by Eric Martin
It's Ralph Peters, so there's plenty wrong with this column, but this part in particular stuck out to me:
Former President Bill Clinton crawled (well, flew in a Hollywood bigwig's jet) to Pyongyang to stroke the world's nuttiest dictator to free two journalists on ex-VP Al Gore's payroll.
Glad the gals are back in the Land of the Big PX. But the message we sent was that you can grab gringos and instantly become a Friend of Bill. Wonder what Iran will want for hostages? Will the Taliban demand face-time with Tina Fey in exchange for the soldier it holds?
Really? We should be concerned that hostage takers in the future will…demand face time with Bill Clinton or Tina Fey? Is that really such an exorbitant ransom to pay in order to spare two American women from an unthinkably brutal prison system, wherein prisoners are so deprived of food that they sometimes resort to cannibalism when the opportunity arises (that is, when they aren't lucky enough to catch a rat and eat it raw on the spot)?
Or would a Tina Fey photo op be too high a price for the life of a soldier held by the Taliban? Wait, maybe I'm asking the wrong question - Ralph Peters would rather see the soldier executed regardless.
For comparisons sake, consider that in the past Republican presidents have traded arms for hostages, but now Peters thinks a photo op is too steep a price? Sounds like a bargain to me. Obviously, hostage taking is a sordid business, and we don't want to encourage it, but is there really a risk that a spike in hostage taking will occur now that the hostage takers know they might get a visit from Bill Clinton? I mean, he's charming and charismatic but he ain't all that. I would think the prospect of securing high end US weapons would do more to stoke a trend.
While worrying about potential Clinton-related Iranian ransom demands, Peters ignores the fact that we take hostages too, like these five Iranians. And then there are the "detainees" locked up without trial, or worse. I'm sure many of those prisoners wish there was a photo-op-out-of-jail option available to them too.
As an aside, the Iranian prisoner story is really rich with irony. U.S. forces seized five Iranians that were in Iraq on the invitation of the Iran-friendly Iraqi government – the same government that our soldiers are fighting (and dying) to defend. At the time of the arrest, and throughout their 2 1/2 year captivity, the Iraqi government has petitioned for their release, to no avail (sovereignty has its limits).
According to US officials, the men were detained because they were "associated with" Iran's Quds Force, a unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, and were giving aid to Shiite militias. But here's the thing, one of the main political parties in Iraq, ISCI (whose leader was feted by President Bush at the White House), was formed in Iran in close consultation with, and its militia was trained and equipped by…Iran's Quds Force! In fact, many ISCI members still receive pension payments from the Revolutionary Guards*. They might as well arrest the whole damn political party.
Round and round we go.
(*edited for accuracy)
yeah, but we’re America. it’s different when we do things. we’re exceptional.
kind of like Jerri Blank, we do all the wrong things, but we do them for the right reasons!
Like life on the Devil’s Hairlip.
Are you sure the Iranian’s that we captured are still alive?
Are you sure the Iranian’s that we captured are still alive?
Yeah. Obama actually ordered their release. They’re free now.
“In fact, many ISCI members still receive pension payments from the Quds force. They might as well arrest the whole damn political party.”
Do you have a link on this information handy?
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/04/round-and-round.html
Peters: “Wonder what Iran will want for hostages?
Suggestion: Peters should ask Oliver North.
The Tina Fey quip is the clue that Peters is typing faster than he’s thinking. The Taliban would hate Fey, no less than any other immodestly-dressed American female TV personality. The only American celebrities I can think of that they are likely to admire are Hakeem Olajuwon and Freddy Adu, and it’s hard to imagine them kidnapping someone just to meet one of them.
Would that all of America’s enemies were as star-struck as Li’l Kim.
Marty, if you’re this serious ignorant about the history of ISCI, formerly SCIRI, I most emphatically suggest you read up on it yourself.
You can start here, or any number of a zillion neutral sources.
It’s helpful if one is going to comment on Iraq to have some clues about the government, its makeup, history, and history of its personalities. Don’t let me or anyone try to propagandize you; just read up on the history on your own.
It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of blood and treasure we expended to increase Iranian influence in Iraq.
“consider that in the past Republican presidents have traded arms for hostages,”
Your post is only too true. One question, are these the same people, or is this the difference between the neocon republicans and their “naive” predecessors.
I get the impression the neocons would dismiss Eisenhower as a commie dupe and secretly embarrassed at Reagan for meeting with communists rather than bombing them.
It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of blood and treasure we expended to increase Iranian influence in Iraq.
And are they grateful? No, they’re jealous and they’re hateful.
“…spiteful and they’re hateful.”
I saw Randy Newman perform Political Science during the Bush administration. He said (I’m paraphrasing now): I wrote this song in 1970 and it’s finally become policy.
The audience sang along.
spiteful
I feel shame.
I have an unfair advantage.
“I get the impression the neocons would dismiss Eisenhower as a commie dupe”
Well, the John Birch Society leader, John Welch, did, of course:
“and secretly embarrassed at Reagan for meeting with communists rather than bombing them”
Nothing secret about it; they wrote loads of op-eds and articles saying so.
and secretly embarrassed at Reagan for meeting with communists rather than bombing them. ”
I feel shame.
Noes! You still made me laugh.
.
In other words, Koreans are “wogs.”
And you ‘n’ me’s jest good ol’ boys a-servin’ our country, sniff-sniff, whimper-whimper. Them buy-me-drinkee “gooners” only wanna to marry us for our PX cards. Be sure to urinate and thoroughly wash your genitals after buying sex with them, soldier, but DON’T EVER MARRY THEM!!! In case you haven’t noticed, Private, they’re not WHITE!!! You want Tuscaloosa to end up looking like Panmunjom? HUNH!!!???
It’s great how the ‘Pukes just can’t help but out themselves every time they open their mouths. They compulsively vomit up their entire disgusting worldview in front of company every time.
Thing is, if this dweeb had ever actually served in the US military, esp in Korea, he’d know too bloody well that there never were any PX’s in North Korea.
And “gringo’s”? Seriously, dude, have you ever even been outside of the US? That’s strictly derogatory Mexican border slang for Americans. A Korean would call you a wei-guk-in (outsider, foreigner), hamburger, or miguk, the supposed origin of the term “gook.”
Do sixty second’s research, even if it is just for wei-guk-in Rupert Murdoch. John Wayne movies do not count as research, education or travel abroad. You ignorant foreign devil!
.