Britian takes detained troop case to UN

OK, where are they? Iran is a big country and the Iranians learned something about holding hostages in 1979.

It might have to be done some day, but not over 15 British sailors. This will be settled between Britain and Iran by diplomacy since Britian doesn't have the cash for a major war and Iran doesn't have the capability win one. Iran learned something in the 10-year Iran/Iraq War which they lost miserably.

And the whole world has the side benefit of enjoying $150 a barrel oil. A shooting war in the Persian Gulf would halt all tanker traffic from the biggest oil producers in the world. It may happen yet, but it won't be over this minor incident.

This has been a PR blunder for Iran since the beginning. And they might have gotten out quickly with a quick release and a lot of rhetoric, but they have blundered again by making it into a hostage situation. Even if the sailors were in Iranian waters by a few hundred yards, international protocol would be to interrogate and release them with a stern admonition. To capture and hold them hostage is technically an act of war.

The mullah government of Iran is doing this to demonstrate to its people that Iran is a major power to be reckoned with and that they can raise the price of oil by manufacturing crises and embarrassing Western powers. But its a major blunder because the isolated Iranians don't understand how westerners think.

A mob of screaming illiterates in the street, stoning a British embassy just screams "I'm a third-word country". The crisis reminds everyone of 1979 when Iran actually took over an embassy and held diplomats hostage for over a year. No country in the world approves of a country that does not respect diplomats. Nor do they approve of a country that that does not respect their military.

Britain may make some military demonstrations to remind the Iranians just how little they bring to the table. Conquering an inflatable boat is not exactly Trafalgar. But more likely it will be the threat of more economic pressure that Britain will summon. They can get the votes in the UN Security Council and even the General Assembly right now. Iran will get more nuclear presssure and more sanctions. Already the UN has voted to prohibit any Iranian exports of weapons. This will allow any UN member who happens to have a giant, worldwide navy to legally intercept Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah. Now, there is some easy fun to be had.

It must be remembered that Iran is a fractious country with a middle class and many moderates who have been winning regional elections. Ahmadinejad could lose the next presidential elections and be replaced by a moderate again. Even among the radicals there are divisions between the religious leaders and the politicians. The very young in Iran have known nothing but revolutionary rhetoric and fairly poor lving condiditions. They crave musch of what is Western and which is forbidden by the mullahs. They don't want to die in a nuclear war over radical Islam. A new revoloution could be brewing.

Attacking Iran would just unite them all in nationalistic fervor, as did 9/11 for us and the Battle of Britain for the UK. But by embarassing their leaders and increasingly making life unpleasant in Iran, as they get fewer good in and less oil out . . . might just divide them further and the problem will take care of itself.

We need to play this one smart. Our job is to back Britain's play, whatever it is. We will rattle the sabre and the Brits will connive and politic, while their 007's incite internal troubles and their bankers and traders work to lock the Iranians out of one trade venue after another.

 

What has Iran won?

They are becoming an international pariah. They are more isolated than ever, international sanctions are being implemented. They have no one that could be called an ally. Even their oil wealth must travel through waters controlled by their enemies. They would lose a shooting war very quickly.

They have given us an excuse for ratcheting up economic and military pressures. Two carrier battle groups in the Gulf is not an accident and it's not for the Iraq War. Just how threatening is taking a rubber boat when we have power like that just offshore? The whole world sees the difference.

Iran is making a fool of itself and we should let them. Sometimes tough guys just ignore a pipsqueak. In this case, we let one of our capo's handle it.

 

It has happened, SF! This administration has violated the Geneva Convention and you really can't whitewash it. There is testimony from former prisoners from secret CIA prisons and Guantanamo who say they were tortured. The Congress actually had to prohibit the White House from endorsing the use of torture. They weren't really denying it.

Did you see the Abu Gharaib photos? Would you think it's fine if Iranians cuff an American prisoner to the wall and let a German Shepard snap at his testicles?

I'll say it again, the Golden Rule for Prisoners of War is that you treat them the way you expect your own prisoners to be treated.

In your zest to blame Bush for nothing, you're ignoring a lot of facts.

 

The White House itself advocated the use of torture, Sourdough. The Republican Congress banned torture over White House objections.

link - White House bows to pressure over torture of prisoners

Are you serious?

interrogate verb
1. to ask questions of a person, sometimes to seek answers or information that the person questioned considers personal or secret.
2. to examine by questions; question formally.
3. to ask questions officially; the right to interrogate.

torture noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
4. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

verb
1. to subject to torture.
2. to force or extort by torture

"Johnny did it first" is a schoolyard defense.

:lol: Now, I'm glad you mentioned John McCain. :lol: If you had bothered to check, you would know that the rule I speak of is not my rule--it's John McCains rule! McCain is absolutely the most outspoken critic of our treatment of prisoners. It was McCain that forced Bush to cave in on the torture ban. It is McCain that condemned Abu Ghariab and Guantanamo. Read what he thinks:

Link--Torture's Terrible Toll:
Abusive interrogation tactics produce bad intel, and undermine the values we hold dear. Why we must, as a nation, do better.
by John McCain

You have it completely wrong again. What I'm really saying is that we do what is right, good, and American no matter what the Nazis, Communists, terrorists and other murderous criminals do.

The best recent example is World War II--Germany. Germany treated our POWs by the Geneva Convention, and the German army and air force worked hard to keep them out of the hands of the Nazis. We treated German prisoners very well. Many German POW trustees were allowed to do day work on local farms and other jobs unguarded. Some were even allowed to go into town on Saturday night to see a movie.

No I haven't and you are missing the point entirely. What I've said very clearly that America should not base it's prisoner policy on what criminals and genocidal maniacs do. It's very simple.