I Know You Are, But What Am I?

[_JS]

The captives were in an embassy; therefore they were not "legitimately held" as you claimed. Your claim can only be valid if they were captured outside of an embassy, and they were not travelling under diplomatic immunity.

Apologies. I'm using realism as opposed to the idealism of international law.

In reality they were working with a state police that had terrorised the people of Iran for years. It was the moral equivalent of aiding the STASI or Cheka, possibly worse. So in that sense I consider it legitimate to have held these CIA agents captive. Though, technically you are correct that they were "protected" by diplomatic immunity and by the extraterritorial boundaries of the embassy.

Regardless, it was hardly "one of the most serious acts" in international diplomatic history.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Taking the Embassy employees hostage was clearly against international law.

But on the other hand,many of those embassy staff people were CIA people whose mission was to support counter revoltion. They also were the SAVAK's best buddies. SAVAK was the Shah's secret police.

The CIA was responsible for dethroning Mossadegh (Iran's first and ONLY non-religious elected leader) in the 1950's and replacing him with the unlovely Shah, who may have been Kissinger's friend and Rockefeller's best buddy, but an enemy of Iranian democratic aspirations.

It seems rather like a fair trade at the very least..

[The_Professor]

"It seems rather like a fair trade at the very least.."

Interesting armchair quarterbacking. You might not say that if you were one of those hostages.

[_JS]

Interesting armchair quarterbacking. You might not say that if you were one of those hostages.

Imagine being slowly cooked to death, having broken bottles shoved into your rectum, being forced to watch your pregnant wife being raped over and over and over again?

You think 444 days as a hostage compares to the horror that was SAVAK? That was only some of what this country helped to inflict on the people of Iran. It was wrong for those students to have taken those hostages and for the Khoemeni Government to have supported the action. That cannot be denied.

Yet, on a scale of wrongdoing it pales in comparison to our complicity in the horrors that were inflicted on the Persian people at the hands of the monarchy.

[Amianthus]

Yet, on a scale of wrongdoing it pales in comparison to our complicity in the horrors that were inflicted on the Persian people at the hands of the monarchy.

And yet, the government that replaced the monarchy continues to emply those same people in the same capacity as before.

SAVAK has been replaced by the SAVAMA, Sazman-e Ettela'at va Amniat-e Melli-e Iran, later renamed the Ministry of Intelligence. The latter is also referred to as VEVAK, Vezarat-e Ettela'at va Amniat-e Keshvar, though Iranians and the Iranian press never employ this term and use its official name as a Ministry. According to informed observers, the new organization is structurally identical to the old one and retains most of the same people. A few local chiefs have been replaced. The new director of SAVAMA was deputy director of SAVAK: he was an old friend of the late Shah.

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

[_JS]

And yet, the government that replaced the monarchy continues to emply those same people in the same capacity as before.

I don't recall claiming to be a supporter of the current government in Iran.

[The_Professor]

But, by your logic then, it is acceptable for THIS CURRENT government to do the same thing again?

[_JS]

But, by your logic then, it is acceptable for THIS CURRENT government to do the same thing again?

No. For one thing, I never said that two wrongs make a right. I was explaining the reality of the situation and why the people of Iran were so damned upset with us at the time.

In Iran as it stands now, we do not support the oppression of the current regime over the Persian people. That is an issue for them to deal with on their own.

[sirs]

Interesting armchair quarterbacking. You might not say that if you were one of those hostages.

Imagine being slowly cooked to death, having broken bottles shoved into your rectum, being forced to watch your pregnant wife being raped over and over and over again?

You mean basically like what was happening under Saddam's regime, on a daily basis?  Government sanctioned, and all.  And we needed more.......time for diplomacy to work there too, right?
 

[sirs]

But, by your logic then, it is acceptable for THIS CURRENT government to do the same thing again?

No. For one thing, I never said that two wrongs make a right. I was explaining the reality of the situation and why the people of Iran were so damned upset with us at the time.  In Iran as it stands now, we do not support the oppression of the current regime over the Persian people. That is an issue for them to deal with on their own.

Yet you want to have us "reimburse them" for our supposed wrong doings (which Ami has been able to demonstrate was often in retaliation vs provocation, and in international waters), as a show of diplomacy.  Pretty much looks like a wash at this point, when you put up "the wrongs" of theirs to those you proclaim we have performed.  So, what exactly would we be in need to reimurse them for again?  1 inadvertant shooting down an airliner is all I'm seeing currently, when you put everything on the table, and in context of when and where such events took place.

[_JS]

You mean basically like what was happening under Saddam's regime, on a daily basis?  Government sanctioned, and all.  And we needed more.......time for diplomacy to work there too, right?

Well, unlike Iraq, Iran had their own revolution without an outside invasion force. Their own people led the uprising and overthrew the monarchy that supported the tactics used above. You know, the tactics that the United States supported in Iran?

It likely might have worked out better if we had used diplomacy long before 1979 to force the Shah to leave and allowed the Iranian people to possibly give democratic government a real chance. Unfortunately we stubbornly backed the ruthless thug as we did in many other parts of the world (Suharto, Pinochet, Somoza...).

So yes, diplomacy may well have worked, but the time it could have been succesful had long since passed and the possibility of us having good relations with Iran passed with it. You are comparing apples and oranges, very much like your Arabs = Nazis garbage. You pull things from history, but with no understanding of context.

As a sidenote, Ami brings up an interesting point as to Iran continuing to use a version of SAVAK even today (though under the Islamic Republic motif). The current Iraqi Government uses a great deal of law from Saddam Hussein's regime and will no doubt continue to do so into its next form (whatever it is).

And as much as you loathe Iran Sirs, you have done everything possible to make them the long-term winners in all of this. They have a lot of support from the Kurds (including the current President of Iraq) and a lot of support from the Shi'a population of Iraq (including the current Prime Minister who lived in Iran and Syria while in exile). It isn't just militants like al-Sadr, but a lot of everyday Iraqis that have a great deal of respect for Iran. In many ways people like you and this administration have done everything you can to make Iran a massive power in the Middle East.

They should really thank you and Bush, Wolfowitz, etc.

[_JS]

Yet you want to have us "reimburse them" for our supposed wrong doings (which Ami has been able to demonstrate was often in retaliation vs provocation, and in international waters), as a show of diplomacy.  Pretty much looks like a wash at this point, when you put up "the wrongs" of theirs to those you proclaim we have performed.  So, what exactly would we be in need to reimurse them for again?  1 inadvertant shooting down an airliner is all I'm seeing currently, when you put everything on the table, and in context of when and where such events took place.

Go back and read where I said this is about diplomacy and not international law. *sigh*

I didn't say I "wanted" us to do anything. Someone asked "what can we give them" and I simply provided answers beyond your useless sarcastic reply.

[sirs]

I didn't say I "wanted" us to do anything. Someone asked "what can we give them" and I simply provided answers beyond your useless sarcastic reply.

If they're useless and sarcastic as you opine, why respond?  If you don't "want" us to do anything, then perhaps your initial instinct is correct, especially given what they have NOT given at any time prior.  Similar to your references of how Israel pre-emtively attacked Egypt & company, while acknowledgind how you weren't defending Egypt & Co's actions, which largely triggered Israel's pre-emptive act.    Interesting ommissions and innuendo

[domer]

I'll entitle this: "Our Middle East Policy Going Forward," and ask JS to fill in the details based on the sensibilities he has advocated here.

[_JS]

If they're useless and sarcastic as you opine, why respond?

Your particular response in this case was useless and sarcastic, or do you disagree?

If you don't "want" us to do anything, then perhaps your initial instinct is correct, especially given what they have NOT given at any time prior.

You mean we've never given anything in diplomatic discussions before?

Similar to your references of how Israel pre-emtively attacked Egypt & company, while acknowledgind how you weren't defending Egypt & Co's actions, which largely triggered Israel's pre-emptive act. Interesting ommissions and innuendo

Israel did pre-emptively strike in 1967! Go ask them and many of those intimately involved will proudly tell you so. It made many people's political and military careers. There are always reasons given for military action - justifications. Some are given before and some during and some after the war. If anything, Iraq has been an excellent example of how a casus belli can be debatably accepted or rejected from different viewpoints.

"Ommissions and innuendo" are simply your way of reading what I post. I'm not going to sit here and write a Tome on Middle Eastern History for you Sirs. Yet, it would behoove you to try and understand it without your red, white, and blue glasses on for just a minute.