[Peatrical]

I wish I was alive for the good old days, when actions like that would have made us declare war.

Because war is so wonderful.

[OneHope]

The UK Ministry of Defence has now allowed the captured servicemen to sell their stories to the media. Usually, only those who have received the Victoria Cross (one of the highest if not the highest military honour in the UK). The woman has already reached a deal where she sold her story for 100,000 pounds.

Personally I think this is a little unfair to all the other servicemen who have been through hell in Iraq and Afghanistan when these people (who were apparently treated very well while in captivity) are given leave to make thousands of pounds for their relatively less difficult ordeal.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by OneHope

The UK Ministry of Defence has now allowed the captured servicemen to sell their stories to the media. Usually, only those who have received the Victoria Cross (one of the highest if not the highest military honour in the UK). The woman has already reached a deal where she sold her story for 100,000 pounds.

Personally I think this is a little unfair to all the other servicemen who have been through hell in Iraq and Afghanistan when these people (who were apparently treated very well while in captivity) are given leave to make thousands of pounds for their relatively less difficult ordeal.

Are other servicemen actually prohibited from selling their stories? (One of your sentences, about the Victoria Cross, seems to be missing a clause)

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Are other servicemen actually prohibited from selling their stories? (One of your sentences, about the Victoria Cross, seems to be missing a clause)

Yeah, it was supposed to say that Victoria Cross 'winner's' are allowed to sell their stories. To quote the msn.co.uk quoting the ministry of defence:

"Serving personnel are not allowed to enter into financial arrangements with media organisations. However, in exceptional circumstances such as the award of a Victoria Cross or events such as those in recent days, permission can be granted by commanding officers and the MoD."
-http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=4642345

A lot of the British papers and politicians are saying that this could be seen as undignified and unprofessional on the part of the British army and that this is extremely unfair to other British soldiers who have been wounded in the line of duty and are unable to get any money from their stories. The newspapers are also predicting a loss of sympathy for the people who were captured.

[+SEAL+]

Originally Posted by Insane Drummer

Very diplomatically smart move on the part of Iran.

Yeah, pretty much.

My take on the situation.

• 1: Iran wanted people to get stirred up, because Britain, US, and Israel are chums. US is busy in Iraq, Britain won't intervene. Therefore, Israel will militarily intervene.
  2: Israeli aggression would justify striking back at them, thus wiping them off the face of the earth, just like the Prez has wanted to do all along
  3: Israel didn't do anything
  4: There was pressure put on Iran
  5: Iran wimped out

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by Than

I also think it's a bit hiilarious/ridiculous that they were given goody bags from the Iranians when they were freed.

What was in the goody bags?

[JerryLove]

1: Iran wanted people to get stirred up, because Britain, US, and Israel are chums. US is busy in Iraq, Britain won't intervene. Therefore, Israel will militarily intervene.

Huh? Where's the prescedent for that?

2: Israeli aggression would justify striking back at them, thus wiping them off the face of the earth, just like the Prez has wanted to do all along

Where's your support that Iran wants to engage in a war with Isreal?

3: Israel didn't do anything

duh! Who in their right mind thought Isreal would?

4: There was pressure put on Iran

Hardly new, there still is.

5: Iran wimped out

I don't see this at all. I think Iran got everything it reasonably wanted. They showed foreign aggression (confessions of violations of their soverignty), they looked like the good-guy on TV (having happy captives and giving them gifts), they brought international attention to the border dispute. they illustrated the hypocracy of Britain holding Iran's agents in prison. I'd say it turned out as well as they could have hoped.

Of course, the confessions were under duress, and the sailors were likely not in clearly Iranian waters, and the Iranian agents may or may not be legetimate; but they got the PR that I think they were after in the first place. They are very lucky that there wasn't resistance in taking the boat.

[tlj009]

Where's your support that Iran wants to engage in a war with Isreal?

http://english.aljazeera.net/English...rchiveId=15816

It may not say directly that Iran wants a war with Israel (war with Israel would hardly be easy after all and it would be foolish to anounce any intention of war), but it does clearly support aggression against Israel.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Where's your support that Iran wants to engage in a war with Isreal?

I think we have very decidely concluded that Iran would like to go to war with Israel (in the other thread).

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I think we have very decidely concluded that Iran would like to go to war with Israel (in the other thread).

I don't know who "we" is, but what I saw was one-or-two posters taking "Isreal should be wiped off the map" as "I want to invade Isreal". These are not the same thing.

Do you have a statement that says that Iran wishes to engage in warfare with Isreal?

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by tlj009

http://english.aljazeera.net/English...rchiveId=15816

It may not say directly that Iran wants a war with Israel (war with Israel would hardly be easy after all and it would be foolish to anounce any intention of war), but it does clearly support aggression against Israel.

Every Arab nation supports aggression against Israel.

They just don't want to be the ones to get pinned for that aggression.

I'm curious as to how many Iranians believed that the sailors were actually in Iranian waters and that they willingly confessed.

[tlj009]

Every Arab nation supports aggression against Israel.

They just don't want to be the ones to get pinned for that aggression.

That may very well be true, but when they think the status quo has changed in their favor, there will be aggression against Israel or I should say a more open aggression with Israel.

I'm curious as to how many Iranians believed that the sailors were actually in Iranian waters and that they willingly confessed.

It doesn't really matter. I am sure that whoever controls the media controls the people (as a whole). Whether that is in the US or Iran.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

It doesn't really matter. I am sure that whoever controls the media controls the people (as a whole). Whether that is in the US or Iran.

That's an interesting thought. So the media in the US must have been neo-conservative as that's how the people went.

[tlj009]

That's an interesting thought. So the media in the US must have been neo-conservative as that's how the people went.

The media inside the US is not unified to one position.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

The media inside the US is not unified to one position.

Nor is it in Iran... though there is state control, particularly of the larger news sources.