Iran to Free British Sailors

Most likely showing off for his people.

"See me capture the infadels!"
"See me hold the infadels!"
"See me release the infadels on my own timetable!"
"America, All your bases are belong to us!"

Iran captures British seamen in Iraqi waters, lies about where they were, and then, weeks later "frees" them and expects some sort of kudos for their act?

Show me proof that Iran lied about where they (15 soldiers) were?

lies about where they were

I thought I'd read an A.P. story here last week that basically seemed like the U.K. was unintentionally put in the middle of a territorial dispute between Iraq and Iran dating back to the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s. Iraq told the British navy that the area was Iraqi, but Iran claimed it was Iranian.

Was this not the case?

Show me proof that Iran lied about where they (15 soldiers) were?

On Sunday, a Lynx helicopter operating from HMS Cornwall confirmed the position after flying over the dhow, whose position had not changed since Friday's incident, according to its captain.

"The position was 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north, 048 degrees 43.08 minutes east. This places her 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters," Vice Admiral Style said.

After HMS Cornwall lost contact with the British personnel on Friday, a Lynx was dispatched to the area. By the time it arrived on the scene, the captured service personnel were already in Iranian waters, he said.

via guardian

Show me proof that Iran lied about where they (15 soldiers) were?

Pfff, can you show me proof they didn't?

Pfff, can you show me proof they didn't?

Exactly, no one knows. They could have crossed into Iran, or they could not have. But what I don't understand is that, Iran immediately is being branded as the liar, when we do not know the truth.

It's about taking sides, not knowing the truth. Iran has been pronounced evil, and so they can never be in the right. Even when their consulate was violated and their diplomats taken, they were still the ones reported as being in the wrong.

It's about taking sides.

Exactly, no one knows

Read above, I just gave the coordinates of the ship, placing it in Iraqi waters.

Placing it by who? An independent investigator?

I find it interesting that even when the exact coordinates are given, the answer is "by an independent investigator?" LOL, you think there are hundreds of "independent investigators" flying around so as to mark the location of the various vessels.

And, it is NOT about taking sides. Britain is NOt at war with Iran, what the heck is Iran doing taking these guys anyway! If, in fact, they were in Iranian waters, the Iranians could have stopped the boat, held them in place, had the coordinates verified, then released them.

It was ALL a media ploy by the Iranians, and a sorry one at that.

Well you have a point in saying Iran did not have to take the guys. That I agree with you about.

However the facts of the case are still quite unsettled. One side claims one thing, the other another thing. Quoting coordinates frankly does not mean squat since Iran quoted another set. How do we then determine who is right?

So yes it was belligerence by Iran, but you started this sub-thread claiming the Iranians were lying. How do you know?

It's really quite simple. Life is not black or white, I know we agree on that. However, when one side does something out of character for one telling the truth (ie, kidnapping them, arresting them, whatever, when they did not need to and shouldn't have), then you can be assured that they are lying about the rest.

It's like when I listen to Bush. I KNOW he has lied before, so when I hear him say he will fix the VA, I KNOW he is lying about that also!

Although I am a lawyer, it's kind of like the old saw, "how do you know a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving!"

That seems like a black and white conception of the world you have. The fact that they are belligerent does not make them liars. That's childish.

Although I am a lawyer, it's kind of like the old saw, "how do you know a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving!"

But you proved my point. You were predisposed against Iran before this. You are taking sides. Nothing particularly wrong with that by the way. It just does not give you the right to accuse other people of being liars or not seeking truth.

I wonder what would happen if the Brits find an Iranian military ship one mile away from their territorial waters...
And call me naive, but I find pretty convincing the propagandist clips of the English soldiers explaining their location.
I find the whole thing a very smart move by Iran, probably smarter than anything we have seen by the western world since 9/11...

"Iran immediately is being branded as the liar, when we do not know the truth."

Normally I take the word of someone that doesn't want to push an entire race into the sea. Or threaten the US with nuclear annihilation. Or speak nicities at the UN but call for the destruction of the West when he's home.

Or even take a group of men hostage back in the late 70's to the early 80's....of course that's just a rumor.

Hello wot?
Iran has never threatened anyone with nuclear annihilation.
Ahmadinijad, who is the Iranian version of cowboy George Bush, may have made some intemperate remarks against Israel, but again, it's not as if Israel has not been provoking him by its treatment of the Palestinians. He's a bully warning another bully to quit picking on his friend.
Now as to the hostage incident in the Carter era: Did you know that America brought that upon itself by refusing to remove support for Shah Reza Pahlavi in the midst of the Iranian Revolution? If you mess with other people's politics, especially in interesting times, Mike, don't be surprised if the ones who come to power take offense at how you helped the ones keeping them down for so long. Did you know the U.S. CIA deposed the elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953 so that the shah could stay in power and American oil companies could continue to have almost free access to Iranian oil? Coups have consequences, Mike, and the U.S. was lucky it had 25 years to prepare for the consequences. Again, no one was killed, all the hostages were released and Iran got what it wanted, which wasto keep the Americans out of its business. Here's a pretty good summary of what transpired.

made some intemperate remarks against Israel

You owe me a new screen with that one.

Did you know that America brought that upon itself...

And a keyboard.

if you weren't spewing on your screen and instead read the links, you would know the truth, Bodhi. Golden rule and all that.

I'm sorry I guess I misunderstood it when he said he will wipe Israel of the face of the planet. Does he have a globe and a really stringet cleaner?
h**p:slashslashenglish.aljazeera.netslashEnglish/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

'Cowboy George' does not stand in front of millions and yell for the annihilation of another race or civilization nor does he incite chants of 'Death to Iran or Syria or whatever'

Yeah Bush laughs like a hyena and says "They will be dealt with" with a sadistic look in his eye. Different technique, same message.

As for leading chants of "Death to Iran" the minutes of the cabinet meetings are classified.

You what?

...Don't be too sure of yourself there ComSen, no one wants us to add any more ongoing wars to the list (not if common sense is at all used)
...The April 6th date was from a Russian intel source, and it's simply rumor. (as we'd only know in hindsight) ...I still don't get how Bush hater haters (such as yourself) don't understand that hating Bush for his misdeeds is not the same (but the opposite rather) as hating the United States, just like denouncing the war is not slanderous to the troops.... I mean, geez....your name is supposed to be newspeak for common sense isn't it? How about applying it?

Since when is dislike of a dishonest politician equated with hating the U.S.A.? during the clinton administration, when you most likely bashed Clinton with fervor, were you an America hater?

during the clinton administration, when you most likely bashed Clinton with fervor, were you an America hater?

I think he was, and it hasn't worn off. He's not an America lover, just a Bushmaniac.

It's pretty civil of the Iranians to let them go, too.....

Exactly. They, the British and the Iranians, behaved like statesmen.

I hope Washington was paying attention.

Uh, I'm sorry, was it statesmanlike to kidnap them in the first place?

Uh, I'm sorry, was it statesmanlike to kidnap them in the first place?

Most excellent point.

I agree. By all means praise Iran for releasing the soldiers they abducted.

First, they weren't captured by statesmen. They were captured by the Iranian military. If you're asking whether that capture was justified, all I can say is I don't know, and neither do you. Depends where they were.

Nevertheless, in less than two weeks, the British and Iranians negotiated a deal. That's statesmanship.

That's thuggery.

What is? We don't know where the sailors were. If they were in Iranian waters, it's completely justified. If they weren't, it was an act of war (that turned into a great diplomatic PR move).

C'mon, give some credit where it's due. Mahmoud played this one well.

I'm not sure about Ahmadinejad being a statesman. He's definitely a clever politician though. This will win Iran a lot of not-completely-evil in the international press.

What is? We don't know where the sailors were. If they were in Iranian waters, it's completely justified. If they weren't, it was an act of war (that turned into a great diplomatic PR move).

I'm baffled by this for two reasons. First of all, and I can't stress this enough, the British are our allies. That alone, gives them a benefit of the doubt. If we didn't have a modicum of trust, they wouldn't be our allies. That's part of what being an ally means. We choose sides. So yes, we have sufficient reason to believe the British over the terrorists Iranians.

But the other thing is this notion that somehow that under any circumstances, they would have been justified in this. Even if they had been in Iranian waters, that doesn't justify kidnapping. For some stupid reason, we don't hold these countries to a similar standard which we are held and hold our allies. Would your reaction be the same if we held russian troops hostage while spouting about a trial?

No, diplomacy is not making threats. Statemanship is not saber rattling.

the British are our allies. That alone, gives them a benefit of the doubt.

Just like when they claimed Saddam had nuke.

Even if they had been in Iranian waters, that doesn't justify kidnapping.

What? Of course it does. What do you think the U.S. would have done if a Russian sub just happened to pop up off the coast of New Jeresy?

Also, if they were in Iranian waters, it wouldn't be called "kidnapping" - it would be called 'detaining and investigating potential terrorists.'

"What do you think the U.S. would have done if a Russian sub just happened to pop up off the coast of New Jeresy?"

I can count numerous times we've escorted them out of our waters. You won't find it in the news but suffice to say I've been at the other end. The rule of the game has always been if they find you, surface and get your sorry butt escorted out to international waters. I've played this game - never caught thankfully.

Cuban Missile Crisis. It was not called the Cuban Missile Escorted From Our Sphere Of Influence Exercise.
I rest my case.

Um, the Cuban Missile Crisis was far more than six sailors in a boat, or even a single Soviet ship intruding. Calm down a bit, your case is hardly proven by that example. A better example would be the countless numbers of Soviet "fishing trawlers" that did wander into US territorial waters during the Cold War, and were in fact escorted to the border by the Navy or Coast Guard when they got "lost."

I take your point, Adipic, but mine was not stated well. The point was that the U.S. and UK have been provoking Iran for months. The Iranians interpreted this incident, rightly or wrongly, as another provocation. Diplomacy sorted the matter out, but if indeed a Russian sub had surfaced off the shores of New Jersey in October 1962, there would not have been a quiet escort into open seas. The Russian sailors would have been captured under suspicion of espionage or worse. That's what I meant to say.

In today's political climate, a Russian sub surfacing off New Jersey is one thing: A Syrian or Iranian vessel would probably lead to out of our waters and directly to Guantanamo.

Quite frankly, I have no faith in the present administration's ability to handle crisis in a controlled, thoughtful, restrained manner... they've proved themselves to be knee-jerk, short-sighted, corporate-cronied, opaque maroons. Time and time again.

I am thankful that these were British sailors and marines, not Americans. Oy.

The point was that the U.S. and UK have been provoking Iran for months.

Stop it, Mick. You're killing me.

Iran is rogue and a state sponsor of terrorist attacks against our ally Israel. They are defying every request for nuclear oversight and threatening Israel with total destruction. He says that, Allah willing, they will see a world without America. Now he plucks British sailors out of Iraqi waters without cause.

But we are provoking him.

What is? We don't know where the sailors were.

Kai gave evidence of where they were when abducted here.

If they were in Iranian waters, it's completely justified.

Actually, it isn't. The boats the Brits were in could have been escorted out of Iran's waters without incident. The Soviets escorted our subs out of their water on several occasions. And those subs were clearly in their water.

This was unnecessary. And would you honestly support Bush if he took the same action? Not abducting Brits in Iran's water. That would just be weird. But a similar situation.

This was unnecessary. And would you honestly support Bush if he took the same action? Not abducting Brits in Iran's water. That would just be weird. But a similar situation.

Heh.

I would support Bush if he took the same action, yes. Much better than raiding consulates and keeping the prisoners for three months.

British hostages' captain: 'We Gathered Intelligence'

The captain in charge of the 15 marines detained in Iran has said they were gathering intelligence on the Iranians.

Sky News went on patrol with Captain Chris Air and his team in Iraqi waters close to the area where they were arrested - just five days before the crisis began.

We withheld the interview until now so it would not jeopardise their safety.

There you have it. Sky News, a Murdoch owned outlet, admits the Brits were spying on Iran and testing whether they could provoke a response. Bait a snake and don't be surprised if he strikes. What's amazing is the restraint the Iranians showed. The Brits should by all rights be treated to American justice, Abu Ghraib style.

What's amazing is the restraint the Iranians showed. The Brits should by all rights be treated to American justice, Abu Ghraib style.

Are you serious? Praising the Iranians and condemning our allies... i'm speechless.

allies? fellow thieves, you mean

Mark, read the quote again:

Sky News went on patrol with Captain Chris Air and his team in Iraqi waters close to the area where they were arrested - just five days before the crisis began.

What Sky just "proved" (if anything) is that Iran ventured into Iraqi waters and took hostages.

are you saying that Irani waters are not close to Iraqi waters?

And please stop calling them hostages...

What Sky just "proved" (if anything) is that Iran ventured into Iraqi waters and took hostages.

What a good example of poor logic.

Hello! If any nation has a chance to capture spies spying on it, whether inside their territory or not, if their capture does not escalate the conflict, they should and often do effect the capture.

Vent: British hostages' captain: 'We Gathered Intelligence'

Mick McNicholas: There you have it. Sky News, a Murdoch owned outlet, admits the Brits were spying on Iran and testing whether they could provoke a response.

Stop making things up! Gathering intelligence and spying are 2 different things. And where in the article did it say they were "testing whether they could provoke a response"?

And it is perfectly legal to stand and the edge of your own border and look into another country using your radar. eyes, etc. You are on your own property, so to speak. Or perhaps you would like your neighbors to sue you, or even attack you, if you stood in your yard and looked over at theirs, especially when something is in plain view?

It doesnt matter if its spying as long as you are within your own countries borders. Now if they crossed into Iranian territory and spied, Iran would be well within their rights to act. Iran can also go to the edge of their territory and look over and see what we are doing in Iraq.

Well, to continue your analogy, if your neighbor sent his uncle next door to discuss next week's block party with the other neighbors, and your juvenile delinquent son-in-law took the uncle into the garage and beat the @!$%# out of him until the uncle disclosed the ingredients to the secret barbecue sauce, while at the same time you were snooping over the neighbor's bushes to see if you could see his sexy wife in the shower, and the neighbor came out worried about his uncle being gone so long and saw you peeping at his wife, who could blame him if he lost his temper and grabbed you by the shirt and held you till the whole mess was sorted out? In other words, FLindy, what the Brits were doing was by no means "perfectly legal". The border in the Shatt-al-Arab was in dispute for 20 years, (a war had been fought to a draw over it) and the Brits knew this and they still patrolled close to the edge. If you look that up in the dictionary, you will find it under the definition for "provocation."

Also, as long as we are getting technical, the British were not on British territory at all, but perhaps operating in Iraqi waters. The invasion of Iraq was illegal and therefore it's like a burglar who tries to sue you for not fixing the steps that he trips on while escaping with your oil — er, did I say oil? — I meant valuables. Shouldna been there in the first place.

Not even close. Especially considering the British did not 'take anyone to the garbage to beat anyone on the other persons property' nor did they, atleast by any account we have, invade their privacy by 'peeking into their shower' (ie looking into somewhere that wasnt in plain view).

It doesnt matter if you can make up situations that would support your arguement if they dont come close to matching what really happened. Do you have any evidence that what they did was even close to your scenario? By your own words the British were close to the edge, but not over the edge. Therefore, by your words, they were not in Iranian territory and had every right to be there. While you might feel its a provocation, are you trying to say that no one is allowed near a border without being labeled as starting provocation? Dont be ridiculous. That would be like saying we are provoking Mexico because we have border patrols on our border. Its their job to patrol our border and guess where they are going to be? On the border.

Again, its your opinion that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. So again, while you may feel its similar to your burglar analogy, you feeling doesnt carry legal weight and is in direct conflict with the actual law of the land where it currently stands.

No no FLindy, you misunderstood the analogy. The British didn't take anyone to the garage; they were out in front peeping at your neighbor's wife. It was your reprobate son-in-law, Cheesy the Kurd, and some of his buddies, perhaps including your spooky old Grandpa, Certifiably Insane American, who beat up the diplomat in the garage.

Mexico has indeed protested some border patrol agents' aggressive tactics. Viz:

By Louie Gilot / El Paso Times Article Launched:11/14/2006 12:00:00 AM MST

Mexican officials are upset that U.S. Border Patrol agents crossed the border into Mexico without permission while chasing drug smugglers last week. On Monday night, the Mexican attorney general's office, known as the PGR, announced it was investigating the "probable incursion of North American police into Mexican territory."

Border Patrol officials admitted the incursion on Monday.

The agents followed a fleeing pickup truck into the river "no more than 25 feet across the border" Thursday afternoon, Robert W. Gilbert, the chief patrol agent for the patrol s El Paso sector, said in a statement Monday.

The incident occurred Thursday afternoon when Border Patrol agents chased a marijuana-loaded pickup that got stuck in the Rio Grande near Fabens. Police officials from the Mexican village of Guadalupe Distrito Bravos said that when they arrived at the scene, they found the agents on the Mexican side of the river and had a brief standoff.

From the New York Times, May 19, 2006:

Foreign Min Luis Ernesto Derbez says Mexico will formally complain to United States about plans to build security fences and deploy National Guard troops on border to curb illegal immigration.

But you did not address the crux of my argument, FLindy, the area where the British say their sailors were (which may or may not have been where they actually were captured; we've seen enough lies from the Coalition of the Willing when it comes to Iraq, so it would not surprise me if the Brits were lying about this either) has long been in dispute. Link Quoting:

In historical context, the British should never be in that area as they have a long and shameful history there [4]. The confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that constitutes the Shatt al-Arab forms the southern border between modern day Iraq and Iran. It is interesting that in the UK we know it exclusively by it's arab name (Coast of Arabs) and not the more widely used Persian name, the Arvandrud (the arvand river). It has been disputed between rival empires for millenia and may just be the most politicised surviving border in history. The key to winning a chess game is arguably controlling or threatening the centre four squares on the board. I doubt any river has washed away so much blood. Treaties have been forced upon rival dominions down that waterway since the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was fought over by, at various stages, by many of the world's greatest and bloodiest empires: the Babylonians, the Persians, the Parthians, the Macedonians, the Mongols, the British, the Russians, the Ottomans; and now the American empire. There is a minor argument over whether the border lies on one side of the river or the other, or straight down the middle. The Arvandruds strategic value before the discovery of the oil fields on either side may seem hard to grasp today, but it is a defendable river that cut across East/West trade routes in the so-called 'cradle of civilisation'. Today it's value is hard to ignore, a central site on top of the 'worlds greatest natural resource', the oil fields on either bank. As the only Iraqi route for the export of their oil the deliniation of the border has grown even more bloody as history progresses.

Today we are being told there has been a British military presence there for 'almost 70 years', which is nonsense. In the 'Great Game' played out for world dominion between 19th century superpowers this waterway was yet again 'dead centre', marking the first British military presence there, long before Winston Churchill bombed Kurdish villages with poison gas. I doubt many Brits have even heard of the Anglo-Persian war of 1856-57 [5]. Most Persians have, but then we Brits have so many foriegn wars of conquest to be expected to remember them all. Is there a country we haven't been at war with at some point?

In 1639, the Treaty of Zuhab was signed establishing a peace between the Ottomans and Persians and defining the border between the two empires on this waterway. Back then the Royal Navy were little more than prirates euphemistically known as 'privateers' who were licensed to attack Spanish galleons for a share of the spoils - a heritage that even today means they fly the 'skull and cross bones' after a 'kill' such as sinking the Belgrano. The MoD claim today that the sailors were on a 'routine piracy operation' does make me smile. In 1746, after more war, the Zuhab treaty was reaffirmed. In 1823, after more war, the treaty was reaffirmed. After that, the Russians and British vied for control of the region which is why there are both Russian and British cemetaries well-tended to this day in Tehran. In 1847, after more war, a new treaty was agreed - but by the foreign powers who were both fearful of German influence. In 1932 Iraq appealed in vain to the League of Nations that the border be established at the mid-point of the river (the 'thalweg' principle). In 1953 the CIA toppled the Iranian government and put in place a proxy, an absolute monarch known as the Shah with a secret police called the SAVAK who tolerated no dissent but were partial to torture. In 1958 there was a nationalist revolution in Iraq and the border issue became a major point of conflict again.

Britain has recognised the border differently to suit it's current ally in the region, and has flip-flopped several times in my lifetime in a policy that could only be aimed at destablising the entire region.

In 1975 there was a minor war over the waterway called the Arvandrud Skirmish. The British supported the Shahs claim to all of the river as he was the US regional policeman at the time. Iran prevailed.

From 1980 to 1988, Saddam - the former CIA hitman- tried to seize the territory by force from Iran, and due to the Shah being deposed Britain armed and supported his claim. This is perhaps the bloodiest war of the latter 20th century, and one the UK is culpable for. Iraq's stated war aims were to recover rights of exclusive navigation of the Shatt al-Arab.

In the 1990-91 Iraq-Kuwait conflict, the UK attacked Iraq after Saddam had misread US signals and invaded Kuwait after cross boder drilling by Kuwait [6]. They didn't dare actually remove Saddam as he was still a regional balwark against their main enemy Iran. They implented an illegal no-fly zone 'to protect the Kurds' while allowing Iraqi troops to massacre them on the ground and Turkish troops to bomb the kurds from the air - taking off from the same airstrips the RAF pilots were using. They also implemented draconian sanctions against Iraq that according to the UN killed 500,000 Iraqi children - noone knows how many adults died but Saddams family only prospered due to them. The British made no statement on the border dispute except to stop Iraqi warplanes (not helicopter gunships) to fly over it. In this war the only Iraqi warplanes that had survived anyway were ones that flew to Iran for sanctuary - the Iranians impounded them.

And now, yet again, British troops are pawns for British political intrigue over a little river many thousands of miles away and which we have no right or duty to administer, and which historically, we should be ashamed to even comment upon.

You mention the "Law of the Land" and yet you support the invasion of Iraq and the torture of prisoners in contravention of the law. You cannot have it both ways. If America can do what it likes regardless of laws and treaties it has signed, you have no right to expect Iran or indeed any other country to obey any laws. You need to get on board the train calling for Bush to be sent to trial at The Hague, or hunker down and prepare for the battle of all against all because that is what your policy is aimed at preparing the way for.

I see the entire press conference as a classy move by the Supreme Leader, not Ahmadenijad.

The religious holidays of this week provided a perfect opportunity to show rationality in the Iranian power structure. Quite honestly, I do believe that those British sailors were in Iranian waters (no exchange of fire, the Brits have done it before, and if you listen to Iran, this is something (the violation of their territorial waters) that happens too regularly for their liking. By all accounts of the images, videos and quotes from the sailors, they were treated well and comfortably, allowed to stay together, and held in an apparently hospitable manner - things that we can't say about the Iranian diplomats that we believe are weapons suppliers and are probably keeping in a hole in the sand.

It struck me as funny that he passed on the obvious answer: the Brittish knew they were in Iranian waters and surrendered.

I thought the answer was because they British clearly saw they were outnumbered, outgunned and surrounded and new that opening fire would have ensured all of their deaths.

I think that was the basis of "Oxy" calling them PC wusses

I was listening to some guy (who sounded like he was on oxycontin) on the radio yesterday.

Could this guy be Glenn Beck?
Or are you purposely keeping it disclosed?
Just wondering.

The big clue as to who it was was in his mention of the word Oxycontin, as in Hillbilly Heroin, as in a big fat drug addict with a huge phallic cigar in his mouth....

Yeah, now I feel really stupid. I still don't know who your talking about.

The reference is to a has-been radio talk show host, whose name escapes me but sounds something like Tush Loosebowel, or Gush Spamblow, or something like that.

The reference is to a has-been radio talk show host, whose name escapes me but sounds something like Tush Loosebowel, or Gush Spamblow, or something like that.

If by "has-been" you mean top rated and most listened to in America, then ya that's accurate.

well Arbitron counts the radio on in the barn when only the cows are listening as listeners. Come to think of it, though, some cows have more sense than most Dittoheads.

Ah so the rating system is now all wrong because the #1 show is someone you dont like and dont agree with. Of course that must be the answer. And no I dont like Rush either.

Just telling you how the ratings system counts listeners. They can't get as accurate as they would like to.

Yeah, we know. That goes for just about every counting system we have. Its built in errors, thats why the give a margin of error. The still doesnt discount the fact that the majority of those sampled still listened to him. Now if you want to contend that the sample was tainted or their was bias in picking the sample, then you might have something but you would have to find proof.

Argument boring, FLIndy, and off the topic.

To return to the topic, I quote Noam Chomsky :

The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam -- fearing, we learned from the Pentagon Papers, that they might need them for civil-disorder control.

Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?

It is easy to understand an observation by one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, knowing it to be defenseless, he noted, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy." (Excerpt from www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=182214 )

So what he is saying is that Iran is behaving as we would were the shoe on the other foot, and also if I understand him correctly, that any further American aggression overseas should be met with armed resistance here at home. For each action there should be a reaction. You can't send troops off on an adventure overseas if you have to worry about a revolution at home. Well, Yankee Doodle keep it up! Wait till Bush sees what's coming to a White House near him this summer!

Argument boring, FLIndy, and off the topic.

Heh, translation, "i lost, moving on". You changed the topic, I merely responded. But back on topic.

Actually whats very likely going on is the following scenario:

Iran recognizes how most of the world is basically scared pantless of Islamic Extremism and is unsure of how to deal with it. This is evidenced by everyone bending over backwards to make sure they dont 'offend' Muslisms but have no problem offending everyone else. After all, who else riots or threatens violence when you offend them? (only in reference to the extremists within the group, Im not referring to all Muslims, so dont whine)

Iran knows that should the West, mainly the US, make a mis-step or be too agressive, its likely to cause ripples throughout the Muslim/Arab world. They know the US is currently wrapped up in Iraq and can ill afford another conflict with the Muslim/Arab world, not militarily, financially, or with its current public image with the Muslim/Arab world.

Iran knows they can test the boundaries and push the West on alot of fronts because we cant respond the way we normally would. We are in a catch 22. The Arab world respects strength. Should we show too much strength and be aggressive, it looks like we are a big baddie beating up on little Iran without too much provocation or evidence to support our decisions. If we dont do enough, we are perceived as weak and it emboldens them to push the limits even more. And then each of those situations spawns the public image of either a) we are fat, lazy, corrupt, and weak or b) the west is prejudiced against Muslims/Arabs and just trying to oppress them and take their oil.

These are scenarios that will be presented to the masses in the mosques, where many already hate us for real and propaganda reasons. The extremists leaders will prey upon the poor and ill informed and use the events that occur to feed into their power and twist their people into following the course they layout.

Sit down FLindy, you may have a heart attack when you read the next paragraph.

I agree with what you say, with only minor quibbles. You neglect the bad history we have with Iran (overthrowing Mossadegh, backing the shah and his brutal regime, encouraging Saddam to invade and gas them), and that's something that cannot be understated. They do not call us the Great Satan because it looks good on a placard, my friend. We may be playing cat and mouse games with them, but they most certainly are not just playing. One false move and they go for the jugular.

I dont neglect the bad history with Iran. I know its there, there just wasnt really a need to mention it in what I said. I think most viners are already aware of it.

However, I agree that the history is part of why we do not and should not trust Iran. They are playing for keeps and this administration is definitely not the smartest or most deft to be able to deal with this situation. And I dont see anyone on either side of the isle that I think is capable of being able to handle this situation with honesty and intelligence.

Perhaps it's time to do the unexpected and actually mean what we say. To encourage true democracy in the Middle East, including in Iran, even if that means we have to accept the reality of a nuclear-armed Iran which is pissed off at our overcoddling of Israel and repetitively sticking it to the Palestinians, maybe pissed off enough to nuke Tel Aviv, and maybe, just maybe, even pissed off enough to ruin our ill-advised plan for world domination. Maybe it means we have to stop pretending to be fair to both sides and actually be fair to both sides. Maybe it means that instead of treating Iranians as an irrational band of implacable malcontents who must constantly be kept in check, we might have to admit we screwed them over for more than 50 years, apologize, try to behave better from here on out, and hope that their humanity will include forgiveness for our arrogance. I dunno, it works in real life if the aggrieved party senses sincerity; might as well try it in the geopolitical world.

To encourage true democracy in the Middle East, including in Iran, even if that means we have to accept the reality of a nuclear-armed Iran which is pissed off at our overcoddling of Israel and repetitively sticking it to the Palestinians, maybe pissed off enough to nuke Tel Aviv,

This is precisely why those of us in the center do not trust the hard left anymore than we trust the hard right.

Personally, I would consider a country that intentionally nuked the capital of another nation as a country that had just democratically signed its citizens' death warrants and it would be the moral obligation of all other nuclear states to see to it that the nation was a glass parking lot. And I do not argue for an American exception for that verdict, so don't even go there.

@Mick
I agree mostly with what you are saying. However, the problem is Iran is not a democratic state that is necessarily representative of its people. So their actions are necessarily indicative of the will of the people, its mostly likely the will of the few in power.

As for accepting a nuclear Iran, I believe there is reason enough for skepticism with their intentions, based on their history and actions. They like to complain about the others not following UN directives, but when it comes time for them to comply they give the UN the middle finger. However, this partially stems from the fact that the UN is very disingenuous and corrupt.

I have a similar problem with whats going on in Iraq. If the 'insurgents' want a different type of government, they can easily be part of the process and vote to make whatever type of government they want. However, they refuse to work peacefully within the system to work towards those ends. Instead they use violence to take what they can not earn legitimately.

To encourage true democracy in the Middle East, including in Iran, even if that means we have to accept the reality of a nuclear-armed Iran which is pissed off at our overcoddling of Israel and repetitively sticking it to the Palestinians, maybe pissed off enough to nuke Tel Aviv

This, Adipic, is also why a lot of people on the hard left don't trust others on the hard left, either. To encourage true democracy in the Middle East means, first of all, opposing antidemocratic forces in the Middle East, which includes the Iranian theocracy. It's amazing how some people interpret that objective.

I have a similar problem with whats going on in Iraq. If the 'insurgents' want a different type of government, they can easily be part of the process and vote to make whatever type of government they want. However, they refuse to work peacefully within the system to work towards those ends. Instead they use violence to take what they can not earn legitimately.

Do you think that if the majority of Iraq would want a communist government, they could get it? maybe socialism? I really don't think so...

I think opposing the Iranian theocracy is misplaced priority since it is one of the most democratic in its hood. Go after Saudi Arabia and Egypt and then you'll have my attention.

It's not one of the most democratic in the region. You're right that Iran isn't as bad as Saudi Arabia, but Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Yemen are all more democratic. And, of course, Israel. Candidates for election in Iran are vetted beforehand, otherwise they'd get something like 20% of the votes between them. It's a country where there's a real possibility of revolution.

Dude, if they want to do that they don't exactly need the unis they captured. It isn't that hard to do. It seems to me like they wanted to keep a trophy of their "victory" how positively medieval of them.

The British military uniform isn't that secret - wikipedia has an entire article on it.

I'd say they were released sans possessions to satisfy the Iranians who were calling for the soldier's trial/execution. A bit of humiliation lets him get their support while not dooming Iran to invasion. Ahmadinejad's popularity is waning (Dateline on SBS [Australia] recently) so he can't play silly buggers on the international front without a thought to what Iranians and (more importantly) the Supreme Leader of Iran think.

Interesting. Sounds like Iran got several accomplishments with the capture...

I'm sure he's doing this to get the world on his side.

Amazingly, it's working. He blatantly violates the Geneva Convention by using captured sailors for propganda purposes and the U.S. and UK have no rejoinder because....they have violated the Geneva Convention worse by torturing Iraqis! What a world, to see the United States and United Kingdom reduced to the level where so-called Axis of Evil members are actually the lesser of evils!

Also, while I'm sticking my two cents in, did no one else notice that the release came right after the Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Iraq was released? Coincidence? Tit-for-tat?? You be the judge.

He blatantly violates the Geneva Convention

How so? Don't the Geneva Conventions apply to wartime?

There's this great big war going on in Iraq right now, JB. It's in all the papers. Has been for a couple years now.

OK, thanks for the current events lesson, Mike. But how is Iran involved? You say they are violating the Geneva Conventions, but I didn't think they were at war with anyone right now.

Maybe with your keen eye for what's going on in the Middle East, you can help me understand.

You may have heard Iran is helping the Shiite government in Iraq. To the Iranians' chagrin, the Bush Administration has been making bellicose noises in Iran's direction and American operatives have kidnapped Iranian diplomats in Iraq, in Kurdistan and in Baghdad. The Americans have also funded a destabilization effort operating out of western Afghanistan and Pakistan to infiltrate Iran and rile up some of Iran's minority populations, in the hopes the unrest will spark a civil war. And of course, the U.S., Israel and other Iranian foes have been pushing for U.N. sanctions because Iran will not forswear development of nuclear weapons. (That Iran's enemies are bristling with nuclear weapons and Israel in particular would never forgo the possibility of striking Teheran is never mentioned in the General Assembly, but it is true nonetheless). So Iran is on the verge of being sucked into the greater Middle East war provided courtesy of George Bush (an undeclared war, by the way, which means it is up to the countries involved to decide whether they are at war or not.) Iran has simply made the prudent choice, assuming it is at war until it is clearly not at war.

While your overview of recent events in the Middle East was eloquent (and maybe a bit patronizing), you still didn't address the fact that Iran really isn't in a war (or officially involved in any kind of conflict that would be recognized by the U.N. as war - making a 'prudent choice' doesn't cut it). So, again, the Geneva conventions don't apply in this circumstance (to Iran).

The propaganda war is on. People say what they want to believe. It serves the purpose of war-lovers to make Crazy Ahmy the poster boy of Iranian madness. It's a useful lie the media adopts everyday.

It serves the purpose of war-lovers to make Crazy Ahmy the poster boy of Iranian madness.

Well, it also doesn't hurt that he's so damn good at playing the role, either. Maybe we need to stick a transmitter in his teeth a la Real Genius so we can pretend to be the voice of the Hidden Imam he claims to converse with routinely.

Of course it does not hurt.

I don't think Ahmmy needs any help in showing the world that he is a crazy poster boy of Iranian madnees.

He's quite good at it himself.

Oh yes, let's pull a movie based on a comic book based on a factual events that took place 2000+ years ago into this discussion. Good form. I suppose all Greeks are solid as rocks and they run around in togas now?

Its enough justification for the bible, why not for 300?

It's funny that Iran is made out to be an evil empire. they haven't invaded another land for over 200 years. When was the last time the U.S.A. invaded someone's land? Oh, right. that's our current situation.

It's funny that Iran is made out to be an evil empire.

Yeah. Hilarious.

In 2004 the Iranians took eight British sailors hostage. They held them for only a few days but in that time forced them to undergo mock executions and make coerced television confessions and apologies for various fictional misdeeds.

Seemed funnier then I'll bet.

Yeah, but was there organ failure, or pain that was likened to that of organ failure? Hell, that ain't torture, that's interrogation!

Nothing's funny about any of this @!$%#.

Every time Bush gets ready to smite someone his balls get caught under the hammer on the smiting table. When will he ever learn??

huh? He was refering to the Persian Gulf, which consist of Iraq as well not just Iran.

Yeah so? The naval power is not exactly being challenged by forces in Iraq. The main, and just about only, potential threat navally in the area is Iran.

The mission was to go into Iran's waters. That is the mission he is referring to here. Let's not make excuses for him.

Really? Its been confirmed/admitted that their mission was to go into Iran's waters. You got a link for that?

And if thats true, why did Iran initially release the same GPS info that Britian had which clearly showed they were not in Iranian waters?

It has been said (and not denied) that their mission was to spy on Iran, so going near Iran's waters, or very near, is a given ^^
About the GPS info, Iran said that it corresponded to Iran's waters... I don't know for sure who is right... do you?

FL Inde,

I do not claim that the mission was to go into Iranian waters. I was saying that Ahmadinejad, when saying "dangerous mission," was meaning a mission into Iranian waters. They were in Iraqi water, but Iran has to justify kidnapping somehow.

Sorry for the confusion.

Truly amazing. Someone needs a serious wake up call.

What is truly amazing is that after decades of choosing a dictator over the US, liberals can still take Iran's word as gospel. You'd think that Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and, well, you get the point. Liberals defended them all and took their words as truth. Yet, still today, we find them defending Iran's pocket Hercules.

Yes, someone does need a serious wake up call. But is isn't me, Benno. It's you.

We didn't like Hitler, though, or Mussolini, unlike you, eh Bodhi? Pinochet also was a dick and Sani Abacha sucked too. Except maybe not for you. If you want to talk about glorifying conservative right-wing totalitarians, go worship bin Laden, he's your poster boy. He literally is to the right of Attilla the Hun.