Actually the rescuers are more likely to die during a rescue mission. We had eight deaths four injured during the failed rescue mission of our own Iran Hostage Crisis back in 1980
Why is the word hostage invoked? Frankly, no one has proven where they were captured, and I think that Bush should be honest in that he has no way of knowing the truth except for the word of who? It's entirely possible they ended up in Iranian waters - how can anyone claim they were not with certainty?
You've already decided who's telling the truth and who's lying? To me both sides are dishonest, we've already seen how the U.S and the Brits lied to get into Iraq, why should I believe them on this, to me their credibility is shot. Never really trusted the Iranians either, anyone who wants to wipe out another race isn't exactly in my trustworthy list. Personally I just want this standoff resolved, I don't want to pay more for gas. Plus, I don't think this world really needs another war.
I still don't understand how they got captured.... If they were sailing out in the open international sea and some Iranian boat came up and said ' we are capturing you', wouldnt they just be like 'wtf, no', and sail away.
i read somewhere, maybe here, that the boats the iranians used are quick strike vessels, meaning they were faster and more powerful than the ship the marines and sailors were on. so if they tried to leave, they would have been overtaken anyway.
Good post, and I agree. Anyone else notice that the translations on Iranian TV of the interviews of the British hostages were in Arabic? This was deliberate, and is being used not only for domestic consumption, but for propaganda reasons in the region. What is sad is that the average Iranian doesn't particularly care for their government, which is being charitable, and this incident could lead to many average Iranians getting killed or maimed, should it spin out of control. I hope the theocratic group in control of the country has the good sense to free the hostages, because hostages are what they are. D&D. Cold Chili.
At the risk of defending the Iranians I still think there is a very strong likelyhood this is an honest mistake on their parts and not some conspiracy. It is still possible that the Iranians seized the Brits in Iraqi waters yet did son on mistaken pretense. I don't know what sort of maps and GPS the Iranians have while the border isn't marked by buoys. Most people seem to be thinking that this is a deliberate move on the Iranians part for their regime's political gain and that they are being dishonest regarding the circumstances of the capture. That they would use this for political gain isn't surprising as Iranian agents captured on Iraqi territory have also been used for political gain by coalition forces but I don't think we should dismiss the possibility of this being an honest mistake.
The Iranians gave the coordinates where the capture took place, and they were in Iraqi waters. After that was pointed out, they changed their story. Meanwhile, the story from the west has consistently been that the Brits where conducting routine operations in Iraqi waters. To me, the ones with the crdibility in this situation are obvious.
It does no good to state the obvious. It's like talking to a brick wall. (with all due respect to the "bricks." D&D. Broken Bricks.
Actually that does seem pretty strange and was wondering about that. I would again chalk that up to poor navigation on the Iranians part. Its possible that there revised location is a face saving move to cover their earlier mistake.
Obviously. Bush telling them to release the "hostages" does nothing though but force Iran to be more backed into a corner. It's almost as if Bush wants Iran to hold on to these soldiers - to drive down opinion of Iran as much as possible. Same with Blair. Do they want the 15 soldiers back, or are they playing high stakes poker with the rhetoric. I mean, Bush/Blair (B&B) could just have said - ya know what, it seems as though Iran made a mistake. Mistake happen. We just ask Iran to send these folks home. Iran just wanted an apology to save face. Of course they shouldn't get that. But surely both sides could have divised a way out that wouldn't leave either side looking bad. Bush's words have only made the situation harder for Iran to get out of. This is intentional.
Or it could be that they just made a mistake the first time around...and the second set of coordinates are correct. Stupidmoniker, I don't think credibility is established from one party sticking to their story...mistakes do happen, until someone proves their side of the story is correct, it's still up in the air...then I would say it is "obvious" who has the credibility. Deckard, thanks for the compliment.
from the BBC [rquoter] 'Many Iranians feel proud' in standoff By Paul Reynolds World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website An e-mail sent to me by an Iranian illustrates how public opinion in Iran has become a factor in the prisoner standoff, potentially complicating a release "Iranian commentators are mainly angry, defending Iran's action," the e-mail said. "The reason for that is a) UK does not have a good/positive history in Iran b) Persians have been treated badly by Westerners e.g. in the movie 300 or referring to Persian Gulf as simply Gulf or Arabian Gulf, so now having the poor young sailors captivated by Iran, many Iranians feel proud!!!!!!" Such sentiments are echoed in demonstrations. An optimist might hope that they - and television appearances by members of the British group - are a way of Iran making its point before quietly negotiating a way out. But a pessimist might fear they are a sign that the Iranian government either will not or cannot simply let them go. Debate within Iran A quick release without an apology from Britain could open the government to criticism from hardliners. There is clearly a debate within the Iranian government. For example, the Foreign Minster Manouchehr Mottaki promised the release last week of Faye Turney. It did not happen. There is still talk in Iran of putting the naval party on trial, though what penalties might be imposed is not clear. And there is always the risk of Iran linking this event to others - the holding of five Iranians by the Americans in Iraq, for one - though it has not done so so far. Iran is highly nervous of a US attack on its nuclear plants, so probably wants to use this incident as an example of how it can defend itself. It might also see the strong comments made by President Bush ("inexcusable behaviour") as further reason not to give in. The president's role Add to this the comments of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the prospect for an early resolution look difficult, though as Iran is unpredictable, one cannot rule anything out. The president was in his usual rhetorical form on Sunday - the anniversary of the founding of the Islamic Republic 28 years ago. He was quoted by the Iranian news agency Irna as saying that "arrogant powers will vanish like bubbles on water." This is a crisis right up his street. Britain is still regarded with great suspicion in Iran, having in 1953 joined the US in overthrowing Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in favour of the Shah. Iran has also been calling for Britain and the US to leave Iraq and has been accused in turn of helping Shia militias to attack coalition forces. So the background is one of suspicion President Ahmadinejad cut his revolutionary teeth when the US embassy hostages were seized and held in 1979, so has experience of how his kind of politics can thrive in confrontation with an outside power. Diplomatic exchanges Hopes of a solution rest for the moment on an exchange of diplomatic notes that Iran itself started on Friday. This demanded an explanation not an apology (though Iranian figures have demanded one). It appears increasingly likely that Britain will have to make concessions in any negotiations, though presumably the British government will not concede that its sailors were in the wrong place, as so much has been made of the British insistence that they were not. An acknowledgement that there has been a dispute might be inevitable, with some concentration on better arrangements for the future. Whether this could be done through notes or whether face to face talks of some kind will be necessary remains to be seen. Britain has fired some of its diplomatic ammunition already. But Iran is used to being isolated. The US has imposed an economic boycott since 1979 and the Security Council is currently banning trade in nuclear and missile technology, yet Iran goes ahead with its uranium enrichment anyway. [/rquoter]
I would move a coalition task force to the edge of Iran's waters, and then camp there, maybe even move them into their waters. See how much machismo their leadership really has. DD
it doesn't matter who is lying and telling the truth (though, from what we're reading here it seems the Iranians either made a mistake or are absolutely lying and know it). you don't capture soldiers and parade your "prize" around on TV for the world to see....forcing them to read letters they clearly didn't sincerely write. iran has turned this into their own little media circus. let them go, already. i'm not suggesting war. i'm suggesting condemnation. and i think it's silly to say that the US, or any other country for that matter, shouldn't be part of that.
