Iran keeps humiliating the West

[Thunder]

I was referring more to the global "you" and not anyone specific. Point being if you want a war so much, go fight it ya damn self..=)

 

[Pardalis]

Who said anything about war?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Who said anything about war?

Well, parky76 did, for example.



. . . . Oh.

 

[Megalodon]

Wow, way to miss the point.

You're still to enlighten us all with this brilliant point that eludes the common mortal.

What lies?

"The 15 "European" hostages aren't making that much news in "Europe.""

What ad-homs?

"A bunch of unelected multinational technocrats"

"the West's transnational romantics can fantasize about "one-world government,""

What insults?

"Jimmy Carter, the embodiment of the soi-disant "superpower" as a smiling eunuch."

And using 9/11 as an example of pan-Islamic unity to contrast with European powers acting in their own individual self-interest while pretending to be a unified force is hardly an "appeal to 9/11".

Either that, or an appeal to stupidity. 9/11 as cannot be used as an example of pan-Islamic unity because 19 individuals do not represent the union of their separate nations.

To use a poker analogy, the Iranians are playing to win while the West thinks they're playing a friendly game to pass the time.

To use a boxing analogy, you're being sold a dummy.

Again.

 

[BPSCG]

The Senate on Thursday, before adjourning for its one-week break, passed a resolution condemning the act "in the strongest possible terms" and calling for the sailors "immediate, safe and unconditional release."

Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message would do more good than harm. Daly said the British government had not asked Congress to try to pressure Tehran.

"The leadership discussed it and agreed that inserting Congress into an international crisis while ongoing would not be helpful," Daly said.

Pelosi is traveling in the Middle East, where she plans to visit Syria, Israel and the West Bank.

Emphasis mine. Link.
No, it's not from The Onion.

 

[Tricky]

Emphasis mine. Link.
No, it's not from The Onion.

Why should it be The Onion? Congressional leaders visit foreign dignitaries all the time.

I suppose you're trying to make it look like irony because she says she doesn't want to "insert Congress into an international crisis" while at the same time visiting Syria. Sorry. No irony there. Syria is not involved in this crisis incident.

I heard someone on Fox going off on Pelosi about "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" or some such thing. They are easily excited over there at Fox.

I'm pretty sure that Great Britain doesn't want us "deciding to do something" about the Iran incident. If they did, they'd tell us.

 

[Schneibster]

"Washington also considers Syria a sponsor of terror and had asked Pelosi not to visit Damascus.

'I think most Americans would not think that the leader of the Democratic Party in the Congress should be meeting with the heads of a state sponsor of terror,' White House counselor Dan Bartlett said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.'"

Followed by:

"Three Republican congressmen — Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt — were in Syria on Sunday, where they met with Assad. They said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership."

Same article. Here.

So basically, it's just fine if a bunch of Republican Congresscritters want to visit Syria, but it's a major policy problem if the Democrats do the same thing. You gotta love that. I have to wonder whether the Republicans even think they live on the same planet with the rest of us.

ETA: This message was brought to you by the Fantasy Based Community.

 

[Tricky]

'I think most Americans would not think that the leader of the Democratic Party in the Congress should be meeting with the heads of a state sponsor of terror,' White House counselor Dan Bartlett said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.'"

Followed by:

"Three Republican congressmen — Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt — were in Syria on Sunday, where they met with Assad. They said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership."

LOL. See BP, now that's irony.

 

[ingoa]

Well, the 15 British soldiers are probably safer in Iran than running around in Basra.

My 2 cents on the issue....

- Iran showed that it defends its borders (to their own people and to the world)
- The UK will be more cautious about closing in to the border
- 15 soldiers will be sent back quite soon after a slap on the wrists as gesture of good will of Iran

The Iranian point has been made. They are defending their borders. Nothing can be gained by extending this over a long period. (Of course Iranian internal politics might play an adverse role. This I don't know.)

Postscriptum: Whether the British were in Iranian waters is actually irrelevant. The Iranians were able to snatch a whole platoon. This was the real message.

 

[daredelvis]

Emphasis mine. Link.
No, it's not from The Onion.

So basically, it's just fine if a bunch of Republican Congresscritters want to visit Syria, but it's a major policy problem if the Democrats do the same thing. You gotta love that. I have to wonder whether the Republicans even think they live on the same planet with the rest of us.

ETA: This message was brought to you by the Fantasy Based Community.

BPSCG,
Do you think you can clear this up for me? I fear I no longer understand Irony.

Thanks in advance,
Daredelvis

 

[Schneibster]

Postscriptum: Whether the British were in Iranian waters is actually irrelevant. The Iranians were able to snatch a whole platoon. This was the real message.

Well, if you want to get right down to it, what happened was, the US caught Iranian radicals in Iraq selling weapons to the militia, and arrested them, embarrassing the rest of the Iranian radicals and causing public outcry in Iran, particularly by the majority who are not particularly radical. The radicals went and found some soldiers from the UK, either because they're afraid to mess with US soldiers or because they couldn't find any US soldiers who were incautious enough to put themselves where they could easily be got at, and captured them to appease their own people who were embarrassed. Perhaps the British were a target of opportunity because they were busy and close enough to the line to get at. Whatever, the Iranian radicals saw an opportunity and took it. It was an idiot move and the public outcry is gonna get a lot worse if sanctions are imposed or Britain and/or the US decide to do something military about it.

The fact of the matter is, the Iranian radicals keep humiliating the West. Misidentifying them as primarily Iranian is a stupid mistake; the truth is, they're primarily radicals, they just happen to have gotten into power in Iran. Unfortunately they've also gotten into power in the US. We're doing something about that, but it's taking a while. Meanwhile, we keep humiliating ourselves; our radicals, like good radicals everywhere, hate all other radicals. The main goal here is to keep them from doing anything else stupid to f&*k things up any more than they already are, until we can get rid of them.