Thursday, March 29, 2007

Now Is The Time For The European Union To Show Why They Are Relevant

Here is an opinion piece from the Guardian I would recommend, especially to all of my European readers.

Last week, while the European Union celebrated 50 years of peace, freedom and solidarity, 15 Europeans were kidnapped from Iraqi territorial waters by Iranian Revolutionary Guards. As I write, those 14 European men and one European woman have been held at an undisclosed location for nearly a week, interrogated, denied consular access, but shown on Iranian television, with one of them making a staged "confession", clearly under duress. So if Europe is as it claims to be, what's it going to do about it? Where's the solidarity? Where's the action?

Simply to describe the crisis in these terms is to see how far we are from the Europe of instinctive solidarity that European leaders like to believe we have - and especially when it comes to our armed forces abroad. Most Brits do not think of our captured sailors and marines as Europeans. Indeed, I'd bet our kidnapped British service personnel don't think of themselves that way. Most British people will look for more decisive action from the British government ("Admiral Lord Nelson must be revolving in his grave," chuntered Melanie Phillips in yesterday's Daily Mail), and then perhaps from the United States or the United Nations. It would not occur to them to look across the Channel for support, and they would be very surprised to learn that Europe has more direct, immediate leverage on Iran than the United States does.

Many continental Europeans, if they have registered that there is a crisis at all - and many will not have, since Europe's media are still mainly national in form and priorities - will probably think of it as yet another consequence of a foolish, illegitimate Anglo-American military action in Iraq. They will see it as a problem for "them" (Brits and Americans) rather than for "us" (right- thinking, peace-loving Europeans). Some may suspect the British sailors and marines did in fact stray into Iranian territorial waters, as the Iranians claim. A few may even privately mutter: "Well, you had it coming to you."

The EU talks up a good game, but I too am interested to see just what this bureaucratically bloated entity does about this. In France, soon to be ex-President Chirac has paid his traditional lip service, beyond that little else. Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and others haven't expressed much else either. German Chancellor Merkel has been the only real voice that has resonated well, in the matter. Turkey has also stepped onto the scene with an offer to help. That's kind of sad because, they are still offering to assist despite the fact they are currently being snubbed by the EU. This has been reported, in this article.

But government officials are not the only ones keeping quiet, even the European blogs are conducting an exercise, in deafening silence.

One of the better German blogs, David's Medienkritik (which is a fine blog that works hard at fighting against anti-American rhetoric) has nothing to report. One of the better known French blogs is Super Frenchie. There, he sings the praises of the EU and castigates those he perceives as engaging in French-bashing. But try as you might, you cannot find one piece about standing in solidarity with the Brits on this crisis and yet, would rather write about a toy and condemn the use of the term "Freedom Fries", than to condemn the illegal acts of the Islamic Republic of Iran for their violation of international law.

(I am sure there are others, but time not being an ally of mine and searching extensively takes much of it, I have to use these two that I have on the blogroll. Both are non-Anglo European blogs and both illustrate my point.)

I would emphatically state that if Europeans really want this experiment to demonstrate its effectiveness, now would be the time to stand up. If they wait passively so that the lion will eat them last, they will still be eaten anyway. If the world is going to confront this threat, it must start with Europeans looking after Europeans. If Brits cannot count on the continentals, how will anyone be able to count on the Russians of Chinese? What incentive would they have, if Europe doesn't care for its own, first and foremost?

Look, Europe has been told by its leaders a blue million reasons for why they need the EU. If the leadership of the EU does not respond to this, they greatly illustrate just precisely why I call the EU, UN Lite. Spending all of the money it does and consuming the many man hours to run it, you'd think they'd get something that resembles a return on their investment. Instead you have little else, but a bunch of bureaucrats that consume much and produce very little. You have bureaucrats that love to have praise thrown at them, but do not earn it on the average day. But I cannot blame the leadership entirely. It wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the will of the people.

They wanted it and they have it. But as we can now see (by the lack of reaction by EU officials), there is still a malaise-like apathy that exists in Europe that is not entirely understood by this writer. Whether it's because I am an ignorant, yet arrogant American or I am some kind of genius that cannot see the forest for the trees, the outcome is the same. It's pretty difficult for me to think that someone could kidnap some Canadians and the U.S. would not be more vocal about it,; more than the whole of Europe has been so far in this current situation (at least). In fact, I often wonder if unity is really a goal with them.

But whatever the case may be, I have to say that I have made no secret in my love for the European continent and its people, during my tenure here at this sleepy little blog. And please understand fully that I completely realize, recognize, and understand the fact that my country needs a strong Europe, both as friends and trading partners. My heritage is from there, I lived and worked there with people of several nationalities. I can honestly say that those days were some of the most care-free and enjoyable days, of my life. I worked hard and played hard with the people, and I well know the resolve they have. But I also know, they deserve better than what they are getting here.

I would hate to think that the continent would turn its back on an ally that has stood by them many times in the past, just because there is a difference of opinion on Iraq. Yes, there have been differences at times, and there have even bloody wars fought between the nations. But Europeans tell me time and time again, this was in the past; and in the same breath, they speak of a new era of European cooperation and greatness.

Well I say, the time to support that claim is right here, right now. Part of that cooperation and the greatness that will ensue it, is providing for the safety and security of the member states, both in the political and diplomatic channels, in the hopes that the military channels will not be necessary. But, it cannot begin if the member states do not speak up. It won't work if they remain silent and muted, that's a given. Words must precede acts, with the hope that acts will not be needed. But if the words never come, nothing will get resolved.

So to Europeans, I say the following:

EU-Yes or EU-No, it really matters not so much to me. I do not live there. Maybe I do not have the right to have an opinion on the matter, I don't really know. But if you ask me, you need to get a little more bang for your buck, where the "so-called" unifying entity is concerned. Or like every other attempt before it, it will certainly fail.

Courtesy of Flocon de Paris comes this update:

The EU has finally issued a statement on the crisis.

I would say that it's better late than never. But I also have to wonder, why did it take an entire week to get out a few paragraphs? (You know me. Just asking.) But nevertheless, I applaud the statement - especially the last paragraph. I hope it won't be necessary, but also hope they mean it (if it does become necessary).


Anonim said...

Recently, while reading thru some things on the never-ending EU-Turkey saga, I came across a reader comment which said the EU must continuously expand because otherwise they have to start working on the existing unity/cohesion issues. The reader's point was, these issues would prove fatal to the future of the project. Some point to think about.

Anonim said...

When this incident occured, I first asked if it could be related to the Iranian ex state official allegedly abducted in Turkey by Mossad and/or CIA. Here is a different (and more plausible) take on the episode...

How to start a war with Iran
Gwynne Dyer
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Turkish Daily News

The five Iranian diplomats arrested by US troops in a raid in Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan last January were actually Revolutionary Guards, and it would seem that their colleagues want them back. Kidnapping American troops as hostages for an exchange could cause a war, so they decided to grab some Brits instead.

The rest of the article is here.

BEING HAD said...

I think the anonymous comment has a valid point about both European expansion and about starting a war. I don't think the US or Europe is prepared to invade as of the moment though, according Ria Novost ( The US has started to get very active around the Iranian borders. However, in the case of a shooting war, let us not forget hat Sadaam Hussein used the war to fire missiles at Israel, even though Israel technically was not involved in the fighting. I would never put it past Ahmadinejad to do something similar.

LASunsett said...


//I came across a reader comment which said the EU must continuously expand because otherwise they have to start working on the existing unity/cohesion issues. The reader's point was, these issues would prove fatal to the future of the project. Some point to think about.//

I think this is a very good point too. Thanks for brining it up.

Europe could not be united by force. Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, none of them could do it. How am I to believe that they can do it under peaceful conditions?

From the article you cite:

//The five Iranian diplomats arrested by US troops in a raid in Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan last January were actually Revolutionary Guards, and it would seem that their colleagues want them back.//

In the days of the Cold War, spy exchanges were common. When we would expel some, they would too. When we would capture and interrogate some, they would too. That is to be expected, in the underworld of cloak and dagger.

In this case, one must treat the Iranian Revolutionary Guards posing as diplomats, as spies. Because whenever someone poses as something while being something else, one must make that determination.

But, the difference here lies in the fact that the British sailors and marines are not spies. One should not expect that the capturing of uniformed troops operating in the open, would be considered spies. One must also consider this an aggressive act that is not acceptable, unlike the old spy games played with the former USSR and its former satellite nations.

LASunsett said...


//The US has started to get very active around the Iranian borders.//

This is not so unusual. During the Cold War, when I was in Europe, we routinely went on alerts and deployed to the pre-determined assembly areas in response to actions the Soviets were pondering or considering. It's sort of like balling up your fist and flexing your muscle. One incident was when the Chinese invaded Vietnam for that brief period in the late 70s. China and the Soviets were on the outs then, and Vietnam was still in the camp of the Soviets. (China had informed us of their intentions on an official state visit just prior to the invasion.)

It was intended to be a message then, and the increase of activity at the Iranian border is intended to be one now. Whether or not in turns into something else will depend on what the Iranians do from here on. If they are set on provoking an invasion or some other kind military response will depend on how they conduct themselves from here on out.

Greg said...

The EU looks weak, but how about the UNSC. Sure, we all now know since 2003 that very few countries even care about a UNSC resolution, but you would think they would have more courage than to ask pretty please if the mullahs might please release our criminal infidel mercenaries. Pathetic.

While the world moans and groans about the Khalid Sheik Mohammed aconditions of t GITMO (he's a totally innocent political prisoner, you know), Iran openly commits war crimes by broacasting propaganda "confessions" of our friends. Where's the outrage? Well, on America and Israel, of course! Where else?

LASunsett said...


//Sure, we all now know since 2003 that very few countries even care about a UNSC resolution//

That is because they know that members like Russia and China will veto any real principled proposal and if they do not, they know that the UNSC does not have the backbone to enforce its own resolutions. Unity can only come from nations setting aside differences and their own interests, and acting in the best interest of all of the member states that abide by the principles that the UN claims to promote.

As long as rogue states can continue to thumb their noses at the resolutions without facing any real consequences, it should come as no surprise that this will continue to be the case.

Rocket said...


I wouldn't worry about that and his 10 strong 150 comment army I got bounced off that site last year and can't say that I'm dissapointed, seeing how the level of debate has gone into the gutter. Whereas before, he had some valid points, it's turned into a daily France vs USA contest. Kinda like a polite He's got to get off his daily rant and how difficult it is for a poor Frenchie to live in America. Yet he seems to have succeeded quite well in America, judging by the pix he had up of his house, the Mitsu and his wife in bathing attire etc. He doesn't seem to work much as he says that ant-french feeling have cost him business and spends alot of time blogging. I visit his sight nearly every day to see what the daily rant is.

One time he got off on some poor animal welfare person who mentioned in an article concerning french bulldogs or poodles or some type of French canine that in order for proper care you had to surrender your dog.

This Superfrenchie went ballistic along with his henchman Mark de Miquelon, thinking that someone was equating French bulldogs with surrender

Mort de rire!

It's called victimization

The guy has been making plans to return to France for years but he's still there in Maryland sur mer(de).

Anonymous said...

For a start I'll go with a little provocation by quoting the Guardian where I think it has it right:
1°) Many continental Europeans.../...will probably think of it as yet another consequence of a foolish, illegitimate Anglo-American military action in Iraq.
Well, of course the Brits weren't in Iranian territorial waters, they were in Iraqi territorial waters. But wait, what were they doing in these waters? Are Iraqis' waters British ones?

2°) A few may even privately mutter: "Well, you had it coming to you." Hmmmm... How do they know?

Now, coming to the main point of your post. You seem to be surprised that the UE doesn't express much solidarity with one of their members. True! And should such misadventure happen to the French, the Spaniards or whichever member of the UE, nobody would have expected the Brits to interfere on what they would consider not to be their problem.
Now, let's remember how the British have seen the UE for decades and still want it to be: Only an open space for free market with as little political power as can be. With no common foreign policy at all, just for the show if need be. So now they see what an impotant political Europe means: no solidarity whatsoever.
When a Danish newspaper published the cartoons last year, the Danes were alone to face the wrath of Muslim countries and GB certainly didn't do anything in any way to express any sort of solidarity with Copenhagen. Only one European newspaper published the 13 cartoons out of solidarity with their Danish colleagues: a French one, Charlie Hebdo. Show me the British newspaper which dared publish the cartoons... None did.
If there is one country in Europe on which all 26 other members know they certainly can't rely on it's GB. So they must not be surprised nor disappointed with the way things now turn on: This is exactly the Europe they've always wanted.

But you know what LA? I've eventually changed my mind and kind of think the Brits aren't entirely wrong on this matter. There can not be a common foreign policy of Europe. It simply is unrealistic to believe it possible.
The Guardian has it right, the British sailors don't think of themselves as European first and British in the second place. And no other European all the same.
Where an American may be "proud" (or whatever you want) to be from Arkansas, Florida (Hi or Nebraska, he's firstly an American and secondly a Floridean etc. 300 million people with one common language. Quite the opposite with any European. 350 million peoples with 27 different languages and zillion different interests, level of development, history, culture etc. He's first a Pole, an Italian etc. and quite eventually an European. (Well, to tell you the truth, I don't even believe it...). The 10 new members are in it just for the money (if you get the ref. to F. Zappa). That is the EU the British have always considered what it should be like.
This is now the big problem with the EU: The peoples are less and less interested with a bureaucratic monster that seems to lead a life only for the sake of the bureaucrats (which isn't the case tout de même but yet...).
The 50th anniversary that was celebrated last year was of no interest whatsoever for the 300+ million people supposedly happy about it. They couldn't care less what the hapy few were doing in Berlin.
This is one of the reason why I think it was a good thing the French voted no last year (although I personally voted yes). But the message wasn't heard: negociations with Turkey are still going on whereas a huge majority of the already members (I mean the peoples, not the officials) don't want the Turks to be part of EU. Nevermind! The peoples aren't asked what they want... and when they have an opportunity to have a say their answer is ignored or they're asked to vote again in order to get a "yes".


Greg said...

As a legal matter, the Brits are in Iraq at the Iraqi government's invitation, and pursuant to UN mandate. They have every right to be there. Iran was trespassing. Perhaps the legitimate coalition/Iraqi forces need to take a more aggressive stance when approached by invading Iranian boats, like firing warning shots, and destroying the target if necessary. Clearly, Iran thinks it can break every law and get away with it. It's time they were taught a lesson.

Anonim said...

Hi BH. Fyi, I am not an anonymous commenter here at LA's place. In an English-language forum and in the absence of other anonymous people, I took it that I'd be distinguished enough by using the Turkish version.

LA, unity following from "nations setting aside differences and their own interests, and acting in the best interest of all." Something to think about coming from a cynic ;) Right?

Also, regarding the capture by Americans in Irbil of Iranian Nat.'l Guardsmen/spies posing as diplomats versus the capture of British sailors by Iranians, the respective justifications of these are beside the point Dyer was making in his article. Surely, they were beside my point, too, if I made one. I wish all nations had the Brit's de-escalatory gut reaction (as Dyer puts it) in such situations developing suddenly. I know you have a military service background, and think like a soldier for the soldier, etc., but the USA under Bush has become too militaristic. This is not a good thing for anybody (not even for the soldier I think).

Mustang said...

My friend, I have recognized you as one of five blogs that make me think. You are now entitled to the Thinking Blogger Award. For more information, and to determine if you wish to participate, please visit Social Sense.

Semper Fi

LASunsett said...

Hi Rocket,

Where have you been? I thought the fact that Ohio State was still in the Tournament would have you delirious and ready to talk smack.

Anyway, my purpose of this post was to point out the weakness of the EU, which is evidenced by their silence on the subject of the 15 Brits currently being held illegally in Iran. SF's blog was only used as an example. I wasn't trying to bash him for his lack of attention, but was only pointing out that while he praises the EU in some of his posted opinions, his silence on this matter (at least in my view) demonstrated why the EU looks perilously close to failing.

While I agree with you that in the French-bashing wars he does pick some battles that I believe to be ridiculous, there are times when I have to agree with him. With that said, I also can partly share your frustration on the what I consider the deterioration of his site (in the manners and courtesy department), to the extent that some posters are treated in an overly rude and contemptuous manner, by a handful of commenters there.

I wasn't booted, I just chose not to participate anymore due to the exceptional rudeness of one such commenter that was brought in by another commenter for the specific purpose of running me off, merely because she didn't like my views.

With SF, I think he values numbers more than I do. I may not get the amount of comments that he does on a daily basis, but this blog continues to grow in readership (per my sitemeter). And that's okay, it's his blog to do whatever he wishes, I will not criticize him for that, but will criticize content (or lack thereof) when I feel the urge, as he is welcome to do with me. I want quality, first and foremost. It is my view that if I keep that as an objective, the quantity will follow. And it has.

I have been linked to on a number of occasions by some fairly large sites. So no, I do not have a large amount of comments, but I do have far more readers that read it for the value of the essays and other postings, rather than to use it as a forum to bash individuals that disagree with me or others.

While I am disappointed in some things that go on at his blog, and his tolerance of it, I still consider him a blog friend. Whether he thinks the same of me or not, I can't say. You would have to ask him.

Thanks for reading and do feel free to jump in and comment whenever you feel the desire to do so. I always value good sound arguments, whether they are consistent with mine, or not.

Go OSU!!! (My son graduated HS with two of their players, so we are officially in OSU's camp around here.)

LASunsett said...


Where have you been? I miss your arguments here. I really do, sir. I am not being sarcastic either. I want to address your comments but I have to run for a little while and get to the bank, so I can give my college attending son money.

I will be back to offer my response as soon as I can. Until then:

Au revoir, monsieur.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your kind words of welcome LA. It's a good opportunity for me to apologize to you for some unpleasant and rather rude, or at least insolent comments I've posted here, there and everywhere (if you get the Beatles quote...)
I visit your blog on a nearly daily basis but most of your posts are American domestic politics related which are totally meaningless to me. Politicians whose name I've never heard of, for example.

When you write: "...the EU looks perilously close to failing." I nonetheless cannot agree. The question is all about what do you expect it to be? For what purpose? For which goal? etc.
There are at least 2 main different ways of considering the EU.

1°) The British one: Economics first and only. The bigger the market, the more numerous the customers and all will be very fine.

2°) The French and German one: Politics first with the peoples being at the heart of the European entity (cultural values in a very large meaning) and then economics, the first one not being detrimental to the second.

Quite opposite visions as you can see.

But the main problem in my opinion is how undemocratic the whole thing has become now, but not running any danger of "failing".


Anonymous said...

Like you, the relevancy of my opinion is governed by the fact that I do not live in Europe; yet, I cannot imagine how such a large and unwieldy bureaucracy will best serve the interests of the European people. My concern goes far beyond the fact that large organizations – even our own national government – are unresponsive to the needs of affected citizens. All human beings act in their own self-interests, and so how will it be possible for an honest average person living in the countryside of France to feel confidence in a government minister who only seeks to enrich him or herself? I cannot help but think that one example of this is the manner in which Germany and France surreptitiously provided Iraq with materials contrary to the welfare of Earth’s citizens, no matter where they live. Admittedly, I don’t trust our own politicians – and so it makes sense that I don’t trust those of other regions either. Politicians are a pox upon us all . . . and while I suppose they are necessary, our only defense against them is to choose wisely in the process of electing them.

LASunsett said...


//I wish all nations had the Brit's de-escalatory gut reaction (as Dyer puts it) in such situations developing suddenly. I know you have a military service background, and think like a soldier for the soldier, etc., but the USA under Bush has become too militaristic.//

The last thing I'd like to see is a military confrontation with Iran at this point in time, or anyone else for that matter. But in response to your opinion on Bush driving the USA into a militaristic belligerent state, how many UN Resolutions did Saddam ignore?

The fact that Saddam thumbed his nose at all of them and did not cooperate with inspectors leads me to believe that he wanted the confrontation. All he had to do was provide proof that he didn't have WMDs and it's quite likely that support for the war would not have been there. By playing the cat and mouse game he chose to play, it led many to believe that he had them and after 9-11, it was not in the best interests of the world to find out the hard way that he did, in fact, have them.

It's fair for you to require the Bush administration to shoulder some of the responsibility, but at the same time some of it has to go to Saddam, too.

As for the Brits restrained response heretofore, I agree. But even the most patient of men have their limit. The EU simply must muster up the guts to choke off the current regime in Iran, or else we may be seeing more military action than any of us want right now. Iran cannot be allowed to write thei own international law and yet require a different standard for the west.

Anonymous said...

s an appeal from the UE to the release of all 15 british hostages.
In English

LASunsett said...


You have certainly done a good job of clarifying the different approaches that GB and those on the continent have taken towards the EU. Thank you taking the time to type it out.

But I must ask, if the EU is not listening to the people that gave consent to its existence, what purpose does it serve?

To an American on the outside looking in, it appears that it is a huge waste of money if its only function is to hold meetings and form policies that are not popular with the people.

In the case of the Brits crisis, you are right when you say that it's not affecting the French, Germans, or other like it is Britain. But what if the shoe is on the other foot next time? Wouldn't it be nice to know that the entire Union is supportive? Wouldn't be nice to know that there may be something that one of the parties that is not directly involved can do to help solve the problem? "Two heads are better than one" is a saying we have here in the US. 20 heads can be better and carry more weight, when an act such as this is carried out against a fellow member state.

Again, thanks for stopping by. Don't be such a stranger. I understand about the US politics not making sense to you because of the distance, the same holds true of French politics, with me. But other than the little bit we get on the French election, all we have been getting here lately is our own election process, which is entirely too long (if you ask me).

LASunsett said...


//My concern goes far beyond the fact that large organizations – even our own national government – are unresponsive to the needs of affected citizens.//

Like you have said many times, we get the government we deserve. Many of us, do not care enough to look at what the candidates stand for or we pick Candidate A over and over again, despite the overt character flaws they may display during their tenure. (SEE: Ted Kennedy)

I just think that the average American has lapsed back into a false sense of security, because there have been no attacks since 9-11. Therefore, they hear the bill of goods being sold to them about this or that and because of their pre-disposition towards whatever, they become complacent.

If the voters would vote every incumbent out 2-3 times, I bet it wouldn't take much more to get them to realize who they work for. But we don't. We bitch and bitch about the poor jobs they are doing and still re-elect the Ted Kennedys, John Kerrys, Ted Stevens, and the rest of the lot. Politics is now a career, instead of public service. Maybe we need term limits, but then again, try to get the elected officials to vote that one into law. Pigs would fly before that would happen.

Thank you sir, for the honor at your blog. I left you a thank you there too.

Anonim said...

Gee LA, do you have to turn this into a Saddam-Bush comparison? I didn't have the slightest intention of meaning to say anything of that sort (who has to shoulder what portion of the responsibility, etc.). Anyways, American militarism was a tangential suggestion of Dyer's, and I think, it stands to reason that one can speak of such even in the absence of Saddam. But that was not the subject; the subject, to me, was that of how you react on the spot. I found a de-escalatory default behavior attributed to Brits interesting since maybe it speaks to us Turks as a critique too. That's about it.

By the way, here is another, quite original or utterly different take on the whole Iran-Iraq-bla-bla matter. The author is a nutjob imo, but you might be entertained. (See, thanks to those Google alerts that I created for myself, I get to find all kinds of crazy stuff on the internet.)

LASunsett said...


//do you have to turn this into a Saddam-Bush comparison?//

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I was. I guess to clarify it, when we go to war, we have to be militaristic if we have the expectation to win. As it relates to the Brits situation, there was more or less one incident before this and they showed restraint because they hadn't had the long history of dealing with provocations from Iran. Because of that, they had the luxury of being more patient. It was a calculated risk, they chose to not engage.

But as for comparing Bush with Saddam, rest assured that I most certainly understand that there is no comparison between the two, and I know you believe it too.

Bottom line here is, I really wish we didn't have to be in this position. And I believe that most Americans feel the same way. But we are, and here we'll stay until something breaks.

The warrior never prays for war, but stands ready if the peace is broken. The ball in in Iran's court now. Britain is standing firm, the world is hoping for a diplomatic solution right now. But the world has to come to grips with the fact that the Iranians need to return the hostages, before more damage is done. I will say emphatically, I am glad this hasn't blown up too. But unless Iran listens to reason, it may yet.

I hope this is clearer, sometimes I think we can get on different wave-lengths. I apologize for any misunderstanding that may have occurred.

As for the link, I'll check it out as soon as I can get a chance. Thanks for posting it.

Anonim said...

LA, got you, no need to apologize. Yeah, sometimes we're on different wavelengths.

LASunsett said...


Sorry I didn't see your link to the EU statement earlier. (The English link was a bad one, but I figured it out and got to it)

I guess the statement is better late than never, seeing how it's been a week now since the incident has occurred. I would have had that statement out the day after and by now would have turned the heat up.

Anyway, thanks for posting it, i will add it as an update to the main post.

LASunsett said...


//Yeah, sometimes we're on different wavelengths.//

Sometimes I forget that my international audience doesn't always get the American sense of humor or the unique brand of sarcasm. Ask, Flocon. One time I told him he was full of shit (in a joking way). He didn't get it, nor did he appreciate it, at first. Now he does. (I think)

LASunsett said...


BTW You are right, that piece you last linked to was a bit on the bizarre side.

Rocket said...

once I said to a French girlfriend.

"for crying out loud"

she answered me back that she wasn't crying.

Major chuckle!

LASunsett said...


//she answered me back that she wasn't crying.//

If that isn't a "crying shame"....

Anonim said...

I'm not sure if it was a misunderstanding of idiomatic language. But, have you by any chance heard the "An Italian who went to Malta" story?

LASunsett said...


//have you by any chance heard the "An Italian who went to Malta" story?//

I am not sure if I have.

Anonim said...

Well, OK, this is about getting the sounds/pronounciations wrong. Here it is on YouTube.

LASunsett said...

Thanks Anonim. I thought it was funny and yet carries a message at the same time.

Anonim said...

Pleasure. It's quite old though. I first came across it, oh well, some 15 years ago.