Iranian forces capture British sailors [Archive]

Gannex

23rd March 2007, 16:37

The Navy are insisting that it was a routine patrol in Iraqi waters, so I can't see how this legitimate.

Calls for a military response are premature, but that's not to say it isn't an option. The men have been missing for barely half a day, far too soon to be tooling up for war.
You're right, Dave, but the question is whether the "routine patrol" strayed into Iranian territorial waters or not. We will probably never know, judging by previous incidents of this type. Britain will probably deny having infringed on Iranian territory, and Iran will surely insist that they did.

I agree with pvtjoker, however. Iran is merely probing to see how Britain reacts, and part of the motivation for these kind of arrests is usually for domestic consumption. It makes the Iranian government look tough and respected in the eyes of the Iranian people when they engage in this kind of showdown with a more powerful nation. After a little sabre-rattling, however, the arrestees are usually released. I expect, and I certainly hope, that that is what will occur in this case.

BDunnell

23rd March 2007, 16:41

Tomi

23rd March 2007, 16:43

You're right, Dave, but the question is whether the "routine patrol" strayed into Iranian territorial waters or not. We will probably never know, judging by previous incidents of this type. Britain will probably deny having infringed on Iranian territory, and Iran will surely insist that they did.

exactly, this kind of things has happen before many times.

Malbec

23rd March 2007, 19:55

There won't be military action. Iran won't push the envelope that far. They'll push it far enough to learn where the allies are willing to negotiate but not to the point where armed confrontation will be necessary. Iran knows exactly what they are doing and wouldn't surprise me if they planned this in advance.

You're making a big assumption there, and that is to assume that the this action was done with the knowledge and approval of the entire Iranian government.

Iranian politics and the power blocs are so splintered that its quite possible that president Ahmadinejad found out about this incident at the same time you did, just as it is possible that it went ahead entirely with his backing.

At the moment noone knows which particular Iranian group carried it out.

Its difficult to see how this one will pan out.

The Iranians will not want to get out of this situation humiliated. That said, if they don't release the sailors at some point, the situation may escalate to a point where military action has to be implied, if not directly threatened.

It'll be interesting to see how the Iranian people will react, because they've shown in the past that they can be very fickle. They MAY unite behind their flag and demand no concessions be made, or they MAY value whats left of their economy more and demand that their government dig its way out of the hole it has made.

O&A Virus

23rd March 2007, 21:11

You're making a big assumption there, and that is to assume that the this action was done with the knowledge and approval of the entire Iranian government.

Iranian politics and the power blocs are so splintered that its quite possible that president Ahmadinejad found out about this incident at the same time you did, just as it is possible that it went ahead entirely with his backing.

At the moment noone knows which particular Iranian group carried it out.

Its difficult to see how this one will pan out.

The Iranians will not want to get out of this situation humiliated. That said, if they don't release the sailors at some point, the situation may escalate to a point where military action has to be implied, if not directly threatened.

It'll be interesting to see how the Iranian people will react, because they've shown in the past that they can be very fickle. They MAY unite behind their flag and demand no concessions be made, or they MAY value whats left of their economy more and demand that their government dig its way out of the hole it has made.

Most likely it was the act of a faction of the Revolutionary Guards as they were also involved in the 2004 incident and in a number of run ins with the US Navy/Marines since 2003. I don't think its a coincidence that these British sailors were "arrested" especially in light of reports that a couple of high-level Revolutionary Guard officers have gone missing in Europe within the last week.

I don't think it'll lead to an armed confrontation. Whether Ahmadinejad knew anything of the initial plan is irrelevant at this point. He'll do anything to save face not only to the west but to his own people. Not until the rest of the world finally come to the realizaton and accept that Iran is ALREADY sending troops into combat in Iraq. Only then will the west take any REAL action against Iran.

Tomi

23rd March 2007, 21:21

Not until the rest of the world finally come to the realizaton and accept that Iran is ALREADY sending troops into combat in Iraq. Only then will the west take any REAL action against Iran.

Is there any proof of that? One would think that if there is so many Iranians in Iraq, even the monkeys could capture 1 fighter sent by Iran to start with.
I dont think that the civilised west will take any action against Iran, at least not military, usa maybe will.

L5->R5/CR

23rd March 2007, 21:30

Is there any proof of that? One would think that if there is so many Iranians in Iraq, even the monkeys could capture 1 fighter sent by Iran to start with.
I dont think that the civilised west will take any action against Iran, at least not military, usa maybe will.

Don't be surprised if Britain gets the US to send a second carrier group to the Gulf.

The American public will not support a war with Iran, limited tactical strikes maybe, but not a full war, unless there is a brazen act of agression from Iran.

Iran and Iraq are viewed very differently over here. Most Americans know a war with Iran will be very bloody and very costly.

Tomi

23rd March 2007, 21:35

Most Americans know a war with Iran will be very bloody and very costly.

Yes, but sofar it has made no different what average american think, but you are right it would take balls to fight the Iranis on the ground, armchair attack with missile sounds more likely.

I dont think Britain want us to send anything, their main problem i belive is thinking how to get out from this whole mess.

pvtjoker

23rd March 2007, 21:51

Is there any proof of that? One would think that if there is so many Iranians in Iraq, even the monkeys could capture 1 fighter sent by Iran to start with.
.

Its pretty much a known thing. Though I served in western Iraq against mostly al queda and sunni muslims supported by Syria, the area surrounding Baghdad (in particular Sadr City), the troops are pretty much fighting Shiites supplied and/or trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah. They've found dead insurgents with Iranian ID cards but whether or not they are genuine or purposely planted by insurgents who do want the US to wage war with Iran is yet to be proven. Several munitions earmarked 'Made in Iran' have also been confiscated. In fact, the British government just announced today that Iran is the cause for much of the recent violence in southeast Iraq. Take it for what its worth.

Tomi

23rd March 2007, 21:56

Its pretty much a known thing. Though I served in western Iraq against mostly al queda and sunni muslims supported by Syria, the area surrounding Baghdad (in particular Sadr City), the troops are pretty much fighting Shiites supplied and/or trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah. They've found dead insurgents with Iranian ID cards but whether or not they are genuine or purposely planted by insurgents who do want the US to wage war with Iran is yet to be proven. Several munitions earmarked 'Made in Iran' have also been confiscated. In fact, the British government just announced today that Iran is the cause for much of the recent violence in southeast Iraq. Take it for what its worth.

Im 100% sure that there is fighters there from almost every muslim country, but are they sent there by their govenments i dont belive really, simply because they dont have to send, there is enough of volunteers.

Eki

23rd March 2007, 22:01

They've found dead insurgents with Iranian ID cards but whether or not they are genuine or purposely planted by insurgents who do want the US to wage war with Iran is yet to be proven.
I think the latter sounds more plausible. Why on earth would Iranians trying to disguise as Iraqi insurgents carry Iranian ID cards? That would be totally silly.

And what becomes to the manufacturing origin of weapons, it doesn't prove much. Swedish police recently raided the club house of a biker gang (I think it was the Hell's Angels) and found a Swedish made anti-tank gun. They don't know how the bikers had acquired that gun, but it's suspected it came from a lot that the Swedish military had sold to Estonia in the past. If Swedish bikers can get Swedish made heavy weapons without their government knowing about it, it wouldn't surprise me if Iraqi insurgents can get Iranian made weapons without the Iranian government knowing about it.

Gannex

24th March 2007, 00:02

But getting back to the British hostages. It seems they boarded the Iranian vessel in Iraqi waters to search for suspected contraband. The British claim the contraband they were after was a cache of stolen cars, but that, I suggest, is a lie. The UN resolution under which the British were operating was one designed to interdict weapons on their way to Iraq. Weaponry is probably what the British boarding party happened upon.

That would explain the extraordinary presence of the Revolutionary Guard on board this supposedly innocent merchant vessel. And it would explain why the boarding party had to be arrested: to prevent them searching the ship.

The British task force commander has said that this may well be a completely innocent misunderstanding and made the surprising statement to the BBC that "helicopters had reported seeing two British boats being moved along the Shatt-al-Arab waterway to Iranian bases", whatever that might mean. It certainly sounds like a suggestion that all the Iranians have to do is hand over the people and equipment and all will be forgotten.

L5->R5/CR

24th March 2007, 05:51

Yes, but sofar it has made no different what average american think, but you are right it would take balls to fight the Iranis on the ground, armchair attack with missile sounds more likely.

I dont think Britain want us to send anything, their main problem i belive is thinking how to get out from this whole mess.

I did say limited tactical strikes :/............

Gannex

24th March 2007, 13:10

My earlier post, number 22, suggested that the arrested British personnel were detained by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard while searching an Iranian vessel for weapons. This, however, now appears to be wrong. The commander of the ship, HMS Cornwall, from which the British hostages came, has said that the fourteen men and one woman were arrested after having boarded an Iraqi rather than Iranian ship. The hostages left that Iraqi vessel to return to the Cornwall in two small dirigible boats. These two small boats were then intercepted and forcibly escorted by an Iranian vessel up the Shatt al-Arab Waterway towards Iranian bases.

So my theory, that the arrests of the British were to prevent a weapons search of an Iranian vessel, seems completely wrong. Which leads me to wonder why on earth the Iranians would consider it in their interests to seize these British sailors. Any ideas?

Tomi

24th March 2007, 13:14

So my theory, that the arrests of the British were to prevent a weapons search of an Iranian vessel, seems completely wrong. Which leads me to wonder why on earth the Iranians would consider it in their interests to seize these British sailors. Any ideas?

Someone said in news yesterday that the territorial water boarders are not so clear in area, so both parts can be right or wrong as well.

Brown, Jon Brow

24th March 2007, 14:57

Maybe it's time to kick some ass!!!!!! :erm:

Gannex

24th March 2007, 15:19

I have now read The Times and it reports that the fifteen British sailors had indeed boarded an Iranian merchant vessel to inspect it. They left the Iranian vessel in two small boats but, before reaching their frigate, they were surrounded by six larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit. The Iranian naval unit, according to The Times, then escorted the two British boats at gunpoint up the Shatt al-Arab waterway towards an Iranian base.

Combining information from the BBC about the boundaries of Iraqi territorial waters and a map in The Times showing the location of the seizure, it appears that the British were at the very edge of Iranian territory when detained. Which side of the border they were on is impossible to ascertain from those two sources.

Since this was a six-vessel unit of the Revolutionary Guard, it seems to me all but certain that this was not an unauthorised action of a faction; the Revolutionary Guard are highly disciplined.

Five Iranians were seized in January by the US in northern Iraq. Those five men are still in US custody.

The UN Security Council is expected to pass today a resolution barring Iran from exporting arms, restricting loans to Tehran, and freezing the assets of 28 Iranian individuals and companies involved in nuclear or missile work. Last week, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that Iran regarded the resolution as illegal and that Iran would respond by carrying out its own "illegal actions". Maybe this seizure is Iran's first response.

Scott Dryden

24th March 2007, 16:00

Whether or not the British sailors were in Iranian waters is simply a technicality, which would indicate whether the Islamic Revolutionary Guard were correct to make the arrest. Like the military and political experts, what I find concerning is the language that's come from Iran since. Instead of looking to release the sailors, Iran is speaking about an 'aggressive' act by the Royal Navy.

The Royal Navy were carrying out a routine exercise, the like of which they complete on a daily basis. They are working under a UN resolution, attempting to prevent smuggling in the Gulf. In no way is this 'aggressive'.

This type of incident has occurred before. If, as the Iranians are currently indicating, it isn't possible to resolve the situation briskly, allied air strikes should take place against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (ideally following the release of the sailors).

Eki

24th March 2007, 16:56

The Royal Navy were carrying out a routine exercise, the like of which they complete on a daily basis. They are working under a UN resolution, attempting to prevent smuggling in the Gulf. In no way is this 'aggressive'.

Which resolution? Britain didn't receive a permission from the UN to invade Iraq in the first place and I haven't heard about any resolutions after the invasion? As far as I know, Iranian navy has as much right to sail the Iraqi waters as the British navy.

Gannex

24th March 2007, 17:08

I agree with you, Scott, that the Iranian attitude is deeply discouraging. Not only the language coming out of Tehran, but also the fact that this seizure appears to have been sanctioned at the highest levels of the Iranian government. I think we have no choice but to conclude that the sailors are hostages, and the Iranians intend to get the maximum benefit from them before they are released.

I'm surprised, though, Scott, that you advocate retaliatory air strikes. That seems to me a very bad idea. It would escalate the tensions at a time when we need to do just the opposite. I would urge negotiation, specifically, an offer to release the five al-Quds operatives currently detained by the US in exchange for the release of the Britons.

Tomi

24th March 2007, 17:34

Now some representant of Iran army claims that the captured Brittons admit they where on Iranian water, if this is the case, i think they will soon be back in Iraq.

Eki

24th March 2007, 18:12

I would urge negotiation, specifically, an offer to release the five al-Quds operatives currently detained by the US in exchange for the release of the Britons.
I don't think the US will do that for Britain.

Gannex

24th March 2007, 18:29

The Royal Navy were . . . working under a UN resolution, attempting to prevent smuggling in the Gulf.

Which resolution? Britain didn't receive a permission from the UN to invade Iraq in the first place and I haven't heard about any resolutions after the invasion?

Scott Dryden is right, Eki. The boarding of the Iranian vessel by the Royal Navy was pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1723, passed in November 2006.

Eki

24th March 2007, 20:08

Iranian equivalents of US Republican student groups want something in return of the British sailors:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260861,00.html

"Iranian hard-liners called for the 15 Britons to be held until Iran wins political concessions from the West.

Several conservative student groups have called on the Iranian government not to release sailors until five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in Iraq earlier this year are freed and U.N. plans for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program are canceled. Some 500 Iranian students gathered on the shore near where the soldiers were captured, shouting "Death to Britain" and "Death to America," the Fars news agency reported."

Malbec

25th March 2007, 20:19

Since this was a six-vessel unit of the Revolutionary Guard, it seems to me all but certain that this was not an unauthorised action of a faction; the Revolutionary Guard are highly disciplined.

But the Revolutionary Guard ARE a faction, and are very much a force unto themselves, pretty much answering to noone, certainly not the President.

I agree that things are taking a sinister turn, transporting the sailors to Teheran seems to give the act official sanction, regardless of how it initially started.

From now on, I suspect its up to the President to see how he's going to play this one, and seeing how little he understands the West in any shape or form things aren't looking very good.

As for the conservative Iranian rags and student groups coming up with the usual rhetoric and 'death to America/Britain' chants, it means nothing.

The current Iranian leadership needs to learn that whilst manipulating foreign policy in order to maintain national pride is nothing new, there are discrete limits to how far they can push this.

Gannex

25th March 2007, 23:50

But the Revolutionary Guard ARE a faction, and are very much a force unto themselves, pretty much answering to noone, certainly not the President.
I take your point. I read that, as you say, Ahmanidejad has no control over the Revolutionary Guard. But they are, I think, answerable to Ayatollah Khamenei who, as I'm sure you know, is the so-called Supreme Leader, the most authoritative cleric in the land, and the heir to the mantle of Khomeini himself.

In any case, Ahmanidejad is losing power rapidly as the economy spins out of control, so an aggressive Iranian stance like this is no more comforting for the fact that it comes from Khamenei rather than Ahmanidejad. In some ways it's worse, because we hoped that Khamenei would be more conciliatory toward the international community than Ahmanidejad has been. That hope is now looking rather vain.

From now on, I suspect its up to the President to see how he's going to play this one. . .
Not only up to the President, but also up to the clerics and to the students, and to the public at large. Now that the hostages have been taken, and the government has supported the seizure, everyone in Iran is clamouring that the hostages be used in the way they think most appropriate. Naturally, the Revolutionary Guard, being the ones who pulled this off, will have a lot of influence in this matter and they are making it very clear that what they most want out of the seizure is their five al-Quds men back from the US. All five are Revolutionary Guard members of very high prestige (al-Quds is an elite unit of the Guards) and one of the captured, apparently, is a general.

The Iranians are being tight-lipped about the whereabouts of the hostages, and that is probably because they are still in the custody of the Revolutionary Guard themselves. The Guard will not want to give them up to any other governmental organisation, because their seizure is the Guard's achievement.

Right now, all the factions and power groups in Iran, from clerics to students, are, in effect, negotiating with each other about how the hostages should be used. Some are demanding that the men and woman simply be tried and executed, because those groups want, above all else, revenge. Others are urging that they be traded for a green light on the nuclear programme, or at least a relaxation of the sanctions regime that the programme has triggered. Still others want the hostages to be held indefinitely for propaganda purposes, to be wheeled out whenever necessary as a reminder to the Eki wing that it is not only the Iranians who are aggressive law-breakers; the British are just as bad, if not worse.

I'm afraid these negotiations within Iran will take weeks, during which our poor service people will languish in terrifying conditions. I can only hope that their training stands them in good stead. My heart goes out to them and their families. This, for them, is hell.

Eki

27th March 2007, 14:10

By American and Israeli standards, I think Iran would be "justified" to launch a pre-emptive attack. Quite cheeky:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070327/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gulf_us_maneuvers;_ylt=AqApZzD8cWymF31QErWnneELewg F

U.S. Navy shows force in Persian Gulf

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 3 minutes ago

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - The
U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of
Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of
Iran.

The maneuvers bring together two strike groups of U.S. warships and more than 100 U.S. warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.

The U.S. exercises come just four days after Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines who Iran said had strayed into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors were operating in Iraqi waters.

harsha

27th March 2007, 15:59

intimidating..............

Dave B

27th March 2007, 16:23

Damn please let the Americans stay out of it, their posturing could cause so much damage while we're still persuing a diplomatic approach :rolleyes:

Gannex

27th March 2007, 19:39

Malbec

28th March 2007, 13:17

I think you're right, Dave. Completely right, on thinking about it.

Blair this morning said that the situation would enter a "different phase" if diplomacy were to fail, and this afternoon Downing Street confirmed that private talks with "the Iranians" were taking place.

I think we have a killer deal to offer. When Britain leaves the Basra region, we facilitate the entry into that area of the Revolutionary Guard, so long as they take their orders from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In return for this free pass into southern Iraq, we get our people back immediately. We will also make our best efforts to persuade the Americans to release their five al-Quds captives.

Mark in Oshawa and others have derided this plan when I've floated it in the past, but their reasoning has been that this gives Iran too much. I say in reply that they have it already. When Britain leaves, the Revolutionary Guard will have massive influence whether we like it or not. In agreeing to the idea, all we are doing is giving our blessing to the inevitable.

I disagree with several of your points.

Regarding diplomacy, the problem is that the FCO will be talking directly to their counterparts in the Iranian Foreign ministry, career diplomats who will not have strong influence over the Revolutionary Guard or the current President. They may well promise a lot of things to the FCO with good intentions, but I doubt they will be able to deliver anything concrete.

Dealing with the Revolutionary Guards will be more difficult and diplomacy won't have much effect on them. They will try to pursue this situation to their own predetermined ends whatever happens. I think its right for Blair to imply that if diplomatic means are exhausted 'other' means may be explored without defining what those means are. Some degree of intimidation here is required, and I actually believe having a second US carrier group in the Gulf will help in this matter.

As for handing Southern Iraq to Iran, this won't be good news for all parties involved. For Iraq it means a total breakup, and the Shias in the south do still have a strong Iraqi identity. They are also Arabic, and know from their brethren across the Shatt-Al-Arab that they would be second class citizens in Persian Iran.

Remember that even when Saddam was at his most oppressive and Basra was surrounded by Iranian forces during the Iran/Iraq war, the Shias in Basra stayed totally and absolutely loyal to Iraq.

For Iran, the situation would be more complex, and possibly be more harmful. They would be accepting a large Arab population into their control, which may give their own Arab seperatists more support in their fight for equal rights within Iran.

Most important of all is that Al-Sistani differs from the mullahs in Qom on one important point.

The Shias have ALWAYS believed that state and religion should be kept entirely separate. Al-Sistani fervently believes this too, which is why he has kept as quiet as possible in post-war Iraq, believing that any assertion of his religiously based power over political affairs is simply wrong.

Ayatollah Khomeini came to power by re-interpreting a Shia verse that orthodox Shias interprete as defining a teacher-pupil relationship. His idea was that one could define an individual as the teacher (ie himself) and the nation as the pupil, which would then lead to a theocracy conveniently led by himself.

Most Shia, including one of Khomeini's sons, disagree with this interpretation.

If Iranians, particularly the poor, become more open to Al-Sistani's opinions on dividing politics and religion, it would directly threaten Iran's current position as a theocracy. Al-Sistani has a far higher position within Shia ranks than any Iranian based mullah, and his words will have widespread effect.

For this reason it is in Iran's interests to keep him very much at arms length, and to keep the Iranian population away from him.

The current situation, where Iran can keep US and British forces occupied at little risk to themselves, is the most beneficial one for them. I doubt they'll want to do much to change the status quo.

Ian McC

28th March 2007, 21:58

I think we have a killer deal to offer. When Britain leaves the Basra region, we facilitate the entry into that area of the Revolutionary Guard, so long as they take their orders from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In return for this free pass into southern Iraq, we get our people back immediately. We will also make our best efforts to persuade the Americans to release their five al-Quds captives.

Mark in Oshawa and others have derided this plan when I've floated it in the past, but their reasoning has been that this gives Iran too much. I say in reply that they have it already. When Britain leaves, the Revolutionary Guard will have massive influence whether we like it or not. In agreeing to the idea, all we are doing is giving our blessing to the inevitable.

Why the hell would we give these kidnappers anything is beyond me :down:

Scott Dryden

29th March 2007, 04:17

There's going to be a significant Leader run in one of the UK papers today. The Guardian - who have been amongst the most fierce critics of recent British and American foreign policy - will carry a Leader entitled 'Unacceptable behaviour', criticising Iran's stance over the sailors' detention. The paper points out that even Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the EU (all of whom haven't exactly wanted to ally themselves with British and American foreign policy, in recent times) are censorious of Tehran.

I'm surprised, though, Scott, that you advocate retaliatory air strikes. That seems to me a very bad idea. It would escalate the tensions at a time when we need to do just the opposite. I would urge negotiation, specifically, an offer to release the five al-Quds operatives currently detained by the US in exchange for the release of the Britons.
I do completely understand the point you make. In addition to this, I also understand why Iran has, in recent times, been somewhat hostile towards the West in statements out of Tehran; given that they had effectively been named as a target.

Nevertheless, what's come from the West (in terms of recent history with Iran) has been words. Iran are the party to have shown aggression. In this instance, they've captured sailors working under a UN resolution, in an inflatable boat.

There was no attempt by the Royal Navy to engage the Islamic Revolutionary Guard in combat during the capture. Iran, by contrast, are a long way from playing by the rules. I hope a way can be found to convince them to cooperate. It's just that, in the end, I fear it will involve the use of force.

But they are, I think, answerable to Ayatollah Khamenei...
That's correct. My understanding is that the operation to capture the marines is the responsibility of the Supreme Leader and Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Neither the President nor the government can be blamed for this latest incident. In fact, it seemed to take the Iranian Ministry of Defence by surprise. I'm sure they had no prior knowledge.

Damn please let the Americans stay out of it, their posturing could cause so much damage while we're still persuing a diplomatic approach :rolleyes:
According to the Leader in The Guardian, this doesn't relate directly to the capture of the sailors, more the general political situation:

'There were two US carrier groups in the Gulf out on exercises yesterday and no one is in any doubt that the Pentagon's plans for an airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities are far advanced, should sanctions fail.'

oily oaf

29th March 2007, 07:04

oily oaf

29th March 2007, 07:11

DATELINE March 29 2007:

The hostage crises in Iran deepened today and the two nations have moved inexorably closer to a war footing after British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown calls the Iranian ambassador to London a "smelly old fatbum" and then goes on to announce to a riotous House of Commons that the goal that Iran scored in the 1990 World Cup qualifier against Iraq was quite clearly at least a yard offside.

Reuters

Brown, Jon Brow

29th March 2007, 10:39

DATELINE March 29 2007:

and then goes on to announce to a riotous House of Commons that the goal that Iran scored in the 1990 World Cup qualifier against Iraq was quite clearly at least a yard offside.

Reuters

That just proves that Iran didn't know the position of the boats. If they cheat in footballn they will cheat in naval engagement.

Maybe the weather was bad so they couldn't see their position. Could ave done with a shipping forecast!

Daniel

29th March 2007, 10:55

As the Royal Navy hostages are shown on Iranian TV tucking in to some delicious Iranian grub at gunpoint and the female rating reads a carefully prepared and stilted statement praising her captors on the quality of their hospitality British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett describes the situation as "disappointing"

By The Lord Harry! That'll teach these Godless foreign swine not to tangle with the might of The British Empire. What? What?

(puts recording of God Save The Queen on gramophone, snaps smartly to attention and salutes stiffly as trousers sink slowly round ankles)
:rotflmao:

So true Oily.... so true.

Dave B

29th March 2007, 11:37

BDunnell

29th March 2007, 13:34

That's almost exactly the reaction of the Daily Mail today. The difference is that oily normally has his tongue firmly in his cheek, whereas the Mail is the voice of the... well, some old dears in Tunbridge Wells.

What did they expect us to do? Bomb Tehran? :rolleyes:

I have just seen that headline, across the whole of the front page of that august organ. How ridiculous can you get? I bet that inside they praise the captured woman for "standing up against political correctness" by being seen to have a fag, as well.

BrentJackson

29th March 2007, 17:50

My proposed solution.

Iran has 48 Hours to return the British sailors without a scratch. They don't, it's war, and British servicemen have free reign to attack Iranian military and police.

Eki

29th March 2007, 17:56

My proposed solution.

Iran has 48 Hours to return the British sailors without a scratch. They don't, it's war, and British servicemen have free reign to attack Iranian military and police.
And how would that help? Do you perhaps think the Iranians might be afraid of the British?

Dave B

29th March 2007, 18:12

Exactly. Declaring war at such an early stage would be stupid. Iran's actions are deplorable, but so far they've not expressed any intention to harm their captors, and so we should continue the diplomatic route.

Military action is always an option, but should be an absolute last resort.

Eki

29th March 2007, 18:17

BDunnell

29th March 2007, 18:22

And we shouldn't underestimate the equipment or preparedness of Iran's armed forces. They are far, far stronger than Iraq's were even before the 1991 Gulf conflict, and have been undertaking significant training exercises, the extent of which has surprised the US.

Dave B

29th March 2007, 18:26

The easiest way to sort this mess out is that the British apologize for trespassing Iranian waters, no matter if they were or not (who cares). The sailors would be freed and the incident soon forgotten.
That would set a dangerous precident, and there's no guarantee that the Iranians would release their captors even if we did.

Daniel

29th March 2007, 18:35

oily oaf

29th March 2007, 18:51

That's almost exactly the reaction of the Daily Mail today. The difference is that oily normally has his tongue firmly in his cheek, whereas the Mail is the voice of the... well, some old dears in Tunbridge Wells.

What did they expect us to do? Bomb Tehran? :rolleyes:

The Daily Mail! :eek:

Blimey I know you're supposed to become more right wing as you get older, you've only got to look at Jack Straw to see that, but I don't think I'm quite ready to make the transition from wild-eyed, clench fisted, young Socialista to "Disgusted" of Mayfair just yet boys ;)

Viva el revolucion! Viva!

(lights pipe, dons quilted smoking jacket and buries nose in "Your Very Own Popup Das Kapital" for under fives)

Tomi

29th March 2007, 18:56

That would set a dangerous precident, and there's no guarantee that the Iranians would release their captors even if we did.

No guaratee true, but now when it has became a question of who is right about was the Brittish on Irans water or not, it might take some time before they return the captors.

O&A Virus

29th March 2007, 18:58

How will the Brits feel if Iran pulled another "US Embassy deal" and held these guys for a year or so? Just curious.

Peter Mandelson

29th March 2007, 19:12

pvtjoker

29th March 2007, 19:32

Oh it was trying to protect the Iraqi (American) oil link

Get a life. Your comments are naive.

They were conducting a routine operation in accordance with international law and under a United Nations Resolution.

Gannex

29th March 2007, 19:32

British sailors deserved to be captured
it doesn't matter if it was in Iraqi or Irani water
what are they doing in that part of the world

trying to be world policemen?

The Iraqi government, in case you hadn't noticed, is having tremendous difficulty keeping order in Iraq, particularly in the central region of the country. There, armed militias are killing Iraqis randomly and at will. As part of the Iraqi government's efforts to stop those killings, they are making strenuous efforts to stop the flow of arms into the country. Many of the arms reaching Iraq are brought there by sea, so the Iraqi government has asked for international help specifically in interdicting arms shipments. That request for help has led to a series of UN resolutions that the international community should support the struggling Iraqi government, the most recent being Security Council Resolution 1723. Britain was patrolling the northern Persian Gulf as part of the responsibilities of the international community towards Iraq pursuant to 1723.

Does that answer your question?

pvtjoker

29th March 2007, 19:36

the extent of which has surprised the US.

Not really too surprising to the US, especially in light of their "supposed" participation in Iraq today and support/"participation" in last year's war in Lebanon.

Daniel

29th March 2007, 19:49

British sailors deserved to be captured
it doesn't matter if it was in Iraqi or Irani water
what are they doing in that part of the world

trying to be world policemen?

Oh it was trying to protect the Iraqi (American) oil link
TBH with an attitude like that i think most people on this forum would be happy to exchange 15 of you for all of those sailors/marines.

BDunnell

29th March 2007, 20:22

Not really too surprising to the US, especially in light of their "supposed" participation in Iraq today and support/"participation" in last year's war in Lebanon.

From what I hear, it was extremely surprising to US commanders in the Middle East when Iran used several of its F-14 Tomcats, which were believed to no longer be airworthy, in exercises a year or two ago.

Peter Mandelson

29th March 2007, 21:39

WHAT'S GOOD FOR Dick Cheney IS GOOD FOR iRaq

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/154/7173/dave.asp?wid=154&nid=7173

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:IRaq.gif

Daniel

29th March 2007, 21:43

WHAT'S GOOD FOR Dick Cheney IS GOOD FOR iRaq

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/154/7173/dave.asp?wid=154&nid=7173

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:IRaq.gif
Posting unrelated links in a thread makes you look stupid.......

Brown, Jon Brow

29th March 2007, 21:48

And how would that help? Do you perhaps think the Iranians might be afraid of the British?

They should be!! It would be an unwise country that isn't afraid of the country that has the second biggest military bugdet and is a military ally to the US!

I've been swotting up on Irans military capabilities and was suprised to see that they have 350,000 regular troops and a further 11 million men and women who could be mobilized (the most in the world :eek: )

They also have a large number of fighter jets, F-14's, Migs, Mirage, Su-25, although none of these are a match for the RAF or USAF jets.

I would solve this current stand-off by sending a large fleet of Royal Navy ships and aircraft carriers onto the Iran/Iraq 'territorial' water boundary, and then a few dozen Eurofighters and Tornado's into air-bases in Iraq. That may make them listen to us!

Daniel

29th March 2007, 21:55

"None of which are a match for RAF or USAF jets"

Famous last words.

Well flown fighters are well flown fighters regardless of what they are.

Brown, Jon Brow

29th March 2007, 22:02

"None of which are a match for RAF or USAF jets"

Famous last words.

Well flown fighters are well flown fighters regardless of what they are.

I'd bet a large sum of money that RAF pilots are more capable than Iranian pilots. Remember the Falklands war?? RAF pilots shot down a few dozen Argies who had more modern, faster jets to the British Harriers.

Anyway modern dogfights aren't really based on pilot skill as they are more 'long range' battles. Eurofighters have far better stealth technology compared with Irans 1970's era fighters ;)

Daniel

29th March 2007, 23:13

And the NZ Air Force absolutely wiped the floor with the Australian Air Force in war games using their 50's technology A-4 Skyhawks against the RAAF's 80's Hornets. As Gen. Chuck Yeager once said "It's the man, not the machine"

Saying that the USAF and RAF would walk over the Iranian air force is like saying the US will easily be able to help the South Vietnamese push the NVA out or that if the US invade Iraq they'll be out in a year and peace will be long lasting. Things seem quite easy in theory but in practice it's not as black and white :)

Brown, Jon Brow

29th March 2007, 23:36

Iran has released a second letter apparently written by the only female member of the 15-strong Royal Navy crew it captured in the Gulf.

The letter, apparently signed by Leading Seaman Faye Turney, urges the UK to withdraw its troops from Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6508039.stm

If I am being honest Iran are now just taking the piss :rolleyes:

Malbec

29th March 2007, 23:59

Anyway modern dogfights aren't really based on pilot skill as they are more 'long range' battles. Eurofighters have far better stealth technology compared with Irans 1970's era fighters ;)

Just as well then that the RAF doesn't have any operational Eurofighters isn't it. Also just as well that Iran has invested in the latest in Russian surface to air missile technology isn't it?

And at a time when the vast majority of US/UK supplies go to Iraq via sea through the Gulf, don't you think Iran's ability to shut off the Straits of Hormuz at will with missiles and submarines might be more than a little annoying?

Tell me, how good are British troops at fighting without food and ammunition?

Iranian pilots might not fly as many hours as their British counterparts but their senior officers were trained in the US alongside the USAF, and many still have combat experience. Don't underestimate them.

Military action against Iran is a non-starter, after all there are 130,000 US troops and several thousand British troops in Iraq who would be extremely vulnerable to an upscaling in Iranian participation in the insurgency. At the mo the US campaign to bring peace to the Baghdad area is working because the Shia are complying with their demands to reduce the level of violence. Should they decide to fight the Americans with Iranian supplies and following Iranian orders you can bet Bush can kiss his withdrawal plans goodbye. So that rules American participation in an attack on Iran out.

Do you really think Britain is capable of even contemplating attacking Iran without US participation? Sorry to rain on your parade but a unilateral attack on Iran is way beyond Her Majesty's Armed Forces.

Thats why the military option will be a discreet threat, one that won't be acted upon and both sides know that.

Ian McC

30th March 2007, 00:04

If I am being honest Iran are now just taking the piss :rolleyes:

What have they got to lose, they are so far removed that it is unlikely anyone is going to do anything that is going to upset them much, military action is almost impossible, unless a surgical strike rescue mission could be launched.

Personally I think we should lock up their borders and throw away the key.

Zico

30th March 2007, 02:43

British sailors deserved to be captured
it doesn't matter if it was in Iraqi or Irani water
what are they doing in that part of the world

trying to be world policemen?

Oh it was trying to protect the Iraqi (American) oil link

That was one of the most unintelligent, unresearched pieces of nonsense I have ever had the displeasure of reading on here.

While I am also against what happened in Iraq, I would never condone the taking of hostages as political pawns of any country never mind my own.

How old are you?

oily oaf

30th March 2007, 08:27

DATELINE: Oily's Funny Jokes Day 2007 AD

Tensions eased and Great Britain stepped back from the brink of armed conflict last night as the UN issued a strongly worded condemnatory statement outlining their disquiet at the hostage situation, in keeping with the hard line stance that is intrinsically linked to The United Nations in this type of situation.

Sadly the text was watered down slightly after the Russians objected to inflammatory rhetoric such as "deplore" and "immediate release" and insisted that the words "none too happy" and "go on let 'em off mate" were substituted.

Here is the statement in full:

Darling Mr Ahmadinejad

You really are a little rascal aren't you?
Now I'll tell you what we plan to do.
At 23.58 EST we are going to turn off all the lights in the General Assembly debating chamber and then we are all going to climb under our desks and hide our eyes.
If we find that when we open them again at 00.00am that you have placed all those naughty sailors in a dinghy and pushed them out into the drink then we'll say no more about it.
I'll always love you

Yours Coyly
That Chinese Looking Geezer Who Took Over From Kofi Annan
UN General Headquarters
Mile End Road
London

Ivor Drinkproblem Associated Press

See page 9 for the full, unexpurgated and and shattering account of Prince Phillip's doomed bid to free the 15 from "those bleeding Darkies" after setting sail from Portsmouth in the Royal Rowing Boat Britannia IV armed with only a bottle of Ouzo and an 18th century blunderbuss.

Bingo and lottery results on page 9.

Brown, Jon Brow

30th March 2007, 10:00

Just as well then that the RAF doesn't have any operational Eurofighters isn't it. Also just as well that Iran has invested in the latest in Russian surface to air missile technology isn't it?

.

The Eurofighter went operational in 2006 :rolleyes:

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

Daniel

30th March 2007, 10:03

Went operational in 2006 doesn't necessarily mean "battle ready" in fact I doubt that the Typhoon is ready to be used in combat.

Eki

30th March 2007, 10:12

Why?
Because Iran's foreign minister has said that Britain must admit that its sailors entered Iranian waters for the standoff to be resolved. I don't think that's too much to be asked. Words are cheap, peoples' lives should be precious.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262540,00.html

"Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, told The Associated Press on the sidelines of an Arab summit in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday that Britain must admit that its sailors entered Iranian waters for the standoff to be resolved."

Dave B

30th March 2007, 10:40

Eki, you stole my car.

I know you didn't really, but I insist you apologise, here, on a public forum.

See? :rolleyes:

Eki

30th March 2007, 11:27

They should be!! It would be an unwise country that isn't afraid of the country that has the second biggest military bugdet and is a military ally to the US!

What I've been noticing is that they don't seem to be too much afraid of the US either.

Eki

30th March 2007, 11:30

Eki, you stole my car.

I know you didn't really, but I insist you apologise, here, on a public forum.

See? :rolleyes:
Sorry, Dave that I stole your car. I won't do it again. Can we now be friends again?

See?

Daniel

30th March 2007, 13:02

I think Mark should change your username to "Dirty Car Thief (Eki)" and ban you if that be the case.

Stop having such a chip on your frigging shoulder.........

Eki

30th March 2007, 13:22

I think Mark should change your username to "Dirty Car Thief (Eki)" and ban you if that be the case.

Stop having such a chip on your frigging shoulder.........
Me having a chip on my shoulder? Seems to me that compared to my "chip" yours is the size of firewood. Unlike you, I have never tried to stop anyone express his opinion.

Daniel

30th March 2007, 13:37

Yes I may have a chip the size of a piece of firewood but it's nothing compared to the 200 ft tall sequoia growing from your left shoulder.

Anyway. You're a car thief and you admitted it. We don't like your type on this forum.

Eki

30th March 2007, 13:49

Dave B

30th March 2007, 13:58

Thanks for your apology, I hope you don't mind if from now on I refer to you as a car thief. After all, you've just admitted it.

That may seem trivial, but you're asking Britain to admit to, and apologise for, something we didn't do. That would be utterly unjustified and totally stupid.

Eki

30th March 2007, 14:18

That may seem trivial, but you're asking Britain to admit to, and apologise for, something we didn't do.
Are you sure? The UK claims they have GPS evidence that they weren't in Iranian waters and Iran claims they have GPS evidence that they were. As far as I know, neither have been proved right or wrong.

Gannex

30th March 2007, 14:40

The UK claims they have GPS evidence that they weren't in Iranian waters and Iran claims they have GPS evidence that they were. As far as I know, neither have been proved right or wrong.

True, Eki, but the Iranians have given two different sets of co-ordinates for the point of the seizure. The first set of co-ordinates that they made public placed the British boats in Iraqi water, then, about twenty-four hours later, the Iranians said they'd made a mistake and released to the public new co-ordinates. These, as you would expect, placed the British boats in Iranian water. That sequence of events casts considerable doubt on the truthfulness of the Iranian account.

But even without the Iranians having changed their story, I would still doubt that the British boats would stray into Iranian water. It is very easy, with GPS, to keep on one side of a border. It's not like the old days, when sailors depended on maps, compasses and rulers to figure out where they were. Mistakenly straying over a boundary today is, I would imagine, about as rare as an aircraft mistakenly landing at the wrong airport. It happens, but very very rarely. The burden of proof is definitely squarely on Iranian shoulders, not ours, to show that this rare, easily preventable screw-up really occurred.

One more thing: even assuming the British RIB's were in Iranian water, as they claim, does that justify their seizure? Clearly, the appropriate action, in that case, would have been to request that the British boats immediately leave Iranian territory, nothing more.

pvtjoker

30th March 2007, 14:53

From what I hear, it was extremely surprising to US commanders in the Middle East when Iran used several of its F-14 Tomcats, which were believed to no longer be airworthy, in exercises a year or two ago.

Not really. Iran was buying F-14 parts at a US government whole sale auction 2 years ago and no one in the US government was aware of it (supposedly) until after the auction. That was a HUGE deal here in the US.

Peter Mandelson

30th March 2007, 17:45

Posting unrelated links in a thread makes you look stupid.......

Oh no

They are all Related

Bush Family, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, Iraq, Iran, Saddam.........
the list go on

they are all link with OIL

Dave B

30th March 2007, 17:56

Please try to keep this thread on topic. Peter, if you want to discuss the general political situation in Iraq please use the "4 years on" thread rather than hijacking this one.

Daniel

30th March 2007, 17:56

My car uses oil as fuel. OMFG my car should be detained as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

Dave B

30th March 2007, 17:57

Are you sure? The UK claims they have GPS evidence that they weren't in Iranian waters and Iran claims they have GPS evidence that they were. As far as I know, neither have been proved right or wrong.
Well to continue my admittedly slightly daft logic:

I claim to have evidence that you stole my car. You claim to have evidence that you didn't. Now, bearing in mind that in real life there could be serious repercussions, do you still think you should apologise?

Eki

30th March 2007, 18:43

Well to continue my admittedly slightly daft logic:

I claim to have evidence that you stole my car. You claim to have evidence that you didn't. Now, bearing in mind that in real life there could be serious repercussions, do you still think you should apologise?
What serious repercussions there could be if Britain admitted that their navy accidentally drifted to Iranian waters? Besides they could apologize without admitting. The wording could for example be like "It's possible that our ship may have accidentally trespassed Iranian waters, if that's the case, we apologize." I think it might have been possible, since I doubt Iran would have the nerve to claim they were if they were miles away from the Iranian waters.

So let me rephrase myself: It's possible that I stole your car, even if I don't remember doing so. If I did steal it, I apologize.

pvtjoker

30th March 2007, 21:37

So let me rephrase myself: It's possible that I stole your car, even if I don't remember doing so. If I did steal it, I apologize.

Whats the penalty for stealing in the Muslim world? Surely not probation. My point is, they think and view this incident differently than you and I.

Daniel

30th March 2007, 21:38

Seriously Eki. This is World Politics we're talking about and not some silly playground fight. If someone accused me of pushing them in line and I didn't and I had to say I did to shut them up then I'd admit I did it. But this is not primary school and these are serious allegations.

Iran has KIDNAPPED 15 people. Is this not a serious issue to you Eki. I repeat Iran has KIDNAPPED 15 British service people....... Yet you see things differently. But then again that's all you do. See things differently. I'm all for people having opinions but there's a line and you've overstepped it. That or you are extreeeeeemely naive in the way you think the world works.

Eki

30th March 2007, 21:48

My point is, they think and view this incident differently than you and I.
How do you know what and how they think? They returned the British sailors they captured few years ago, why not now? So, better not make a mountain of a molehill.

Eki

30th March 2007, 22:00

The sailors apologized, why's it so hard for Blair?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262643,00.html

"We trespassed without permission," Summers said, adding he knew that Iran had seized British military personnel who strayed into their waters three years ago.

"This happened back in 2004 and our government said that it wouldn't happen again," Summers said. "And, again, I deeply apologize for entering your waters."

Dave B

30th March 2007, 22:33

I'll bet you the sailors' apology was under considerable duress. :\

Eki

30th March 2007, 22:37

I'll bet you the sailors' apology was under considerable duress. :\
Not too considerable though, or they'll be in big trouble. If they were tortured or something, Iran would never let them go and tell the world about it. Probably they were just told that apologizing will speed up their release.

Malbec

30th March 2007, 23:22

Not too considerable though, or they'll be in big trouble. If they were tortured or something, Iran would never let them go and tell the world about it. Probably they were just told that apologizing will speed up their release.

The previous crew captured by the Iranians were subject to mock executions.

I know that you may belittle the psychological effect of taken out into the desert and blindfolded next to a hole by gunmen, but I suspect the effect is quite considerable if you are actually subjected to it.

It wouldn't surprise me at all that this time, with relations between Iran and the UK much worse than they were before, and with the Revolutionary Guard much more militant, considerable pressure has been applied to the captives to 'admit' guilt.

Its quite interesting isn't it that all four statements, one from the guy today and three from the woman, all contain deliberate errors in the English or in the military terminology that a non-native speaker wouldn't pick up. That to me is pretty much proof that what is being said does not reflect what those captives are actually feeling.

I really don't understand your total and utter naivety over this issue. Britain should apologise for something it didn't do in order to free the sailors? As someone else has said, this isn't a schoolchildrens fight, this is international politics.

I hope you don't mind me asking, but how old are you?

Eki

30th March 2007, 23:28

As someone else has said, this isn't a schoolchildrens fight, this is international politics.

I haven't noticed much difference between those two. I think there's the same pattern in both of them, bigger ones trying to bully smaller ones to do their bidding and smaller ones standing up for themselves.

Malbec

30th March 2007, 23:32

I haven't noticed much difference between those two. I think there's the same pattern in both of them, bigger ones trying to bully smaller ones to do their bidding and smaller ones standing up for themselves.

Right.

That says it all really doesn't it.

Daniel

31st March 2007, 00:37

How do you know what and how they think? They returned the British sailors they captured few years ago, why not now? So, better not make a mountain of a molehill.
Why don't you be a man and respond to my post. Stop being so biased.

As they say two wrongs don't make a right. Just because you believe strongly that one thing is wrong doesn't mean you should start believing that one wrong is a right.......

Roamy

31st March 2007, 01:24

what part of "Nuke" the ****ers are you guys not getting??????

A.F.F.

31st March 2007, 01:28

what part of "Nuke" the ****ers are you guys not getting??????

:up:

I second that.

Roamy

31st March 2007, 01:34

**** I may have to sponsor you for a green card !!!

Gannex

31st March 2007, 04:31

what part of "Nuke" the ****ers are you guys not getting??????

Oh brilliant, fousto. Let's kill our fifteen hostages, along with a few million Iranians. That'll solve the problem.

oily oaf

31st March 2007, 07:39

Oh brilliant, fousto. Let's kill our fifteen hostages, along with a few million Iranians. That'll solve the problem.

Holy Flamebait Batgannex.

Don't let old Fousty get under your skin Mr G.
The old Tuscon Terror is the Howard Stern of the forum who thrives on dropping his un PC hand grenades all over the joint before sitting back in his rocking chair on the front porch with a plug of chawin' tobaccy and a shot of redeye smiling gently to himself as he imagines the hand wringing and teeth gnashing that his latest wry observation will produce.

The old fella is a sweetheart if truth be told and has been like a surrogate father to me since I joined this community :)
Why he even shot and killed two blokes in the IRL forum who disagreed with me about Panther Racing's new aero package.

Anyway I hear he's started to mellow a lot these days and only last week was awarded The Congressional Medal Of Honour for his sterling community work among the gay, commie, jobless, French faggots of Arizona. :)

(fires .45 Magnum into ceiling, jumps into air clicking heels together and throws dart at picture of Eki in the nude)
Yeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaa!

Eki

31st March 2007, 08:45

Why don't you be a man and respond to my post. Stop being so biased.

Which particular post do you mean?

And you're not biased? Daniel, living in Britain doesn't make you British, you know.

R. Mears

31st March 2007, 09:57

I'll say one thing, the Iranians got the price of oil back up to $66USD a barrel.

Tomi

31st March 2007, 10:59

I'll say one thing, the Iranians got the price of oil back up to $66USD a barrel.

Yes right, and we rest got the first reality show worth watching, every day different captured seem to apology on tv.

A.F.F.

31st March 2007, 11:53

Oh brilliant, fousto. Let's kill our fifteen hostages, along with a few million Iranians. That'll solve the problem.

What are the Iranians ever been good at except on groving moustache and too thick eyebrows ? The odds are pretty good still I think.

Ian McC

31st March 2007, 12:27

Peter Mandelson

31st March 2007, 13:08

Eki

31st March 2007, 13:25

Hey, I should be an instructor in the British Navy! According to Admiral Alan West, they teach the sailors to say what the captors want them to say. Exactly the same advice I gave Blair:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445562&in_page_id=1770

"The real priority is the safety of the prisoners themselves. Admiral Sir Alan West, former head of the Navy, said this week: 'Our guidance to anyone in that position would be to say what they want you to say.

'Don't tell them secrets, clearly, but if they tell you "Say this", well if that's going to get you out, then do it. It means absolutely nothing, what they say, to be honest.' In fact, Mrs Turney and the other sailors have had virtually no training in Conduct After Capture — probably only a lecture or video. The Marines will have had at least two days' training including a mock interrogation."

Malbec

31st March 2007, 14:02

Daniel

31st March 2007, 14:06

Do u make profit from oil?
My car does. Yes.

Eki

31st March 2007, 14:15

Its terrible isn't it.

Looking back through history, my attention is drawn to the Soviet invasion of Finland just before WW2.

All those deaths could have been avoided if the Finnish had apologised for accidentally having their borders too far to the east when the Soviets demanded land.

Silly eh?
Exactly. Finland had the opportunity to swap land with the Soviet Union, but Finland thought the land they would have received wasn't as good as the one the Soviets were asking, and there probably also was pride and distrust towards the Soviets that made Finland decline the offer.

There also seem to be a lot of pride and distrust towards Iran among the Brits that block common sense, but that's where the similarities end. It's not like Iran captured those sailors in the British waters, and do you seriously believe Iran would invade Britain if Britain apologized?

What would be the worst case scenario if the UK apologized Iran?

And to think about it further, it would have been wonderful if a mere apology to the Soviets had prevented the war. The Soviets made an excuse to invade by firing mortar fire on their own troops and claiming it was the Finnish artillery. If only an apology would have sufficed, but they didn't even ask an apology.

Eki

31st March 2007, 14:50

The Americans seem to use a similar principle: You admit you're a terrorist and you serve only 9 months in prison instead of 7 years. That's a tempting offer even if you really weren't guilty.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262960,00.html

"GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba — An Australian who pleaded guilty to supporting terrorism was sentenced Friday to nine months in prison in his home country after becoming the first detainee convicted by military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay.

A panel of military officers recommended a sentence of seven years after deliberating for two hours, but a plea agreement that had been kept secret from the panel capped Hicks' sentence at nine months."

Mark in Oshawa

31st March 2007, 15:27

Thank you Peter for that worthless commentary on the whole situation. Now go back to your copy of Das Kapital and "world poltics for Dummies" by Hugo Chavez.

What has happened here is an attempt by Iran to esclate the war in Iraq. What people here have FAILED to notice is that Iran is doing everything they can to keep the UK and the US here. By keeping the war going, it is a tremendous loss of face for the US to leave, and it forces the Bushies to stay the course, while getting pounded in the PR war at home. Iran has been supporting the militias and terrorists that have kept the killing going in Iraq, and despite their denials, there is more than enough evidence as verified by the FREE press (not some state sponsored organ of a government) of the world to note that Iranian support has come in a few forms.

Now that Britain is looking for a way to go home, they go and capture the Brit's in the waterway bordering Iraq. Now were the Brits over the border? Not bloodly likely, you have to know they had a GPS unit and knew how to read it and they knew damned well where to border is. Iran however doesn't respect that border, just as they don't respect a lot of things. Freedom, democracy, the rights of the indvidual, little things like that. Things that most of us keep taking for granted. Since Iran has little time for the right or respect for anyone, it is no big deal for them to just take another nation's soldiers and hold them captive. Heck, it is fun watching the world dance to your tune all the time. The Iranians must feel really powerful because they have the UK and the US dancing to their tune right now. Like that little weasel in North Korea, they want to be players on the world stage, and keeping this bun fight in Iraq going is part of that.

Really, it has come down to one thing. Does the West want to admit we are at war with radical Islam? Until many Islamic people who wouldn't want this who live in places like Iran find a way to get control over their destiny, this fight with radical Islam will continue. Here in the west, what Bush and Blair have done is a half assed attempt to fight radical Islam. The problem is, the people in the US and the rest of the west don't see this for what it is. It seems we don't learn from our errors. You don't fight a war unless you are prepared to be totally ruthless in winning it. Peace comes from being magnaimous in victory, not in fighting the war. Until the UK and the US learn this from their Iraq adventure, this crap will continue. The Iranians will get away with this, because no one has the stomach to take them on right now. I must say, there is no way in hell we can fight a war with Iran, because we are not prepared (we as in the west) to FIGHT it and take casualties. The Iranians know this, so they fight this proxy war to keep making the UK and the US look bad, and this is all part of the strategy. The UK and US wont fight Iran heads up, because the people are not ready to do that in either nation, and they wont withdraw because there is a mess to be cleaned up, but the PR war at home is making the governements look weak and disorganized. This is another win win for the Iranian mullahs and those radical Islamic leaders who relish a full out chance at martyrdom but will settle for making Bushie and Blair look like idiots.

Malbec

31st March 2007, 16:54

Exactly. Finland had the opportunity to swap land with the Soviet Union, but Finland thought the land they would have received wasn't as good as the one the Soviets were asking, and there probably also was pride and distrust towards the Soviets that made Finland decline the offer.

There also seem to be a lot of pride and distrust towards Iran among the Brits that block common sense, but that's where the similarities end. It's not like Iran captured those sailors in the British waters, and do you seriously believe Iran would invade Britain if Britain apologized?

What would be the worst case scenario if the UK apologized Iran?

And to think about it further, it would have been wonderful if a mere apology to the Soviets had prevented the war. The Soviets made an excuse to invade by firing mortar fire on their own troops and claiming it was the Finnish artillery. If only an apology would have sufficed, but they didn't even ask an apology.

Seems sarcasm isn't your strong point.

You're remarkably trusting of regimes with a previous history of violating international agreements aren't you.

Fortunately for Finland, their leaders who actually had a spine realised that if they gave way to Soviet demands, they would then be leant on again in the future. Try looking up the word 'appeasement'.

Worst case scenario if Britain 'apologises' for something it hasn't done? Well let me see, maybe the Iranians might push their luck further and keep kidnapping British personnel from Iraqi territory whenever they feel the need to divert domestic and international attention away from their nuclear programme..... Or maybe next time they'll feel that kidnapping simply isn't attention grabbing enough.

I'm bowing out of this 'debate' with you eki because it isn't worth my time.

Malbec

31st March 2007, 17:20

Mark in Oshawa

I think your views regarding Iran are rather simplistic.

Look at the situation from their point of view.

Prior to 9/11, Iran was surrounded by hostile states. I don't need to recap how relations have been between pre/post Shah Iran and Saddam era Iraq. The Iranians had massed 100,000 troops on the Afghan border with an eye to invading Afghanistan to oust the Taliban due to tensions with the Afghans flooding Iran with cheap opium and using it as a transit point for exporting to the EU/US. Relations with the other 'Stans to the north were ok, but the border with Pakistan has always been a tense area.

9/11 happens, and Iran is the only Middle Eastern country (including Israel) to have spontaneous demonstrations of solidarity with the US. Thousands of Iranians flock to the streets with banners denouncing the attacks. The political leadership across the spectrum inform the Americans of their shock, sorrow and their willingness to help out in finding the perpetrators. You may mock this as the actions of a country fearing US attack, but its noticeable that their words were far stronger than other states like Syria, and rather more sincere than the gloating 'we told you so' that emanated from Israel after the attacks.

Bush decides to invade Afghanistan, but is only able to provide funding, light ground and air support for the Northern Alliance due to logistics. The Russians donate a few tanks. Meanwhile the Iranians supply the Northern Alliance with food, light arms, uniforms, training and other logistics without which the Taliban would never have been ousted. Intelligence is shared regarding their common enemy, Al-Qaeda. The guys who bombed the WTC in 1993 were the very same people that detonated a bomb in Mashad a few years earlier, killing 25 people.

Things are looking good for a thaw in American/Iranian relations. What do the Iranians want? Most likely a formal improvement in relations, restoration of diplomatic links and hopefully improved trade. The moderates were in the ascendancy, selling the idea to the Iranian electorate that improved relations with the west, partly facilitated by liberalising Iranian politics, would lead to increased trade and improvements in the economy.

Then comes the 'axis of evil' speech. Despite helping the US attack Afghanistan, and despite assisting their initial hunt of Al-Qaeda suspects, all they got was a kick in the teeth and a 'you're next' speech.

Skip forward a few years and what have you got? US troops occupy Iraq and Afghanistan which have the longest two land borders with Iran. There is a significant US military presence in Turkmenistan, and Pakistan is practically a US vassal state as far as foreign policy is concerned. There is a large and growing US presence in the Gulf States just across the Persian Gulf too. A power that has labelled Iran as an enemy is now totally encircling it.

Wouldn't you feel threatened?

In response, the hardliners in Tehran have sidelined the moderates with a 'we told you so, you can't trust the Yanks' and sought to redress the balance, and haven't they been devastatingly successful.

I'm guessing the Iranians never realised how good Hezbollah would be in humiliating the Israelis even with the huge quantities of military aid they gave. And I'm also guessing that the Iranians would never have believed that Bush and Rice would be so hamfisted in dealing with the situation that their political capital throughout the Middle East is totally gone.

As for Iraq, what has been noticeable in the past few weeks with the US plan to pacify Baghdad, is that it is the Iranian funded Shia groups that have gone quiet, and the Sunni groups that have gone offensive. However you may choose to paint the picture, the Iranians appear to be cooperating with the US plan.

Taking a longer term view, its obvious that the Iranians have been supplying groups that inflict casualties on the US/UK and keep them tied down. Its not to keep them there however, its to keep them tied down and therefore unwilling/unable to take the war out of Iraq and elsewhere (ie Iran). The long term objective was to eject the Americans out of Iraq ASAP, but over the past few years with increasing US belligerence towards Iran and the mounting number of deaths amongst the Shias who the Iranians obviously feel some bond with, that changed to shoring up the Shia militia and inflicting casualties on the US military.

Its the very same reason Russia/China supplied the Viet Cong and the US supplied the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Bleed them dry in one country and they'll be too hurt to invade you.

One thing I'm curious about is why the US press is so keen to push tales of Iranian backing for anti-US forces, and why they are not quite so keen to talk about US allies like Saudi Arabia sending volunteers to fight for the Sunnis, also targetting US forces.

Overall, the events of the past few months are looking good for improving relations with Iran (ignoring the current hostage crisis). Bush appears to have realised that there will be no improvement in Iraq without Iranian consultation, and at last there have been official meetings between the two powers. That bodes well for the future.

Oh and one last thing. You will NEVER understand Iran if you think the country is about religion. Islam there is and always has been a smokescreen for other issues.

Eki

31st March 2007, 17:34

Fortunately for Finland, their leaders who actually had a spine realised that if they gave way to Soviet demands, they would then be leant on again in the future. Try looking up the word 'appeasement'.

In the same way, if Saddam had appeased the US more before 2003, he might still be alive and in power. But that's not sure, since the US might have found some other excuse to invade. Or ditto with Iran and their nuclear power...

Daniel

31st March 2007, 20:58

I finally found a picture of you on the net Eki.....

Eki

31st March 2007, 21:26

Double post

Eki

31st March 2007, 21:28

You know me, Daniel. I like animals that much that I would never beat a living horse.

Thinking about analogies, Russia should apologize Finland for the 1939 invasion if they weren't an arrogant power.

Oh, sorry, I forgot that president Boris Yeltsin DID apologize president Koivisto in July 1992 for what the Soviet Union had done to Finland.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263004,00.html

Iranian President Demands Apology From World Leaders Over Captured Sailor Crisis

Saturday, March 31, 2007

LONDON — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted Saturday that 15 captured British sailors trespassed in Iranian waters and called world powers "arrogant" for refusing to apologize, the country's official news agency reported.

"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery. But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech in the southeastern city of Andinmeshk.

Ian McC

31st March 2007, 22:43

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263004,00.html

Iranian President Demands Apology From World Leaders Over Captured Sailor Crisis

Saturday, March 31, 2007

LONDON — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted Saturday that 15 captured British sailors trespassed in Iranian waters and called world powers "arrogant" for refusing to apologize, the country's official news agency reported.

"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery. But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech in the southeastern city of Andinmeshk.

Well they didn't trespass on their waters so that makes their border guards nothing more than pirates and kidnappers.

Daniel

31st March 2007, 23:25

Well they didn't trespass on their waters so that makes their border guards nothing more than pirates and kidnappers.
Yes and that makes Eki nothing more than someone who back pirates and kidnappers because he is blinded by his silly bias.

Eki

1st April 2007, 00:31

Well they didn't trespass on their waters
And Iraq had WMDs ready to be used in 45 minutes. Just because Blair says so doesn't necessarily make it so. I think there's a possibility that they did trespass Iranian waters.

Ian McC

1st April 2007, 00:55

And Iraq had WMDs ready to be used in 45 minutes. Just because Blair says so doesn't necessarily make it so. I think there's a possibility that they did trespass Iranian waters.

I don't, and I know who I would believe, whatever was said about Iraq, Iran has a hell of a lot less credibility than the UK.

R. Mears

1st April 2007, 01:38

Yes right, and we rest got the first reality show worth watching, every day different captured seem to apology on tv.
So very true. LMAO :D

Mark in Oshawa

1st April 2007, 02:19

Eki, why is it you always believe the worst out of a democratic nation and the best of a nation run by a theocracy? Or a dictatorship? Could it be because you are like many soft hearted fools in nations that are free that are self loathing because you have anothers do not? Could it be you feel some sort of hatred for people who are led by people they choose? I cannot figure out your motives for the life of me, and it is disturbing how you can go to such lengths to make excuses up for this sort of thing.

Take note, if the Brits were in Iranian waters, a civilized nation would have turned them around and filed a protest with the world courts and/or the UN, or just made a big stink of it diplomatically and released the soldiers. Iran is essentially holding them HOSTAGE. No demands have been made yet either. Now I am not so naive to think that Iran doesn't have some issues with the nations of the UK and the US. I also know that their issues with these two are mostly self inflicted. It is possible to diplomatically disagree with the US and UK and not be threatened by invasion, but Iran doesn't just disagree, they support terrorism and they are often on the side of any regime that takes up arms against the western democracies, so spare me the drivel about how they are surrounded by enemies. At some point, looking in the mirror would be a good start if they want the answer to why so many nations detest their foreign policy and the way they treat their citizens. The US and the UK have brought on the ire of a few nations for being in Iraq, but only one is actively supplying and helping on an open and obvious level the dissidents.

As for the Saudi's, I don't trust their role in Iraq or their motives, but at least diplomatically, they don't say and do some of the stupid things Iran does. If one more apologist for Iran's actions is out there, I will gladly argue with them also. Iran publically stones people for crimes of adultry, has their secret police abduct and kill journalists who disagree with them, and has been supplying Hezbollah with arms and money for years. Iran actively has a president denying that there was a Holocaust against the Jews and on more than on occasion stated he would love to wipe Israel off the map. Tell me again why they deserve any consideration as reasonable and rationable in their arguments?

Of course, I know a few of you will try, Eki always loves to defend the worst sort of scum masquerading as leaders of nations that are not even close to being free on any real level, but I know there are more than just Eki here that feel the Brits got what was coming to em. Well the last time I looked, civilized nations with nothing to hide treated the soldiers of another nation by holding them hostage.

Mark in Oshawa

1st April 2007, 02:23

As for your words Dylan, I take them at your face value. I also am very quick to point out I don't feel the views of the Iranian people are those of the wing nut they have at President, or the Mullahs running the show. I also know it is one of the reasons why I would bet my life on the US and the UK not wanting a war with Iran. They know the people there don't hate them, and they are a little more sophisticated in how they see the US and the UK. What is more, I also know that the people of Iraq likely didn't hate the UK or the US either, but unlike Iran, they were in a nation that crossed the line too many times for anyone in the west to trust em...

Malbec

1st April 2007, 02:38

Now I am not so naive to think that Iran doesn't have some issues with the nations of the UK and the US. I also know that their issues with these two are mostly self inflicted.

I disagree.

US management of US/Iranian relationships has been totally mishandled.

They had the chance to sort things out between the two countries and decided to throw it away. For what purpose exactly?

Remember, any relationship between any two parties is a two way street. By totally ignoring the US contribution to the deterioration of the relationship between Iran and the West is frankly dishonest.

Gannex

1st April 2007, 03:42

Look at the situation from [Iran's] point of view.

. . . 9/11 happens, and Iran is the only Middle Eastern country (including Israel) to have spontaneous demonstrations of solidarity with the US. . . . [W]ithout [Iranian support], the Taliban would never have been ousted. Intelligence is shared [with the US] regarding their common enemy, Al-Qaeda. . . . Things are looking good for a thaw in American/Iranian relations. . . . Then comes the 'axis of evil' speech.
When you put it like that, it does seem obvious that the "Axis of Evil" speech was a huge mistake. But it's an understandable mistake, to me at least. Bush admires Reagan, as do many conservatives, feeling that Reagan's simple focus on basic principles and his penchant for plain speaking were what won the Cold War. Conservatives remember how Reagan was belittled at the time for calling Russia an "evil empire", a term he threw out at an unrehearsed press conference, but they also believe that it was this Reagan bluntness that precipitated the end of Communism. The Bushies were aping Reagan's "evil empire" rhetoric when they devised the "axis of evil" analysis. Of course, in hindsight, it was a foolish notion, but it looked very sensible to them at the time.

Eki

1st April 2007, 09:05

Eki, why is it you always believe the worst out of a democratic nation and the best of a nation run by a theocracy?
Because you do the opposite. I try to give their point of view, because they aren't here to defend themselves. Maybe it has something to do with Bush's "Axis of Evil" and "With us or against us" speeches too. He really doesn't have the moral high ground to throw the first stone and lecture others. In hindsight, I think it is more for his "With us or against us" speech. I remember being appalled and thinking "Who do you think you are to tell me what to do? You're not my president. There should always be the option of not being either."

R. Mears

1st April 2007, 10:00

And Iraq had WMDs ready to be used in 45 minutes. Just because Blair says so doesn't necessarily make it so. I think there's a possibility that they did trespass Iranian waters.
Lets wait till "the bomb" goes off in a populated area, then we'll know for sure.

Eki

1st April 2007, 10:13

Lets wait till "the bomb" goes off in a populated area, then we'll know for sure.
The 45 minutes is long gone. It has taken the Iraqis more than 4 years to make "the bomb" ready.

R. Mears

1st April 2007, 10:15

The 45 minutes is long gone.
Then we know it wasn't so. But what happens when it is?

Eki

1st April 2007, 10:40

Then we know it wasn't so. But what happens when it is?
I think it's still more IF than WHEN.

Gannex

1st April 2007, 19:01

The Sunday Times has had information from inside a meeting of top Revolutionary Guard officers which happened yesterday, Saturday 31st of March. A war of words has broken out over the recommendation of the Revolutionary Guards' senior commander, Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi, that the British captives be released. He is accused, almost, of treason and cowardice by the head of the Revolutionary Guards' political bureau, Yadollah Javani. Javani urges that the Britons be tried, and if found guilty of espionage, executed, according to Iranian and Islamic law.

Eki

1st April 2007, 19:09

Malbec

1st April 2007, 19:17

When you put it like that, it does seem obvious that the "Axis of Evil" speech was a huge mistake. But it's an understandable mistake, to me at least. Bush admires Reagan, as do many conservatives, feeling that Reagan's simple focus on basic principles and his penchant for plain speaking were what won the Cold War. Conservatives remember how Reagan was belittled at the time for calling Russia an "evil empire", a term he threw out at an unrehearsed press conference, but they also believe that it was this Reagan bluntness that precipitated the end of Communism. The Bushies were aping Reagan's "evil empire" rhetoric when they devised the "axis of evil" analysis. Of course, in hindsight, it was a foolish notion, but it looked very sensible to them at the time.

It only looked sensible if they ignored everything they were told by the State Department, the British and their Middle Eastern allies.

This whole 'you're with us or against us' / 'war against terror' black and white view of the world was going to get them into trouble in just about every part of the world, let alone somewhere as complex as the Middle East.

Sadly the 'axis of evil' speech was only one of several mistakes including the purge of Baathists and disbanding the Iraqi army where they ignored strong advice from people with experience in the area.

BTW I read the Sunday Times article too, and it goes some way to explain the toning down in rhetoric from Tehran if they don't really know what to do with the hostages.

I suspect there's also considerable resentment in the Iranian elite circles with the recent defection of their chief of intelligence to the west in the past couple of weeks. Things are starting to look interesting again.

Gannex

1st April 2007, 20:56

It only looked sensible if they ignored everything they were told by the State Department, the British and their Middle Eastern allies.
Quite true.

Mark in Oshawa

1st April 2007, 21:16

Because you do the opposite. I try to give their point of view, because they aren't here to defend themselves. Maybe it has something to do with Bush's "Axis of Evil" and "With us or against us" speeches too. He really doesn't have the moral high ground to throw the first stone and lecture others. In hindsight, I think it is more for his "With us or against us" speech. I remember being appalled and thinking "Who do you think you are to tell me what to do? You're not my president. There should always be the option of not being either."

Eki, you don't need to defend them. Contrary to your own notions of fairness, your defense of these people is while interesting, not logical. Iran is for the most part, another dictatorship. I don't see any Iranian voices on here, but I can tell you, a lot of them living there likely wouldn't want your "defense" of their nations actions. The sad reality is here (and I am sticking to the thread topic) is a sovereign nation here is using 15 British Soldiers as hostages in a game of political gamesmenship. While we can debate on what side of the border they were on, and whether they knowingly crossed the line, the fact remains Iran is doing nothing to quell any war talk by doing this. The British troops were likely on that waterway with a GPS unit, and despite your defense of Iran's position, likely told NOT to violate Iranian waters. What is more, your obvious assumption that they were provoking the Iranians holds very little weight with me. Unlike Bushie, Tony Blair is a left-of-centre politician who while caught up in the rush to take out Saddam, isn't likely to sign on to some screwy scheme to provoke a war with Iran. If these guys were American Marines, I would give your theory some thought, but not the Brits. They either made a mistake (which now Iran wants to maybe execute them for) or they were on the Iraqi side of the border. Iran is provoking this for their own reasons. Period. Your defense of yet another dictatorship just is comical.

AS for your thoughts Gannex, Dylan, I stand by my theory the nations that have the hardest time getting along with the US (even when Clinton was in power, Iran was often hostile to the US) and the UK are nations that often have very poor human rights records, have a history of backing shady characters in nefarious acts, and usually hold Western values in disdain. Also take note, Moammar Gaddafi has been in power for over 30 years holding many of the same views of the US that Iran does, yet there was no action to remove him in recent history. What is more, when he saw what happened to Iraq, he coughed up his WMD's and opened Libya up for UN inspection. The US and UK are not invading him, nor were they threatening to. IT is only the regimes that go out of their way to antagonize the west that have problems with it. Contrary to the beliefs of some, I have yet to see the US and its allies get involved in any conflict where there wasn't some sort of provocation on the behalf of the "enemy". Vietnam was a huge error, but it was a result of being invited in to defend an ally, and the Russians wanted to fight another proxy war. There is always mitigating circumstances for sure.
This new crisis with Iran is just more provocation by regimes that are using the press and the gullibility of those who want a reason to hate their own value system to turn on western values. That is all a lot of this is. The radical tenets of Islam hate freedom, democracy and the rights of the individual. People in regimes like Hussein's Iraq or under the Mullahs of Iran would likely grasp strongly to those freedoms if given a chance, but alas, many in that part of the world have told them they should live instead by the strict code of either a dictator or a corrupt branch of Islam. When they are threatened, they provoke situations that cause the Western powers to enter into uncomfortable places to back them off. This situation with the Brit's is being handled by the Iranians to not subdue tension, but to esclate it. They hold all the cards, because they know the UK and the US cannot start a war with Iran without the backing of their nations, and both Blair and Bush don't have that backing. What is more, the Mullah's know damned well as long as the UK and the US are in Iraq, they can keep using it to create internal divisions among the western powers and weaken them. They want this situation, and they are pulling all the levers to keep it going.

You can argue that the Iranians feel threatened all you want, but for a nation that is feeling like it is under siege, they are not following the steps that people like Eki would argue should be done if this was the Finn's holding Russian soldiers. HE would demand they be released and that the Finn's not esclate things, but he see's nothing wrong with Iran doing just the opposite. Ah yes, you see Eki, your constant blathering about turning the other cheek isn't being done here is it???

Eki

1st April 2007, 21:24

Daniel

1st April 2007, 21:52

Not really. I feel Iran is doing the same as Finland was doing in 1939 with the Soviets trying Finland to do their bidding. I think it would have been great if the Soviet Union would have given Finland the option of apologizing to avoid the war, but they didn't give that option. The UK is the bully here, not Iran.
Ah yes. So what you're saying is that Dave Brockman should go to jail for you stealing his car in our hypothetical universe.

Power to the people Eki! Overthrow the bully! That Dave Brockman's been going about his business trying to do the work of the UN (who you support when it suits you) for too long! Lets kidnap him and detain him for no legitimate reason and deny him his rights!!!!!!!!!!

This is not the USSR against Finland and I fail to see what this has to do with the actions Iran has chosen to take. This is Iran illegally kidnapping and detaining British service people. Stop with your anti-American/British crap and stop looking through your rose-tinted glasses.

Your words are irrational and insulting to anyone here who has a brain.....

Malbec

1st April 2007, 22:01

Unlike Bushie, Tony Blair is a left-of-centre politician.

Left of centre?

What planet are you on? I suspect rather strongly that you are in a solid minority in describing him as that, or you would be if you were in Britain.

That is all a lot of this is. The radical tenets of Islam hate freedom, democracy and the rights of the individual. People in regimes like Hussein's Iraq or under the Mullahs of Iran would likely grasp strongly to those freedoms if given a chance, but alas, many in that part of the world have told them they should live instead by the strict code of either a dictator or a corrupt branch of Islam.

Sorry, thats a laughable argument. If there's any gullibility, its on your part falling for the press portrayal of Iran hook line and sinker.

Politics is about power stupid (to paraphrase another G Bush), and while the Americans use patriotism as their stick, the Iranians like to use religion.

Politics and power in Iran isn't about Islam, its about money. Its a highly centralised economy with sanctions against it. You want to make some money importing lucrative TVs from Japan or Korea? You need a government licence mate. Don't know any mullahs in power? Sorry mate, thats tough ain't it. Oh sorry, your father is Ayatollah who? Here's an import licence, good luck with your business.

Politics in Iran is about printing money to shore up your bank account.

Religion and its relationship with politics in Iran is all about keeping power in the hands of the political elite so they can fly off to Paris, London and NY to make sure their iPod isn't out of date.

I'm terribly sorry if that image of Iranian politics is out of sync with your Fox TV news update, but thats how it is I'm afraid.

And thats why your analysis of Iran is totally off kilter.

Malbec

1st April 2007, 22:03

Your words are irrational and insulting to anyone here who has a brain.....

With all due respect, why do you bother feeding a troll who's only here to cause trouble?

Daniel

1st April 2007, 22:07

You can argue that the Iranians feel threatened all you want, but for a nation that is feeling like it is under siege, they are not following the steps that people like Eki would argue should be done if this was the Finn's holding Russian soldiers. HE would demand they be released and that the Finn's not esclate things, but he see's nothing wrong with Iran doing just the opposite. Ah yes, you see Eki, your constant blathering about turning the other cheek isn't being done here is it???

So true. Regardless of whether these servicemen were in Iranian waters the Iranians are the agressors here. Had Iranians strayed into Iraqi territorial waters I would bet that they would merely be turned away. Had the US or British forces detained Iranian servicemen for this kind of period Eki would up in arms.

Eki reminds me of a teacher I once had who regardless of whether I was the agressor or the victim always punished me regardless of the circumstances or eyewitness evidence stating that I was in the right.

With all due respect, why do you bother feeding a troll who's only here to cause trouble?

Because someone needs to speak out against hypocrisy and stupidity and help show him up for what he is. Who better than an idiot like me? :)

Malbec

1st April 2007, 22:09

This situation with the Brit's is being handled by the Iranians to not subdue tension, but to esclate it. They hold all the cards, because they know the UK and the US cannot start a war with Iran without the backing of their nations, and both Blair and Bush don't have that backing. What is more, the Mullah's know damned well as long as the UK and the US are in Iraq, they can keep using it to create internal divisions among the western powers and weaken them. They want this situation, and they are pulling all the levers to keep it going.

This is brilliant stuff!!!!!!

Hasn't it occurred to you that this situation is as difficult for the Iranians to solve as it is for the British? This is a hot potato that the Iranians don't quite know how to deal with, which is why the picture emanating from Tehran changes from day to day.

I know its easy to think that this was all a pre-planned attack with official sanctioning, after all in most countries thats exactly what it would have to be, but this is Iran! If it was a pre-planned attack the Iranians would be sticking to a very tight timetable, not making up policy on the hoof as they have been doing.

Malbec

1st April 2007, 22:10

Because someone needs to speak out against hypocrisy and stupidity and help show him up for what he is. Who better than an idiot like me? :)

May I make a suggestion?

Eki's posts stand out by themselves regarding their stupidity and ignorance. Why not just let them speak for themselves?

Daniel

1st April 2007, 22:15

May I make a suggestion?

Eki's posts stand out by themselves regarding their stupidity and ignorance. Why not just let them speak for themselves?
Point taken ;)

The irony of the issue is that many times I've come out in defence of Eki when people have been unreasonable and threatening towards him. Now I understand why people feel like that.

SOD

1st April 2007, 22:57

"Tony Blair is a left-of-centre politician "

anyone who says that is clueless.

Gannex

1st April 2007, 23:32

BTW I read the Sunday Times article [described in post 143] too, and it goes some way to explain the toning down in rhetoric from Tehran if they don't really know what to do with the hostages.
I am very pessimistic about the end of this dispute. I fear that the hawks like Javani will be irresistible when they argue that Iran is already under sanction and ask whether those sanctions can possibly get any heavier as a result of them not releasing the Britons? Iran, they will say, cannot be made any more of a pariah than it already is, so apart from air strikes or ground attack, neither of which is even remotely possible at the moment, Iran has absolutely nothing to fear. They could even behead the hostages and the country's international predicament would not be one bit worse than it is today, so why spare them? For fear of the American fleet? That, in their view, would be cowardice in the face of very little threat.

If that is indeed the argument that is being put forward, to me it seems a very worrying one because there is no answer to it. There is simply no downside for Iran in keeping our people. In fact the only way we in the West could defuse the argument, it seems to me, is to go back to the carrot option, and push like hell that the five al-Quds operatives be released, or at least be accounted for and given consular access and legal counsel. That would give the Revolutionary Guard hawks something to crow about and would not be much of a sacrifice, operationally speaking. The five men have probably given up almost all the intelligence they will ever give up, and returning them to Iran, unharmed, untortured, but with firm proof that they were indeed captured way inside Iraqi territory, in stark violation of international law, could be used as propaganda for the Americans and as a face-saver for those, like Major-General Safavi, counselling release of the Britons.

Mark in Oshawa

1st April 2007, 23:57

This is brilliant stuff!!!!!!

Hasn't it occurred to you that this situation is as difficult for the Iranians to solve as it is for the British? This is a hot potato that the Iranians don't quite know how to deal with, which is why the picture emanating from Tehran changes from day to day.

I know its easy to think that this was all a pre-planned attack with official sanctioning, after all in most countries thats exactly what it would have to be, but this is Iran! If it was a pre-planned attack the Iranians would be sticking to a very tight timetable, not making up policy on the hoof as they have been doing.

It is easy for the Iranians to solve. They say These Brits crossed the border illegally, release them to the UK and file a protest with diplomatic withdrawl from London by their Ambassador and file a complaint with the UN? Oh right, that would END the crisis. The Brits would be embarassed if the Iranians used the usual methods of protest. Instead they have people in their government advocating a quickie "trial" and execution of these 15 soldiers.

Dylan, you think Iam delusional and a rabid right winger? Hell, I advocate defense of human rights over regimes that enslave their own people always. That is an easy principle to defend. It isn't right wing, on the contrary, it is people oriented and to the rights of the the individual. I will stand up for a flawed democracy over a country run by mullahs who advocate wiping out a sovereign nation for no other reason than the religion is different. Your constant attack on my point of view is consistently ignoring the fact that Iran has "right" on their side if you are paying attention. I have never once said they had NO case on the border, but I did point out it was unlikely the Brits would knowingly cross the border with 15 guys in a rubber boat. Even if they did illegally cross the border, you protest it through diplomatic channels and release the soldiers back to the UK. You don't hold them hostage.

Oh ya, before Iam tarred and feathered by you Blair haters, he is a LEFT-of-center Prime Minister on paper. I don't follow domestic politics in the UK, but last time I looked, the Labour party that he leads is filled with people who would be the left of Karl Marx on some issues. He may not have governed from the Left as much as some of you liked, but politically, his style was a lot more like Bill Clinton until this war in Iraq came along. He spent all his political capital on this war but at least he did it for reasons he obviously believed in, because it was political suicide for him in his own party and he knew it. If you cant see that for something noble, even if you disagree with him, then you must be a political hack. I wouldn't vote for George Bush if I lived in America, but I can tell you that I can understand why he feels the way he does. May not always agree with his stances, but I believe he has a princple or two. You have to quit looking at politics as a all or nothing situation and read nuances and values that politicans sometimes actually have. Blair is at heart a left of center politician, but reality has a funny way of resetting priorities. It is the only reason Blair managed to stay in power as long as he has.

Malbec

2nd April 2007, 00:10

I am very pessimistic about the end of this dispute. I fear that the hawks like Javani will be irresistible when they argue that Iran is already under sanction and ask whether those sanctions can possibly get any heavier as a result of them not releasing the Britons? Iran, they will say, cannot be made any more of a pariah than it already is, so apart from air strikes or ground attack, neither of which is even remotely possible at the moment, Iran has absolutely nothing to fear. They could even behead the hostages and the country's international predicament would not be one bit worse than it is today, so why spare them? For fear of the American fleet? That, in their view, would be cowardice in the face of very little threat.

I quite agree.

One of the things that disappointed me the most about the 'axis of evil' speech was the opportunity missed to bring Iran into the international trading fold, which would have given them something to lose if they continued to behave in the manner they often do.

Sometimes the threat of losing 10,000 jobs in a Sony factory has more influence than the threat of launching cruise missiles at someone.

With the sanctions due to the nuclear issue they really have nothing left to lose.

SOD

2nd April 2007, 00:13

Oh ya, before Iam tarred and feathered by you Blair haters, he is a LEFT-of-center Prime Minister on paper. I don't follow domestic politics in the UK, but last time I looked, the Labour party that he leads is filled with people who would be the left of Karl Marx on some issues. He may not have governed from the Left as much as some of you liked, but politically, his style was a lot more like Bill Clinton until this war in Iraq came along. He spent all his political capital on this war but at least he did it for reasons he obviously believed in, because it was political suicide for him in his own party and he knew it. If you cant see that for something noble, even if you disagree with him, then you must be a political hack. I wouldn't vote for George Bush if I lived in America, but I can tell you that I can understand why he feels the way he does. May not always agree with his stances, but I believe he has a princple or two. You have to quit looking at politics as a all or nothing situation and read nuances and values that politicans sometimes actually have. Blair is at heart a left of center politician, but reality has a funny way of resetting priorities. It is the only reason Blair managed to stay in power as long as he has.

you'd have to convince me that Clinton was leftie. of course a left-of-centre governemnt would heavily tax pensions, and let big business do whatever they want.

The only reason Blair has stayed in power for so long is because there's no real politicval opposition in the UK. Things are changing though.

Might want to read about "cash for access" to see how left-leaning "New Labour" is. :rolleyes:

It's hard to agree with George W Bush, becasue he hasn't done very much, despite having a GOP controlled house-congress since he was "elected".

Malbec

2nd April 2007, 00:17

It is easy for the Iranians to solve. They say These Brits crossed the border illegally, release them to the UK and file a protest with diplomatic withdrawl from London by their Ambassador and file a complaint with the UN? Oh right, that would END the crisis. The Brits would be embarassed if the Iranians used the usual methods of protest. Instead they have people in their government advocating a quickie "trial" and execution of these 15 soldiers.

but releasing those prisoners would be a climbdown wouldn't it? Remember there's a good deal of honour at stake here, regardless of how those troops came into Iranian hands.

Dylan, you think Iam delusional and a rabid right winger? Hell, I advocate defense of human rights over regimes that enslave their own people always. That is an easy principle to defend. It isn't right wing, on the contrary, it is people oriented and to the rights of the the individual. I will stand up for a flawed democracy over a country run by mullahs who advocate wiping out a sovereign nation for no other reason than the religion is different. Your constant attack on my point of view is consistently ignoring the fact that Iran has "right" on their side if you are paying attention. I have never once said they had NO case on the border, but I did point out it was unlikely the Brits would knowingly cross the border with 15 guys in a rubber boat. Even if they did illegally cross the border, you protest it through diplomatic channels and release the soldiers back to the UK. You don't hold them hostage.

Oh I don't think you're right wing, having read many of your posts I believe you are sincere in your defence of human rights.

However your posts on this thread also indicate that you are clueless regarding Iran and Middle Eastern politics in general.

Those two positions aren't mutually exclusive.

Oh ya, before Iam tarred and feathered by you Blair haters, he is a LEFT-of-center Prime Minister on paper. I don't follow domestic politics in the UK, but last time I looked, the Labour party that he leads is filled with people who would be the left of Karl Marx on some issues. He may not have governed from the Left as much as some of you liked, but politically, his style was a lot more like Bill Clinton until this war in Iraq came along. He spent all his political capital on this war but at least he did it for reasons he obviously believed in, because it was political suicide for him in his own party and he knew it. If you cant see that for something noble, even if you disagree with him, then you must be a political hack. I wouldn't vote for George Bush if I lived in America, but I can tell you that I can understand why he feels the way he does. May not always agree with his stances, but I believe he has a princple or two. You have to quit looking at politics as a all or nothing situation and read nuances and values that politicans sometimes actually have. Blair is at heart a left of center politician, but reality has a funny way of resetting priorities. It is the only reason Blair managed to stay in power as long as he has.

I think you should follow British politics a bit closer then.

Can you actually explain any of Blair's policies that are left wing? Whether its privatising the health service or anything else that isn't nailed down to declaring war on a false promise you'll find little thats traditionally left wing. Actually I tell a lie, the way in which he has centralised power to the government could be (and has been) described as Stalinist, but whether Stalinism really was left wing is a point that could be discussed for eternity.

As for looking at politics as an all or nothing situation, I think that describes your weltanschau, not mine. From your first post directed at me you've loved stereotyping and pigeonholing people. I suggest you desist from that.

And as for Blair's stance on Iraq being noble, I'll believe it when I see Ewan Blair leading a patrol of Landrovers through Basra. At least Prince Harry has the guts to go to war.

Gannex

2nd April 2007, 03:13

Mark in Oshawa

2nd April 2007, 03:34

Dylan, first off I wont waste my time following British poltics too closely because we in Canada have to pay attention to American politics. They control indirectly our economy. What happens in the US effects us in ways no one in the UK will ever understand. That said, Blair is left of center. I didn't say for a second he was a communist. Also, while he was elected on a left of center platform, but I would agree he really hasn't governed that way. If he did, the Tories would have maybe found a way to win the last election. Maybe, but from what I have seen of them, they seem to be trying to not be the alternative you need to Labour.

My understanding of the Middle East I think is less naive than you think. You keep thinking those people running Iran and some of the other autocratic regimes have some noble values and points. I on the other hand see them as regimes using power and religion to hide their out right greed and disdain for human rights for control. Look at the nations in this part of the world. Iraq? Was run by a bloodthirsty thug, not even Eki would deny that. Saudi? Quite frankly a lamentable group of dinosaurs who treat their own people with disdain. The only reason the US and the UK are not more harsh with them is the oil, and the role they play in Islam. The devil you know theory of real politic. Syria? Troublemaking slime balls run that nation, interfering in Lebanon for years, constantly backing Hezbollah and other terror groups. Kuwait? One of the few autocratic nations who at least are not hostile to the west, along with the Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar, but they are still not big on human rights. There isn't one nation in this part of the world that close to a functioning and peaceful democracy, although the Emirates and smaller nations at least come close. So for you to say I don't know the Middle East and its poltics is your opinion, but I disagree. I understand that a nation that would stone a woman to death for adultry (Iran) should not be given the benefit of the doubt on much of anything. I understand Iran wants a nuclear weapon when both the UK and the US are tripping all over themselves to actually avoid an esclation of war and attack them. I understand that Iran is holding 15 British soldiers for alledgelly crossing the border between Iran and Iraq on a waterway between the two. I understand Iran wont use the UN and play the diplomatic game the way civilized nations do. I understand what is going on alright. This is all about not losing face alright. Regimes that govern by fear and oppression don't want to lose face, but don't give me this crap it is justified. Iran is holding these soldiers hostage. I understand that and I understand that Iran has human rights abuses that put them in the bottom third of Amnesty International's list of human rights abusers. I understand that any defense of Iran is a joke.

I understand plenty about the Middle East. I understand many of the people in these nations have no say in their government. I understand that oil mitigates much of what goes on here, and I understand the money from the oil is fueling the terrorism, the wars and the unneccessary military buildups in many of these nations. I also understand radical Islam and these military regimes in this area use power without regard for the consequences to their people or to how it effects their brother nations. I understand no one in their right mind wants to see Iran with a nuke.

So spare me what I don't UNDERSTAND about Iran and the Middle East. I also understand that Iraq is a mess and the US shouldn't have invaded if they didn't understand how to make Iraq a functioning democracy. I think you think I am naive, but I am not. I am honest and I am not going to sit there and try to defend the actions of many of the nations in the Middle East. Right now, more Muslims die at the hands of other Muslims in this part of the world than any amount of US Marines and Army Troops can even dream of, and THAT is the true abuse of these people.

I see poltics as not all or nothing, but a dirty mess that has done more to hurt people than help in this part of the world, but I wont fault someone for trying to make life better for people. I know I wouldn't trust the Iranians to do it.

The UK and the US have made a lot of mistakes, but tell me this: Even with all of that, where would you want to live? There or Iran?

Also, as for Ewan Blair joining the Army, that is such a weak cheap shot at the Blairs, it is beneath contempt. Tony shouldn't have to have his vision for what is going on based on what his kid does, and while it would be nice for a leader to have their own kids in the military fighting, it is ridiculous to expect Blair's decision to enter the war in Iraq would be different if his son was a soldier. I am sure Blair lives with the lives that have lost on his conscience.

Mark in Oshawa

2nd April 2007, 03:38

Do forumers know that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage-takers in 1979? American hostages from that incident (if a 444-day ordeal can be described as an 'incident') remember Mr. Ahmadinejad specifically.

I knew it, and what we are seeing now with the British soldiers being held hostage is in danger of being a similar situation. It is uncivilized and all Iran is doing is making an ugly situation worse. Iran wants to gain points with the West, they turn these guys (and woman) over to the UK and make their point known in the world court of opinion, the UN and the Hague. Iran is right now falling into all the stereotypes most of us detractors have of them. Everyone keeps telling me that Iran is just paranoid because of external threats, but their actions do not cover them in glory.

Eki

2nd April 2007, 10:31

Power to the people Eki! Overthrow the bully! That Dave Brockman's been going about his business trying to do the work of the UN (who you support when it suits you) for too long!
Yep, power to the people! I have said several times that I don't fully support the UN Security Council, since it's not democratic but run by the bully superpowers that Won World war II. I have also said at least twice that I want a democratic UN, one nation, one vote, no veto, where the US would have as much power as Iran, Taiwan as much as China and Finland as much as Russia.

Eki

2nd April 2007, 11:24

Mark in Oshawa

2nd April 2007, 18:10

Eki, I think the Brits would apologize IF the Iranians acted like a civilized nation, but alas, you prove my point exactly. Britain can afford to apolgize, but they will not grovel to get their troops back from a nation whose notions of justice are little odious. We wont even get into whether the British troops were in the wrong. I saw the video of them being put before cameras pointing out on a map how they violated Iranian waterways for the "Free Press" of Iran. I believe yet another example of the Geneva Convention being broken. I wonder what the threats were to get that little confession. OH right, Iran would NEVER resort to torture or mental torture to get these soldiers to do THAT now would they? Meanwhile, in Tehran, they argue over what to do with the soldiers, execute them or just hold them?

Civilized nations do NOT handle this situation in this manner. Furthermore, whether Iran has a claim to the waterway in question or not, the British Army was not going to stage an invasion with 14 men and 1 woman, so regardless of what Iran says, it was not an invasion or a spy mission. It wasn't a threat to Iran, and while embarassing to the UK, it does not justify the media circus and pain the Iranians are putting the families of these soldiers through. IF you can defend THAT, you truly must be delusionsal, but alas, I have seen you try to defend the actions of some pretty odious regimes Eki.

As for your view of the UN, I agree, get rid of it period, and not replace it all. There would be a good start. Your one vote one nation thing happens in the General Assembly, and all that happens there is the nations who hate the larger powers just vote in blocs to annoy the larger powers. Nothing really ever happens, except they condemn Israel about 20 times a year for things they do often, and they spend lots of money on lavish parties in New York.

The UN has been a joke for a long while, and while the larger powers that WON the second world war have made a mess of the Security Council, it is the only body in the UN that actually has the power to put troops in the field to fix problems. THe fact it doesn't is more a factor of realpolitik than anything else, and you wont avoid that no matter what kind of body you put together.

Get rid of the UN, and put a body together where member nations have to agree and be held to a high standard of human rights and free elections. Oh right, that means countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China and Russia need not apply. Is this enforcing my views on the world? Heck, if free elections and human rights are the price of admission, then so be it. I tell you this much though. That body made up democratic nations would have moral authority moreso than the UN, whose nations often use as a hammer to get after each other. We only have to look at Darfur and how the UN has been sidelined there to know how feckless an organization it is....

SOD

3rd April 2007, 00:32

Gannex

3rd April 2007, 01:57

Gannex

3rd April 2007, 02:45

Eki

3rd April 2007, 08:40

There has been both good news and bad news for British efforts to free the hostages. First, the bad news. President Bush has confirmed what Eki predicted as long ago as post 32: no way will America release the five Iranians they're holding in exchange for the Britons. Imagine that! Eki right about something!!!
Whatever people say about me, I know Bush. He's a taker not a giver. He won't help unless there's something there for him, not even when he's probably the root cause of the incident:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263480,00.html

Report: Iran Grabbed British Troops in Retaliation for Botched U.S. Raid in Iraq

Monday, April 02, 2007

A botched attempt by the U.S. to abduct two senior Iranian officials on a visit to Iraq 10 weeks ago was the flashpoint for the current crisis in which detained 15 British troops in the Persian Gulf, the Independent reported.

The U.S. move happened on the morning of Jan. 11, when forces carried out a surprise raid on an established Iranian liaison's office in northern Iraq, the newspaper claimed.

While the forces nabbed five junior Iranian officials, whom the U.S. still holds on accusations of being intelligence agents, the paper said the objective of the mission was to seize two men at the "very heart of the Iranian security establishment."

pvtjoker

3rd April 2007, 15:38

If the Iranians want to play then lets play. We're already in combat with these guys anyway.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html

SOD

3rd April 2007, 17:22

If the Iranians want to play then lets play. We're already in combat with these guys anyway.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html

you might want to ship your backside out there then.

pvtjoker

3rd April 2007, 17:30

you might want to ship your backside out there then.

LOL. Just say when.

I've there (Iraq) twice and scheduled for another deployment in '08. We're already fighting them now, might as well make it official and be done with them.

Eki

3rd April 2007, 17:41

LOL. Just say when.

I've there (Iraq) twice and scheduled for another deployment in '08. We're already fighting them now, might as well make it official and be done with them.
Wouldn't it be better first to be done with Iraq? Remember what happened to Hitler when he bit off more he could chew (invaded the Soviet Union before he was done with the Western Europe)?

SOD

3rd April 2007, 17:47

LOL. Just say when.

I've there (Iraq) twice and scheduled for another deployment in '08. We're already fighting them now, might as well make it official and be done with them.

you're still not done with the Iraqis.

Roamy

3rd April 2007, 18:03

bigger bombs less people I would say will do the trick

Dave B

3rd April 2007, 18:57

you're still not done with the Iraqis.
But then they weren't exactly finished with Afganistan before they started doing the whole shock'n'awe thing... :s

O&A Virus

3rd April 2007, 20:26

you're still not done with the Iraqis.

True, but another point is we're not just fighting Iraqis in Iraq -- never have been! Western Iraq is a hot bed for Sunni Muslim terrorists/insurgents (take you pick), while Eastern Iraq and Baghdad is crawling with Iranians and Hezbos.

O&A Virus

3rd April 2007, 20:27

bigger bombs less people I would say will do the trick

Which is probably what we'd do if the US does strike inside Iran. However, Iranian forces are already in Iraq.

Eki

3rd April 2007, 20:28

True, but another point is we're not just fighting Iraqis in Iraq -- never have been! Western Iraq is a hot bed for Sunni Muslim terrorists/insurgents (take you pick), while Eastern Iraq and Baghdad is crawling with Iranians and Hezbos.
You should have thought about that before you invaded. None of them wanted you there.

pvtjoker

3rd April 2007, 20:30

Wouldn't it be better first to be done with Iraq? Remember what happened to Hitler when he bit off more he could chew (invaded the Soviet Union before he was done with the Western Europe)?

Better analogy is the Korean War. US wasn't just fighting North Koreans, but Chinese...and Russians.

pvtjoker

3rd April 2007, 20:31

You should have thought about that before you invaded. None of them wanted you there.

Western Iraq is crawling with Al Queda sympanthizers now. Hell, even the Iraqi Sunni Muslims in that region are turning against them. Figure out Anbar Province, and you win the war.

Eki

3rd April 2007, 20:32

Better analogy is the Korean War. US wasn't just fighting North Koreans, but Chinese...and Russians.
How come? The US never invaded China or Russia like Germany invaded the Soviet Union. I wonder what would have happened if they had, or maybe we wouldn't be here to wonder.

pvtjoker

3rd April 2007, 20:39

How come? The US never invaded China or Russia like Germany invaded the Soviet Union. I wonder what would have happened if they had, or maybe we wouldn't be here to wonder.

Its almost happened. Macarthur wanted to drop the atomic bomb on China but President Truman "canned him" before it went any further.

BrentJackson

3rd April 2007, 20:53

Iran is proving just how ball-less the West is being right now. If memory serves right, the last time another nation took British citizens hostage hostage they got the sh*t kicked out of the them, and heck we just celebrated the 25th anniversary of that little battle. Maybe remembering the Falklands by telling the Iranians to give those servicemen (and woman) back, or ELSE.

As far as the UN goes, they have proven to be incredibly toothless. If they actually gave a damn, something would have been done in Darfur long ago, just like something would have been done in Rwanda in 1994, Zimbabwe in 2000, Israel and the Occupied Territories in 1988 and 2001, Ivory Coast in 2002, Cambodia in 1975, Lebanon in 1975......

As far as the new organization that only allows regimes with respect for human rights and that are free and open democracies, who wouldn't support that? At least by my count, there are lots of eligible nations.

Western Hemisphere eligible nations:
Canada, USA, Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay.

Africa eligible nations:
South Africa, Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, Somaliland, Namibia

Middle East eligible nations:
Israel, Turkey, Lebanon

Asia eligible nations:
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Malaysia

Europe eligible nations:
Almost all of them, only exceptions being Russia and Belarus.

Eki

3rd April 2007, 20:53

Its almost happened. Macarthur wanted to drop the atomic bomb on China but President Truman "canned him" before it went any further.
I'm glad Truman stopped him. China isn't the first country to run out of cannon fodder. They could have easily spared few million people.

Ian McC

3rd April 2007, 21:10

If the Iranians want to play then lets play. We're already in combat with these guys anyway.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html

If we went to war with Iran what would be the aim? If you did that and 'won' then what? You wouldn't be able to back out of there afterwards, would make the situation in Iraq as it is now seem like a walk in the park :s

SOD

3rd April 2007, 22:27

I'm glad Truman stopped him. China isn't the first country to run out of cannon fodder. They could have easily spared few million people.

just an aside

Funny how a guy like Nixon made a career about demonising communists. When he became president, he went off to meet with Mao. :laugh:

SOD

3rd April 2007, 22:30

bigger bombs less people I would say will do the trick

hey schwartzkopf,

that's what you guys did in 1991. You had a 6 week air campaign against Iraq. Then 12 years later you had to go back in because you were still scared of Saddam.

Eki

3rd April 2007, 22:31

just an aside

Funny how a guy like Nixon made a career about demonising communists. When he became president, he went off to meet with Mao. :laugh:
I don't find it funny. Even a blind chicken can find a grain sometime. I think Bush would do wisely if he went off to meet Ahmanijedad and Khamenei and talked about how they could settle out their differences.

Gannex

3rd April 2007, 23:36

hey schwartzkopf,

that's what you guys did in 1991. You had a 6 week air campaign against Iraq. Then 12 years later you had to go back in because you were still scared of Saddam.
It was nothing to do with being scared, SOD, it was a matter of law, and not biting off more than you could chew, as Eki would put it, since only the liberation of Kuwait had been planned for or authorised. The Kuwait liberation having been completed, according to international agreement, with a minimum loss of blood, the Bush Sr. administration concluded that it had no mandate to go any further. The US obeyed the letter of international law and declared their limited authorised mission accomplished.

What they shouldn't have done, and most veterans of that administration will agree, is give confusing signals to the Kurds and Shiites, encouraging them to believe an uprising against Saddam would meet with American support, when no such support had been planned for. That was a cruel mistake.

Roamy

3rd April 2007, 23:44

blow up the ****ing UN and move on

Gannex

4th April 2007, 01:38

If we went to war with Iran what would be the aim? If you did that and 'won' then what? You wouldn't be able to back out of there afterwards, would make the situation in Iraq as it is now seem like a walk in the park :s
What would be the aim? To set back their nuclear weapons programme by five years; that would be the aim. The method would be airstrikes, very powerful bunker-buster bombs, to destroy their underground enrichment facilities. "Winning" this war would be defined as having damaged nuclear infrastructure within Iran. So there would be no problem about what to do after winning it, no problem with "exit strategy". The exit strategy is to fly home.

I stress that I do not advocate airstrikes on Iran. I'm just trying to articulate what I think might be the aims of those who do.

SOD

4th April 2007, 01:44

blow up the ****ing UN and move on

not a bad idea.

and disband NATO while you're at it.

SOD

4th April 2007, 01:49

It was nothing to do with being scared, SOD, it was a matter of law, and not biting off more than you could chew, as Eki would put it, since only the liberation of Kuwait had been planned for or authorised. The Kuwait liberation having been completed, according to international agreement, with a minimum loss of blood, the Bush Sr. administration concluded that it had no mandate to go any further. The US obeyed the letter of international law and declared their limited authorised mission accomplished.

What they shouldn't have done, and most veterans of that administration will agree, is give confusing signals to the Kurds and Shiites, encouraging them to believe an uprising against Saddam would meet with American support, when no such support had been planned for. That was a cruel mistake.

I'd believe this if you can convince me that Saddam & Bush became friends after Gulf War 1.

Do you not remember the reports from 2002?

"45 minutes from doom"
mushroom clouds. etc..

The war was sold to the US & UK on fear. It was everything to do with being scared and to nab Iraqi oil assets.

i wonder how jobs are left at the JSG in Baghdad?

Eki

4th April 2007, 10:20

This looks promising. Not any childish "we only talk with the good" BS:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr04/0,4670,IranBritain,00.html

Britain Calls for Direct Talks With Iran

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

By TARIQ PANJA, Associated Press Writer

LONDON — Britain called for direct talks with Iran to resolve a dispute over 15 captive Britons Tuesday after its first contact with the chief Iranian negotiator. The announcement followed the sudden release of an Iranian diplomat in Iraq that raised new hope for resolving the standoff.

In a statement late Tuesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair's office said there had been "further contacts" between the two countries, including with chief international negotiator Ali Larijani.

"The UK has proposed direct bilateral discussions and awaits an Iranian response on when these can begin," Blair's office said. "Both sides share a desire for an early resolution to this issue through direct talks."

BDunnell

4th April 2007, 16:08

Well, it now appears as though they will be released.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6525905.stm

SOD

4th April 2007, 16:09

Well, it now appears as though they will be released.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6525905.stm

SkY news was talking to one of the sailors by phone. They could be back by midnight.

race aficionado

4th April 2007, 16:44

Oh the theater!

Fortunately diplomacy gets the upper hand here.

and the bottom line is, the soldiers will soon be home with their families.

Roamy

4th April 2007, 17:02

SOD

4th April 2007, 17:08

Roamy

4th April 2007, 18:12

oooohhhh can I snorkle there???

SOD

4th April 2007, 19:09

oooohhhh can I snorkle there???

you can have fun snorkling between the anti-marine-mine dolphins. :D

Eki

4th April 2007, 22:27

it is all a ****ing hoax to have dimwits believe they will negoiate fairly. This is one of the worst props I have ever seen. Could you guys come over and buy my oceanfront property in Arizona. Inexpensive too.
You should sell it to coyotes. Downtown Chicago isn't their natural habitat:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/04/chicago.coyote.ap/index.html

Coyote a cool customer at Chicago sandwich shop
POSTED: 12:07 p.m. EDT, April 4, 2007

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- For one day, at least, the roadrunner was safe. It seems the coyote was hankering for another kind of fast food.

Employees and customers at a downtown Chicago Quiznos sandwich shop were stunned to see a coyote walk through the propped-open front door Tuesday afternoon and lie down in a cooler stocked with fruit juice and soda.

"It wasn't aggressive at all," restaurant manager Bina Patel told the Chicago Tribune. "It was just looking around." (Watch the coyote take a rest in the cooler Video)

Roamy

4th April 2007, 23:19

yea eki but they like the meat at Quizno's

Malbec

5th April 2007, 21:41

Dylan, first off I wont waste my time following British poltics too closely because we in Canada have to pay attention to American politics........

Mark

I haven't been around for a while which is why I haven't been able to answer your post.

Re: British politics, we're obviously going off topic here but I do find it odd for you to admit that you don't follow British politics (and I agree re: your reasons for following American politics closely as a Canadian) but then assert a number of times that Blair is left of centre when he really clearly isn't. You may be using American politics as your guiding light when delineating left wing from right wing but by the standards of the rest of the world, Blair is no left winger. Claiming ignorance of a subject before strongly defending your position on it isn't the greatest way to argue BTW.

Re: your views on the Middle East, you mention Realpolitik without applying that to your thoughts. Realpolitik isn't about seeing politics through the prism of one principle, however noble that principle may be. Its about compromising those principles to achieve ends that are satisfactory to parties with radically different views on life.

I have NEVER stated I agree with the way the Iranians or any other party in the Middle East do things. However when you deal with other countries you MUST try to understand where they are coming from. Its all very well labelling Iran as a country led by fanatical Shia who want to take over the world but whats the point? Bush has done his decision making re: Iran using that train of thought and look where its got him. A little bit of Realpolitik and Iran could have been onside re: Iraq, or at least a little less offside. Lives, both Iraqi and US/UK, could have been saved with a little more consideration.

Trying to understand another groups viewpoint is not the same as endorsing them.

Your views of Middle Eastern countries which are based seemingly entirely on their human rights records won't help you understand any better WHY particular countries and groups act in the way they do, and will act in the future. The Middle East political scene is intriguing BECAUSE its so damn hard to understand and because its so Machiavellian.

FWIW, I'm not interested in moralising. I take no sides. None of the countries in the Middle East run things in a way I like, and I include Israel in that.

jarrambide

5th April 2007, 21:50

it is all a ****ing hoax to have dimwits believe they will negoiate fairly. This is one of the worst props I have ever seen. Could you guys come over and buy my oceanfront property in Arizona. Inexpensive too.
This is the mos brilliant hoax I have ever seen in my life, this hoax is so great, it even appears as if the 15 of them are already in Great Britain.

I tell you, this Iranians are masters of deceive.

Malbec

5th April 2007, 22:09

Well, it now appears as though they will be released.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6525905.stm

And its all over, they've all been taken to a military base for some debriefing and meeting up with families.

This whole thing has given a fascinating insight into the current state of play in Iran.

I don't think we'll ever know whether the hostages were taken deliberately or whether it was done on the spur of the moment by someone local, but it doesn't really matter because the whole process was defined by Tehran's reaction to it.

Last weekend it became clear that there was something funny going on as the British claimed that their diplomatic efforts hadn't really received any reply worth noting and the Iranians toned down their rhetoric a bit, showing less footage of the captured sailors. Then there were the stories of a political struggle in the Iranian national security council with a hardliner accusing a moderate of being a traitor and demanding he be put on trial.

Then all went a little quiet. The BBC reported today that Ahmadinejad who normally sits on the security council was barred from the meetings regarding the hostages, in return being promised the right to deliver the news of their fate himself. I can only presume that was a move by the pragmatists to keep a hardline idiot with little knowledge or understanding of the delicacies of diplomacy out of the workings. It also speaks volumes about Ahmadinejad's real power in Iran when he can be shut out of such important meetings that determine high level foreign policy. Can anyone imagine Blair or Bush being chucked out of similar security meetings?

Now we know that the pragmatists won, it'll be interesting to see if there will be any post-hostage changes in Iranian politics, if the Revolutionary Guards commander who made the accusations of treachery will be purged along with some of his colleagues, or if it'll be business as usual. I suspect the latter.

Signs are that some deal was made with Iran though, with the Iranians gaining access to the five RG guys arrested by the Americans and a kidnapped Iranian diplomat walking in off the street in Baghdad a few days ago, which raises the question... who was he kidnapped by? Clearly by someone who is strongly influenced by the Iraqi, US or British governments. And I'm sure the British will 'review' their procedures for boarding ships near the Iranian border too.

Overall, while Iran might have gained in some sense from the whole issue, the insights it gave the West into the current balance of power within Iran could prove far more valuable in the future, especially during another crisis ie the nuclear issue.

BDunnell

5th April 2007, 22:12

Overall, while Iran might have gained in some sense from the whole issue, the insights it gave the West into the current balance of power within Iran could prove far more valuable in the future, especially during another crisis ie the nuclear issue.

At the risk of being seen to agree with you too often ( ;) ), I have been thinking the same thing, and wondering whether this could actually have a strange positive effect on relations. It always helps to know your enemy a bit better, even if they don't always behave predictably.

Roamy

6th April 2007, 21:32

It is a great thing that the Brits are back and safe. Also their spoksman had a lot of class in his sorrow and recognition for the soldiers that won't be coming home.. We done Brits

Hazell B

6th April 2007, 22:12

This whole thing has given a fascinating insight into the current state of play in Iran.

Not that I've seen every scrap of news or followed it all in detail, but it has certainly given the people of the UK an insight.

Thing is, I have a rather unpleasant feeling it may be totally wrong as insights go. Am I the only one wondering if the UK captives were put where they were, easy to grab, simply in the hope that they would be taken and this could all play out? The UK knew they had somebody to swap should things get hairy, or the captives would become heros in the media if they died.

For the past few weeks the TV news has basically been telling us we shouldn't like or trust Iran. This is just the latest story. Soon there may be another.

Having seen the public turn against a war in Iraq, the government now seems to want us to dislike assorted countries in the hope that if another war does come along we won't complain as much.

viper_man

7th April 2007, 03:50

Wow, this whole thing has been completely insane. For starters I wasnt too sure if they were really being treated well, in some of the clips you could tell they were very nervous. Then I thought maybe they were being treated well, and Iran were using it all for propoganda to promote their own image and win some friends.

Now theyve come out and said they werent treated well at all, its all a mess again.

All I can say is very well done to the sailors. In every interview with the Iranian TV they gave very clever answers, never actually admitting anything, and always trying to be as calm as possible.

The questions now being raised are how did it happen in the first place, if a Royal Navy patrol was in Iraqi waters and a few Iranian units came to capture them, why didnt they just say "no, you wont be taking us" ?

Eki

7th April 2007, 09:05

Then all went a little quiet. The BBC reported today that Ahmadinejad who normally sits on the security council was barred from the meetings regarding the hostages, in return being promised the right to deliver the news of their fate himself. I can only presume that was a move by the pragmatists to keep a hardline idiot with little knowledge or understanding of the delicacies of diplomacy out of the workings. It also speaks volumes about Ahmadinejad's real power in Iran when he can be shut out of such important meetings that determine high level foreign policy. Can anyone imagine Blair or Bush being chucked out of similar security meetings?

I think it's better that there are many rather than one who decide if use of force is necessary, in case that one person happened to be incredibly stupid or insane. Cheney recently said that the US military answers to Bush and not to the congress. I think it's a bit scary. Bush could in theory use the military to make him a dictator for life.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/02/senate.funds/index.html

Cheney said Democrats are trying to push the president into accepting "unwise and inappropriate restrictions on our commanders."

"The fact is that the United States military answers to one commander-in-chief in the White House, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill," he added. "We expect the House and the Senate to meet the needs of our military on time, in full, and with no strings attached."

Mark in Oshawa

9th April 2007, 00:58

Well, rather than responsding to a lot of things while I was on the road making my living, here is a few thoughts:

One, the Iranians first published the position of the GPS they captured the Brits at and then when it was pointed out it was in IRAQI waters, they released another press release stating a new position. The Brit soldiers then came back from Iran and clearly stated YES they were in Iraqi waters because they had an GPS And were told to NOT go into Iranian waters. They knew were they were and the Iranians did this for their own reasons.

Two, a lot of people think that if we just TALK to Iran, things will be better. Maybe something good might come of it, but unlike you Dylan, I will never give any approval for a regime that abuses its own people to stay in power. I wont say that we shouldn't talk to Iran, but the talk should be very clear why the free world has problems with Iran and why we will draw a line in the sand when they try to export their dictatorial ways. I have no problem with Iran living in the dark ages, or any other nations, but when a nation exports terror or supports terror affecting other nations, they are a problem. When this same nation is after nukes, there is a problem.

This little stunt by Iran was designed to keep everyone distracted by the fact the world is closing ranks in being against the Iranian government getting nuclear weapons, and to try to discredit the value and the role of the UK and the US being in Iraq. What is being forgotten is the UK and the US will leave when people stop trying to kill them or blow them up. IF they pull out now, it shows weakness, in a part of the world where strength and use of force is respected, if not feared.

I love that the troops are home, and I know damned well some mental torture was applied to these troops. The Geneva Convention was run over more than once for sure, but I guess that is Iran in a nutshell. Now some might say the US is not always respectful of the Geneva Convention either with Gitmo, but lets face it, try on American Justice and Iranian Justice systems side by side, and tell me whose hands you would rather be in? Where would you get a fair trial?

Those soldiers were hostages of an illegal act, but hey, it came out well, and Who knows what the UK said or did to bring this about? We wont know, but I think the Brit's showed a lot of restraint and class in handling this, and Iran I think realized they were losing the PR battle. Believe me, that was supposed to be the whole point of this. That and to change the subject of the Iranian Mullahs going for Nukes. Sad, because the average Persian is a good human being.....

BDunnell

9th April 2007, 01:15

One, the Iranians first published the position of the GPS they captured the Brits at and then when it was pointed out it was in IRAQI waters, they released another press release stating a new position. The Brit soldiers then came back from Iran and clearly stated YES they were in Iraqi waters because they had an GPS And were told to NOT go into Iranian waters. They knew were they were and the Iranians did this for their own reasons.

This, to my mind, blew any possible negotiating position the Iranians may have had — beyond having the servicemen in captivity — out of the water. Not the best analogy, I know, but never mind.

Two, a lot of people think that if we just TALK to Iran, things will be better. Maybe something good might come of it, but unlike you Dylan, I will never give any approval for a regime that abuses its own people to stay in power. I wont say that we shouldn't talk to Iran, but the talk should be very clear why the free world has problems with Iran and why we will draw a line in the sand when they try to export their dictatorial ways. I have no problem with Iran living in the dark ages, or any other nations, but when a nation exports terror or supports terror affecting other nations, they are a problem. When this same nation is after nukes, there is a problem.

This little stunt by Iran was designed to keep everyone distracted by the fact the world is closing ranks in being against the Iranian government getting nuclear weapons, and to try to discredit the value and the role of the UK and the US being in Iraq. What is being forgotten is the UK and the US will leave when people stop trying to kill them or blow them up. IF they pull out now, it shows weakness, in a part of the world where strength and use of force is respected, if not feared.

None of these arguments make me think any differently about the war in Iraq and the ongoing presence there, nor about the role of the US, UK and their allies in the world, which I think needs to be reassessed. I feel passionately about this, as I hope you appreciate. And again I raise the issue of the success of negotiation in bringing peace to Northern Ireland, which, although a very different situation in so many ways, has demonstrated to me the value of talking to terrorists and the like. I realise why this is unpalatable to so many, but it has often brought results.

I love that the troops are home, and I know damned well some mental torture was applied to these troops. The Geneva Convention was run over more than once for sure, but I guess that is Iran in a nutshell. Now some might say the US is not always respectful of the Geneva Convention either with Gitmo, but lets face it, try on American Justice and Iranian Justice systems side by side, and tell me whose hands you would rather be in? Where would you get a fair trial?

I don't believe that the 'we are slightly better than them' argument is an especially compelling one. I agree with the basic point you make, but if the US (and other countries, for that matter) is going to criticise other regimes in this regard, it needs to be whiter than white. It isn't. Therefore, claiming the moral high ground strikes me as being problematic. People in countries such as Iran aren't stupid, as you point out. They see the news about Guantanamo Bay, for example.

Those soldiers were hostages of an illegal act, but hey, it came out well, and Who knows what the UK said or did to bring this about? We wont know, but I think the Brit's showed a lot of restraint and class in handling this, and Iran I think realized they were losing the PR battle. Believe me, that was supposed to be the whole point of this. That and to change the subject of the Iranian Mullahs going for Nukes. Sad, because the average Persian is a good human being.....

As you know, I am not in favour of the stance the US and UK have adopted in relation to Iraq, but in this situation, I am definitely not among those whose dislike of the conflict leads them to automatically believe that Coalition forces are in the wrong in incidents such as this, and that we should just capitulate for this reason. I think that this would have been deeply misguided and counter-productive. As it is, we have got off lightly — except for the dreadful newspaper articles that will follow, now that the personnel are being allowed to sell their stories...

Eki

9th April 2007, 10:11

Two, a lot of people think that if we just TALK to Iran, things will be better. Maybe something good might come of it, but unlike you Dylan, I will never give any approval for a regime that abuses its own people to stay in power.
In the last presidential elections, Iranians elected a hardliner instead of a moderate, probably because Bush had insulted their national pride with his rhetoric. Iranians, like people in other countries, don't like foreigners telling them what they may or may not do. I'm sure if the West became more moderate towards Iran, Iranians would eventually have a regime change by themselves if they wanted to. In the next elections they might elect the more moderate candidate, then someone even more moderate and so on until their regime is more liberal than Michael Moore.

Malbec

10th April 2007, 23:34

In the last presidential elections, Iranians elected a hardliner instead of a moderate, probably because Bush had insulted their national pride with his rhetoric. Iranians, like people in other countries, don't like foreigners telling them what they may or may not do. I'm sure if the West became more moderate towards Iran, Iranians would eventually have a regime change by themselves if they wanted to. In the next elections they might elect the more moderate candidate, then someone even more moderate and so on until their regime is more liberal than Michael Moore.

Part truth, part imagination.

The Iranians weren't allowed to vote for a moderate candidate in their last elections because none were allowed to stand. The candidates are selected so the scenario you portray won't happen.

Iranians are prouder than probably any other people on earth about their country, and are Iranians first, religious or secular, left or right wing a very distant second. Any attempt to attack Iran to achieve regime change will be utterly counterproductive.

Malbec

10th April 2007, 23:36

Two, a lot of people think that if we just TALK to Iran, things will be better. Maybe something good might come of it, but unlike you Dylan, I will never give any approval for a regime that abuses its own people to stay in power. I wont say that we shouldn't talk to Iran, but the talk should be very clear why the free world has problems with Iran and why we will draw a line in the sand when they try to export their dictatorial ways. I have no problem with Iran living in the dark ages, or any other nations, but when a nation exports terror or supports terror affecting other nations, they are a problem. When this same nation is after nukes, there is a problem.

I'm glad that people more openminded than you have been in place to run countries like the US.

Won't talk to people who export terror? How odd, did you support Canada having relations with the US when they supported the Mujahedin? the IRA? the Sandinistas? how about when they supported SAVAK?

Or were those groups not terrorists?

We will continue to face a problem with rogue states that have nothing to lose until we give them something to lose.

There are states like North Korea that are not interested in negotiation or changing their stance on any issue unless it is utterly to their benefit.

There are other states like Iran and Syria that have shown signs of willingness to make considerable concessions to acheive a mutually beneficial outcome. The reason I favour talking to them is by giving them free trade, and therefore jobs, investment etc you give them something major to lose. As it stands, they have nothing to lose so can continue acting in the way they do.

Its in your interests to engage with them, something that oughtn't be too hard to understand.

BDunnell

10th April 2007, 23:53

There are other states like Iran and Syria that have shown signs of willingness to make considerable concessions to acheive a mutually beneficial outcome. The reason I favour talking to them is by giving them free trade, and therefore jobs, investment etc you give them something major to lose. As it stands, they have nothing to lose so can continue acting in the way they do.

I do agree with your sentiments, but would question the idea that allowing these countries the chance to get a part of the free market economy encourages democracy. China seems to me to be the country that most disproves this theory.

Malbec

11th April 2007, 00:06

I do agree with your sentiments, but would question the idea that allowing these countries the chance to get a part of the free market economy encourages democracy. China seems to me to be the country that most disproves this theory.

There are two ways of looking at China. One is that giving free trade to them has not resulted in political reform, and the other is that it has. Following Deng Xiaopeng's death all Chinese premiers have been progressives with a history of handling the economy well, not the kind of hardliners like Li Peng who favour centralisation of power above all else. Would that shift in balance have occurred if China had been shut out post Tiananmen square and global trade/economic growth not been such a priority? There are moves afoot within China to allow the spread of democracy albeit slowly.

How would things have been if we had excluded them? A more nationalistic and aggressive regime perhaps? We'll never know, but I suspect that giving them access to free trade has affected them more than many people give them credit for.

And while China is equivocal when looking at the political benefits of free trade, IMO the rest of Far/SE Asia suggests that that approach works well.

Gannex

11th April 2007, 02:35

Mark in Oshawa

11th April 2007, 05:24

Well Gannex, the Yanks know a little about being tortured and the experiences of the US Airmen and soldiers as POW's in Vietnam, and it is true, people like John McCain were heroic in how they resisited. The difference I think in this case though is that the British Marines and Navy personnel likely have been told to just play along, and not try to be heroes. Why? Simple, no one in their right minds would believe that you could crack a Royal Marine in a week. Not and have the guy not be a babbling idiot. I think they played along ALSO to protect the female sailor. Likely one of the threats was if they played tough, they would take it out on her. It is one of the reasons I always feel that women in active combat are a detriment to the morale and organization when they are caught as POW's.

I think some American servicemen would have been tougher to crack, and some others wouldn't. I do know that Andy McNab's books told the story of his SAS unit captured by the Iraqi's in the first Gulf War, and it tells how how tough those guys were, and how cruel the enemy can be in this part of the world. They didn't give at all. The US military guys are not wrong in saying that they think it is a joke they capitulated, but none of them were there, and history says to me British soldiers are as tough as anyone's when the chips are down, and it likely was the reality of what might happen to the woman that bothered all of them. What is more, no one REALLY believes for a heart beat that a) they were in Iranian waters, and b) the propaganda Iran is spreading. You don't break Royal Marines if they don't want to be broken....and they had their reasons....

BrentJackson

11th April 2007, 05:49

In the last presidential elections, Iranians elected a hardliner instead of a moderate, probably because Bush had insulted their national pride with his rhetoric. Iranians, like people in other countries, don't like foreigners telling them what they may or may not do. I'm sure if the West became more moderate towards Iran, Iranians would eventually have a regime change by themselves if they wanted to. In the next elections they might elect the more moderate candidate, then someone even more moderate and so on until their regime is more liberal than Michael Moore.

This is one time where Eki is correct. Iran was one of the countries that as part of the coalition in Afghanistan, and their then-president Rajsafani was almong the first to call up Bush and ask what help he could give.

This is where area where Bush messed up, big-time.

The Brits handled this remarkably well, and with amazing restraint. I would told the Iranians to release my guys or else, the Thatcher approach if you will.

Malbec

11th April 2007, 13:37

I have reacted with quiet fury to these claims. I think the criticism is entirely unjustified. But I am very biassed, I realise, so I wonder what others think?

I'm not sure the criticism was unjustified.

Reading their accounts, it appears that the Iranians didn't physically mistreat them but employed very crude psychological techniques to break them down. Certainly nothing on a level with G'mo bay or Abu Ghraib.

I don't think it does the reputation of the British Armed Forces much good to read that one sailor cried like a baby after hearing guns cocked and uncocked behind him, or that he was called 'Mr Bean' by his captors. If thats all it takes to break down British troops heaven help us..... Sarge, that nasty Iranian guy over there called me 'Mr Bean'!

BDunnell

11th April 2007, 14:23

I would hesitate before criticising the actions of those personnel while in captivity because I presume that we only know parts of what happened. In addition, the idea that some members of the US armed forces feel that American personnel would have somehow been more heroic in that situation is a bit distasteful.

airshifter

11th April 2007, 14:57

I am in Colorado Springs at the moment and have been talking with folks at the US Air Force Academy about the British captives and the way our armed services have behaved throughout the affair. The criticism is very strong. First, USAF officers complain that it was incompetence of the highest order that the fifteen sailors and marines were in a position to be captured in the first place. This I can accept. They were inadequately protected during their operation. But the Americans' further criticism of the captives themselves I find much harder to stomach. I have heard repeatedly that the service personnel gave in to Iranian demands far too easily. They did not resist manfully, it is said, and unfavourable comparisons have been drawn between the way our sailors and marines reacted to Iranian pressure to be used for propaganda purposes and the way USAF personnel reacted during the Vietnam conflict when captured by the Viet Cong. Many of those pilots, it is pointed out, endured torture and imprisonment for years rather than allow themselves to be used the way our people were used. The Brits, on the other hand, were given a choice of cooperating in the Iranian propaganda effort, or being imprisoned for seven years. They immediately capitulated. They have shamed the British armed forces, these Americans are telling me.

I have reacted with quiet fury to these claims. I think the criticism is entirely unjustified. But I am very biassed, I realise, so I wonder what others think?

Gannex,

I suspect that the officers you spoke to have no idea of the entire situation, nor the difference in mission classifications between those captured by Iran and missions they may take part in. There is a huge difference between risking interrogation and/or possible tortue to withhold information which in some cases will have no affect or risk harm to others. Those senior in this capture may have well known that "cooperating" to some extent could help them, and more importantly lowered the risk to the junior military men and women of their unit.

The level of resistance a person gives must consider whether the information they volunteer will bring harm to others, aid those opposing, or have adverse affect on the others captive should they withhold it. A pilot may have information on specific targets unknown to the opposing side, yet in this case the operation as it was had already become public information.

In theory, incompetance is a factor in all captures, in reality it is often not the case and more a failure at the upper planning levels. You may wish to ask the Air Force personnel why Captain Scott O'Grady (the Air Force pilot shot down over Bosnia) was rescued by a Marine Corps unit rather than Air Force recovery personnel. I'm sure the answer won't include incompetance. ;)

pvtjoker

11th April 2007, 22:19

Gannex,

You may wish to ask the Air Force personnel why Captain Scott O'Grady (the Air Force pilot shot down over Bosnia) was rescued by a Marine Corps unit rather than Air Force recovery personnel. I'm sure the answer won't include incompetance. ;)

Being a Marine myself, I'm a bit bias, but else would the AF trust to save their a$s?

Eki

11th April 2007, 22:35

This is one time where Eki is correct. Iran was one of the countries that as part of the coalition in Afghanistan, and their then-president Rajsafani was almong the first to call up Bush and ask what help he could give.

That's just human nature. "You don't want my help and my friendship? Well, screw you, I'll make it even harder for you then."

Eki

6th June 2007, 22:38

Eki

6th June 2007, 22:54

Iranians detained three Finnish tourists fishing on Iranian waters. They have been released now, the same day they were detained. I'm sure Iran would have kept them longer if Finland had taken the same arrogant stance as Britain did with their soldiers. This is also a peculiarity of the Fox News. If the Stockholm police in Sweden had detained three Finnish tourists for urinating in a fountain, it wouldn't most likely have been news. But when Iranian coast guards detain three Finnish fishermen who had strayed in their territorial waters, it is news:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun06/0,4670,FinlandIranArrests,00.html
This is how the FoxNews lies. They weren't detained for several days:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun06/0,4670,IranFinnsDetained,00.htm

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran seized three Finnish men on a fishing trip near a disputed Persian Gulf island and held them incommunicado for several days before agreeing Wednesday to release them, the men's employer said.

Daniel

6th June 2007, 22:56

You do know talking to yourself is the first sign of insanity.

Newsflash Eki! Nobody cares!!!!!!

BDunnell

6th June 2007, 22:59

Iranians detained three Finnish tourists fishing on Iranian waters. They have been released now, the same day they were detained. I'm sure Iran would have kept them longer if Finland had taken the same arrogant stance as Britain did with their soldiers. This is also a peculiarity of the Fox News. If the Stockholm police in Sweden had detained three Finnish tourists for urinating in a fountain, it wouldn't most likely have been news. But when Iranian coast guards detain three Finnish fishermen who had strayed in their territorial waters, it is news:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun06/0,4670,FinlandIranArrests,00.html

Of course that is more newsworthy from an international perspective than a little local incident. I know that Fox News is pretty appalling, but this seems a very flimsy premise on which to have a go at something.

Eki

6th June 2007, 22:59

Newsflash Eki! Nobody cares!!!!!!
Well, it was funny how so many cared when some clown in Washington DC said Iraq was having weapons of mass destruction.

Daniel

6th June 2007, 23:00

Well, it was funny how so many cared when some clown in Washington DC said Iraq was having weapons of mass destruction.
Shut up already. You always bring it back to that. SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

race aficionado

6th June 2007, 23:04

Daniel.
Say what???????

:s mokin:

Daniel

6th June 2007, 23:18

Oh you're the person who likes Mac's.

I'll yet again launch into a speach on how I don't like Mac's just because that's my only reason for being on this forum :p

Live and let live I say! :)

BDunnell

6th June 2007, 23:51

Oh you're the person who likes Mac's.

I'll yet again launch into a speach on how I don't like Mac's just because that's my only reason for being on this forum :p

Live and let live I say! :)

I agree, I feel I must type from my Mac, which I love.

donKey jote

7th June 2007, 22:16

when you launch into a speach, daniel, what do you do with the stone? :p :

Eki

7th June 2007, 22:52

Of course that is more newsworthy from an international perspective than a little local incident.
Why? It's a common practice for most countries to detain for questioning those who unauthorized enter your country. Every now and then people from Russia stray into Finland or people from Finland to Russia. The border guards detain them for questioning and if there's nothing fishy about them, they'll be returned to their country of origin. It's not big news even nationally, let alone internationally.

Mark in Oshawa

12th June 2007, 21:33

Shut up already. You always bring it back to that. SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

Gee, how many times I have had this screaming in my head as I read yet another of Eki's constant anti-American tirades. Lets see, he thinks FoxNews lies, Bush is a criminal, their soldiers are terrorists and deserve their fates and after a while you realize Daniel nothing you will say or PROVE to Eki will change what he thinks of the world. He obviously comes onto this board his agenda, and you can get sucked into to trying to reach him. In your case, you just lost it and I commend you for putting it on the screen, because it makes about as much sense as trying to reason with him.

Eki, we know you hate Bush, Fox, the US Army and anything related to America while ignoring the real evils of the world. So just take a pill and go on about your business....

SOD

12th June 2007, 21:43

"while ignoring the real evils of the world"

don't look at me killing these people , look somewhere else.

It would help if arms dealers didn't sell their wares to the 'evildoers'

Eki

12th June 2007, 21:56

Eki, we know you hate Bush, Fox, the US Army and anything related to America
I admit Bush and Fox News, but "anything related to America" is too much. I for example like the Simpsons, which is a Fox show and funnily seems to have a better grip of reality than the Fox News.

Mark in Oshawa

12th June 2007, 22:47

Eki

12th June 2007, 23:17

SOD, I didn't say you did anything,but My point has always been for the amount of time Eki has wasted digging up dirt on the US and Bush, he has blythely ignored the opression of Tibet, the Uighers in Northern China, the Darfur situation, the massive amount of dead in Muslim nations of peoples seen as heretics or "Christians", the slaughter's in Sierra Leone and Liberia, and the loss of democratic rights and freedoms of people in Bolivia and Venezuela. The Yanks have a lot to answer for at times, but you can point to things they have done right and princples they have backed in a lot of issus where they didn't have a lot at stake as well. Eki's constant harping is boring, old and often not accurate....
The US State Department has for years been mouthing against those countries you mentioned so I don't have to do that. However, few governments dare to speak against the US let alone act against it, so who's going to voice their opinion if not private individuals like me? I don't miss the Soviet Union, but it had one positive side: It acted as a counter balance to the US. Now the US has no counter balance and answers to no one, it can run amok as it wishes.