How Long Will Iran Hold the British Sailors?

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
would you blame the US government if I pledged to the flag and then punched you in the face?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the U.S. government encouraged you, supported you financially, and failed to stop you despite you repeatedly punching me in the face for 444 days on U.S. soil, then I would, in fact, blame the U.S. government.

[/ QUOTE ]

My fault, i shouldn't of used such a misleading example. it assumes that there is a government to pledge to. In the case of the embassy takeover the government was very fluid and in fact resigned soon after.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
All those reaction to Iranian aggression, looks like the UK threw the first punches and then pulled the US into the mix. As you say,

[/ QUOTE ]
Allying with Nazi Germany would cause other countries to occupy your country. NO! Say it isn't so! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Besides this is a red herring, the present Iranian govt hated the Shahs and wanted them dead. They could care less about the Shahs. They wanted a theocracy...not a Shah.

[ QUOTE ]
For the third time, the government of Iran never took over the US embassy. It was a radical group of students who pledged allegiance to the government.

[/ QUOTE ]
Initially it was the students.
Then the Iranian Govt took over control of the hostages. This is demonstrated by the FACT that the Iranian Govt made demands on the USA and was involved in the negotiations of the relaese of the hostages. Carter agreed to several Iranian GOVERNMENT demands before the hostages were released. Some of the demands were to unfreeze Iranian assets and to forfeit any rights of the hostages to sue Iran. You are trying to paint a picture the Iranian govt was not involved... They were heavily involved after the embassy takeover...

[ QUOTE ]
would you blame the US government if I pledged to the flag and then punched you in the face?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bad analogy. Here is a better one. I punch you in the face and take your wallet. Then my brother comes along after the fact and starts beating the hell out of you. We share your money. If I understand your argument correctly, you would argue I'm guilty but my brother is innocent. Yes?

[ QUOTE ]
maybe, you dont seem to be too quick

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahhhh... ad hominem attacks.
If you knew your facts better then you could debate more intelligently and not have to resort to name calling. If I was a liberal poster on this forum...I hit the notify Mod button and demand that you get banned. But I'm not a liberal...

[Bill Haywood]

Patrick Cockburn is one of the few foreign correspondents who still reports from the streets of Iraq, not the hotel balconies.

I consider this article for the British Independent the best info to date. Cockburn says it was a calculated retaliation for U.S. seizure of Iranians in Kurdish Iraq.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/03/275/

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you actually know more about it than I do. Thanks for the information, and I'll have to look into it further.

[/ QUOTE ]

while I am a Middle Eastern Studies major at GW, the specifics I looked up on wikipedia

[/ QUOTE ]

Only one request. Please God don't go to work for the State Department.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Only one request. Please God don't go to work for the State Department.

[/ QUOTE ]
He is perfect for Foggy Bottom (State Dept).
80% of the State Dept has gone native and sympathizes more with their host countries than they do with the interests of the USA. He has just gone native faster than most...

[latefordinner]

Seems your beliefs that the Great Evil Iran would only respond to being bombed were pretty wrong now, eh Felix? For the record my vote was right on the money.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems your beliefs that the Great Evil Iran would only respond to being bombed were pretty wrong now, eh Felix?

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly...I was not privy to private negotiations. I suppose implied threats could have been made but I doubt they will ever know... But my instincts tell me it is likely Blair was NOT going to play hardball. After all they let a modern warship sit on their ass while the Iranians in plywood boats started taking hostages.

This incident does tell me the Iranian regime is more saavy than I thought. They milked the incident for maximum propaganda value then let the hostages go before the UK got too pissed-off. But yes...I still think we need to bomb Iran. There support of terrorism and insurgents in Iraq has become intolerable. This last incident with the UK Navy made the Brits look like a bunch of pansies....and prehaps the Brits have turned into pansies. I always thought Royal Marines were suppose to be tough. You know...only name, rank, and serial number. They trick out like a bunch of dollar whores.....quite pathetic.

[Dane S]

John,

I think the problem with your ideas on revolution in Iran is their imperialistic bent. I agree it would be great for the Iranian people to throw off an oppressive government (assuming they want to), but this is an issue that should be resolved internally, by Iranians, not by outside powers. Outside powers, especially the US in this instance, are not charitable institutions that intervene against oppressive governments on behalf of a nation's people. Any US intervention will be for its OWN benefit, not for Iran's--that much you can be sure of. And while there is perhaps some chance that the average Iranian's lot will improve coincidentally along with such intervention, it's probably at least equally likely that new leadership will be as oppressive or MORE oppressive. After all, Iran's current government was born of a populist movement that overthrew an oppressive US-backed dictator. Realpolitik-minded leaders do not view the world in terms of which poor oppressed peoples they can help out, though they WILL use such scenarios for political capital to fuel their own, largely unrelated designs.

So to sum up, sure it's possible a revolution would do Iranians good, but a selfish, opportunistic outside power is not the proper agent for inciting or aiding this revolution.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
There support of terrorism and insurgents in Iraq has become intolerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not so clear. Keep in mind that Iran is Shiite, but the insurgency is Sunni based. The overwhelming majority of US casualties are inflicted by Sunnis (9 out of 10 is figure that comes to mind).

The government is Shia dominated. Are we to believe Iran is funding an insurgency to unseat its allies?

Certainly Iran is active in Iraq. They are neighbors, what happens one place affects the other. But we mustn't get sucked in by neocon spin into thinking Iran is a primary source of violence in Iraq. The primary issue is that Sunnis were unseated from a dominant position, and are now taking it out on the occupying army responsible.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
John,

I think the problem with your ideas on revolution in Iran is their imperialistic bent. I agree it would be great for the Iranian people to throw off an oppressive government (assuming they want to), but this is an issue that should be resolved internally, by Iranians, not by outside powers. Outside powers, especially the US in this instance, are not charitable institutions that intervene against oppressive governments on behalf of a nation's people. Any US intervention will be for its OWN benefit, not for Iran's--that much you can be sure of. And while there is perhaps some chance that the average Iranian's lot will improve coincidentally along with such intervention, it's probably at least equally likely that new leadership will be as oppressive or MORE oppressive. After all, Iran's current government was born of a populist movement that overthrew an oppressive US-backed dictator. Realpolitik-minded leaders do not view the world in terms of which poor oppressed peoples they can help out, though they WILL use such scenarios for political capital to fuel their own, largely unrelated designs.

So to sum up, sure it's possible a revolution would do Iranians good, but a selfish, opportunistic outside power is not the proper agent for inciting or aiding this revolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting any outside intervention, or outside attempts at engineering a coup, or anything like that.

Most of the Iranian population is under 30 years of age and most of the population is unhappy with the mullahs' rule. There are very significant dissident movements within Iran which are routinely squashed by force whenever they attempt to demonstrate.

When the USSR controlled Eastern Europe, the West supplied Radio Free Europe to help free speech and to lend political support to the voices of freedom struggling to make themselves heard in Europe. The dissident groups deserve our moral support in Iran similarly. Also, the West should make it clear that the mullahs' regime are international pariahs (which they actually are, taking hostages as a matter of foreign plicy, multiple times over the decades). There is nothing imperialistic about giving moral and political support to a people trying to throw off tyranny.

It's likely that a new, internally determined leadership in Iran would be less oppressive than the current regime, especially as there are so many young, college-educated people in Iran who comprise the bulk of those who hate the mullah's rule. They would be likely to create a less oppressive, not more oppressive, environment. Do you know, really, just how oppressive the regime in Iran is right now? There is nothing wrong with pointing out that fact for all the world to see, nothing wrong with siding morally and verbally with those seeking freedom instead of with those imposing ironclad harsh religious rule in Iran. World opinion may have some positive effect in strengthening the hand of reform-minded forces in Iran and in helping the internal dissidents gain enough cohesion and confidence to throiw off the rule of the mullahs. That is what I am suggesting be done, not engineering some coup from the outside. Sorry if I didn't make that more clear.