when it comes to iraq, brittan and the u.s. are joined at the hip. they are the "coalition". as far as the geneva convention, this goes back to my main point. if the united states is going to disregard it than we cant get upset when other countries do too. when your government advocates a policy of torture than you loose the moral highground and ability to critize others for human rights abuses - in this respect, it is very relevant. id rather be paraded around infront of the media than get subjected to the abuses of abu ghraib. im not trying to defend iran either - they should let the soldiers go. they are just pawns in this game of chess. ahmadinejad is about as popular in iran as bush is here. i remember a poll a few months ago that showed 35%, so i guess he is slightly better than bush. nothing like a fight to rally the masses - war would be good for both of their approval ratings.
what??? no one has standing to complain about anything, then. i'm guessing virtually every nation on this planet has used torture at one point or another. i'm not justifying it. it's awful. i would call on all of them to stop it. but to suggest that we can't be complaining about this??? seriously??? come on. this is trumped up crap...i don't care who is doing it, it's wrong.
i agree - it is wrong. but again, this is why we shouldnt be torturing people. even you chided iran for ignoring the geneva convention in your earlier post. i agree with you - it is wrong to parade these guys infront of the media, but when our country is doing far worse we have lost the moral highground that we once had in the world.
i dont know how you can say our country is going 'far worse' than the others. just b/c there isnt pictures and a new article about other countries and their prisoners does not mean that they are treating them better
As an aside... I was looking at a political satire site the other day (can't remember which one) that labled this "Iran Hostage Crisis -- The Next Generation" I thought that was pretty funny. Assuming you can find humour in these things. No offence intended.
not as expected, Iran is backing down.....Britian and Iraq have agreed to engage in talks. Predictable - both sides were dying to find a face-saving way out - looks like they are well on their way and this "hostage" crisis will soon be over.
it's as easy as this. a blockade of their oil platforms, as well as stopping any ships from bringing other goods in. true it would boost prices to $100/barrel, but the hope would be the people of iran would riot and topple to government.... of course as nationalistic as they are, they may stand behind the president and mollahs in support. and by morals you mean.......
Well, apparently an Iranian diplomat who was kidnapped in Iraq was released today by his 'captors' (whomever that is), and the Iranians were saying that a continuation of Britain's current "changed behavior" can lead to the quick release of the British sailors. I think barring any inflammatory rhetoric by the US or British officials, these guys will be released sooner rather than later. Bush sees no swap for British sailors in Iran http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03250416.htm WASHINGTON, April 3 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Tuesday his administration was consulting with Britain on Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors and marines but that there would be no swap of the Britons for Iranians held in Iraq. The Iraqi government is trying to secure the release of five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in northern Iraq in January, as the British government seeks freedom for the British military personnel seized by Iran March 20 on charges of being in Iranian waters. Britain insists the sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters on a routine U.N. mission and Bush said he supports Britain's effort to resolve the situation peacefully. "The seizure of the sailors is indefensible by the Iranians," Bush told reporters in the White House Rose Garden. "I support the (Tony) Blair government's attempts to solve this issue peacefully so we're in close consultation with the British government. "I also strongly support the prime minister's declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages," Bush said. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined comment on Tuesday's release of an Iranian diplomat who had been kidnapped in Iraq in February. He said the United States had nothing to do with the Iranian's seizure, detention or release. (Sure ) McCormack declined to comment on the status of the five Iranians held by U.S. forces in Iraq. Washington says they were detained because they were providing improvised explosives to Iraqi militants for use against U.S. troops and Iraqis. Asked about reports that Iraq was pushing for the United States to release the five Iranians in Baghdad in the hope of encouraging Iran to free the 15 British sailors and Marines held by Iran, McCormack said the cases were not linked. "We reject out of hand any attempt to link the two," he said. "To do so only creates a set of incentives that would encourage more such behavior either by the Iranian government or others in unjustly seizing individuals."
Whatever the motives were for Iran to grab the Britons, they've agreed to release them. I think most of us felt this wouldn't take a long time. Perhaps whatever goal the Iran gov't was trying to accomplish happened. Whatever.
and you're very sure of that. now the French are saying Iran has detained one of its citizens and won't let him leave: http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/4687019.html but the French are just war-mongers.
Glad to see they are released, Iran made a massive mistake, but typical Iran making BS remarks about Britain putting their soldiers on trial. WTF ever. DD
