Buckdog

Well, the President and Supreme Leader are, you know, CRAZY.

Frankly, I find it hard to be too shocked when crazy people act crazy.

That's no reason to invade of course, but sadly, it does increase the likelihood that they'll do something so crazy one day that it will make war inevitable.

The leadership of Iran view the West as cowards, with no stomch for a fight, and no matter how many countries are invaded around them, I think they still feel immune. Which is scary because, being crazy, one wonders how far they're willing to push their perceived immunity. I imagine this latest hostage crisis will end as the one in 2004 did (I hope). It's a worrying event though, and it does make me wonder if one day Iran's leaders will push too far.

Iran has never started a conflict in its history.

How do we know that the UK ships were not in Iranian waters? because they say so? Everyone knows the US has been spoiling for a fight for years. Granted the actions of Iran don't help alleviate that pressure, but what are they supposed to do, sit back and take it?

They could also be demonstrating their "balls" in the face of the on-going efforts of the UN to sanction their legitimate right to develop a civilian based nuclear power generation.

Not to mention there are previously reported incidences of US forces operating in Iran over the past year (see Seymour Hersh's Vanity Fair article).

Now I am not defending Iran, but I won't blindly accept the crap being put out by our MSM either. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the rhetoric emerging from London/Washington and Terhan.

See Sean, I have a bit of a problem with that analysis. Iran say X, Britain says Y, and we're unsure as to whom to believe?

Please.

And even if the truth is "somewhere in between" the two positions, "in between" what? In between the UK claims of the boat's position and Iran's FIRST statement of the boat's position, or in between the UK's claim of the boat's position and Iran's SECOND statemenmt of the boat's position (hastily made after the UK pointed out that the coordinates Iran initially provided were ALSO within Iraqi waters).

Rule #1 in making stuff up? Take your time. If you make stuff up too quickly you'll mess it up, and then you'll have to make up something entirely new.

It's good that you're not defending Iran though. All you're doing is claiming that Iran and the United Kingdom are both equally credible, and that if an independent press backs up the UK story, it's crap.

...and issued a second, strangely-worded letter in her name calling for Britain to withdraw from Iraq.

Britain was already in the process of doing this and Iran knows this full well so who do you suppose this message is really intended for?

I do believe Iran is worried about what Bush might do and now Bush is effectively prevented from acting unilaterally. He can't with British hostages in play.

I don't know and don't care to guess whether Iran planned this situation but that is the situation they've ended up with and if I can see it so can they.

Unless they seriously overplay their hand, it is not in Iran's interest to either harm OR release these hostages. They are providing a valuable buffer against the US.

The waterway issue is simply the pretext for holding them and is not the central issue.

I'm hearing some buzz that the Brits may have been supporting US forces that are already covertly deployed in Iran.

"Behind the scenes they probably have updated war plans being drawn up...but they would be stupid not to."

Even the mere thought of starting a war with Iran is sheer lunacy.