British sailors taken by Iran

[abskebabs]

And that's kind of what I mean. It's difficult to see the good guys and bad guys in real life. Usually they're both a little of both. Like you said, self serving.

 

Same with the current middle east conflict and America. We're all serving our own interests. That's why I don't understand why the middle east gets excuses manufactured for them and America isn't allowed any excuses. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that when everyone is serving their own interests, they despise the more successful at it? Kind of like how rich people are not trusted and are despised by the masses...even though they're just looking out for their own interests - not targeting someone else's...

 

Sorry, but I can't help but to see the class envy we experience between the rich, middle class and poor - on the global scale as well.

 

You make a fair point, and maybe this is a deeply engrained part of our coolective human psyche "to root for the underdog", as it were and generally despise those dominant to us, particularly if they are fewer. Personally I am sick of it all, ppl suffer far too much in a pointless process. If I could, I would ban all nations starting tommorow, though admittedly, much careful thought would need to go in to how to replace them.

 

I sitll think ppl themselves have a lot of power and can make a lot of change for the better even within the confines of our existing system. This "ppl power" can be exemplified by how disaster donations from individuals collectively amounts to much much more than that donated by national governments in the event of national disasters or catastrophes. Hopefully things will continue to change in the positive ways that have already begun this century, and we will never be engulfed in a tide of ignorance and prejudice again.

[Royston]

Hardly. The UK didn't cower - they did. What the hell would you consider "not backing down" on the Brits' part? Seriously, I want to know. Full-scale invasion? That's ridiculous. Strength is revealed in not having to use it.

 

Yes, the UK didn't cower, but it's probably more complicated than you think. Labour are at a critical position at the moment, they're nearing the end of an era, and it's clear, public faith is not vested in the Labour government.

 

'Not backing down' is just a phrase they throw at the media.

 

A week ago they were considering 'prisoner exchange', so 'not backing down' is not the phrase I'd use...'weasling their way out of it', would be more apt. The problem is exposing who's at fault, and it's been blanketed with media spin, IMO.

 

Besides, they've just been released.

[ParanoiA]

I sitll think ppl themselves have a lot of power and can make a lot of change for the better even within the confines of our existing system. This "ppl power" can be exemplified by how disaster donations from individuals collectively amounts to much much more than that donated by national governments in the event of national disasters or catastrophes. Hopefully things will continue to change in the positive ways that have already begun this century, and we will never be engulfed in a tide of ignorance and prejudice again.

 

You are impressivley optimistic. I hope you're right too. Despite the state of affairs in the world, I also believe we, as in humanity, are getting better. Evolution is a slow process, even when we try to accelerate it.

[bombus]

certainly, smaller acts of aggresion have instigated war in the past. I agree though, people should be taking this a lot more seriously. What little trust I had in iran is completely gone. And the libs still want them to help out in Iraq? It's ridiculous.

 

What little you trust Iran indeed!

 

You have no idea what you are talking about! You have no idea how the world is run, and what it's all really about.

 

I suppose you have no idea that the USA prior to this kidnapped eight Iranian diplomats and is holding them with absolutely no charges and no legal aid, or even access to the outside world!

 

I suggest you read more sonny!

[Bettina]

Yes, it is. They didn't harm the sailors. They didn't dare turn it in to a "death to the west" situation. They didn't get any meaningful concessions out of Britain - not even an apology. In fact, Britain has maintained through the whole thing that they were essentially kidnapped. Iran, on the other hand, backed down to the point where the only spin they could still manage was that "the British made a 'mistake', which they should really apologize for but haven't, but we're going to be nice to them anyway." That the crazy fiery rhetoric was cowed into reconciliation and "gift-giving" is a HUGE act of backing down. The UK comes out looking strong and reasonable, and Iran comes out looking weak, petty, and irresolute. Yes, you're missing something.

 

 

 

Hardly. The UK didn't cower - they did. What the hell would you consider "not backing down" on the Brits' part? Seriously, I want to know. Full-scale invasion? That's ridiculous. Strength is revealed in not having to use it.

 

Sorry to differ, but I have eyes. I saw the Iranian president looking very strong and in full control. He dominated the "event" and made the U.K. look weak. Did you see Tony? His head was down most of the time and with few words to say he looked a beaten man.

 

I didn't miss a thing.

 

That statement amazes me. Iran, formally known as Persia has a rich history of well over 7000 years. Don't believe me check, it out? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran

Persia was the 1st nation by far to ever have a recognisable bill of human rights and the UN has acknowledged this since the 70s. (Sorry for the rant, but this is partly because of my disgust at how Persia was portrayed in the film 300)

 

You really need to stop seeing the world so back and white...

 

I stand by the statement I made. As a girl, the last place I would want to live is in the middle east. The oppression of women and young girls in the mideast, which includes Iran, is well documented. It is a pet peeve of mine and I have many links if you want to see them. I won't comment further since others have done it for me.

 

Again, as a girl, I have no love for the middle east.

 

Bettina

[bombus]

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

 

To resort to force or the use of force is real weakness. To say that diplomacy is a failure is completely wrong. It is war that is the failure.

 

In case you are too young to remember, there was a civil war going on in Northern Ireland for 30 years. It solved nothing and led to misery for all involved.

 

Diplomacy, restraint and mutual respect has lead to peace, and will maintain peace into the future.

 

The USA resorts to warfare because it is a country controlled by those that profit from war. It's a common misconception that the USA 'run the world'. They mess up the world actually. It's only the power of the dollar (because of its use in the oil business) that maintains US 'dominance'.

[bombus]

Its simple to see that this was a test instigated by Iran. They capture British soldiers in international waters like pirates and the British give up their men and their ship without firing a shot. That ship was there legally under a U.N. mandate yet the British let it be boarded.

 

Tony Blair, acting diplomatically, is laying concessions whether you see them or not and he's showing the mideast that the U.K. is made of paper. Thats what makes me mad, and I'm not even British.

 

Watch what happens in the next few weeks. Iran and the U.K. will come to an "agreement" where the British will no longer condemn Iran for that action and Iran will claim a victory. Just watch.

 

Ahmadinejad wins.

 

Wrong! Everyone wins.

[bombus]

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

 

That's fine. You're just wrong that's all.

[Pangloss]

That's not an appropriate response, Bombus. Bettina's observations are perfectly valid on the politics this situation. Please be more respectful of other opinions.

 

I agree with your comment that "everyone wins". That includes Iran. They've won a major victory over moderate political forces in that country, which is (in my opinion) what this was actually about.

 

At any rate, I am glad to see that my prediction about this event was proven false. Blair gave the Iranians little more than a few minor face-saving gestures, which in this case were sufficient.

[Saryctos]

I guess I'll have to give points to Iran for this one...their ruse has gained them more clout than is due, and the best part is most won't even realize it.

[ParanoiA]

To resort to force or the use of force is real weakness. To say that diplomacy is a failure is completely wrong. It is war that is the failure.

 

Use of force is a failure in diplomacy. Diplomacy takes two. Both sides win and lose. Look at WWII. We won that war, but we've lost so much as a result of it as well. Some of the problems we are dealing with today can be traced back to it. This is the case with all wars. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Hitler would talk to you all you wanted, while his army rolled over your country.

 

In case you are too young to remember, there was a civil war going on in Northern Ireland for 30 years. It solved nothing and led to misery for all involved.

 

In case you weren't covered in American history, we had a civil war too. The slaves were freed, the union preserved and the federal government had its way. It solved quite a few problems actually. I know you don't like it, but violence is human nature for a reason - it works. Sucks huh?

 

Diplomacy, restraint and mutual respect has lead to peace, and will maintain peace into the future.

 

It takes all concerned parties to do this. I humbly agree. Diplomacy and restraint has been exercised by the middle east, but not mutual respect. They've never respected us, and we don't respect misogynistic racists that call us infadels and compare us with the devil. And that's before we started getting bombed by their extremists.

 

It's funny how we get lectured about how we should conduct ourselves, and how we should respect their culture and religion, how we need to tip toe around them but nobody sees the hypocrisy in their own conduct? The first impression I ever got about the middle east is that I was hated for my behavior. They don't like me because I sin, according to them. I'm a wallering pig of a sinner to them and they've been telling us that for decades.

 

But we need to watch our conduct? We need to watch our step? Well, we will. Because we're not like them. And we have the unique ability to admit mistakes and correct them.

 

The USA resorts to warfare because it is a country controlled by those that profit from war. It's a common misconception that the USA 'run the world'. They mess up the world actually. It's only the power of the dollar (because of its use in the oil business) that maintains US 'dominance'.

 

We are not controlled by Halliburton or any other rich dude gang you've got fabricated in your mind. Geez, I've heard this conspiracy crap so many times I'm starting to wonder if facts mean anything to people anymore.

 

Anyway, that's pre-packaged single level thought kind of stuff. Things are a little more complicated than your underdog vs "the man" fantasies...

[Dak]

what clout? what success for iran?

 

START:

 

iran: britain invaded our waters, and we demand an apology

UK: no. also, it was a mistake

 

END:

 

iran: ok, it was a mistake. britain aren't apologising, but they can have their troops back anyway.

UK: it was a mistake.

 

i don't see how iran came out of this looking strong or cloutful?

 

anyway, everyone seems to be overlooking the possibility that this was a genuine mistake on irans part, and they just took the easyest way out when they realised.

 

whatever, i'm glad it was resolved without violence.

[abskebabs]

Sorry to differ, but I have eyes. I saw the Iranian president looking very strong and in full control. He dominated the "event" and made the U.K. look weak. Did you see Tony? His head was down most of the time and with few words to say he looked a beaten man.

 

I didn't miss a thing.

 

 

 

I stand by the statement I made. As a girl, the last place I would want to live is in the middle east. The oppression of women and young girls in the mideast, which includes Iran, is well documented. It is a pet peeve of mine and I have many links if you want to see them. I won't comment further since others have done it for me.

 

Again, as a girl, I have no love for the middle east.

 

Bettina

 

Personally, I don't read too much into how both politicians appeared at their respective press conferences, and I don't think that is actually too important, just what happened "on the ground" that counts. You have your opinion on that, I've given mine. There are several possiblities available for the actual decisions that were made on both sides that led to this debacle, but frankly all the speculation in the world will lead to just that; speculation so I won't dwell on that issue at the moment. Hopefully things may get clearer over the next few days.

 

I'm glad you take such a strong position on women's rights:-) , but I dont think it grants a blanket dismissal of middle eastern history or culture outright(or any for that matter), though admittedly things at the moment are far from desirable. Just remember, for example; during Saddam Hussen's tenure(not a glossy one btw), Iraqi women enjoyed equal salaries to their male colleagues in the same positions. This is something that is still not paralleled and stil an issue in the west. But Iraq today is by far the best example of what you are talking about.

[Sisyphus]

Bettina, I'm sorry, but none of this has anything to do with women's rights. Was the purpose of your bringing it up to explain the source of the bias that makes you incapable of thinking rationally about the Middle East?

[Bettina]

Bettina, I'm sorry, but none of this has anything to do with women's rights. Was the purpose of your bringing it up to explain the source of the bias that makes you incapable of thinking rationally about the Middle East?

 

No, I brought it up because abskebabs mentioned how dignified Iran was with this comment: That statement amazes me. Iran, formally known as Persia has a rich history of well over 7000 years.

 

I had a response but Paranoia beat me to it when he said: Well, they're quite dignified in how they oppress women and endorse racism and hatred. The KKK has a lot to learn from them...

 

I had no intention of bringing womens rights up until it was mentioned by someone else. (thank you ) I think very rationally of the middle east and I see all the evil in it.

 

Bettina

[ParanoiA]

I had a response but Paranoia beat me to it when he said: Well, they're quite dignified in how they oppress women and endorse racism and hatred. The KKK has a lot to learn from them...

 

Sorry...I get a little worked up about the middle east being this innocent part of the world that the big mean US is kicking around...

[Dak]

the middle east is this guilty part of the world that the big mean US is kicking about.

 

Bettina, I'm sorry, but none of this has anything to do with women's rights.

 

I'm surprised no-ones mentioned the head-scarf that the bird was forsed to wear. or the fact that she was, afaict, the boss.

[GutZ]

I had no intention of bringing womens rights up until it was mentioned by someone else. (thank you ) I think very rationally of the middle east and I see all the evil in it.

 

Bettina

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4787190.stm

 

It might be slowly happening. There was a point it happened here in the west, societies evolve differently.

 

Every country has it's evils. The middle-east isn't good at hiddening it, thats the big difference.

 

Is wanting a full scale invasion to every country that opposes your view really that rational? This isn't the movies, the good guy doesn't always win in the end, the world is *$@ed up. A wrong move could put alot of people in danger.

 

We can blame the middle-east for everything, but we don't control Iran...the Iranian people have to create the change. As much as we hate it, there is no need to act irrationally. Tons of countries don't listen to the UN, lol one of them is the US, why should they listen when the world's power doesn't. I know the two wrongs don't make a right, but like I said we don't control them...but how can you expect some to change if you reluctant to change yourself.

 

The soliders will go back to Britian.

[Pangloss]

I feel a need to repeat Bettina's comment asking "what dignified history does Iran have". I think that's a legitimate question, and a missive about Persian history is really quite irrelevent. I can give lectures about Ancient Roman history in that region. Want me to talk about the eight legion standards Marcus Licinius Crassus lost (along with his head) to the Iranians, and how they were recovered Tony-Blair-style by Augustus? Does anybody here even know that Iran was once called "Parthia"? Does anyone care? What possible difference could this make?

 

Do people just not realize how appalled a Persian or Parthian would be at the current state of their once-great country? Do people just not realize that this is a country that takes principles of knowledge and science and engineering and twists them for religious and domination purposes in ways that would absolutely floor any westerner were they to happen here?

 

This is a nation that has existed for less than 30 years, after coming to existence through a violent coup. Its history is one of brutal repression, hardcore religious imposition and a singular lack of freedom. It just happens to inhabit a land area that has been civilized for 6,000+ years. That's all.

 

There's nothing dignified or noble about Iran. Not one thing.

[abskebabs]

This is a nation that has existed for less than 30 years, after coming to existence through a violent coup. Its history is one of brutal repression, hardcore religious imposition and a singular lack of freedom. It just happens to inhabit a land area that has been civilized for 6,000+ years. That's all.

 

There's nothing dignified or noble about Iran. Not one thing.

Thats a fair point, and I thik broadly I do agree with you, as Iran and all other nations should be judged mainly on how they treat their citizens and their citizens' welfare. But I think the history of the civilizations and empires that happened to inhabit this geographical area is nevertheless the history of the ancestors(more or less, due to the effect of migrations) of the ppl who inhabit Iran today. In fact I think this persian legacy and history has been repressed, along with the attempt to replace farsi with Arabic(which didnt work), along with the state sponsored persecution of Zoroastrians. Regardless of the fact the regime are the absolute antithesis of this region's past, it is still the history of the ppl of Iran in my opinion, and most of them acknowledge this and are proud of it too.

 

Why do you think they get pissed of when Persians are represented in a less than admirable fashion in Hollywood(examples include overhyped, grossly dumbed down"masterpieces" like 300 and Alexander). Hell its even amusing when elements in the current Iranian regime express their disgust at these movies, even thugh they are actively suppressing this "culture", for the lack of a better word themselves. To be fair though this process has been ongoing since the arrival of Islam, and has just intensified in the last 30 years.

 

The best situation I can think where this broadly isn't true that I can think of; would be with regard to US history before colonisation, as the vast maority of the citizenry before this date would not have had an "American" history. Of course the same applies to different extents throughout the Americas(and to a similiar extent in Canada".

 

Many of the Iranians I know(admittedly students) come across as having a lot more in common with this past than the present "Islamic state". Hell they even have drinking customs in an Islamic state!

 

Also on another note; I saw a 5 news broadcast earlier today where they revealed an interview they had with one of the captured sailors prior to their capture. He talked about how they were carrying out intelligence gathering operations on the Iranians in the area. I thought 5 deserve due credit for this sensible and smart journalism, as it could have poured oil on a fire if this news was revealed prior to the soldiers release, and made the situation more precarious. In fact if this footage was available earlier, I'd wager many a hardliner in the Iranian regime may have wanted to use this footage to back a kangaroo trial to prosecute the sailors for spying. I hope they're livid about this:D

[Sisyphus]

The nation of Iran has a 30 year history of violence and oppression and little else.

 

The culture of Iran is one of the most ancient and important of any civilization in the world.

 

What's so hard about that?

[John Cuthber]

Well the people are back home now and I have no doubts that they will tell us what happened. It will be interesting to see how the 2 sides are judged after the truth is known. Also, I'm also pretty sure that it is standing policy, if captured like that, to read out any cobblers they ask you to. In this case the "confessions" were in such flaky English it was obvious they were written by someone else. As I said earlier this stunt must have been for the domestic propaganda market.

 

Fundamentally, I have a simple question to ask. Would those who, like Bettina, disagreed with the way this was handled please tell us what they would have done in Mr Blair's place?

For example, Britain is a nuclear power so we could have nuked Tehran. Would that have been a better ploy?

[Klaynos]

Well the people are back home now and I have no doubts that they will tell us what happened. It will be interesting to see how the 2 sides are judged after the truth is known. Also, I'm also pretty sure that it is standing policy, if captured like that, to read out any cobblers they ask you to. In this case the "confessions" were in such flaky English it was obvious they were written by someone else. As I said earlier this stunt must have been for the domestic propaganda market.

 

Fundamentally, I have a simple question to ask. Would those who, like Bettina, disagreed with the way this was handled please tell us what they would have done in Mr Blair's place?

For example, Britain is a nuclear power so we could have nuked Tehran. Would that have been a better ploy?

 

Let me first make my feelings clear. No one died this is good, if they had fired, people would now be dead.

 

There has just been a press conference with some of the captured team. I watched it. They answered questions about why they said what they said. And if you note they nearly always said things like "we're told we where in iranian waters" etc...

 

bbc news article:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6533069.stm

[Pangloss]

I was a bit shocked that some British television analysts (according to a story I saw) were criticizing the captives for appearing on television in support of the Iranian government during their captivity. Do they just not realize that that's exactly what captives SHOULD do in that situation -- i.e. anything their captors tell them to do?

[John Cuthber]

I think that, while the armed forces take the trouble to explain this to their personnel, they don't tell the BBC about it- perhaps they should.