Where Is Thatcher & Reagan When You Need Them?

[franko]

habsaddict said:

machabby said:

After Ahmadinejad's news conference, state television showed him meeting with the British crew, who were dressed in business suits, outside the presidential palace. He shook hands and chatted with them through a translator, and a caption to the video said the meeting was taking place as part of the "process of release."

"We appreciate it. Your people have been really kind to us, and we appreciate it very much," one of the crew could be heard telling Ahmadinejad in English.

Another said: "We are grateful for your forgiveness."

Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi, "You are welcome."

You do realize that they are suppose to say that. Right?

It use to be name rank and serial number but now it has changed to "stay alive until we get you".

"We are grateful for your forgiveness." and for keeping us alive?

[franko]

habsaddict said:

Could it be because......

There are three carrier groups ready to go and Russian military are warning Iranians that attack is imminent?

I don't think so. More likely because their point was made: the imperialist western dogs are not invincible and by releasing the prisoners they look nicey-nicey [before looking back to their prime target Israel]

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

machabby said:

After Ahmadinejad's news conference, state television showed him meeting with the British crew, who were dressed in business suits, outside the presidential palace. He shook hands and chatted with them through a translator, and a caption to the video said the meeting was taking place as part of the "process of release."

"We appreciate it. Your people have been really kind to us, and we appreciate it very much," one of the crew could be heard telling Ahmadinejad in English.

Another said: "We are grateful for your forgiveness."

Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi, "You are welcome."

You do realize that they are suppose to say that. Right?

It use to be name rank and serial number but now it has changed to "stay alive until we get you".

Whether or not it was sincere (which we might find out once they are home), Iran comes off looking pretty good, having successfully pulled off a great PR move.

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

franko said:

Question: sincere? I'd prefer to think so. Some will suggest otherwise.

Your not serious.....or are you?

Monkey boy is SO NICE. I mean, first he sends out a huge snatch squad to kidnap people at gun point and then he parades his prisoners and now he sends them home. Have you ever seen a kinder, gentler, more forgiving person then that?

"Kidnap people at gun point?" Are you serious? MARINES were ARRESTED because they were (not they "allegedly were" - they were) in DISPUTED WATERS. And, unlike the people that the US "kidnaps" they *have* been released, and they do not appear to have been beaten, tortured, or humiliated. In fact, they even got new suits out of it. With the shining example that the US has set for how to treat detainees, they've made it pretty easy for Iran to come off looking like nice guys by comparison.

[Skilly]

machabby said:

habsaddict said:

Your not serious.....or are you?

Monkey boy is SO NICE. I mean, first he sends out a huge snatch squad to kidnap people at gun point and then he parades his prisoners and now he sends them home. Have you ever seen a kinder, gentler, more forgiving person then that?

"Kidnap people at gun point?" Are you serious? MARINES were ARRESTED because they were (not they "allegedly were" - they were) in DISPUTED WATERS. And, unlike the people that the US "kidnaps" they *have* been released, and they do not appear to have been beaten, tortured, or humiliated. In fact, they even got new suits out of it. With the shining example that the US has set for how to treat detainees, they've made it pretty easy for Iran to come off looking like nice guys by comparison.

Disputed waters are not Iranian waters. There are ways to settle the border issues, but since no country can lay claim to disputed waters, then how can any country claim trespass in disputed waters

Little known fact for the rest of Canada. We have a border dispute. The Privy Council set the provincial border between NL and Que. Quebec has never formally accepted the decision of the privy council and on their government website they still include a major chunk of Labrador to be theirs. Soooo even though we have had it resolved legally (but one party decides to neglect it) can Quebec just snatch anybody who goes on that piece of land?? I mean in their mind it is a disputed border.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

machabby said:

"Kidnap people at gun point?" Are you serious? MARINES were ARRESTED because they were (not they "allegedly were" - they were) in DISPUTED WATERS. And, unlike the people that the US "kidnaps" they *have* been released, and they do not appear to have been beaten, tortured, or humiliated. In fact, they even got new suits out of it. With the shining example that the US has set for how to treat detainees, they've made it pretty easy for Iran to come off looking like nice guys by comparison.

Disputed waters are not Iranian waters. There are ways to settle the border issues, but since no country can lay claim to disputed waters, then how can any country claim trespass in disputed waters

It's not that unusual for people to be arrested in disputed waters.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habsaddict said:

Your not serious.....or are you?

Monkey boy is SO NICE. I mean, first he sends out a huge snatch squad to kidnap people at gun point and then he parades his prisoners and now he sends them home. Have you ever seen a kinder, gentler, more forgiving person then that?

Oh yeah....I have a picture of one....of Uncle Adolf.

I'm really trying to see the good in this situation, HA. However, you have to remember this image.



I honestly don't know if there is a war armada waiting in the Gulf. But, if this guy is ready to hand over his prisoners this quickly there has to be something going on elsewhere that we don't know about.

I remember before the '91 Gulf War when James Baker tried to pass a paper to Hazize (sp?). He refused it but the skinny was that the document contained the grids to all of the key government/military offices, buildings, et al.

Be that as it may, good on Iran. Regardless of the motivation they did the right thing.

Cheers.

[BadCompany]

That "something" was, in effect, a regular prisoner exchange;

But the release of the Britons could also mean that Iran has achieved some of its objectives. The surprise announcement came just a day after the sudden release of an abducted Iranian diplomat in Iraq, who Iranian officials claimed had been arrested on U.S. orders. British, American and Iraqi officials denied any connection between the freed Iranian and release of the Britons. Iran also disclosed on Wednesday that its embassy in Iraq had finally been granted access to the five Iranians detained at Erbil.

Time

[Disgruntled70sHab]

badcompany said:

That "something" was, in effect, a regular prisoner exchange;

But the release of the Britons could also mean that Iran has achieved some of its objectives. The surprise announcement came just a day after the sudden release of an abducted Iranian diplomat in Iraq, who Iranian officials claimed had been arrested on U.S. orders. British, American and Iraqi officials denied any connection between the freed Iranian and release of the Britons. Iran also disclosed on Wednesday that its embassy in Iraq had finally been granted access to the five Iranians detained at Erbil.

Time

Thanks BC, I'm having problems loading the NY Times page here at work. But, I will make sure to give it a once-over when I can access it.

Not sure how informed these sources are, but I did find this in the last paragraph from a CBC article.

Analysts believe Ahmadinejad freed the British sailors and marines on Wednesday at the urging of the Islamic republic's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, who decided the crisis was getting out of hand.

CBC

Also from CTV:

"I think that what has actually happened is we've managed to secure the release of our personnel, I think more quickly than many people had anticipated, and have done so incidentally -- and I want to make this very, very clear -- without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature whatever."

Like I said, I haven't read the Times article yet and I don't know how good these media sources are. Might be updated later.

Cheers.

[BadCompany]

disgruntled70shab said:

Thanks BC, I'm having problems loading the NY Times page here at work. But, I will make sure to give it a once-over when I can access it.

Not sure how informed these sources are, but I did find this in the last paragraph from a CBC article.

Analysts believe Ahmadinejad freed the British sailors and marines on Wednesday at the urging of the Islamic republic's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, who decided the crisis was getting out of hand.

CBC

Also from CTV:

"I think that what has actually happened is we've managed to secure the release of our personnel, I think more quickly than many people had anticipated, and have done so incidentally -- and I want to make this very, very clear -- without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature whatever."

Like I said, I haven't read the Times article yet and I don't know how good these media sources are. Might be updated later.

Cheers.

As I have said in the past, you have to be really careful when dealing with the Iranians, because your first inclination is to view them as a bunch of raving lunatics, when in reality they are quite capable of playing power politics, and are masters at international manipulation. I also think you have to very careful when it comes to listening to the “spin” put on things by the Western media and Western leaders. They’ll put their positive spin on things, just as the Iranians will put their positive spin on things.

So our first inclination is to think “oh yeah, they caved, carrier groups and everything, look at them shake and quiver!” But I don’t think that’s the case. First of all, they succeeded in getting their diplomat released, and even if the two events were unrelated you can bet your bottom dollar the Iranians won’t play it that way. Second of all, they stage managed the whole spectacle like master circus directors, pushing and all pulling all the right buttons and levers in spectacular fashion.

Think about it; what would have been the ultimate West vs. East provocation? How about dressing up those British soldiers in orange jump suits, blindfolding them, maybe water-boarding them a little bit, have them kneel in stress positions, etcetera, and etcetera. Not only would that have enraged the West, but it would have inflamed the passions of the more radical Islamists in the Middle East (and the not-so radical), because the comparisons to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo would have been obvious. And every Muslim would be thinking “hey, if they can do it to us…” This is probably what many people expected the Iranians to do, what with them being raving lunatics and all.

Instead, and oh my gosh, they somehow managed to maneuver their way onto the high ground. WE may not think they have the high ground, but then WE don’t really matter, now do we? What matters is what has always mattered to the Iranians, winning regional hegemony, and they just took another step closer to winning the hearts and minds of the local peoples. “Look at how we treat OUR prisoners… nice track suits, comfortable living conditions, no abuse… heck, they even got to meet our leader!” (And what a surreal spectacle that was!) And then he releases them, as an Easter gift?? EASTER?? The holiest Christian holiday of them all? How magnanimous!

We always ask “how will this play in middle America?” Well, I ask “how will this play in middle Middle East?”

* The Iranians stood up and defended their “borders” (and Islam) from a foreign power that many consider to be just a bunch of Crusaders anyways (nice choice of words, Mr. Bush).

* Instead of torturing and mistreating its prisoners, they are treated with tolerance and respect. Contrasted with the way Islamic prisoners are treated when they are captured. See? The Iranians ARE better than the West.

* Diplomatic pressure is put on the British and Americans to release an Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Iraq, and is actually successful (remember, we’re asking how it’s playing in middle Middle East, not Kansas). The imperialist giants caved. 15 British soldiers for 1 Iranian diplomat.

* The prisoners are granted amnesty as an Easter gift! “We’ll let you go so you can go commemorate the death of Jesus Christ. We don’t particularly believe that crap, but hey, we’re a tolerant, respectful bunch, are we not?”

Almost a year ago now, there was wide-spread speculation that Israel and/or the US was about to bomb the Iranian nuclear program into finite particles of dust. Instead, using a whole bunch of geo-political moves, dances, feints, bobs, weaves and rope-a-dopes, the Iranians have kept their program going. How much closer are they now, with 8 months of unfettered research and development under their belts?

As someone noted above, in Iran EVERYTHING is politics. Don’t be mislead by this incident into thinking there is a simplistic answer to what just happened (“big, bad, carrier group, oh yeah”), because you’d be making a huge mistake, in my opinion. The Iranians ARE winning this battle (so far), and they are doing it by playing off the misconceptions we have of them, that they are incapable of strategic, long-term, and dare I say brilliant foreign policy. They’ll play the “raving lunatics” card when it suits them, but from what I can see they’ve bought themselves almost a year of nuclear research, and a whole lot of hearts and minds in the regions. Did anybody else notice how NO Middle East leader denounced their snatching of those British sailors? It would have been political suicide (if not actual suicide) for them to do so. Because in middle Middle East, the Iranians did all right…

[Disgruntled70sHab]

badcompany said:

disgruntled70shab said:

Thanks BC, I'm having problems loading the NY Times page here at work. But, I will make sure to give it a once-over when I can access it.

Not sure how informed these sources are, but I did find this in the last paragraph from a CBC article.

Analysts believe Ahmadinejad freed the British sailors and marines on Wednesday at the urging of the Islamic republic's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, who decided the crisis was getting out of hand.

CBC

Also from CTV:

"I think that what has actually happened is we've managed to secure the release of our personnel, I think more quickly than many people had anticipated, and have done so incidentally -- and I want to make this very, very clear -- without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature whatever."

Like I said, I haven't read the Times article yet and I don't know how good these media sources are. Might be updated later.

Cheers.

As I have said in the past, you have to be really careful when dealing with the Iranians, because your first inclination is to view them as a bunch of raving lunatics, when in reality they are quite capable of playing power politics, and are masters at international manipulation. I also think you have to very careful when it comes to listening to the “spin” put on things by the Western media and Western leaders. They’ll put their positive spin on things, just as the Iranians will put their positive spin on things.

So our first inclination is to think “oh yeah, they caved, carrier groups and everything, look at them shake and quiver!” But I don’t think that’s the case. First of all, they succeeded in getting their diplomat released, and even if the two events were unrelated you can bet your bottom dollar the Iranians won’t play it that way. Second of all, they stage managed the whole spectacle like master circus directors, pushing and all pulling all the right buttons and levers in spectacular fashion.

Think about it; what would have been the ultimate West vs. East provocation? How about dressing up those British soldiers in orange jump suits, blindfolding them, maybe water-boarding them a little bit, have them kneel in stress positions, etcetera, and etcetera. Not only would that have enraged the West, but it would have inflamed the passions of the more radical Islamists in the Middle East (and the not-so radical), because the comparisons to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo would have been obvious. And every Muslim would be thinking “hey, if they can do it to us…” This is probably what many people expected the Iranians to do, what with them being raving lunatics and all.

Instead, and oh my gosh, they somehow managed to maneuver their way onto the high ground. WE may not think they have the high ground, but then WE don’t really matter, now do we? What matters is what has always mattered to the Iranians, winning regional hegemony, and they just took another step closer to winning the hearts and minds of the local peoples. “Look at how we treat OUR prisoners… nice track suits, comfortable living conditions, no abuse… heck, they even got to meet our leader!” (And what a surreal spectacle that was!) And then he releases them, as an Easter gift?? EASTER?? The holiest Christian holiday of them all? How magnanimous!

We always ask “how will this play in middle America?” Well, I ask “how will this play in middle Middle East?”

* The Iranians stood up and defended their “borders” (and Islam) from a foreign power that many consider to be just a bunch of Crusaders anyways (nice choice of words, Mr. Bush).

* Instead of torturing and mistreating its prisoners, they are treated with tolerance and respect. Contrasted with the way Islamic prisoners are treated when they are captured. See? The Iranians ARE better than the West.

* Diplomatic pressure is put on the British and Americans to release an Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Iraq, and is actually successful (remember, we’re asking how it’s playing in middle Middle East, not Kansas). The imperialist giants caved. 15 British soldiers for 1 Iranian diplomat.

* The prisoners are granted amnesty as an Easter gift! “We’ll let you go so you can go commemorate the death of Jesus Christ. We don’t particularly believe that crap, but hey, we’re a tolerant, respectful bunch, are we not?”

Almost a year ago now, there was wide-spread speculation that Israel and/or the US was about to bomb the Iranian nuclear program into finite particles of dust. Instead, using a whole bunch of geo-political moves, dances, feints, bobs, weaves and rope-a-dopes, the Iranians have kept their program going. How much closer are they now, with 8 months of unfettered research and development under their belts?

As someone noted above, in Iran EVERYTHING is politics. Don’t be mislead by this incident into thinking there is a simplistic answer to what just happened (“big, bad, carrier group, oh yeah”), because you’d be making a huge mistake, in my opinion. The Iranians ARE winning this battle (so far), and they are doing it by playing off the misconceptions we have of them, that they are incapable of strategic, long-term, and dare I say brilliant foreign policy. They’ll play the “raving lunatics” card when it suits them, but from what I can see they’ve bought themselves almost a year of nuclear research, and a whole lot of hearts and minds in the regions. Did anybody else notice how NO Middle East leader denounced their snatching of those British sailors? It would have been political suicide (if not actual suicide) for them to do so. Because in middle Middle East, the Iranians did all right…

Thanks BC. Points well taken. Good to get all of the cards, all of the perspectives, on the table.

I'm finally able to access the NY Times article you linked to. What I was unable to find was the reference to the prisoner exchange. They were granted access to the five Iranians detained but that was it. However, this is what jumped out at me in it:

Iran's sudden decision to release the Britons may mean that the Western pressure on the Iranian regime is bearing fruit. A day after the Britons were taken captive, the U.N. Security Council passed the second set of sanctions against Iran in three months — and a third round of sanctions is anticipated if Iran does not freeze its uranium-enrichment program, which the U.S. fears could enable Tehran to produce a nuclear weapon. As Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns told the Senate last week, "Despite the fulminations of President Ahmadinejad, Iran is not impervious to financial and diplomatic pressure."

I think this, maybe combined with supposed pressure from Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, could have swayed the decision to resolve this quickly and without the need for useless sabre rattling. And if the Ayatollah is involved behind the scenes, he must understand what additional embargoes will do to his country and his people.

As I was saying to HA, I honestly don't know if there's a war armada in the Gulf region. However, it would make sense if there was. If you're going to impose and enforce embargoes on a country, there has to be some military presence in the area. While I don't know the composition, I think a combination of all three elements, air (the presence), sea (the Gulf) and land (borders), would be involved.

I think you're right when you point out how well treated the prisoners were. They weren't subjected to the same indecencies that Muslim men were in Abu Ghraib prison. This is a major trump card in their favour. If nothing else it may suggest to an oft-critical Western mindset, that while Iranians have different customs, they are indeed a civilized culture.

What I also read in your link was that both Iranian and British diplomats were in constant contact with each other as this situation developed. What was said is probably on a "need to know basis." But, at least they were talking and, you know yourself, there's been far too little of that since the Coalition of the Willing went into Iraq.

Still very leery about that nuclear program, BC. Not comfortable with that at all. Maybe the embargoes will change their mind. Hope so. Don't like the alternatives. As the article concludes:

The question, now, is whether Larijani can achieve the same success in guiding Tehran to a compromise in Iran's nuclear showdown — and whether the U.S., following Britain's example, is willing to give diplomacy a real chance.

Right!

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

disgruntled70shab said:

Thanks BC, I'm having problems loading the NY Times page here at work. But, I will make sure to give it a once-over when I can access it.

Not sure how informed these sources are, but I did find this in the last paragraph from a CBC article.

Analysts believe Ahmadinejad freed the British sailors and marines on Wednesday at the urging of the Islamic republic's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, who decided the crisis was getting out of hand.

CBC

Also from CTV:

"I think that what has actually happened is we've managed to secure the release of our personnel, I think more quickly than many people had anticipated, and have done so incidentally -- and I want to make this very, very clear -- without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature whatever."

Like I said, I haven't read the Times article yet and I don't know how good these media sources are. Might be updated later.

Cheers.

As I have said in the past, you have to be really careful when dealing with the Iranians, because your first inclination is to view them as a bunch of raving lunatics, when in reality they are quite capable of playing power politics, and are masters at international manipulation. I also think you have to very careful when it comes to listening to the “spin” put on things by the Western media and Western leaders. They’ll put their positive spin on things, just as the Iranians will put their positive spin on things.

So our first inclination is to think “oh yeah, they caved, carrier groups and everything, look at them shake and quiver!” But I don’t think that’s the case. First of all, they succeeded in getting their diplomat released, and even if the two events were unrelated you can bet your bottom dollar the Iranians won’t play it that way. Second of all, they stage managed the whole spectacle like master circus directors, pushing and all pulling all the right buttons and levers in spectacular fashion.

Think about it; what would have been the ultimate West vs. East provocation? How about dressing up those British soldiers in orange jump suits, blindfolding them, maybe water-boarding them a little bit, have them kneel in stress positions, etcetera, and etcetera. Not only would that have enraged the West, but it would have inflamed the passions of the more radical Islamists in the Middle East (and the not-so radical), because the comparisons to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo would have been obvious. And every Muslim would be thinking “hey, if they can do it to us…” This is probably what many people expected the Iranians to do, what with them being raving lunatics and all.

Instead, and oh my gosh, they somehow managed to maneuver their way onto the high ground. WE may not think they have the high ground, but then WE don’t really matter, now do we? What matters is what has always mattered to the Iranians, winning regional hegemony, and they just took another step closer to winning the hearts and minds of the local peoples. “Look at how we treat OUR prisoners… nice track suits, comfortable living conditions, no abuse… heck, they even got to meet our leader!” (And what a surreal spectacle that was!) And then he releases them, as an Easter gift?? EASTER?? The holiest Christian holiday of them all? How magnanimous!

We always ask “how will this play in middle America?” Well, I ask “how will this play in middle Middle East?”

* The Iranians stood up and defended their “borders” (and Islam) from a foreign power that many consider to be just a bunch of Crusaders anyways (nice choice of words, Mr. Bush).

* Instead of torturing and mistreating its prisoners, they are treated with tolerance and respect. Contrasted with the way Islamic prisoners are treated when they are captured. See? The Iranians ARE better than the West.

* Diplomatic pressure is put on the British and Americans to release an Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Iraq, and is actually successful (remember, we’re asking how it’s playing in middle Middle East, not Kansas). The imperialist giants caved. 15 British soldiers for 1 Iranian diplomat.

* The prisoners are granted amnesty as an Easter gift! “We’ll let you go so you can go commemorate the death of Jesus Christ. We don’t particularly believe that crap, but hey, we’re a tolerant, respectful bunch, are we not?”

Almost a year ago now, there was wide-spread speculation that Israel and/or the US was about to bomb the Iranian nuclear program into finite particles of dust. Instead, using a whole bunch of geo-political moves, dances, feints, bobs, weaves and rope-a-dopes, the Iranians have kept their program going. How much closer are they now, with 8 months of unfettered research and development under their belts?

As someone noted above, in Iran EVERYTHING is politics. Don’t be mislead by this incident into thinking there is a simplistic answer to what just happened (“big, bad, carrier group, oh yeah”), because you’d be making a huge mistake, in my opinion. The Iranians ARE winning this battle (so far), and they are doing it by playing off the misconceptions we have of them, that they are incapable of strategic, long-term, and dare I say brilliant foreign policy. They’ll play the “raving lunatics” card when it suits them, but from what I can see they’ve bought themselves almost a year of nuclear research, and a whole lot of hearts and minds in the regions. Did anybody else notice how NO Middle East leader denounced their snatching of those British sailors? It would have been political suicide (if not actual suicide) for them to do so. Because in middle Middle East, the Iranians did all right…

Anything can be spun and it looks like we are doing most of the spinning. It's even scarier when the media start to put a positive spin on this. How can this be UNLESS the media gives the masses the peace of mind that they want.

Maybe I am from a different era but we seen to have grown very understanding and very complicit. Or perhaps our fat life style is built on caring about today and hoping that tomorrow can take care of itself. I see China with a definate long term plan, Russia has a definite long term plan, the West has politicians who want to get elected and the Western masses who want to gorge themselves on luxury.

[BadCompany]

habsaddict said:

Anything can be spun and it looks like we are doing most of the spinning. It's even scarier when the media start to put a positive spin on this. How can this be UNLESS the media gives the masses the peace of mind that they want.

Maybe I am from a different era but we seen to have grown very understanding and very complicit. Or perhaps our fat life style is built on caring about today and hoping that tomorrow can take care of itself. I see China with a definate long term plan, Russia has a definite long term plan, the West has politicians who want to get elected and the Western masses who want to gorge themselves on luxury.

The dangers of a democracy. Politicians care very little about anything longer than 4 years from now. "Fix the bridges? Why? That will cost money, and I'm running on a 'cut spending' platform... as long as they don't collapse while I'm in power, I'm quite content to let the next guy deal with it."

I've always thought that perhaps the best form of government would be the elected dictator. Absolute power, for 10 years, and then your gone...

EDIT: And don't forget the Indians... they have long term plans as well...

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

habsaddict said:

Anything can be spun and it looks like we are doing most of the spinning. It's even scarier when the media start to put a positive spin on this. How can this be UNLESS the media gives the masses the peace of mind that they want.

Maybe I am from a different era but we seen to have grown very understanding and very complicit. Or perhaps our fat life style is built on caring about today and hoping that tomorrow can take care of itself. I see China with a definate long term plan, Russia has a definite long term plan, the West has politicians who want to get elected and the Western masses who want to gorge themselves on luxury.

The dangers of a democracy. Politicians care very little about anything longer than 4 years from now. "Fix the bridges? Why? That will cost money, and I'm running on a 'cut spending' platform... as long as they don't collapse while I'm in power, I'm quite content to let the next guy deal with it."

I've always thought that perhaps the best form of government would be the elected dictator. Absolute power, for 10 years, and then your gone...

But would you vote for me? LOL

Where the hell would you find a man that has enough brains to run the country for ten years? Which current politician could you possibly imagine in this role?

[BadCompany]

habsaddict said:

badcompany said:

The dangers of a democracy. Politicians care very little about anything longer than 4 years from now. "Fix the bridges? Why? That will cost money, and I'm running on a 'cut spending' platform... as long as they don't collapse while I'm in power, I'm quite content to let the next guy deal with it."

I've always thought that perhaps the best form of government would be the elected dictator. Absolute power, for 10 years, and then your gone...

But would you vote for me? LOL

Where the hell would you find a man that has enough brains to run the country for ten years? Which current politician could you possibly imagine in this role?

Would really make it that much more imperative that you pay attention to who you are voting for, wouldn't it?

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

habsaddict said:

But would you vote for me? LOL

Where the hell would you find a man that has enough brains to run the country for ten years? Which current politician could you possibly imagine in this role?

Would really make it that much more imperative that you pay attention to who you are voting for, wouldn't it?

It would but you avdided the dirty question......

From all our current politicians, who would you consider as the best 10 year Dictator? Who could make the hard choices and think nothing about body bags if need be? Build a society for the people and not the corporations? Nationalize oil comnpanies and energy companies? Develop a country wide energy plan? Tell all the self important, self centered provinces that they are quaranteed their culture and a fair deal but shut the f*ck up.

WHO?

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

badcompany said:

Would really make it that much more imperative that you pay attention to who you are voting for, wouldn't it?

It would but you avdided the dirty question......

From all our current politicians, who would you consider as the best 10 year Dictator? Who could make the hard choices and think nothing about body bags if need be? Build a society for the people and not the corporations? Nationalize oil comnpanies and energy companies? Develop a country wide energy plan? Tell all the self important, self centered provinces that they are quaranteed their culture and a fair deal but shut the f*ck up.

WHO?

No Canadians spring to mind, but if I were an American (*shudders* ) and had to choose a 10 year dictator, I could be happy enough with Ralph Nader. He's intelligent, has a coherent position, and has devoted his life to trying to make the world better. If he were greedy, and self-centered like most politicians he'd be a Democrat so that he'd have a chance of actually being elected.

[duster]

There is a country with a so-called democratic model where the incumbent ultimately remains in power for 10 years or so and that is France. A President, once elected, is almost impossible to remove during his ten year tenure, so he is a dictator for all practical purposes perhaps much more so than in the U.S. where the Executive has to answer to Congress. In many ways, BC is right since this model allows a certain coherency in foreign and domestic policy, not to mention the ability to implement durable change.

The problem with the model is it's easy to abuse and turn it into a quasi permanent dictatorship as did De Gaulle and Pompidou. Mubarrak in Egypt is a another example. To my knowledge, the last "elected" dictator that had the welfare of the people truly at heart was likely Pisistratus, if not Pericles.

[franko]

duster said:

Pericles.

habsaddict said:

But would you vote for me? LOL

What have Greeks ever brought to the world? ;D

[Cranky]

BC, you still think that this was a "victory" by Iran? It has done nothing but turn world and particularly Western public opinion against Iran. Iranian actions may play well in Syria and Yemen but frankly, who gives a toss about those holes.

The sooner Iran nuclear and Empire ambitions are smoking holes, the better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/world/europe/07britain.html?pagewanted=2&_r=5&ref=world
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Britons Say They Feared for Lives in Iran Captivity

LONDON, April 6 — Their greatest scare, they recalled, came on the second day, when they were flown to Tehran, blindfolded and backed up against a prison wall while their Iranian captors fiddled with weapons, cocking rifles and making them fear for their lives.

Freed Sailors and Marines: ‘We All Wanted to Get Home’ (April 6, 2007)
Envoy Says Iran Showed ‘Goodwill’ by Releasing Captives (April 7, 2007) “We thought we were going to the British Embassy but we got taken to a detention center," said Royal Marine Joe Tindell, 21, one of 15 British sailors and marines seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guards in disputed waters in the Persian Gulf on March 23.

At the detention center, the mood turned drastically, as their captors changed from military dress into all black, their faces covered.

“We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall,” Royal Marine Tindell said in an interview with the BBC. “Someone, I’m not sure who, someone said, I quote, ‘Lads, lads, I think we’re going to get executed.’

“After that comment someone was sick, and as far as I was concerned he had just had his throat cut. From there we were rushed to a room, quick photo, and then stuffed into a cell and didn’t see or speak to anyone for six days.”

It was the beginning of days of psychological pressure that would ultimately extract televised “confessions” from some of the Britons that they had strayed into Iranian waters. The admissions tempered for some the joy at their safe return home to their families, with some military analysts expressing dismay that the sailors and marines had capitulated to their captors’ demands.

“It was highly damaging that all of them apologized publicly for something they had not done,” said Sir Max Hastings, a military historian and former newspaper editor, in a BBC radio interview on Friday, comparing the Britons unfavorably to American pilots who withstood much crueler treatment in North Vietnam for much longer.

But the captives defended their decision to play along with their captors, saying they were subjected to a determined campaign of psychological intimidation. They were separated, stripped, put in pajamas and placed in small stone cells in complete isolation — not permitted even a whispered word with a fellow captive, they said. The lone woman among them was tricked into believing the men had all been released.

“There was a lot of trickery, and mind games being played,” Lt. Felix Carman, 26, of the Royal Navy, said when six of the Britons, freed two days ago, appeared at a news conference on Friday to chronicle for the first time in public a 14-day ordeal that began, by their account, when Iranian Revolutionary Guards apprehended them in Iraqi waters, executing what seemed a planned and heavily armed ambush.

“We were interrogated most nights, and presented with two options,” Lieutenant Carman said. “If we admitted we had strayed, we would be on a plane back to the U.K. soon. If we didn’t we faced up to seven years in prison.”

None of them was told that, in the world outside, their incarceration had become a test of British and Iranian wills in which Iran depicted itself as a magnanimous victor — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday called their release a “gift” to Britain.

The news conference at a Royal Marines base at Chivenor, southwestern England, seemed intended as much to deny Iran’s depiction of the episode as to allow the sailors and marines a chance to recant what Iran called their confessions of guilt.

Yet, just as Britain had called their televised “confessions” stage-managed, the Iranian authorities dismissed Friday’s news conference as a propaganda exercise that did nothing to exonerate the British forces.

“Transferring the sailors to military bases immediately after their arrival, dictating to them their orders and the planned coverage of the press conference by British and American media cannot change the documents that show the sailors had entered the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, said in a statement.

But Iran received its share of criticism at home, as well. The reformist daily newspaper Etemad faulted the government for not milking the crisis for greater diplomatic advantage, particularly by using it to gain the release of Iranians held in Iraq. “Maybe Iran could get some advantages during the talks and end its complicated problems with the other side,” a column in Thursday’s paper said.

Another reformist newspaper, Aftab-e-Yazd, criticized the government’s timing, saying that if it was planning to release the Britons, it should have done so earlier instead of immediately after a warning from Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The haste with which British authorities arranged the news conference suggested that they wanted to deny Iran the propaganda victory it garnered from releasing the British personnel, who indeed affirmed that they had been in Iraqi, not Iranian waters. “I can clearly state that we were 1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters,” Lieutenant Carman said.

Reading from a written statement, Lieutenant Carman and Royal Marine Capt. Chris Air, 25, described how two Iranian speedboats closed on two British inflatable patrol boats after the personnel had boarded an Indian-flagged vessel, seeking contraband. Theirs was the first direct explanation of why the Britons did not resist capture.

“Some of the Iranian sailors were becoming deliberately aggressive and unstable,” Captain Air said. “They rammed our boat and trained their heavy machine guns, R.P.G.’s and weapons on us. Another six boats were closing in on us,” he said, referring to rocket-propelled grenades by their initials.

“We realized that our efforts to reason with these people were not making any headway. Nor were we able to calm some of the individuals down.

“It was at this point that we realized that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won, with consequences that would have had major strategic impact. We made a conscious decision to not engage the Iranians and do as they asked. They boarded our boats, removed our weapons and steered the boats towards the Iranian shore.”

“Let me be absolutely clear,” Captain Air said. “From the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was simply not an option. Had we chosen to do so then many of us would not be standing here today. Of that I have no doubts.”

On Friday, the Royal Navy supported the decision not to fight. “I would not agree at all that it was not our finest hour,” Adm. Sir Jonathon Band, Britain’s most senior naval officer, told the BBC on Friday. “I think our people have reacted extremely well in some very difficult circumstances.”

At the news conference, Lieutenant Carman, reading from the same prepared statement as Captain Air, took up the story of their detention.

The group, he said, had first been taken to a small naval base where they were blindfolded, stripped of their military gear and uniforms, and “led to a room where I declared myself as the officer in charge and was introduced to a local commander.

Two hours later we were moved to a second location and throughout the night were subjected to random interrogations. The questions were aggressive and the handling rough, but it was no worse than that.”

Iranian television showed the Britons seemingly relaxing together, but Lieutenant Carman said these images were made only in the final days of their captivity when they were allowed “to gather for a few hours together, in the full glare of Iranian media.”

“On Day 12 we were taken to a governmental complex, blindfolded and then given three-piece suits to wear,” Lieutenant Carman said. It was only when they watched a news conference in Tehran the next day, a Wednesday, when Mr. Ahmadinejad announced they would be freed, that they realized they would finally be sent home unharmed, he said


~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Americans offered to be "more aggressive" with Republican Guard outposts but the Brits asked them not to. Now that they are freed, you can bet that the Yanks are going to scorche ANYTHING and ANYONE that comes close to them.

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

“We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall,” Royal Marine Tindell said in an interview with the BBC. “Someone, I’m not sure who, someone said, I quote, ‘Lads, lads, I think we’re going to get executed.’

“After that comment someone was sick, and as far as I was concerned he had just had his throat cut. From there we were rushed to a room, quick photo, and then stuffed into a cell and didn’t see or speak to anyone for six days.”

And you just assume they weren't told to say these things....

habsaddict said:

BC, you still think that this was a "victory" by Iran? It has done nothing but turn world and particularly Western public opinion against Iran. Iranian actions may play well in Syria and Yemen but frankly, who gives a toss about those holes.

This kind of attitude is exactly the reason the world is in the state that its in. The faster we all convince ourselves that it doesn't matter what people "over there" believe, that their lives are less valuable than ours, that they are "pure evil," the faster we rush towards our mutual destruction.

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

The haste with which British authorities arranged the news conference suggested that they wanted to deny Iran the propaganda victory it garnered from releasing the British personnel, who indeed affirmed that they had been in Iraqi, not Iranian waters. “I can clearly state that we were 1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters,” Lieutenant Carman said.

Is nobody else bothered by the fact that the NY Times is printing these lies unchecked? There's not even a mention of the fact that the border is disputed between Iran and Iraq, which makes the above statement BS. This is just government propaganda and the Times doesn't have the journalistic integrity to even point it out. The mainstream media is in an awfully sorry state.

[Cranky]

machabby said:

habsaddict said:

“We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall,” Royal Marine Tindell said in an interview with the BBC. “Someone, I’m not sure who, someone said, I quote, ‘Lads, lads, I think we’re going to get executed.’

“After that comment someone was sick, and as far as I was concerned he had just had his throat cut. From there we were rushed to a room, quick photo, and then stuffed into a cell and didn’t see or speak to anyone for six days.”

And you just assume they weren't told to say these things.....

Sure they were. And they were also told to believe in Santa Claus. I guess everyone in British government is an idiot and they would assume that if they told people what to say that it would not come out in the papers.

[Cranky]

machabby said:

habsaddict said:

The haste with which British authorities arranged the news conference suggested that they wanted to deny Iran the propaganda victory it garnered from releasing the British personnel, who indeed affirmed that they had been in Iraqi, not Iranian waters. “I can clearly state that we were 1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters,” Lieutenant Carman said.

Is nobody else bothered by the fact that the NY Times is printing these lies unchecked? There's not even a mention of the fact that the border is disputed between Iran and Iraq, which makes the above statement BS. This is just government propaganda and the Times doesn't have the journalistic integrity to even point it out. The mainstream media is in an awfully sorry state.

Damn New York Times, if it wasn't for their nudies, they would be just another paper. I am actually looking forward to reading the real news from the Tehran Times.

Every paper and news media has thee same story with slight variations.

[BadCompany]

habsaddict said:

BC, you still think that this was a "victory" by Iran? It has done nothing but turn world and particularly Western public opinion against Iran. Iranian actions may play well in Syria and Yemen but frankly, who gives a toss about those holes.

HA do you REALLY think Iran gives a rat's you-know-what about what anybody thinks in the West, or the rest of the world? You've said it yourself numerous times, their after regional hegomony, which will give them (greater) control of the world. And places like Syria and Yemen ARE the holes they're trying to impress.

The more uneducated, fanatical, desperate and stupid young men they can influence from THOSE regions, well, the more fanatical, desperate and stupid young men they can throw at the west, no?

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

habsaddict said:

BC, you still think that this was a "victory" by Iran? It has done nothing but turn world and particularly Western public opinion against Iran. Iranian actions may play well in Syria and Yemen but frankly, who gives a toss about those holes.

HA do you REALLY think Iran gives a rat's you-know-what about what anybody thinks in the West, or the rest of the world? You've said it yourself numerous times, their after regional hegomony, which will give them (greater) control of the world. And places like Syria and Yemen ARE the holes they're trying to impress.

The more uneducated, fanatical, desperate and stupid young men they can influence from THOSE regions, well, the more fanatical, desperate and stupid young men they can throw at the west, no?

I know BC, but ANYTHING that jars Western people out of their "eat now, buy more, pay later" lifestyles is better then nothing. With all due respect to those sailors, I was hoping and dreaming that Iran would spark the Sarajevo moment. While I don't want Iranian people dying, a nuclear Middle East is a guarantee of endless nightmares.

My only hope now rests with Netayanhu. He has no illusions what is at stake here and he has no problem dealing with it. I hope.....

[Disgruntled70sHab]

badcompany said:

habsaddict said:

BC, you still think that this was a "victory" by Iran? It has done nothing but turn world and particularly Western public opinion against Iran. Iranian actions may play well in Syria and Yemen but frankly, who gives a toss about those holes.

HA do you REALLY think Iran gives a rat's you-know-what about what anybody thinks in the West, or the rest of the world? You've said it yourself numerous times, their after regional hegomony, which will give them (greater) control of the world. And places like Syria and Yemen ARE the holes they're trying to impress.

The common "Muhammad-Q-citizen" only knows what their clerics tell them, or what they're taught in religious classes.

The more uneducated, fanatical, desperate and stupid young men they can influence from THOSE regions, well, the more fanatical, desperate and stupid young men they can throw at the west, no?

As far as suicide bombers go, you're bang on. However, those who flew the planes for 9/11 were highly educated Islamic idealists. They weren't stupid; far from it. But rather, brainwashed. See my comment above.

No difference between their absolute faith in Islam and, say, the theologians of the Christian faith. A tad more fanatical about it though.

Cheers.

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

machabby said:

And you just assume they weren't told to say these things.....

Sure they were. And they were also told to believe in Santa Claus. I guess everyone in British government is an idiot and they would assume that if they told people what to say that it would not come out in the papers.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Iran can make them say things, so can Britain, and I find it very hard to believe that they weren't "debreifed" on what to say. This is, afterall, a war of propaganda. As for it coming out in the papers, it might make the back page for a day, IF somebody leaks it, but the state-controlled media will see to it that nobody pays any attention to it.

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

machabby said:

Is nobody else bothered by the fact that the NY Times is printing these lies unchecked? There's not even a mention of the fact that the border is disputed between Iran and Iraq, which makes the above statement BS. This is just government propaganda and the Times doesn't have the journalistic integrity to even point it out. The mainstream media is in an awfully sorry state.

Damn New York Times, if it wasn't for their nudies, they would be just another paper. I am actually looking forward to reading the real news from the Tehran Times.

Every paper and news media has thee same story with slight variations.

Bingo, bango, bongo. That's why I'm complaining. The whole of mainstream "journalism" is rotten to the core. People were talking about democracy in the other thread. Well, you can't have democracy without an informed public, and it's tough for the public to be informed when all the media is in the back pocket of the government feeding them propaganda. I really think the way this has been reported from the get-go is disgusting.

[MC Habber]

disgruntled70shab said:

badcompany said:

HA do you REALLY think Iran gives a rat's you-know-what about what anybody thinks in the West, or the rest of the world? You've said it yourself numerous times, their after regional hegomony, which will give them (greater) control of the world. And places like Syria and Yemen ARE the holes they're trying to impress.

The common "Muhammad-Q-citizen" only knows what their clerics tell them, or what they're taught in religious classes.

The more uneducated, fanatical, desperate and stupid young men they can influence from THOSE regions, well, the more fanatical, desperate and stupid young men they can throw at the west, no?

As far as suicide bombers go, you're bang on. However, those who flew the planes for 9/11 were highly educated Islamic idealists. They weren't stupid; far from it. But rather, brainwashed.

I don't agree with saying that they're brainwashed just because they have a different opinion than you, or because they are willing to die for it. I think it's important to recognize that there is, in fact, a difference of opinion, and not to dismiss people as "crazy" or "brainwashed." While there may be truth in it, it could be just as true of Americans serving in Iraq. To some extent we're all brainwashed in that we're constantly subjected to organized propaganda, but in the end, we all believe whatever we believe and we can only achieve peace by understanding each other.