How does it help Iran to NOT release those sailors?

It seems like every second they hold them, they are giving Bush a bigger excuse to attack.

If they did feel a need to hold them, they should put them up in their best hotel and have a live webcam on them 24/7, so no one could claim they are being mistreated.

That's the leverage. Plus, everyday Bushco and BLIAR don't get them out, THEY are the failures, not Iran.

Iran was only enforcing their borders, according to them, and certainly British troops have FAR less right to be where they were than Iranian troops. That's how it will play to Iran's constituency and allies.

Plus, if Bush starts beating the war drum, they will just move the hostages to the target facilities, then we won't attack.

Finally, they will be able to negotiate some kind of concession of value from the Brits soon to end this emasculating embarrassment to an already imperiled BLIAR administration, so there's that too.



Really though, all of these stupid maneuvers by Iran buys them a little more time, and if they can get just another 15 months or so down the road without an attack, they are home free, because no subsequent American administration is likely to want to face down a nuclear standoff for no fucking reason like this administration does. The PNAC agenda will be dead as Reagan very soon.

are there under a U.N. mandate. Clearly that doesn't include Iranian waters.

And I disagree that everyday that Blair doesn't get them out casts solely him as a failure. The longer it holds the brits, the worse this is for Iran.

And I wasn't just talking about public opinion in GB.

It's not as if it were a clear violation of Iranian territorial sovereignty.

I'm sure Britain feels Iran's version of what's Iran's waters, doesn't count.

Lot of good that does it here.

and I'd bet that the Iranians wouldn't capture or attempt to capture Iranians. Sure they're engaged in brinkmanship, and it's probably damn unpleasant for the brits, but I'll be very surprised if they're not released by Wednesday.

Maybe their whole nuclear power and enrichment programs have gone tits up for some reason, and to save face they want some bombs to fall and level the sites so they can cry about losing their right to the technology etc etc

It is absolutely ludicrous for them to have grabbed up those marines, the only possible explanation that makes any sense is that they want to precipitate an attack on themselves, winding Bush up, essentially saying "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough".

Winding Blair up is pointless, with a location the SAS will go in, kill a whole bunch of people and probably rescue the marines in question, no muss no fuss and comparatively little blood, so they hide the marines and the obvious target of this wind up is the USA - theres no logical sense in it.

Which NOBODY can prove one way or another.

You've heard how the US never shows Guantanamo prisoners off on TV, right? As baloney as the US' motives are for that, there is actual law saying you can't show POW's off for public display.

Besides, do you think Saddam got anything for giving up the "hostages" he had prior to Desert Storm? Lot of good that did him.

Besides that, my understanding is currently that the Brits say they weren't in Iranian waters and the Iranians say they were, not because there is doubt over the exact coordinates, but because the two have different views over what constitutes Iranian waters and what doesn't. The Brits are using Saddam's maps.

We violate that rule too.

still, the photos Saddam took of our guys he held didn't look a thousandth as bad as Abu Ghraib.

Iraqi prisoners were routinely paraded in front of our cameras.

I find the use of hoods and other techniques to obscure faces, while still parading the hostages less than a compelling excuse for not having violated the GC.

And what GC? We announced they did not apply to us anyhow. How can we even start to demand compliance when we have put ourselves outside the law?

It is a bargaining chip.

Nor is Blair. Undoubtedly Iran is holding out for a better deal.

they are going to spend billions on a sequel, they'd get different writers, or least one's that had more ideas than "hostage crisis."

"war" aspect of it.

I wouldn't bet on that one either way.

Not arrest the crew.

He's not as popular as you'd expect, and his voters love having westerners in custody.

This is what we get for going in there in the first place.

I seem to remember reading somewhere the Iraqi govt asked some military types from Iran to help set up some operations and the US ceased them (near Kurdastan or somewhere). We did eventually let them go...

I know, this is different, in terms of the reason behind holding those believed to be in Iranian waters.

The Iranian regime is no good for sure. But the country like others, can be given the right to defend its territory. Those waters are contested and at origin of previous wars.
Lets take a few simple questions:
How would the Brits feel discovering Iranian revolutionary guards in the English channel (even on the French or international side)? :))
The point is, if your surround a country and keep calling on its borders with armed soldiers, sooner or later something is going to happen. The real question is who wants what to happen and who does not because statistically, keeping up the pressure on that country will lead to war sooner rather than later. So let them do it only if they can make a better world after shit comes loose.