Implications of the Offer of a Prisoner Swap Between the U.S. and Iran

[The Stranger]

Another poster on the "Iran is wrong" thread posted something interesting. Apparently, the West has tried to enter into a "prisoner swap" with the Iranians -- the seized Iranian diplomats/terrorists from Northern Iraq, who are still being held apparently -- in exchange for the Royal Marines recently taken into custody.

U.S. Is Holding Iranians Seized in Raids in Iraq

IRAN: GOVERNMENT RULES OUT PRISONER SWAP FOR SEIZED BRITONS

Assuming that the U.S. made such overtures (and it likley explored this through diplomatic channels), does this show that the U.S. and the West may view the two seizures as equivalent? In effect, wouldn't this constitute an implied admission that its actions were in some ways equivalent to those of the Iranians?

One response was that the offer was refused by the Iranians, and the implication being that it was done so in bad faith. But was the offer refused by Iran based on the fact that Iran does not view the two as equivalent, perhaps one being "diplomats" as opposed to uniformed military personnel?

What implications does this have for a statement such as "Iran is wrong" without including the larger context of others who are "wrong"? If both the U.S. and Iran are both "wrong," then claiming that those pointing this out are in some sense "apologizing" for Iran is not accurate at all, is it? What about cause and effect in these circumstances?

Rather, wouldn't those pointing this out be more accurately characterizing the larger context in which these events are unfolding, and all of this in contradiction to the over-simplified, sound-bite, "us and them" corporate media depiction?

Finally, is the U.K. the only what not "wrong," but caught in the middle in all of this?

[htuttle]

1. How many missiles do they want, and do we have to send a cake this time, too?

[noonwitch]

4. Didn't Ronnie send them a Bible with the weapons?

I remember there being a Doonesbury that ripped on that.

[htuttle]

5. Yup. Missiles, a bible, and a cake.

It was the cake that always confused me. Did they think they can't get cake in Iran?

:shrug:

[C_U_L8R]

2. So who is the hostage taker ??

oh yeah republicans seem to think two wrongs will make a reich.

[Hobarticus]

3. I don't get the need to call someone "wrong" in this situation...

This kind of thing has happened time and time again. Somehow it's always been resolved peacefully without a bunch of sabre-rattling. This mess will go on wayyyy longer than it needs to, and both sides will claim they proved their point.

[Mojorabbit]

6. That is exactly the point I made in the other thread

In the end though it won't matter who is right or wrong, it will be how the situation is handled and I fear it will not be handled well.

[BeFree]

7. Crazy

For any American to be pointing fingers at a country that has never invaded a overseas country.

It reminds me too much of warmongering.

[cali]

9. LOL!

That's a piece of brillian logic. As an American who opposed the Gulf War, the Iraq war, and any potential attack on Iran at all, I have no problem differentiating myself from the vile administration. Furthermore, I have no idea whether Sudan has ever attacked another country, but I certainly have no problem criticizing them for complicity in genocide.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Huh?

[BeFree]

11. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

You know what that means?

First pluck the beam out of thine own eye, is another wisdomical advice which pertains.

I know, I know, 'tis easier to attack the outsiders than it is your own, and some folks like it easy, is all I'm saying.

[cali]

12. I've criticized my own country far more often and with

greater passion than I've criticized any other country. And spouting platitudes is no substitution for employing critical thinking.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. There's nothing there saying an offer was made

It's just that the Iranian deputy foreign minister said they weren't being held for an exchange.