So, Brits. What ya gonna do?

[Gurdur]

My thoughts, too. There is a major distinction between someone who is more conservative than me but who has good sound thinking behind their positions and a simple idealogue. In my book, you, Rik, fall into the former category while (to use someone who is not around any more so that feathers won't get ruffled) hammegk falls in the latter.

Rikzilla made an interesting post on another thread, which made a point that I am still thinking about; he made another one on another thread that was spot-on (a point re Marxism vs. enviromentalism; actually. to develop the theme further, enviromentalism was one big issue behind the collapse of the Soviet system, much more than Reagan). I disagree with 95% of his posts, but I learnt something from one post of his today, and agreed with another post of his. And he doesn't usually get bogged down in crap. So in my book he's someone I will pay attention to, even if I end up disagreeing completely as usual.

Hammegk actually did have worthwhile points to make, but they got lost in the fog of his bellicosity.

....If criticism needs to be meted out in this incident, then the people who deserve blame are the ship's captain,....

No way on that one. The ship was an extremely bad choice for this kind of operation; it draws too much water under the keel and could therefore not get close enough to offer support.

The captain was carrying out his orders; he could only give the level of cover within his power; he did his best. Blame Whitehall for sending the wrong bloody type of ship, or blame circumstance in that more suitable ships were not available.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

... the Steyn piece (which is a load of rhetorical crap)?

How so?

 

[Darth Rotor]

As a Brit, what am I gonna do about Iran?

Have a glass of Talisker, screw my tiny fists up really tight, and hope that Tony Bliar Foxtrot Oscars very soon.

Who is Tony Bliar?

What a shame that Justin Rose buggered up 17 today at Augusta, he was getting close to the lead.

Talisker? Ooooh, yeah! Delicious.

DR

 

[brodski]

Who is Tony Bliar?

"Tony Bliar" is the close ally of "BusHitler".
I doubt it was a typo, as this joke/ spelling is often seen on "politcal" t-shirts and the like.

 

[Darth Rotor]

"Tony Bliar" is the close ally of "BusHitler".
I doubt it was a typo, as this joke/ spelling is often seen on "politcal" t-shist and the like.

*ding* Light goes on.

Learn something new every day. Thanks.

DR

 

[Gurdur]

How so?

I'm in no mood to point out the blitheringly obvious by dissecting a long piece of bile. Steyn was all only bilious school playground talk.

So: again: do you have a point? Any point whatsoever?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

If you won't answer a simple question, and your only response is abuse, why should I attempt to engage?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

"Do you have a point?" in this context is just a dismissive rhetorical trick.

And a fundamentally dishonest one.

 

[Mephisto]

Rikzilla,
I am not sure what you want to say here, but.....
I would rather have you than a million Bruces.

I would say I have disagreed with 95% of your posts, but you have never struck me as a person not worth taking seriously. You have never come across as merely trolling.

As to what you need to do to regain neocon street cred, after this thread, I think you're going to have to work hard at it. Recommend that the UK be bombed or something?

I agree with Gurdur, Rik. You're far more credible than Bruce. You maintain a political directly opposite of my own, but you defend it as best you can and offer concessions when you're wrong. You've never once called for anyone's blood, especially in a situation that was solved non-violently.

It may pain you to know that you've just gained some liberal street-cred.

 

[Mephisto]

Who is Tony Bliar?

Isn't that Borat's retarded brother?

 

[Gurdur]

If you won't answer a simple question, and your only response is abuse, why should I attempt to engage?

You have made absolutely no attempt to engage at all.
You have only cited a dismally emotional op-ed piece, and said nothing to it. When asked if you had any point to make, you ducked the question.

"Do you have a point?" in this context is just a dismissive rhetorical trick.

Wrong again. If you have no point to make, admit it; if you do, make it.

And a fundamentally dishonest one.

You are projecting. I find both the Steyn piece and your behaviour here less than honest.

 

[BPSCG]

Did you have a point, or only the Steyn piece (which is a load of rhetorical crap)?

How so?

I'm in no mood to point out the blitheringly obvious by dissecting a long piece of bile. Steyn was all only bilious school playground talk.

So: again: do you have a point? Any point whatsoever?

You have made absolutely no attempt to engage at all.
You have only cited a dismally emotional op-ed piece, and said nothing to it. When asked if you had any point to make, you ducked the question.


Wrong again. If you have no point to make, admit it; if you do, make it.


You are projecting. I find both the Steyn piece and your behaviour here less than honest.

Gurdur, if you have criticisms of the Steyn piece, you should explain what is wrong with it when asked. Otherwise, you have no grounds for dismissing someone else's arguments as "less than honest."

 

[brodski]

Aside from the whole article (much like Bruce’s OP) sounding like a teenager chiding one of his peers for being “chicken” because they resolved their problems in an adult manner rather that restoring to fisticuffs at eth first opportunity, all you need to see that Styne is full of crap is this line

In theory, they still have the ships, the men and the money

Which is true, except all of these resources are already tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course if Styne proposed that we withdrew from both these confects to concentrate on Iran, he may have had a bit of a point.

Maybe Blair impersonating Palmerston would have given armchair generals insecure in their masculinity a special tingling feeling, but it would have been monumentally stupid, and cost us far more than any minor loss of face.

 

[Gurdur]

Gurdur, if you have criticisms of the Steyn piece, you should explain what is wrong with it when asked. Otherwise, you have no grounds for dismissing someone else's arguments as "less than honest."

Don't be so abysmally silly, BPSCG.
I haven't dismissed Abdul Alhazred's argument, because he simply hasn't come up with one yet.

And Steyn didn't make any argument at all; he made a whole lot of emotional assertions, all unsubstantiated, but no actual argument.

You should learn the difference.

If you can't understand, I will spell it out for you: Steyn was indulging in emotionalist polemics. No logical argument at all in his piece. There's no value in it whatsover. Of course, if you disagree, you should actually come up with some kind of argument.

 

[BPSCG]

And Steyn didn't make any argument at all; he made a whole lot of emotional assertions, all unsubstantiated, but no actual argument.

Really?

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.

Okay, do you believe Teheran did pay a price for humbling Britain?

Do you believe Teheran did not get very useful information about what empty vessels the UN, the EU, and NATO are?

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.

Do you believe that statement is incorrect?

Europeans and more and more Americans believe they can live in a world with all the benefits of global prosperity and none of the messy obligations necessary to maintain it. And so they cruise around war zones like floating NGOs. Iran called their bluff, and televised it to the world.

Do you believe that is an inaccurate assessment?

Do you honestly believe there is nothing to discuss here?

 

[brodski]

Do you honestly believe there is nothing to discuss here?

OK, so what would you have us do?
Which areas of Iraq or Afghanistan would you have us withdraw from to support action against Iran?

Or perhaps refusing to be goaded into a war which neither us, or our allies, are capable of fighting effectively was the smart move.

I'll take minor loss of face over major loss of life any day.
Am I wrong?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Being always one to pour oil on troubled waters, then light a match, I think this: There is nothing more for the Brits to do, and overall I think they did the best with what they were handed. Asking for some other action is ill-advised and pointless. I am also extremely glad that the sailors were returned unharmed.

Having said that, I do not agree that Britain was clearly the winner here, at least in some circles -- and I am not talking about Republican campaign meetings. Ahmadinejad did not aim this stunt at the British public so that they cauld determine the winners and losers, he (admittedly, my opinion, only) aimed this at the arab world and nearby nations.

And they don't necesarily agree with the British assessment of themselves as winners: first, there will be an assumed quid-pro-quo, regardless of the truth. People will point to the release by the US of an Iranian prisoner that had been held until the day before the sailors' release, as well as Britain's decision to stop the interdiction of shipping in the area. Second, this has distracted from Iran's intent to acquire nukes (something that analysts say can happen within 2 years). Third, the UN and EU essentially refused to do a damn thing to support Britain -- even refusing to *discuss* ceasing trade while her sailors were being held. That tends to show a lack of fortitude on the part of the West (again, we are talking about a mid-Eastern target audience, and I maintain that will be the likely perception there). Fourth, there was the effect on oil prices and the threat of more uncertainty to keep prices higher.

So Bruce's post is nonsensical from the point of view of either the US or Europe -- there isn't anything to do at the moment except be grateful no one got themselves killed. But I do wish that the western countries had approved an embargo or some type of serious sanction, just to show that this sort of thing is frowned on. I doubt that the UN expression of mild disapproval will do much -- especially when member countries blocked the initial attempt to have the expression of *moderate* disapproval issued.

So, I disagree strongly with any call for more "action" or whatever -- but I also do not feel like this is an occasion to slap ourselves on the back.

 

[Gurdur]

Really?

Really. Which part of the difference between an assertion and an argument do you not understand?

Which part of "mere emotive assertions" do you not understand?

Okay, do you believe Teheran did pay a price for humbling Britain?

Have you stopped beating your wife?
Who said I thought Britain was humbled, for one thing? Can you ask a non-loaded precise question or not, or do you want to try weaseling in some more silliness?

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.

Do you believe that statement is incorrect?

"Limpwristed"? It's emotive garbage, let alone being incorrect.

Do you believe that is an inaccurate assessment?

Oh....... yes. Indeed.

Do you honestly believe there is nothing to discuss here?

Bruce's stupid OP was every bit as good as Steyn's piece, and on the same level.

If I wanted take stupid claims seriously, I would be on the Loose Change board.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm just wondering when Missouri became part of the UK?

Aw, man. You mean I gotta pay more taxes?!?

 

[BPSCG]

Bruce's stupid OP was every bit as good as Steyn's piece, and on the same level.

If I wanted take stupid claims seriously, I would be on the Loose Change board.

That's funny. Your entire contribution to this thread has been a stream of ad homs heavily salted with statements of opinion unburdened by a single fact to back them up. Mr. Pot, say hello to Mr. Kettle.

Oh well. Time to move on; nothing to see here.