I read both articles and I noticed something very important, Britian does not deny being in Iranian waters. In both articles it specifically relays a message that they were 1.7 nautical miles south of Iranian waters when seized. Which could be the case, but at the same time in that article we have the sailors admitting that they did enter Iranian waters. So let me ask can both sides be telling the truth?? Again I ask, has Britian denied entering Iranian waters??

Mrs P.



Oh and tell us how a real Republic works Mrs. P. An honest Republic.... like ourselves. We just throw them in a places without cameras... Places like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, yeah I see your point compared to how we treat prisoners the Iranians are complete horrid monsters, because they are on camera eating dinner.

The hypocrisy has no end.



Who cares about cameras and elite forces. Yes or no. If a iranian military vessel was in or even1.7 miles off of British or America's territorial waters would that crew be seized and questions?? In your opinion.



Loreng


Is it any wronger than the way we paradedJessica Lynch around. Like I said no end.

At any rate, the west is notorious for our media propaganda. Better to parade the Sailors around healthy than to let the West paint a picture of mistreated British captives that is inaccurate.

Yeah, because the US is known for torturing detainees and shooting people who accidentally "wandered" into our waters! HA!

WHAT A GOSH DARN JOKE!

Seriously. Iran is a rogue nation who has a history of taking captives to further its political motives. Really. I mean, do you not remember the last time they did this to us? At least in Guantanamo Bay the people had ties to terrorist organizations, all be them loosely in some cases. People in Guantanamo Bay had cable tv, good food, recreation, etc. It was probably better than Afghanistan for most.

We learned years ago from US soldiers in Vietnam, the cold war, etc that confessions very often happen under duress. What would you do? Iran isn't known for its overwhelming humanity.

The true question would be, what would happen if the soldiers were Iranian and accidentally in US waters? WE WOULD SEND THEM BACK... of course unless they attacked US interests, etc. Consider how we handle illegal immigration. I mean come on.

Since the Iranians invaded Iraqi water ways. Seized British Naval personnel that were enforcing a UNSC Resolution, both of those are acts of war, they can be considered to be a war with the entire world if any country so desires. Treatment of prisoners is regulated by the GC and parading prisoners is strictly prohibited.

The British can not be considered to be unlawful combatants since they were in uniform and members of their military force.

The reason that the US can legally hold individuals is that they were not members of the Afghanistani Army or any other national military force nor were they in the uniform of any country's military.

Just in case there was any doubt about whether or not the Iranians were lying about everything, we now have a letter from the British sailors calling for the pull out of Iraq.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1258274,00.html

Oh wow! This wreaks of so much nonsense.

1) Why did Iran do this at this time?

I can only assume by their recent rhetoric and current actions that Iran is trying to start a war with the West. This nation's leader has pledged to wipe Israel off the map, bring down America, and in general put the throat of the West under a Muslim sword, and most internet savvy people have seen what happens when that is done literally. It has been alledged that Iran holds Bin Laden safely in their borders, that Iran is activley seeking Nuclear technology for weapons, and I can't think of anyone stupid enough not to believe that Iran supplies insurgent's in Iraq with arms and training. It's obvious that these acts of aggression will lead to failing diplomacy, and probably war.

Why did they do it? Quite frankly you'd have to be an idiot to assume that they weren't trying to start a war.

2) What should be done?

First things first. Announce our intentions to withdraw from the UN and expel all ambassadors from unfriendly nations. Then pull our ambassadors out of all Muslim nations, and forsake all business going on in unfriendly nations. Create a massive military build up on the borders of Iran, oh how convenient we happen to be so close. (Remember what I said about our real intentions for going to Iraq in 2003's "blood for oil" thread?) My guess is that we won't have to go any further with the plan after this has been done. However, if this fails to solve the problem, drop leaflets in all major Iranian cities calling for the complete evacuation of these cities by civilians, warning of death and violence. Next, demolish these cities with tactical nuclear weapons, J-DAMs and other smart bombs. At this point when we clear the rubble we'll probably find 3 things:

1. Osama bin Laden
2. A secret series of tunnels and buildings under the streets where Iran was trying to make Nuclear grade plutonium.
3. A nicer, more gentler world.

3) Is Iran looking for a fight?

It's obvious that they are looking for a fight, and we should give them one. We don't have to fight them now. And we don't have to do it the way I described. But we will have to eventually face this dangerous regime. Better now, and on our terms, than later, on their's.

Hmmm, wasn't this same question asked when we paraded Saddam Hussien?

Cognitive psychology deals with fundamental attribution error. When we observe others we tend to make dispositional attributes about their behavior. We assume the worst, believing choices made by foreign people/systems are not constrained. This is true of foreigners looking at U.S. policies, too.

When it comes to our own behavior, however, we tend to make situational attributes and take constraints into consideration. FAE is hard at work in this thread. Oh, I'm not saying Iran deserves an apology. The IRI is run by bastards, in fact, and their "news agencies" are as professionally unbiased as Russia's intelligence agencies. But I can't give Ali Khamenei props for orchestrating this abduction when it comes to dealing with a loose cannon like the IRGC, which, incidentally, won't drop the Shaat al-Arab dispute. So, maybe the IRGC acted without his Supreme Misogynist’s knowledge and now, to quote a friend, Tehran has to play along.

The U.K. lacks the capability to attack, the U.S. is bogged down in Iraq, and what has Iran to gain by holding a mock trial and sentencing the marines to death by stoning-in-a-shroud? Iran made the same "point" three years ago. They will release the marines when they feel they make the same "point" again.

I guess it depends on who you are reading.
Link.

BBC radio 4 news also reported that the British government has released a photograph of the inspected ship against a GPS reader showing the ship was well within Iraqi territory.

Frankly I don't care about the actual location of the British boats. They may well have strayed into Iranian waters. Its happened before. The matter for concern is not that the Iranian waters have been violated, its how they've chosen to react on the basis of their own dubious claims. Even if they are correct, which I very much doubt, then it still doesn't justify their stance by any measure of law or diplomacy. The course they've chosen is confrontation, pure and simple, and itc confrontation for no easily understandable justificaton.

I think your link doesn't have close to enough detail to even post it. I have noticed numeral times, which I can post where the British are saying they deny the ship/crew was in Iraqi waters when seized I have seen it so many times now, it has gone beyond coicedence in my opinion. Now I am looking for the british to show and say that said ship was NEVER in Iranian waters.



As to your second paragraph in your response, specifically....
"Frankly I don't care about the actual location of the British boats. They may well have strayed into Iranian waters. Its happened before. The matter for concern is not that the Iranian waters have been violated, its how they've chosen to react..."
Typical Western Response. It not the "western man" fault it has to be the brown people. Yeah Iran is starting the confrontation because... "you don't touch western people" invading your homeland. No, the course Britain has chose is confrontation... how do you think they ended up so close to Iranian waters in the first place?

Here's an idea... maybe WE the people of Western Society should stop thinking the world is our sand box. As absurd as that me seem.


Johnlocke


You know what I found funny. Was this poor sailor girl captured enjoying a boat ride.... smoking a cigarette!?!?! Where were the zip tied hands and black hood over their faces we are so famous for.

Of that's right... We're civilized following the rules of war.

droop:

If you are correct, then: (1) why the noted change in coordinates, and (2) why not otherwise give the coordinates at time and place of trespass and not time and place of stop and boarding? That's the problem for Iran, since if there had been a trespass, you are correct, the trespass would still stand and never mind where caught. But the Iranians have never said that either of the two sets of coordinates provided by them were in relation to the trespass [as opposed to time and place of stop and boarding]. What does that say? The other problem with your hypothesis is simply that, as related in the one article, the Brits had just finished stopping and boarding an India-flagged merchant ship. How long do you think that it ought to have taken the Iranians to intercept the Brits following any trespass into their territorial waters? Long enough so that the Brits could leave and stop and board the India-flagged merchant ship? If so, the commander of the Iranian naval units involved should be sacked for incompetence.

Re the other issues that you mentioned, this isn't about "brown" skin and our sand box. We had agreed and were assisting the former Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in his efforts to generate nuclear power, so it isn't "brown" skin and them being Persians [largely so] that accounts for our reluctance now in this regard. The timing of this is otherwise rather transparent, since the sanctions issue is coming to a head, and nothing like some humans to be used as bargaining chips, and then there's the matter of the Brits having already announced their phased withdrawal from Iraq. So steal their people when they're leaving for purposes of gaining some bargaining position. Rather transparent.

Almost forgot, re choosing confrontation, it is not provocative for a nation to sail its ships in its own territorial waters. As the one soul already related, for all legal and moral purposes, such is the circumstance here.

Oh, and next time I have occasion to visit the PI, I'll give you a call and you can go with me. Then you can hear from some brown skinned folk about how when cracker we were there, they blamed us, but now that we're gone, some have learned that their fellow "brown" skinners [call them the ruling elite] have even more disdain for them than we ever did. If for no other reason, here is where your argument fails, since Britain at its worst is preferable to the Mullahs who run the show. The only difference between then and now is that before you were listening 'cause cracker me was to blame and brown skin was crying, but now that it's brown on brown, well, ears they have but they hear not... And, no, such doesn't excuse any technical trespass, but let us leave it at technical trespass, if such occurred, and let us forget the whitey in his Western world making a sandbox of the poor downtrodden brown skinned ones.

Saddam was not a member of the Iraqi Army and hence not covered under the Geneva Convention as a combatant.

I think your arguing semantics because it don't really matter where the ship had been. If the ship was smuggling between Iran and Iraq then it would have been in the waters of both.


Well, if your working on a UN mission, searching for smugglers coming from Iran into Iraqi waters, its hardly a surprise that'd you be close to Iranian waters...

And yes, I am a western man, so naturally, my point of view is typically western, and as such I am used to being portrayed as a racist because after all, its 'clearly' impossible that my motives for opposing the poor 'brown people' of Iran could be anything but.

As it is, the global jihad has infiltrated my homeland, or 'invaded it', as you seem to think a boat load of people is capable of doing. Indeed, we have numerous ongoing trials which demonstrate just how serious this infiltration has become. Its part and parcel of the global situation. The obvious difference is, the jihadi's currently on trial in my country, as well as those whom we most probably have yet to learn about, are not acting with sanction from the UN, nor were they invited to be at their task by any democratically elected government (both of which apply thó these British marines).

No doubt these two distinctions weigh very little besides your own revealing observation regarding the 'brown people' of Iran and their invaded territorial waters (which of course you have not demonstrated was actually invaded at all).


And here's another. Maybe rich western countries ought not to get involved in the UN at all....? Maybe we should just let the Iranians take over the responsibilities of helping countries like Iraq. Yeah, we could just sit back and enjoy the welcome relief as the Islamic republic and its freindly allies bring hope and sunshine to the millions of kuffar around the world. Wouldn't it be nice to not have any confrontation? To live in peaceful submission and thus avoid any bloodshed or unpleasantness...

...'cept of course when some stupid woman gets herself raped and, according to the new laws must be stoned to death.

Before anyone goes off the deep end about race in Iran...
\
persians are aryan ie racially white. ( actually the word Arian is persian see the kama sutra.)

And of course this wiki.

the people of iran are not predominately "brown" people, the inclusion of "race" into this is both stupid and demeaning.

What in God's name are you talking about?


http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/27/iraq7076.htm

I'd say there is a fundamental difference this time around. Last time, the British government immediately admitted it was at fault and their sailors had accidentally traversed Iranian waters. Not so this time, and they have supplied evidence to back their claim. There is a 180 difference in the way this is being approached that, I think, adds weight and credibility to the British side in this case. And I am not so optimistic as you on this.

Well, I happen to be with Loreng to some degree- IF the Iranians have indeed captured Brit soldiers in international waters- I believe that is an act of war and all that goes along with it- including nukes and carpet bombing. You see, I am no pacifist, but, a nation has a right to it's soverienty, and, if, in international waters, it's citizens, soldiers or otherwise, are being held hostage illegally- as very well be the case- then a nuke on Tehran is perfectly legal and acceptable.

This is the same reason I was for Afghanistan an against Iraq.

Someone will surely ask, "why kill 40 million iranians for 15 soldiers"- okay, how many citizens should be sacrificed from one nation to another rogue nation?

IF, a big IF, the iranians have commited this act of war- then, even one soldier is enough to declare war and use all neccesary means, up to and includng WMD, when the offending nation sponsors this kidnapping.

If, in the course of killing those that killed our citizen's on 9/11 involved the wholesale slaughter of every man woman and child in Afghanistan- so be it- they brought it on themselves, there is no response limited when a goverment commits an act of war against another nation, unprovoked, as it was on 9/11.

Like I said, I have no bones saying "hey, we did bad to thier nation, we need to tread softly and right our wrongs"- such as, normalizing relations with Iran by apologizing for our support of the Shah- however- when they DON'T accept this apology, and say, took US soldiers captive in international waters- I would be right there next to the worst of the chicken hawks, signing my name on the dotted line, and advocating killing the entire country, until it is a wasteland that no living thing could live on for 10,000 years.

A country MUST protect it's citizens, at al costs, from another state.

I didn't know a sign of optimism is not believing the situation is going to end as badly as some think (and hope) it will in this thread. Does it fundamentally matter whether the British were in international or Iranian waters when dealing with a Muslim banana republic? It matters to the West, not Iran. Al-Alam broadcasts target Arabic-speaking Muslims for Persian propaganda purposes. I don't think the British are lying about their account, and I don't think it's going to affect the outcome one way or another.

somehow, I don't think that when you're sitting in a rubber boat with machine guns pointed at you, zip ties and black hoods are needed.


However, for just a moment, let us assume that the Iranian claim is correct, that the Brits had trespassed in Iranian territory. There are three possibilities as to how such a terrible, dreadful event could transpire.

1. The sailors were mistaken about their position, i.e. lost.
2. The sailors were deliberately intruding without authorization from the Crown.
3. The sailors were deliberately intruding with authorization from the Crown

All evidence thus far made public rules out #1. Nobody has let forth even a hint of #2. Which leads us to #3. What are the implications of that?

No doubt, no DOUBT, they are scared, terrified. Most people would be in their situation. I'm just not buying this "Oh these poor people are being paraded in front of cameras, how dispicable of Iran" So what Iran has cameras on them.

Here we have tapes of the British showing them eating well, smoking cigarettes, and saying they were in Iranian water. If the Geneva convention is calling this a "War Crime" maybe it's time we start asking... "What is the purpose of Geneva Conventions" Because if I had a choice of being on the reality "Captured in Iran" or being zipped-tied and blind folded headed to destinations unknown where pitbulls will be snarling at my testicles and I get to be "mocked" drowned by some guy in pitch black shades...

I don't know... something tells me... bring out the makeup person, I'm gonna be on T.V.

Again, this is just the problem with Western society psyche. People who harm our troops are evil and wrong. Even when the people are on camera being shown to be treated fairer or at least nicer, than any Iranian that slipped in Iraqi border.



Apathy, spying, underestimation, galvanizing support... it could serve one or many purposes...

Mrs P


Mrs P is it true that Britain only showed evidence of where the ship was when captured? Have they plotted the course of that ship through out the day and hours proceeding up to the event??

Droop according to you and Iran they haven't "harmed" these British troops though right?

It's simply a matter of history Droop. In no way am I defending the almighty history of the US because frankly our record isn't perfect [besides these are British soldiers not US]. However given Iran's past and there current form of government it's not easy to believe anything coming from their pre-screened video's and scripts.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/03/27/uzbeki15577.htm



So Droop if you lived in Iran right now you could be tortured for many of the posts you have made on this board and if you were a raped woman it would take two other women, including yours, to weigh as much as one males testimony (at least in theory but not likely). Excuse me if I don't really believe their intentions are good, because you know smoking cigarettes kills. Maybe that's their plan, to kill every infidel one cigarette at a time.

Even if they haven't been harmed it's all just for show.

Drooop.

Ever heard of Theresienstadt by any chance?


Now consider Iran when the camera's aren't watching...

Link.
Do you suppose they enjoyed a nice cigarette before they were hanged eh Droop?


Ahh so the kidnappers were nice to our soldiers, nothing to worry about then. How very sharia of you Droop! Next you'll be telling us how women deserve to be raped if they're not wearing headscarves!

You seem to have decided, on the basis of your own understanding alone, that the British were in Iranian territorial waters (though you've offered nothing to demonstrate this beyond the testimony of people held against their will) that the Iranians are telling the truth (of course they are since they're 'brown' people right?) and there is no possibility that Iran manufactured this entire farce for itsown internal political reasons. Your argument appears to be, the British must be guilty because look how happy the hostages are!

Your willingness to believe the worst of your own allies, whilst defending the actions of people who would kill you given half the chance is interesting, espcially given the only justification you've offered is one based on skin colour. It seems you are ignorant, both to just how often people detained in Iran admit to crimes they haven't committed and the reasons why the Geneva convention explicitly forbids using captured soldiers as political tools.


And just why does this even matter? Even if they had, would you actually believe their evidence?

If they had traversed Iranian water in any substantial way, the Iranians would have captured them when they did so. Tell me you don't believe they have been watching that line in the water and waiting. Be that as it may, Britain showed evidence that the inflated rubber raft (sorry, I can't call these little boats ships) was captured in IRAQI WATER. Even if, say, their raft went into Iranian water for a moment (something they have provided no proof of), that would be irrelevant....and this would still be a technical act of war. Just as if, for instance, a British airplane accidentally traversed Iranian airspace and was then followed, intercepted by Iranian fighter jets over Iraqi airspace and taken back to Iran.

It just gets better. Now, the Iranian government is threatening to place the soldiers on trial for "violating international law". However, trials can be avoided if that British government apologizes and admits they infringed on Iranian waters.



This smacks of the Salem witch trials.

I am leaning towards the double standard only as it applies to prisoner treatment, so far, meaning the US, I am not sure about the UK, have participated in "extrodinary rendition" and outright torture of our prisoners, even though we use the Euphimism "harsh treatment" (ya, whatever)- two wrongs don't make a right, as the cliche' goes.

Past behavior is the best indicator of current and future behavior. Britain, the last time they strayed, apologized, this time, I think Iranian's are trying to use that past issue to force this issue.


We paraded POWs in front of the camera- no different as the Iranians are doing however- so, we obey the Geneva convention as it suits us, and then don't when it doesn't.

So, though there is an obvious double standard- I still believe that the British soldiers were NOT in Iranian waters, that this was just something the hard core religious nuts in the goverment thought would work in thier favor- however, I think it will backfire , or already has.

What gets to me is the fact that the Iranians are threatening to put them on trial. For what? If they crossed into Iranian waters then Iran has a beef with the British government since they would be acting under orders. So for what are going to tried for? Spying, sorry they are in uniform and so they can not be consider spies. For being combatants, well again they are in uniform and they can not be tried for that.

Iran's statement that they would release them if Great Britain 'admits' that they were in Iranian waters tells me that they weren't. As for the fact that Iranians claim that they entered Iranian waters, well since they were enforcing a UNSC resolution to prevent smuggling means that they could in fact enter Iranian waters. The resolution does not limit the search area to just Iraqi waters.

When the British demanded the GPS coordinates from the Iranians, the first set they presented were the exact same as the ones the British claimed. When that was pointed out to the Iranians they immediately issued a totally different set.

Links please? Not that I don't believe you- I have not seen that myself either yet. Like I said- I am leaning towards the UK explanation at this time.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070331/D8O76O400.html

Thanks- I appreciate it Sleeper.

Ya, the Iranians are completely off thier rocker on this one.

I don't think any British Government has ever subscribed to the concept of "no man left behind." I don't think any serviceman/woman expects the British Government to subscribe.

Ever is a long time. Once upon a time, Parliament sent a combined force 0f 13,000 British and Indian soldiers, 26,000 camp followers and 40,000 animals led by General Sir Robert Napier on a 400 mile trek across Africa to rescue a handful of British diplomats. More recently, I seem to remember two British SAS commandos sprung in Basra a mere two years ago.

A government that places its troops in harm's way is responsible for them. Surely they have a moral obligation to those sailors beyond hand-wringing? If soldiers lose confidence in those who lead them (and how could they not if the government simply writes them off), it’s certainly not going to do much for troop morale.

I wouldnt confuse the "no man left behind" with either national/Military pride and political/commercial expediency.
25 years ago a 100 ships and 30,000 men went off for just a 1000 civilians who were in no danger at all but more on an issue of national pride and political expediency. Not a lot different from 1415 or 1805

Iran produces [url=http://new s.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6502805.stm]evidence[/url]from sailors GPS hat they had previously been in Iranian waters.

Looking at this chart it seems the British had illegally entered Iranian waters on a number of occassions. Does this change anything in anyone's mind?

Mrs P



What do you mean it is irrelevant if the boat did go into Iranian Waters. Would it be irrelevant if the chinese were to invade our airspace or waters??



What in essence you are saying is the British can invade their waters and show total disregard for them as long as they get across the line into Iraqi waters before they are caught.

I get it kind of like this????



How come Syrians don't get to play hide and go seek. i'm Confused.

Oh and then there is task force 145 that can attack and capture Bin Laden in Pakistan if he is found, even though ther Pakistanis state



http://in.news.yahoo.com/070303/43/6cshs.html





Wow an apology... whoa... what torture... Salem Witch trials... yeah I see the connection

MOIF



Ohhh now they are kidnappers... yeah they just snuck in to those British sailors home gagged them and took them all the way from Britain to Iran. And I am so sorry that the Iranians aren't being the monsters to the British that you so want them to be. I know, it hurts your heart not to be able to show how evil the muslims are.

Maybe it is you that wants to see the young lady get raped so that you can pronounce how EVIL they are. Which is why regardless of what Mrs. P says it benefits Iran to parade these sailors around... healthy... well as healthy as a smoker can be.



Actually, Iran could be lying. However, it is a proven fact that we in the West accept confessions, even under EXTREME duress, such as torture. These sailors confessed to being in Iranian water with little more than a promise to go home in less than a day or two.

If there confession is invalid, how can we believe the confessions of so many of our own detainee are true?? After years of duress and pressure. But truth be told, as we have seen over and over, the WEst has no respect for any one not the West. It is in the nature of the West to disregard the sovereignty and borders of other non-western nations.

Your willingness to believe the worst of your own allies, whilst defending the actions of people who would kill you given half the chance is interesting, espcially given the only justification you've offered is one based on skin colour. It seems you are ignorant, both to just how often people detained in Iran admit to crimes they haven't committed and the reasons why the Geneva convention explicitly forbids using captured soldiers as political tools.

What... they're my friends now?? They care about me??

Please explain MOIF Given half the chance Iranians would kill me... but give a WHOLE reality they won't kill the 15 Brits?? They would kill me, but won't kill people when they have the people to kill in their grasp.

once again, you use propaganda.


Maybe you should ask yourself that question. Why does such evidence matter

Oh yes of course, how astute of you to notice Droop. I have a problem with Islam so obviously I want some one to get raped so I can shout about it... What sort of convoluted rubbish is this? As it happens, plenty of women are raped in Iranian detention since rape is used as a means of silencing unwanted opposition in Iran, but this has little relevence to the case in hand and the subject of sharia protected rape was not anything I advanced as to the ill intentions of the Iranians but rather an example of your own biased position for if you'll excuse kidnapping, and it is kidnapping to go into Iraqi territorial waters and snatch soldiers working for the UN, then you'll excuse just about anything else your precious 'brown people' undertake.

You've made your position quite clear from the get go. The Iranians are in the right because they are not British and the British are in the wrong because they are not 'brown' and they are far from home. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but your willingness to disbelieve an ally whilst accepting whole heartedly the claims of an enemy reveal your biased nature.


I think you are confusing your own country with 'the west'. My country does not accept confessions under duress, and neither do we torture people.


They're out there risking their lives so that you can participate in debates like this, state your mind and not be dragged off to face a rape squad. Yes, they are your friends and yes, though in the abstract since they've nevet met you, they do care about you. Are you so jaded that you can't even recognize that?


This is an odd request on a political debate forum. Are you really telling me you don't understand what a pawn is? What political expiency is, or why people hold hostages at all?

Yeah, right.

As for your destruction, if the Iranians could, they would convert the world to Islam, it is the stated ideology of their religion, the one they've based their entire nation state upon. Your only chance for survival under full Iranian authority would be would be to convert, but given your willingess to accept the Iranian perspective as the truth, perhaps you already are a Muslim. That would certainly explain your one sided logic.

The reason why these British soldiers are not dead is because Iran gains nothing from killing them. They were snatched so they could be paraded on television as a propaganda tool for the Muslim world and the 'useful idiots'* in the west. Iran gets full credit for not torturing these soldiers, even whilst violating the Geneva convention by parading em as propaganda tools because people like you are so worked up shouting mea culpa about Guantanamo Bay that it either clouds your perspective or grants you a pretext for ignoring Iran's hostility.

I don't care what Guantanamo Bay or the colour of people's skin means to you. The human rights violations of the Bush administration do not warrant or justify the kidnapping of British soldiers working for the UN and neither does any half baked racist world view that considers Iranians to be brown skinned people and Brits to be other.

Why are you asking me that? You are the one who is claiming the British entered Iranian waters without a shred of evidence to show they did. I know why evidence matters and why a lack of evidence is a poor foundation upon which to sling about accusations of racism.



* a term coined by Lenin I believe refering to foreign intellectuals who were ready and eager to work against their own country's to advance socialism and who were usually the first up against the wall when the communists took over.

Sure, the Iranians Wanted war with the US and the Brits, its their dream!
The huge escalation of naval power in the Persian Gulf was Not meant to provoke an international incident.
Can any of you say you didnt see this coming, now you are debating it as if its REAL?
Can you spell Gulf of Tonkin?

People! This was an obvious conclusion 6-8 months ago when all true internet news warned, war with Iran is imminent! Stop pretending to yourselves and to each other, like Iraq, like you couldnt figure it out. You are such liars to yourselves, as if......
My own posts last year told that we would find a way to war with Iran - and that you all would buy it again like the stupid sheep you are.
It was all over the net, but you dont really do research do you?
Dont be idiotic, and dont think this was not a preplanned event. This is exactly what was expected when in OCT they sent 5 of our most capable aircraft carriers and anti-mining ships, submarine equipped to the Persian Gulf.
MY GOD! You will buy anything! So goddam predictable, your government can sell you any crazy scheme, you just suck off that teat like little puppie dogs.
You are pathetic.
Two words: Cognitive dissonance.
Learn the meaning, and wake the hell up! You are being manipulated. Iran was on the map of war years ago, stop acting like insipid drones, you simply cant be THAT brain dead.

If you support this on principle, you will be down the line acting like you were 'oh-so-decieved' by your criminal government , just like Iraq.

You are a warmongering nation and useless to talk to, because you just fall for the obvious, and your government knows you are predictable and vacant when it comes to intelligent thought and reflection, pawns, stupid, uninformed pawns, ridiculous clowns, dumb, deaf and just plain stupid!

If you fall for this ruse, you are solidifying a destiny that you will never turn around, in all your lifetime. Iran is ready for war as one of the most equipped, modern war machines on the planet. Its 1984 and you are no longer free. You are a product of total brainwash. Say goodbye to oil and everything you thought was security, and that will not be something the government is working against- profits are something the US no longer provides. You know this. They will pleasure in breaking you, like the Great Depression made them rich, and stole everything from the people.

Artemise

Whats all this 'you' business? What are you talking about? Yes, I can spell Gulf of Tonkin, I know what that was but that doesn't mean that this is automatically another Gulf of Tonkin. If it were, then don't you suppose the rhetoric out of London would be some what more belligerent? As it is, the British do not want to go to war with Iran and there is no way the British public will sit by and watch it happen. Do you have any notion as to just how unpopular Tony Blair and his decision to go into Iraq is these days?

As for the huge escalation of naval power in the Persian Gulf, you need look no further than Iraq to find a reason for it. You don't have to blindly suppose that its there to 'provoke Iran'.

As for George Orwell... I think you've gone off the deep end. Try and read your own post, its you, you, you all the way through. Your coming across as completely paranoid.


Lots of people have said this, and they've been saying every year since Iraq was invaded. So far it hasn't happened yet you're talking about war against Iran as if this incident has already triggered one.

Where is it?


This? This what? What is it we're supposed to be supporting on principle? This Machiavellian scheme to provoke a war which no one but you has noticed?

I'm sorry Artemise, but I don't see any one here supporting a war.


I don't know what transformation has been undertaken in your mind in the last year Artemise, but your posts never used to be so blindly one sided. Granted, you have a perspective that the USA is a war like nation, and your right to a degree but ranting about war like sheep as if you alone have seen the light makes you look like an idiot. Not everything happens because the evil neo cons are out for oil you know. There are plenty of other bastards on Planet Earth and they don't care about duping the American people into a war. They have their own fish to fry.

And none of this in any way justifies kidnapping British soldiers and treating them as a propaganda tool.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6502805.stm

Droop,

Iran says the GPS on the zodiac reported they were in iranian waters

funny this is the same GPS that reported thier position constantly back to the HMS Cornwall the ship they were assigned to and yet the cornwall does NOT show them in iranian waters ... hhhhmmmmmmmm ....

how did they access this GPS? does it have an onboard memory and a plot ?

this goes against everything about military equipment design. only the cornwall should have recording equpment just for a case like this. to record where you have been is military bad joo joo... you can give away positions and targets, tactics and strategy, the HMS cornwall records their track and position. not the zodiac that they are on which is probably using an encrypted transceiver that changes every few hours based on what I know of american equipment of the same type.



MOIF,

please dont get me wrong but to say that your country or any other country doesnt or will not torture people to protect itself is seriously misguided.







I dont know that I have ever seen a more venomous diatribe ...

puff... puff... pass....

The debate is exactly the thing that needs to happen to prevent war. but i guess america has never been free... what do you define a free country as? and i would venture to say it has never existed in the course of human events.

Really? You think so? I am not saying anyone is duping us into war, Im saying the entire thing is a set up for us to go to war with Iran, as planned, our government set it up, made it happen. The Brits are just the ruse.

This 'incident' could not be enacted towards the US, because it would be ultimately suspicious, noone believes us anymore. This 'incident' is being discussed on Fox news as a precedent for war with Iran. It is being 'sold' to the American public. It is discussed everyday as a premise to attack Iran. The great brainwashed are already clamouring for war here. Bill O'lielly, Sean Hannity, even radio commentators are asking WHY we are not bombing them already. Dont be stupid Moif, we like bombing people here in Amurika.



You cant be serious. Or you can be naiive. They sent the ships in Oct of this year, 4 years into the war, before the alleged 'surge' became public. Iran had been on the map for years. Because you are uninformed doesnt make me less so.


Hahahaahaha! Right, watch that happen.

Those ships were put there to shop weapons coming into iraq from iran and were part of a UN force...

I did not realize the UN was into getting the US and Iran into a 3rd world war.

The ships were not any part of UN force. They were US aircraft carriers, the best we have in the line, practicing war games.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context...;articleId=4732
Site is based in Canada.

uuummmm I think you are confusing yourself ... are you saying these sailors were taken off of an american carrier?

they were in a Military zodiac RIB and unless the US changed it's structure alot in the last 2 weeks we dont launch tomcats from the "decks of RIBs.


as far as the UN part


"The sailors and marines, part of a U.N.-mandated force patrolling the Persian Gulf, were seized while searching merchant ships for evidence of smuggling. Britain insists the team was in Iraqi waters and has said no admission of error would be made. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_...ish_seized_iran

i think you are reading more evil into this than is actually there...

Well Artemise, you just contradicted yourself. Either you are being duped or you are not. Which is it?


Its being debated as a pretext for war on Fox? Aaaah, then it must be the truth!

As it is, I've also seen a few people in the UK calling it an act of war as well, which it sort of is if you want to belligerent. What I've not seen however, is the Blair government showing any eagerness to launch an Israeli style mass bombardment (quite the opposite in fact) nor any indication that the UK government is about to call upon its ally to intervene on its behalf.

I do not agree with you that this is a Tonkin Bay type incident. For several reasons. I think this is a natural product of a hostile environment within which numerous belligerent parties are facing each other over a limited stretch of water. As it happens, this is not the first time the Iranians have snatched British soldiers and so, I can entertain the possibility that the Iranians have been tricked into making the same move twice in order to justify a counter strike, except I can't. I do not see that a counter strike against Iran at this time, on behalf of fifteen marines is feasible.

The British government is not 'gung ho'. It is not a part of the 'bomb happy Amurika' which you are describing. It would require a great deal more than a hostage crisis for the British to consider military action against Iran.


Yes, but the same is true in reverse, no? Just because you are 'informed' doesn't mean your right. Only time will tell us whether or not this is the first step in a new war.

America is on a war footing with Iran, that can hardly be a surprise to any one given the relationship between the two countries these last several decades as well as Iran's hardly disguised desire for nuclear weaponry. It has to be said that when facing a belligerent budding nuclear power that openly advocates ethnic cleansing and nucelar annhilation then I am not able to see how else you can prevent a war from happening. You've already made it clear that you do not see debate as a viable option abd the only other solution is to surrender and abandon Israel, as well as the rest of the region to its fate.

Would you prefer that?

Ha! You're just much more clever about how y'all go about torturing people. Have you ever stepped on a Lego in the middle of the night in your bare feet? That's torture, and yet nobody traces it back to the devilish Danish conspiracy to build a world of their own liking. Instead, lit'l Billy gets blamed for leaving those "innocent" blocks laying around. Yeah, I'm on to you Danes, I'll be watching you...

Just as a point of correction, we don't launch Tomcats off the decks of anything now. The last 'Cats were withdrawn from service recently.


Ahh, see, your argument is flawed, not surprisingly. You assume that because Fox is "selling" it, that anybody who believes its time for the Big Stick is brainwashed. Only problem is, how does a person get to be brainwashed if they rarely watch TV or listen to the radio? With the exception of some cooking shows on while I was doing something else, I haven't watched TV or listened to any talk radio for well over 2 months.... Does this mean I need a tinfoil hat now to keep Them from brainwashing me? yeah, that's the ticket, a tinfoil hat will keep out all the emanations and penumbras travelling through the Ethereal Plane.

Can I borrow yours? Please?

As for the two carrier task forces? No "huge increase" there, the US Navy has continuously had a carrier on station in the Persian Gulf since 1990, there were either two or three during the opening phases of both Gulf Wars. The second carrier is an increase, but "huge"? No, and frankly, it seems to me that if we were going to use the Brits as a stalking horse in this, dontcha think the Brits would have put more assets into the area?

About that tinfoil hat, I'll need a size 7 1/2, if you can spare one, thankayouaverymuch.

So, you're saying Iran is 'in' on this? That they took these hostages precisely to escalate war against themselves? How do they benefit from that? Also, precisely how are you suggesting we planned these actions from Iran and made them happen--I wasn't aware that our relationships with them were that cozy.

This whole thread has devolved. Let's begin again with what we can agree on.

1. If British troops did violate Iranian sovereignty, can we all agree that Iran has a legitimate claim against the British? If not, why?

2. If the British troops were tortured or otherwise "aggressively interrogated", can we all agree that the British (and NATO allies) have a legitimate claim against Iran? If not, why?

3. Can we all agree that the we may never know whether or not the Iranians or the British are in fact being truthful with regard to the violation of sovereignty? If not, why?

In short, can we debate starting with common ground?

I agree the thread has sort of collapsed in on itself. I think it may be time for a new thread if we're going to debate new questions, though.

I will say this...

1st. It's obvious that the British troops were coerced into making these statements, and even Tony Blair stated publicly that these videos and letters "aren't fooling anyone".

2nd. I find it hard to assume that Iranian territory was breached, mostly because they are forcing captives to lie about it. Britain has precision GPS coordinates indicating that the soldiers were by international geometry, in Iraqi territory. Iran can draw new maps everyday for all I care, they're not fooling me. Furthermore, to assume that our allied nation is lying, is to believe a nation that we know is sending in guerillas, IEDs, RPGs, and financial support to the very people who are making a mess of Iraq right now. Had Iran not been sending support to Islamic Iraqi resistance, we wouldn't need British sailors to patrol those waters anyhow.

3rd. So what is this mess really about? I mean, it does seem a little far fetched that Iran would make such an uproar over a minor territorial violation. Unless it had created one? And to what end?

Here's a good article that I found very interesting.

http://www.globaldefensegroup.com/index.ph...1&Itemid=93

The meat of it suggests that Iran engineered this situation intentionally over the kidnapping of 5 of it's own intelligencia, in Iraq, as well as the defection of one high ranking member of their intelligence community. Now, had these five men been taken into custody in Iraq while on a subversive mission, then clearly that would prove to be a problem for the Ayatollah's and Ahmadinehjad. When the truth of what Iran is doing to Iraq comes out, there you will have a problem. If the world learns that Bin Laden is being hidden lavishly in Iran, you will have bigger problems. And when Iran's nuclear capacity is full-go, you will have WW3.

The steps leading to this will be carried out quickly. The major signals to watch for will be in Iranian business. Most of Iran still relies on western money to keep it on an even keel. If you watch and see Iranian business becoming self sustaining, slowly breaking off ties with western economics, then the point of no return has been passed. If the west slowly cuts off it's ties with Iranian business, say through boycotts or sanctions, you will see their tactics tighten up, the rhetoric will become heavy and they will learn to become self sustaining much quicker. This would weaken them before a war, but not so much that war would be futile. If on the other hand, the world cut them off now, levying complete sanctions on them, then we could reduce them to a starving nation. Their nuclear program could be cut off. Their people could revolt against thier leadership. The country would be divided by the highest ranking military lord's militias, each one supported by different religious figure head factions. While they fight amongst themselves the US could subvert, and bring change. What would the use in that be though? We would just be at war with whomever was next to take over power within a decade. The lesson here is that the middle east is slowly becoming like Asia in military terms. Rule number one in war...Never start a land war in Asia.

The entire middle east needs a makeover. Who will bring these people out of the 7th century?

Speaking of fundamental attribution error, this website, if not the article you link, supports this psychological theory. To suggest Iran somehow wanted its diplomat and Quds captured in Iraq you almost have to believe a majority of the Iraqi government has the best intentions towards the U.S. and our people stationed/deployed there. I cannot make amends with Iraqi politicians or the poor defectors currently maneuvering against us. The article is interesting in a John Grisham spy novel sense.


The Middle East or no one.