I wish Iran would have taken Americans Hostage

[OGTEleven]

It might get their diplomats, or whatever they are, back.

If that was their goal, why would they parade the english around and make them look silly and issue continuous letters of apology?

[DC Tom]

I don't think it matters where the ship was, the Iranians shouldn't have taken those men hostage. Its international piracy. If this was retaliation for the U.S. taking Iranian diplomats in Iraq then the Iranians should have said that, and it still doesn't justify this. If Iran feels wronged they should take their case to UN or start an international outcry or something.

 

Actually, if the ship (more accurately, the British boat) was in international waters it's piracy and kidnapping. If it was in Iranian waters it's national defense and the Iranians are well within their rights.

 

So it does, in fact, entirely matter where the ship was.

[molson_golden2002]

If that was their goal, why would they parade the english around and make them look silly and issue continuous letters of apology?

What do you think their goal is?

[molson_golden2002]

Actually, if the ship (more accurately, the British boat) was in international waters it's piracy and kidnapping. If it was in Iranian waters it's national defense and the Iranians are well within their rights.

 

So it does, in fact, entirely matter where the ship was.

Tom, you are right and I was wrong. Still, that doesn't give Iran the right to plaster them all over the TV and to force confessions out of them. And that they did this makes me think it was all planned to capture these poor sailors, which is wrong.

[PastaJoe]

What do you think their goal is?

 

Other than showing their citizens and the Middle East that they're willing to stand up to the West, in the short term it's helping them make a nice profit on the oil market. The price of oil has gone up $5 since this started. Imagine how much it would go up if there was a shooting conflict and the Strait of Hormuz (sp?) was closed to shipping.

[PastaJoe]

Are you more inclined to believe the Brits or Iran regarding the location of the ship?

 

If I had to choose it would be the Brits, but it doesn't matter what we think. The people this is intended for, Iranians and the Middle Easterners, will believe Iran. Of course after all the misinformation we've been given in the past few years, it's hard to believe anyone anymore.

[OGTEleven]

What do you think their goal is?

To show to the people of the Middle East that Iran is the real power in the region. They make the English soldiers look wimpy by allowing themselves to be led about like dogs. They purposely parade the woman to show that the English will not defend her.

 

I think they could give a hoot about what the English government does or how the conflict looks around the rest of the world. If they come out looking like winners in the ME, and they will, it will further strengthen their standing over there. Making another country look wimpish helps them convince the rest of the ME that Islam can once again rule the world with Iran as its leader. It is a small step but that is the message they are trying to convey, IMO.

[molson_golden2002]

Other than showing their citizens and the Middle East that they're willing to stand up to the West, in the short term it's helping them make a nice profit on the oil market. The price of oil has gone up $5 since this started. Imagine how much it would go up if there was a shooting conflict and the Strait of Hormuz (sp?) was closed to shipping.

That's why I laugh when you read some neocon nitwit saying we should bomb their oil facilities. Ya, Iran probably has nothing to worry about. They have the world by the balls in the form of oil.

[OGTEleven]

If I had to choose it would be the Brits, but it doesn't matter what we think. The people this is intended for, Iranians and the Middle Easterners, will believe Iran. Of course after all the misinformation we've been given in the past few years, it's hard to believe anyone anymore.

I don't think the MEers will belive Iran about the waters. I do think Iran will show that they can use any excuse they want to push around the west. The MEers will believe that and that is exactly what Iran wants.

[GG]

Other than showing their citizens and the Middle East that they're willing to stand up to the West, in the short term it's helping them make a nice profit on the oil market. The price of oil has gone up $5 since this started. Imagine how much it would go up if there was a shooting conflict and the Strait of Hormuz (sp?) was closed to shipping.

 

You do realize that Iran would suffer much more than US/Europe if the Strait closed down? In some sense it could be the tipping point for Ammy.

 

Iranians didn't do this because they want their 5 diplomats. They did it because they want their general.

[DC Tom]

Tom, you are right and I was wrong.

 

Hardly new.

 

Still, that doesn't give Iran the right to plaster them all over the TV and to force confessions out of them.

Two for two. You're on a roll. THAT is the really telling thing: no trial, no negotiations, the Iranians are just making propaganda out of this.

 

And that they did this makes me think it was all planned to capture these poor sailors, which is wrong.

 

More likely they just stumbled into something that, from their point of view, was fortuitious. It's not the easiest thing to plan on grabbing two boatfuls of sailors on the high seas under the noses of their parent ship. On the other hand, once you have them, it is pretty easy to make a spectacle of them...and the Iranians aren't stupid. Make a spectacle, force a Western reaction and play the victim. Or the West doesn't react, and call them weak. There's no downside to them for this. Which is why I understand why people think this may have been carefully planned...but usually, nonsense like this just sort-of happens, as really no one's that clever outside of Tom Clancy novels.

 

Plus...a wife's friend routinely took fire from Iranians when flying on patrol (helicopter, as a passenger) on the Iran-Iraq border, not infrequently because he was actually on the wrong side of it, but occasionally because the Iranians merely thought so. International borders aren't exactly big yellow stripes painted on the ground; even with GPS, it's pretty easy to not know where they are. That goes doubly so at sea, and triply so at sea in a location where ownership's been disputed for decades. Which is not to say the Brits were in the wrong place (if they were, so was the ship they were searching, so there'd be corroboration of the Iranian claims.) But maybe the Iranians themselves were on the wrong side of the line and didn't know it. That's far more likely than it being planned, as it's a far simpler and more likely explanation that people are endlessly stupid than that they're endlessly clever.

[SilverNRed]

If I had to choose it would be the Brits, but it doesn't matter what we think. The people this is intended for, Iranians and the Middle Easterners, will believe Iran. Of course after all the misinformation we've been given in the past few years, it's hard to believe anyone anymore.

The Iranian government isn't all that trusted or popular in Iran either. Their economy is in the crapper so I'm not convinced a charade where they take 15 hostages is going to help them all that much.

 

If I'm an Iranian guy, I could really care less about the government feeding and housing 15 Brits to show how badass they are when I can't find a job.

[MattyT]

I don't think the MEers will belive Iran about the waters. I do think Iran will show that they can use any excuse they want to push around the west. The MEers will believe that and that is exactly what Iran wants.

This is my opinion as well. The Brits will be released unharmed but Iran will never, ever admit to any wrongdoing in the matter. They understand that they're acting alone and won't want to isolate themselves any further.

[Tux of Borg]

The Iranian government isn't all that trusted or popular in Iran either. Their economy is in the crapper so I'm not convinced a charade where they take 15 hostages is going to help them all that much.

 

If I'm an Iranian guy, I could really care less about the government feeding and housing 15 Brits to show how badass they are when I can't find a job.

 

Iran's exports to Afghanistan:

 

$52 million in 2001

$115 million in 2002

$212 million in 2003

 

The Iranian customs post is located near the border town of Taibad. We have an air/staging base roughly 50 miles off the border and can shut the post down if we wanted.

[Fezmid]

My bad, the report I heard yesterday said it was an Iranian ship. But the Iranians still dispute where the ship was. Of course both sides will say they were in the right. It's not hard to manufacture pictures or documents to support their statements

Last week, I read on CNN.com that both the GPS and Iranians gave the same location for the ship -- which turned out to be in Iraqi waters. Iran then changed their story the next day, giving a location in Iranian waters. Nice.

[OCinBuffalo]

just the excuse the neo-cons in this country would use to start a war with Iran.

This presumes that we haven't been fighting a war with Iran since Kohmeni. This is a ridiculous presumption, since we have been at war, from the Iranian perspective - never mind yours or mine, ever since they deposed the Shah. I find it hysterical that suddenly now we are talking about "war with Iran", as though it hasn't been going on the whole time. What's next, are you gonna say the cold war wasn't a war too? How about the civil war? That had 30 years of build-up before actual military confrontation, but - hey, according to your logic, that wasn't a war either, right? This statement is dopey at best, dangerous(if someone actually believes you) at worst.

Having 2 carriers in the area is bad enough because it only increases the chance of a confrontation.

Having a land base for our Air Force and Army = Iraq - and another country in hand = Afghanistan, on two sides of Iran is a much more cost effective way to fight this war you say isn't happening than having to build and station even more carriers in the area at $1 billion a month. Where would your wonderful liberal social programs be if we actually had to do WWII style fiscal planning? = goodbye. No more school lunch, no perscription drug assistance, and generally fug the environment. It would be the end of FDR/LBJ thinking - (hmm, maybe that's not so bad) We can't consistently give our people, and everybody else's people, the handouts you love and fight a war at the same time, unless you want to permanently kill our economy with taxes=socialism(hmm, maybe that is your plan ).

 

The only way to end this confrontation, since the other side is only impressed by barbarism and/or brutality, as opposed to reason and/or economic gain, is to exhibit the things they are impressed with. If they were impressed with economic opportunity, how long to you think it would take for America's EVIL CORPORATIONS to line up to invest in Iran? Hmm, good natural resources, relatively educated public, people yearning for economic independence, right. The over/under is 5 minutes. If they were impressed with wealth or gaining their rightful place in the civilized world, in this century, they are geographically positioned to make a killing. But they are not impressed with that either. So what's left? Better yet, what's your plan to impress them? What do you plan to give them that gets them to stfu, stop acting crazy(supporting terrorism), and stop being a danger to themselves and other's(Jordan, Isreal), besides our current "straight jacket" of troops/planes on the ground on two of their borders?

Did you consider the fact that the British aren't in a position to take military action in Iran, and perhaps they want to get the detainees out alive?

What a great question. Nothing like a false choice to identify a liberal thinker. So, your implication is that if they take military action they WILL NOT get the detainees out alive. Um, you may not know this - but the Brits have these guys known as the SAS. They have a pretty solid track record, better in fact than anyone's, of pulling off schit just like this, getting their people out, and leaving nothing but dead Ts. Just ask the IRA about that, they are a great reference for the SAS. If anyone is in a position to prepare and deploy a special operation - it's the SAS. Also, MI6 is widely recognized for it's ability, unlike our retarded CIA, to do it's job. No. They are in fine position, your BS false choice notwithstanding.

I expect they will be released in the next couple of weeks.

I expect a SB victory for the Bills this year with the team they currently have. Who is being more unrealistic?

It may require the U.S. giving back the Iranians that were taken from their consulate, but it is preferable to a military exchange and bombs going off in England.

Ahh, prisoner exchange - what a great way to keep a war going . This was why the Civil War lasted so long, and killed twice the guys it should have. Isn't it interesting how fast that war was done with the minute Grant canceled all exchanges. Oh, but I forgot, we aren't actually fighting a war. Maybe the "Iran police action" would make you happy? In any event, all your "solution" would do is give credence to the enemy's actions, thereby solidifying their power in the eyes of other nations in the region. Nope, in this case, we need to do what the Romans did - prove our military prowess so as not to invite further attack, and then make sure we trade with all of their neighbors/use real sanctions with real teeth to cut them off economically from their neighbors. Their economy will collapse and that will be the end of this phony regime. I do want to differ from the Romans in that we don't attack right after the collapse, win, and kill everybody. Yeah, do all that, but don't kill the women and children this time. The PC crowd will kill us because then their won't be enough economic opportunity for women and death for the kids would simply ruin their self esteem.

[molson_golden2002]

Ahh, prisoner exchange - what a great way to keep a war going . This was why the Civil War lasted so long, and killed twice the guys it should have. Isn't it interesting how fast that war was done with the minute Grant canceled all exchanges.

 

 

Can't you get anything right? That almost cost the Union victory as well. The reason prisoner exchange broke down was because of black troops. The south wouldn't exchange black troops for white troops so Grant and Lincoln canceled the whole system. The Copperheads seized on this issue to portray Lincoln as a Black Republican and only fighting the war for blacks, while white soldiers died horribly in places like Andersonville. And the war hardley ended as soon as Grant did this, it went on and on. That was the bloodiest part of the war, the summer of 1864 was a terrible time.

[OCinBuffalo]

Can't you get anything right? That almost cost the Union victory as well. The reason prisoner exchange broke down was because of black troops. The south wouldn't exchange black troops for white troops so Grant and Lincoln canceled the whole system. The Copperheads seized on this issue to portray Lincoln as a Black Republican and only fighting the war for blacks, while white soldiers died horribly in places like Andersonville. And the war hardley ended as soon as Grant did this, it went on and on. That was the bloodiest part of the war, the summer of 1864 was a terrible time.

No it is you who have completely misinterpreted historical facts here. This is classic chain reasoning - a happened before be therefore a caused b - but what did I expect, especially from you? In this case your argument is: Black troops started fighting in earnest before prison exchange cancellation happened therefore black troops caused prisoner exchange to be canceled.

 

Wrong.

 

Get yourself any Grant book there is and read it. The guy wasn't doing prisoner exchange in the West, because he thought it was a waste of time. Grant was in command in the West before blacks began fighting on the line as opposed to simply being in the Army. Then, when Grant came East, he started making many decisions, canceling prisoner exchange being one of them, sending Sheridan(not Sherman) on the first real Total War campaign in the modern era,(could argue the Russians did it in reverse with Napolean) and more, all with the firm belief that the South needed to be BEAT INTO SUBMISSION, as opposed to negotiated with. (Hmm. Why does that sound familiar?)

 

It has been clearly documented that it was Grant's opinion, as well as most of his generals(not Sherman interestingly enough - it's funny that he of all people ends up taking the Bad Rap for doing about 20% of what Sheridan did), that the war had gone on for far too long due to the willingness to negotiate rather than simply crush. Hence, yes, there were significant casualties in 1864, because the North dropped the gloves and was finally willing to fight the attrition war that Lee had feared. In essence, Grant was willing to give up 10,000 soldiers(dead, wounded, captured) in exchange for 5,000 from Lee, with no prisoner exchange, because he knew that if he did that enough times, Lee would run out of troops. So that is why the war ended in 1865 not in 1920, and that is why there were more casualties in 1864. (By the way, two of Grant's predecessors had better opportunities to do the same thing, in one battle, but chose no to - and all allowed exchanges to the point of ridiculousness, i.e., letting prisoners go home for Christmas?!?!?!)

 

The last thing on Grant's mind was politics(and at no time the Copperheads ), even when he was President! The guy had failed at so many things, earlier in life, he didn't have the actual self confidence to get into that, and, was "pushed along" into the political side of things simply due to his accomplishments at the one thing he was good at - being a general. Of course, Grant is one of my favorite subjects and I wouldn't expect you to know all this. But please don't attempt to call people out when you have no idea what they know, and, when you have an obviously limited knowledge of the material yourself.

[chicot]

To return to the original subject, apparently the UK sailors are being released:

 

British sailors to be released

[GG]

To return to the original subject, apparently the UK sailors are being released:

 

British sailors to be released

 

Nothing to see here. Move along.