Usualy a big fan of totn and Neal but not sure how much of an analysis this would be? As far as I know its an issue between two sides with no clear lines. yet the only person aired for the intro of the show was Tony Blair and nothing from the other side. it seems the arguement is already decided!!!!

Sent by Farzam | 2:07 PM ET | 04-02-2007

Did Iran learn to parade its hostages on TV from militant Arabs?
Or did militants Arabs learn this tactic from Iran back in '79?
Persians like to disassociate with Arabs, but it seems like a distinction without a difference.
Will Iran be chopping heads for the camera soon?

Sent by Abdullah Mohamed Abu Jihad al Kamelpoo | 2:16 PM ET | 04-02-2007

If the british were actually in Iraqi waters, why not place battle carriers in the exact point where the british were supposedly captured and and see what Iran does?

Sent by Fredo rodriguez | 2:29 PM ET | 04-02-2007

Hi Neal -

2 fact checks on the Iranian/Brit situation:
1. The UN resolution 1637 authorization claimed by Britain expired on 31 Dec 2006 so claiming it is not correct.
[http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8550.doc.htm]

2. The UNCLOS [ UN commitee on Laws of the Seas ] provides that, in the absence of an agreed boundary, neither side should attempt to enforce territorial water claims beyond a median line. It is very plain that this is for the purpose of conflict avoidance, and does not prejudice either state's rights in the eventual resolution of the boundary dispute.
The median line on the Shatt-Al-Arab would place the Indian ship and British
sailors well within Iranian waters.
[http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/weblog.html]

thanks
Scott Archer
Tucson AZ
[520] 561-3608
null10@hughes.net

Sent by Scott Archer Tucson AZ | 2:33 PM ET | 04-02-2007

If the Iranian seizure of the British personnel was truly based on the position of the smuggling interdiction activities, why wasn't the crew of the Indian merchant vessel similarly detained for trespassing into Iranian waters? This is an inconsistency I have not heard Iran address, and reinforces to notion of other motives behind the capture of the sailors and marines.

Sent by Dan | 2:33 PM ET | 04-02-2007

I have a lot of compassion for these homeless people. However, I avoid the library in my town because the computer keys are grimy and the patrons are horribly smelly. We need to fully fund existing homeless resources

Sent by DeAnne Stanberry | 2:46 PM ET | 04-02-2007

I feel for the homeless, however I am not comfortable with mentally ill homeless people in libraries. I actually stopped going to one library because of one homeless mentally ill lady who was filthy and smelled of fecies. I did not want to sit on or touch anything that she had been on. She talked to herself and roamed around the library. We were told that she came in every day and had the right to be there and that she could not be asked to leave. I could not enjoy the library with her there.

Sent by w stewart | 3:12 PM ET | 04-02-2007

I appreciate the comparison of the held British troops to the Guantanimo Bay detainees, and though I don't agree that we should be holding them, I agreed that it is a different circumstance. I find it odd that this whole situation has become so big, because the way most commentators talked about it at first, it seemed like it was going to pass quickly. I think that the Iranians should peacefully give the British troops back, but I also think that we as the West need to have a greater respect for Iran and realize that it too is a soveriegn nation, even if many of us do not agree with their positions.

Sent by Stephen Kestel | 2:43 AM ET | 04-03-2007

Don't the Iranians know that they shouldn't show prisoners eating and smoking on the news? Prisoners need to be face down on the ground with a bag over their heads, and guns pointed at their back... then they won't feel they are exploited when they appear on teevee.

Sent by Jay H | 4:14 PM ET | 04-03-2007