No I am not. I am merely asserting that it is wrong to have a belief that there can be a cat and mouse game. If this inflated boat were to cross the waters of Iran, I think Iran has a right to capture it, even if it did skirt back into Iraqi waters. There is no tree no metaphoric tree too which people yell "i'm safe" because their hand is on it.



So I see, I tell you how I would see Iran as completely wrong, you quote me saying how I will agree with you(your side), then you make a statement saying...



Fact 1

The British have confessed.

Mrs P, MOIF, whoever who is now willing to state unequivically, that any confessions made under any duress, however slight is invalid?? For those who have this belief, then they have a perfect right to argue from the standpoint that a confession from Brits is invalid. Who stands on this line?? You Mrs P. If someone is captured and sent to Guantanamo, are you stating that all confessions retreived from there are invalid and untrue, or should at least be treated as untrue??

Fact 2

I previously linked an article that showed Iranian evidence a map of GPS location, from the captured Brits, of where the ships had previously crossed Iranian waters

Fact 3(which is really an opinion)

There has been an over emphasis that the boat and crew were in Iraqi waters when seized or when captured. There has been no clear denial from the British government that the boat or any other boats had ever been in Iranian water in the proceeding months, or weeks or days.

Also,

I invite everyone to check out this blog and the arguments below..... very,very informative.

It points out another crucial point. The British maritime dividing line is simply made up

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007...maritime_b.html


1. Did we ask Saddam, to do anything less?? once again, our side does not live up to our standards. We have to correct this.

2. The British can show the coordinates, since they have them supposedly, for the past month or even couple of weeks to prove none of their vessels crossed even their own drawn up line.



Iran has showed evidence in the same way that the British have showed evidence... GPS coordinates spewed over the airways.... and confessions, for those of us who accept confessions under duress.



hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah Now this is called audacity!! OBl, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq just some key words I thought I'd throw out there.
Further, that is exactly what Iran is talking about doing now.... putting them on trial.



No iranians get zipped tied and have a black mask thrown over their head if captured. They may get a ticket to abu graihb, they are far more lucky, huh Mrs P??

But offer me your analysis on this: Why is Tony Blair Ratcheting up the propaganda, adding gasoline to the fire?? What's more importat than getting his sailors away from Iran? What is his agenda??


MOIF


This just gets better and better. Are you saying that rape is a custom of muslims, or Iranians. Agenda...



What law is that MOIF



No MOIF, what evidence has GReat Britain produced?? GPS coordinate. What evidence has Iran produced?? GPS coordinates, and confessions which may have been exuded under duress. I assume that the Brits were way too close to a line, especially if the line was disputed, they should have given themselves a buffer. I know from western history that there is a lack of respect for sovereignty of non-western nations by western nations.



You are guilty??? of What???



civilized The UN is a tool of the West. Maybe we should debate this in another thread.

AGain I ask would you Navy chase a military ship into international waters?



So you are saying I am delusional for seeing western supremacy, or am I delusional for seeing it as wrong??



I have MOIF... flat out does/did majority of your country support your troops being deployed in Iraq??



Now we know why you ARE jaded...

Respectfully Mrs. P you are ignoring three things in Droop's arguement. The evidence linked to in this thread is far from final and I would be extremely hesitant to base a rebuttal on it.

One, the gps coordinates provided by the British were not from those in the inflatable boats but from a helicopter hovering above. If this thing ever saw some sort of court it would place more importance on the coordinates of the people themselves. And if I were the judge, I was warn the defense of a contempt of court for wasting my time with secondary coordinates when primary coordinates were provided. link

Two, the map drawn up on the BBC site is the first of its kind. That is they had their coordinates and arbitrarily drew a line around their interests to best suite their arguement. This is not an agreed on boundary line. IE so adhering to my side/your side of the line is rather moot considering the boundary has been in dispute for some time now. So instead of a my side your side arguement, we have a safe zone/disputed zone where we have an increased chance of running into trouble.

Three, Droop has made his arguement in the plural. If we ever have a third party examine the gps units provided by the Iranians, they show multiple excursions into the disputed area. This suggests the commanders either were totally neglegent of the territorial dispute or were woefully misguided in thinking the UN would give them blanket authourity. Or could it be they just didn't care? Either way says to me: unprofessional conduct. This isn't a my side, your side arguement anymore, this is a safe zone, disputed zone where anyone who enters the disputed zone incurs a risk.

Also, there have been details on the smugglers themselves which so far have been ignored. I've seen a few articles indicating this was a deliberately staged attempt on behalf of the Iranians. Here is one of them. link

This is relevant to our discussion because:

• this material adds credence to the theory of multple excursions into contested waters creating an opportunity for anticipation on the part of the Iranians.
• this material also implies the Iranians have been looking the other way on the previous excursions but because of diplomatic breakdowns involving a botched raid on an important official and a raid on their consulate - both which could argueably be taken as an act of war, the gloves came off.

Now I hope today's news of an easter gift is fulfulled, and not a fake out. If it is we have far less to worry about.

I have to agree with moif the Iranians awaited for the UK to be in a very weakened position, politically as moif has centered a good portion of his debate on, but also physically. Apparently the UK sailors and marines were ambushed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards at their most vulnerable- while they were climbing down the ladder of a ship to get into their little inflatable dingies without the cover of their helicopter and out of sight of their command warship. Have these facts been disputed? No. While all the apologists and conspiracists get caught up in the details of the GPS coordinates, what I would classify as the grace note, the fact remains that these men and women were ambushed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in a very aggressive and confrontational manner that was not matched or even warranted by the UK's own actions, GPS coordinates regardless.
What were the British invading with, their hip pistols? Did the UK have a reasonable justification for their presence? Did the UN even muster a concerned response to Iran's actions?
I would imagine if their was evidence of an attempt to invade or establish a covert operation the Iranians would have more evidence then their once blundered, then once corrected , GPS coordinates to offer.

So Iran was supposed to wait until they could put themselves into harms way? If someone is defiling my lawn do you think I'm going to confront them before or after they put down the baseball bat? I think any country would act in such a way that it would be the safest for them. Furthermore, how do you know Iran was "very aggressive"?

Maybe you just have a few too many pronouns here for me to understand, but could you please clarify this? Who has the baseball bat, and who is in harms way? How is Iran's (britain's?) safety even in question by Brits boarding fishing boats in international waters?

Sorry - just having a little trouble following this. I agree with you that there is no proof that Iran was 'very agressive' just wondering why some of us are defending Iran so viscerally when they are clearly just scoring political points with these poor sailors.

I love these types of debates. I like to see people talk about how their own government has so many evils but somehow one of the most oppressive governments in the world is good as the grass is green. I believe it's the mentality that anyone that opposes what they perceive as there enemy as there friend. Much like we did with the Soviets during WW2.

This is what I believe happened, these little dingy rubber boats may or may not have oops I went over the wrong couple of waves into the invisible huge barrier that is the border. The reason why I am leaning toward they didn't is simply Irans behavior and the timing of this. Right when the UN was voting on more sanctions this story grabs headlines, and now they are freeing the sailors. Despite Irans terrible human rights record they are posing to the world as "the good guys" or the "benevolent" ones which of course is complete nonsense for anyone that knows any history of the government.

The Newspapers read "Iran frees prisoners and treated them well"... LOOK see how GOOD IRAN IS?? And how EViL BusCHO and his FREiNDS ARE!! LOOK!!! (while in reality Irans government rapes and executes people that speak against the government in the background, and that's just the start)

Gotta love the press and the masses of useful idiots out there. Thats what Iran and the terrorists have mastered, the press. They know what 10 people will make headlines, just those other millions they know wont make much but a small column on a human rights report on page C-12.

Link.

Another victory for the Iranians. Thus Iran has violated the UN and demonstrated its power by emasculating the Royal Navy (on the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War). I wonder what tales these marines will tell upon their return though I shall be surprised if they retract their gratitude. It hardly matters anyway, the show has ended and the detritus will sink soon enough. The faithful have seen the might and power of the ayatollah's and the United Kingdom's reputation has taken a severe blow as planned. Here in the west, more fuel has been heaped upon the pyre of 'imperialism' by people all too eager to believe the worst of their own country.




Not as far as I can see. Iran has issued a confession, certainly but these soldiers do not speak on behalf of Great Britain. Its also interesting to note you use the word confession as if a crime has actually been committed by the British and not the Iranians. Once again you reveal your bias, or 'agenda' as you would have put it.


I have said many times on this debate forum. Guantanamo Bay is a profound mark of shame on your country. It is the depth to which your leaders desperation and frustration has brought you, a frustration borne by the inability of your nations laws and law makers to provide the means by which to defeat a global jihad which can afford to send suicide bombers to murder thousands of your citizens at no great cost to itself. It is the precarious situation your nation finds itself in that has led to your soldiers and leaders resorting to human rights violations.

The problem with your comparison is, this thread is not about Guantanamo Bay and neither is the moral issue at hand. It is about Iran taking UN soldiers hostage and using them as a political propaganda tool to attack their country, and the lack of concern this has caused in the UN.


Words of wisdom from a self proclaimed 'prominent critic of Western policy in the region'. An associate of George Galloway! You might just as well have asked me to read the opinions of Achmadinejad for there is no real difference between the two.

And if indeed the boundaries were made up as this man claims, then what of it? That just as equally negates Iran's claim to territorial waters as it does Iraq's.


No. I'm saying (for the third time) that you are demonstrating a willingness to accept customs which go against western morality, that if you will excuse one crime then you'll just as easily excuse another.


Sharia.


Agenda...


Again. Agenda. The UN is not a tool of the west. If it were, then the UK would have received the backing it wished for instead of the indifferent neutrality the UN adopted. The UN is not a western tool. If anything it has become the rope which is being used to hang us. The UN is a farce and the philosophy of tolerance which founded it has allowed the intolerant to set the agenda. The UN does nothing to upset the status quo, thus nothing ever changes once the UN gets involved.


Both, though the latter is a product of your own paranoia


I just told you so.




Because any old stick will do to beat a wicked dog.


edited to fix formatting

I have to admit I am also confused by your comments psyclist, even tho they are directed at me. I also fail to see how your example of when aggression is appropriate even relates to the topic.

As for your comments questioning my use of the term "very aggressive"... you seem to argue from some hidden knowledge of what the British sailors and marines intent was when they were ambushed, do you care to share it with us all? Are you claiming this was not a routine boarding of a vessel by mandate of the UN ? If not what was it? Were they in fact invaders? Were they in fact spies? Did Iran as it claims have every right to try them for espionage?
Altho. truth be known the IRI never requires much proof or even occurance of a crime in order to detain a person or try them for execution, something the Iranian people are far more familiar with than us Westerners with our lovely Persian gifts.
Read those links I provided because while you sit here and defend the IRI's right to self defense with the aggressive means they used towards their British captives, you also defend their same tactics and aggressive actions they use towards the millions of other captives living in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Too bad they rarely warrant the attentions of our media, or even the attentions of those who claim to champion the rights of other's.

I said very aggressive because I read accounts of how the MoD claims these men and woman were caputred and I believe my wording is fitting....the UK claims that the Iranians attacked when the British were at their most vulnerable, which is very aggressive. They claim that the Iranians came "very heavily armed" which I think again justifies my use of the word very and they also claimed that the Iranians ambushed the British in three minutes time..which is not only very fast (40 knots fast to be exact) but is also seems to be very well planned and orchestrated ( I first posted to this thread threats IRI officials made in regards to the IRI's ability to perform kidnappings weeks ago) and is yes very aggressive.

Ugh. I cringe at words and phrases like the following:

bucket: ambushed
moif: people all too eager to believe the worst of their own country
Hobbes: hostages
droop: "brown" skin
...
I could go on.

All these and other phrases ruin the debate. Is there no room for things like facts in this thread or are we all just trying to score points?

Yes, the British are our allies. Yes, we need to support our allies. Yes, Iran is a controversial nation. droop has taken an unpopular position by arguing from Iran's perspective; some of his statements have been way off base, in my opinion; others have been insightful. Iran could have a legitimate claim if there was a border violation. It all comes down to he-said, she-said. We will never know.

Many folks, instead of arguing the facts that we have, are instead arguing how bad Iran is. This is irrelevant. Let's not confuse our dislike of someone as impugning guilt (or inherent wrongness). This is what confirmation bias is all about.

It is time to analyze who came out with more political power given the recent announcement that the sailors will be released. Iran comes off looking very good. Pres. Ahmadinejad pardoned the sailors and announced their release to honor the birthday of the prophet Mohammed. From the perspective of the Iranian people, he appears to be very powerful. Concessions were made by Britain and the US; Iranian diplomats that were seized earlier in Iraq were released in coordination with the sailor's release. This confrontation exposes the weaknesses of the British and the US. Neither country has the political support to engage Iran militarily, and some would argue, that the US lacks the military power as well, though I don't agree. Whether the sailors trespassed on Iranian waters may never be known. I surmise that this confrontation was a result of Bush's unilateral foreign policy and unwillingness to hold talks with Iran. Change is coming; The Democrats in Congress are getting bolder everyday. Nancy Pelosi's visit to Damascus is a sign that Pres. Bush is becoming obsolete.

logophage

I don't know what else to call it. I constantly see people apparently willing to argue any point, no matter how dubious, just so long as it reflects badly on their own country through some personal sense of morality. What is that if not an eagerness to believe the worst of one's country?

The border issue is utterly irrellevent because it can never be resolved to universal satisfaction.

What is important here is the political ramifications of what Iran has done and in this context, Droop has offered nothing short of a surrender. I see nothing insightful or useful in what he has said at all for his perspective is fundamentally hostile to the British simply because they are British.

These kidnapped soldiers were undertaking a lawful UN mission. Iran, as a member of the UN is bound by its own signiture to honour the UN and not take its personnel hostage. The UN is bound by its own charter and its honour as the foremost international forum, to ensure people who risk their lives in its cause are offered every guarantee of its protection.

The UN consistently fails to offer this protection. It has failed in this matter also, allowing itself to be used for petty political gain by Russia and Iran and once again we have seen a demonstration as to how our own laws and instutions have become weapons turned against us by the global jihad and those who appease it for personal gain.

logophage it is a fact that the word ambushed was the word the MoD chose to use to describe the Iranian actions in their briefing after the event.
"Debriefing of the helicopter crew and a conversation with the master of the merchant ship both indicate that the boarding team were ambushed while disembarking from the merchant vessel." link

I chose the word purposefully because it supports the account of the event that I support and by using this word I clearly define my position. I don't think it is dishonest or some how indicative of my desire to over look facts in regards to this issue. How is supporting the MoD's account of events a dishonest position or as you claimed a position only in pursuit of self promotion?

Ok note to self, dont post at work while under a time constraint.

What I was trying to get at was that any country would take the "path of least resistance". Bucket is assuming that since Iran got the soldiers as they were going down the ladder then it must've been "very aggressive" and an "ambush". In my opinion this means nothing. To me it makes perfect sense that if Iran is going to bring in soldiers for violating their soverignty (whether right or wrongly), they would do it when it is least dangerous to Iran's own soldiers. Coming in heavily armed against a country whose military could level you any day and doing it swiftly does not mean it was "very aggressive" or that it was an ambush...it means they were smart about it.



No, I don't claim to have hidden knowledge. I just didn't automatically assume Iran was "very aggressive".


Care to share?

You know, Moif is quite right.

What a large percent of this entire debate comes down to is the idea that universal acceptance may never be gained, about exactly who encroached on whose boundaries. Do we use the UN's boundaries? Do we use the US boundaries? Do we use the Iranian's boundaries?

What kind of a sick nation do I live in when even American's, the stalwort allies of the British, in an effort to promote some sort of cosmopolitan mindset argue that it's possible that the Iranian government is not lying about their GPS coordinates??? Who's boundaries do we go by? The ones set years back by the UN? Or the ones that change daily, set by Ayatollah's?

My God. I can't imagine where the US would be today if we had allowed sicophants to declare that the Lucitania deserved to be sunk. That Pearl Harbor was asking for it. That Japanese aggression was just in the face of American international law. And believe me these points were made back in the early 1930's. But, where would we be if we had allowed that sort of mentality to rule our policy making???

Can anyone here claim that Iran was just in kidnapping and holding hostage these sailors? NO! The answer is purely, NO. And I don't want to hear a lot of mumbo jumbo about devils advocates, playing with fire will get you burned.

This is the real deal. People are dying, and more are going to die. Don't doubt me when I tell you that US generals have set a time table for war with Iran. Don't doubt me when I tell you that strategic airstrikes have been planned for this summer! Don't doubt me when I tell you that Israeli Generals are helping US generals plan this. Bob Levinson isn't missing for no reason at all! Please wake up! Stop playing devils advocate for a nation whose leaders would string you and the ones you love up by your toes and bury you in lard.

What flavor is the Kool-Aid you are drinking?

I want to focus on the last paragraph because the rest is unrelated. When you say real deal, what deal are you talking about? People are dying. What people? More are going to die. Where? Who? Strategic airstrikes are planned. Against whom? And for what reasons?

Some people are not playing devil's advocate, they actually believe, and I speak for only myself when I say this, that our foreign policy is the base for most of the international problems. Where do you get these references about stringing you up by your toes? You sound like a crazy man.

Actually, some of us just don't automatically assume the West can do no wrong. Some of us have the mental capacity to look at a situation from a perspective other than Fox News or their own ignorant ill-informed bias. Some of us take the time to do our own research and think of other reasons as to why a situation has come about. Stop and actually think outside the box for a minute. A country with a far superior military labels you part of the axis of evil, refuses to open diplomatic channels with you, starts drumming up excuses for attacking you and now you see their military vessels potentialy invading your soverginty...what the EDIT do you expect?! You don't think Iran is just a little bit paranoid? Wouldn't the government of Iran be remiss of their duties to protect their people of a potential threat?

You can dance around the fact that you think I'm a traitor and destroying America. That's fine, but I think the general myopic, unwaivering, unempathetic, warmongering opinions is what got us into this cluster EDIT in the first place.


Edited to remove attempts at bypassing profanity filter. -Jaime

Nobody was saying you were a traitor and destroying America. Watch the over-reaction there.
If anybody said something about you, it was that they didn't understand your analogy, or at the most of labelling you being able to see the other side of the issue. Which, as I would take it, is a small compliment.
Not all of us watch Fox News and i can guarantee you NOBODY assumes the West is this perfect region with no problems. Ever heard of the World Wars? Holocaust? The war we're in now? How about the approval ratings of the war. Those show how people dont see us as capable of no wrong.
Iran was instigated, right or wrongly, into possibly protecting their political interests. Not their borders. The British might/ might not of crossed an invisible and constantly changing line in the middle of the ocean. Its not like the British landed in Tehran to collect intelligence, or even went into a port. it was in the middle of the ocean!
If Iran was worried about their borders, they would've taken a cruiser out to the little dinghy and tell the British to move away from their boundaries. But if Iran wanted political gain, and their hostages back, they would take innocent or not Brits, knowing the U.S. was an ally, then suddenly act like the nice guy and give them back.
And psyclist, the whole worlds not against you. I'm sure every one of us well-informed citizens are as mad as being lied to and being dragged into this war, but please save the rants.

1. I personally think the capture of these Royal Navy sailors is part of a ongoing Iranian campaign (see also the Iranian nuclear program) to defy the powers of the western world. Iran / the Iranian government wants to make a signal to the rest of the world (especially the countries in the Middle East) that they are not afraid of the threaths and combined might of the West. I think one could even argue that this incident is part of an Iranian effort to become the leading nation in the Middle-East. Why did they did this at this time? Like the rest of the world, the Iranian government sees that the leading western military powers (the U.S. and Britain) are struggling in Iraq and and Afghanistan and are weakened in their military capabilities to act against a new threath. They know very well that these nations cannot open up another front and are using this weakness for their own benefit.

2. Diplomacy is all that should be done at this moment. Britain has not the military capability to back up any military threaths.

3. They are not looking for a war. They wanted to make a statement to the rest of the world: we are not afraid of you, we do as we please.

droop224 I am going to only address one part of your diatribe. The simple answer is yes. Once you leave a nation's territorial waters ALL of their rights cease period. Since you are complaining about the British that may have entered Iranian territorial waters what about the Irans that did enter Iraqi waters? The actions or non-actions of the Royal Navy do not ever negate the Iraqi sovereignty.

Ships have the same rights and the national territory of the nation of the flag they are flying. Meaning that boarding them without permission of the country under whose flag they are flying is considered the same as an invasion of their country when they are not within the territorial waters of the boarding country.

Geneva Convention Maritime Laws







So the boarding by Iran of a vessel in Iraqi waters was an act of Piracy. Add to that the invasion of a neighboring country makes two crimes that the Iranians committed. Then the threat to try the Royal Marines and Seaman for obeying legal orders is a war-crime. Puts the Iranian government on the wrong side regardless of the prior actions of the Royal Navy.

BTW- Loreng- I am counting somewhat on your knowledge of the ME- but look here

Who decided which is Iraqi and Iranian waters? I believe the BRITISH drew those maps, just as they made Kuwait a nation that really wasn't- and to be fair- most of the ME was a screw up because of the maps the British drew. If the BRITISH are the ones that drew the map, and Iran NOR Iraq agreed to those boundries- then, really, it is no one but the british that have to be blamed for plying contested waters- noone asked the Iranians if this was a border- now did they?


- not that I have any love for the Iranian oppressive regime- but it is also no more or less oppressive than the Iraq goverment CURRENTLY in place, the Kuwait goverment (though I do note that they will be allowing females to vote- I still believe only 15% of the population is actually a citizen)- Saudi Arabia- well, they are all equally oppressive, and still stuck in the 7th century.

Also - on one hand, you tell us that the UN is anti-Isreal, and all the resolution's against Israel mean nothing- however, we pick and choose when we want to like a resolution and when we don't enforce one- we have no credibility on this issue (we being the western nations)

JL- our goverment has lied to us SO many times in the last 50 years- what makes you think any word from the Brits or the US is any better than anything Al-Jazera has to say-

That would be the double standard

WE torture someone into confession- it is legit- they do it, it isn't

How do you expect any credibility for Blair, or anyone else- saying "oh, the confessios were co-erced"- wehn we do the same thing, then claim it was legit confession>

That is the crux of the matter- our own double standard in these situations.

Loreng- as far as I am concerned- the British navy has 0 legitimacy in ANY waters in the gulf, since they arbitrarily drew the borders- and anything that happens to thier soldiers in those waters is a result of thier meddling at this point.

Might makes right sometimes, but, like the US, the UK is pretty much stretched too thin to make too much of an argument at this time.

CR - That is a lot of questions to answer at once. I will give it my best shot.

The waterway boundaries were not drawn by the British. They were done by the Iraqis and Iranians, I believe that it may have been under the Shah, but please don't quote me on that.

I believe that all of the Arab governments are totally repressive. Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the whole lot of them.

As for the UN Resolutions, that depends on how the resolutions were written. The Security Counsel Resolutions are international law. General Assembly Resolutions are recommendations. This is straight out of the UN Charter (another international law). Not all UNSC resolutions are equal either. Those that are drawn up under Chapter 7 are resolutions that carry consequences for violating, whereas Chapter 6 resolutions do not have any consequences. Meaning those resolutions drawn under Chapter 7 can carry sanctions for violating them. Iraq has been under Chapter 7, the current resolutions dealing with Iran are also under Chapter 7. All of the resolutions dealing with Israel have been under Chapter 6.

Do I believe the British more that Al-Jazera? I would have to check personally anything Al-Jazera puts out. I know for a fact that they lie as much as any Arab government, which is twice as often as any Western nation. As for the truth, the first set of GPS coordinates that the Iranians gave matched the British coordinates, and they issued a new set when that was pointed out to them. In other words they proved the British were telling the truth. The Iranians have shown repeated that they lie about everything. After a while I get to the point that I assume that they are always lying.

As for the British, they didn't draw the boundary and second they are there enforcing a UNSC resolution.

We maybe very thin on the ground right now, but Iran is extremely vulnerable and if they are allowed to continue, they will only become more dangerous.

No instead you automatically assumed that the UK was the aggressor. Your analogy even tho not very clear seems to ask us to consider a time when self defense is warranted, meaning you felt someone was acting aggressive..yes? Who? And why? I don't attack the mailman if he steps onto my yard, as I know he has reason and authority to be in my neighborhood.

I also did already share the MoD's press briefing....

MOD briefing shows Royal Navy personnel were in Iraqi waters

Loreng- thanks for that stuff, I do know that the british pretty much drew up Iraq, Trans jordan etc.


However, I feel that, in the terms of lying- I feel this way- BTW- I am under no delusion that somehow the UK is more oppressive than any ME country- want to clear that up first - however- I feel that when western goverment lie to us- they are simply more sophisticated in thier propaganda, not that they lie less, it is that they lie better

This sticks in my head so much, because of all the propaganda I was led to believe about the former USSR, and how I too believed that US policy really had any impact on that countries leadership choices- and how false that truly is.

Loreng- you may remember this- I believe a poll was taken of Arabic country citizens, and they polled like 80% belieiving America was like more than 70% Jewish in population- I mean, that means like 210 million jews now, just in America alone - it is mind boggling to me that someone can have THAT strong an opinion of something the clearly know nothing about-

and I would say it is even worse in our direction- Americans really have no idea what other countries are about, we are probably the most stupid and ignorant population for a developed country on the planet-

I actually had an arguement with COLLEGE GRADUATE who does not believe me when I tell him on the phone that Alaska is part of America

So, I doubt news, of any type, an I believe our own pro-US press less than I believe Al-Jazeera- mostly because, when they are spouting stupidity, it is so stupid you can spot t for yourself, whereas the American propaganda is so good, you will doubt what you see with your own two eyes- or

like Homer Simposn said when the TV contradicted what he knew with his own eyes "But TV said it was real, so it has to be real, oh TV, please let's not have this argument again"

The sailors are now saying they were within Iraqi territory.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17980167/

I'm still trying to figure out how the Iranians tortured this confession out of these British troops after they returned to the UK. Clearly we know based on positions taken by many folks on this thread that the Iranians can't be trusted (thus, what they say must be false). They must have done some sort of intensive programming to make these soldiers lie like that.

You've lost me, logophage. Perhaps we are reading this differently?

They stated in this article that what they said in Iran was under duress, and not true. They said this because they were threatened with seven years' imprisonment. They are now maintaining that they were in Iraqi waters, as the British said, not Iranian.

What confession?

I've not seen anything credible to suggest these British soldiers were any where but where the UK government said they were.

Yeah, I read "Iraqi" as "Irani". My mistake. Not enough sleep for me

I don't see why it matters where they were at when seized or even why they were seized. International Law is optional, has been for the West for a long time and now the Iranians are figuring that out for themselves. International Law didn't keep the Brits out of Iraq. Last time I checked, the Security Council has to authorize an invasion. They didn't do so, they stood by and watched as the US and UK invaded illegally. Resolution 1441 was passed, Saddam allowed inspectors into his country and the invasion still took place. We know there weren't weapons and so International Law is just a bunch of nonsense. The Iranians are taking a Western position. And the Western position is very simple, "What are you gonna do about it?"

This is fairly irrelevant to this thread, but I think worth following up on. Could you please say exactly what it was you checked that stated this, as it goes pretty far beyond what I was aware the powers of the Security Council were. I don't think any nation on the Security Council (or any other nation in the U.N. for that matter) ever legally gave up its right to act unilaterally if it so saw fit. The U.N. has the ability to investigate such an action if it so saw fit, and pass resolutions or take other action against the aggressor if it decided to do so.

We'll start with the UN Charter, which the US has used as toilet paper since they became a signatory. Take specific note of Chapter 1, Article 1, Subsection 1 and Chapter 7 Article 41 and 42.
Article 1:And Article 41 & 42:The US and UK didn't like the Security Council's decision so they said, "Flip off, we're doing it anyway." Nobody did anything about it, so here we are; a war in Iraq, captured British sailors, and you suggesting International Law means something. It doesn't, so stop pretending it does. Stop making arguments about latitudes and longitudes, international maps, or treaties, because none of that matters. The Iranians said, "We're taking your sailors. Do something about it." The Brits responded, "We can't, we don't have the military power available, and we lack the political power to get those resources. You win this round, what do you want?" Iran got its apology, Guantanamo Bay-style, and their diplomats back. A clear political victory for the Iranians because they caught the Brits at the opportune time.

Actually, the Security Council made no "decision" on the matter either way....but you must know that because we've argued this before, ad nauseum. "May decide" doesn't translate as "must decide"...and it never has, because it would have required that all 150+ nations submit authority over their own security to the UN, something few if any would do today, and far fewer would have done at the time the UN was formed.

But even to use your erroneous logic, if you feel that Iran is "playing by our rules" by taking ships in Iraqi water that are performing a UN mission, and we are somehow powerless to resist them you are in error. We could bring large armed ships to protect those smaller ones...we have a very successful past precedent for it too. But this would be called "escalation" and something we don't want. I'm sure the Iranian government in response would wring their hands and blame our "aggression" to protect those forces on any subsequent actions they make. Which might be part of the large plan, actually.

I remember specifically watching the ambassadors of all nations involved breaking talks because they were at an impasse. Three of the permanent members of the Security Council were threatening to veto a resolution authorizing war and the US ended discussions and carried on with their plans for invasion. Now I realize you are prone to using interpretations so flexible that they would impress the most accomplished contortionists, but the fact of the matter is the UN was created to maintain peace, it says so in Chapter 1, Article 1, Subsection 1, Sentence 1. If there was a viable threat to the United States in Iraq the Security Council would have supported some kind of solution. The lies that were sold to the American people weren't being bought by the members of the Security Council because they had information that our government shields us from, like the fact that there were no WMDs. We broke International Law. We are obligated to the tenets of the UN Charter and we disregarded them for reasons known only to the members of the Bush Administration and his advisors, like David Frum. Yet you seem to miss my argument, I state over and over again that International Law is hogwash. It means nothing. The only thing that matters is what the powerful want to do. They find a way to justify it through strength. That's what matters here is power, not Law.

I find your quotation marks around the word aggression to be rather amusing. You are aware that we are in their land aren't you? That's how far gone you are Mrs.PigPen. You actually believe that the Iranians defending their waters is an act of aggression against the US and UK, the foreign invaders. If you want to get back to reality, take a hard left.

Now you have truly lost me. You yourself admitted that the Iranians took the sailors in Iraqi water (something you pointed out as an irrelevancy to you). Now they are simply defending their waters against US forces, and any act to protect those naval forces in Iraq, acting under the UN, would be a direct act of aggression against Iran somehow (though no ships would be in Iranian waters). Okay, that's about all I can stand of this argument. I find this to be a very frustrating thread, the most frustrating I've seen in a long time.

MOIF


Fair enough, since that is what I meant. The British sailors captured confessed. Sorry if I confused you.

I use the word confession because that is what they did... do you need a link or have you seen it yet?? I didn't know calling something, what it is, is bias. Even if you think the confession was bogus, people still call it a bogus confession You are really failing in this debate to be nitpicking like you are over me using a word




Way to dodge a question. Let's keep is simple this time. I ask again who is now willing to state unequivically, that any confessions made under any duress, however slight is invalid?? That was my question, what is your answer?



Boy I love it. What it is saying is that Britian didn't have the respect for Iranian sovereignty to give it self a buffer zone. It also states that if the line was not agreed upon by Iran and Iraq, then Britain was misleading us the MINUTE they put up a board saying "this is the line." By what authority was/is that the line??

Now, the Iranians did use the same map to illustrate the their evidence, but between iraq/iran there is no clear line. Now that is not to say there was no area that both sides respected. However seeeing the nemeral times that Britain supposedly crossed into Iranian waters, you can see a pattern of disrespect.



Would someone neutral please click on the link that MOIF supplied. And comment.

MOIF brings up the fact that I would condone Iranians raping women. I ask him why did he relate rape with Iran. He says it about me supporting their laws and customs... I ask him, what law is he refering to that condones rape?? He links a website and says Sharia....

The website is somebody debating somebody that says Sharia does not condone rape. Unbelievable... MOIF this is why I say you (but, not just you) have an agenda. You've tried to hard to demonize Iran to the point where you say they condone rape in their laws and customs.... you have been exposed.



Logophage




I'll try to knock this out, though I am doubtful because I refuse to take this debate too far off track. Please don't cringe at my comment about western domination over brown people. How many nations have have been created within european continent to include Russia by non-europeans in the last 200 years?? How many countries considered to be "Western" have at some time in thei history colonized a non-western nation. How many non-western nations have colonized western nations.

Israel just got created in the 50's in the middle of Middle Eastern Countries, South africa was ruled by whites till late 80's and moving into what MOIF was saying the US has sanctions on Cuba though the U.N. has voted for The U.S. to lift it.

And I'm not trying to debate any of these things here... just wondering why my remark made you cringe??

MOIF, you believe I have an Agenda by saying the U.N. is a tool of the West. However what else can you call it. As Mrs P pointed out in a previous debate, only votes made by the security council are enforcible. And the security council is rigged with only 5 permanent members having Veto powers. So, the UN is made to give legitamacy to a cause when the vote is in our favor, but when it does not follow our wishes it becomes irrelevant. When it is to are benefit we use it... When it does not help us, we discard it, that is why I call it a tool of the West, and it works in a way that no enforceable vote can be cast against any of the permanent members.



MOIF in your country Denmark only 10% of the nation supported going to war in Iraq without U.N. authorization, which we did not have when we entered. Yet, your country did as we said not as your people demanded.

Bucket


Bucket your links on't even talk about this incident they talk about legal matters in Iran. What does a woman getting stoned for cheating on her husband have to do with the situation at hand.

Secondly coming armed is definately aggressive, but from a militarily speaking, every one is armed so I guess every kind of capture would have to be defined as "very aggressive". How else do you capture someone that is also armed??

C-Whey
I feel like I am defending my position more than Iran. The fact is that if someone comes with an alternative opinion they are attacked. Like I just criticized Bucket, if you look many people are just trying to paint Iran as evil. Few are looking at it from the standpoint... what would the U.S. or Britian have done given an enemy ship moving in and out of their perspective waters.

I don't really have much to add to this thread, but I thought that those debating this issue might find this interview interesting: From LiveLeak.

This is an interview with Captain Chris Aire, done before the incident. Notice that he does say one of their duties is to gather intel on Iranian activity. It's probably a good thing no one in Iran apparently saw this!

I'm not dodging the question. I assumed the answer was obvious. Any confession made under duress is invalid. It goes without saying.

What I find odd is that your so willing to accept such a confession when it comes to British marines confessing to their Iranian hostage takers that they were trespassing. A confession that since been withdrawn I might as well add.


And here you go again. What evidence do you have that the British tresspassed into Iranian territory. You have nothing. You have a confession that you bandy about as if it were the proof of a crime, whilst at the same time asking people to renounce such unreliable testimony and trying to draw comparisons to Guantanamo Bay.


Exposure implies I have attempted to conceal something.... what is it you think you have exposed? My Islamophobia? Please! I have started entire threads on AD on this topic. I freely admit I am Islamophobic.

As for Iran. I do not need to 'demonize' it. Its theocratic government, religious laws and disregard for international laws already do that well enough.


Because as we all know China is a western nation and Israel gets a free pass from the UN...

The reason why people find your remarks about 'brown people' to be out of place is, because they are out of place. This issue has nothing what so ever to do with race. The fact that you bring race into it, whilst accusing me of having an agenda, or nitpicking your words whilst you nit pick yourself is evidence of the agenda you yourself are so busy following.

The issue is about The Islamic Republic of Iran holding British marines, (UN personnel), hostage. It is not about the USA, nor Guantanamo Bay, nor colonialism, nor race. Your inability to accept this indicates to me that you either don't understand it, or don't care. I suspect the latter.


Congratulations. You found a graph. Big deal. I've seen a great many graphs over the last four or more years and they have consistently indicated support by a majority of the Danish population for the Danish governments use of the military, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. This support has never been dependent on any UN sanction beyond UNSC res 1441 nor has it ever fallen from the majority portion of the population. For most of the last four years, the majority of the Danish opposition parties have also supported the Danish government on this issue.

You can frame a poll to get the responses you wish for, and in this way, you can demonstrate that only 10% of the Danes support Iraq. What you cannot change is the results from many polls, asking many different questions, but then neither can you post this on an internet debate forum. The latest figures I have seen indicate that 40% of Danes regard Denmarks military contribution in Iraq as a success as opposed to 15% you consider it a failure. Most like me, simply don't know.
You will have to take my word for it, or call me a liar.


Your 'alternative opinion' is itself an attack. Just what do you expect people to say when you accuse our soldiers of crimes on the basis of what Iran says?





quarkhead.
Of course the Iranians knew. They're not stupid.

Watch all the "it doesn't matter's" start to surface. Maybe Iran got wind that this ship was asking a lot of questions as well as seen them crossing into their waters.

Mrs P


I reread Barnaby's post, and what i gathered he said was.. it doesn't matter whose waters the British were in, because we disregarded international law as well.

Mrs P I think your frustration is one of your own making. You use the UN and international law as a tool to show Britian has the right to be in Iraqi waters. The same UN and international law that was disregarded by Britain when they invaded. And now some one is throwing it back in your face. It goes to show the dangers of following international law when we feel like it.

Now compound that that that you award the benefit of the doubt to the invading forces... The people who started war on many half-truths, misdirections, and outright lies are the ones you award the honesty award to. Now, that Mrs P is frustrating.

First, I'm certainly not attacking you, other than an offhand observation that you seem a bit naive on this subject (and that you seemed unaware that Persians are white, most of whom have blue / green eyes.)

Speaking of which - "Enemy" ship? Great Britain is working under the auspices of the UN, attempting to prevent Iran and others from smuggling arms into Iraq. They were in international waters, and may have strayed into Iranian waters at some point. But Iran and Great Britain are not at war, so they are no one's "enemy."

For you to ask what the US or Britian would have done, you'd have to construct a complete hypothetical. And you know darn well, if a ship drifted into our waters, we wouldn't kidnap the sailors and parade them on TV, threatening to charge them as spies.

And we don't have to "paint" Iran as evil. Their president confirms it just about every time he talks. Calling Iran's leaders evil is just simple observation. If you don't see it, you are blind baby.

CW- what is relevent, however- is the fact that we cite international law and the UN when we feel like it, and disregard it when we don't. That point, I believe, is very relevent to this matter as well. You can't have it both ways. WE have been trying, but it apparently hasn't been working out too well for us.