Iran Seizes 15 British Marines

[zelda12]

Small question, if in theory the waters were disputed, then what if any legal rights did Iran have for being in them, let alone surrounding and "detaining" personnel on a UN sanctioned mission to stop smuggling and other nasty things? The entire maritime situation is a mess as far as I can see, however if the waters which the UK sailors and marines were "detained" in was disputed, then why hasn't the UN commented to that effect, or any other nation, not even Iran has said that they were in disputed waters and therefore free game. If nothing else its a different angle to look at the situation of the event.

Interestingly I read in the paper a couple of days ago that several other nations sharing maritime borders with Iran have commented on increased Iranian intrusions into their waters.

As to the possibility of war... I just don't know. To be honest I have my doubts as to whether either side can really afford it. Britain and the US have huge troop commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don't see any UN agreement on a task force to sort the mess out when security council members are at least sympathetic to Iran, or rather to Iran's oil. Likewise Iran undoubtedly has an inkling as to the problems that US and UK air superiority (if it's achieved) would cause them, especially as any conventional ground forces would be severely handicapped out in the open. There is also the oil factor, no one wants the oil to stop flowing.

If it should come to the where force is required I imagine it will be small scale and localised, either a spec-op to get the hostages out, or if they've been executed (which I doubt will happen, and certainly hope doesn't) then a targeted retaliatory strike aimed to either kill a few high ranking officials, or other such high profile assassinations. Though the danger with any of these situations it could easily lead to an Iranian sponsored explosion of violence in Iraq against coalition forces, which given the situation already, would not be a good thing in any way shape or form.

My hope is that this will drag on for a month or so, with the prisoners being paraded around, given prompts to read denouncing the west, then with economic/political pressure rising steadily Iran will give them back in such a way that makes them look like they've won a moral victory, at least for the "folks back home".

Of course these are my own views on the matter, and if there are any glaring errors in my logic or reasoning then please feel free to correct me, after all informed debate cannot take place if the two sides remain completely polarised throughout.

(Though as a personal sub-clause I have to say that I feel the arrest of serving members of our armed forces to have been at the least a grave insult. That they would then be made, under duress, to write letters to family and friends, worried sick about the, telling them about how wrong Britain is, and then paraded around on television like prized animals for the mob makes me feel pretty damn angry.)

[Adrian II]

Small question, if in theory the waters were disputed, then what if any legal rights did Iran have for being in them, let alone surrounding and "detaining" personnel on a UN sanctioned mission to stop smuggling and other nasty things?The waters are disputed not just in theory, but in practice. This means that both countries claim the area in question as theirs and reserve full rights in them and occasionally exercise those rights. Disputed waters are not 'no-go' waters; they are waters where both parties go.
The entire maritime situation is a mess as far as I can see, however if the waters which the UK sailors and marines were "detained" in was disputed, then why hasn't the UN commented to that effect, or any other nation, not even Iran has said that they were in disputed waters and therefore free game.The Security Council has scrapped the part of the British text that said the sailors were in Iraqi waters. I suppose the other members don't give a hoot as to who did what or who has the best GPS pics. All they would be interested in is that the situation is resolved, so they didn't want to call a foul or put either party with its back against the wall. Well, that's my take from what I've read.

[zelda12]

Well that makes more sense at least. I much prefer the 18th and 19th century approach the maritime law, it was much easier to understand, all you needed was a decent ship, a letter of marque and an enemy and you were laughing. Its gotten so darned complicated all of a sudden! Next thing you know they'll be telling us we can't play cricket on the aircraft carriers deck!

[lancelot]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6512927.stm

Anyone seen this outrage? Parading soldiers in front of TV cameras, making them 'apologise'...disgusting behaviour- and for what? Does it make you feel big and tough Iran?

And I dont know what the deal is with these letters...I truly hope that a British citizen has a better command of the English language- which is why I suspect they are fake...I could be wrong but that is my gut feeling.

And if they are fake, further shocking behaviour.

Screw this! Iran is obviously putting these people through misery for petty political one-up manship, seemingly with the apparent delusion that this behaviour is going to do them any favours in the long term. Send in the damn SAS! :charge:

[Lemur]

And I dont know what the deal is with these letters...I truly hope that a British citizen has a better command of the English language- which is why I suspect they are fake...I could be wrong but that is my gut feeling.
A more likely explanation would be that the soldiers are deliberately introducing errors into the letters to let us know that they are being coerced. Sort of like when American P.O.W.s in Vietnam would pitch their voices strangely during "confessions," or pose giving the finger for pictures.

[Navaros]

I don't think Britain really wants it's Marines back. If it did it could just apologize for trespassing in Iranian waters, get the Marines back, and then say that they did not really mean the apology and it was just said to save the lives of the Marines.

Clearly "politics" and not losing face is more important to Britain than the lives of those Marines.

[Mooks]

I don't think Britain really wants it's Marines back. If it did it could just apologize for trespassing in Iranian waters, get the Marines back, and then say that they did not really mean the apology and it was just said to save the lives of the Marines.

Clearly "politics" and not losing face is more important to Britain than the lives of those Marines.


Its called prestige, and pride. Both are really outdated. But if britian bends over to iran, then alot of people would lose their respect for them.

[spmetla]

For those of you that want to message Ahmadinejad himself try and post a comment on his blog: http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

While I doubt any comments posted will actually make it to the approved comments that are posted on the actual blog, it feels good to give him a piece of my mind, or at least give someone that runs the blog for him a piece of my mind.

[Devastatin Dave]

For those of you that want to message Ahmadinejad himself try and post a comment on his blog: http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

While I doubt any comments posted will actually make it to the approved comments that are posted on the actual blog, it feels good to give him a piece of my mind, or at least give someone that runs the blog for him a piece of my mind.
I'm gonna post one... DEVDAV STYLE!!!:laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Cut away all the particulars...

and I will stipulate on this specific issue that if the UK had had ironclad proof that their swabbies were operating in international waters we'd have seen it earlier and clearer

...and I am seeing, yet again, all of my euro-liberal (the def is a bit different there than here) friends pointedly asserting that using military power to apply pressure is bad policy.

This suggests, by implication, that the only morally valid and usually the only practical application of military force is direct self defense (without counter-attacks past one's own territory -- that the use of military power to protect or further your nation's strategic interests is morally wrong, impractical and/or both wrong and impractical.

Is this correct?

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2047044,00.html
The EU speaks...

Well, what does this mean. Maybe instead of talking, they'll talk at a higher volume. That'll show em how tough they are!!! I just they don't faint if they shake their fist or something.

[Lemur]

Maybe instead of talking, they'll talk at a higher volume. That'll show em how tough they are!!!
Once again, Team America: World Police (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/) was prophetic.


Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
Kim Jong Il: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.

[Devastatin Dave]

Would anyone like to share what they posted on Akmedinedonmynads' site? I would, but I'd get a warning...:beam:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Would anyone like to share what they posted on Akmedinedonmynads' site? I would, but I'd get a warning...:beam:

Hey, you think we're harsh? Wait till you get a visit from Imadinnerjacket's moderators... :shocked2:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Interesting, but predictable, consequences of the British, American and Iranian policies in the last few years. Will be interesting to follow what happens in the coming 2 years, since what will happen in the coming 2 years is, unlike the events from 5 years ago and up till now, going to be quite difficult to predict.

[Adrian II]

But if Britain bends over to Iran, then alot of people would lose their respect for them.At least the leading seawoman is being interviewed over a decent meal and a ciggy, not suspended upside-down from a forklift-truck with electrodes attached to her body and a bag over her head. I think that image tells you, in the briefest of terms, how much respect this coalition deserves and how much respect it enjoys.

I don't know it you've noticed, but the arrest of the 15 met with a deafening silence around the world. The Security Council and the EU are going through the motions of being concerned, but only in the hope that a major conflagration can be avoided by making tiny Britain shut up, cut its losses and strike a quiet deal with the Iranians.

[econ21]

At least the leading seawoman is being interviewed over a decent meal and a ciggy, not suspended upside-down from a forklift-truck with electrodes attached to her body and a bag over her head. I think that image tells you, in the briefest of terms, how much respect this coalition deserves and how much respect it enjoys.

I remember an American journalist kidnapped in Iraq who "wrote" anti-American propaganda shortly before being released and, IIRC, even spoke it while apparently being handled by a neutral third party during the release process. However, when she was safely in US hands, she recanted and said it was all just to get herself free (as was obvious by comparing her own previous journalism with the bilge that came out during her capture). Basically, she was following the Navaros tactic of trading "face" for freedom. If the seawoman is following the same ruse, I doubt anyone in Britain will blame her.

And we don't know what has happened to these 15 people. The captured RAF crew who made anti-Coalition statements during Iraq War I were physically coerced.

I don't think you can infer anything from an image of a kidnap victim about the respect the Coalition she works for deserves.

[Pannonian]

At least the leading seawoman is being interviewed over a decent meal and a ciggy, not suspended upside-down from a forklift-truck with electrodes attached to her body and a bag over her head. I think that image tells you, in the briefest of terms, how much respect this coalition deserves and how much respect it enjoys.

I don't know it you've noticed, but the arrest of the 15 met with a deafening silence around the world. The Security Council and the EU are going through the motions of being concerned, but only in the hope that a major conflagration can be avoided by making tiny Britain shut up, cut its losses and strike a quiet deal with the Iranians.
Erm, I don't know if you've noticed, but tiny Britain did shut up, cut its losses, and try to strike a quiet deal with the Iranians. That was the opening phase, which didn't work. So we're now on to the next phase, which is tiny Britain making a noise about the issue.

I don't really know why you consider Gitmo and Abu Ghraib to be the fault of the British, but the British people weren't too supportive of the Iraq venture either, and we're trying to withdraw as quickly as we can. That was the default situation before this current brouhaha, which may ironically have the effect of making us stay longer than we'd otherwise have done.

So you're blaming us for things we didn't do, and you're criticising us for not doing what we've already tried to do. Quite impressive. What's your next trick?

[English assassin]

I don't know it you've noticed, but the arrest of the 15 met with a deafening silence around the world. The Security Council and the EU are going through the motions of being concerned, but only in the hope that a major conflagration can be avoided by making tiny Britain shut up, cut its losses and strike a quiet deal with the Iranians.

Yeah, I noticed. You really find out who your friends are, huh.

I've done a complete 180 on the special relationship. Screw the EU, screw the UN, at least we don't get this **** from the Americans.

Oh, and the Canadians, nice post Goof.

[Banquo's Ghost]

At least the leading seawoman is being interviewed over a decent meal and a ciggy, not suspended upside-down from a forklift-truck with electrodes attached to her body and a bag over her head. I think that image tells you, in the briefest of terms, how much respect this coalition deserves and how much respect it enjoys.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for the point you make, namely the coalition's previous behaviour means any moral high ground is difficult to occupy.

However, the soldiers caught up in the 2004 incident were put through a mock execution by the Iranians - stood in a ditch while guns were cocked in their sight. Iran is hardly innocent of illegal treatment. The current captives are clearly being coerced, and we have no idea by what means.

Iran has a very fractured power structure, and those that appear to have the whip hand are now leaking that a trial is about to commence. I doubt if that development is being kept from the captives, nor the footage of the rent-a-mobs calling for their immediate execution.

After observing this situation for a week, I feel it is time for me to prepare a serious hat meal. I have been wrong about Iran. I supposed that she was ready, despite the nutter nominally in charge, to take a serious role in regional politics - but it is increasingly clear that the moderates have much less power than I had hoped - or at least, are unable to prevent the lunatics running the asylum. The vast majority of Iranians, I suspect, would be horrified at the risks being taken and the damage done to the country's standing (the events seem to released only on minority news channels at present, so it is difficult to say what they know). Very few want the madman to get them into a war.

The only hope may be that this proves to be a serious miscalculation on the hard-liners' parts, and paradoxically tips them out of power.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yeah, I noticed. You really find out who your friends are, huh.

I've done a complete 180 on the special relationship. Screw the EU, screw the UN, at least we don't get this **** from the Americans.

Oh, and the Canadians, nice post Goof.

I think you are being harsh EA, though I understand your anger.

The UK made a tactical mistake by taking to the UN so soon - and releasing the text of a more strongly worded communique that was bound to be watered down, before sounding out the Security Council. That said, Iran has ignored the UN so far.

The EU is in a much better position to help - something like 70% of Iran's foreign trade is with EU members and Brussels is distrusted less than London and Washington. If you had a Foreign Secretary with any respect whatsoever, you might be able to swing sentiment behind you. I suspect the EU will be working hard behind the scenes, if only to secure its own interest - escalation with Iran will hit oil prices, trade and possibly induce a recession.

Self-interest is always the key in these things. The USA has already ruled out any consideration of swapping the Iranian captives they hold for the Brits, despite this being a face-saving opportunity of time-honoured tradition.

So they don't care much about you either.

[lancelot]

I don't think Britain really wants it's Marines back. If it did it could just apologize for trespassing in Iranian waters,

Are you not jumping to conclusions, given that I dont think anyone really knows exactly where the British were captured?

[Navaros]

Are you not jumping to conclusions, given that I dont think anyone really knows exactly where the British were captured?

No I'm not, that's why there was more in the post than the portion thereof that was quoted.

Doesn't matter where they were captured. Iran just wants some words of appeasement to release them, so give them it and then get the Marines back. The words can always be retracted later, but the lives of the Marines would be saved which is the only thing that should matter.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Iran just wants some words of appeasement to release them, so give them it I hope Britain writes those words of appeasement on some cluster bombs and gives 'em to the Iranian Republican Guard alright
[/Dev Dave mode]


Gah! I promised myself not to post anymore in this thread. :wall:

[KukriKhan]

Whispered about town in D.C. is that the US's silence and "do nothing" approach was specifically requested by the UK. I, for one, would be proud to hold the Brits' coat while they resolve this. We owe them whatever help they want, including no "help" at all.

Those communications from the captive crew stink of fakery.

[Adrian II]

Iran is hardly innocent of illegal treatment.I have been making the point here for years, and on solid grounds, that the regime in Tehran is illegitimate, irresponsible, power-hungry and cruel. These days it turns out once again that it is. I am not surprised. Is anyone here genuinely surprised? Can anyone say without a trace of irony that this time they've gone too far, although they have been doing exactly that every single day since the inception of the regime in 1979?

Honestly, Banquo's Ghost, I respect you admission that you should now eat your hat. Maybe that's why you manage to keep your head cool. Or more probably it's because you are one of the few professional soldiers in the forum. Other posters are professing that they've had it with this or that view, country or fellow poster. It's the usual fall-out that you get if people feel strongly about something yet are incapable of acting on it. We've been there previously when we were discussing Iraq, Gitmo, Aby Ghraib and other issues. Some posters turned away from the Backroom at the time in disgust because of the scant regard of some members for Arab or Muslim lives, rights or dignity; others engaged in name-calling and impotent jingoism of the kind we are seeing now from British and American posters, and were subsequently banned.

This too will pass.

But if you (and others) think that further military pressure will help topple the regime in Tehran, I fear we may have to put up some hat recipes in the Frontroom because you will probably be eating a lot more of them.

[KukriKhan]

This too will pass

Indeed. Let's just hope it doesn't take 444 days, a failed SpecOps mission, and a regime change, this time.

[Adrian II]

Indeed. Let's just hope it doesn't take 444 days, a failed SpecOps mission, and a regime change, this time.You mean a change of American President? Anyway, yes, let's hope. But refusing to negotiate, threatening war and holding military exercises on Iran's doorstep may result in just that. Ahmedinejad knows, he was one of the student leaders in the 1979-1981 hostage affair, the Revolutionary Guards fall under his personal command, everything points to a replay.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Self-interest is always the key in these things. The USA has already ruled out any consideration of swapping the Iranian captives they hold for the Brits, despite this being a face-saving opportunity of time-honoured tradition.

So they don't care much about you either.

Unfair and untrue. Whatever the Brits require from the US to help them in this will be given, if not, the US might as well turn it's back on the rest of the world too, and even this "ship of fools" administration knows that. Is it a coincidence that this kidnapping ocurred just before tougher sanctions were to be determined on Iran's refusal to halt it's nuclear gambit? This was an opportunistic setup to gain hostages, gotta keep the Western Boogeyman front and center for the disgruntled homefront. Iran observed the Brits interdiction operations and took advantage of a flaw in the operation. Where was the air cover for these Brits? They should have had helicopter gunships protecting them as they made these searches. How does 6 boatloads of Iranians cross that much open water and surprise them?
This is a dangerous game, and may well have an opposite effect on the attitudes of the UK citizenry than the Iranians are hoping for. Openly reward kidnapping? I think not. Screw the UN Security Council, time for the close allies of the UK to do what they have to do diplomatically, economically etc... to put the pressure on, don't count on help from China or Russia.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But if you (and others) think that further military pressure will help topple the regime in Tehran, I fear we may have to put up some hat recipes in the Frontroom because you will probably be eating a lot more of them.

No, I don't think that military pressure will achieve anything except endangering the hostages (and I feel comfortable now using that word). I asked earlier in the thread if anyone advocating a non-diplomatic approach had an actual workable suggestion and there has been :tumbleweed:

When I referred to a miscalculation that might bring the Iranian government down, I was holding on to the hope that Ahmadinejad is deeply unpopular at home, and has many enemies. Whereas his appeals to patriotic fervour have had some effect, like President Bush, his audience is getting tired of it. Unlike the US electorate however, more and more ordinary Iranians are getting very anxious that he's going to get a lot of them killed. They don't have many ways of unseating their leadership, but opponents may see an opportunity. This hostage crisis is a pointless waste of Iranian political capital, engendered by a weak president and his followers.

I hoped we would see moderate voices resolve this issue quickly and embarrass the president further - and thus demonstrate Iran's bona fides as an influential broker in the region. I believed that these opponents in the moderate factions would be stronger and the people less gullible (I guess we see in all countries just how effective crude appeals to the "them and us" mentality prove to be). I was wrong to hope they were that strong, and thus wrong to advocate full engagement.

My own view (since I would be a charlatan to ask others for solutions and not propose my own) is that I think the best way forward would be a hostage exchange - as noted, time-honoured and respected in the Middle East. But once the hostages are home, I no longer have any hope we can deal with any aspect of the current Iranian regime on regional matters. We have to use much harder sanctions (including those that would hurt us in the EU somewhat) to force Ahmadinejad into a position where the next electoral cycle will see him ousted.

[English assassin]

I asked earlier in the thread if anyone advocating a non-diplomatic approach had an actual workable suggestion and there has been

Was anyone advocating a non-diplomatic approach? I saw a lot of people annoyed at point scoring and irrelvant historical lectures when 15 people had been kidnapped, but no one seriously suggesting the answer to this one lay in cruise missiles.

I'm starting to wish it did, mind, but I know it doesn't.

I don't agree with your suggestion. An exchange can only boost the RG's credibility. My solution is the "broken record". We have nothing to do with Iran, no trade, no nothing, except to say "please return the 15 servicemen." Any stunt, any publicity, any claim, met with "please return the 15 servicemen." Stiff upper lip, that's the way.

Except of course our chums in the EU won't impose trade sanctions, probably because of Britain's bad faith in the war of the Spanish succession.

Oh, and once they are back, ANYTIME the US or Israel wants to bomb some reactors, that is now A OK by me. Hell, we could probably spare a missile ourselves. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

[Adrian II]

My own view (since I would be a charlatan to ask others for solutions and not propose my own) is that I think the best way forward would be a hostage exchange - as noted, time-honoured and respected in the Middle East. But once the hostages are home, I no longer have any hope we can deal with any aspect of the current Iranian regime on regional matters. We have to use much harder sanctions (including those that would hurt us in the EU somewhat) to force Ahmadinejad into a position where the next electoral cycle will see him ousted.I haven't been exactly forthcoming on the solution-front either, and it's a fair challenge.

If Iran is holding the British soldiers with an eye to preventing an American military attack, then probably no amount of maneuvering is going to result in their release.

If it is not, then an Israeli-style hostage swap might be a possibility, something like 100 Iranians in exchange for the fifteen Brits. However, I don't know how many Iranians are in British custody in Iraq or elsewhere. Of course the Americans could chime in -- not right now, but in a month or so -- by deciding that there is no longer any reason to detain the five prominent Iranians they arrested in Arbil or any number of other, mostly ordinary Iranians they are detaining in Iraq.

As for the longer term .. :embarassed: ??
EDIT
The problem with sanctions is that neither Russia nor China, Turkey or a host of other countries will observe them. Or even support them formally. And if the U.S.-UK coalition is going to play the Sunni versus Shia game (as Saudi Arabia has wanted all along) I am sure some of those countries will actively support the Shia side and particularly its centre of gravity, Iran.

[Rodion Romanovich]

A question to those who want to bomb Iran: what IF the British sailors were actually in Iranian waters? Do you think it's wrong to apologize either under such circumstances? What are the proofs that the British sailors were NOT in Iranian waters? Apparently the matter is still disputed without any strong proof for either side.

I must say the silence of European and American countries is disturbing, but it's probably caused by the very simple fact that with Guantanamo and illegal detaining of innocent people without a trial, they aren't really in a position to pressure Iran on this. This kind of situation, and many other potential situations, is what many people, including myself, predicted would be the result of the meaningless torture and illegal detainment without trial that has taken place at Guantanamo and Abu Graib. Truly the torture in these places have caused no good - neither for Europe and America, nor for the Middle East. Now it has caused a political crisis.

I wish that either this torture and illegal detainment at Guantanamo and Abu Graib had never happened, or that Blair and Bush will take their responsibility and lose face and prestige in public by apologizing to Iran (whether the sailors were in Iranian waters or not) and stepping down on their trade embargoes and attempts at harassing and bullying Iran in the UN. Going around with threats of war in order to not lose prestige is just silly - they should think of the millions of people that would die if there would be a war with Iran, and what the world political consequences of such actions would be. They should also think of how completely harmless a simple apology is, other than that it is a bit embarassing to them after they've played the big strong heroes who will save the world from evil civilians in Iraq and Iran. They have bluffed their strength, pressured and threatened too many, and they have undermined the prestige both of themselves and their nations. Now is the time to retreat and face the truth, rather than plunging their countries into a chaos that could spiral off into another world war and would under no circumstances be benefitial for anyone. Hurt pride of people who are leaders shouldn't drive entire countries, men women and children, into a meaningless war whose target would be nothing else than preventing two testosterone-driven leaders from losing face.

[KukriKhan]

So, failing to immediately apologize, because it would make Bush and Blair unpopular, has brought us to the brink of WW III?

And you told us so?

Wow.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Excuse me? I think you need to read my post again.

It is normal to apologize if you were in hostile waters without permissions. For instance the Swiss apologized to Licthenstein (or whatever it was) the other day, after a few of their troops had entered their territory by mistake. If you aren't completely sure your troops weren't in the waters of another nation, you can't really start pressuring and threatening with war because the opponent keeps them detained. I don't see how anything else than a polite apology without threats and without stopping to bully Iran in the UN, denying them rights that all other countries are allowed, would be able to bring the sailors back. What is it we want to achieve? The sailors back and peace, or marking that we're the big cool guys and doing a "my father can beat your father" demonstration?

[Ice]

Excuse me? I think you need to read my post again.

It is normal to apologize if you were in hostile waters without permissions. For instance the Swiss apologized to Licthenstein (or whatever it was) the other day, after a few of their troops had entered their territory by mistake. If you aren't completely sure your troops weren't in the waters of another nation, you can't really start pressuring and threatening with war because the opponent keeps them detained. I don't see how anything else than a polite apology without threats and without stopping to bully Iran in the UN, denying them rights that all other countries are allowed, would be able to bring the sailors back. What is it we want to achieve? The sailors back and peace, or marking that we're the big cool guys and doing a "my father can beat your father" demonstration?

Good, except the British believe they weren't in Iranian waters. They think they are 100% sure.

[Rodion Romanovich]

First of all: how are they 100% sure? Secondly: it's normal procedure to apologize for the misunderstanding even if you're 100% sure, if you want a peaceful solution. Look at the Swiss incident in Lichtenstein, for example. If you want a peaceful solution your first action isn't to make a public statement at home saying that Iran will be hated by all in your country if they don't hand back the sailors. You don't follow up that with an unconditional demand for return of the sailors immediately, as EU ministers did. Above all, you don't continue with a ridiculous half-threat such as the "different phase" statement, which just makes him look silly and weak - if you gotta threaten, threaten and be ready to live up to your threats. If you gotta find a peaceful solution, be polite. And then there's the next public statement, which isn't an apology either: "Blair says it is 'serious' and calls for a swift end to the 'unjustified and wrong' detention." - BBC news.

Why not just apologize like you would to any other nation? Why can't Iran be shown the traditional politeness that countries show to each others in misunderstandings like this? If say French sailors would enter English waters with a military vessel and were captured, wouldn't the French leader apologize for the incident?

[KafirChobee]

Not a good idea when you're in rubber dingies surrounded by a half dozen heavily armed patrol boats. This smells like a set up...wonder what else is getting smuggled besides cars
[size of "wonder what ..."]
Read through 8 pages of the debate for war, comparisons of past incidents, political philosophies and rants against liberals causing this, past conflict comparisons (WWII?), and the idea that it is a diversion from the real problems of the present administrations (US & GB). IMO, the one thing ignored is Hosakawa's question of what was on the cargo ship.

The cargo ship was Indian - I believe, or atleast that was the supposed registry. The Royal Marines operation was a standard one, as I understand it this was done on almost a daily basis - inspection of cargoes moving into Iranian waters (there is an embargo - you know?). So, what made this ship so special for the Iranians to risk the present confrontation? And, where is that ship now? Will it be seized and inspected once it leaves Iran (get out the geiger counters)?

If we assume that the Marines were indeed in Iranian waters (or that we agree with their definition of its watery borders) by the time they attempted the boarding. Then could we not also assume that the Marines actions was standard operendi, that they had done this in the past in this area? So, what was the big deal for Iran to protect this ship?

What our governments ought to be asking is for the cargo ship, as well as the Marines.

What made this ship so important? Knowing that alQaeda has its own maritine fleet (estimates are 12 - 20 ships), makes this much more about what was being smuggled and why the Iranians were waiting for it - than that they did what they did. imo

[Ice]

First of all: how are they 100% sure?

I'm not. The British government seems to think they are though.

[Adrian II]

What made this ship so important? Knowing that alQaeda has its own maritine fleet (estimates are 12 - 20 ships), makes this much more about what was being smuggled and why the Iranians were waiting for it - than that they did what they did. imoI have no idea. Seems to have been a Japanese ship. There was a reporter of The Independent on the HMS Cornwall who wrote down some observations (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2387844.ece). He was whisked away to Dubai a day later.

[Slyspy]

Excuse me? I think you need to read my post again.

It is normal to apologize if you were in hostile waters without permissions. For instance the Swiss apologized to Licthenstein (or whatever it was) the other day, after a few of their troops had entered their territory by mistake. If you aren't completely sure your troops weren't in the waters of another nation, you can't really start pressuring and threatening with war because the opponent keeps them detained. I don't see how anything else than a polite apology without threats and without stopping to bully Iran in the UN, denying them rights that all other countries are allowed, would be able to bring the sailors back. What is it we want to achieve? The sailors back and peace, or marking that we're the big cool guys and doing a "my father can beat your father" demonstration?

Of course the Swiss were not immediately taken prisoner by a hardline organisation within the Lictenstein military were they?

One thing that isn't clear to me is that since the waters are disputed how do some people seem to regard the capture of the Brits as a perfectly legitimate action on behalf of the Iranians?

Anything that isn't clear to me is why didn't we upon notification of the "trespass" immediately say "Yes, you are quite correct. Very sorry, won't happen again" and then see what the Iranians did. Then, when (if?) the hostages are safely back, quietly leak information suggesting that the RN was in the right and so discrediting Iran after the event.

I don't understand the need to enter a penis measuring contest with Iran over this issue.

[Geoffrey S]

Anything that isn't clear to me is why didn't we upon notification of the "trespass" immediately say "Yes, you are quite correct. Very sorry, won't happen again" and then see what the Iranians did. Then, when (if?) the hostages are safely back, quietly leak information suggesting that the RN was in the right and so discrediting Iran after the event.

I don't understand the need to enter a penis measuring contest with Iran over this issue.
To be honest, this is something I don't understand myself. The way things have developed has neither helped the Brits, nor prevented the Iranian government from making propaganda gains both inside and outside Iran. Still, both sides have committed themselves now.

[KafirChobee]

I have no idea. Seems to have been a Japanese ship. There was a reporter of The Independent on the HMS Cornwall who wrote down some observations (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2387844.ece). He was whisked away to Dubai a day later.
OK, thx - report here was ship was Indian and cars were 'stolen (I may have missed a correction). Then again US news agencys tend to skew things up, and once reported they tend to ignore corrections to it, or put it in near unreadable type.

Again, thx for they clarification that it was under Japan registry.

[Adrian II]

To be honest, this is something I don't understand myself. The way things have developed has neither helped the Brits, nor prevented the Iranian government from making propaganda gains both inside and outside Iran. Still, both sides have committed themselves now.Iranian propaganda gains elsewhere in the world would be absolutely minimal. No one in their right mind will suddenly feel any sort of respect for the mullah regime, unless of course they already did. And inside Iran the hardliners are cheering, but you never know. Banquo's Ghost may be right after all that moderate elements in the clergy and the army will prevail over the impopular Mr. A. and his Revolutionary Guards who seem to be running this show. Their hardline stance on teh nuclear issue has made them even more impopular over the past weeks and months. It would of course be beautiful if this episode proved to be their undoing. As for Whitehall, I think they may have allowed themselves to be carried away by the tabloids and the rightwing press too much.

[Adrian II]

Again, thx for they clarification that it was under Japan registry.Well, I'm not sure, some British papers also mention an Indian flag. Maybe the reporter thought the merchant was Japanese because the cars on it were Toyota's.

Anyway, now read this story (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2390872.ece), filed by the same reporter around the same time. It seems that the sailors boarded the same vessel the day before when it was unloading cars onto a barge that were ostensibly destined for an Iraqi harbour on the Shatt al-Arab. However, the barge took off into Iranian waters and when the sailors in their rhibs apprehended it, the crew tossed a box overboard.

If you're looking for a cue, there it is - although it's a very very small one.

[Geoffrey S]

Iranian propaganda gains elsewhere in the world would be absolutely minimal. No one in their right mind will suddenly feel any sort of respect for the mullah regime, unless of course they already did.
I was mainly thinking of people in regions close to Iran who would gladly believe the West was at fault, but quite aside from that the skepticism against the British government displayed in both this thread and elsewhere indicates some success for the Iranian regime. Or possibly, more of a failings on the British side.

[ZombieFriedNuts]

They are throwing rocks and flash bangs at are embassy in Iran now that’s not very nice is it, I was quite happy to let this be resolved peacefully but now I say send the SAS in that will solve some problems

[Ser Clegane]

They are throwing rocks and flash bangs at are embassy in Iran now that’s not very nice is it, I was quite happy to let this be resolved peacefully but now I say send the SAS in that will solve some problems
While your outrage is certainly justified - where exactly would you send the SAS to do ... what?

[Marshal Murat]

Our embassy-grammar edit.....


I think this situation is borderline appeasement, but diplomacy wasn't always so calm.
I think that it may end like the US Iranian hostage situation. They will stay there for a bit, and then get returned, with not discernible advantage.

[rory_20_uk]

While your outrage is certainly justified - where exactly would you send the SAS to do ... what?

And solve which problems?

~:smoking:

[Slyspy]

Yeah lets have a special forces raid into Iran to rescue the hostages! Oh, wait....

[Somebody Else]

So, uh, I presume, like most foreigners entering a country illegally, the 15 sailors are being given hotel accomodation, and have lawyers supplied by the government to fight for their case, to give them Iranian citizenship. Oh, and of course, they are going to be given jobs...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It would appear that the British public is deciding in favor of diplomacy only.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/01/wiran101.xml

48% of the public, when queried, suggested that military action was not appropriate even if current efforts proved fruitless. Barely 7% thought that preparing a military response was warranted.

This implies to me that, in short, the 15 sailors and marines are not worth fighting for under any circumstances.

EA, this suggests that your attitude is a bit out of step with the average Briton.

Brits: What say you?

[Marshal Murat]

I think that people are 'war weary' and don't want to start another war.

That's a American view.

[Pannonian]

It means we're wary of starting a war we can't cope with.

[Ja'chyra]

It would appear that the British public is deciding in favor of diplomacy only.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/01/wiran101.xml

48% of the public, when queried, suggested that military action was not appropriate even if current efforts proved fruitless. Barely 7% thought that preparing a military response was warranted.

This implies to me that, in short, the 15 sailors and marines are not worth fighting for under any circumstances.

EA, this suggests that your attitude is a bit out of step with the average Briton.

Brits: What say you?

But 44% supported it with the remainder, I assume, undecided. So while it may imply that to you it sure doesn't to me.

Anyway, it doesn't say, as far as I could see, how many and which people were polled.

[English assassin]

EA, this suggests that your attitude is a bit out of step with the average Briton.

That may well be true on a whole range of subjects, but I don't recall saying I thought military action was the way to get the hostages back? Apart from anything else its not actually possible. Alas the days when we could just send a gunboat ended about 120 years ago. If they ever really existed at all.

I think I said words to the effect that that Iran was now officially on my **** list, and that I really didn't care if her nuclear programme was bombed to bits after we have the hostages back. And that furthermore, if we joined in with that bombing just so the Iranians knew they were on our **** list, that was fine with me. I do think that. But the only way we will get the hostages back is by Iran deciding, for whatever reason, to return them. Until we get them back bombing is off the menu.

Which I guess the Iranians know, which is a good reason to keep quiet about being pro-bombing*.

*NB for the benefit of AII I would prefer a non-bombing solution to the proliferation of the Islamic bomb, although I am not holding my breath. As I said in an earlier psot, where is Kermit?

[Adrian II]

As I said in an earlier psot, where is Kermit?[/SIZE]He's in rehab since the last IPCC report was published. Before he went in, he told me he was in favour of bombing Kyoto because it stands for everything evil in today's world.

[Adrian II]

Interesting:


TEHRAN, Iran: The sudden release of an Iranian diplomat missing for two months in Iraq raised new hope Tuesday that 15 British sailors and marines seized by Iran may soon be freed.

It also suggests the standoff over the captive Britons may end with a de facto prisoner swap — something both Tehran and London have publicly discounted.

Diplomat Jalal Sharafi arrived in Tehran on Tuesday, hours after he was freed by his captors in Iraq, officials said. He was seized Feb. 4 by uniformed gunmen in Karradah, a Shiite-controlled district of Baghdad.

Iran alleged the diplomat had been abducted by an Iraqi military unit commanded by U.S. forces — a charge repeated by several Iraqi Shiite lawmakers. But U.S. authorities denied any role in his disappearance.

link (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/03/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Britain.php)

[econ21]

This implies to me that, in short, the 15 sailors and marines are not worth fighting for under any circumstances.

Poppycock. If the sailors were held by rebels in Sierra Leone or terrorists in an Embassy in London, the opinion poll - and officially sanctioned response - would be very different. But Iran is a country of about 71 million people with a formiddable military. Heck even it's proxy, Hizbollah, fought off Israel's attempt to use force to secure the release of two of its prisoners. And Israel could project vastly more force in Southern Lebanon than Britain can in southern Iraq.

I doubt even America could successfully fight for the lives of the 15, even if they were American personnel.

[rory_20_uk]

And when we talk of fighting, is this to get the people back alive or merely punish enough people in the correct country

Britain can't fight a land war - and bar colonial and others when in league with others hasn't. And how is bombardment or air attacks going to help?

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

Meanwhile, on planet earth, Banquo's Ghost's scenario seems to materalise:


The stand-off over the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran looks to be moving towards a de facto prisoner exchange, despite denials by Britain and Iran that a swap was intended.

The first sign of a breakthrough yesterday was the release of Jalal Sharafi, an Iranian diplomat abducted from the streets of Baghdad two months ago, whom Iran claimed had been seized by Iraqi commandos controlled by the US. At the same time, an Iraqi Foreign Ministry official said the Iraqi government was "intensively" seeking the release of five Iranian officials captured in a US helicopter raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the Kurdish capital of Arbil in January.

link (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2418427.ece)

[Devastatin Dave]

Ahmadinejad is on TV right now, and is going to release his hostages after he yaps it up with his adoring fans (media). Well, shall we commence the bombing?

[Navaros]

"We are sorry that British troops remain in Iraq and their sailors are being arrested in Iran," Ahmadinejad said.

He criticized Britain for deploying Leading Seaman Faye Turney, one of the 15 detainees, in the Gulf, pointing out that she is a woman with a child.

"How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don't they respect family values in the West?" he asked of the British government.


He makes some very true points here.

[Banquo's Ghost]

"We are sorry that British troops remain in Iraq and their sailors are being arrested in Iran," Ahmadinejad said.

He criticized Britain for deploying Leading Seaman Faye Turney, one of the 15 detainees, in the Gulf, pointing out that she is a woman with a child.

"How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don't they respect family values in the West?" he asked of the British government.

He makes some very true points here.

Funnily enough, he's saying pretty much the same thing as the more foamy right-wing editorialists in the UK press.

Lock 'em up next to the sink, I say. ~:rolleyes:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - protector of moral probity. *sigh* My hero.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Back on planet earth, it may be that things are looking up (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2420471.ece). President Ahmadinejad appears to be getting his PR coup and the hostages may be on their way to the airport for home.

Iran's President 'will free sailors as gift to Britain'
By Jon Smith, PA Political Editor
Published: 04 April 2007

The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today appeared to pardon and free the 15 British naval personnel held by Iran as a "gift to Britain".

At a news conference in Tehran, he also theatrically awarded medals to the coastguards he said had captured the sailors and marines.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "We are looking at what has been said."





President Ahmadinejad also attacked the stance of the European Union.

"Is this the kind of attitude, manner that we want to run Europe - this is the European Union - without investigating they announce a certain stance.

"Respect for sovereignty - is it just a claim or is it a fact?"

And he suggested that the UK Government was not disclosing the truth about the situation to the public.

"The English government may not have even the courage to tell its own people about this," he claimed.

"We leave the judgment to the people of the world and the people of England."




Earlier, Mr Ahmadinejad said Iran would never accept trespassing of its territorial waters.

"On behalf of the great Iranian people, I would like to thank the Iranian coastguard for courageously defending our Iranian territorial waters, " the president added.

He then pinned medals on the chests of three coastguard officers.

President Ahmadinejad homed in on the plight of Leading Seaman Turney, the only female captive, questioning why such a difficult job had been given to a mother.

"Why is there no respect for motherhood, affection?" he demanded.

He continued: "The Government of Mr Blair chose to take the conflicting approach and took the issue to the Security Council.

"Why did the Security Council issue a statement without taking all the evidence into account?

"People wonder why and people wonder where is the Security Council going to?

"What's the direction?

"And then Iran is accused and then Iran is asked to release the detainees.

"Would the same people want their land to be violated?"

The news conference was being eagerly watched both in Whitehall and by the families of the sailors and marines in their home ports.

They were captured after boarding an Indian merchantman in what the UK has insisted were Iraqi territorial waters 13 days ago.

The UK was today said to have begun direct negotiations with the Iranian government through its chief negotiator Dr Ali Larijani.

No 10 refused to confirm a report that the prime minister's chief foreign affairs adviser Sir Nigel Sheinwald had taken personal charge of the talks and spoken to Dr Larijani himself.

Mr Ahmadinejad said his government would release the detained 15 British sailors and marines promptly.

He said the sailors would be taken to Tehran Airport at the end of the press conference he was addressing.

Mr Ahmadinejad said he had pardoned the sailors as a gift to the British people and to mark the birthday of Islam's Prophet Mohammed and Easter.


Mr Ahmadinejad said his government would release the detained 15 British sailors and marines promptly.

He said the sailors would be taken to Tehran Airport at the end of the press conference he was addressing.

Spoken publicly so let's hope for resolution.

[doc_bean]

He makes some very true points here.

Family values are just an excuse for keeping women in the kitchen, it was her choice to join.

Why do you hate freedom ?

[Navaros]

Family values are just an excuse for keeping women in the kitchen, it was her choice to join.

Why do you hate freedom ?

But it wasn't her unborn baby's choice to be put at risk. And if she has other children it wasn't their choice to be neglected & abandoned by their mother.

I didn't see the President of Iran make any comments about the kitchen. Rather he only made points that are very easy for any reasonable person to agree with.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But it wasn't her unborn baby's choice to be put at risk. And if she has other children it wasn't their choice to be neglected & abandoned by their mother.

I didn't see the President of Iran make any comments about the kitchen. Rather he only made points that are very easy for any reasonable person to agree with.

Certainly any reasonable person....who held strongly traditionalist views on sex roles and cultural participation.

[InsaneApache]

Hang on, there are several blokes there with kids of their own. Should they not be allowed to serve their country as well? Or just the women?

[doc_bean]

But it wasn't her unborn baby's choice to be put at risk.

I don't think she's pregnant, at least that wasn't in the quote. I think they actually keep active women out of the frontline, though I wouldn't care either way.

[Adrian II]

Back on planet earth, it may be that things are looking up (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2420471.ece). President Ahmadinejad appears to be getting his PR coup and the hostages may be on their way to the airport for home.Better still, this looks like a total pr defeat for A. and his cronies. Yesss! :thumbsup:

[Devastatin Dave]

He makes some very true points here.
Dude, do you have any idea how this man's "government" and culture treat women? Are you that much in agreement with his views? You don't happen to go to Westboro baptist do you?:no:

[Navaros]

Dude, do you have any idea how this man's "government" and culture treat women? Are you that much in agreement with his views? You don't happen to go to Westboro baptist do you?:no:

No, I don't go to Westboro Baptist.

Maybe his culture doesn't give women as much "freedom" as women here have. But since women here abuse that "freedom" by turning it into "we must have rights to 'abortions'" and generally paving the way for society to be filled with fornication, promiscuity, adultery - basically a "free sex" society - and the broken homes all that leads to, then I say "the West" has it more wrong than his culture does.

I am in agreement with him that the West does not respect family values, and his country does to a larger extent than the West does.

[Sir Moody]

i really need to fix my sarcasm metre when ever Nav posts it goes straight to 10... its almost like his posts seem to be cleverly constructed sarcasm... but their not... he scares me...

[Pannonian]

i really need to fix my sarcasm metre when ever Nav posts it goes straight to 10... its almost like his posts seem to be cleverly constructed sarcasm... but their not... he scares me...
Fix it so it can go up to 11, for those times when you need that little bit extra.

[JR-]

It would appear that the British public is deciding in favor of diplomacy only.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/01/wiran101.xml

48% of the public, when queried, suggested that military action was not appropriate even if current efforts proved fruitless. Barely 7% thought that preparing a military response was warranted.

This implies to me that, in short, the 15 sailors and marines are not worth fighting for under any circumstances.

EA, this suggests that your attitude is a bit out of step with the average Briton.

Brits: What say you?
it was always going to be diplomatically decided, because 15 matelots are not worth having their oil industry bombed to hell.

so no-one wants a war, and there won't be.............. as long as they believe there would have been an ass-kicking if they didn't play nice.

[spmetla]

Hurray! They're released!:balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:

[Devastatin Dave]

Fix it so it can go up to 11, for those times when you need that little bit extra.
Because 11 is better!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhVWJgIzftE

[Devastatin Dave]

No, I don't go to Westboro Baptist.

Maybe his culture doesn't give women as much "freedom" as women here have. But since women here abuse that "freedom" by turning it into "we must have rights to 'abortions'" and generally paving the way for society to be filled with fornication, promiscuity, adultery - basically a "free sex" society - and the broken homes all that leads to, then I say "the West" has it more wrong than his culture does.

I am in agreement with him that the West does not respect family values, and his country does to a larger extent than the West does.
You know what Bro, I would personnaly perform abortions if it meant that the Western Culture of having women equal was ever threatened by nutcase like your hero over there in Iran and people that carried your "opinions". Jesus looked as all of us as His children. Remember the woman that was going to be stoned my friend? The Lord stood up for women, all women even thoughs who had sinned. Are you so pure that you can cast a stone friend? So don't give me that "well, the best way to keep women from having abortions is to treat them like cattle" nonsense that those mullah-tards and yourself are preaching. Garbage...:wall:

[ZombieFriedNuts]

Well that was rather pointless

[rory_20_uk]

I'm with Dave. Not done the course for surgical abortions though.

~:smoking:

[spmetla]

Good ol Mahmoud must have been swayed by Dev Dave's pointed comments and my pointing out of his childlike foreign policy, both of which would get us warnings on these boards.:yes: .... :no:

Wonder what the deal actually was, Ahmad says it was a gift but so far I haven't seen much gift giving on the part of the Iranians except for headaches.

[Sir Moody]

the cynical part of me (yup i really am British) tells me the release of the iranian Diplomat in iraq had something to do with it - but im cynical so you can ignore me :2thumbsup:

[Ronin]

The Real reason the soldiers were released:

Madrid's Capello to take over as coach of Iran
http://rawstory.com/news/dpa/Madrid_s_Capello_to_take_over_as_co_04032007.html



Madrid's Capello to take over as coach of Iran
dpa German Press Agency
Published: Tuesday April 3, 2007


Tehran- Fabio Capello will take over as coach of the
Iranian national football team during the summer, the Tehran sport
daily Iran-Varzeshi reported Tuesday.
The Real Madrid boss has reportedly already visited Tehran and
will leave the Spanish giants at the end of the current season with a
one-year payoff rather than the two years stipulated in his contract,
which runs until June 2009.

there you have it......there are no problems that football can´t fix :2thumbsup: :laugh4:

[Idaho]

I would say that I hate to say I told you so, but I would be lying. I'm a smug git and positively wallow in my own victories.

I believe this has panned out exactly as I said it would.

[English assassin]

I would say that I hate to say I told you so, but I would be lying. I'm a smug git and positively wallow in my own victories.

I believe this has panned out exactly as I said it would.

Congratulations. Now, any idea who will win the 3.30 at Kempton Park?

Memo to Navy: next time DON'T recall the helicopter, please.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Today's Guardian has a cartoon about Ahmadrianejad and his fellow travelling western friends. ~;)

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/martin_rowson/2007/04/05/rowson05042007.jpg