View Story | 66 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I can't figure out why the Iranians want to be as stupid as Saddam Hussein was in allowing themselves to be snookered into a situation where the US - on whatever pretext - is able to take military action against them.
"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower
by bobdevo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:12:36 PM PDT
the world knows we're stretched too thin and our military is ill-supplied and we can't recruit replacements. Maybe Iraq wants to be the breaking point?
Obama Everywhere!
by kismet on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:16:15 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
kill many of the Iranian ruling elite. It will also, unfortunately, make life harder for the average Iranian and oil consuming world citizen.
What will take over from the current Iranian gov't? Well, it wasn't all flowers and candy after Saddam's fall in Iraq, so "the devil we don't know" is sorta a scary proposition.
This hostage taking trick has worked so well for them in the past, why give it up now.
Best regards,
"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand" -- Homer Simpson
by USAFguy on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:31:33 PM PDT
The captured soldiers can only be considering "hostages" if a) they were captured unlawfully, and b) Iran is asking for ransom. At this point we don't know if either is the case.
by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:33:05 PM PDT
I do believe point a) applies and b) merely hasn't been defined yet. By virtue of negotiations and demands by both sides, I think your point b) is fulfilled.
Not that I agree with your definition, but either way, I think your terms are met.
by USAFguy on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:55:39 PM PDT
I'm not convinced based on UK words alone.
by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:15:37 PM PDT
I disagree with the term "hostages" and offer no alternative.
Do you simply like to counterpunch and offer no alternatives? Apparently.
by USAFguy on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:02:32 PM PDT
of a public school education!)
Rather than "I disagre...", it should read "You disagree...".
by USAFguy on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:16:09 PM PDT
has as yet not been determined.
They were seized in the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway flowing into the Persian Gulf that marks the border between Iran and Iraq; a long-disputed issue.
The dispute was the prime precipitator of the 9 year war between Iran and Iraq - in which a million Iranians were killed by the US proxy in the war, Mr. Sadddam Hussein and his Republican Guard, who were armed and provided intel by the US.
by bobdevo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:29:55 PM PDT
but less and less real power. The world is or has turned against us and that’s what counts in the long run.
China could bring us down just by screwing with the dollar. Sure, there would be a cost to them but they’re not afraid to take hard measures.
by fly on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:35:30 PM PDT
Sure, we can take more profits, but we are also more vulnerable, since we depend on more trade. On the plus side, perhaps the ruling global upperclass will realize that they need world peace to sell their crap and so will pressure governments to talk to each other.
by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:38:23 PM PDT
....the Chinese government is kaput. Guaranteed.
The only reason that the present government is tolerated is because of the economic boom. If they blow the boom, they're history.
"And if you vant a second opinion -- you are ugly too!"
by sagesource on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:44:09 PM PDT
do people even read history books. Imperialist world powers get their asses kicked in just this manor EVERY century.
Generals gathered in their masses Just like witches at black masses.. Evil minds that plot destruction Sorcerers of deaths construction..........
by pissedpatriot on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:33:08 PM PDT
Or any other textbook for that matter. Hell, he didn't even read the Baker report.
by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:34:11 PM PDT
Aside from capturing the British soldiers, the Iranians have shown a lot of restraint considering not just the rhetoric coming out of Washington, but the capturing of Iranian diplomats and the war games conducted in the Persian Gulf.
by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:24:07 PM PDT
shrubCo would love to put them in a subservient position but that would be a blow to them. They can’t afford to be seen as a (virtual) vassal state.
All of this is stupid, really stupid but the largest dose of stupidity is coming from our side.
by fly on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:32:16 PM PDT
But they will make of Iran what they want. They have certain needs, and they think the US is at a nadir in terms of power. Iraq was not representative of the fight the iranians will put up. They are much more skilled at war than Iraq was.
"It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08
by Salo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:52:24 PM PDT
is that everybody in the Middle East KNOWS that occupation by the USA means the occupied country turns into a living hell in which every asset that can be privatized and turned over to US corporations will be, in which even what few civil rights permitted by a theocracy won't exist, in which electricity and water and public safety will be a fond memory, and parents whose kids become desperately ill will get to watch them die.
An invasion won't be a cakewalk, every battle is going to look like Iwo Jima. And "victory" in any specific area just starts the nightmare for anyone unfortunate enough to be an occupier, suicide bombings will start on day 1 without anyone trying to organize them.
Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.
by alizard on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:17:55 PM PDT
...the Iraqis turned out to be sophisticated soldiers.
by Salo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 04:50:20 PM PDT
capture the Brits. The real target of the ongoing pyswar has been the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRG).
See, http://www.democraticunderground.com...
by leveymg on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:02:35 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 66 comments