British sailors taken by Iran

[Haezed]

Yes, Warren Christopher arranged the release with the Algiers Accords.

 

Carter and his staff deserve great credit for freeing the Iranian hostages literally minutes before Reagan took office. It took them 444 days but, hey, that was some skillful negotiating.

 

It was agreed:

 

The US would not intervene in Iranian internal affairs

The US would remove a freeze on Iranian assets and trade sanctions on Iran

Both countries would end litigation between their respective governments and citizens referring them to international arbitration, namely the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.

The US would ensure that US court decisions regarding the transfer of any property of the former Shah would be independent from "sovereign immunity principles" and would be enforced

Iranian debts to US institutions would be paid

 

We sure taught Iran that hostage taking doesn't pay. Way to go Warren!

 

When Hezzbollah took more hostages, Reagan did the Iran/Contra deal.

 

Why not take more hostages given the results? FWIW, I dont' give Reagan a free pass either for what happened on his watch. *shrug* No President is perfect but Carter was pitiful. Iran did more than take hostages, abeit through proxies. Iran invaded sovereign US territory and all that happened is that we rewarded them for the act.

 

Hopefully, the Brits will do better.

 

How?

 

 

Last thing those British soldiers need is a "Let's get 'em" quote from Bush.

 

I completely agree. It's not our business.

 

Get them home, then drive some real ships up in their waters.

 

What are you suggesting?

[john5746]

What are you suggesting?

 

I think we will be going to war with Iran within the next 5 years. This IS a slam-dunk. We know they are trying to get the bomb.

 

So, we need to finish Iraq, then take on Iran. Take out their nuclear plants, then take control of their oil.

[Saryctos]

Carter and his staff deserve great credit for freeing the Iranian hostages literally minutes before Reagan took office. It took them 444 days but, hey, that was some skillful negotiating.

 

Actually that happened minutes ATFER reagan took office. Once we got a republican in office they knew not to **** around.

[Pangloss]

That's the "oh spit they elected Reagan" theory, which was very common at the time, as I dimly recall. I don't know how fair that assessment is, but I also can't give much credit to the Carter administration for their release.

[Gypsy Cake]

As far as Iran and war goes, they do seem to be asking for it.Whether we entered there territory or not. No peace-seeking nation would simply abduct foreigners for straying into their territory. I don't however feel we should resort to invading due to our complete inability to do so successfully; namely Iraq.

Though it's about time the UN did something about Iran and its antics.

 

Btw, It's good to see americans caring about our guys.

[Haezed]

That's the "oh spit they elected Reagan" theory, which was very common at the time, as I dimly recall. I don't know how fair that assessment is, but I also can't give much credit to the Carter administration for their release.

 

I don't see it could be an unfair assessment although who knows what the Iranians were thinking at the time. I'm well aware of the post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy but the release being within minutes of Reagan taking office can't be entirely coincidental. There has to be some connection, although it could just be to spit in Carter's face as a further show of disrespect.

 

I never could figure out why the Country didn't demand more of Carter given that Iran captured US territory.

[Bettina]

Btw, It's good to see americans caring about our guys.

 

We do.... but more importantly is why the UK is so weak. I don't mean that to be nasty, but they don't seem to have any kind of defense, or any kind of offense to go get their men. And, I like Tony Blair, so don't call him a Bush follower.

 

Bettina

[Gypsy Cake]

To Bettina,

Our government chooses to do everything diplomatically, we have the SAS but I guess that we choose not to use them.

 

I don't really have any real problem with Tony Blair; it is necessary for our government to maintain a good relationship with your country, any smart politician would do the same but lets be honest Tony Blair doesn't have any major influence in the US whereas over here we do often have to stand by your side in matters of war. For the same reason you mentioned...we're pretty weak comparatively

[Sisyphus]

The Iranians got away with an act of war until the day Reagan was inaugerated.

 

Actually, they got away with it permanently.

[Bettina]

To Bettina,

Our government chooses to do everything diplomatically, we have the SAS but I guess that we choose not to use them.

 

I don't really have any real problem with Tony Blair; it is necessary for our government to maintain a good relationship with your country, any smart politician would do the same but lets be honest Tony Blair doesn't have any major influence in the US whereas over here we do often have to stand by your side in matters of war. For the same reason you mentioned...we're pretty weak comparatively

 

 

I don't want to scare you, but diplomacy around the world is not only a failure but it will continue to get worse in the years to come. Diplomacy has to be backed up with strength which unfortunately puts the UK in a non bargaining position. But again, why are you weak?

 

Why does the U.S. have to assume leadership? I don't want them to.

 

Bee

[Sisyphus]

But again, why are you weak?

 

Why do you think they are? Compared to the US, sure, but to be fair, it is 1/5 the size. Compared with any other country in the world, I'd say they look pretty strong. We in the US have grown so used to superpower status that it's easy to forget how remarkable and unprecedented that status is. Most nations just don't have those sorts of options. You don't, for example, see Iran debating whether to send their special forces raiding American missle silos in Nebraska.

[Dak]

actually -- and i don't mean this as yank bashing -- but i think our army is better suited for smallish scale operations.

 

if it comes to it, our SAS are perfectly capable of retrieving our men (if we know where they are).

 

its good that we're not going in and shooting shit up, just because we can, not only because it's the nice thing to do, but because the sailers are more likely to have all their bits attatched if they're given back, as opposed to forsably retrieved.

 

anyway, claims of acting in weekness are somewhat silly, as both the EU and the US (both pretty strong) have given us 'their full support', which i assume means that some military aid is not entirely off the table?

[John Cuthber]

I seem to recall an incident where a well organised military force tried to extract hostages from a situation. They knew where the hostages were, they had full plans of the building, they had plenty of time to plan their raid, they had vastly superior numbers and equipment, they had full access to the building and to the surrounding area.

 

129 of the hostages died in the Moscow theater seige.

I think diplomacy has its place.

[Gypsy Cake]

I don't want to scare you, but diplomacy around the world is not only a failure but it will continue to get worse in the years to come. Diplomacy has to be backed up with strength which unfortunately puts the UK in a non bargaining position.

I don't believe in overuse of military power; I see how your country acts and it seems to me that you want to impose your ideals on the rest of the world. Iraq wasn't in an acceptable position, but we have to accept that the middle east has developed in a different way to us. We must still concentrate on protecting basic human rights in these countries, but its definelty not America's place to move round the middle east turning, one by one, each country into a mini-America. Do you disagree with me?

 

But again, why are you weak?Why does the U.S. have to assume leadership? I don't want them to.

 

Again, we are not weak, per se. We're a very small country and relative to our size we do have a large force. Your country has a population of about 300 million whereas we have about 60 million.

And America has assume leadership for that reason, we need you more than you need us; George Bush takes advantage of that.

[John Cuthber]

Bettina,

Given that the UK has at the disposal of its armed forces everything up to and including nclear weapons I don't see how the statement "Diplomacy has to be backed up with strength which unfortunately puts the UK in a non bargaining position." makes sense.

If you mean that we are weak because we try diplomacy first then I for one am quite happy to be weak.

[JohnB]

Personally, I think the Brits are going about it the right way.

 

The Iranian government is facing increasing popular dissatisfaction and a nice raid by those nasty crusaders would be just the thing to rally support around.

[Pangloss]

The right way apparently being apologizing for intruding into Iranian territorial waters and backing off from any threat of physical force. Yes, that's how they'll get out of it. Blair has already nudged in this direction by stating "regrets" for the incident.

 

There may be a blame-the-US angle here as well. Bush has called them "Hostages" and is already getting blasted for both that and the exersizes conducted off the Iranian coast last week. That's good for Blair and his never-chain-Tehran approach as well.

 

You'll get 'em back. And Tehran will have more ammunition to use against moderates (who won big in the last election, which is what this is really about). Everybody's happy.

 

For now.

[Bettina]

I don't see it that way. I see Iran as a bully and the UK caving in by apologizing for being in international waters under a U.N. mandate.

 

Iran doesn't care what the U.N. thinks, what the world thinks, or what the U.K. thinks and Bush is right. They are hostages.

 

Sorry, but I see it like it is.

 

Bettina

[Pangloss]

I guess I was a bit too subtle; that's more or less what I was suggesting.

 

The news isn't all bad if we go that route, and there are potential positive outcomes. It's just a question of whether we're willing to undertake the job of making it so. We're pretty good with ideas and recognition these days. Not so much with execution over the long term.

[Klaynos]

I don't see it that way. I see Iran as a bully and the UK caving in by apologizing for being in international waters under a U.N. mandate.

 

Iran doesn't care what the U.N. thinks, what the world thinks, or what the U.K. thinks and Bush is right. They are hostages.

 

Sorry, but I see it like it is.

 

Bettina

 

Read:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6515995.stm

 

The UK has not apologised.

[ecoli]

Read:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6515995.stm

 

The UK has not apologised.

 

Why should they apologize to Iran for being in Iraqi waters?

 

I don't beleive for a second that they were in Iranian waters. The first coordinates that the Iranians came up where actually Iraq's boundaries. When made of aware of this, they came up with a completely new set of coordinates.

 

Their story is inconsistant.

 

 

I love how the Iranians are protesting the british for something they (most likely) didn't even do. It shows how biased their media is, that they aren't getting the whole story. I want to know why the British aren't demostrating protests on this one.

[ecoli]

Personally, I think the Brits are going about it the right way.

 

The Iranian government is facing increasing popular dissatisfaction and a nice raid by those nasty crusaders would be just the thing to rally support around.

 

Unfortunately true. Nothing promotes nationalism like a common enemy.

 

You capture some British soilders, regardless if they actually did anything wrong. PArade them around and present them as an enemy threat. Suddenly, Iranians don't feel as safe. Moderates are pushed towards supporting the radicals out of fear. You milk it a little more by getting the West to make threatening remarks... you play clips of Western leaders saying things out of context, and suddenly you have a whole lot more support. People tend to forget whether their enemy actually did anything wrong.

[Gypsy Cake]

I want to know why the British aren't demostrating protests on this one.

 

To be honest, it always takes ages before anyone ever protests over here. We tend to let our government get on with, and only if we have genuine continual disagreement with what their doing, do we protest. Plus what would we be calling Tony Blair to do that is an different to what he's doing now?

[Sisyphus]

I don't really get the the whole protesting thing, here. Iranians protesting at the British embassy in Iran? There are people that angry? That doesn't make sense even if you believe the version of events the Iranian government is telling the world. What the hell are they being told?

[Gypsy Cake]

Iran is a confused society.