After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "WH" <boll...@hotmail.com> Spat
the Words

On Apr 5, 12:29 pm, "Dr. Bipolar"
<doctorsalway...@theglobalasylum.com> wrote:

Standoff shows Iran has muscles to flex
Proves to West nation is willing to cause trouble

Thu Apr 5 2007

By Sally Buzbee

IRAN emerged with a measure of strength from its standoff with Britain
over the captured sailors, deflecting attention from its disputed

nuclear

program and proving it can cause trouble in the Middle East when it
chooses.
Yet the country's hardline leaders also shied away from all-out
confrontation with the West, backing down once they had flexed their
power, apparently worried they might go too far.

In that way, the standoff proved one thing above all else: Iran's

internal

decision-making process remains largely mysterious to the West.

Split between ultra-hardline and more moderate factions, the Iranian
government moved back and forth on the seizures, sending mixed messages
until suddenly, startlingly, announcing Wednesday that it would free

the

15 sailors.

"The thing... about Iran's negotiating strategy is that they say, 'No,

no,

no' until it suddenly becomes 'Yes,"' said Patrick Clawson, deputy
director for research at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Whether that is a sign of internal dissent in Iran or finely honed,

clever

brinkmanship, Iran clearly gained some respect from the dispute, at

least

enough to make the West cautious that the Islamic regime would be

willing

to dive into such a tussle again.
"It allowed the Iranians to demonstrate that they can't be trifled

with.

They have a capacity to take action, and that will undoubtedly make

people

more careful," said James Dobbins, a former Bush administration envoy

to

Afghanistan who now heads military analysis for the RAND Corp. think-

tank

in the United States.

That could affect the aggressiveness of future British navy patrols in

the

Persian Gulf near Iraq. It also could affect any future actions by U.S.
military forces inside Iraq.

The United States says its policy is to arrest Iranians in Iraq who are
funnelling arms or money to Shiite militias there. But the Americans

may

be more cautious if they think hardliners in Iran are willing to

retaliate

by seizing U.S. troops. Iranian and U.S. forces already had one dustup

at

the Iraqi border last September, apparently based on confusion over

border

lines, that was defused.

If Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, who are believed to be

responsible

for the capture of the British sailors, are able to operate inside

parts

of Iraq, they could clearly target U.S. forces.

Iran said all along that its seizure of the British had nothing to do

with

Iranian prisoners held by the United States in Iraq, blaming it instead

on

the sailors' illegal entrance into its waters.

But there is no disputing that one Iranian diplomat, held by unknown
captors in Iraq, was released this week, either by coincidence or a

deal.

And if the seizures of the 15 British sailors were actually planned, as
some experts believe, Iran may have targeted Britons rather than

Americans

as a way to show its capabilities without directly tangling with the
United States.

None of that means Britain came out the loser: In fact, Iran did not

get

the main thing it sought -- a public apology. Britain insists it never
offered a quid pro quo, either, instead relying on quiet diplomacy. "In
contrast to the Americans, the Brits have tried to play down the
confrontation and adopted a more conciliatory line, and that probably
helped," said Dobbins.

Iran may have chosen to end the dispute because it feared it would lose
ground if it pushed the confrontation too far. It also may have been
trying to moderate hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's reputation,
allowing him to announce the releases in order to appear benevolent.

Alternatively, Iran might have been trying to show that it can

compromise

as a way to get some traction in the dispute over its controversial
nuclear program, which the West believes is aimed toward the

development

of nuclear weapons. Iran can't help but be pleased that for several

weeks,

international focus was off the issue.

-- Associated Press

PM Blair's reaction:

I'm glad that our 15 service personnel have been released. I know their
release will come as a profound relief, not just to them, but to their
families that have endured such distress and anxiety over these past 12
days.

Throughout we have taken a measured approach, firm but calm, not
negotiating but not confronting either.

I would like to thank our allies in Europe, our allies in the United
Nations Security Council for their support, and also our friends and
allies in the region who played their part.

We're grateful to all of them as we are to the officials in the Foreign
Office and the Ministry of Defence and here in Downing Street for the

work

that they have done.

And to the Iranian people I would simply say this: We bear you no
ill-will; on the contrary, we respect Iran as an ancient civilization,

as

a nation with a proud and dignified history.

And the disagreements that we have with your government we wish to

resolve

peacefully through dialogue.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/story/3934530p-4546601c.html

dot.gif
1KViewDownload

817-grey.gif
1KViewDownload

OK Funny really. Let's think about it. The yanks have attacked,
invaded Iraq, now occupiers. At the same time they are funding and
arming the Sunni group in Iran who are against the regime there. Now
they have fucked up Iraq and are now occuping it. Themselves killing
Iraqi's left right and centre. But apparently if anyone else, helps
the freedom fighters in Iraq they are terrorists, or terrorist
supporting regimes. But the help that the yanks are giving to the
Sunni group in Iran is support to "freedom fighters"

But it's the Sunnis in Iraq who are most against the yankie
occupation...but the Shi-iits are also killing yanks. In Afghanistan
during the eighties the Mujahadeen were, according to the yanks,
freedom fighters but the Soviets refferred to them as terrorists.
Yanks gave them all the necessary hardware to kill as many Soviets as
they could...including money...that was Osama Bin Laden they were
helping.

Don't forget, we're funneling money to sunni militia groups
in Lebanon to oppose Hezbolla, and some of that money makes its
way to Iraqi sunni insurgents who use it to kill US troops.

There is a whole BIG pile of US money that has gone missing..
we're talking, tens (possibly hundreds) of $$Millions$$ .. and
we all know about this US administration's proclivity toward
secrecy.

So the tide has changed...Iraqi's are killing yanks because they don't
want them there. ***** out of there and leave them alone. The twat
douglas who claims that the Iraqi's now live in a demcracy is only a
twat. A mouthpiece for the YANKS!
As long as the yanks, and Brits, are there kill the fuckers, they have
no business there. I would!

WH- D=F6lj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -- D=F6lj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

On Apr 6, 2:16 pm, "WH" <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:

So the tide has changed...Iraqi's are killing yanks because they don't
want them there. ***** out of there and leave them alone. The twat
douglas who claims that the Iraqi's now live in a demcracy is only a
twat. A mouthpiece for the YANKS!
As long as the yanks, and Brits, are there kill the fuckers, they have
no business there. I would!

And so, of course, being the terrorist supporter that you claim to be,
you'd also use the battle tactic being employed by the terrorists in
Iraq and target innocent Iraqis in the marketplace. Correct, Mr.
Terrorist?

I have it