Iran Seizes 15 British Marines [Archive]

Ja'chyra

03-23-2007, 15:53

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm)

UK sailors captured at gunpoint

Commodore Lambert
Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.
The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.

The Royal Navy said the men, who were on a routine patrol in Iraqi waters, were understood to be unharmed.

The Foreign Office has demanded the immediate and safe return of the men, who are based on HMS Cornwall.

That vessel's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said he was hoping there had been a "simple mistake" over territorial waters.

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they [British personnel] were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may claim they were in Iranian waters.

"I hope we find this is a simple misunderstanding at the tactical level."

Helicopters had reported seeing two British boats being moved to Iranian bases and there had been no evidence of fighting, he added.

He said that despite scant communication, the 15 people were understood to be safe and had reacted in an "extremely professional way, in line with the rules of engagement".

"I look forward to seeing them on their return and congratulating them."

He said naval authorities were doing everything possible to ensure their safe return.

The Ministry of Defence said: "The group boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters.

HMS CORNWALL FACTS
Multi-national force flagship in the northern Gulf
Type 22 frigate
Crew: 250 (Max 301)
Length: 148.1m / 485.9ft
Speed: 30 knots
Source: Royal Navy

Profile of HMS Cornwall

"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level.

"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has summoned the Iranian ambassador in London to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in an attempt to get the men released as quickly as possible.

In a statement, leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell, also called for their immediate release.

"Whatever the rights and wrongs of military action, British forces in Iraq are now there with the authority of a UN security council resolution... and the Iranian government should be left in no doubt of the serious implications of their action," he said.

FAMILY INFORMATION LINE
0845 7800 900

The incident comes as British Army Colonel Justin Masherevski, who is based in Iraq, says most of the violence against UK forces in Basra is being engineered by Iranian elements.

Col Masherevski said Iran was providing "sophisticated weaponry" to insurgents and "Iranian agents" were paying local men to attack British troops.

In 2004, Iran detained eight British servicemen for three days after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border.

The UK claimed the men were "forcibly escorted" into Iranian territorial waters.

While they were being held, the men were paraded blindfold and made to apologise on Iranian TV before their release was agreed.

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins said the difference this time, and a cause of concern, is that the present Iranian government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was much more hardline.

"The political climate is worse with Britain among those confronting Iran over its controversial nuclear programme," he added.

Could this be the start of things to come?

Devastatin Dave

03-23-2007, 15:55

I pray for their safe return. And I also pray that the citizens of Iran rise up against the @$$holes that are running their country. :furious3:

Vladimir

03-23-2007, 16:00

The incident comes as British Army Colonel Justin Masherevski, who is based in Iraq, says most of the violence against UK forces in Basra is being engineered by Iranian elements.

Col Masherevski said Iran was providing "sophisticated weaponry" to insurgents and "Iranian agents" were paying local men to attack British troops.

Looks like BG is going to have to eat another hat.

Banquo's Ghost

03-23-2007, 16:12

Looks like BG is going to have to eat another hat.

:yes: Do I have to eat them all at once, or can I save some till later?

Vladimir

03-23-2007, 16:35

Pass a few to me. I've been slacking. :shame:

Crazed Rabbit

03-23-2007, 17:30

Banquo's Ghost

03-23-2007, 17:43

Perhaps a multi-course meal? What wine goes good with hats?

I'm looking at a nice robust claret. That'll help the hats down, go well with my starter of crow and complement the dessert of humble pie. :boxedin:

Gregoshi

03-23-2007, 17:48

What wine goes good with hats?

CR
Witch hat?

Spino

03-23-2007, 18:32

A strange path taken by the Iranians in their quest for 'peaceful nuclear power'. :juggle2:

A couple notes; Iranians doing this is stupid. Especially on British troops. If they captured US troops, there'd be a lot more nuts saying it was all some big conspiracy. Or maybe they knew the US would retaliate harder.

But - is this an act of war? Capturing another nation's soldiers in territory outside your own? IT seems awfully close if it isn't.CR

Actually I think this is a clever move... if it works.

If Iran knew those were British troops they were capturing then this just might prove to be a very shrewd move. One could argue that Iran is trying to 'persuade' the UK government to expedite its pull out of Iraq by applying pressure in such a way that would bring public outcry against the war to the boiling point (i.e. massive, violent protests). The appearance of 15 British troopers being held hostage on the every TV in the UK might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. By forcing Britain to abandon the southern Shia dominated regions sooner than later it makes the US mission in Iraq that much more difficult, especially now that the hawkish Bush administration has to butt heads with a decidedly dovish Democrat controlled Congress. A premature withdrawal from those Shia dominated regions would also facilitate an even quicker build-up of Iranian backed insurgency forces there.

Why Brits and not Americans? The use of conventional forces to capture American troops in international waters would be treated by the US government (especially a Republican one) as an openly hostile act. Given the current administration's penchance for 'action' (in that region anyway) and its position on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East Iran would run the risk of being targeted by massive US airstrikes and special forces operations, both to secure the hostages and of course... to take out its nuclear research and development facilities. So clearly hostage taking would work to the US' advantage and give it an excuse to act on its displeasure with Iran's nuclear program. However, attack a US ally whose gov't and population has been experiencing a flagging 'enthusiasm' for the Iraqi venture since it began and it puts the US in the uncomfortable position of restraining itself and abiding by the requests of its ally so the hostages can be secured via peaceful, diplomatic means. When strength is met with passivity or weakness it invites further aggression. Should Britain 'buy' back its hostages with money, agreements or an even quicker withdrawal the Darwinian floodgates will fly open and lead to much bolder actions on the part of the aggressors. Iran 'wins'.

Of course, given that the US is Britain's biggest and staunchest ally this could backfire in Iran's face and they just might be on the receiving end of said strikes and spec ops operations anyway. It is certainly a big gamble.

Perhaps a multi-course meal? What wine goes good with hats?

Mmm, a nice bowler with a light cream sauce sounds appropriate. Serve it up with a light white wine. Delish.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-23-2007, 18:56

Predicting a repeat thread due to lack of description in title.

Ja'chyra

03-23-2007, 19:04

Predicting a repeat thread due to lack of description in title.

Lol, fixed.

Spino

I think you underestimate the British people, if anything happens to those sailors the whole populace will be screaming for blood, only a few (usually the most vocal I grant you) would see this as a reason to pull out of Iraq.

Kralizec

03-23-2007, 19:12

Deja vu.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3834275.stm

Tribesman

03-23-2007, 19:36

Could this be the start of things to come?
Nah the start of things to come is Turkey saying it is going to invade Iraq again unless the coilition sort out the mess:yes:

Vladimir

03-23-2007, 19:45

Lol, fixed.

Spino

I think you underestimate the British people, if anything happens to those sailors the whole populace will be screaming for blood, only a few (usually the most vocal I grant you) would see this as a reason to pull out of Iraq.

I believe the point is that nothing will happen. Nothing at all, just like in the article Fenring posted. This inaction will lead to frustration which will lead to
etc.

Looks like those sailors wussed out pretty quick.
The UK embassy earlier expressed concern that they were shown on television wearing blindfolds, making apologies for entering Iranian territorial waters.

Duke Malcolm

03-23-2007, 19:45

I demand an immediate invasion of Iran! We must respond with all our available might! Ah, wait, we have no available might... hmm...

Ice

03-23-2007, 20:43

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/23/iran.uk/index.html

LONDON, England (CNN) -- An Iranian naval patrol seized 15 British marines and sailors who had boarded a vessel suspected of smuggling cars off the coast of Iraq, military officials said.

The British government immediately demanded the safe return of its troops and summoned Tehran's London ambassador to explain the incident.

Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett said she was "extremely disturbed" by the capture of the 15 personnel.

Oh goody.

Another article by Time:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1602389,00.html?cnn=yes

Banquo's Ghost

03-23-2007, 20:51

As predicted, the earlier less specific title led to another thread on the news.

Both now merged. :bow:

spmetla

03-23-2007, 20:52

I just read this as well. I just hope that Bush doesn't use this a pretext to fight the Iranians for the sake of the British. They really seem to want a fight! With the Russians withdrawing from Busher and more sanctions looming I wonder if a war will be the only way then can unite their populace to the government like they did fighting Iraq in the 80s.

Ice

03-23-2007, 20:54

Predicting a repeat thread due to lack of description in title.

Yup. I looked too.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-23-2007, 21:01

This is the Cassus Belli.

I said it was inevitable and it has come a step closer today. I just hope they make this one short and bloody, destroy the nessessary infastructure, and leave.

Here's a thought. Iran still has an Air Force, I hate to think how Britain will deal with fast jets if america can't very rapidly achieve air superiorety.

HoreTore

03-23-2007, 21:02

Don't forget that it is entirely possible that the Iranians are correct, and the UK has screwed up...

Ice

03-23-2007, 21:03

Spino

03-23-2007, 21:50

Nah the start of things to come is Turkey saying it is going to invade Iraq again unless the coilition sort out the mess:yes:

Nothing like staking your claim in advance. Cheap land is awfully hard to come by these days... :wink: :sultan:

Spino

I think you underestimate the British people, if anything happens to those sailors the whole populace will be screaming for blood, only a few (usually the most vocal I grant you) would see this as a reason to pull out of Iraq.

Well I can almost guarantee that it won't come to that. Regardless of whether this was a planned action or not the point is that no harm will come to those sailors. Iran needs to persuade the US' allies to abandon the coalition effort in Iraq in order to achieve its own ends. Killing or torturing those sailors would defeat the purpose of using them for political leverage. If this action was planned and British forces were the intended target then it's clearly part of a divide and conquer strategy.

The worst part is that Iran sure as hell won't apologize for violating international law and detaining these sailors, even if there happens to be mounds of evidence proving them to be in the wrong. They'll simply claim their forces were well within their territorial waters when the incident took place and harp on that point ad nauseum.

Unfortunately this is already shaping up to be a minor Iranian victory.

Tribesman

03-23-2007, 22:09

Nothing like staking your claim in advance. Cheap land is awfully hard to come by these days...
I know , who do they think they are ? threatening to invade to get rid of a terrorist safe haven . blimey next thing you know they will be accusing America of supplying a banned terrorist group by putting it through its other wing that isn't on the banned list .

This is the Cassus Belli.
yaeh yeah , thats what they said about the Maddox

Adrian II

03-24-2007, 00:07

yaeh yeah , thats what they said about the MaddoxI knew I would find you in this thread. Like me, I suppose you have thought hard for, oh, seven or eight seconds after hearing about this in the news.

'Cus who stands to benefit?

Not the British, whose Naval commander has already caved in by stating that the specific area of the waters was 'disputed' and that he hoped it was all a 'tactical misunderstanding'.

Not the Americans, who have the stiffer upper lips these days but keep them well shut since this would be a very inconvenient time to start another little war.

I guess the Iranian regime might benefit somewhat from a brief public display of the captive sailors (for interior reasons) followed by a swift hand-over. Anything more would damage their cause in the upcoming UNSC sitting.

So yes, this looks like one more wet cracker destined to sizzle for a while and then drown in the lukearm Gulf waters without a bang.

Unless, of course, there would be clues that this was the work of a rogue element, some radical group within the elite corps of the army, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Think: 1979 hostage model.

Lo and behold, US Navy Commander Kevin Aandahl has now stated that the captors were IRGC. No more news is transpiring however. No clues of any wider ramifications. All in all, it looks like a 2004 rewind.

KrooK

03-24-2007, 00:19

Hmm Prison break 3 :)

InsaneApache

03-24-2007, 00:24

Royal Marines really hate being called sailors. I know. My dad told me.

:wall:

Adrian II

03-24-2007, 00:50

Royal Marines really hate being called sailors. I know. My dad told me.

:wall:For some reason, I would hate being captured without firing a shot even more...

Hosakawa Tito

03-24-2007, 01:03

For some reason, I would hate being captured without firing a shot even more...

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

Adrian II

03-24-2007, 01:11

wonder what else is getting smuggled besides carsCrossed my mind as well. There are bases of the elite Quds force nearby, and these guys are accused of smuggling explosive devices into Iraq. But so what, it's all just guesswork. Homeopathic doses of the truth amount to no truth at all.

Hosakawa Tito

03-24-2007, 01:30

Hopefully this is just a low risk way for Iran to assert their international claim to this contested boundary, and bring attention to the recent seizure of their own personnel. They have a good relationship with the Iraqi government (and the Brits were interdicting smugglers by request of the Iraqi government), I don't think they want to damage it right now.

We really don't want to see them get this: Sizzler (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070323/pl_bloomberg/ako7y_orw538_1)

Tribesman

03-24-2007, 01:33

I knew I would find you in this thread. Like me, I suppose you have thought hard for, oh, seven or eight seconds after hearing about this in the news.

Yep , its nothing , the mullahs know exactly what they can get away with .
Now perhaps if they shot down one of those cessnas flown by the MEK(sorry ex-MEK they had to sign a paper that said so) in international waters after taking off from a US base maybe then just maybe sparks might fly .
But then again since Castro got away with that then there is every possibiliy the mullahs would too .
All this is is Iran adding another Rib to its inventory (they never did return the last two they took )
Come to think of it, if the Royal navy keep on losing all these little boats can they really be trusted with those big new ships they want ?

Tribesman

03-24-2007, 01:49

We really don't want to see them get this: Sizzler
Yep forget Wigferths worries about the Iranian airforce and fast jets , Iran has been having a big spending spree on new missiles .

BDC

03-24-2007, 03:22

I always thought seizing one country's soldiers whilst in their own territory (or near enough) was an act of war. Ah, I have such outdated views on such things...

Whacker

03-24-2007, 03:49

Here's a thought. Iran still has an Air Force, I hate to think how Britain will deal with fast jets if america can't very rapidly achieve air superiorety.

It won't be an issue. Iran has some ancient US hardware that they're struggling to keep operating, and some Russian crap as well. The one thing that the US and UK both have is better hardware and much much much better training. The F/A-18 Super Hornet is a hotrod compared to Iran's badly maintained F-14s, and their very few Mig-29's. Some Mig-31s were rumored to be sold but that's all unconfirmed in the reading I just did, if so those would be the only thing that would give the high altitude and high speed bombing efforts a good pause. If a shooting war did happen, I'm sure NATO would have aerial superiority almost from the start. Let's just hope that it never comes to this.

I do hope that those Brits get home safe and sound soon. If they don't then I'd be all for some heavy punitive measures, such as carpet-bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Arc_Light) their nuclear facilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear).

Tribesman

03-24-2007, 09:25

If they don't then I'd be all for some heavy punitive measures, such as carpet-bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Arc_Light) their nuclear facilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear).
Is that a serious lack of perspective , a serious lack of knowledge , or a combination of both ?

I always thought seizing one country's soldiers whilst in their own territory (or near enough) was an act of war. Ah, I have such outdated views on such things...
yep you have a really outdated view , the empire is over :laugh4: , these sailors were not in their own territory and it is a matter of dispute if they were in Iraqi or Iranian territory . Which gets more complicated since those territories are themselves disputed .

spmetla

03-24-2007, 10:36

It won't be an issue. Iran has some ancient US hardware that they're struggling to keep operating, and some Russian crap as well. The one thing that the US and UK both have is better hardware and much much much better training. The F/A-18 Super Hornet is a hotrod compared to Iran's badly maintained F-14s, and their very few Mig-29's. Some Mig-31s were rumored to be sold but that's all unconfirmed in the reading I just did, if so those would be the only thing that would give the high altitude and high speed bombing efforts a good pause. If a shooting war did happen, I'm sure NATO would have aerial superiority almost from the start. Let's just hope that it never comes to this.

I do hope that those Brits get home safe and sound soon. If they don't then I'd be all for some heavy punitive measures, such as carpet-bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Arc_Light) their nuclear facilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear).

Don't dismiss their equipment too much. While in the event of war with Iran that NATO forces would control the skies after a few days, those first few days or at least the first would allow to Iranians to launch sorties against a lot of targets be it in the Gulf, Afghanistan, or Iraq. They could do some serious damage if they decided to prempt our premptive action with an all out strike. While we have top of the line AAA/SAM technology missiles will always get through.

EDIT: I've been browsing the Iran's official news: http://www.farsnews.com/English/farsnews.php and can't seem to find anything about this incident at all. Is it even there? And if by chance anyone knows farsi, does the farsi version mention it?

Tribesman

03-24-2007, 11:34

I've been browsing the Iran's official news: http://www.farsnews.com/English/farsnews.php and can't seem to find anything about this incident at all. Is it even there?
Apparently a lot of the "media" is on holiday for their new year celebrations

try herehttp://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=233815
and here http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0703245528110620.htm
though they both say the same thing but hey thats what you get when government controls the press ...no liberal bias:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Adrian II

03-24-2007, 12:22

While in the event of war with Iran that NATO forces would control the skies after a few days, those first few days or at least the first would allow to Iranians to launch sorties against a lot of targets be it in the Gulf, Afghanistan, or Iraq.Well spotted. Iran has invested heavily in air defense and special forces for this purpose. The Quds force for instance are deeply entrenched in the whole region and particualrly in Iraq where the Shia government and the Talabani Kurds are their allies.

Adrian II

03-25-2007, 12:16

Apparently a lot of the "media" is on holiday for their new year celebrationsThere may be a bit more to this, and the holiday would seem to be a propitious moment for some. None of this is mentioned in the Western press either, but here it is.

If the captors were indeed IRGC, the operation may be a tit for tat in response to the capture of some of their own by the U.S. in Irbil on 11 January 2007. From the Washpost:

Yesterday's raids were both in Irbil, a Kurdish city in northern Iraq. One was carried out at 3 a.m. on the Iranian Liaison Office, which is used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a local headquarters, U.S. officials said. Kurdish officials said U.S. troops came in helicopters. They disarmed the security guards, broke through the gate, entered the building and detained six men, Iranian officials told the Iranian news agency. One was later released.

The other raid was at the Irbil airport, where U.S. forces tried to detain people until Kurdish troops intervened -- and almost ended up in a confrontation with U.S. troops, said Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. "A massacre was avoided at the last minute," he said. A U.S. official confirmed that the incident nearly resulted in U.S. and Kurdish allies firing at one another.The five are still being held by the U.S. in Iraq.

This could be quite different from 2004 after all.

Marshal Murat

03-25-2007, 15:04

I think that the Brits should have refused, fought it out in Good Nelson Style, started a real war.

Fortunately that didn't happen, so now Iran faces economic sanctions. It's these times that I wish the CIA hadn't deposed the Prime Minister and put in the Shah.
Ah well.

Tribesman

03-25-2007, 15:09

There may be a bit more to this, and the holiday would seem to be a propitious moment for some. None of this is mentioned in the Western press either, but here it is.

If the captors were indeed IRGC, the operation may be a tit for tat in response to the capture of some of their own by the U.S. in Irbil on 11 January 2007.

Yep , as I wrote on another forum........

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not the first time the Iranians act like this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep , last time they made the British sailors go on Iranian TV and apologise for being on the wrong side of an imaginary line in the river . Oh and they still havn't given the Royal Navy back their rubberboats from that time.
So while Becket calls the Iranian anbasador in to complain about the arrest , dinnerjacket calls in the British ambassador to complain about violation of maritime territory .

Nothing will come of this just like nothing came of the US/Pershmerga raids and arrests at the Iranian government office in Irbil or the Iranian shelling of the Freedom Party/PKK positions in Northern Iraq .

Now perhaps if the Iranians shoot down one of the MEKs O2s operating out of a US airfield in front of TV cameras something might come of it , but then again probably not .
The coilition cannot afford an escalation and the mullahs know it and know just how far they can push things .
_________________
wear the fox hat

and you can add the missing Iranian general to the mix :yes: plus Iran is still claiming the detainees taken in Irbil have diplomatic immunity .
Though as I said in my first post , the Turkish threats are the shape of things to come .
Now wouldn't it be funny if the coilition has to fight Turkey and Iran in Iraq in a war against a terrorist organisation in Iraq that threatens its neighbours that has the strange position of (through its two branches)being both an ememy of the US on the nasty terrorist list and an ally of the US by being on the nice freedom fighter list .
Hey, to tie this into the Confessions of an Al-Qaida mastermind topic . Since Iran is saying the sailors and marines have confessed ....doesn't that mean they are guilty and the case is closed .:laugh4:
But to expand it further , if Iran carries on and presses the charges it is going on about , and since they must be guilty as they confessed , now as those charges are punishable by the death penalty , can we have someone stepping up and singing the praises of capital punishment please :2thumbsup:

Fragony

03-25-2007, 15:19

Don't hold back :dizzy2:

KukriKhan

03-25-2007, 15:26

Tribesman

03-25-2007, 15:35

Don't hold back
Too complicated for ya Frag ? here have the Fraggadelic version ....
Muslims =bad

Fragony

03-25-2007, 15:45

Just admiring the size of that thing. No wait, I was lost at the capital punishment thing and the stepping up.

Adrian II

03-25-2007, 20:52

So, do you see this as just a continuation of stuff from the 1980's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis) ? A little more naval brinksmanship, to demonstrate how 'not a push-over' Iran is for anyone contemplating an invasion/incursion?Who can tell?

But even though this thing is being downplayed in Whitehall, it certainly looks as if it has all the trappings of an major diplomatic stand-off. The official Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman has said today the British sailors have confessed to being in Iranian terroritorial waters for the purpose of spying, suggesting they are going to be put on trial.

Today's Times has more in the same vein:

Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper based in London, quoted an Iranian military source as saying that the aim was to trade the Royal Marines and sailors for these Guards.

The claim was backed by other sources in Tehran. “As soon as the corps’s five members are released, the Britons can go home,” said one source close to the Guards.I suppose the threat of a trial will at least be kept hanging over the heads of the 15 sailors until an exchange against the five IRGC has been arranged.

English assassin

03-26-2007, 09:53

yep you have a really outdated view , the empire is over ,

HELLOOOO, clever people? While you are sipping your espressos and reading the papers and debating the bloody diplomatic niceties, 15 marines who were doing their jobs in international waters are being held somewhere in Iran.

Sheesh. Where is Dev Dave when you need him?

Sometimes life really IS simple Tribes. Kidnapping Royal Marines is a Bad Thing. It isn't necessary to be in favour of cruise missile striked on the RG building in Tehran ( :eyebrows: ) to say that.

BDC

03-26-2007, 11:48

yep you have a really outdated view , the empire is over , these sailors were not in their own territory and it is a matter of dispute if they were in Iraqi or Iranian territory . Which gets more complicated since those territories are themselves disputed .

They were in Iraqi waters. Iran (or whichever faction decided it'd be fun to try it on) is being very stupid. There is nothing outdated about expecting my country's soldiers to be able to work without being kidnapped.

TBH I think one of the reasons these guys haven't been shown on tv or anyone been allowed access to them is because the Iranian government has no idea where they are.

Adrian II

03-26-2007, 12:44

HELLOOOO, clever people? While you are sipping your espressos and reading the papers and debating the bloody diplomatic niceties, 15 marines who were doing their jobs in international waters are being held somewhere in Iran.Entire nations have been swept under the rug while you were staring at squid pics, EA. Why should we suddenly be up in arms when the victims are British? We are discussing the issue, that's good enough for the purposes of an internet forum. :coffeenews:

BDC

03-26-2007, 13:41

Entire nations have been swept under the rug while you were staring at squid pics, EA. Why should we suddenly be up in arms when the victims are British? We are discussing the issue, that's good enough for the purposes of an internet forum. :coffeenews:
If any country's soldiers are picked up whilst doing legitimate things then it's a big issue. Playing with fire.

Adrian II

03-26-2007, 13:50

If any country's soldiers are picked up whilst doing legitimate things then it's a big issue. Playing with fire.Well, it appears that they have confessed to being inside Iranian territorial waters. And heaven knows what they were up to. Maybe they were smuggling arms to the MEK, PKK or PEJAK in Iran.

BDC

03-26-2007, 14:15

Bull. They were there inspecting ships, like they have been (at the request of the Iraqi government) for quite a while.

Why would British soldiers be smuggling in weapons by sea? There is a huge, porous, badly guarded border with plenty of people who'd be willing to do it for you.

Vladimir

03-26-2007, 14:16

Well, it appears that they have confessed to being inside Iranian territorial waters. And heaven knows what they were up to. Maybe they were smuggling arms to the MEK, PKK or PEJAK in Iran.

Please correct me if I’m wrong:

MEK-Considered a terrorist organization by the US. Had a base or two bombed by the US before the Iraq invasion in an effort to curry favor with Iran.

PKK-Kurds, in Iran?

PEJAK-Who? Are they related to NAMBLA?

Summary: Very unlikely.

Adrian II

03-26-2007, 14:38

Summary: Very unlikely.Why? Because Google doesn't turn up a bite-size chunk of information about those organisations? Because British official statements are always true?

I am aware that my remarks do not make me a contender for this year's popularity award, but I couldn't care less really. I am amazed that people can be so emphatic that their government is necessarily right, particularly when that government is engaged in a highly sensitive as well as largely botched military operation.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-26-2007, 14:57

If you have successfully "moved beyond" nationalism, then you should be:

1) politely calling for the release of the individuals involved following questioning.

2) urging all parties to submit the dispute to The Hague for adjudication. Violence and posturing can only kill the innocent without resolving anything.

3) indemnifying the nation-state party found "at fault" in that adjudication.

4) calling for the British government to desist inspections of ships not of British registry. This is a quasi-blockade and arguably an act of war.

If you have not successfully "moved beyond" nationalism, you are probably:

1) calling for the British government to show some testicular courage.

2) hoping for some form of retaliatory strike.

3) frustrated that people in service to the nation have been left "hung out to dry."

4) willing to consider the whole thing "casus bellum" on general principle.

As a conservative from the USA, I trend toward the pseudo-neolithic response. I clearly lack the intelligence needed to develop a "progressive" attitude towards things that really matter.:cheesy:

Slyspy

03-26-2007, 15:18

As a conservative from the USA, I trend toward the pseudo-neolithic response. I clearly lack the intelligence needed to develop a "progressive" attitude towards things that really matter.:cheesy:

You have the urge to go and hit things with a fake rock?

caravel

03-26-2007, 15:20

Don't forget that it is entirely possible that the Iranians are correct, and the UK has screwed up...
Of course there is that little point, which seems to have been overlooked in this thread. If an Iranian vessel had sailed down the English Channel and had been stopped and detained by the British for being in their territorial waters, would the claim of "oh no we were in French waters!" been at all plausible?

The point being, don't you think that the Iranians know which are their waters and which are Iraq's better than anyone? :inquisitive:

Husar

03-26-2007, 15:36

I'd say a duel between Tony Blair and Ahmadinejad, the winner takes it all.:2thumbsup:

Slyspy

03-26-2007, 15:37

Of course there is that little point, which seems to have been overlooked in this thread. If an Iranian vessel had sailed down the English Channel and had been stopped and detained by the British for being in their territorial waters, would the claim of "oh no we were in French waters!" been at all plausible?

The point being, don't you think that the Iranians know which are their waters and which are Iraq's better than anyone? :inquisitive:

Not plausible at all, because the French would already have boarded and sunk them.

English assassin

03-26-2007, 15:44

Entire nations have been swept under the rug while you were staring at squid pics, EA.

Yeah? Anyone important?

Why should we suddenly be up in arms when the victims are British?

Because they are BRITISH, obviously. It's not cricket. Mind you even cricket isn't cricket these days, it seems.

I am amazed that people can be so emphatic that their government is necessarily right, particularly when that government is engaged in a highly sensitive as well as largely botched military operation.

And I am amazed that you are as emphatic that it is (likely to be) wrong , not to mention your crafty segue from the kidnapped servicemen to the government. We didn't deploy the cabinet to Basra. If the Iranians want to kidnap Margaret Beckett instead that would be OK with me.

caravel

03-26-2007, 16:54

Not plausible at all, because the French would already have boarded and sunk them.
Implying that the French would first board the vessel then sink it with their own men on board? :inquisitive:

Anyway, I still don't see what all of the excitement is about. If they weren't in Iranian territorial waters then they wouldn't have been picked up in the first place. This is not exactly the first time coalition forces have forgotten where the border is after all. The gov are blowing the whole thing out of proportion as ever, distracts people from the farcical budget and helps them forget it quickly doesn't it?

:book:

Ronin

03-26-2007, 17:10

Implying that the French would first board the vessel then sink it with their own men on board? :inquisitive:

:book:

yes...the french are THAT bad-ass! :laugh4:

Sjakihata

03-26-2007, 17:22

Because they are BRITISH, obviously.

I don't really give a rats ass about some british troops playing macho in the gulf. I dont care about danish soldiers either. Their mess, they sort it out.*

I rather enjoy the Iranians playing with their muscles. It's humorous at best and boring at worst.

Let's move on to something important.

* Yes, no one forced them to go to war or join the army. No draft in UK as far as Im aware.

English assassin

03-26-2007, 17:48

I don't really give a rats ass about some british troops playing macho in the gulf. I dont care about danish soldiers either. Their mess, they sort it out.*

I rather enjoy the Iranians playing with their muscles. It's humorous at best and boring at worst.

Let's move on to something important.

* Yes, no one forced them to go to war or join the army. No draft in UK as far as Im aware.

Riiiight. Thanks for that. Insightful and compassionate in equal measure. How is life in the little bubble where the nasty macho outside world can't at get you?

Ice

03-26-2007, 19:22

I don't really give a rats ass about some british troops playing macho in the gulf. I dont care about danish soldiers either. Their mess, they sort it out.*

I rather enjoy the Iranians playing with their muscles. It's humorous at best and boring at worst.

Let's move on to something important.

* Yes, no one forced them to go to war or join the army. No draft in UK as far as Im aware.

That's nice, but a lot of people on these boards and of British and Allied nationality do.

Ice

03-26-2007, 19:26

Implying that the French would first board the vessel then sink it with their own men on board? :inquisitive:

Anyway, I still don't see what all of the excitement is about. If they weren't in Iranian territorial waters then they wouldn't have been picked up in the first place. This is not exactly the first time coalition forces have forgotten where the border is after all.

:book:

Oh, ok I got it. Since Iran says it was their waters, we should immediately believe them, enough though the governments in Baghdad and London say otherwise. That makes perfect sense.

The excitement is that the Iranians supposedly kidnapped 15 British Marines in allied waters on an official UN mandated mission, and transported all the way to Tehran where they were to be interrogated.

Adrian II

03-26-2007, 19:36

Because they are BRITISH, obviously.So I noticed. And as Tribesman said, there is nothing special about being British these days.
If the Iranians want to kidnap Margaret Beckett instead that would be OK with me.Margaret Beckett would have at least put up a fight.

Back to the real issue. I wonder what happened to the five Iranians who were captured by the Americans in Irbil on January 11. Have they been charged with anything? If not, why are they being held? If they are detained as prisoners of war, where is the declaration of said war? And where are they being held? Are they being held in Iraq or have they been all taped up and spirited away to some secret CIA hangar in Uzbekistan where they are being waterboarded all day long, or tied naked to chair with headphones on and forced to listen to Robbie Williams for days on end?

Does anyone even care? I don't think so. They're Iranian, obviously.

Husar

03-26-2007, 20:10

Well Adrian II, didn't you know that Imperial American soldiers and soldiers of the British wannabe-empire are more important than anything else on the world? Their motto is: "Leave noone behind, except thousands of dead people from other countries.":tomato2:

Tribesman

03-26-2007, 20:19

Oh, ok I got it. Since Iran says it was their waters, we should immediately believe them, enough though the governments in Baghdad and London say otherwise. That makes perfect sense.

nope you shouldn't immediately believe them , neither should you immediatly believe the other governments though .
With the assets in the gulf it is easy for either party to prove their claims (well apart from the problem about disputed territory) yet no one has have they .

The excitement is that the Iranians supposedly kidnapped 15 British Marines in allied waters on an official UN mandated mission,
Ah a UN mission , I thought the UN was a useless anti American talking shop :laugh4: Now here is the sticky bit , the Iranians are right then it isn't a UN mandated mission the sailors were on since it was outside of Iraqi waters and in violation of international law .(you will notice that it was a rather big if I used ) .
But hey when both governments are known liars which do you chose to believe and on what basis do you choose which liar is telling the truth ?

It appears to me that all sides are just playing silly buggers in a long running farce of silly buggery .

Adrian II

03-26-2007, 20:25

Their motto is: "Leave noone behind, except thousands of dead people from other countries..."".. and Margaret Beckett!"

Seriously, the issue is who is detaining the sailors and what it is that they want. Do they want that deal involving the five IRGC (including, it appears, a General) detained by the Americans that many are speculating about? Maybe the Iranian government itself does not now who is detaining the British sailors, and where, and on what purpose. It wouldn't be the first time.

caravel

03-26-2007, 20:56

Oh, ok I got it. Since Iran says it was their waters, we should immediately believe them, enough though the governments in Baghdad and London say otherwise. That makes perfect sense.
Instead we should believe a government lead by a man with a history of lies cover ups and misleading the British public and a puppet "government" that will pretty much always agree with the US/UK publicly while giving a helping hand to the Shi'ite militias behind the scenes. :yes:

The excitement is that the Iranians supposedly kidnapped 15 British Marines in allied waters on an official UN mandated mission, and transported all the way to Tehran where they were to be interrogated.
The key word there is "supposedly". With "supposedly" added the paragraph makes sense.

Louis VI the Fat

03-26-2007, 20:57

Ice

03-26-2007, 21:55

Instead we should believe a government lead by a man with a history of lies cover ups and misleading the British public and a puppet "government" that will pretty much always agree with the US/UK publicly while giving a helping hand to the Shi'ite militias behind the scenes. :yes:

Did I say that? Ever? Yeah, I didn't think so. My point was, there are two other legitimate governments claiming otherwise.

The key word there is "supposedly". With "supposedly" added the paragraph makes sense.

There is nothing "supposed" about the marines being interrogated, brought to Tehran, and put on TV.

Tribesman

03-26-2007, 22:23

Erm, if none of you mind I think I'll side over this one with the sometimes miserable, sometimes erring and sometimes cynical democracy instead of with the malicious, theocratic, anti-semitic dictatorship with apocalyptic fantasies.
Well according to two reports in the Israeli media Iran is saying it can prove the boats where in Iranian waters, they are now just determining if it was deliberate or a mistake .
I have yet to see the British government claim they can prove it happened in Iraqi waters (though of course the Iranians havn't produced the proof they claim to have) .
Proof of the location of events should be very easy to establish , so why is only one side claiming they can prove it ?:shrug:

There is nothing "supposed" about the marines being interrogated, brought to Tehran, and put on TV.
Since Caravel said "paragraph" then this is probably the bit he is on about....in allied waters ....in case you hadn't noticed that is the issue that is in dispute:idea2:

Lemur

03-26-2007, 22:29

Proof of the location of events should be very easy to establish , so why is only one side claiming they can prove it ?
How do you figure a disputed incident on water is easy to prove? Just curious.

[edit]

FYI: (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d26b393e-dbbe-11db-9233-000b5df10621.html)

UK officials add that if the personnel are not returned in the next few days, Britain will go public with what it says are proofs they were in Iraqi waters when apprehended by the Iranians, rather than, as charged by Tehran, in Iranian territory.

Tribesman

03-26-2007, 22:48

How do you figure a disputed incident on water is easy to prove? Just curious.
Simple , the MSO has a set area of operations . In addition to Cornwall the helicopter was tracking the royal navy boats , the dhow and the Iranian navy boats .
The location can be easily established . Not to mention other vessels on patrol , shore based facilities , other aircraft and possibly even satellites .
It should be easy for the British to prove that the boats were in the designated area that it is supposed to operate in .

Xiahou

03-26-2007, 22:55

Eh, I had a longer response typed up... but decided to just sum it up by saying:

Some of the responses in this thread are truly amazing. :no:

Tribesman

03-26-2007, 23:11

Some of the responses in this thread are truly amazing.
Yep so many people accepting their governments claims without question and so many looking without the slightest glimpse at the bigger picture , truly amazing .....not:laugh4:

Adrian II

03-26-2007, 23:35

Oh look, according to Associated Press the Iraqi commander of territorial waters says the Brits were in 'an area outside of Iraqi control':

The Iraqi military commander of the country’s territorial waters cast doubt on claims the Britons were in Iraqi waters.

“We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control,” Brig. Gen. Hakim Jassim told AP Television News in the southern city of Basra.

“We don’t know why they were there. And these British troops were besieged by unknown gunboats, I don’t know from where,” he said.Curiouser and curiouser.

InsaneApache

03-26-2007, 23:44

Old news. :coffeenews:

Seamus Fermanagh

03-27-2007, 00:10

My guess:

A. The area wherein the marines were captured will prove to be in dispute -- claimed by both Iran and Iraq. Both sides will claim to be correct.

B. The capturers will prove to have been IRG, providing the central government with deniability should A be incorrect or Britain conduct a show of force.

C. The Iranians will hold and interogate but not mistreat the Brit personnel. Their release will occur in a few weeks -- just long enough for the IRG and the Hard-liners in the Iranian government to embarass Blair a bit more and continue the process of eroding support for the Iraq venture in England (where it is already less than thrilling to many).

D. Blair will posture, might even have a ship or two "show the flag" up close in the Gulf, but nothing substantive or particularly violent will occur. There will be no repeat of "Operation Praying Mantis" using the RN.

E. The British public and the Iranian public will be united in their eventual belief that the Bush administration is ultimately culpable for this "regrettable affair."

F. We will all go back to our regularly scheduled rants.

Devastatin Dave

03-27-2007, 03:48

Papewaio

03-27-2007, 04:06

A) Since you are comparing to WWII, read up about the white mouse (Nancy Wake) before you attempt to insult people by calling them women.

B) Whats wrong with Sushi?

Beren Son Of Barahi

03-27-2007, 04:25

Wow. It boggles my mind as to how some of you find moral relativism when it comes to your fellow citizens and your own governments compared to Iran. I thank God everyday that the generation of World War 2 weren't filled with the same testicle-less, vaginized, "men" that plague todays world. We'd all be goose stepping and eating a lot more sushi. How sad.:shame:

Some of you guys truly have forgotten who's side you SHOULD be on. Damn, use both hands, find your raisins, and get with the team. Damn.:furious3:

Surely by now, people have taken to questioning what the wonderful governments are saying and presenting as "facts". the problem with lairing en mass to the public is, after a while if they work it out, they won't trust the government much anymore.

:soapbox:

Beren Son Of Barahi

03-27-2007, 04:27

Ice

03-27-2007, 04:36

A) Since you are comparing to WWII, read up about the white mouse (Nancy Wake) before you attempt to insult people by calling them women.

B) Whats wrong with Sushi?

I think Dave was just trying to say the Japanese would have gotten a lot further.

Also, sushi is NASTY. I like my fished cooked. :beam:

KukriKhan

03-27-2007, 04:43

Steady lads. No need to snipe at each other's relative manhood.

Iran (arguably, the same guys we're dealing with here)used easily gotten hostages to 'change the leadership' of a western nation (to their way of thinking) 30-some years ago.

The UK's lads will probably be held until Mister Blair gets replaced. If they (the Sailors & Marines) get released the same day the new guy takes over, we'll know what they were up to.

If the UK decides to rescue them before then, godspeed... let there please not be another fiasco like we experienced in April '80.

Tribesman

03-27-2007, 07:37

Some of you guys truly have forgotten who's side you SHOULD be on. Damn, use both hands, find your raisins, and get with the team. Damn.
Bollox :yes: get with the team ?????led by Bush and Blair ....you have got to be kidding what sort of idiot follows muppets .

Wow. It boggles my mind as to how some of you find moral relativism when it comes to your fellow citizens and your own governments compared to Iran. I thank God everyday that the generation of World War 2 weren't filled with the same testicle-less, vaginized, "men" that plague todays world. We'd all be goose stepping and eating a lot more sushi. How sad.

It boggles the mind that your nonsense doesn't take into consideration the men with testicles who followed their government and citizens but happened to be Germans or Japanese:dizzy2:

Adrian II

03-27-2007, 07:41

Wow. It boggles my mind as to how some of you find moral relativism when it comes to your fellow citizens and your own governments compared to Iran. I thank God everyday that the generation of World War 2 weren't filled with the same testicle-less, vaginized, "men" that plague todays world. We'd all be goose stepping and eating a lot more sushi. How sad.:shame:

Some of you guys truly have forgotten who's side you SHOULD be on. Damn, use both hands, find your raisins, and get with the team. Damn.:furious3:Dave, there are thousands of other Web forums where you and some others can take sides, join teams, stir raisins into your sushi and engage in every sort of ranting, name-calling and sloppy thinking for which the good lord so gracefully equipped the human brain. Just not here, okay?
:balloon2:

Incongruous

03-27-2007, 08:09

Mmmm...
The power Condescension.

English assassin

03-27-2007, 12:10

Dave, there are thousands of other Web forums where you and some others can take sides, join teams, stir raisins into your sushi and engage in every sort of ranting, name-calling and sloppy thinking for which the good lord so gracefully equipped the human brain. Just not here, okay?
:balloon2:

No, on this one he is right and you are wrong. And even republicans have the right of free speech. :2thumbsup:

The fact is that 15 servicemen from the UK, which, as Louis points out, is some sort of liberal some sort of democracy, have been detained. To use a neutral term.

That is Bad. It would be Nice if they were released. Their relatives would like that. It really is that simple. It costs nothing to say it.

If you weant to debate the more than slightly dubious merits of the Iraq invasion or the realpolitik of Iran's nuclear ambitions, that is fine. But you are in such a rush to do so you seem to have tripped over your feet and forgotten that somewhere in a cell in Iran there are 14 men and one woman who would rather not be there and who had no say in the events that put them there. (Other than agreeing to join the marines which some people seem to regard as a crime in itself)

This thread is making me look as some of my fellow Euroweenies in a new and slightly concerning light.

Adrian II

03-27-2007, 12:24

This thread is making me look as some of my fellow Euroweenies in a new and slightly concerning light.Good, maybe you'll realise how others feel about the UK after it aids and abets the American detention practices. The 15 are lucky they have a government that can and will stand up for them in public; most Guantanamo detainees, including the British among them, don't have that luxury. And no, American Republicans who defend such detentions on behalf of their own country have no moral right to be shocked about illegal detentions and kidnappings elsewhere, let alone swear indiscriminately at those who do and always have done.

Sir Moody

03-27-2007, 13:13

im english and - this will shock a few - i agree with adrian

it is hypocritical of us to protest over Iran kidnapping our servicemen when we support a nation that has been doing just that now for years - we havent got a leg to stand on

i disagree with any country that kidnaps foreign citizens, holds them without charge against the will of their home country

were iran right to kidnap them? no but until we denounce the US for doing the same we cannot complain about it without making us look (even more) like fools

Tribesman

03-27-2007, 13:23

No, on this one he is right and you are wrong.
What ? you mean rubbish like....Some of you guys truly have forgotten who's side you SHOULD be on. Damn, use both hands, find your raisins, and get with the team. Damn.
Nope , not in the slightest ,when there are two bunches on idiots playing silly buggers I couldn't give a damn which country is which and to support one idiot over the other idiot on nothing more than it being a certain country is really plumbing the depths of idiocy .

The fact is that 15 servicemen from the UK, which, as Louis points out, is some sort of liberal some sort of democracy, have been detained. To use a neutral term.

So what ?

That is Bad. It would be Nice if they were released. Their relatives would like that.
Yes , but so what ?

Surely by now, people have taken to questioning what the wonderful governments are saying and presenting as "facts".
Don't be silly Beren , you still get people presenting "facts" without questioning them long after they have been shown to be lies , just look at the Hitchens piece Pindar posted the other day.

And no, American Republicans who defend such detentions on behalf of their own country have no moral right to be shocked about illegal detentions and kidnappings elsewhere, let alone swear indiscriminately at those who do and always have done.
Don't hold back there Adrian :laugh4: though you could have said all that with six simple letters....b-o-l-l-o-x....see its so quick and easy to respond in a concise manner to such nonsense .

Ja'chyra

03-27-2007, 13:45

Quote:
The fact is that 15 servicemen from the UK, which, as Louis points out, is some sort of liberal some sort of democracy, have been detained. To use a neutral term.

So what ?

The clue is in there if you look close enough, I'll help "From the UK" as are we, myself and EA, therefore we believe the goverment should be doing everything they can to get them released, up to and including the use of force IMO. Make all the comparisons to Gitmo that you like but the fact is that they're our servicemen, they risk their lives for us and should be given all the protection our nation can muster.

I'll await your one word response.

Sir Moody

03-27-2007, 13:50

The clue is in there if you look close enough, I'll help "From the UK" as are we, myself and EA, therefore we believe the goverment should be doing everything they can to get them released, up to and including the use of force IMO. Make all the comparisons to Gitmo that you like but the fact is that they're our servicemen, they risk their lives for us and should be given all the protection our nation can muster.

I'll await your one word response.

oh we will do anything and i hope we do, nothing would please me more - i still think we are hypocrites and any country with people in the big G should be able to do the same - up to and including military force I dont want to start down the one rule for us and another rule for them form of diplomacy the US have been operating under recently (cant wait to hear some US opinions on that one)

Sjakihata

03-27-2007, 13:51

they risk their lives for us

Exactly how do they risk their lives for us? By joining an army of a country no on is going or can invade? By invading a helpless (in the sense of military) country with no nukes or long distance rockets?

I dont see how they risk their lives for us? Sure they go to war and that can cost them their lives, but the do not protect us, on the contrary. Before Iraq a chance of terrorist attack on peaceful little denmark would but almost nil, now it is definately higher with all the attention we get from the war. I imagine the same is true for britain.

Pannonian

03-27-2007, 14:44

oh we will do anything and i hope we do, nothing would please me more - i still think we are hypocrites and any country with people in the big G should be able to do the same - up to and including military force I dont want to start down the one rule for us and another rule for them form of diplomacy the US have been operating under recently (cant wait to hear some US opinions on that one)
Exactly. We may be hypocrites, but they are British, and for me that trumps everything. I felt the same way about our people in Gitmo too - the British government should do all it can to get its citizens back in British hands. If there's a dispute, hand them over first, then we'll be open to discussion. But hand them over first.

Crazed Rabbit

03-27-2007, 14:54

BDC

03-27-2007, 14:59

The prisoners that America holds in Camp Delta were not soldiers. That's why they're there (in theory anyway, but that's another issue). Kidnapping uniformed, disciplined sailors and marines from another nation's waters is not on.

It's not on. Really, absolutely not on.

Pannonian

03-27-2007, 15:15

Let me get this straight - you guys are equating locking up terrorists in Gitmo with the Iranians taking hostage these 15 marines?
:wall:

The Britons at Gitmo were terrorists? IIRC one of them confessed to meeting Al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan on such and such a date. Then someone noticed CCTV footage from that date showed him stacking shelves in a supermarket in Manchester or someplace. Whatever the case with the others, you're missing the point. If they're British citizens, they should be in British custody wihle you present the case for their extradition. If you do have a decent case, they'll be extradited. If you don't have a decent case, why the hell are you demanding that they should be imprisoned in a foreign jail?

A pity America did not have such distaste for the fellow people of democracies back when we got sucked into two worlds wars. After all, they were both waging war, so how can one side be any better?

You were paid well for it. Britain did much the same thing in banking previous European wars, but AFAIK we never took the condescendingly high moral ground to justify our actions. As I've said before, I don't mind the US screwing us over in WW2 - it's nothing more than I'd expect my own government to do, if the positions were reversed. What I don't like is how Americans expect us to be forever tail-waggingly grateful for it, when we've already expressed our gratitude in perhaps the largest transfer of money and assets in history.

Sir Moody

03-27-2007, 15:17

Let me get this straight - you guys are equating locking up terrorists in Gitmo with the Iranians taking hostage these 15 marines?
:wall:

A pity America did not have such distaste for the fellow people of democracies back when we got sucked into two worlds wars. After all, they were both waging war, so how can one side be any better?

Crazed Rabbit

Let me put it this way - The Italians would like a discreet word with a few CIA members who have been kidnapping italian citizens - would it be allright with you crazed if the italian secret service (or what ever they have) went the US kidnapped the CIA agents brought them back to Italy, detained them with no charge and deprived them of any human rights until they caved in and admited their guilt?

This is what the big G IS and it isnt too far off what Iran is doing and im going to say this again I dont support any nation kidnapping any citizens of another nation for any reason

Devastatin Dave

03-27-2007, 15:19

Fragony

03-27-2007, 15:25

Do you think the Iranians or other muslims fanatics will protect your liberal ideals

What he said.

Tribesman

03-27-2007, 15:28

I'll await your one word response.

You can have the same two word response ...so what .
Though to be fair to ya
the fact is that they're our servicemen, they risk their lives for us and should be given all the protection our nation can muster.

the fact is they are a disposable asset that the government can protect or abandon as its whims take it .
If you cannot see that then head down to the recruiting office, because they want YOU:yes:

Kidnapping uniformed, disciplined sailors and marines from another nation's waters is not on.

Since it has not yet been established whose waters they were in then that view is irrelevant , one thing is for sure though , they certainly wasn't in British waters .

A pity America did not have such distaste for the fellow people of democracies back when we got sucked into two worlds wars

errrrr...you got sucked into the second when your moving the fleet to threaten one country that was at war with another country which strangely was a revolutionary one party state and not a democracy as you foolishly seem to think ,and that triggered a pre-emptive strike which errrrr.....oh yeah ...sucked you into war for fellow democracies:dizzy2:
Blimey , so far detatched from reality it would be laughable if you wasn't serious about it , but since you are serious then its absolutely hilarious .

Sir Moody

03-27-2007, 15:31

Never did I ever think that people could be so dillusioned to take the side of a country that openly speaks of wiping out an entire country, developing nuclear weapons, and assisting the coming of the last Caliph. You people are practically laying your necks across the chopping block. Do you think the Iranians or other muslims fanatics will protect your liberal ideals and allow your silly views of the world mean anything when they finally take over due to your lack of understanding their threat? The Iranian KNEW they could take these soldiers because they KNEW the world is filled with peace at any cost pacifists that won't do a damn thing except maybe complain a bit while the blade is ripping through the little bit of spine they have left reserved for baby seals and sodomy.

no no i dont but you seem to be under the impression you have to BECOME them to beat them - The big G is just one example of the US going against its guiding principles as a nation that follows freedom and Liberty to all in order to make itself feel safe - how are you any better than they if you are willing to kidnap and deprive foreign citizens at will?

i will not defend Iran and i am not defending Iran they are one of the greatest threats to freedom and liberty in the world but it IS hypocoracy to denounce them for this when the US does the same

one last time since some people are having trouble getting this

I dont support any nation kidnapping any citizens of another nation for any reason

Tribesman

03-27-2007, 15:37

The Iranian KNEW they could take these soldiers because they KNEW the world is filled with peace at any cost pacifists that won't do a damn thing except maybe complain a bit while the blade is ripping through the little bit of spine they have left reserved for baby seals and sodomy.

Jesus Dave don't you get it yet ? ~:rolleyes:
the Iranians can do what the hell they like because they know the idiots in Number 10 and the White House have got themselves in such a mess they have effectively cut their own balls off .
So instead of your useless tirades about "liberals" why not save some of your spiel for the idiots that emasculated your nation and at the same time gave the Iranians iron balls the size of watermelons .

Fragony

03-27-2007, 15:42

A because doesn't change Iran's intentions. Do the told-you-so dance and enjoy being right.

English assassin

03-27-2007, 15:46

errrrr...you got sucked into the second when your moving the fleet to threaten one country that was at war with another country which strangely was a revolutionary one party state and not a democracy as you foolishly seem to think ,and that triggered a pre-emptive strike which errrrr.....oh yeah ...sucked you into war for fellow democracies
Blimey , so far detatched from reality it would be laughable if you wasn't serious about it , but since you are serious then its absolutely hilarious .

Umm, so, if I understood that, AMERICA was responsible for Pearl Habour? Wow.

This thread is too weird for words. CR, DD and Xiahou are clearly right, and AII and Tribesman are clearly wrong. That is so far removed from the normal backroom order of things that I can only assume someone has spiked my tea and I am halucinating the whole thing.

Are we seriously saying that it is hard to choose between the UK state and the Iranian state? That there is some kind of moral equivalence, such that kidnapping 15 servicemen is unremarkable?

Like I say, too weird for words.

Adrian II

03-27-2007, 15:48

Get this, the gloves are coming off:

BBC News, Tuesday, 27 March 2007

PM warns Iran over Navy captives

Efforts to secure the release of 15 Royal Navy personnel held by Iran will enter a "different phase" if diplomatic moves fail, Tony Blair has said. Downing Street said the UK could end up releasing evidence proving the group had not ventured into Iranian waters.

The prime minister's official spokesman said Mr Blair's remarks about a "different phase" did not refer to any extreme diplomatic action, such as expelling Iranian diplomats from Britain or military action.Blair is warning the Iranians for the last time. If they don't comply they will be hit with .. evidence! That should teach them. :yes:

:wall:

Sir Moody

03-27-2007, 15:49

The US was responsible for pearl harbour just was we (the European allies) were responsible for Hitlers rise to power - the US placed a considerable amount of economic pressure on the Japanese Empire and it was only a matter of time before they snapped

its completely off topic tho so lets save this for another thread

Crazed Rabbit

03-27-2007, 15:58

This thread is too weird for words. CR, DD and Xiahou are clearly right, and AII and Tribesman are clearly wrong. That is so far removed from the normal backroom order of things that I can only assume someone has spiked my tea and I am halucinating the whole thing.

I might have to sig that. Well, maybe not the part about being so far removed from normality...

Even I'm surprised at the moral relativity here.

The US was responsible for pearl harbour just was we

B.S.

Deciding not to keep giving as much oil and other resources to a imperialist empire does not we are then responsible for their actions because we didn't play along. They had a choice. They chose war.

i will not defend Iran and i am not defending Iran they are one of the greatest threats to freedom and liberty in the world but it IS hypocoracy to denounce them for this when the US does the same
Oh? We go to Canada, which we're not at war with, kidnap a few coast guards, and that's the same as detaining terrorists we catch fighting in Afghanistan.

Crazed Rabbit

Adrian II

03-27-2007, 16:06

Even I'm surprised at the moral relativity here.There is no moral issue here, Crazed Rabbit.

We are just having a laugh about this Iranian college prank involving some Brits who had no business being, you know, where they were and all that. A couple of fake executions, a few nights of standing naked in a freezer not knowing if anyone in the world even cares about you. It's all just meant to soften them up a bit. No torture or injustice. You know the sort of thing.

Well, don't you? :mellow:

Devastatin Dave

03-27-2007, 16:06

Get this:

BBC News, Tuesday, 27 March 2007

PM warns Iran over Navy captives

Efforts to secure the release of 15 Royal Navy personnel held by Iran will enter a "different phase" if diplomatic moves fail, Tony Blair has said.
Downing Street said the UK could end up releasing evidence proving the group had not ventured into Iranian waters.

The prime minister's official spokesman said Mr Blair's remarks about a "different phase" did not refer to any extreme diplomatic action, such as expelling Iranian diplomats from Britain or military action.Blair is warning the Iranians for the last time. If they don't comply they will be hit with .. evidence! That should teach them. :yes:

Man, the British Navy, as Churchill said once, controlled the world with Rum, the Lash, and Sodomy. Looks like they've only kept one of those principles now. What a shame. :shame:

Banquo's Ghost

03-27-2007, 16:08

The heat is rising in this thread to levels where nuclear fission may be observed. I would counsel a severe cooling, otherwise I'll have to lock-on the safety valves.

(Yes, you may all imagine me as Homer Simpson trying to find the off-switch, if it'll help :embarassed: )

Adrian II

03-27-2007, 16:10

Man, the British Navy, as Churchill said once, controlled the world with Rum, the Lash, and Sodomy. Looks like they've only kept one of those principles now. What a shame. :shame:Dave, there is nothing they can do. :shame:

Unless, of course, they turn this into a shooting war. In which case Turkey, which is the nearest NATO member state, will bear the brunt for this British adventure, thank you very much.

:wall:

Tribesman

03-27-2007, 16:14

Umm, so, if I understood that, AMERICA was responsible for Pearl Habour? Wow.

Ummmm .....so you clearly didn't understand then did you :dizzy2:
That was simply ridiculing rabbits crazy interpretation of history regarding Americas entry into WW2

Are we seriously saying that it is hard to choose between the UK state and the Iranian state?
Yep :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: when both are full of crap then how do you make a choice over which one to believe . It seems your only reason for making a choice seems to be that because you are British you must believe the British .
Well I hate to break it to ya , but that makes no sense whatsoever .Since if you were Iranian then following that logic you would obviously believe the Iranians .

Sir Moody

03-27-2007, 16:18

They had a choice. They chose war.

I think you are misinterpreting what i meant - they chose war because you "forced their hand" - they wanted an Empire - to be a super power - the US (rightfully) decided this wasnt such a good idea and through economic sanctions tried to stop the japanese - this left the super power wannabe with 2 options they could fight or they could cave in - the US gave them only one choice if they still wanted to be a superpower and they took it and paid the price - the wonderful thing about the real world is even small actions can have massive repercussions - the US placing sanctions on the Japanese forced them to consider war as an option thus making the US partially responsible - much the same as the European contries treatment of Germany after the war led to hitlers rise to power and the guilt felt over said treatment made us ignore his warlike nature making us partially responsible for the war in europe - welcome to the real world

Oh? We go to Canada, which we're not at war with, kidnap a few coast guards, and that's the same as detaining terrorists we catch fighting in Afghanistan.

oh really so you havent been kidnapping citizens and detaining them? so why are the italians after the mentioned CIA agents? nothing to do with the kidnap of an Italian citizen who happens to be Muslim? no its just me and my tin hat eh?

Tribesman

03-27-2007, 16:18

B.S.

Deciding not to keep giving as much oil and other resources to a imperialist empire does not we are then responsible for their actions because we didn't play along. They had a choice. They chose war.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
And how the hell does that relate to ......A pity America did not have such distaste for the fellow people of democracies back when we got sucked into two worlds wars

caravel

03-27-2007, 16:31

No, the weirdness about this thread is the kind of simple logic employed here, namely:

if(Iran == Evil && UK_US == Good){
Iran=lying;
UK_US=telling_truth;
}

What is being debated here, is whether the British personnel, and their vessels, were in Iranian or Iraqi territorial waters when they were picked up. So far there has been no conclusive evidence either way, just a lot of posturing from Blair, yet some of the posters on this thread are already concluding that they were in Iraqi waters, and therefore Iran are of course totally to blame, for the "kidnapping", because well it's Iran after all.

I also find it hilarious that some people consider the Iranians as the biggest threat to "freedom" or whatever they call it nowadays. Compared to the track record of the US or UK, Iran is positively benign. Their clerics are very good at blowing a lot of religious hot air, and Bush and Blair are good at siezing on this and turning it onto a "threat", because it suits their agenda (the demonisation of both Islam and Iran - the country that Bush and Blair are itching to have a go at), and that's about it.

Louis VI the Fat

03-27-2007, 16:39

Adrian II

03-27-2007, 16:46

I would love to post something constructive here, but I'm so overwhelmed by it all that right now I can only think of the World Taekwondo Federation (http://www.wtf.org).

http://www.wtf.org/site/cms_file/images/default/100_199/131/logo_wtf.gifAnd I'm tuned in to the Lokale Omroep Landsmeer right now. :laugh4:

https://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2776/kopbp6.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

Seamus Fermanagh

03-27-2007, 17:11

Even I'm surprised at the moral relativity here.

Actually, I think we have a case of dueling moral absolutes here.

One side [A2, Tribesy] is advancing the position that capturing and detaining citizens of another country without the full and open "due process" of law is an absolute moral wrong.

From this perspective, there is literally no difference between the UK marines and sailors detained by Iran and the Al-quedas being held in Gitmo by the USA. In neither case have the detainees been provided with the full spectrum of legal/human rights expected under international law and treaty.

Those advancing this perspective will grudgingly acknowledge that the detainees captured during combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may well be individuals worthy of being held -- but do NOT accept as valid that any such detainees should be denied legal representation or contact with their governments or be questioned by any means more coercive than an interview conducted with their legal representative present.

Again, from this perspective, the USA is clearly MORE in the wrong than is Iran (to the best of anyone's knowledge), since Iran has not been shown to be using any coercive techniques for interrogation whereas the USA demonstrably has done so in the past.

The other side [EA, Rabbit, X-man] are operating from a different moral absolute -- that the need to protect and defend one's citizens (including military serving in harm's way -- trumps many of the other niceties. This moral absolute trends toward the "my country right or wrong" approach.

This perspective takes as its central assumption that we (the party themselves) are the good guys and does not accept that any polity that does not practice similarly high-minded policy goals is an "equal partner" in the international dialogue. The need to protect one's own from such opponents is paramount.

From this perspective, the protection of these UK sailors and marines demands and requires that their government exert strenuous effort to free them, up to and including a declaration of war and commencement of hostilities against Iran should Iran not respond by quickly releasing them to UK authorities.

Those holding this view cannot accept that extra-national terrorists deemed (prima facae) responsible for aiding and abetting attacks on civilians should be accorded the full spectrum of rights associated with a citizen of one of their own countries and consider the impracticalities of applying normal legal rules to their detention to be negligent to the point of being suicidal.

Pannonian, poor fellow, is caught with a foot firmly in both camps -- can't be comfortable.

Adrian II

03-27-2007, 17:25

Again, from this perspective, the USA is clearly MORE in the wrong than is Iran (to the best of anyone's knowledge), since Iran has not been shown to be using any coercive techniques for interrogation whereas the USA demonstrably has done so in the past.Permit me to make this subtle distinction that even though the U.S. is a democracy led by an elected president whereas Iran is a repulsive theocracy led by a former professional torturer (literally, it's all in the man's biography) I don't trust either government and only if push came to shove would I 'take sides' in their disputes - if you don't mind, for the time being I'd rather side with the truth, or what little of it we can establish.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-27-2007, 17:28

Permit me to make this subtle distinction that even though the U.S. is a democracy led by an elected president whereas Iran is a repulsive theocracy led by a former professional torturer (literally, it's all in the man's biography) I don't trust either government and only if push came to shove would I 'take sides' in their disputes - if you don't mind, for the time being I'd rather side with the truth, or what little of it we can establish.

Understood. Please note that I was not describing you as a "fan" of Iran in this situation. Should evidence come out that Iran is waterboarding the UK marines or some such, I fully expect you would condemn it just as vociferously.

Tribesman

03-27-2007, 17:30

What is being debated here, is whether the British personnel, and their vessels, were in Iranian or Iraqi territorial waters when they were picked up.
Though of course that misses a third point , the disputed waters .
The British Navy can only operate in what are clearly Iraqi waters , they are not allowed in what are clearly Iranian waters and more importantly they are not allowed in what are disputed waters .

Adrian II

03-27-2007, 17:36

Understood. Please note that I was not describing you as a "fan" of Iran in this situation. Should evidence come out that Iran is waterboarding the UK marines or some such, I fully expect you would condemn it just as vociferously.So I wil.

And Seamus, you ought to be the .org's anchorman. :bow:

English assassin

03-27-2007, 18:47

Yep when both are full of crap then how do you make a choice over which one to believe . It seems your only reason for making a choice seems to be that because you are British you must believe the British .
Well I hate to break it to ya , but that makes no sense whatsoever .Since if you were Iranian then following that logic you would obviously believe the Iranians .

That is what they call a straw man, I think. If my only reason for believeing the British was being British that wouldn't be all that much of an argument. (No worse than not believeing the British because they are British, mind you.)

My wife, who is Iranian, you know, in a sort of grew up in Iran and has an Iranian passport kind of way, is not rooting for the RG on this one. My father in law, who is Iranian in a sort of lives six months of each year in Tehran kind of way, doesn't find it TOO difficult to decide that the UK is on the whole a preferable place to live. Little things like the fact that in the UK, teenagers with AK47s can't stop you in the street and give you a hard time (and if they like a REALLY hard time) for not being Islamic enough. Stuff like the regime NOT organising rentamob demos chanting death to Iran. He really doesn't find the Iranian government all that credible.

So I think I'm in a pretty good position to say that on balance the UK is a preferable state to Iran, on objective evidence. Its not all about believing the side that drinks tea (not much help in this case)

But really my main issue with the thread is not in fact where the servicemen were, its that they have been detained, are being used as diplomatic pawns, and hey, its just an opportunity to say how bad the UK is for being in Iraq. All I want to hear about the detention is "I sure hope those servicemen are released soon". End of. This is not the issue to start scoring points on IMHO.

I am starting to think this thread is a wind up though. I distinctly remember taking the Iranians side against one AII back in the days before Ahmadinejad was president, and arguing against him for engagement and hopefully normalisation. (And I was sadly wrong as it turned out but hey, you had to try). I'm finding his sudden enthusiasm for theocratic kidnappers a bit unlikely.

Adrian II

03-27-2007, 18:59

I distinctly remember taking the Iranians side against one AII back in the days before Ahmadinejad was president, and arguing against him for engagement and hopefully normalisation. (And I was sadly wrong as it turned out but hey, you had to try). I'm finding his sudden enthusiasm for theocratic kidnappers a bit unlikely.I am so enthusiastic.

Tribesman

03-27-2007, 20:28

...........So I think I'm in a pretty good position to say that on balance the UK is a preferable state to Iran, on objective evidence.
Whats that got to do with the price of cheese ?
The issue here isn't which state is run by the bigger bunch of bollox , it isn't about which state is the nicest place to live . The issue is where were the boats when they were detained.
So while you can say.....
But really my main issue with the thread is not in fact where the servicemen were, its that they have been detained, are being used as diplomatic pawns, ....fine , but the issue between the governments(though only on the face of it) is where the boats were .:yes:
If the British Admiral who was first Lord of the admiralty at the time of the 2004 incident says they cannot operate in disputed waters and must stick to what are clearly defined Iraqi or International waters then it really narrows the scope doesn't it .
And yes it isn't very nice that they are being detained , but thats just something that goes with the territory isn't it , its just part of the job .

English assassin

03-27-2007, 21:21

And yes it isn't very nice that they are being detained , but thats just something that goes with the territory isn't it , its just part of the job .

As is being shot at and even being killed, but its still good to say we regret it. (and yes, better to keep the Tonka toys in the box, but we nixed that option for ourselves years ago)

The issue is where were the boats when they were detained

An issue, for you at least, is whose version you believe. There are three possible choices. I am pretty sure you don't believe the British. I'm not quite sure that you believe the Iranians, although that is with an element of the benefit of the doubt. I think you are saying you don't believe anyone.

If so, its rare to come across anyone who doesn't believe anyone quite so forcefully, or finds it necessary to be so vocally and militantly undecided.

My issue is that I do not care if they were walking down Piccadilly or found taking a dump in Ahmadinejad's private khazi, they should be returned.

Incidently Mrs Assassin volunteered her own assessment of the situation while watching the channel 4 news this evening, to whit that the Iranian government are "lying b*st*rds", that she is "sure the British were not in Iranian waters" and that her preferred solution is to "send an aircraft carrier"

(Mrs Assassin does not keep up with naval affairs and clearly has not noticed that the Royal Navy now consists of a pedalo and three inflatable sharks. And the pedalo has been mothballed as a cost saving exercise)

And that's from someone who is still pretty pee'd off about operation Ajax.

Xiahou

03-27-2007, 21:44

My issue is that I do not care if they were walking down Piccadilly or found taking a dump in Ahmadinejad's private khazi, they should be returned.
Exactly. Who was where should have no relevance to the UK's reaction to the abduction of British servicemen. Whether they were being provocative and crossing territorial waters is something for later investigations to sort out. The fact now is that they've been abducted and that is not acceptable.

drone

03-27-2007, 21:48

(Mrs Assassin does not keep up with naval affairs and clearly has not noticed that the Royal Navy now consists of a pedalo and three inflatable sharks. And the pedalo has been mothballed as a cost saving exercise)
Didn't one of your cricket players make off with the pedalo? :inquisitive:

Seamus Fermanagh

03-27-2007, 21:56

Didn't one of your cricket players make off with the pedalo? :inquisitive:

Wasn't there a rumor about a try for the Bahamas so that he might join a truly competitive team? :inquisitive:

Adrian II

03-27-2007, 22:23

Whether they were being provocative and crossing territorial waters is something for later investigations to sort out. The fact now is that they've been abducted and that is not acceptable.Exactly why is that not acceptable?

Tribesman

03-27-2007, 23:06

Exactly. Who was where should have no relevance to the UK's reaction to the abduction of British servicemen. Whether they were being provocative and crossing territorial waters is something for later investigations to sort out. The fact now is that they've been abducted and that is not acceptable.
Talk about getting it backwards :dizzy2: Exactly who was where is the prime relevance, the fact is that unless it is estabished that they were in Iraqi waters they havn't been abducted at all they have been detained .
Though of course the lack of consular access is an issue , but not one you can comment about due to your support of such things when the shoe is on the other foot:yes:

An issue, for you at least, is whose version you believe. There are three possible choices. I am pretty sure you don't believe the British. I'm not quite sure that you believe the Iranians, although that is with an element of the benefit of the doubt. I think you are saying you don't believe anyone.

You get it at last :2thumbsup: when both are known liars I ain't gonna believe either without proof , since most posters are believing one side without any proof and basing their opinion on nothing at all except what they want to believe then of course I am going to ridicule them since it is an absolutely ridiculous position for them to take .

My issue is that I do not care if they were walking down Piccadilly or found taking a dump in Ahmadinejad's private khazi, they should be returned.

Why ?
If someone breaks the law don't you think they should face the consequences ?
Just because someone holds a different passport it doesn't make them exempt from the law , unless of course they have a passport with diplomatic immunity . Which funnily enough the Iranains claim their missing Republican Guards..... errrrr .....sorry..... consular staff had .

Incidently Mrs Assassin volunteered her own assessment of the situation while watching the channel 4 news this evening, to whit that the Iranian government are "lying b*st*rds", that she is "sure the British were not in Iranian waters" and that her preferred solution is to "send an aircraft carrier"

(Mrs Assassin does not keep up with naval affairs and clearly has not noticed that the Royal Navy now consists of a pedalo and three inflatable sharks. And the pedalo has been mothballed as a cost saving exercise)
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Nice , perhaps you had betterexplain to her that since the Royal Navy cannot even keep hold of a couple of rubber boats (twice~:doh: ) they cannot be trusted with an aircraft carrier .

Xiahou

03-28-2007, 00:30

Exactly why is that not acceptable?
Why should be clear to any British subject. You're obviously not, so you can side with whoever you choose. Personally, my sympathies are with the British personnel who have been abducted and for their government trying to get them back. Then there's the realpolitik of allowing your military personnel to be capture without consequences.

The British have been reliable allies and I'm certainly going to support them over a totalitarian theocracy that's run by a madman. So both in terms of the lives of these 15 marines, and in terms of a political powerplay between a democracy and a repressive theocracy- I want the British to come out of this ahead. You make up your own mind. :shrug:

Tribesman

03-28-2007, 00:51

well you certainly got your answer there Adrian , why is it not acceptable ? because ....well...just because:dizzy2:

Why should be clear to any British subject:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
a typical can't see further than blind patriotism response , it doesn't matter if there is any right or wrong involved, it doesn't matter who screwed up if you is British you have to blindly support Britain :dizzy2: Seamus was certainly on the ball with....This moral absolute trends toward the "my country right or wrong" approach.
which is strangely a moral absolute entirely devoid of morals .:yes:

Beren Son Of Barahi

03-28-2007, 01:17

there is a good reason the British mother ship did not fire at or engage the IRGN, this will be worked out after some finger pointing and a little bit of i told you they were naughty sort of stuff... the deal will include a return of the IRG boyos from Kurdistan maybe on the shhhush. and a agreement to be good in the future....

on a side note, does anyone know if the iranians play by the geniva conventions? and if they do if they are treating the servicemen accordingly?

servicemen and women are they for the forceful application of policical will of their governments...

Seamus Fermanagh

03-28-2007, 01:22

Tribesy: RE, comment on Xiahou's point.

Not at all.

If you hold "love of one's own/need to protect one's own" as a near-paramount moral value, then such a stance is perfectly moral.

If you view morality as something which must be constant across all other factors and circumstances for all people in all times THEN you would be justified in calling such a stance a-moral.

Is this your view of morality then?

If so, what are the paramount moral constraints that should undergird the actions of all nations?

Tribesman

03-28-2007, 01:30

on a side note, does anyone know if the iranians play by the geniva conventions? and if they do if they are treating the servicemen accordingly?

They are supposed to abide by theconvention , but they are not .

Then again perhaps they will designate them as illegal combatants .:2thumbsup: should be easy enough , they were caught under arms alledgedly in Iranian territory ,Britain is not at war with Iran , give them a couple of years and they can convict them of links to the terrorist groups or the couple of little civil wars in Iran and hey presto .
If they really go to town on them they can probably get them to admit to masterminding every Al-Qaida linked attack in the past decade plus shooting the Pope and JFK .:yes:

KukriKhan

03-28-2007, 04:38

I thought we'd proved that KSM killed not only JFK and Oswald, but also Ruby and Jimmy Hoffa.

Man. I need to keep up.

Strike For The South

03-28-2007, 05:59

Lets reverse this If Iran had 15 men captured there would be war. There would be no moral question there would be a Jihad. You know why the UK should retaliate? becuase there Britian thats why. There not some two bit thrid world country. There freaking Britan. A leading wrold power. Iran wants to show some force Britan should do the same. but I fear they wont. Iran has something Britan and the west doesnt. Hunger thats what weve lost, the drive to be the best. The UK in this suituation represents us as whole. Instead of going in there ad returning men to there homes we sit here in our castle and discuss moral isusses. You know how we got to this point? By crushing those who showed opposition 100 years ago Britan wouldve gone in killed a couple hundred thousand introduced tea and cricket and left. Now there scared of Iran! Iran gets away with this they will think they are right we are weak and decadant. We all like to be armchair philosphers turning our noses up at the grittier side of life but somtimes philosphy and idealls dont work and at that point you cant be afriad or scared or claim it conflicts with your moral code you go down there and you crack a few skulls and show Iran there rightful place in the wrold. Below Britan Below the west:wall:

Beren Son Of Barahi

03-28-2007, 06:16

JimBob

03-28-2007, 07:04

Lets reverse this If Iran had 15 men captured there would be war. There would be no moral question there would be a Jihad.
Not really, seeing as we've got five now and I doubt the big A is sitting around saying "five is okay, but if they break fourteen there will be hell to pay"

You know why the UK should retaliate? becuase there Britian thats why. There not some two bit thrid world country. There freaking Britan. A leading wrold power.
I big I get to do what I want. Works in the school yard, but when there's guns people don't get black eyes, they get dead.

Hunger thats what weve lost, the drive to be the best. The UK in this suituation represents us as whole. Instead of going in there ad returning men to there homes we sit here in our castle and discuss moral isusses.
Oh no people in the West don't want empires. We'll never have anything now.

100 years ago Britan wouldve gone in killed a couple hundred thousand introduced tea and cricket and left.
How is that a good thing? Lay it out for me.

We all like to be armchair philosphers turning our noses up at the grittier side of life but somtimes philosphy and idealls dont work and at that point you cant be afriad or scared or claim it conflicts with your moral code you go down there and you crack a few skulls
There's the problem. Morals come first. Any man who won't bleed for ideals is a coward. Violence is the easiest path to take, violence is for weak men. Violence may seem fantastic and manly but shooting wars always suck. Violence always sucks. If there is a way to avoid it then that is the better way. These people are seemingly in no immediate danger, and it will be possible to get them back without a shooting war, so lets keeps people alive and get them back. What good would killing a bunch of Iranian conscript kids do that diplomacy can't? And making you feel like a man isn't a good answer.

Iran there rightful place in the wrold. Below Britan Below the west
How about side by side as human beings. That would be nice.

Tribesman

03-28-2007, 07:29

Man. I need to keep up.
Not as much as SFTS needs to :laugh4:
.....Now there scared of Iran! Iran gets away with this they will think they are right we are weak ....They know britain is in a weak position . It was Iranian agents who fed them the false information that got them into that position in the first place .:yes:

Ja'chyra

03-28-2007, 09:18

Adrian II

03-28-2007, 09:36

Lets reverse this If Iran had 15 men captured there would be war.They have. And there wasn't.

Pannonian

03-28-2007, 09:39

Lets reverse this If Iran had 15 men captured there would be war. There would be no moral question there would be a Jihad. You know why the UK should retaliate? becuase there Britian thats why. There not some two bit thrid world country.

Correct. Britain is not some two bit third world country. Britain is some two bit first world country. Which means our standard of life is rather better, although it doesn't do much about our military might.

There freaking Britan. A leading wrold power.

This bit is patently wrong.

BDC

03-28-2007, 09:42

They have. And there wasn't.
Their men were captured in Iraq though? As were those Turkish special forces a few years ago. Kind of different...

English assassin

03-28-2007, 09:49

Well thankfully I'm not and hopefully never will be as cynical as Tribesy.

The fact of the matter for me is that they are our boys, they didn't ask to be wherever they were whether it was Iranian, Iraqi or disputed waters they just done as they were ordered with no complaints, so I would see that as them holding up their side of the deal the government should therefore stick to theirs and get them back. No ifs or buts, and if people think that is wrong then tough.

I'm sure nobody here knows the whole story, not even you Tribes, but that is my views based on what I do know.

Well said that man.

:2thumbsup:

Then again perhaps they will designate them as illegal combatants . should be easy enough , they were caught under arms alledgedly in Iranian territory ,Britain is not at war with Iran , give them a couple of years and they can convict them of links to the terrorist groups or the couple of little civil wars in Iran and hey presto .

You're light on your feet, Tribes, I'll give you that, but again that's a different fight. Unilaterally redefining the legal status of people you don't like is obviously a :daisy: trick, and one I very strongly disagree with. I'm not even going to say that the UK had no hand in it, since what with renditions and shring of inteligence I am not confident we aren't implicated to a degree. But (1) its nothing to do with these 15, and (2) 15 regular servicemen in uniform on an RN rib really are not comparable to Gitmo detainees.

Come on, we all like an argument, but this moral relativism has a limit.

Husar

03-28-2007, 10:08

If you hold "love of one's own/need to protect one's own" as a near-paramount moral value, then such a stance is perfectly moral.
Makes me curious who "one's own" are?
I can see that with close relatives but I don't think these soldiers are close relatives to most people in Britain.
So I'm left with a definition of close based on nationality or race or maybe even alliances. One we call racism and the other two only exist on paper.:inquisitive:

It's not like I don't wish they will come out there alive and well, but asking for war as soon as the incident happens is a bit much I think and means that one would be willing to sacrifice thousands of lives just to save 15 which means that not 15, but several hundred brits would end up dead in Iran, probably including the 15 who were kidnapped plus thousands of Iranians who were just following orders like the brits.
I don't really see that much love for anyone in this approach.

Tribesman

03-28-2007, 10:55

You're light on your feet, Tribes, I'll give you that, but again that's a different fight. Unilaterally redefining the legal status of people you don't like is obviously a ****'s trick, and one I very strongly disagree with.
:laugh4: Yep , and funnily enough Israel has just found itself in exactly that position . Some silly bugger made some comment to justify his actions and now three detainees from that action are able to use his words to challenge their legal status .
Oh and why did you feel the need to **** the word fool ?~;)

Adrian II

03-28-2007, 11:28

Their men were captured in Iraq though?The five Iranians were captured on January 11 in the Iranian mission in Arbil which had been recognized as such (which made it Iranian territory) by the Iraqi government, and they were captured against the will of the Iraqi government. It was abduction, pure and simple. If one party can abrogate international law, so can another party.

caravel

03-28-2007, 12:10

The fact of the matter for me is that they are our boys, they didn't ask to be wherever they were whether it was Iranian, Iraqi or disputed waters they just done as they were ordered with no complaints, so I would see that as them holding up their side of the deal the government should therefore stick to theirs and get them back. No ifs or buts, and if people think that is wrong then tough.
Well they weren't conscripts either. They signed on the line willingly, and in doing so effectively signed their lives away to fight in this campaign. It is indeed the government's decision on how/if they get them back. It also depends on who's territorial waters they were in. With the British government threatening Iran with "evidence", it's not looking good for the British so far. This has all the appearance of a hollow bluff. Also what would qualify as evidence? Any evidence presented could have been tampered with, and if they had evidence why not present it sooner rather than later? In the same way that the British and Americans would not trust evidence provided by Iran, Iran would similarly be highly suspicious of any evidence presented by the British in this case. From a purely neutral perspective, putting aside Iran being part of the supposed "Axis of Evil", I can understand perfectly Iran's motives for detaining these personnel, in the same way I could understand Britain, the US or Iraq's motives for detaining Iranian military personnel. You can look at this any way you like but those picking up the British personnel on the spur of the moment in those conditions, were unlikely to have a deeper political motive. Their motive was probably more so "keep your war on your own side of the border". If they had been lax about it, Iraqi and coalition troops and vessels would be straying over the border much more frequently. The borders both on land and at sea are not clearly defined and in many cases in dispute, but with modern GPS and maps a commander doesn't really have any excuse for not knowing where those under his command are supposed to and not supposed to be.

English assassin

03-28-2007, 12:34

if they had evidence why not present it sooner rather than later?

Its "diplomacy" Less embarrassing for the Iranians if it looks like an honest mistake at a local level rather than a planned operation sanctioned by the leadership designed to put pressure on a UN vote.

Except it turned out they don't give a ****.

With the British government threatening Iran with "evidence", it's not looking good for the British so far. This has all the appearance of a hollow bluff.

The evidence: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501555.stm

All forged though, obviously. Just ask Tribes.

UK government says merchant vessel boarded by crew from HMS Cornwall was 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters
HMS Cornwall was south-east of merchant ship, inside Iraqi waters
Iranian government initially told UK that merchant vessel was at a point still within Iraqi waters
After UK pointed this out, Iran provided alternative position, within Iranian waters

Ooh, look, a government WAS making evidence up after all. And it wasn't the British. Can it be?

I don't know why I bother.

Spetulhu

03-28-2007, 12:39

This thread made me remember Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Commando". Specifically the part where this former military man with a huge revolver walks into the motel and tries to kill Arnie's former military man. They wrestle all over the place while mouthing stupid one-liners about how tough they are. The film's heroine then utters the single best one-liner of the movie: "I can't believe all this macho BS!"

:beam:

Ja'chyra

03-28-2007, 13:06

Well they weren't conscripts either. They signed on the line willingly, and in doing so effectively signed their lives away to fight in this campaign.

No, in fact they don't sign their lives away, they sign up to serve their country which is a completely different thing. They are not dead men walking until they get their discharge papers.

Banquo's Ghost

03-28-2007, 13:24

No, in fact they don't sign their lives away, they sign up to serve their country which is a completely different thing. They are not dead men walking until they get their discharge papers.

Thank you and well said.

To those who are arguing for a non-diplomatic response, I would be interested to know what exactly you think will work. Ideally a choice that does not lead to the immediate execution of the sailors and many innocent civilian dead. Or strengthen Ahmadinejad at home just as his support is slipping away.

I suspect diplomacy of the quiet kind that the British Foreign Office is so good at (though perhaps not with Mrs Beckett in charge) will be more likely to get the sailors back safe and sound, but I could be convinced otherwise by a practical plan.

Or maybe we could break Col. North out of retirement and sell them a nuclear bomb or suchlike, since that worked effectively a while ago.

Tribesman

03-28-2007, 13:35

All forged though, obviously. Just ask Tribes.

that is an incredibly silly thing to write .
Oh look ......nope you shouldn't immediately believe them , neither should you immediatly believe the other governments though .
With the assets in the gulf it is easy for either party to prove their claims (well apart from the problem about disputed territory) yet no one has have they .
and again .....Simple , the MSO has a set area of operations . In addition to Cornwall the helicopter was tracking the royal navy boats , the dhow and the Iranian navy boats .
The location can be easily established . Not to mention other vessels on patrol , shore based facilities , other aircraft and possibly even satellites .
It should be easy for the British to prove that the boats were in the designated area that it is supposed to operate in ....and look what came out ...the data from the Cornwall and the data from the helicopter:yes:

So do you notice the difference in our positions EA ?
You will believe a known liar just because ...well just because you want to believe them and don't require them to show that they aren't lying again , I will ony believe a known liar when they can come up with some evidence that shows they are not lying .
Simple isn't it :yes: you should try it sometime .

Pannonian

03-28-2007, 13:41

Thank you and well said.

To those who are arguing for a non-diplomatic response, I would be interested to know what exactly you think will work. Ideally a choice that does not lead to the immediate execution of the sailors and many innocent civilian dead. Or strengthen Ahmadinejad at home just as his support is slipping away.

I suspect diplomacy of the quiet kind that the British Foreign Office is so good at (though perhaps not with Mrs Beckett in charge) will be more likely to get the sailors back safe and sound, but I could be convinced otherwise by a practical plan.

Or maybe we could break Col. North out of retirement and sell them a nuclear bomb or suchlike, since that worked effectively a while ago.
I was thinking an indirect threat to back up diplomatic moves, such as withdrawing from Afghanistan or threatening to withdraw. The Iranians don't like the Taliban any more than we do, and if we threaten to give up on that place and let the Iranians deal with a resurgence of those fundie loonies next door, they might be more inclined to listen to us. It would certainly be within our capability, as it involves reducing our commitments rather than adding to them. If necessary, we can send some of them to Iraq instead to back up our point, but that may be too inflammatory to be helpful.

English assassin

03-28-2007, 13:51

So do you notice the difference in our positions EA ?
You will believe a known liar just because ...well just because you want to believe them and don't require them to show that they aren't lying again , I will ony believe a known liar when they can come up with some evidence that shows they are not lying .
Simple isn't it you should try it sometime .

So its give a dog a bad name and hang him eh? That's meant to be, what, being open minded, is it? :no:

Tribesman

03-28-2007, 14:07

So its give a dog a bad name and hang him eh?
More like the boy who cried wolf:yes:
Though to work on your line in this case both dogs have a bad name ,so to follow your line there it would be hang them both just to be sure .:yes:

That's meant to be, what, being open minded, is it?
Yep its very open minded waiting for someone to present their case before you decide , it is very very open minded indeed , try it sometime . :2thumbsup:
Believing someone just because you want to believe them is very closed minded isn't it .:thumbsdown:

KukriKhan

03-28-2007, 14:22

Return to topic, please, gentlemen. What best for the UK to do about 15 detained servicemen - and what best for Iran to do about alleged armed incursions into their territory.

Tribesman

03-28-2007, 14:49

What best for the UK to do about 15 detained servicemen
Since they don't have the ability to do anything militarily it means they have to do a deal through diplomacy .
Time perhaps as Adian suggested to get Ollie off the talk shows and back in the arms deals business .:idea2:
Hey heres a great idea , do a deal to supply parts for the F-14s . That way you not only get a result you manage to wreck the deal Chavez made with Iran:laugh4:

Adrian II

03-28-2007, 14:56

Time perhaps as Adrian suggested to get Ollie off the talk shows and back in the arms deals business .:idea2:Actually that was Banquo's Ghost's idea. I would suggest sending Mark Thatcher to organise a coup in Tehran. Or is Mark out of arms way these days?

caravel

03-28-2007, 15:03

The US and UK Governments love a good old "missing troops" + "bring our brave people home" drama, to bolster support for the war effort and distract public attention from other matters. Even better when some "evil muslims" or supposed funders of terrorism are involved and better still when it's... Iran. This is simply to help Joe Public forget about the money he's being swindled out of in the light of the recent budget. :laugh4:

The funny thing is, that if you criticise Blair, or dare to disagree on this issue, some of the posters on this thread immediately label you as an Ahmadinejad sympathiser. That follows a lecture from the same posters on how much worse life is in Iran compared to over here - a point that wasn't being debated anyway.

As to personnel, I stated that they "signed on the line", they understood the risks; being shot at, killed captured etc - you know, all of those unpleasant side effects of war? So why should we worry about them? None are very concerned about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, killed as a result of the invasion. There are civilians, and military personnel from both sides of the conflict dying in Iraq itself, the only ones that are worried are the families, so why are we worried about these few personnel detained in Iran that will in all likelihood be returned safely in a matter of weeks? Why has the patriotic zeal, that is only usually reserved for football matches, surfaced this time? Did the UK kick up the same fuss about the plane spotters detained in Greece for "spying"...?

With regard to "giving a dog a bad name", the same could be applied to Iran as a whole. People assume that it as a country is at fault, without first seeing any evidence of it, because the British and US governments have spun it this way and have worked hard to demonise it over the years (as they had done with Iraq). Blair on the other hand with a fabulous career of lying and fabrication behind him, has been proven to be false and untrustworthy many times over, as have many of his cronies. They had fabricated the pretext to go to war with Iraq in the first place, this makes them fully capable of falsifying anything else...

Devastatin Dave

03-28-2007, 15:11

Slyspy

03-28-2007, 15:14

On balance I would rather believe our own liars than other people's, which is what this argument boils down to.

Adrian II

03-28-2007, 15:16

On balance I would rather believe our own liars than other people's, which is what this argument boils down to.Almost right.

On balance I would fight for my right to choose my own liars rather then have them imposed on me. I'm not believing any of them, though.

Banquo's Ghost

03-28-2007, 15:17

As to personnel, I stated that they "signed on the line", they understood the risks; being shot at, killed captured etc - you know, all of those unpleasant side effects of war? So why should we worry about them? None are very concerned about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, killed as a result of the invasion.

I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to that assertion. Most service personnel of both UK and US forces have a very great concern for the Iraqi people. I know several people serving, and none of them are the cold-blooded killers you characterise. Of course their first concern is their own safety and that of their comrades, but to label them unconcerned is a significant insult and deeply inaccurate.

They may be some posters who give you the impression that soldiers couldn't care less - they are not typical, I assure you.

Signing up does not mean one's family and friends can stop worrying. It does not give other governments (or indeed their own government) carte blanche to fritter away their lives. It does not stop the individuals being scared. And without their willingness to face these privations, our way of life would be the poorer.

We worry about them because they are human beings.

EDIT: Let me add that these particular sailors appear to have behaved in very courageous manner. Many posters here, and a US admiral, noted that US forces would have fought back. Given the odds, they would have likely died immediately, sparking a conflict in which many more innocents would have died, and putting their comrades in Iraq in severe extra danger because the coalition is in no shape to fight another war on that border - let alone the further upsurge in terrorism from the region. By surrendering in line with what I assume is British RoE and policy, there is a chance for this to blow over once Ahmadinejad gets his macho ratings back up at home and whichever group is holding them gets something back. They get to go home alive, as do many other people - unlike the hawkish response which would get a lot more people dead. Might be worth reflecting on.

rory_20_uk

03-28-2007, 15:20

We worry about them because they are human beings.

No, we worry about them because

We are told about it
We decide they matter
We feel good about caring

Why else these 15 as opposed to any other 15 you care to mention?

~:smoking:

caravel

03-28-2007, 15:24

I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to that assertion. Most service personnel of both UK and US forces have a very great concern for the Iraqi people. I know several people serving, and none of them are the cold-blooded killers you characterise. Of course their first concern is their own safety and that of their comrades, but to label them unconcerned is a significant insult and deeply inaccurate.

They may be some posters who give you the impression that soldiers couldn't care less - they are not typical, I assure you.

Signing up does not mean one's family and friends can stop worrying. It does not give other governments (or indeed their own government) carte blanche to fritter away their lives. It does not stop the individuals being scared. And without their willingness to face these privations, our way of life would be the poorer.

We worry about them because they are human beings.
Sorry badly worded on my part. By "none" I was referring to "none at home" which was also much too absolutist. What I was trying to get across was that while we are debating over a handful of captive soldiers, not many seem overly worried by the death toll as a whole. I wasn't referring to service personnel's opinions at all.

:bow:

-Edit: @rory_20_uk: Well, exactly.

Banquo's Ghost

03-28-2007, 15:31

Sorry badly worded on my part. By "none" I was referring to "none at home" which was also much too absolutist. What I was trying to get across was that while we are debating over a handful of captive soldiers, not many seem overly worried by the death toll as a whole. I wasn't referring to service personnel's opinions at all.

:bow:

-Edit: @rory_20_uk: Well, exactly.

To both: I assume that everyone is aware that I opposed this war from the beginning, tend to urge communication and diplomacy to solve Iran's issues and take great exception to the loss of life on all sides, in any conflict of the world. There are plenty of people that care deeply about the civilian loss of life - but can also care about these sailors.

Just because one takes up a particular story in the news does not mean one stops caring about all the violence in the world.

rory_20_uk

03-28-2007, 15:36

In your case that might be so. Sadly few are as well read as you are, or are able to keep more than one human interest story in their heads at once.

~:smoking:

Sjakihata

03-28-2007, 16:01

Apparently they are going to release the lady (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/28/ap3559349.html)

Devastatin Dave

03-28-2007, 19:07

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1257880,00.html

I would like everyone to take note as to what they put on her head. I feel bad for this poor girl. Of course, "her" written statement will be proof enough for Tribe and Adrian and 90% of the media as to the Brits guilt in entering Iranian waters, ignoring the GPS proof the Brittish government provided. But I guess a note written in a probably less than pleasant situation should always be believed way before anything like actual proof.

So will there just be more talk and empty threats or will the Iranians keep relying on their allies in their opponents own countries to keep their delay tactics to gain their nukes, destroy the West, and bring forth the last Caliphate?

HAHAHA!!! So predictable, I'm watching CNN and they are reporting this letter she's reading as to "the actual event". Jesus Christ, liberals in the media should start passing out berkas.:laugh4:

Grey_Fox

03-28-2007, 19:27

Since when did women know how to read a map?

Adrian II

03-28-2007, 19:28

But I guess (..)You mean second-guess. That's all you have been doing in this thread: second-guessing and insulting other members.

As for the woman, her release as such is not a good sign at all. The Iranians are pretending to play nice cop. They have no doubt seen that all the British papers and other media have constantly hammered on the fact there was a woman among the detainees, we have seen interviews with her husband, pics of her child, etcetera. They are trying to convey to the British public that they mean well.

Don't underestimate them. Don't think for a moment they don't understand us, or the way public opinion works in a democracy.

Devastatin Dave

03-28-2007, 19:52

Don't underestimate them. Don't think for a moment they don't understand us, or the way public opinion works in a democracy.
I'm not the one underestimating them or indirectly assiting them with their public opinion campaign. Was it Stalin or Lenin that called his enablers and apologists in the West "useful idiots"? Not calling you that, old chap, of course.:beam:

Devastatin Dave

03-28-2007, 19:57

Since when did women know how to read a map?
Good point, they should have pulled over and asked for directions!!!:laugh4:
I bet those guys listen to her next time!!!

Seamus Fermanagh

03-28-2007, 19:58

Yeah right.

Next you'll be telling us that they don't mind pictures and aren't afraid of losing their souls into the box.

Or even that they drive cars like we do instead of shuffling along in camel carts.

Of COURSE they're playing the PR game. That is all this detention ever was. Perhaps some RG captain took them in a fit of machismo or fervor at the outset of events (I doubt it, but it is not impossible), but this has been an orchestrated media campaign ever since.

Whoever is calling the shots over there is operating under two assumptions:

The UK will not do anything militarily to retrieve them or punish Iran.

The Western media attention gained will tarnish Blair and/or Bush more than it will the Iranian leadership.

They'll take some flak in their own media, of course, but since they're "bearding the lion" the fallout will be pretty limited.

They've already won, the only question is how many "casualties" (metaphorically, not physically) they get to inflict on the withdrawal phase.

Adrian II

03-28-2007, 20:02

I'm not the one underestimating them or indirectly assiting them with their public opinion campaign.I hope so. I mean, they know that Western public opinion - despite its reputation - can be rash, uninformed and terrible forgetful, yet also terribly unforgiving. The more and louder we demand immediate action, satisfaction, tit for tat and bombs away, the smaller the margins become for our leaders to adopt and carry through a well-considered strategy.

Their leadership does not have that problem. They kill their opponents in broad daylight if need be.

Adrian II

03-28-2007, 20:07

Of COURSE they're playing the PR game.Go tell that to some of the British media, who link the woman's release directly to Blair 'different phase' of diplomacy. 'Look, Blair showed them the evidence and they're caving in already.' Sure, sure..

Whacker

03-28-2007, 20:22

Whoever is calling the shots over there is operating under two assumptions:

The UK will not do anything militarily to retrieve them or punish Iran.

Actually my friend, I gotta disagree with you here. If anything this seems to me like brinkmanship where a resulting military conflict would be a perfectly acceptable solution in their leadership's view. Don't forget that one Iraqi general who gained notoriety for denying everything that was happening when we invaded a second time. These people exist and actually believe what they are saying. I'm not saying that's their express intent and goal, but in this game whose purpose is to discredit the US and UK more in the world's view I could see them being perfectly happy with a shooting war starting. This whole situation is a powderkeg with a flamethrower waiting to light the fuse.

Lemur

03-28-2007, 21:51

Looks as though Iran's cooked-up excuse for hostage-taking (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6502947.stm) has required a couple of revisions to get straight. It's hard to imagine a bunch of theocratic totalitarian fanatics lying, but apparently they did.

The first British tactic had been to offer Iran an easy way out. The Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett gave the co-ordinates of the British sailors to the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and suggested that there might have been a "mistake".

Iran at first offered a different co-ordinate and then, when it was pointed out that even this was in Iraqi waters, another reading was given, this time on the Iranian side.

[edit]

Sorry EA, I somehow missed your post about just this aspect of the farce a page earlier ...

Tribesman

03-28-2007, 22:37

I would like everyone to take note as to what they put on her head. I feel bad for this poor girl. Of course, "her" written statement will be proof enough for Tribe and Adrian and 90% of the media as to the Brits guilt in entering Iranian waters, ignoring the GPS proof the Brittish government provided. But I guess a note written in a probably less than pleasant situation should always be believed way before anything like actual proof.

So lame its actually truly pathetic .~:rolleyes: Are you trying to demonstrate that you cannot read the topic ?
So now Dave who is it exactly that accepts confessions under duress as proof ?
errr .....that would be people like yourself who happily lap up every little confession from Gitmo as proof .:yes:

BDC

03-28-2007, 22:39

Ice

03-29-2007, 06:07

It made me giggle. They had a really confused governmental woman on the news who was amazed Iran would be so ridiculously stupid as to give the real coordinates of the kidnapping, which was of course in Iraqi waters.

And the change them, hoping no one would notice.

Seriously, what idiots. If you're going to lie, make sure you do it, and don't accidentally tell everyone the truth.

You'd think so. I'd love to hear with those who still deny that accuracy and legitimacy of the British evidence have to say.

Since it turned out they were in Iraqi waters, this was kidnapping, plain and simple.

Hosakawa Tito

03-29-2007, 11:22

You'd think so. I'd love to hear with those who still deny that accuracy and legitimacy of the British evidence have to say.

Since it turned out they were in Iraqi waters, this was kidnapping, plain and simple.

A rather inconvenient truth.time to change the subject

Adrian II

03-29-2007, 12:18

You'd think so. I'd love to hear with those who still deny that accuracy and legitimacy of the British evidence have to say.Well, I am not Ernie the Attorney, but since we lack an Iranian presentation of counter-evidence I might put the case for them in layman's terms. If only to show that some here may be too gullible when it comes to British declarations of innocence, honesty and good intent. Countries such as the U.S. and UK that foster terrorism inside Iran and in the wider region can not be taken at their word.

What we have seen from London is a somewhat plausible demonstration that the merchant vessel was at some time in the position indicated by the British Ministry of Defense. The photograph of the GPS display in the helicopter hovering over the merchant ship was taken two days after the event and the ship may have moved in the meantime. But even if we take the British GPS measure as accurate, that is still not evidence, is it?

What remains to be proven is that the location was, in effect, Iraqi territorial water. And in that respect, the demarcation provided by the British Ministry of Defense is not adequate.

https://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3003/shattalarab1kk2.gif (https://imageshack.us)

British demarcation

Punters may recall that the maritime border is 'disputed' and recognised as such by the UK and Iraq. In this case, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is applicable since both Britain and Iraq have acceded to it (the U.S. and Iran have not) and the operation was takingplace under UN aegis.

Article 15
Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts
Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.Hence the correct demarcation would include the shaded area:

https://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7643/shattalarab2tq3.gif (https://imageshack.us)

Adrian's demarcation

Conclusion: lawful arrest

English assassin

03-29-2007, 12:21

Yeah, and if my grandma had wheels she'd be a wagon.

For your bonus question, accordign to what principle of international law is the continued detention of the servicemen without consular access lawful?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-29-2007, 12:23

Then why didn't the Iranians point that out? Instead they moved their position. Added to which as you yourself pointed out they do not recognise the UN Convention, so how can they invoke it.

I don't think that makes for a lawful arrest, though it might make for a muddier situation.

Adrian II

03-29-2007, 12:49

Yeah, and if my grandma had wheels she'd be a wagon.When are you going to actually answer points that others have made? Evasion and ridicule will only convince those who agreed with you all along.
For your bonus question, accordign to what principle of international law is the continued detention of the servicemen without consular access lawful?Ask your allies, the Americans. They are the problem to all your answers.

International law is out the window, English Assassin. Your country followed its main ally in military adventures and detention campaigns with no legitimacy whatsoever. It gave the rest of its allies the finger and sailed halfway across the world looking for trouble, and now trouble has found Britain.

If this situation escalates, we may see the Transatlantic Charter being invoked once more in support of a war we don't want and never wanted in the first place. Such treaties are waved in front of our eyes every time it suits the U.S. government and yours, yet if it does not suit them, they wipe their fundaments on said treaties with alarming ease.

What was that you said about consular rights? I don't know what you are referring to. People can't read the relevant passage anymore these days because there is too much British and American excrement smeared all over it.

Adrian II

03-29-2007, 12:51

Instead they moved their position.Says Britain.
Added to which as you yourself pointed out they do not recognise the UN Convention, so how can they invoke it.Iraq and the UK do, and so does the UN under whose auspices they operate. Treaties somehow used to be binding, you know, in the old days. Never mind.

KukriKhan

03-29-2007, 13:06

So, what options remain?

For the UK:
-continue diplomacy
-apply economic sanctions
-SpecOps rescue raid
-full declaration of war

For Iran:
-continue diplomacy
-laugh at economic sanctions
-trot out images of the detainees being fed, daily
-bring charges against the detainees in court
-convict them of spying and trespass; jail them.
-send them to the Hague for trial as war criminals

any other ideas?

Seamus Fermanagh

03-29-2007, 13:15

Says Britain.Iraq and the UK do, and so does the UN under whose auspices they operate. Treaties somehow used to be binding, you know, in the old days. Never mind.

Adrian:

You know better.

International "Law" has always lacked the implied element of coercion underpinning laws within nations and has ALWAYS been haphazardly "binding" upon nations.

Treaties were are are as binding as the participants choose to let them be. There HAVE been times where a greater sense of common outrage would bring some nations into compliance when they'd rather have not done so, but there have always been instances where international laws and treaties were ignored.

Mind you, this does not invalidate your "reap what you sow" jibe against England -- I'd agree that the tit-for-tat principle is probably very much in the minds of some Iranians -- but a blanket statement that treaties used to be binding in the old days doesn't wash.

Prussia was one of the guarantors of Belgian independent neutrality.

Holland wasn't the most scrupulous enforcer of neutrality in War One -- Moltke's "windpipe" and all that.

How many of the participant's in the London Naval Treaty did NOT cheat a bit...or a lot?

International Law is a bit of a thin reed.

caravel

03-29-2007, 13:21

Well said Adrian II. Unfortunately, whether Iran are right or wrong, Blair will manage to spin and distort the story to cause the British to appear in the right. To perpetuate the myth of the US/UK gallivanting across the globe hand in hand spreading "freedom" and "democracy", struggling against "evil" regimes that "hate freedom" etc etc. It's much the same as all of those other old fairy stories about WMD, or Saddam working with Al Quiada. They will fabricate and twist virtually anything to achieve their aims. They have shown this time and again.

Adrian II

03-29-2007, 13:21

Adrian:

You know better.

International "Law" has always lacked the implied element of coercion underpinning laws within nations and has ALWAYS been haphazardly "binding" upon nations.How is that 'better' than what I've said?

All I say is I deplore that fact that civilised nations flaunt some of the more important principles they pretend to uphold. They forfeit the right to hold others to those principles. Caveman is in the ascendant, Osama is winning.

English assassin

03-29-2007, 15:55

When are you going to actually answer points that others have made? Evasion and ridicule will only convince those who agreed with you all along.Ask your allies, the Americans. They are the problem to all your answers.

International law is out the window, English Assassin. Your country followed its main ally in military adventures and detention campaigns with no legitimacy whatsoever. It gave the rest of its allies the finger and sailed halfway across the world looking for trouble, and now trouble has found Britain.

If this situation escalates, we may see the Transatlantic Charter being invoked once more in support of a war we don't want and never wanted in the first place. Such treaties are waved in front of our eyes every time it suits the U.S. government and yours, yet if it does not suit them, they wipe their fundaments on said treaties with alarming ease.

What was that you said about consular rights? I don't know what you are referring to. People can't read the relevant passage anymore these days because there is too much British and American excrement smeared all over it.

You aren't actually making points old chum. You are standing on the sidelines throwing dung. Its well below what I though was your usual standard.

So far from this thread I have understood that

(1) You don't believe anything the UK government says
(2) Because the USA has failed to observe international law its OK for everyone else to ignore it too
3) You really aren't that bothered about the detention of the servicemen.

All of which we can sum up as

(4) UK = Bad.

Well, you are entitled to your point of view. I never thought I would say it, but I prefer DD and CR and co. They may not read the right newspapers and they might even watch Fox News, but at least they are FOR something, rather than just being against everything.

rory_20_uk

03-29-2007, 16:40

Being for something generally requires belief; the minute you analyse it, you've lost the fire.

I love my country. Again that is something that is in variance with all evidence either past or present. I just do - it is a belief that I have.

That part of me wants those servicemen and women back because it is an insult to the country for Iran to abduct them in this matter. Stains on one's honour get wiped off in blood - who'se blood tends not to matter.

But the more analytical part of myself states that starting a mass war to try to save 15 people who will probably be killed at the start of the war is not a great idea.

That's the reason intellectuals like to sit in their cafes and make sardonic comments at everything that is happening. To act is to compromise between many variables. Sitting there and pointing out all the flaws is oh so much easier and doesn't require stating an alternate course of action.

~:smoking:

BDC

03-29-2007, 16:44

Starting a huge war over this would be rather silly and bloody on both sides. I doubt anyone wants that... Iran almost certainly would not have done this if they thought that was even an option.

Adrian II

03-29-2007, 17:24

(1) You don't believe anything the UK government saysNot prima facie, no. The UK has been involved in lots of diplomatic maneuvers and covert actions against Tehran, it has a huge stake in the affair and it has been known to lie through its teeth to take the country to war just a few years back. So why would I believe it? Give me one good reason.

I can't help thinking of the USS Vincennes, the U.S. 'robo-cruiser' that inadvertently shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988.

Think of the lies we were told at the time: the USS Vincennes was in international waters, she was under attack by Iranian ships and planes, other ships in the neighbourhood were under attack, the civilian airliner was heading directly toward the USS Vincennes, it was lowering altitude, etcetera, etcetera. Here is what U.S. Admiral and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff William Crowe and some of his superiors had to say at the time:

William Crowe: "The USS VIncennes was in international waters. The suspect aircraft was outside the prescribed commercial air corridor. More importantly, the aircraft headed directly for Vincennes, on a constant bearing, at high speed, approximately 450 knots, and decreasing altitude as it neared the ship."

President Ronald Reagan: "On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes and the USS Elmer Montgomery were operating in international waters of the Persian Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz.”

Vice-President George H.W. Bush: “This tragic accident occurred against a backdrop of repeated, unjustified, unprovoked and unlawful Iranian attacks against U.S. merchant shipping and armed forces. And it occurred in the midst of a naval attack initiated by Iranian vessels against a neutral vessel and subsequently against the Vincennes when she came to the aid of the innocent ship in distress. One thing is clear, and that is that the USS Vincennes acted in self-defense.”

Assistant Secretary of State Richard S. Williamson: "The ship was, at the time of the incident, in international waters.”

Lies, lies and more lies. One after the other they have been uncovered, mostly through official American reports coming years after the fact.

What transpired was that the USS Vincennes was part of an undeclared war against Iran, an episode of open warfare in which the U.S. sided with Saddam's Iraq and bombed Iranian oil platforms, factories and other civilian targets. It turned out that the ship's captain was a rogue character who took his vessel into Iranian waters on his own initiative and fired away at anything resembling an Iranian plane.

In 1992, former Admiral Crowe finally had to bite the dust on Ted Koppel's Nightline show:

Ted Koppel: But if I were to ask you today, was the Vincennes in international waters at the time that she shot down the Airbus—
William J. Crowe Jr.: Yes, she was.
Ted Koppel: In international waters?
William J. Crowe Jr.: No, no, no. She was in Iran’s territorial waters.
Ted Koppel: Let me ask you again. Where was the Vincennes at the time that she shot down the Airbus?
William J. Crowe Jr.: She was in Iran territorial waters.In these situations - not exactly their finest hours - democratic governments tend to lie just like all the rest.

Fragony

03-29-2007, 17:33

Starting a huge war over this would be rather silly and bloody on both sides. I doubt anyone wants that... Iran almost certainly would not have done this if they thought that was even an option.

Well they fully know it isn't, kinda smart in a rather twisted way. It's an obvious provocation, but just not enough to be provoked.

Duke Malcolm

03-29-2007, 17:41

Not prima facie, no. The UK has been involved in lots of diplomatic maneuvers and covert actions against Tehran, it has a huge stake in the affair and it has been known to lie through its teeth to take the country to war just a few years back. So why would I believe it? Give me one good reason.

Why believe either side?
I pick Britain because it is my country and I am a blind-sighted loyalist. And because Iran first provided co-ordinates inside Iraqi waters before changing them. Though that point is simply extra reason.
However, it is in both sides interest to lie. Whether they were inside Iraqi waters or not, we may not find out.

There is a notable pro-war feeling amongst my comrades in school (although there is, as always, an anti-war camp). But I digress...

Adrian II

03-29-2007, 17:51

Why believe either side?I never believe a single word coming out of Tehran either.

English assassin

03-29-2007, 18:11

I can't help thinking of the USS Vincennes, the U.S. 'robo-cruiser' that inadvertently shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988.

As I remarked above, give a dog a bad name...

I am sure you don't expect me to say the Vincennes incident was admirable, or acceptable. For what its worth I'd go further and say that from what we know of it, (assuming we believe what we read on the web which seems to be begging the question in your case,) its quite strongly arguably criminal.

How you get from this to refusing to believe the given positions of a RN Rib in March 2007 is my problem. Do governments lie? Yes. Does my government lie. No doubt. But it doesn't lie all the time. I don't even think it lies most of the time. There are too many people like you out there to make that a viable strategy. And, for all that is is sometimes irritating, on calmer reflection that is a good thing overall.

Keeping in mind the possibility that the UK government may lie is fine, but acting as if there is some sort of presumption that it must be always lying until its story is verified by some third party (ideally Noam Chomsky) is a receipe for paralysis. "Who knows who is telling the truth?" is a viable strategy if you have to choose between Bill Clinton and Jeffery Archer but as between the UK and Iran on this particular incident its unnecessary IMHO. First, I simply do find the UK government overall more credible that the Iranian one (put it down to the lack of a free media in Iran if no other reason: if we lie it's likely we will be found out). Second, cui bono? Why, Iran. Third, there is one unquestioned violation of international law in all this, and that is the refusal of consular access. So one of the two parties has demonstrated a celar willingness to break the law over the incident. The other is at most alleged to have done so.

All subject to the possibility that further evidence may emerge, no doubt, but good enough for me for now.

As for Iran herself, where is Kermit when you need him.

Devastatin Dave

03-29-2007, 18:13

I never believe a single word coming out of Tehran either.
...You just spend 7 paged defedning it.

Adrian II

03-29-2007, 19:14

Does my government lie. No doubt. But it doesn't lie all the time. I don't even think it lies most of the time.A government that lies in order to take its nation to war is capable of lying about anything, and most of all about sensitive military operations with potentially desastrous consequences.

The USS Vincennes was a case in point. The 1998 incident involved theocratic Iran, it involved a democratically elected goverment, it involved lots of covert aspects, lots of blue water and lots of white lies. That's why I referred to it.

The present incident may be a case in point as well. Members have protested that it couldn't be because (1) well, because we're British, (2) because they're Iran, (3) because we have to show them their place and (4) because we respect international law and they don't. I have refuted all those points. I have even gone so far as to show you that a case could be made for Iran, even though they have declined to make it themselves, just to demonstrate that it can be done. Nobody has refuted the case I made, even though I am a bloody amateur.

I know I have burst quite a few little balloons here over the past few days. I couldn't care less if I qualify for Most Hated Backroom Personality on next year's HoF, I will wear the badge with pride. I prefer rational thought over tribal thinking. I have provided facts, analysis, sources, examples, references, suggestions and a few jokes to top it off. I am sorry I can't convince you. And I perfectly understand that you are disappointed in the caricature you make of me. So am I.

Tribesman

03-29-2007, 19:15

...You just spend 7 paged defedning it.
Another demonstration that you cannot have read the topic :yes:

As I remarked above, give a dog a bad name...

On reflection concerning Britains claims , they are actually of the bollox variety , the map used is clearly wrong , in addition to the fault Adrian pointed out , the map is drawn up using two oil platforms as the marks for setting the outer boundary and then extending that boundary the the median line extending from the Shatt relative to the two headlands. Oil platforms and other built or anchored structures at sea cannot be used to draw up territorial boundaries .:yes:

Now then , since the British former first sea Lord said that Britain cannot operate in disputed waters and is restricted to established Iraqi or international waters , and the US State dept and CIA says there is no recognised maritime boundary between Iran and Iraq since the treaty establishing those was nullified by the Iraqis .
Thus making the whole area a no go for the British Navy as it is disputed and will remain disputed until a new treaty is drawn up and ratified by Iran and Iraq
Then quite simply the British were operating somewhere where they shouldn't have been .

Adrian II

03-29-2007, 19:23

Oil platforms and other built or anchored structures at sea cannot be used to draw up territorial boundaries .:yes: God, so you've read the bugger, too. I should have known. We will probably finish ex equo for that HoF badge. :balloon2:

EDIT
We should work in shifts, you and me.

Tribesman

03-29-2007, 19:48

God, so you've read the bugger, too. I should have known.
Read it a long time ago in relation to the Spratly Islands , now there is a real complex dispute for ya :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: , its amazing what lengths countries have gone to in order to manage to fit a garrison onto the tiniest little rock they can find between tides.

BTW
I prefer rational thought over tribal thinking.
How dare you :furious3: I am sooooo insulted:laugh4:

Slyspy

03-29-2007, 20:57

I don't much care whose waters the ribs were in, who was right and who was wrong. It is all so utterly petty. What I do care about is the lack of access to the captured personnel, their display on television and their eventual fate.

I hope that it will go down the usual route of an exchange followed by a little meddling in Iran's international affairs just to make a point. A few fighter spares missing there, a tightening of sanctions here and such like.

Ice

03-29-2007, 21:39

I disagree with your boarders, Adrian. Since Iran didn't agree to the treaty, it can't really claim its their waters. I find this more relevant:

http://www.answers.com/topic/algiers-agreement-1975

Second: Demarcate their river boundaries according to the thalweg line [meaning the median course of the Shatt-El-Arab waterway].

Aftermath

As with most territorial conflicts this problem was not solved by the Algiers Accord, five years after the treaty was signed Iraq invaded Iran and fought the longest war of the 20th century. At the end of the inconclusive war both sides agreed to respect the terms of the 1975 agreement.

Adrian II

03-29-2007, 21:45

I disagree with your boarders, Adrian. Since Iran didn't agree to the treaty, it can't really claim its their waters. I find this more relevant:

http://www.answers.com/topic/algiers-agreement-1975Yeah, I looked into the Thalweg rule, a sort of default solution for disputed waterways. But it applies only to rivers, and this incident took place way off the Shatt al-Arab mouth so #15 applies. And if and when the UK operates under a UN mandate it will have to abide by the UN Convention, no matter if Iran signed it or not.

Ice

03-29-2007, 21:53

Yeah, I looked into the Thalweg rule, a sort of default solution for disputed waterways. But it applies only to rivers, and this incident took place way off the Shatt al-Arab mouth so #15 applies. And if and when the UK operates under a UN mandate it will have to abide by the UN Convention, no matter if Iran signed it or not.

I would only consider the UN Convention rules to apply to the member countries that signed them. My opinion still stands.

My knowledge of maritime boarders isn't that great. How many miles do they typically go out?

I also believe the way the boarders are drawn in the British diagram is fair. They river boarders are continued out to a certain length... (not exactly sure how far)

Edit: Could you also explain how you drew that line? I'm reading Article 15 and can't figure out how you came to that angle... It makes sense where you started drawing it though.

Tribesman

03-29-2007, 21:56

I disagree with your boarders So did the Royal navy but they didn't try and repel them .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Since Iran didn't agree to the treaty, it can't really claim its their waters
that doesn't matter , since Iraq can't claim it either , they are disputed waters :yes: , your government says there is no recognised maritime border , they are disputed waters :yes: the Royal navy cannot operate in ....yes you guessed it ..disputed waters:yes:

Nice link , did you read the bit about foriegn interference ?

Adrian II

03-29-2007, 21:59

I would only consider the UN Convention rules to apply to the member countries that signed them. My opinion still stands.

My knowledge of maritime boarders isn't that great. How many miles do they typically go out?

I also believe the way the boarders are drawn in the British diagram is fair. They river boarders are continued out to a certain length... (not exactly sure how far)Drawing and redrawing other nations' borders used to be a bit of a British hobby at one time, but those days are long over.

What do you call 'fair' in this case, based on what principle?

And don't you think the principle of the UN Convention should apply to a UN-mandated operation?

BTW Territorial waters typically go out 12 nautical miles.

Ice

03-29-2007, 22:04

So did the Royal navy but they didn't try and repel them .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I never said the RN should have. The British were outnumbered and outgunned. That wouldn't have been smart on their side. I'm not really sure what's so funny... or if that's your usual posting style...

that doesn't matter , since Iraq can't claim it either , they are disputed waters :yes: , your government says there is no recognised maritime border , they are disputed waters :yes: the Royal navy cannot operate in ....yes you guessed it ..disputed waters:yes:

I'm not really seeing what my government has to do with this. I'm pretty sure Great Britain isn't part of the United States. Iraq sees them as Iraqi. Thus, the British are allowed, with permission of course from the Iraqi government, to operate in them.

Nice link , did you read the bit about foriegn interference ?

Of course not, Tribesman.

Ice

03-29-2007, 22:06

Drawing and redrawing other nations' borders used to be a bit of a British hobby at one time, but those days are long over.

What do you call 'fair' in this case, based on what principle?

And don't you think the principle of the UN Convention should apply to a UN-mandated operation?

BTW Territorial waters typically go out 12 nautical miles.

I call extending the river boundaries out 12 nautical miles fair.

I don't think it should apply if the disputed waters belong to a country which is not part of the treaty.

Adrian II

03-29-2007, 22:08

I call extending the river boundaries out 12 nautical miles fair.A lot of maps will have to be redrawn then. ~;)

Edit

Linky (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm)

Tribesman

03-29-2007, 22:31

I'm not really sure what's so funny... or if that's your usual posting style...
Perhaps you will get it eventually ....
:pirate2:

I'm not really seeing what my government has to do with this. I'm pretty sure Great Britain isn't part of the United States.

I mentioned your government to give a British allies official view on the waters in question , they are ....disputed . :idea2:

Iraq sees them as Iraqi.

Iraq can see them as whatever it likes , it doesn't make them Iraqi waters , they are ...disputed :idea2:

Thus, the British are allowed, with permission of course from the Iraqi government, to operate in them.

Nope , the British are not allowed to operate in disputed waters , and the waters are ...disputed:idea2:

Now then would you care to hazard a guess at the obvious reason why the Royal Navy is not allowed to operate in disputed waters ?
It really is a very very easy question . Can you answer it ?

rory_20_uk

03-29-2007, 23:08

So, a warship is in dodgy waters. A small dinghy is sent to another boat with a helicopter watching over.

First off, why was the warship so far off? The waters are inherently unsafe.

Another ship comes up. Erm, what was the helicopter doing at this point? I thought it was protecting the dinghy.

Then the ship takes the crew and disappears. The helicopter and warship proceed to do nothing.

~:smoking:

Ice

03-29-2007, 23:32

Perhaps you will get it eventually ....
:pirate2:

I already get it Tribesman, I just don't find it funny in the least. Maybe you are just trolling, like usual?

I mentioned your government to give a British allies official view on the waters in question , they are ....disputed . :idea2:
?

Iraq can see them as whatever it likes , it doesn't make them Iraqi waters , they are ...disputed :idea2:

All that means Tribesman, is that Iraq thinks it is theirs and Iran thinks it is theirs. I know Iran disputes Iraq's claim, but I still believe they belong to the Iraqis.

Now then would you care to hazard a guess at the obvious reason why the Royal Navy is not allowed to operate in disputed waters ?
It really is a very very easy question . Can you answer it ?

Could you rephrase the question? Actually don't bother. I'm just going to ignore all further posts by you. You seem incapable of debating in a professional manor without trolling and insulting other people's intelligence.

Ice

03-29-2007, 23:35

A lot of maps will have to be redrawn then. ~;)

Edit

Linky (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm)

Could you be a bit more specific on what you mean?

Tribesman

03-30-2007, 00:39

I already get it Tribesman, I just don't find it funny in the least. Maybe you are just trolling, like usual?

Awwwww given the run of puns in recent topics your typo is really funny considering this topic .

All that means Tribesman, is that Iraq thinks it is theirs and Iran thinks it is theirs. I know Iran disputes Iraq's claim, but I still believe they belong to the Iraqis.

For a start it doesn't matter what you believe regarding the territoril claims since there is no logical or legal basis for your belief .
It is a fact that they are disputed waters and it is a fact that the Royal Navy is not allowed to operate in disputed waters .
It is common sense why they are not allowed to do so considering the situation in the gulf .

Could you rephrase the question? Actually don't bother. I'm just going to ignore all further posts by you. You seem incapable of debating in a professional manor without trolling and insulting other people's intelligence.

EDIT: When a member chooses to withdraw from debate with you, it is not polite to then insult them. Removed. BG

Azi Tohak

03-30-2007, 04:37

Wasn't there something in 2001 between the USA and China about detained military personnel? I do not remember the specifics.

But I do love Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

Anyway, nobody died this time (yet...), but the whole aspect of being somewhere you shouldn't be seems rather familiar.

I hope this ends with Iran sending the Brits back unharmed. And soon. As much as I like high oil costs (working for one of the evil oil companies), I don't like the trouble close to where I'm going to be in a few weeks.

Azi

spmetla

03-30-2007, 05:00

Does anyone know naval law here? Let's say the Brits did enter Iranian waters, are the Iranians allowed to capture them or merely tell them to leave and then either detain them or force them out?

Incongruous

03-30-2007, 12:06

No idea but that might be an interesting point for the People involved to Clarify.
Also, I too would like to know how in the hell those boats were captured with such ease. Where was the Helicopter? If its disputed waterm why in gods name were they not patrolling in something a little more substantial? Seems like a naval planing cock up to me. Embarrasing:yes:

Adrian II

03-30-2007, 12:49

Could you be a bit more specific on what you mean?I meant that if your 'fair' rule (of extended river borders) were to be introduced into the Convention, a lot of maps would have to be redrawn.

On the other matter: I believe that if Britain were not bound to respect the UN Convention, then neither would Iran be bound by British demarcations. However, Iran has explicitly accepted Article 15 of the Convention on 2 May 1993, when it adopted a comprehensive law on marine areas. The new law confirms a 12-mile territorial sea, a 24-mile contiguous zone and a 50-mile exclusive economic zone, the external limits of which are determined "by bilateral agreement or, in the absence of agreement, by the line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest point on the baseline of the two States".

And on the third matter: within its territorial waters any state is free to enforce any law or measure it wants. In this case I suppose the default provision would be some law against piracy or some similar statute that warrants arrest.

To be honest I don't believe the Iranian side is even aware that there is a body of international law and that it has its uses, in a case like this one as in any other case, unless one wants to live in a state of eternal friction and contest with one's neighbours and the rest of mankind. If what we have seen until now is the best that Iran's sharpest legal minds can come up with, they might as well close down the entire department - if they haven't already. Supreme Leaders have a tendency to forge their own laws, histories, scientific truths &cetera at will.

Idaho

03-30-2007, 12:54

Couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread. Has anyone mentioned the 6 Iranian diplomats that are currently imprisoned by the US and being held incommunicado?

Incongruous

03-30-2007, 13:10

Yes, of coarse, they don;t equate to real diplomats, just Iranians.

Redleg

03-30-2007, 14:19

Couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread. Has anyone mentioned the 6 Iranian diplomats that are currently imprisoned by the US and being held incommunicado?

So Iran decides to hold British sailors in revenge? Not a very smart diplomatic move on their part.

I wonder if your attempting to justify Iranian actions because of precieved bad behavior of a third party.

Vladimir

03-30-2007, 16:33

I wonder if your attempting to justify Iranian actions because of precieved bad behavior of a third party.

That's been the point of half the posts.

Ice

03-30-2007, 16:34

I meant that if your 'fair' rule (of extended river borders) were to be introduced into the Convention, a lot of maps would have to be redrawn.

Ah alright.

On the other matter: I believe that if Britain were not bound to respect the UN Convention, then neither would Iran be bound by British demarcations. However, Iran has explicitly accepted Article 15 of the Convention on 2 May 1993, when it adopted a comprehensive law on marine areas. The new law confirms a 12-mile territorial sea, a 24-mile contiguous zone and a 50-mile exclusive economic zone, the external limits of which are determined "by bilateral agreement or, in the absence of agreement, by the line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest point on the baseline of the two States".

I'm a bit confused. I thought you said Iran is not part of this treaty? I'm still not really seeing how you drew the line.

And on the third matter: within its territorial waters any state is free to enforce any law or measure it wants. In this case I suppose the default provision would be some law against piracy or some similar statute that warrants arrest.

Yes, obviously. Even IF they were in Iranian waters though, Iran acted a bit extreme in their treatment. It's obvious that the British were not spying and treating them like spies is ridiculous.

To be honest I don't believe the Iranian side is even aware that there is a body of international law and that it has its uses, in a case like this one as in any other case, unless one wants to live in a state of eternal friction and contest with one's neighbours and the rest of mankind. If what we have seen until now is the best that Iran's sharpest legal minds can come up with, they might as well close down the entire department - if they haven't already. Supreme Leaders have a tendency to forge their own laws, histories, scientific truths &cetera at will.\\

I wouldn't put it past the "Supreme" Leadership.

Idaho

03-30-2007, 16:45

So Iran decides to hold British sailors in revenge? Not a very smart diplomatic move on their part.

I wonder if your attempting to justify Iranian actions because of precieved bad behavior of a third party.
Ha! :laugh4:

No I was trying to explain what the rationale might have been. They probably thought they could bargain for a swap but miscalculated.

I was also having another pop at the moral vaccuum that is US foreign policy.

rory_20_uk

03-30-2007, 17:00

Ha! :laugh4:

No I was trying to explain what the rationale might have been. They probably thought they could bargain for a swap but miscalculated.

I was also having another pop at the moral vacuum that is US foreign policy.

And surely Iranian policy as well, and all other countries who act in a similar way such as North Korea with its nukes or Russia with its energy supplies.

~:smoking:

English assassin

03-30-2007, 17:02

I was also having another pop at the moral vaccuum that is US foreign policy.

You are a bit late to the party. One camp seems to think that the moral vacuum that is US foreign policy (eg as evidenced by the shooting down of an airliner 20 years ago) entirely justifies the kidnap of UK servicemen. Who weren't kidnapped anyway, because only the UK government says they were in Iraqi waters and they are all lying liars who are lying. We know the UK government is lying because the US government lied about shooting down an airliner 20 years ago. QED and res ipsa loquitur, your honour.

My advice to the servicemen is to apply for a discharge as soon as they are released, because why anyone would risk their lives in the interests of this lot of ingrates is beyond me.

Devastatin Dave

03-30-2007, 17:46

My advice to the servicemen is to apply for a discharge as soon as they are released, because why anyone would risk their lives in the interests of this lot of ingrates is beyond me.
That's why got out. Why should I stick my neck out for a bunch of terrorist lovers? Besides, when the mu.... "radical fundamentalists" take over, their heads will roll faster than mine.
Good to see you again Idaho. I haven't heard from my favorite self-loathing Brit in a while.:2thumbsup:

Idaho

03-30-2007, 18:02

Good to see you again Idaho. I haven't heard from my favorite self-loathing Brit in a while.:2thumbsup:
Good day fella.

I don't loathe myself. I think I'm great. It's all the other :daisy: I'm not sure about :beam:

Blodrast

03-30-2007, 18:19

My advice to the servicemen is to apply for a discharge as soon as they are released, because why anyone would risk their lives in the interests of this lot of ingrates is beyond me.

In all fairness, I think that if one was against the British marines being there to begin with, one wouldn't qualify as an ingrate now. The gov't sent those troops there, but that doesn't mean that the entire population supported (or supports) the idea.
I agree with supporting one's troops when one agrees with what they're doing, and why they're doing it. Disagreeing doesn't make you a traitor or whatever other posters here feel, it simply means you don't agree with the people who sent them there.
If my country deploys its troops somewhere, for a reason I don't agree with, am I an ingrate for not giving them my full support ? An ingrate, IIRC, is someone who isn't grateful after being done some good; but in this case, if I didn't want you to do that good thing for me, and if I consider it's actually not a good thing for me, I'm not an ingrate for not being grateful to you for what you did to/for me.

Hmm, well, this kinda sucks, I got hung up on semantics, and I don't like that at all. My bad.
No disrespect to you, EA - I believe (although I may well be wrong) that ingrate part was a bit of an emotional response on your side, and I guess I am surprised (not in a good or bad way, just surprised), since you usually keep your cool very well. Well, except when the reputations of giant squids is at stake. :2thumbsup:

Goofball

03-30-2007, 18:31

You are a bit late to the party. One camp seems to think that the moral vacuum that is US foreign policy (eg as evidenced by the shooting down of an airliner 20 years ago) entirely justifies the kidnap of UK servicemen. Who weren't kidnapped anyway, because only the UK government says they were in Iraqi waters and they are all lying liars who are lying. We know the UK government is lying because the US government lied about shooting down an airliner 20 years ago. QED and res ipsa loquitur, your honour.

My advice to the servicemen is to apply for a discharge as soon as they are released, because why anyone would risk their lives in the interests of this lot of ingrates is beyond me.

Well said.

Come on Brits. Iran is holding your countrymen hostage. Forget about whether they were 300 yards this way or that way.

To hear Brits saying "Bad Brits! Good Iranians!" right now is making me feel quite ill. As much as you feel your government may be untrustworthy, I would still take the word of the British government over that of the Iranian government every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Show a little outrage and concern for your troops' safety.

Jeez.

If they were Canadian troops, I'd be screaming for blood right now even if they had been captured in downtown Tehran stealing the ayatolla's limo...

rory_20_uk

03-30-2007, 18:45

Goofball

03-30-2007, 18:56

OK, so we scream for blood. No, even better - let's get some blood. Bomb a few buildings. They didn't care which sailors they took, so why should we care who we kill?

And let's show we're really pissed. Let's kill loads of them...:hmg:

If it's all the same to you I'll leave the brain dead macho acts to those that do it best (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6499605.stm).

Pushing the Iranians into a corner is only going to make them lash out. I'd like the troops back alive, not make martyrs of them - hence why the Brits spoke of "misunderstandings" so that the Iranians could hand them back with no loss of face.

~:smoking:

I'm not talking about your government. I'm talking about posters in this thread. It's up to your government to play the diplomatic game and do what's best to get the sailors back alive. It's up to Brits to be very publicly vocal so that your government understands just how strongly you feel about getting those troops back as quickly as possible.

If I were a Brit, my position would be "Yeah, yeah, so you say they were in your waters. Fine. Whatever. I DON'T CARE. Give them back right ******* now please."

Geoffrey S

03-30-2007, 19:09

Which side of the border they were on is a non-issue to me. First get those troops back, that should be the priority of the British government, because regardless of what they were doing at the time the soldiers are still the responsibility of the British state. The blame game can start later when things have cooled down at least a little, and I couldn't care less who was at fault. But right now neither the British government or people should tolerate British troops being paraded about on Iranian TV in some kind of freakish publicity stunt.

Devastatin Dave

03-30-2007, 19:54

Well said.

Come on Brits. Iran is holding your countrymen hostage. Forget about whether they were 300 yards this way or that way.

To hear Brits saying "Bad Brits! Good Iranians!" right now is making me feel quite ill. As much as you feel your government may be untrustworthy, I would still take the word of the British government over that of the Iranian government every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Show a little outrage and concern for your troops' safety.

Jeez.

If they were Canadian troops, I'd be screaming for blood right now even if they had been captured in downtown Tehran stealing the ayatolla's limo...
**looks at post twice, then three times, reads it again, rubs eyes, reads for the 5th time, smiles**
Good post Goofy.:2thumbsup:

lancelot

03-30-2007, 20:06

Well said.
As much as you feel your government may be untrustworthy, I would still take the word of the British government over that of the Iranian government every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Show a little outrage and concern for your troops' safety.

As much as I despise the current government you are not wrong!

Outrage...RAAARGHH...

Tory..I mean Tony Blair, do something productive for once and get our people back.

Devastatin Dave

03-30-2007, 20:21

As much as I despise the current government you are not wrong!

Outrage...RAAARGHH...

Tory..I mean Tony Blair, do something productive for once and get our people back.
**looks into the coke I'm drinking, shakes it a little, smells it. Reads post again, looks into the mirror, goes back to post, reads it again**
:2thumbsup:

Now if JAG comes on here posts something saying anything close to what Goofy and lancelot just said, I'm gonna paint my walls with my brain matter.:yes:

Adrian II

03-30-2007, 20:37

If it's all the same to you I'll leave the brain dead macho acts to those that do it best (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6499605.stm).The picture is bleak overall. I'm afraid the Iranian government is convinced that the U.S. attack will happen anyway and that it will happen soon, and so it acts accordingly; the asymmetric maneuvers have begun, so to speak. Whitehall will be unable to extricate itself now, regardless of all its declarations that it would not participate in a war against Iran. I don't believe Robert Gates favours war either, certainly not an unintentional one, but one trigger-happy fellow on either side may set off the fireworks in which case the fifteen sailors are probably dead meat anyway. Nice. One-third of the world's oil will drop out of the market, we will have a worldwide economic depression and an interminable low-intensity war raging in and around in a country bordering on three nuclear powers.

I'm rooting for Gates, for lack of anything better to do under the circumstances.