I Know You Are, But What Am I?

[_JS]

Ami, I understand that it was legal for the Kuwaiti tankers to fly the US flags and place the ships under US jursidiction. As I said earlier, this isn't a technical matter of international law, but a matter of diplomatic overture.

That operation was instigated by an Iranian attack on the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts, hardly a Kuwaiti tanker.

You mean it hit an Iranian mine and then we responded with a massive counter strike against the Iranian navy.

[Amianthus]

You mean it hit an Iranian mine and then we responded with a massive counter strike against the Iranian navy.

Yes, we counter-attacked the navy that placed the mine. Placing mines in areas where our shipping is legally allowed to traverse (and regularly does so) is an attack.

Or are IEDs placed where they will kill our troops not attacks on our troops in Iraq? I'm sure that our wounded soldiers - and the families of dead soldiers - will be happy to know they were not actually attacked by the insurgents.

[_JS]

Yes, we counter-attacked the navy that placed the mine. Placing mines in areas where our shipping is legally allowed to traverse (and regularly does so) is an attack.

Yes, though the disparity in force suggests that perhaps there was more to it than just a ship hitting a mine.

Or are IEDs placed where they will kill our troops not attacks on our troops in Iraq? I'm sure that our wounded soldiers - and the families of dead soldiers - will be happy to know they were not actually attacked by the insurgents.

I never made that statement and please save the emotionally over-exaggerated hyperbole for someone more willing to fall into that snare.

[Amianthus]

Yes, though the disparity in force suggests that perhaps there was more to it than just a ship hitting a mine.

We're required to meet force with equal force?

So, if an insurgent kills a US soldier in Iraq with a sword while wearing only robes, we're required to strip the armor and firearms from our own troops and equip them with swords and robes?

[_JS]

So, if an insurgent kills a US soldier in Iraq with a sword while wearing only robes, we're required to strip the armor and firearms from our own troops and equip them with swords and robes?

Yes. That is quite clearly what I've said.



Also, if we are challenged to a dance-off, we have to let the opposition choose the music first. Plus, we can only kick it old school with some of the Afrika Bambataa or DJ Herc and none of that Adeaze Pasifika lyrical lapse!

[Amianthus]

Yes. That is quite clearly what I've said.

Thank you for clarifying that.

[The_Professor]

Our lives as a good will sacrafice to Allah?  Our subjugation to Islam?  Israel on a platter?

Let's see:

The United States could pay for damages done to Iran by US attacks on Iranian oilfields in the Iran-Iraq War.

We could apologize for the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 and pay compensation to the families of the Iranian victims (we only ever compensated the non-Iranian victims).

We could be open and frank about allowing (and even supporting) Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran with absolutely no recriminations.

Or we could be complete dumbasses and talk about stupid things like "Israel on a platter" and "subjugation to Islam"   

And NUKE them for taking our Embassy employees hostage. :-) Ok, charge them an enormous amount for this effrontry to diplomatic policy worldwide.

[_JS]

We could discuss that Professor. It is a process of give and take.

[Plane]

Our lives as a good will sacrafice to Allah?  Our subjugation to Islam?  Israel on a platter?

Let's see:

The United States could pay for damages done to Iran by US attacks on Iranian oilfields in the Iran-Iraq War.

We could apologize for the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 and pay compensation to the families of the Iranian victims (we only ever compensated the non-Iranian victims).

We could be open and frank about allowing (and even supporting) Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran with absolutely no recriminations.

Or we could be complete dumbasses and talk about stupid things like "Israel on a platter" and "subjugation to Islam"   

And NUKE them for taking our Embassy employees hostage. :-) Ok, charge them an enormous amount for this effrontry to diplomatic policy worldwide.

Although that idea has a lot to reccomend it , would simple compensation from Iran to the hostages be accepted as a positive step?

[The_Professor]

Interesting question, Plane. I think the ones who were held hostage might think just simple bribery, er, financial compensation, might not be sufficient, but I am entirely hypothesizing. Personally, if I were one of them, I would want Iranian male genitalia as compensation. However, on a Nations scale, what type and amount of compensation IS sufficient? After all, wasn't this act one of the most serious in the arena of international diplomacy? I can't remember. What effects did Iran suffer from doing this? Can anyone remember?

[sirs]

...However, on a Nations scale, what type and amount of compensation IS sufficient? After all, wasn't this act one of the most serious in the arena of international diplomacy? I can't remember. What effects did Iran suffer from doing this? Can anyone remember?

None, that I'm aware of.  Occasional refererences to a Carrier Battle Group or 2, operating in the gulf, but I think that was pretty much it.

[_JS]

Here is an interesting interview with one of the hostage-takers and one of the former hostages: Link

what type and amount of compensation IS sufficient

Comparisons would not be difficult. States often pay compensation to prisoners who have been held in a miscarriage of justice and then released, many of whom were held far longer than 444 days.

Currently the United States has not paid any of the post 9/11 captives, who have then been released compensation that I've been aware of. Some of them were also held longer than 444 days.

After all, wasn't this act one of the most serious in the arena of international diplomacy

Highly debatable. The act was not, at first, taken by the government of Iran, but by a group of university students. It was later condoned by the Iranian Government and some of the captives were released (for medical reasons and through the craftiness of the Canadian Government). Some of the captives were legitimately held as they were CIA agents who had worked with SAVAK.

What effects did Iran suffer from doing this?

Ronald Reagan sold arms to Iran...erm...

I don't know, you have to ask Saint Ron why he responded the way he did.

Perhaps having Hezbollah release three hostages (only to take more shortly thereafter) and then send money to terrorists in Nicaragua was far more important in the grand scheme of foreign policy. It was an odd time.

[Amianthus]

Some of the captives were legitimately held as they were CIA agents who had worked with SAVAK.

Taking control of a foreign nation's embassy is never legitimate.

[_JS]

Taking control of a foreign nation's embassy is never legitimate.

I never said it was.

[Amianthus]

I never said it was.

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.