without firing a shot?" Churchill probably cannot believe this. You know, they pretty mothballed their navy. Great Britain, I'll tell you, it's gone PC in ways you wouldn't believe. If you people haven't heard, this I want you to sit down. This is from the UK Daily Mail: "Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils," according to a government study. The study "found that some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity of the Holocaust for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial. There is also resistance to tackling the Eleventh Century crusades where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques. The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using histories as a vehicle for promoting political correctness."

Political correctness? It's worse than that! The Brits are not teaching the Holocaust because there are Muslim students in there who are Holocaust deniers, and they don't want them to be offended! They're worried that they're going to start blowing up the schools or something, I guess. (interruption) Yes, there is a "consensus" on the Holocaust, but the Brits are willing to say, "To hell with consensus." The Holocaust is not "consensus." It's fact. Look, you wonder what's happened to the Brits? It's political correctness is running amok, and "conflict resolution." Does anybody think that 15 United States Marines would just sit there and allow themselves to be taken when they had not invaded Iranian waters and then in two days, start apologizing on Iranian TV? Do you think 15 United States Marines would do this?

No.

Way.

Semper fi. No way. But all you have to know is the story I just told you. They're not teaching the Holocaust might offend Muslim students who don't believe it.
155 posted on 04/04/2007 2:09:52 PM PDT by Miss Didi ("Good heavens, woman, this is a war not a garden party!" Dr. Meade, Gone with the Wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Didi

We need to find another country who we can use as #1 ally.

This one seems to be not up to the job.


156 posted on 04/04/2007 2:17:03 PM PDT by Axlrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Pelosi went to Syria. Coincidence? The MSM will now report that it was Syria talking with Iran that led to the freeing of the hostages. Diplomacy works and that is why a Democrat should be President and why Bush is a cowboy.

I can hear Pelosi now:

"See, we Democrats can resolve problems between our country and the Muslim world. If you vote for us in the coming election, we'll bring our own brand of peace and understanding to our Muslim friends in Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the middle east."

Egads! Typing that nearly made me vomit!

157 posted on 04/04/2007 2:25:44 PM PDT by Tarkus2040 (Only a conservative nationalist party can save America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Axlrose

I just don’t understand how two weeks of frailness on the part of the British government seems to mean a lot more to some of you than 5 YEARS of fighting together against tyranny.


158 posted on 04/04/2007 2:27:18 PM PDT by Vanguard40 (Per Mare Per Terram)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

Looks like you nailed it.


159 posted on 04/04/2007 2:31:45 PM PDT by mikhailovich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Vanguard40

Its like when France decided in one day to surrender to the Germans after a month of hard fighting.

Call it crossing the line from ally to merely a neutral.


160 posted on 04/04/2007 2:34:41 PM PDT by Axlrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

No, you are reading things into my comments that are not implied by them or presupposed by them (that’s understandable in light of many things expressed about France on this site, but I am far from one of the haters). If France wants to cooperate now, I welcome it... I simply don’t trust it (maybe things will be different if/when Sarkozy wins, we’ll see). I’m not one of the “haters” of all things French on this site, I merely detest (most of the time) their government and foreign policy. I wish they were a consistent ally and not such a fickle, too often antagonistic ally. But when they come through with some decent behavior I am happy to applaud it.... I only wish it were more frequent and consistent.


161 posted on 04/04/2007 2:40:21 PM PDT by Enchante (Liefong, Fitzfong, Earlefong, Schumfong, Waxfong, Pelosifong.... see a pattern here?!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Axlrose

Actually the Brits, along with the Aussies and Canadians are our strongest allies along with some newcomers like Poland and Romania.

This incident doesn’t prove anything regarding being and ally. All it proves is that the Labour Party are weak and appeasers. Our Dems (as Carter did) are just as bad and have a worse record.

I’m seriously hoping, for the UK, that they unleash an air attack (along with the US) on the nuke sites now (perfect opening)and crush the Rev.Guards, Al Quds etc of the military. If they don’t it’s just another chapter in the fall of the West.


162 posted on 04/04/2007 2:41:52 PM PDT by rbmillerjr ("Message to radical jihadis...come to my hood, it's understood ------ it's open season" Stuck Mojo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

I’ve just been watching this on the news and it was a complete farce. They had some daft bint and her husband kissing ahmedinnerjackets ass.

When the hostages did their little walk out to meet the president, one of them was talking to an ITV news reporter while the others were talking to the president, and he was grabbed.

These bastard iranians have again tonight put them on tv, focusing again on the women (once again with here head gear on).

He can take his gift and shove it.

Our gift to him will hopefully be a mass bombing campaign.

But FRiends, I feel some of you are being a bit harsh on us Brits, the debate about whether the soldiers should have given themselves up could go on forever, as could the conduct of our government.

I don’t exactly know what the government has done wrong, it hasn’t really given them anything, and it has stuck to its guns with regards our innocence of any wrongdoing.

To start questioning our commitment while our soldiers are fighting and dying alongside our American brothers is simply a disgrace. Britain has been one of only a couple of nations that has stood by you, Tony Blair has sacrificed himself politically for this fight and I have absolutely no doubt that we will support the inevitable decision to attack Iran over it’s nuclear weapons programme.


163 posted on 04/04/2007 2:42:25 PM PDT by UKrepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: UKrepublican

You’re right, UK; a lot of people here are making premature judgments about Britain’s response to this.


164 posted on 04/04/2007 3:01:14 PM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

They were not MASSIVELY outgunned at Trafalgar. It was a 1:1 battle, which the British won because they had the more experienced fleet.

Nor were they MASSIVELY outgunned in the Battle of Britain. In fighter power, which is what counted, they were outnumbered about 1.5 to 1, which isn’t nice odds, but it’s not massive either.


165 posted on 04/04/2007 3:18:59 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Le chien aboie; la caravane passe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench
We can expect hostage taking to increase.

Now that they have humiliated the British Lion, pulling it's last tooth, guess which English Speaking Country, aka The Great Satan, is next?

Better be careful though, they might get their fingers, or other body parts, burned.

166 posted on 04/04/2007 3:22:11 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Axlrose

“Its like when France decided in one day to surrender to the Germans after a month of hard fighting.
Call it crossing the line from ally to merely a neutral.”

An ally?

No. France was not an ally of the United States in 1940.
Why?
Because the AMERICANS chose to be neutral.
The AMERICANS chose to not get involved when Hitler rearmed the Rhineland, occupied Czechoslovakia, and invaded Poland.
The BRITISH and the CANADIANS were allies of the French, but the AMERICANS were not allies of France, and they were not enemies of Hitler either. They were neutral. They were even neutral when Hitler devastated London.

Only after the Japanese attacked America and Hitler declared war on the United States did the United States then, and only then, become part of the Western Alliance. Before that, the United States was as useless as Brazil in defending the world from either Naziism OR Communism.

The “Western Alliance” was Britain and France. France fell, Britain was pummelled, America didn’t do anything.
Only when the Axis touched America proper did the Americans do anything, for their own reasons. They BECAME allies because they were attacked. Before they were attacked, they were not enemies of Hitler. France and Britain stood up to Hitler. France lost. Britain was pummelled. But they fought.
America let Europe go to Hell, and was never going to intervene at all, but for the fact that Hitler and Tojo attacked the US.

America crossed the line from being a mere neutral to being a useful part of the Western Alliance after Pearl Harbor. Before that, America was not a participant in the war against Hitler, and didn’t care less.


167 posted on 04/04/2007 3:25:52 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Le chien aboie; la caravane passe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Pox

My nephew is on a sub in the Persian Gulf. Trust me, Iran was thisclose to some major smack down. Irregardless of how this is played in the press.......


168 posted on 04/04/2007 3:42:29 PM PDT by greccogirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sax
The lady got ripped off, the guys are all in nicely tailored suits and she's....

Not wearing a chadora, the one style for all Iranian women's clothing.


169 posted on 04/04/2007 3:42:36 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

They would be wrong.


170 posted on 04/04/2007 3:43:33 PM PDT by greccogirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: greccogirl

I sure the he** hope so! :)


171 posted on 04/04/2007 3:43:49 PM PDT by Pox (Just say NO to RINO Rudy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: IrishMike

HOW MUCH DID THIS COST?


172 posted on 04/04/2007 3:44:18 PM PDT by Pit1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
To not awaken the sleeping tiger. That is why no new major attacks here, ala WTC. We are doing a great job of eroding political will all on our own, so they won’t hit us with big attack to raise the ire again.

What did they think was going to be the result of 911?

If what you say is true, they're walking a fine line. Islamofascists have been very vocal about vowing to wipe us from the planet. If they don't strike, they look not only WEAK but like 911 was a SUCKER PUNCH on an unprepared sleeping giant. The world view may be they're unable to strike when our back is UP and we're lookin' 'em dead in the eye. Which maybe is a fact!

173 posted on 04/04/2007 3:45:47 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Axlrose
They must have extracted some concessions from the Brits.

I thought they wanted the U.S. to release some Iranians.

174 posted on 04/04/2007 3:55:19 PM PDT by Netizen (More Americans killed by illegal aliens than Iraq war 2,158 ea year - Center for Immigration Studies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TheConservator

They aren't, even the terrorist loving BBC says (in the link from post 24 )

"They are expected to be handed to the British embassy in Tehran on Thursday morning before flying home.

It's already Thursday, about 2:30 AM there now, but not yet morning. "Morning" doesn't end until noon, 4:30 EDT. We shall see.

175 posted on 04/04/2007 4:00:22 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC
"They are expected to be handed to the British embassy in Tehran on Thursday morning before flying home.

No reason at all they could not have been handed over to the British Embassy right after the "photo op".

I won't be surprised to see some "snag" come up.

176 posted on 04/04/2007 4:03:16 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BearWash
But wouldn't it have been more effective if the woman sailor was dressed in a Persian Princess outfit instead of those homeless rags?

I doubt she was willing to put on the chadora they offered her.

177 posted on 04/04/2007 4:06:26 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

All true, the American public and leadership had very little interest in getting involved in Europe or the world before Pearl Harbor. Some of it was a renewed isolationism growing after WWI, but it is interesting to look at the large segments of the public that had come to support intervention in WWI and then ended up deeply disillusioned in what happened with our “allies” in the Versailles treaty, etc. Respect for France and Britain fell sharply here, for a variety of reasons, and then there was the nonsense of the “Kellogg-Briand” Pact in 1928, making a lot of naive people think that war could simply be renounced and forgotten about.

One can certainly blame Americans in the 1920s and 1930s for retreating from world affairs, but there are a lot of things the leadership of France and Britain did (or failed to do) to keep the USA as an ally and partner in that period. Sure, part of it was that the US Senate declined to ratify the League of Nations treaty, but the moment WWI was ended both France and Britain treated the USA increasingly as unwanted interlopers — you can blame Americans for some things in that period, but there was little real partnership or friendship or effort at alliance from Europe either — they were happy to have American loans and troops when convenient, and then happy to sneer at and condescend to Americans who decided they no longer had any use for Europe.

Let’s all hope no more of that pattern is repeated now.....


178 posted on 04/04/2007 4:06:48 PM PDT by Enchante (Liefong, Fitzfong, Earlefong, Schumfong, Waxfong, Pelosifong.... see a pattern here?!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: batter
I would've enjoyed it if they could have snuck a middle finger into the picture like our Vietnam POWs did.

I don't recall seeing any Vietnam POWs giving the "Hawaiian Good Luck Sign", but the crew of the USS Pueblo did when exhibited by the North Koreans. Then "Time" ratted them out and they were given thorough beatings.

179 posted on 04/04/2007 4:09:02 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

This isn’t trafalgar or the B.O.B. The scenarios are completely different.


180 posted on 04/04/2007 4:09:16 PM PDT by UKrepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: RDTF
where did they get the suits?

Akmed the Tailor?

181 posted on 04/04/2007 4:12:35 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
You're right. I mixed them up - for some reason I was thinking of the "Hanoi Hilton" when I posted.

Thanks for the correction.

182 posted on 04/04/2007 4:16:07 PM PDT by batter ("Always take the offensive...Never Dig in." - Gen Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Pox

So I am told. :-) But what happens in the public arena will be different.


183 posted on 04/04/2007 4:20:15 PM PDT by greccogirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Sax

I approve of the two guys on the right - no smiles or waves, just grimacing and making it clear (as I read it) that they detest the whole scene - one has his right fist clenched. Of course, this is just one snapshot, but they don’t look like they are cooperating with the propaganda-fest.....


184 posted on 04/04/2007 4:23:25 PM PDT by Enchante (Liefong, Fitzfong, Earlefong, Schumfong, Waxfong, Pelosifong.... see a pattern here?!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MadelineZapeezda
From your link:

They spent their first night of 'freedom’ under the supervision of Iran’s Foreign Ministry and are due to be handed over to British diplomats this morning.

Doesn't sound much like "Freedom" to me. They could as easily been handed over to the British Embassy (or interest section if the UK doesn't have an Embassy in Iran), or for that matter to a 3rd country embassy, like the Swiss or the Swedes, or even Kuwait or the UAE.

185 posted on 04/04/2007 4:49:22 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: UKrepublican

Absolutely true.

I was just sticking a claw into the comment that Trafalgar and the Battle of Britain were fought against MASSIVE odds. They weren’t fought against massive odds. They were fought against close odds, and the British won.

Or, more truthfully, the odds at Trafalgar favored the British, as the French and Spanish outnumbered them by only a small margin, but the Spanish and French crews were very green versus the battle-hardened and meticulously-trained British. Had the British lost Trafalgar, it would have been quite surprising. What made Trafalgar so dramatic was the size of the victory. The British should have won in any case, but that their victory was so sweeping is a testimony to Lord Nelson’s command and the quality of the Royal Navy of the time.

The Battle of Britain was a much closer affair, however. The RAF pilots were good, but they were evenly matched by the Luftwaffe pilots. Neither side had an advantage in aircrew qualities. Both were elite forces in 1940. (By contrast, at Trafalgar the British Navy was an elite force, while the Spanish Navy was competent by uninspired, and the French fleet were quite green recruits with a revolutionary officer corps). Spitfires and Me-109s were comparable aircraft, with advantages and disadvantages; neither had a decisive edge over the other. And the Luftwaffe had the advantage in numbers.

Had the Luftwaffe High Command had good strategic presence of mind and patience, the Luftwaffe should have been able to defeat the RAF in a long, grinding war of attrition in the sky. Neither side had the qualitative edge to be able to knock the other out, but the Germans had more planes and more production capacity than the British, and that should have told the tale. The advantage was with the Germans, and though it was certainly not a decisive advantage (obviously), it was a significant one. German numbers were superior to the British, and the Luftwaffe pilots of 1940 were an elite corps, with more battle experience (at the beginning of the fight) than the RAF.

The British had the advantage of home-field advantage (to wit: a shot down RAF pilot who parachuted to safety was back in the cockpit the next day. An uninjured Luftwaffe pilot sat out the war in a PoW camp), and had the advantage of radar, but a good strategy on the part of the Germans should have been able to overcome both. Basically, the German Air Marshall needed to keep sending his fighters and bombers straight at the RAF, smashing the airfields themselves, forcing the British into the skies to fight (or lose their planes on the ground), and using superior German numbers to whittle the RAF down to nothing through attrition. THEN the bombers could take out British factories unscathed and, when the time was right, Seelowe (Operation Sea Lion) could be launched and the Germans cross the Channel under the cover an air supremacy which would send the stately Royal Navy to the bottom as surely as the Japanese sank the US surface fleet at Pearl Harbor. Time, production and numbers were on the Germans’ side.

But patience was neither Goering’s nor Hitler’s forte. The RAF was in the toils, but not quite at bay when the Luftwaffe commanders redirected the German air force to start hitting British cities. This made a big psychological impact, and certainly did a lot of property damage, but it gave the RAF the respite it needed to regroup and survive. After that, it was the RAF hunting German fighter-bombers in the sky, a very different thing than the RAF itself being pushed back onto the ropes. While the Luftwaffe destroyed houses on the ground, the RAF destroyed German planes in the air, and pilots. And thus the war of attrition turned against Germany in the air, and the British were able to eke out a victory in a campaign that they really should have lost. British tenacity and bravery were indisputable, and what made the British victory in the Battle of Britain so glorious was that the Luftwaffe was an overmatch for the RAF and everybody knew it. Trafalgar was a great victory, but it was not a surprise. By contrast, the Germans should have won the Battle of Britain.


186 posted on 04/04/2007 4:58:24 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Le chien aboie; la caravane passe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
“Its like when France decided in one day to surrender to the Germans after a month of hard fighting. Call it crossing the line from ally to merely a neutral.”

An ally?

To the British, not to the US. And of course France didn't really go "neutral", but a combination of occupied country and nominal alley to Hitler.

Only after the Japanese attacked America and Hitler declared war on the United States did the United States then, and only then, become part of the Western Alliance. Before that, the United States was as useless as Brazil in defending the world from either Naziism OR Communism.

I wasn't aware that Brazil had provided supplies, ships for example, disguised as "Lend Lease", nor that Brazillians were joining the RCAF and RAF in significant numbers.

Just as in England and France, there was a great deal of "Never Again" sentiment in America after WW-I. Misdirected in all those countries, into pacifisim, rather than the "Never Again" attitude of the Jews/Israelis following WW-II. Any of the three, France, UK or US, or any combination of them, could have stopped Hitler cold when he broke the treaty of Versailles and re-militarized the Rhineland. None of us did. All of us paid a heavy price for not doing so.

187 posted on 04/04/2007 5:02:41 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Netizen
I thought they wanted the U.S. to release some Iranians.

They did, one was released, somehow, and the Iranian government has been given access to the others. Which is more than the British government has so far been given, AFAIK.

188 posted on 04/04/2007 5:05:41 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: greccogirl

The United States should bomb and destroy Iran’s oil pipelines, refinery and nuclear sites. This would shut down their sources of cash, remove the nuclear threat, and force regime change.


189 posted on 04/04/2007 5:13:08 PM PDT by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

You let America off the hook too easily.

America let France fall in 1940. Poland, Belgium, Holland too. Stood aside and did nothing. There was no Lend Lease for France. America let Britain be bombed flat. Sent a few overage destroyers to fight the U-Boat threat...but then, the U-Boats were attacking American shipping too, so the Americans actually had an interest in that fight.

Once the US was attacked, America joined the alliance.

My comments about the US in 1940 are in juxtaposition to the constant vilification of France in the present. France did not, and does not, support the American war effort in Iraq. France never hid their opposition, and fought hard diplomatically to forestall it. BUT while the French were doing that, French soldiers were still alongside the Americans fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, and still are. And French counterintelligence was working hand-in-glove with the Americans to track down Islamofascist terror, and still are. Now, the French have a full battlegroup in the Middle East operating with the Americans, but there is still this inveterate snarky hatred towards France, because France thought the Americans were committing a foolish and horrible mistake by going into Iraq and wanted no part of it.

And to vilify the French further, to really stoke up the bile and contempt, there is the reference to World War II.
Fine then. On those terms let’s do go back to 1939 and 1940. France FOUGHT Hitler. And lost. America that wouldn’t fight Hitler until Hitler attacked America. The French were militarily incompetent, no doubt about it. The French Maginot mentality is like the Bush Adminstration’s Iraq mindset: catastrophically incompetent from the get go. But France DID FIGHT. She, and Britain, and Canada, even, DID declare war on Hitler when Poland was violated. America refused to fight.
The French were incompetent, but by the terms hurled at France here all the time, the Americans of 1940 were moral cowards.


190 posted on 04/04/2007 5:15:29 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Le chien aboie; la caravane passe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: IrishMike
Cheesy suits.


In outfits supplied by their Iranian captors, Faye Turney and her fellow Britons
salute their release


191 posted on 04/04/2007 5:30:11 PM PDT by XR7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
The media has begun spinning Syria’s role in the release already. Ahmadinejad and Assad coordinated this whole production with the Democrats.

I find the timing of Pelosi's visit suspicious.

192 posted on 04/04/2007 5:37:30 PM PDT by 6SJ7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
They did, one was released, somehow, and the Iranian government has been given access to the others. Which is more than the British government has so far been given, AFAIK.

If the U.S. released an Iranian and has allowed Iran access to the others, how is that a good thing?

193 posted on 04/04/2007 5:41:08 PM PDT by Netizen (More Americans killed by illegal aliens than Iraq war 2,158 ea year - Center for Immigration Studies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: IrishMike
Thank God there wasn't a "D" in the Whitehouse!

Count on more hostage taking if Hillary or Obama become President!

194 posted on 04/04/2007 5:54:13 PM PDT by pulaskibush (USA, founded by tolerant Christians. USSR, founded by intolerant Secularist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
As an American, I, also, think that people on this site have been too hard on the Brits. Actually, I think that even you are being more critical than the situation justifies.

I don’t think we should be critical of the UK’s actions here, for basically three reasons. First, just because we haven’t seen any fireworks yet, doesn’t prove that there won’t be any consequences. The UK, as I understand it, sometimes does a slow burn. The Brits may not jump up and down chattering right away, that doesn’t mean that they won’t be getting down to taking action.

Second, we don’t know enough about what happened. My own preferred solution was always the diplomatic one, involving an exchange of messages running something like this:

Blair: Release our troops right away, or we’ll sink your navy, and then see if you’re in a more cooperative mood.

Ahmanidgit: I find your gentle words subtly persuasive. Here they are.

Iran has been acting as though it wanted a war. Now, Iran is acting as though it’s decided that a war with the UK would be a bad idea. I don’t know what’s caused this change of attitude, but it may be that the messages from the Foreign Office have struck the right tone.

Third, comparing the way Blair handled this episode, with the way Carter handled the last Iran kidnapping, or the way Clinton handled the endless attacks of Al Quaeda, does not show the UK in a bad light. The United States has given the UK far better reason to give up on us, than the UK has given us to despair of them. Even if the British Government’s actions were the worst the uncertainty allows, I don’t see that the United States has the lattitude to be too critical. They have still been more steadfast than we.

195 posted on 04/04/2007 6:12:33 PM PDT by Keb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Miss Didi
Rush also said of this rat...that her elevator can't make it to the top...in other words she is pretty stupid.

USS Nimitz Forced Iran's Decision

196 posted on 04/04/2007 6:17:12 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand; but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: XR7
This is a travesty.

They did not come back with honor. Several of their party made propaganda films for the enemy. If they were tortured, that is a different matter. Anyone is breakable - ask the American POWs in North Vietnam. But it took years to break some of them. Within days, members of the British military in this photographed cooperated with the enemy (their captors) and made statements against their government.

If there is a heroes welcome for them, I will be disgusted.

197 posted on 04/04/2007 6:20:50 PM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Vanguard40

I think they are just pointing out that with your navy the size it is you cannot even take on a country like Iran if you had to do it alone. I would hope everyone here appreciates the British sacrifice in Afghan. and OIF.


198 posted on 04/04/2007 6:50:47 PM PDT by omega4179 (Duncan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: shield
That was classic Rush.

Nancy Pelosi Is That Stupid


199 posted on 04/04/2007 7:20:27 PM PDT by Miss Didi ("Good heavens, woman, this is a war not a garden party!" Dr. Meade, Gone with the Wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

You’re obviously not looking at everyone in the photo.

I see several colluders, a couple of “give-me-a-breaks”, and several more ‘(I could get banned for typing what their look says)’.

Then again, different folks interpret different “looks” in different ways.

Just trust us, there are 5 “FOAD” looks in the group.


200 posted on 04/04/2007 7:44:06 PM PDT by Don W ("Well Done" is far better to hear than "Well Said". (Samuel Clemens))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-230 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson