Old news but: Fury as Iran shows footage of captured sailors on television

[still_one]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2045229,00.html

was there the same fury when we had saddam in custody, and they were constantly showing us looking in his mouth, and examining him like he was some animal?

Like I said this story is moot, because it has been settled without incident, which also shows what a disaster bush is by invading Iraq

[daveskilt]

1. As a Brit

I have to say I want Britain to bomb the shit out of Iran. As a rational human being I of course don't want that.

I wonder though - if this had been 15 US sailors seized...

[still_one]

4. I hear and understand from both perspectives

what I was trying to point out was the U.S. hypocricy

As far as the bombing of Iran, as you mentioned that is your emotion, not your logic

and in reality, the last Iranian elections showed that the Iranians are not too happy with the way their government is run, and if they were bombed, that would have united them with the government they do not like

In addition, you have acknowledged that cooler heads did prevail, which not only avoided a human cost, but also demonstrated that issues can be solved through dialog

something I doubt we in the U.S. understand too well

[Jonathan50]

10. I wonder how you would feel if Iran were to overthrow your government

And then install a dictator of their own choosing?

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/iranconspiracy.html

In August of 1976, while working as a reporter for The Washington Post, I found myself in Tehran during what would turn out to be the final years of the Iranian monarchy. It was clear then that Mohammad Reza Shah, only the second and the last of the Pahlavi dynasty, was in difficulty. His so-called "White Revolution," which tried to modernize Iran quickly, was meeting resistance from a deeply conservative public. Religious leaders, secular democrats, and students were restless under his monarchical dictatorship. His secret police, the Savak, were jailing and torturing dissidents. What was not clear then was that the ally the US had installed in order to hold power in the Persian Gulf was about to collapse. It happened so quickly that even the forces that brought the Shah down were taken by surprise.

For a quarter of a century after the Americans and British organized a coup against the secular-nationalist leader Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, the Shah had been America's man in the Persian Gulf, which American leaders saw as strategically vital because it produces the one essential commodity for the industrial world. In 1973, when Saudi Arabia embargoed oil to the United States, it was the Shah who supplied fuel for US Navy ships then in the Gulf. During the Nixon years the Shah was cast in the role of America's surrogate and partner in preserving Western, anti-Soviet interests in the region; he received large amounts of advanced military equipment from the US. In 1976 you could fly on El Al directly from Tel Aviv to Tehran. Until the clerics came to power in 1979, both Iran and Israel found it useful to have informal diplomatic relations because both felt threatened by Iraq. As it still does, Israel sought friends among the non-Arab countries on the periphery of the Middle East.

[pettypace]

12. Your feelings toward Iran

Imagine what the average Iraqi wants to do to Britain.

15 military people being held in Iran, treated well - versus thousands of Iraqi's ceasing to exist due to Blair and co.

[malaise]

2. In custody?

They showed his dead sons on live TV and showed his hanging. These hypocrites have some nerve.

[Colobo]

3. I'm on Britain's side

hoping that the sailors will return home safely, and that it is achieved by peaceful means.

[still_one]

5. It looks like they will be released, which is why I said it was old news

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2785476

bush cannot use this as an excuse to attack Iran

Incidently, I am on UKs side to, I was just trying to show how different approaches lead to different results

[tblue]

6. Iran is not stupid. I bet the *ies are disappointed.

[zbdent]

7. I remember in Gulf 1, the Iraqis had 3 of the US service people

in their custody and were shown on video ... at THAT TIME, the US officials were screaming about the "Geneva Conventions" ... pointing to the injuries that the (pilots?) service people had suffered ... as the pilots/whatever pointed out later, their injuries were suffered when they crashed their aircraft, not at any type of torture ... of course, if you remember, Jessica Lynch dropped off the face of the Earth when she couldn't corroborate the story that she had been sexually assaulted and tortured when she was treated in the very very very early days of the occupation ... in fact, she had nothing but glowing statements about how she was treated ... I guess she wasn't "useful" for the propaganda machine ...

[WI_DEM]

8. This reminds me somewhat of the 79-80 Iranian hostage crisis

negotiation eventually won the release of the hostages. Hopefully it will again, and hopefully it won't take 14 months to do so.

[cali]

9. In 2004 Iran captured and held 8 British sailors

for 3 days, and then released them. It was almost exactly the same situation as that playing out now. Iran will release the brits within the next couple of days.

[still_one]

13. The Iran hostage crisis was much worse. Technically Iran committed an act of war

[Jonathan50]

14. The war was started in 1953, by the US and Britain

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/iranconspiracy.html

In August of 1976, while working as a reporter for The Washington Post, I found myself in Tehran during what would turn out to be the final years of the Iranian monarchy. It was clear then that Mohammad Reza Shah, only the second and the last of the Pahlavi dynasty, was in difficulty. His so-called "White Revolution," which tried to modernize Iran quickly, was meeting resistance from a deeply conservative public. Religious leaders, secular democrats, and students were restless under his monarchical dictatorship. His secret police, the Savak, were jailing and torturing dissidents. What was not clear then was that the ally the US had installed in order to hold power in the Persian Gulf was about to collapse. It happened so quickly that even the forces that brought the Shah down were taken by surprise.

For a quarter of a century after the Americans and British organized a coup against the secular-nationalist leader Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, the Shah had been America's man in the Persian Gulf, which American leaders saw as strategically vital because it produces the one essential commodity for the industrial world. In 1973, when Saudi Arabia embargoed oil to the United States, it was the Shah who supplied fuel for US Navy ships then in the Gulf. During the Nixon years the Shah was cast in the role of America's surrogate and partner in preserving Western, anti-Soviet interests in the region; he received large amounts of advanced military equipment from the US. In 1976 you could fly on El Al directly from Tel Aviv to Tehran. Until the clerics came to power in 1979, both Iran and Israel found it useful to have informal diplomatic relations because both felt threatened by Iraq. As it still does, Israel sought friends among the non-Arab countries on the periphery of the Middle East.

[still_one]

15. I was commenting SPECFICALLY on the capture of an embasy

I was not talking about the colonial power's history in the middle east

[Jonathan50]

16. Like most Americans you seem to think that history started in 1979

When Iran took the embassy..

But the war was in full swing then and had been since 1953

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

SAVAK was founded in 1957 with the assistance of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Its mission was to place opponents of the Shah's regime under surveillance and to repress dissident movements through intimidation, exile, imprisonment, assassination, and torture. Though estimates vary widely, it was likely responsible for thousands of deaths. Its first director was General Teymur Bakhtiar, who was assassinated by SAVAK agents and replaced by General Hassan Pakravan. Pakravan was replaced in 1965 by General Nematollah Nassiri, a close associate of the Shah, and the service was reorganized and became increasingly active in the face of rising (actual) Islamic and (feared) Communist militancy and political unrest. Former director Pakravan and Nasiri were eventually executed by the Revolutionary Guard after the Islamic Revolution.

[still_one]

18. and like most Americans YOU jump to the wrong conclusions...

I know all about the shah and what happened. Don't patronize or characterize me, you know NOTHING about me, what I know or have been through. Your arrogance an elitism shows.

This post was SIMPLY ABOUT the taking of the Brits, and if you want to justify that or the taking of the US embassy in 1979 then start your own thread

[Solo_in_MD]

11. Apples and Oranges, and its not settled (unfortunately)

[Lisa]

17. I'm worried about a family I know -- mom is British, dad is Iranian

The daughter works in the UK, and she is in America visiting her folks (flight arriving today). Her folks are already despondent about the Iraq war, and they have just turned off the TV because they can't stand to see all the news coverage. They don't want anybody to get hurt. The last time I talked to the daughter, she was on stress leave because one of her best friends was on that bus in London that was blown up in the terrorist attack.