So we're allowed to kidnap people but Iran isn't...

[JaJae]

Washington says the five, seized in a January 11 raid by U.S. forces in the Kurdish city of Arbil, are linked with Iranian Revolutionary Guard networks involved in providing explosive devices used to attack U.S. troops in Iraq.

U.S. won't release 5 Iranians held in Iraq: report - Yahoo! News

[motivez]

It's amazing the hypocrisy and double standards that exists, really. We can't expect other nations to "Do as we say, not as we do." They're not children.

Iraq invited those Iranian diplomats, and we kidnapped them. The Iraqi government is NOT happy about it, and I don't blame them. It's making relations with the two countries very difficult, but that's what "we" want -- We don't want Iraq and Iran getting along because we don't like Iran. Unfortunately, the Iraqi people have to live next door to them.

Whoever it was that called them "militants" or whatever needs to do some reading.. The Guardian had a big article about how our kidnapping 5 of their diplomats (which in reality, was a failed attempt at kidnapping some higher level folks, but we got grunts) is what lead the Iranians to retaliate and take those British sailors.

It's funny that Condi and the State Department are split with guess who:

Vice President Cheney's office made the firmest case for keeping them.

.. These neocons have been wrong about everything, and it's simply amazing to me that in spite of all of their fuckups and so forth that people like him actually still have any influence.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's amazing the hypocrisy and double standards that exists, really.

except the double standard is on Iran' side.

Both the Iranians and the Brits were in IRAQ.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

except the double standard is on Iran' side.

Both the Iranians and the Brits were in IRAQ.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

The Iranian diplomats were in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi Government, a sovereign government that we installed.

If we can go around usurping the will of the Iraqi Government whenever we want, then Bush's idiotic incursion into the middle east is even a bigger failure than it was before, seeing how one of the few true "accomplishments" he can boast of is a democratically elected government

So, you can take your pick, either we roll back the clock on all of the rhetoric talking about free elections and self determination back to the days of the transitional government, or we admit that we're hypocrites.

Either one makes us look bad, and rightly so, but the former is certainly more damaging to our credibility.. the rest of the world already views us as hypocrites over human rights and torture, etc, so it'd just be another reason to add to their already long list legitimate reasons they already have.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by motivez

Irrelevant to the discussion.

The Iranian diplomats were in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi Government, a sovereign government that we installed.

that doesnt really matter since they were accused of fighting the US.

[motivez]

Way to ignore the rest of my post, but hey, it does matter.

You can accuse someone all you want, you know, kinda like the Iranians accused the British sailors of entering their waters?

It's such blatant hypocrisy it's almost laughable to have a discussion about it

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

U.S. won't release 5 Iranians held in Iraq: report - Yahoo! News

There is absolutely no proof in what they are saying presented. They are trying to say A + C = Q with no way to proof that equation. The Iranians said "The British were in our waters" and you guys were oh so quick to deny their "accusations" yet here, what is said by "washington" is full PROOF of wrongdoing. I can't believe you don't see the hypocrisy involved here.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

There is absolutely no proof in what they are saying presented. They are trying to say A + C = Q with no way to proof that equation. The Iranians said "The British were in our waters" and you guys were oh so quick to deny their "accusations" yet here, what is said by "washington" is full PROOF of wrongdoing. I can't believe you don't see the hypocrisy involved here.

The Iranians said the British were in Iraqi waters. Yet you're so quick to deny that as well. The soldiers after being released said they were forced to say that or they would be imprisoned or killed. There comes a time when you have to determine which side holds the most credibility. You've chosen your side, we've chosen ours.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The Iranians said the British were in Iraqi waters. Yet you're so quick to deny that as well. The soldiers after being released said they were forced to say that or they would be imprisoned or killed. There comes a time when you have to determine which side holds the most credibility. You've chosen your side, we've chosen ours.

And those soldiers couldn't have been coached or blatantly lied? I have not "chosen" a side. I think BOTH sides are full of shit but what burns me is the bullshit indignation by the US when the Brits were taken. They chastise Iran when they are doing the exact same fucking thing and they did it FIRST.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And those soldiers couldn't have been coached or blatantly lied? I have not "chosen" a side. I think BOTH sides are full of shit but what burns me is the bullshit indignation by the US when the Brits were taken. They chastise Iran when they are doing the exact same fucking thing and they did it FIRST.

I'm saying they were coached and they blatantly lied. I believe when they said they were in Iranian waters they did so because they were fearful for their lives and lied as they were coached and instructed to do. If they didn't say it they wouldn't have gone home.

Both sides can't be full of shit. Either they were in Iraqi waters or they were in Iranian waters. One side is correct, the other is lying.

And they didn't do the same thing first. Those British sailors were not arming militias in Iran to overtake the government. They did nothing wrong that I'm aware of that would justify them being captured on Iraqi soil.

I personally take the word of the Brits over the word of a lying terrorist regime who can't get their story straight. And a regime who the entire world has come down on for their behavior.. To me they would be the less credible source.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm saying they were coached and they blatantly lied. I believe when they said they were in Iranian waters they did so because they were fearful for their lives and lied as they were coached and instructed to do. If they didn't say it they wouldn't have gone home.

Both sides can't be full of shit. Either they were in Iraqi waters or they were in Iranian waters. One side is correct, the other is lying.

And they didn't do the same thing first. Those British sailors were not arming militias in Iran to overtake the government. They did nothing wrong that I'm aware of that would justify them being captured on Iraqi soil.

I personally take the word of the Brits over the word of a lying terrorist regime who can't get their story straight. And a regime who the entire world has come down on for their behavior.. To me they would be the less credible source. But to each his own.

So the Iranians are the "lying terrorist regime?" Interesting. I'd say both the US and Iran have done enough "terrorism support" to be chastised.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So the Iranians are the "lying terrorist regime?" Interesting. I'd say both the US and Iran have done enough "terrorism support" to be chastised.

If you had to pick one who was worse and less credible I would have to say the Iranians in this incident would be the less credible source though. We can say both sides have supported terrorism, but if you had to pick a more credible source based on their previous actions I still would have to go with the Brits. I'm not sure what the US "supporting" terrorism has to do with the Brits being captured. And if you're you don't want us supporting terrorism wouldn't you be happy we captured these people who were involved in a military regime who was endorsing terrorism against Iraq and the US?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

If you had to pick one who was worse and less credible I would have to say the Iranians in this incident would be the less credible source though. We can say both sides have supported terrorism, but if you had to pick a more credible source based on their previous actions I still would have to go with the Brits. I'm not sure what the US "supporting" terrorism has to do with the Brits being captured.

Previous actions? We've shot down Iranian passenger jets before...I don't recall the Iranians doing ANYTHING like that to us.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Previous actions? We've shot down Iranian passenger jets before...I don't recall the Iranians doing ANYTHING like that to us.

So because of an event that happened 20 years ago under a different administration and under different political conditions, you consider Iran to be a more credible source despite the fact that they have changed their story, despite the fact that they're an evil nation and despite the fact that the UN and the world has singled them out for their recent behavior as being one of the biggest problems and threats to the world. That event by the US 20 years ago makes Britain less credible than Iran?

I don't want to misconstrue your views. I'm trying to piece together previous posts and threads and get an idea of what I'm debating here. I know there are quite a few people on this forum who think the US is no better than a lot of these middle eastern nations that basically sponsor terrorism or are a terroristic state. But, I don't understand how people would trust them or consider them more credible than us. I understand blind patriotism is dangerous and we should question our government. I just can't come around to the notion that the US is just as bad if not worse than terrorist nations and therefore Iran should be trusted at their word over the US and/or Britain, even after changing their story.

Also those British sailors we didn't want kidnapped by the Iranians didn't seem to do anything wrong. They were not part of a military that was actively engaging the overthrow of Iran's government and explosions/bombs in Iran. There's a key difference there. One kidnapping involves a random plucking of sailors arguably not in Iran's waters. And the other has to do with capturing what appears to members of a combative regime against the US and Iraq. I personally don't consider them the same. I can see where you're coming from that it looks bad. And Rice said they're not worth anything to us anymore, they gave us all they know. How much longer should we really hold at that point? I don't know and I wouldn't be upset if we released them. But I can't equate it to what happened to those British soldiers because I don't believe the doctored Iranian story over the constant Brit interpretation of the incident.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So because of an event that happened 20 years ago under a different administration and under different political conditions, you consider Iran to be a more credible source despite the fact that they have changed their story, despite the fact that they're an evil nation and despite the fact that the UN and the world has singled them out for their recent behavior as being one of the biggest problems and threats to the world. That event by the US 20 years ago makes Britain less credible than Iran?

I don't want to misconstrue your views. I'm trying to piece together previous posts and threads and get an idea of what I'm debating here. I know there are quite a few people on this forum who think the US is no better than a lot of these middle eastern nations that basically sponsor terrorism or are a terroristic state. But, I don't understand how people would trust them or consider them more credible than us. I understand blind patriotism is dangerous and we should question our government. I just can't come around to the notion that the US is just as bad if not worse than terrorist nations and therefore Iran should be trusted at their word over the US and/or Britain, even after changing their story.

Also those British sailors we didn't want kidnapped by the Iranians didn't seem to do anything wrong. They were not part of a military that was actively engaging the overthrow of Iran's government and explosions/bombs in Iran. There's a key difference there. One kidnapping involves a random plucking of sailors arguably not in Iran's waters. And the other has to do with capturing what appears to members of a combative regime against the US and Iraq. I personally don't consider them the same. I can see where you're coming from that it looks bad. And Rice said they're not worth anything to us anymore, they gave us all they know. How much longer should we really hold at that point? I don't know and I wouldn't be upset if we released them. But I can't equate it to what happened to those British soldiers because I don't believe the doctored Iranian story over the constant Brit interpretation of the incident.

The kidnapped sailors arguably WERE in Iranian waters...to say it with 100% certainty either way is stupid. What can be said with 100% certainty is that we kidnapped diplomats from a political mission. The "how are they = part" is right there. Even if the Brits weren't in Iranian waters (and that is up for debate) the Iranian's taking them is no different than the US taking the Iranians...yet there is no "OMG THE TRAVESTY" reaction.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The kidnapped sailors arguably WERE in Iranian waters...to say it with 100% certainty either way is stupid. What can be said with 100% certainty is that we kidnapped diplomats from a political mission. The "how are they = part" is right there. Even if the Brits weren't in Iranian waters (and that is up for debate) the Iranian's taking them is no different than the US taking the Iranians...yet there is no "OMG THE TRAVESTY" reaction.

I said "arguably not in Iran's waters." I don't understand your post.

And yes there is a debate. We didn't go onto Iran's land and take their men. We seized them in Iraq. That's the difference. Whether or not you believe the sailors were in Iraqi waters should have a meaning to this as it's a clear-cut difference in the case.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I said "arguably not in Iran's waters." I don't understand your post.

And yes there is a debate. We didn't go onto Iran's land and take their men. We seized them in Iraq. That's the difference. Whether or not you believe the sailors were in Iraqi waters should have a meaning to this as it's a clear-cut difference in the case.

We seized them in Iraq, where the Iraqi Government had given them permission to be.

You can't contrast the situations to show a difference between "right and wrong," because both were wrong.. and this situation just further illustrates why this Administration is one of the worst in history..

It's like Cheney is trying to provoke the Iranians as a pretext for war.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by motivez

Way to ignore the rest of my post, but hey, it does matter.

You can accuse someone all you want, you know, kinda like the Iranians accused the British sailors of entering their waters?

It's such blatant hypocrisy it's almost laughable to have a discussion about it

except you are missing the largest point. US troops are allowed to operate inside iraq. Iranian troops ARENT ALLOWED IN IRAQ. Their kidnapping was an act of war.