English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-04-05 06:18:39 · 9 answers · asked by Deeken 1 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

9 answers

It doesn't appear that they did. Apparently the release took them entirely by surprise.

I think it's more likely that the more moderate members of Iran's government pressed for the release, lest it backfire on them with their neighbors. When you think about it, it really was a silly move for a country trying to keep its involvement in hostilities deniable if not secret.

I think we'll probably learn more in the coming weeks when those moderates are purged from the government of Iran.

2007-04-05 06:26:27 · answer #1 · answered by open4one 7 · 0 1

No, they did not capitulate. They did the best thing; they got the glorious and respected members of their military home safe and sound. They paid honor to that code. Now, they can deal with Iran on their own timetable.... believe me, they won't forget. I hope they make Tehran glow, the fuuuukwads. Let us rid the world of this government that does not understand its place.

2007-04-05 06:24:34 · answer #2 · answered by jh 6 · 0 0

NO they did not capitulate. They did not apologize all they said was they will not intrude in the future.
This is what is known as diplomacy. This nation has become so conditioned to the jackboot mentality, people cannot understand that " you can accomplish more with honey than you do with vinegar"

2007-04-05 06:23:17 · answer #3 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 1 0

So the Idol of conservatives had ft of clay... probable he knew little of the deals(achievable deniability, after all), yet you and that i understand that doesn't excuse him for being a flesh presser and, particular, human. conserving faith with a series of ideals or principals and politiics are incompatible occasions. the terrific of politicians have the means to convince us in any different case for the period of their lifetimes. The rather great leadrs let us know precisely what they're doing and why and have the means to convince maximum folk that it became mandatory or perhaps precise. Reagan, even in his plenty youthful days, observed commies at the back of each and every bush, and needed to stop them. So he would get in mattress with murderers and terrorists as long via fact the Left became placed down subsequently. That became his inventive and prescient of the extra desirable good, and he became devoted to it, interior the barriers of being a flesh presser. of direction the Sandhanistas did take over Nicaragua, and that they have got been certainly leftists.... yet they held common elections and correctly-known being voted out of ability. And the tinpot dictator went down--the guy who gave their revolution its concept. So issues worked out in spite of Reagan's movements. and those terrorists he "capitulated" to. humorous factor approximately that. all of them seem deceased, devoid of even a tribulation, and not accomplished in with the help of the CIA which basically does not do properly interior the assassination activity.

2016-12-15 17:02:10 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

This remains to be seen. We must wait for the B.S. that Blair and Bush will give us. I believe that Lt. Col. North is correct when he said that we cannot and must not appease Iran or any of the Muslim countries.

2007-04-05 19:44:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

British intelligence set the whole thing up to make Iran look bad, but it backfired and made Tony Blair look like the fool he is. www.infowars.com

2007-04-05 06:28:16 · answer #6 · answered by fatboycool 4 · 0 1

I find it funny when Britian gets slapped around by its former colonies.

2007-04-05 06:22:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I hope Blair didn't, no reason he should

2007-04-05 06:24:19 · answer #8 · answered by kapute2 5 · 2 0

no, just goofed on letting soldiers get taken

2007-04-05 06:24:02 · answer #9 · answered by mike_dooley49 3 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers