I liked how he concluded by saying that rather than retaliate they should just get:
"...President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq."
And where, praytell, is Bush going to get the troops to invade Iran? Perhaps the "we're going to invade Iran" segment wants us to believe that Chimpy McBushHitlerBurton is going to outsmart the Democrats, convince them to reinstate the draft as a game of chicken with him, and then run with it. I find the scenario rather far-fetched to say the least.
I hope you're right Publius. I really do. Though, of course, it won't be strictly necessary to *invade* Iran in order to attack it.
Though, of course, it won't be strictly necessary to *invade* Iran in order to attack it.
True, but the article spoke of invasion, not just an attack. Air strikes (by us) are at least possible, but I still think they are less likely than not given the political climate here and abroad.
Sure hope so.
Meanwhile, the rest of the article was humiliating, because it was true.
yeah, true. The Brits are allowed to write letters home, says the article, saying they are all right. I read one of those letters, and it made me ill to think of the coercion that went in to it. If you cannot tell the difference between the situation of these prisoners and those of the imprisoned terrorists, with respect to the basis of their detention, and their treatment, you are simply not a serious person.
Mark, you should have been blogging 40 years ago, you would have made a perfect companion to Jane Fonda visiting our POW's at the Hanoi Hilton. No problems here!
Yes, yes, the Iranians are being very nice, parading the Brits about and showing the world how nice they treat people that they ****had no right nor reason to take hostage in the first place****.
But they still haven't been beheaded, so it's all good. No harm, no foul, right?
Please.
Bush being wrong about Iraq does not make the Iranians behavior OK.
And as the US won't attack or Invade Iran. The Israelis will. Soon.
Followup to previous comment:
Not that the Israelis attacking Iran is necessarily a good thing, but I'm sure it'll happen, since, you know, the Iranians have said so many nice things about the Israelis like "we want to wipe you off the map."
Well, they didn't pick the Americans to kidnap in their orchestrated endeavor. Think they may have figured that Bush was no Carter?
I heard a commentator today say that if this had been Israel they would have already answered by taking a bunch of Iranians captive in order to make the exchange!
"I heard a commentator today say that if this had been Israel they would have already answered by taking a bunch of Iranians captive in order to make the exchange!"
And/or killed a few besides. Maybe outed a known Iranian spy (or seven) within Israel to the world and shot him or something, just to make Iran look bad. Israel's miltiary and intelligence capabiltiy and willingness to use it in certain circumstances is perhaps unique today.
I'm sorry, but this hostage issue smells like a big pile of you know what?
Well, they didn't pick the Americans to kidnap in their orchestrated endeavor. Think they may have figured that Bush was no Carter?
Yes, because taking "Americans" hostage would have looked like an obvious snow job. You take British citizens "hostage"...perfect way for the CIA to stir the pot without looking like they are stirring it.
How long has the Bush administration had a hard-on for Iran? And this hostage issue just magically appears? Please forgive me for being a bit skeptical. Please forgive me for not buying the latest installment of war propaganda.
Considering that Iran has already broken the laws of the Medes and the Persians ERRRRR international law by parading these prisoners in front of the cameras and making the woman wear that ridiculous head scarf, I'm not much interested in what they have to say from here on out.
Frank Sales, the man who doesn't think waterboarding is torture, is all of a sudden concerned about coercion and is slinging around charges of *treason* and giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
You make me sick.
I pray for the safety of these men and women. But it is torture whores like you, Frank, that made an article like this possible. You're the one who has given aid and comfort to the enemy by helping to cheer for the US as it sank to the level--no, *below* the level of the enemy, as the article so cruelly and accurately has pointed out. I hope you can sleep at night. Get off my blog.
Yes, yes, the Iranians are being very nice, parading the Brits about and showing the world how nice they treat people that they ****had no right nor reason to take hostage in the first place****.
You mean like Maher Arar?
It's rather late for supporters of Administration to suddenly develop a conscience about kidnapping innocent people and torturing them.
Insomniac:
Who said the Iranian's behavior is okay? They should release these prisoners immediately.
Yes, because taking "Americans" hostage would have looked like an obvious snow job. You take British citizens "hostage"...perfect way for the CIA to stir the pot without looking like they are stirring it. How long has the Bush administration had a hard-on for Iran? And this hostage issue just magically appears?
The test for conspiracy theory nuttery is whether there could exist any evidence that would convince the proponent of the theory that he is incorrect.
If Americans were captured, it would be an obvious Bush plot. But he knew that, so he arranged to have Brits captured. But that's still too obvious, don't you think? What nationality would the captured sailors have to be before you wouldn't think Bush had a hand in it?
And what about the timing? You think because this situation "magically appears" *now* it has Bush's fingerprints all over it. Would it look less suspicious a month ago, or a month from now?
Is there anything that would convince you that Bush wasn't behind this?
Better pull your fillings out now. That's how they're controlling you.
The test for conspiracy theory nuttery is whether there could exist any evidence that would convince the proponent of the theory that he is incorrect.
That's what they want you to think. 
The world is watching...that accounts for the nice behavior. If America was parading the Abu Ghraib prisoners on public tv, I highly doubt they would've been treated so badly.
news analysis from Monty Python. Brilliant.
The Iranians siezed the marines and sailors on the pretext that they were coercing vessels to heave to for inspections, in Iranian territorial waters. The only issue in doubt is where the waters change from Iraqi to Iranian.
If the Iranians are correct, they had every right to sieze the boats and crews (but not to mistreat them). If the British are correct, the crews and boats should be returned, immediately. Unfortunately, according to their own charts, neither side is incorrect.
The reason the personnel siezed were British was purely because they were the ones who were in waters claimed by Iran.
Never assign to conspiracy theories what can better be explained by blatantly obvious facts.
I do not look forward to an attack on Iran, as the price of oil would spike. If the Iranians were serious about hurting the US, even to the point of suffering economic hardships of their own, they would stop exporting oil after their current contracts were fulfilled.
"It's rather late for supporters of Administration to suddenly develop a conscience about kidnapping innocent people and torturing them."
You're saying that
A) I support kidnapping and torture
B) I blindly support the Bush admin.
and I just realized
C) You claim I have no conscience.
None of which are correct, nor do I see how they be inferred from my disagreeing with your agreement with Mr. Jones. So I assume you're just lobbing insults around for the fun of it.
Moving on...
The whole point of the Iranian exercise is to mock and degrade the British, and show the muslim world that the Brits are impotent. They will therefore continue to parade the hostages at every opportunity, all the while pretending to be decent folk by not killing them.
Furthermore, you cannot possibly believe that there is no coercion in the "confessions" of the Brit soldiers? I'm sure they plied the Brits with tea and honey until they admitted the error of their ways.
Why?
Why in the heck would the Iranians do such a thing WHEN THEY KNOW IT WOULD BE USED AS A PRETEXT TO WAR!
COME ON!
The U.S. Military intel crowd has been waiting for the Iranians to sneeze so they can send in the bombers.
You don't even have to have average intelligence to know that such an action would be a pretext to war.
Are these guys really that stupid or are they the same ones with enough intelligence to build a nuclear weapon?
Which is it folks?
I just realized how out of reality you really are Mark. I think you have Bush Derangement Syndrome just like Rosie O'Donnell.
You're not a lefty though. You are a free agent lunatic.
This former Monty Python person equates us to the Iranians and you think he is right. The terrorists were taken to Guantanamo because they are trying to KILL us. The British soldiers were not trying to kill the Iranians. Look, we may have done some bad things, but our government is nowhere near as bad as the Iranian government. I know you think Bush is evil, but you are wrong.
Insomniac:
If you have protested the kidnapping and arrest of Maher Arar and I missed it or forgot about it, my apologies. Otherwise, my point is simply that it's rather weird, coming from us, to complain about kidnapping innocent people. We've done it, and sent them off for torture. And refused to so much as apologize for it. Indeed, Arar is still treated as though he's a threat because the Administration doesn't want to show his file in the daylight. So they lie and say there's something super duper classified about him (despite the fact the Canucks just give him $10 million dollars and an apology for the outrage committed up on him.)
I thought when I said, "Who said the Iranians' behavior is okay?" that it was clear I do not think these prisoners should have been seized and that I do not think they have not been coerced. Obviously they have. I don't know if they've been tortured or merely frightened, but obviously they are scared and are saying what they are told to say. That's what happens when governments treat human beings like things. It's why we shouldn't imitate the enemy.
"So they lie and say there's something super duper classified about him (despite the fact the Canucks just give him $10 million dollars and an apology for the outrage committed up on him.)"
Oh, just because the Canadians say this, it must be true.
$10 million says it.
Mark B: If you are yet another torture apologist who want to pretend that Arar is guilty in order to justify our use of torture (all while calling me "deranged" for protesting it), this is not your blog. Go away.
Nor is is your implication that all things Canadians say must be false a valid one.
I think what a lot of you are missing here is that if Mark says we are being cruel and hypocritical in our actions, that does not mean he applauds those of Iran. You can very well think that what Iran is doing here is completely unacceptable and wrong, and yet see that it (as of yet anyway) pales to what we are guilty of doing for prisoner treatment as of late.
Ignoring our own faults doesn't make them go away, it just further undermines any moral authority we may have.
Actually, I don't think torture is OK.
I just think it's crazy to equate the US with Iran. George Bush may have different opinions about how to protect the American people, but he is not evil.
But I'll be happy to go away.
Actually, I don't think torture is OK.
Then don't make excuses for it when we kidnap an innocent man and hand him over for torture.
The US and Iran are not equal. The US is far greater. That's why we must not torture prisoners. We are better than the thugocracy in Tehran.
I don't recall saying Bush was evil.
Slightly off topic, but...
For those looking for a reason as to why Iran captured the Brits, apparently (according to CBS news)this crisis will send the price of oil into the stratosphere-possibly $100 a barrel- thereby creating billions in profit for the Iranian govt.
We must not forget that the Americans have captured some Iranians in Iraq who were not obviously combatants in any way. The USA are keeping them incommunicado and not allowing the Iranians consular access.
On the other hand the British may have been in Iranian waters -mistakes are made. They were captured by revolutionary guards over whom the Iranian government do not have complete control. It is therefore a matter of hope that unlike other captives, the British sailors and marines are likely to be allowed consular access. It is also notable so far that the Iranians have not hooded or tortured our lads.
The usual alluring temptations of American or Israeli aggression may not help them very much.
We are trying to do things diplomatically -the way the world should be run wherever possible- surely.
Mr. Prangley,
You don't honestly believe that the captured Iranians were not there to cause problems. The Iranians have been supplying the "insurgent" terrorists with weapons, etc. I tend to think they were up to no good, whether they were invited by the Kurds or not.
As far as the 15 British soldiers, we don't know that they haven't been tortured. I'm sure the confessions were coerced. Plus, they keep parading them in front of the cameras, which is against the Geneva Convention. If the British were in Iranian waters, why did the first set of coordinates given by the Iranians show them to be in Iraqi waters? Then they said, "Oh, our bad. These are the actual coordinates." And the second set were in Iranian waters.
I do not trust anything the Iranian government says about these hostages. They have threatened the annihilation of Israel. They deny the Holocaust ever happened. They took the American hostages in 1979 and kept them for 444 days. They are up to no good now.
I agree that we should try to get them out without force, but negotiations should not include quid pro quo. The soldiers should be returned immediately. No 444 days until they are released.
Catholic39 up there gave a portion of the true equation - the generating of oil revenues by Iran in taking this action at this time. Russia has recently scolded Iran for not paying their bills and threatened to withhold supplies necessary for their nuclear program. Perhaps Russia was hinting for them to make the first move here, or else?
Since these British maneuvers were nothing out of the ordinary ... except for certain Iranian "fishing" ships' excursions planned just for this moment ... and the fact that the first coordinates used by Iran to prove their point of having some basis for this action embarrassingly pointed to the Brits actually being in Iraqi waters (quickly calling for new coordinates by the Iranians!), the real politik here is the demonstration of a very desperate Iran. And, since they actually believe that their introducing chaos on to the world scene is the only way of sending flares to their "mahdi" for his return,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
new...RTICLE_ID=52071
I don't believe they care too much what the world says...and so I'd pray a lot for these British captives.
And all of this was supposedly to tie in with a simultaneous "glowing" appearance at the UN by Amadinejad. Hmmm. I think the West and their defense departments could do with a few individuals studied in prophecy and fanatics to help them with their stratagizing these days!
With the US/UK/Israel openly behaving as if international law, World Court,Geneva Conventions, and UN resolutions were "quaint" and completely up to their discretion in calling forth or disregarding- we are in really big trouble now. The rest of the world now knows that the only thing that matters is power, not universal morality or absolute truths. So the game is now wide open- it didn't start with George W. but his abuse of American "interests" nakedly superceding all else, and his allowing Israel to do likewise, has basically torn up any remaining connections the world community had to rule of law/natural law when dealing with global politics.
And so, we have the Straussian neocons and the right wingnuts pumping up the volume of military might makes right- damn the torpedos full speed ahead into the abyss. Only they plan on remaining behind in their comfort zones playing with their toy soldiers, staying clear of real danger themselves- even Mccain couldn't go 5 minutes out of the Green Zone to visit a market without million dollar an hour protection- but decided to lie and say that all is quite well indeed- one can walk freely through parts of Baghdad. Really?
The solution to all of this? How about bringing our US policymakers in line with the moral law, stop with all the rotten excuses- we can try to end evil with our own evil until we are completely dead as a nation- or we can make a clean break- try something Christian for once- try to overcome the world's evils with good- instead of creating departments of marketing to convince the world we are doing good and winning hearts and minds- what a novel thing if we actually did good works, bit the bullit ourselves when the international community had a solid moral point to make concerning our side's actions, and remade America into a humble, compassionate religious nation. What would happen? Would the Islamic jihadist still find enough zealots to overrun our best defenses? According to most these Muslims are inhuman killing machines who could never change- sounds familiar- who thought the Japanese or Germans could change. Maybe if we had treated them like animals after WWII they wouldn't have changed- maybe our actions do matter??
"Would the Islamic jihadist still find enough zealots to overrun our best defenses?"
Yes.
"'I heard a commentator today say that if this had been Israel they would have already answered by taking a bunch of Iranians captive in order to make the exchange!'"
That's wishful thinking. As last summer's war demonstrates, the Israeli's have no special ability to get their hostages/prisoners freed.
Commenting by HaloScan
