Has Iran declared war on the UK?
I’ve been waiting for all the so called reps of the peace movement to condemn Iran for attacking the United Kingdom, and effectively declaring war on them. For that is what they have done by seizing UK troops in Iraqi waters.
Imagine the outcry if the UK or US had done this to Iran.
There is no doubt the UK troops were not in Iranian territory. How do we know this? Because the Iranian Government themselves provided a location which turned out to be in Iraqi territory. It was only after they had this pointed out to them, did they change their claimed location.
Iran should not be rewarded for their act of war. They should not get to use the capture of the soldiers as some bargaining chip to benefit them. They are also in breach of the Geneva Conventions.
Iran are in the wrong and are militarily inferior to the UK, let alone its allies. This is not a time for weakness and appeasement which will encourage repeat behaviour. This is a time for firm deadlines for release, with a clear indication that failure to do so will not be in Iran’s interest.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Ive said in previous posts,”itll all happen before August 16th 2007″. this is only another step in the direction.
Its time the west stood up to these muslims and dealt to them hard and fast before its too late.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:22 am
You could probably call me a rep of the peace movement, and I condemn what the Iran military has done. It’s hardly surprising though, is it?
Why should Iran put up with the constant veiled threats against it?
Wouldn’t you take action if you felt threatened?
Wouldn’t you dispute to the last, your actions in a situation like this?
The Iranians will back down, if only to keep the incident as a warning that they are not to be messed with.
Iran will not be bombed or invaded. Any forces who did so would be seriously fucked.
Israel? No, because Hizballah would (again) take action, as they did last year.
USA? No, because more hell would be unleashed in Iraq, which is the last thing anybody (including me) wants.
UK? No, for the same reason as above, and the fact they do not have the power to have any effect on Iran.
“[Iran] are militarily inferior to the UK, let alone its allies.”
What is your point…? I’m not sure if you realise this, but Iran is three times the size of Iraq. The intelligence on Iran (a state cut off diplomatically from the West for 27 years) is likely to be even worse than it was for Iraq (who were quite popular until the misunderstanding of 1990-91).
Yes I condemn Iran for taking the sailors, but they knew it would casue outrage…and I’m interested to see what you think the UK and its allies would do in the event the hostages are not released in a timely fashion?
March 30th, 2007 at 1:25 am
If Iran has “declared war” on anyone it is Iraq, whose territorial waters they allegedly breached, not the UK.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:12 am
It is a bold move to hold these hostages. It serves Blair right as he gets on his high moral corse over Iran’s nuclear programme but of vourse he can do nothing about it. I doubt that the US will see this as a “gulf of tonkin” moment and attack Iran over 15 British soldiers. I think Blair is stuffed on this and it serves that sanctimonious twit right.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:17 am
Dont believe for a moment about the UK sailors being in Iraqi waters.
Remember it took years for the US to admit that the airbus it ‘accidentally’ shot down occured while the cruiser Vincennes was inside Iranian territirial waters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Same applies to the Gulf of Tonkin incident which was used as a pretext to widen the war in Vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Of_Tonkin
Signing up for the military are we DPF ?
“This is not a time for weakness and appeasement which will encourage repeat behaviour”
Your current unit the “Fighting Keyboardists” is heavily overmanned, especially its US brigade
March 30th, 2007 at 6:17 am
Sorry David but a spot of healthy skepticism about exactly whose territory they were in might be in order here.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1054
(Its actually quite a well-informed read)
It seems that when it suits your political agenda you can attribute any amount of dark malice to your chosen target; and equally when it suits, you recycle uncritically official claims and news stories that really merit much closer examination.
You tell us that the Iranians want a war. OK answer this. How many countries have Iranian troops invaded in the last 100 odd years? How many Iranian troops are currently stationed in bases outside of Iran? And how many times has the Iranian govt stated that “all options are on the table” ,ie implied that they were prepared to and intended to use military force to achieve their goals?
Now ask the same questions of the USA and compare your answers. Try and be honest with the facts for a change.
If the Iranians had invaded and made a bloody shambles of say…Mexico. They had troops on the US-Mexico border and Iranian warships prowled just kilometers off US territorial waters, and had been loudly agitating for some years that the US MUST dismantle not only all of it’s nuclear weaponry, but shut down it’s entire nuclear industry as well…..then yes the Americans would have good reason to suspect that maybe, just maybe, the Iranians would be crazy enough to wanting a war with the West.
But that is not the situation we actually have on the ground right now….is it?
March 30th, 2007 at 6:31 am
General Ivashov Calls For Emergency Session Of
UN Security Council To Ward Off Looming US Aggression
By Webster G. Tarpley
3-25-7
WASHINGTON DC — The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 AM on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly “Argumenty Nedeli.” Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.
The attack is slated to last for twelve hours, according to Uglanov, lasting from 4 AM until 4 PM local time. Friday is a holiday in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.
The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and the for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.
The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran’s nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was re-issued by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.
Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.
Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: “I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran.” Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Putin, is currently the Vice President of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.
Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill which would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and of Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.
“We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place,” said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: ” Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran’s capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,” he continued.
Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. “This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran,” Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, who would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.
Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. “This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East,” he commented.
“Moscow must expert Russia’s influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter,” said General Ivashov. “In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force,” he concluded.
http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html
http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html
March 30th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Good God people – the Iranian Government themselves admitted the soldiers were not in Iranian territory. They then changed their claimed location.
And yes military action is the inevitable consequence if the soldiers are not released by the timeline. Just as with the Falklands. The Iranian Govt will buckle of course, so long as they think the threat would be backed up. Their own citizens will not thank them for an unnecessary war which can be avoided by simply handing the soldiers back.
Graeme – both Iraq and the UK have cause for action.
CHOGM – Please try using a rational argument, not stupudity such as the implicit suggestion no-one who si not an enlisted member of the military can advocate military action. But hey if you really think that then I advocate that no-one who is not a net taxpayer should be able to advocate extra govt spending.
March 30th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Good God people – the Iranian Government themselves admitted the soldiers were not in Iranian territory. They then changed their claimed location.
What is your source for this? In Stuff this morning we have the exact opposite claim from Tehran. And as the artice I linked to above demonstrates, neither side is likely to have a watertight case as to whose exact territory the sailors were operating in….the actual border is neither fixed nor agreed upon.
Put this into perspective here DPF; was it the Iranian warship operating a few km off the UK shoreline in disputed territory, or the other way around?
From all the long and bloody history of war David, you must surely know by now that the manufactured and false pretext is one of the most common devices used to dress up the pre-emptive strike as a defensive action.
not stupudity such as the implicit suggestion no-one who si not an enlisted member of the military can advocate military action.
Yes, but those whose butt is NOT on the line are usually heard first, making the loudest and most jingoistic noises.
March 30th, 2007 at 7:35 am
“Why should Iran put up with the constant veiled threats against it?”
George, does that standard apply to anybody else? Like Israel, that Iran has said it wants to wipe off the face of the world? Or the USA, which has been under attack for 5 years?
Nonetheless, thank you for condeming the attack. Others on this thread have refused to do so. I can’t work out why, unless the true agenda is one of hate against the US and UK, rather than concern with rights or law.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Advocating different types of economic policy is the same as advocating war ??
I think not.
Are you saying death and destruction are not all that different from raising or lowering the company tax rate .
I know you have a great record of service to the internet community, it allows you not only to advance your beliefs but take part and gain further insight. Ditto the National prty
Sadly going to war seems to be something thats good for other individulas but not for yourself
March 30th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Frankly, I support the UK and USA – right or wrong. And once upon a time so did NZ before we became a nation of cowards and sycophants.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:42 am
It doesn’t matter exactly which location the British were in actually. The ‘border’ down the Shaat-Al-Arab waterway is hotly contested by both Iran and Iraq since before their 8-year war over it and whose territory the troops were in could be argued back and forth intermidably.
What is important, however, is that a detatchment of British military personnel allowed itself to be taken into captivity by the Iranians without even firing a shot or, it seems, putting up any resistance at all.
If these 15 hapless pawns had been real military personnel they would have engaged the enemy instead of allowing them to piss all over them and take them into captivity to be spread all over the media like the trophies that they obviously are.
And some of these wussy babies call themselves “Royal Marines”. The entire British nation should be hanging its head in deep shame knowing that their armed services are composed of such spineless specimens.
Appeasers and their followers will say, of course, something like “Oh, violence would only have led to a diplomatic incident” or some such bullshit. The fact is that in most cultures ‘military’ forces are EXPECTED to FIGHT. Since 1979, when Iran took the whole US embassy hostage with impunity, they have realised that the West’s culture is entirely different. This incident was just Iran checking that we are still a bunch of spineless cowards – and we have played along perfectly on cue.
Britain is fucked. For all its nuclear power, aircraft carriers and laser guided missiles, the country is rotten and Iran is playing with them like a mouse that is all but dead and doesn’t yet know it.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:46 am
So David you are wondering why the peace movement is not calling for a war?
The answer is in the question I think.
War with Iran would be a disaster, not just for the countries involved but for the whole world ($200 a barrel oil anyone?)
This is a time for cool heads, not irresponsible talk about “appeasement”
March 30th, 2007 at 8:48 am
The UK is militarily superior, but may lack the ability to project its force half way around the world.
Remember, the force that it has in the Basra region is geared up for policekeeping/peacekeeping duties, not punitive strikes.
If Britain wanted to strike, then it would need time to build up its forces.
What is more likely is Britain invoking a clause in the North Atlantic Treaty that war has been declared against it by Iran, and that would then enable the USA to more ably project its forces against Iran. The USA has plenty of assets in the gulf, and can much more easily stage bombing missions via Guam and Europe.
I have to say, if the Coalition forces were looking for a casus belli other than a pre-emptive strike against suspected WMD sites, you can’t go beyond the brazen kidnapping of naval troops on a polickeeping mission. Of course, once any strike happens, the safety of the kidnapped troops is then at the whim of an Iranian general who might feel peeved at seeing his airforce and strategic assets reduced to rubble.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:56 am
“So David you are wondering why the peace movement is not calling for a war?”
Could you show me where Sir David says that Sonic?
I have reread the post twice and cannot for the life of me see where he says the peacemovement(tm) should declare war.
x
CL
March 30th, 2007 at 8:58 am
“I’ve been waiting for all the so called reps of the peace movement to condemn Iran for attacking the United Kingdom, and effectively declaring war on them.
Try reading it again slowly.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:11 am
You are unbelievable Sonic. That sentence clearly refers to *Iran* effectively declaring war. Yet again you try to pervert a discussion, presumably due to bloody minded love of mayhem.
If you can’t take an act of war by Iran seriously, you have lost your way, both morally and intellectually.
Oh, and for those pointing out the border is unclear. Quite right. But that makes the Iranian action *even less* justifiable.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Geneva Conventions ???, you can’t cherry pick these, they have been treated along with the Magna Carta with contempt by the US ( mostly ) & UK ( a little ), a bit late to cry wolf there.
Iran are playing a very stupid game, not sure why they want to provoke like this now, but it’s dangerous.
They might be trying to warn US/UK off infringing on their territory in a less destructive way than shooting down a plane, but still odd behaviour ( irrespective of whether they were in the waters, that’s so tough to prove either way, the motives behind the “capture”/”provocation” are far more interesting, along with how the hell did no one get injured, not much of a fight involved ).
March 30th, 2007 at 9:16 am
It is time to carry out air strikes on Teheran. This despotic regime is supporting terrorism in Iraq, and developing nuclear capability. Nip ‘em off before they’re a real problem.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:17 am
We all know David Farrar is the ultimate sycophantic apologist for Bushite exceptionalism, so its no surprise he appears to have a bloodthirsty desire for a pointless war with Iran. If he’d volunteer for the first wave I might even respect his view.
I wonder how the United States would react if Iranian frigates were stopping and searching every ship leaving or entering New York harbour?
I am just grateful that – so far – the British prisoners haven’t had the sort of treatment that the victims of U.S. capture get at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.
At the end of the day, the two sides will negotiate a release and no one will get hurt. Isn’t that a much nicer outcome?
March 30th, 2007 at 9:22 am
The US has the ability to bomb the puss out of Iran but not the resources to invade it. However ‘Dudyah’ is in power so anything might happen, sane or otherwise.
An article in today’s NZ Herald pointed out that if the soldiers kidnapped had been US then all kinds of shit would already have been unleashed.
Me-thinks the Iranians are playing smart arse politics. Dickheads.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:24 am
“It is time to carry out air strikes on Teheran”
You would have thought that the brave warriors of the 101st keyboard division might have learned a lesson or two from the Iraq fiasco, but it seems not.
Kiwi Donkey, IP take note.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:33 am
TomS
I am not in your “We all know” category.
I don’t like what you say, your politics and I am not part of your collective. So keep your poison words to your own persona.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:44 am
“War with Iran would be a disaster, not just for the countries involved but for the whole world ($200 a barrel oil anyone?)”
The West is not STEALING the oil from anybody. It is, and always has been, BUYING it, and despite this fact, the countries in the Middle East into which we are puring all these billions of dollars are still incapable of pulling themselves out of the Dark Ages. The current barrel price has risen from around $US23-24 on 9/11 to a current price of around $US60… but in the early eighties it had gone to $US68 largely as a result of the Iran-Iraq war.
Iran’s reserves amount to approximately 10% of the world’s oil, and their production has actually REDUCED from 6 gigabarrels per year it when the Shah of Iran was in power to a current 1.5 gigabarrels, so $US200 per barrel seems to me to be an unrealistically pessimistic scenario.
A temporary (or even a mid-term) spike in the price for some Mid East oil would be a tiny price to pay compared to the total destruction of Western civilisation – which is the Iranians’ preferred scenario. Anyway, this would not eventuate, because, if Iran was properly militarily dealt with, they would not be in a position to dictate prices to anybody.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Iran has weapons of mass destruction which it is going to use to destroy civilisation as we know it, the war will be a cakewalk and we will be welcomed by a grateful population with rice and flowers.
I have a funny feeling of deja vu.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Simple question, where would you rather live, either the US/Uk or Iran? not hard is it.
The Iranian government is committed to spreading it’s evil doctrine throughout the world. They make no excuses for that and do all they can to forward that ideal.
They hate ‘us’, everything about us offends them, end of story. Their political leader constantly calls for the destruction of Israel,for them to be wiped off the map. Do you think the rest of us won’t go the same way should he get the chance. How can any right minded NZ’er for even one minute defend this regime?
I hate war. However, “why can’t we all just get along” is not realistic when you are talking about an enemy who wants to destroy our way of life.
I have spent time in Tehran. I have friends there and they despise their government as much as I do. I would be devastated should they come to harm, but in the end fanatical Islam must be defeated if our world as we know it is to survive. It’s that simple.
As I said, I hate war, but I would fight for my faith and my family at the drop of a hat.
Iran “picked on” the UK because they know that PC based western politics would not allow a military reaction. They are playing on our weaknesses and that is our shame. They knew that the western politicians would be ham-strung by the godless left and have their hands tied. Soldiers are paid to fight and sometimes die, that is the fact. For the UK to have it’s soldiers wave a white flag so easily is an embarrasing show of weakness that the radical islamists won’t forget.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Simple question, where would you rather live, either the US/Uk or Iran? not hard is it.
The Iranian government is committed to spreading it’s evil doctrine throughout the world. They make no excuses for that and do all they can to forward that ideal.
They hate ‘us’, everything about us offends them, end of story. Their political leader constantly calls for the destruction of Israel,for them to be wiped off the map. Do you think the rest of us won’t go the same way should he get the chance. How can any right minded NZ’er for even one minute defend this regime?
I hate war. However, “why can’t we all just get along” is not realistic when you are talking about an enemy who wants to destroy our way of life.
I have spent time in Tehran. I have friends there and they despise their government as much as I do. I would be devastated should they come to harm, but in the end fanatical Islam must be defeated if our world as we know it is to survive. It’s that simple.
As I said, I hate war, but I would fight for my faith and my family at the drop of a hat.
Iran “picked on” the UK because they know that PC based western politics would not allow a military reaction. They are playing on our weaknesses and that is our shame. They knew that the western politicians would be ham-strung by the godless left and have their hands tied. Soldiers are paid to fight and sometimes die, that is the fact. For the UK to have it’s soldiers wave a white flag so easily is an embarrasing show of weakness that the radical islamists won’t forget.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Simple question, where would you rather live, either the US/Uk or Iran? not hard is it.
The Iranian government is committed to spreading it’s evil doctrine throughout the world. They make no excuses for that and do all they can to forward that ideal.
They hate ‘us’, everything about us offends them, end of story. Their political leader constantly calls for the destruction of Israel,for them to be wiped off the map. Do you think the rest of us won’t go the same way should he get the chance. How can any right minded NZ’er for even one minute defend this regime?
I hate war. However, “why can’t we all just get along” is not realistic when you are talking about an enemy who wants to destroy our way of life.
I have spent time in Tehran. I have friends there and they despise their government as much as I do. I would be devastated should they come to harm, but in the end fanatical Islam must be defeated if our world as we know it is to survive. It’s that simple.
As I said, I hate war, but I would fight for my faith and my family at the drop of a hat.
Iran “picked on” the UK because they know that PC based western politics would not allow a military reaction. They are playing on our weaknesses and that is our shame. They knew that the western politicians would be ham-strung by the godless left and have their hands tied. Soldiers are paid to fight and sometimes die, that is the fact. For the UK to have it’s soldiers wave a white flag so easily is an embarrasing show of weakness that the radical islamists won’t forget.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:01 am
> Imagine the outcry if the UK or US had done this to Iran.
Actually, the US has. I’m surprised you haven’t blogged about it. Or is it different when the other side does it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/world/middleeast/25iraq.html?ex=1324702800&en=57bbb45f8e61b7ba&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
March 30th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Simple question, where would you rather live, either the US/Uk or Iran? not hard is it.
The Iranian government is committed to spreading it’s evil doctrine throughout the world. They make no excuses for that and do all they can to forward that ideal.
They hate ‘us’, everything about us offends them, end of story. Their political leader constantly calls for the destruction of Israel,for them to be wiped off the map. Do you think the rest of us won’t go the same way should he get the chance. How can any right minded NZ’er for even one minute defend this regime?
I hate war. However, “why can’t we all just get along” is not realistic when you are talking about an enemy who wants to destroy our way of life.
I have spent time in Tehran. I have friends there and they despise their government as much as I do. I would be devastated should they come to harm, but in the end fanatical Islam must be defeated if our world as we know it is to survive. It’s that simple.
As I said, I hate war, but I would fight for my faith and my family at the drop of a hat.
Iran “picked on” the UK because they know that PC based western politics would not allow a military reaction. They are playing on our weaknesses and that is our shame. They knew that the western politicians would be ham-strung by the godless left and have their hands tied. Soldiers are paid to fight and sometimes die, that is the fact. For the UK to have it’s soldiers wave a white flag so easily is an embarrasing show of weakness that the radical islamists won’t forget.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Simple question, where would you rather live, either the US/Uk or Iran? not hard is it.
The Iranian government is committed to spreading it’s evil doctrine throughout the world. They make no excuses for that and do all they can to forward that ideal.
They hate ‘us’, everything about us offends them, end of story. Their political leader constantly calls for the destruction of Israel,for them to be wiped off the map. Do you think the rest of us won’t go the same way should he get the chance. How can any right minded NZ’er for even one minute defend this regime?
I hate war. However, “why can’t we all just get along” is not realistic when you are talking about an enemy who wants to destroy our way of life.
I have spent time in Tehran. I have friends there and they despise their government as much as I do. I would be devastated should they come to harm, but in the end fanatical Islam must be defeated if our world as we know it is to survive. It’s that simple.
As I said, I hate war, but I would fight for my faith and my family at the drop of a hat.
Iran “picked on” the UK because they know that PC based western politics would not allow a military reaction. They are playing on our weaknesses and that is our shame. They knew that the western politicians would be ham-strung by the godless left and have their hands tied. Soldiers are paid to fight and sometimes die, that is the fact. For the UK to have it’s soldiers wave a white flag so easily is an embarrasing show of weakness that the radical islamists won’t forget.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Apologies for the multiple posts. My laptop had a fit…or I can’t drive it.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Sonic
“I’ve been waiting for all the so called reps of the peace movement to condemn Iran for attacking the United Kingdom, and effectively declaring war on them.
Try reading it again slowly.”
Ok I read it again S L O W L Y and still can’t see where DPF is asking the peacemovement(tm) to declare war.
Please point it out to me a little more clearly
or withdraw.
xxx
CL
March 30th, 2007 at 10:25 am
RedRag – you willignness to accept Iranian propoganda is amazing. Go read the BBC stories.
Iran provided a GPS location to journalists. There are hundreds of media outlets who can confirm the location they provided. It then was pointed out to Iran this was not in their waters. So they then provided a new location.
Anyone believing the Iranian Government is so far removed from reality I can’t take you seriously. You are utting more weight on the unverified claims of Iran, who have changed their story twice than the location provided by the UK Navy which is backed up by GPS evidence.
Jesus Christ you’d accept the moon is made of cheese so long as Iran claimed it was true.
Iran is the aggressor. They in fact have to prove the location. The UK doesn’t. Iran can not and in fact are so incompetent their invented location wasn’t even in their own territory.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Are you going to withdraw Sonic?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I blame John Lennon. “All we are saying is ‘Give peace a chance’”.
What the Muslim world is saying is “Fuck off, degenerate westerner, or we’ll kill your sorry infidel ass.”
Methinks there is a slight divergence in these basic world views that needs to be addressed. Now, if we could all sit down and discuss this like gentlemen over a nice cup of tea, then perhaps this horrible problem will just go away and everybody would be happy….
Ha!
March 30th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Bit of a problem with your theory David.
(via http://www.craigmurray.co.uk)
A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.
B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.
Finally even the British commander says
“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated”.
Sorry to use facts but there you have it.
Chickenlittle, David was asking the peace movement to accept that Iran had declared war on Britain, that, in this hedgehogs humble opinion, means that he is asking us to support a counter-declaration of war by Britain against Iran. Pretty simple really, I’m surprised you have not grasped that.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Sonic is being malicious with his interpretation. He is also avoding the question of what his solution is. What would he do if he was the UK:
(a) Leave 15 British soldiers who were kidnapped by Iran to rot in jail
(b) Reward Iran for its kidnapping by giving them concessions in some other areas
(c) ????
I just love threads like these which expose the lunatics who rush to defend Iran no matter what it has done. They’re the same people who spent four decades defending Stalin and his successors.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:33 am
DPF, I don’t disagree with you that Iran’s action is wrong wrong wrong. But your idea of a declaration of war is a bit over the top. Did the French government declare war on NZ when they hit the Rainbow Warrior?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:35 am
“malicious with his interpretation”
Care to challenge any of the actual facts I’ve raised rather than just accusing me of being some stooge for the mullahs?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Sonic, if the border is confused there is *even less* justification for the Iranian action. They Iranians would have been well aware that there was no clear border, if that was the case.
You have vigourously resisted condeming the Iranian attack on Britain. Can I therefore assume that you support it?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I think the way to resolve this dispute, and get the sailors released, is for everyone to calm down and get engaged in diplomacy. All of this gung-ho rhetoric (By Blair especially) is not helping frankly.
There is a dispute, so far (thank god) no-one has been hurt. Lets do our best to keep it that way.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:39 am
There is nothing much Blair can do. He will leave office “Jimmy Cater” style with Iran still holding British hostages. I note Blair is now using that term.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:41 am
It’s a very strange thing for Iran to do. It looks like a very deliberate hostage taking exercise. They much have known no one was going to believe the bullshit about being in Iranian waters. Even the Guardian editorial expresses its dismay –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,2044956,00.html
And now they have released a really troubling second forced letter from the woman hostage.
They kidnap UK troops acting under the direct auspices of the UN. What morons.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Frankly, I support the UK and USA – right or wrong. And once upon a time so did NZ before we became a nation of… sycophants. (my bold)
Sorry, quote is from a fair way up thread, but I’m just curious as to whether it’s parody or meant to be taken seriously.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Neil, there is no agreed maritime border between Iran and Iraq, anyone who says otherwise is lying frankly.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:44 am
” there is no agreed maritime border between Iran and Iraq, anyone who says otherwise is lying frankly.”
So are the Iranians lying then Sonic?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:44 am
> Jesus Christ you’d accept the moon is made of cheese so long as Iran claimed it was true.
Yeah, it’s alnmost as whacked out as the theory that Iraq had WMDs. You didn’t believe that crock, did you David?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:47 am
There is a dispute Mr Donkey, the Iranians would say “well look at the map it is closer to Iran than Iraq, the Brits will say “on our maps that is Iraqi waters”
A dispute, something you resolve with diplomacy, not an “act of war”
March 30th, 2007 at 10:47 am
> They’re the same people who spent four decades defending Stalin and his successors.
No, DPF, Stalin was a little before my time. You’re obviously a lot older than you look.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:50 am
But Sonic, it is the Iranians who have committed an act of war. Not to mention breaching the Geneva Convention by parading one of the prisoners on TV.
Anyway, for the record:
Sonic clearly supports the Iranian kidnapping of the British sailors and marines.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:51 am
“They must have known no one was going to believe the bullshit about being in Iranian waters.”
I was going to say “except for George Galloway” but thought that was being a bit bitchy.
At least the sensible Left at the Guardian are not so cut-off-my-nose-to-spit-my-face.
Timothy Garton Ash has a good take on this deliberate kidnapping in Iarqi waters –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2045054,00.html
March 30th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Iranians pick up a bunch of soldiers in waters they claim – and quite probably believe – to be theirs. DPF believes this is clearly aggression and constitutes a declaration of war.
DPF, a question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I6-2NJhnf4
Is that a declaration of war too? That wasn’t just taking prisoners, that’s an all-out military attack on UK forces and caused a death.
Or are the Iranians infallible, unlike those stupid Americans?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:53 am
NZ have participated in these peace keeping duties under the control of the UN. Should the NZ govt protest? Difficult one for Klarke as she loves sucking up to Iran.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Let me guess err..
You condemn the friendly fire incident and demand justice, but don’t condemnt the Iranians? What a surprise!
Also, there is a difference between an accident in a war zone where live firing is going on, and a deliberate attack when hostilities are not occuring.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Brilliant from Garton Ash in the Guardian
“Reflecting the confusion inside the Iranian state, the first coordinates for the allegedly transgressing British boats given to the British by the Iranian government turned out to be within Iraqi territorial waters too. Not until three days later did the Iranians come up with a second “corrected” set of coordinates which conveniently put the British forces on the wrong side of the line. Only someone whose political and moral compass is totally disorientated by hostility to American and British policy could dare to suggest that this act of shameless, lying, cross-border piracy is justified or excusable.”
March 30th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Sonic, when I wrote “Now, if we could all sit down and discuss this like gentlemen over a nice cup of tea, then perhaps this horrible problem will just go away and everybody would be happy….” I was being sarcastic. I staggered me to see that, a few comments later, this is exactly what you are advocating (“I think the way to resolve this dispute etc etc”).
When you say “(thank god) no-one has been hurt. Lets do our best to keep it that way” are you being serious? Which particular god are you thanking? For what?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Neil, there are no agreed teritorial waters, it’s really very simple.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Sonic, if there are no agreed territorial waters, how do you explain your support for the Iranian kidnapping. They must have known there were no agreed territorial waters either?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:01 am
So Dave, are you part of the nuke Iran crowd or do you think diplomacy is the answer?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:01 am
So sonic why seize UK marines if there is a dispute about the border? You dont think through the implications of your statement..You continually overlook Iran changed the coordinates when UK said the were Iranian produced coordinates were actually located in Iraqi waters.Following your (implied) logic (of their being a dispute over the border) they wouldn’t have. They would have responded – “no we stick by our coordinates. That is in fact Iranian territory.We dispute the claim this is Iraqi territory.” BUT THEY DIDNT. Thus they got it wrong and slipped up, but their culture of shame and honour wont allow them to admit their bungle.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Leigh, imagine a bunch of Iranian sailors were stopping ships in what the British thought were Iraqi waters, what do you think they would do?
Oh and Kiwi Donkey, I’ve made my position clear, I want to see these military personnel released as soon as possible, only someone as deluded as your good self could call that “support” for the Iranian military action.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:05 am
As a supporter of the Iranian kidnapping, Sonic will say anything to divert people from the act of war committed by Iran. Implying Dave may want to Nuke Iran wil no doubt be followed by many other smears and distractions.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:06 am
sonic, if there are no agreed upon territrial waters then how come the Iranians can claim the troops were in Iranian waters? It works both ways.
But actually there is, that’s why the Iranians had to change their co-ordinates. Have a read of Garton Ash above and consider that last sentence. That’s coming from someone on the Left in a Left-wing publication that’s never been afraid to critise Blair.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Donkey, don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve never said anything on the topic of friendly fire in any comment on this blog ever. So no, I won’t let you guess.
Military forces make mistakes – even the US, who have the most money and the best technology on the planet. As you can see on that linked video, they genuinely believed they were firing on an enemy. They certainly fucked up royally and could have demonstrated a bit more caution in their actions, but it was a genuine mistake and you’d be a fool to consider it a declaration of war.
There’s three possibilities here with the Iran situation.
#1: Iran is acting maliciously and picking up UK troops from waters it knows not to be its own. If so, why would they be so stupid as to give the press co-ordinates inside said waters?
#2: Iran is acting on the belief that the waters it picked the soldiers up in are its own. This is also possible, as pointed out in a number of comments here, and if so it’s certainly no more of an act of war than the friendly fire video linked above – just a mistake. How stupid that mistake was depends on how clear-cut the territorial boundaries are, and seemingly they’re not particularly clear.
#3: The solders were actually in Iranian waters and the British are wrong in this. In which case it’s definitely not an act of war, and in fact the British would be in a considerably more shaky position than Iran is now.
I don’t see where DPF is actually getting his 100% bulletproof concrete evidence that we’re talking about #1 here. I think #2 is the most likely, personally. #3 is a possibility, but I don’t believe it to be a clear-cut case for the same reason that I doubt #1.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Sonic. You refuse to condem the Iranians. You vigorously argue against those who do condem them. Ergo you support them. Try having the intellectual courage to own the consequences of your arguments. Or condem this illegal action.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:08 am
err – jesus christ what sort of moron does not know the difference between an accident and deliberate. If the Iranians made a mistake then they can solev it by apologising and handing the sailors back. They have refused.
Neil M – exact – anyone arguing that Iran was right has not a shred of regard for the truth or in fact any moral standards at all.
Ross – Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Jacques Chirac all thought Iraq had WMDs. Nice try at a total red herring. Run out of actual arguments have you.
Sonic has refused to answer the question as to what he would do if Iran refuses.
I repeat Sonic – will you let the sailors rot in prison or will you reward Iran for kidnapping them?
And your malicious lie was saying I had called for the peace movement to call for war. I had not, as was pointed out to you. Not even you are that stupid to read that into what I said. On second thought maybe you are.
And your nonsense about not recognuising the border is made ridicolous that Iran changed their claim location so it would be inside their waters. Why would they do that and not stick with the original location otherwise?
Also you miss teh point it is still an act of war kidnapping the sailors. If there is a bounday dispute, you do not solve it by kidnapping sailors in disputed waters.
But well done Sonic for pride of place as defender of the Iranian regime. You must miss defending the old USSR as beign badly treated by the West.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Err.. Sure, I am quite wiling to accept the “cock-up” as opposed to the conspiracy theory of this Iranian action. But it should still be condemned, and the sailors and marines released immediately. They have had plenty of time to correct the mistake. Why haven’t they?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Umm, David, the US has already done this.. they took 5 Iranian diplomats (possiblyt Republican Guards) working at the Iranian embassy in IRaq into custody a few months ago and still hold them. Where is your outcry over that?
It is an act of war to seize foreign soldiers outside of one’s territory but its not an act of war for a country to detain foreign soldiers inside its territory – indeed its an act of war for foreign soldiers to entrer a coutnry’s territory without permission… so it does come down to where the seizure actually took place, which I don’t know for sure and neither do you.. All we’ve got is British propaganda versus Iranian propaganda…
You’re right that showing the soldiers on TV is a breach og the Geneva Conventions.
You could say I’m of the peace movement – and I think the British soldiers should be freed. Deosn’t mean that the Iranians have necessarily done anything wrong apart from a minor breach of the Geneva convestions though.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Sam, an article linked to earlier in this thread said two of those 5 had diplomatic papers, and that they had been handed over to the Iraqis and released.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:16 am
“err – jesus christ what sort of moron does not know the difference between an accident and deliberate. If the Iranians made a mistake then they can solev it by apologising and handing the sailors back. They have refused.”
Thanks DPF, nice to know that you respond to a reasonable question with insults.
They’re quite possibly refusing based on a couple of non-malicious angles: either a belief that they’re holding people who they picked up in their own waters or a strategy to buy time while they work out a way of getting out of it without looking like total idiots back home. Do you really think they’re dumb enough to call up the press and say “Look, we picked them up here” and give a GPS location in FOREIGN WATERS on PURPOSE? If they gave a GPS location that is being claimed to be in foreign waters it’s most probably because they believed it to be in their own: anything else just defeats the point of even talking to media.
And having done that it’s a little tricky to just go “Whoops, we made a mistake!” and sheepishly hand them back. Or are you suggesting that the US was open and honest about their mistakes and the availability of evidence in the Matty Hull friendly fire incident? I would suggest that if it is a mistake the most likely resolution is a negotiated one via back channels whereby the soldiers get handed back in exchange for some kind of nebulous (but ultimately meaningly) “concession” from the British which lets the Iranian military avoid looking utterly stupid in front of the Iranian public.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Sonic, no I am not one of the “Nuke Iran” crowd. And I do think that diplomacy might work.
I am one of the “Strike decisively at Iran’s military capability using whatever conventional weapons are necessary” crowd. In my view, using nuclear weapons would definitely not be approriate unless their military survived enough for them to fart above 100 decibels. In that case, then nuclear weapons might have to be considered, but only after the initial diplomatic approach (conventionally armed cruise missiles) had been tried.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:19 am
meaningly = meaningless. Need coffee…
March 30th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Err .. I think you make a fair point. However, it is a point about internal politics and not international relations. So yes it might be uncomfortable for the Iranians, but ultimately that is no excuse.
I think this incident, and its aftermath, also needs to be intepreted over Iranian strategy in foreign policy over the last two years.
Sonic: Still no condenmation? What if they’d killed one of the Sailors. Would you condem it then?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Poor Kiwi-Donkey. Go back and read what I said, personally I think this is a screw-up on both sides and the way to resolve it is with diplomacy.
I’ll leave the war porn to people like Dave.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I feel some early school holidays for Sonic coming on.
Do carry on old bean.
x
CL
March 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am
As predicted earlier, Sonic continues with smears and abuse. Sonic also continues to refuse to condemn the Iranian action.
Anything Iranian is okay with Sonic. They could send their children into minefileds and he wouldn’t complain, as long as they were still opposed to Britain and the US.
Condemn the kidnapping Sonic. It’s not that hard to do.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Sonic one again refuses to say what he would do. Here I ask him for the third time. He uses the term diplomacy as if that is some magic carpet.
So let’s give Sonic attempt number three. If Iran refues to release the UK sailors. What do you do:
(a) Let them rot in an Iranian jail
(b) Reward Iran for kidnapping them
(c) ……
And err yes I do beleive they are entirely that stupid the Iranians. But hey great work making excuses for them that they have not even tried yet. You should be proud.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Beware of the doctrine
‘My enemies enemy is my friend’.
The US has screwed up huge on that several times (USSR ,Iraq etc).
Sonic and his fellow Iranian govt apologists seems to be joining the US with that one.
Or is it more that you hate the US at any cost?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:32 am
War Porn? Thats a good one. Porn is, essentially, self-delusion.
The Iranians actually declared war on the West in 1979 and the ‘porn’ of it is that we have turned or eyes and our minds the other way for almost 30 years. Now THAT’S what I call self-delusion.
Note that I am not advocating the broadcast beheading of civilians or the bombing of soft non-military targets like office buildings and railway systems etc. Hopefully Craig’s friends in Teheran would be able to remain unharmed.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:33 am
The US and Britain are getting their butts kicked in the disaster called Iraq and Afghanistan, how do you expect them to fare against a motivated enemy armed to the teeth such as Iran?
Iran has always abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – unlike the USA.
Why don’t you tell me out of the US, Britain and Iran – which of those countries has attacked another. It’s not Iran.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:35 am
“Sonic one again refuses to say what he would do”
I’ve already said, open negotiations. I faile to see what our problem is with that. As an admirer of Winston Churchill you must know his famous phrase about Jaw Jaw being better that War War.
Kiwi-Donkey is such a comedian
“Sonic continues with smears and abuse..Anything Iranian is okay with Sonic. They could send their children into minefileds and he wouldn’t complain”
Funniest post yet mate.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Ah – Max, Iran just did attack Britain. That’s what this thread is about.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Oh and David, while we are on the subject of ignoring questions, could you comment on the two facts I raised above?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Why should they be released sorry? If they entered into Iran’s waters illegally, does Iran not have the right to imprison them?
Does anyone else think that this smells of the Manchurian invasion? Oh no they attacked our railways, better invade….
March 30th, 2007 at 11:41 am
“And err yes I do beleive they are entirely that stupid the Iranians. But hey great work making excuses for them that they have not even tried yet. You should be proud.”
Didn’t I spot you over on Public Address the other day bemoaning the state of your comments section and wondering why oh why your comments section is full of angry ranting people insulting each other while PA has clearly ended up with more reasoned and polite comments threads?
Just in case you’d forgotten:
http://www.publicaddress.net/system/topic,306,island_life_whos_laughing.sm?p=11087#post11087
If you want an answer to that perhaps you could try re-reading this thread, where you’ve responded to my reasonable attempts to discuss an current events with you with more snide comments and insults than any actual responses.
Perhaps one gets the comments section one deserves?
OK, you’ve established that you believe that Iran is stupid and acting in a deliberate, malicious manner. What I’m asking for is evidence that can provide me the same certainty that you have – granting you the benefit of the doubt that your position is based on evidence, of course.
Or do you have some more snide rejoinders and insults to help contribute to improving the tone of your comments section instead?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:41 am
There’s no outcry because you guys are doing the outcry for them.
And the reason there’s usually outcry against the the US and the UK is that if the “peace movement” didn’t do it nobody would.
The fact of the matter is there’s little difference between the US, the UK, and Iran.
Hopefully they’ll all kill each other with nukes sometime soon and we’ll be left in peace.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:43 am
dpf said..”..Iran is the aggressor…”
are you feckin’ kidding here..?
america has just been holding the biggest military exercises in the gulf since the first gulf war…
and are about to bomb iran..
(that’s why the russians have puled their scientists/techs out of all of irans’ nuclear facilities..
can’t have any dead/bombed russians..eh..?
very embarrassing..that would be..)
yet david states….’iran is the aggressor’..
eh..?
david..you totally war-pimped the illegal invasion of iraq..
and the continued devestation of that country..and its’ people..
and now you are war-pimping for an attack on iran..
have you no conscience around the sufferings of the iraqi people..?
and just want to visit the same hell/miseries on the iranian people..
all in the name of your ideology..eh david..?
do the revelations about the lies/justifications for that war on iraq not cause you to pause..?..and maybe think..?
no..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 30th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Why don’t you condemn the kidnapping Sonic?
Distraction, smears – that’s your stock in trade. You refuse to support Britain and the United Nations mandate they are operating under. You refuse to support those 15 service people. You are willing to abuse and attack Britain and US, and the domestic right wing, but you don’t seem to have the courage to apply an objective moral standard, or to admit that you might have been wrong. You contrarian approach might be amusing to you, but you are taking it too far.
Condemn the kidnapping Sonic.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:45 am
The leader of Iran DID NOT call for Israel to be wiped off the map.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:46 am
They weren’t kidnapped…
March 30th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Max, Al-Jazeera disagrees with you.
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816
“NEWS GLOBALNEWS
Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.”
March 30th, 2007 at 11:48 am
The descenting views on this blog are a classic example of why the Islamists think they can destroy the west. They view debate & freedom of speech as a weakness. Nero, fiddle, Rome…whilst we debate and pontificate, they act.
The irony is, that should Islam rule the world, blogs like this will cease to exist and we’d all be in jail, or dead, for expressing our views.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I disgree that this could be called a kidnapping Mr One trick pony.
I’ve not “smeared” anyone, I leave that to those, like yourself, who cannot deabte a reasoable difference of opinion without throwing around stupid charges like “They could send their children into minefileds and he wouldn’t complain”
March 30th, 2007 at 11:49 am
I think it is premature to suggest that a war will result from Iran’s detention of the Sea Scouts.
Since Desert Storm the U.K. has maintained a presence in the region for the purposes of reconaissance which has been a source of anger and fury by Iran whom believe they are being spied on.
Iran of course does’nt have a great record for treating hostages well, you may recall the american hostage incident in Tehran from the eighties.
Iran is paranoid and prone to subversive tactics in relation to it’s security situation that would be best resolved through diplomacy rather than war.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:50 am
David C – oh, another distraction in support of Iran? Call it what you like. Condem it or support it please. What is your position? Was the Iranian action acceptable?
Why is it so hard for some of you to say that either
- The Iranian action was right. OR
- The Iranian action was wrong.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:55 am
War is unlikely, although who knows with crazyman Ahmadinejad. The one good thing that will come out of this that Iran will be further isolated in the international community and since the UK troops were doing UN work the UN will most likely harden its attitude towards Tehran.
The clerics must be having second thoughts about Ahmadinejad buy now.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Because Kiwi Donkey things aren’t always that black and white – good guys vs bad guys, it’s a wonderfully Hollywood view.
I do not support the kidnapping of the British Soldiers BUT I do not think that Iran did anything that should result in them being bombed/invaded/sanctioned.
Your statement Mr Donkey is very Dubya isn’t it? “You’re either with us or against us”. A wonderful semantic trap meaning if you don’t 100% support us you are a traitor.
Smooth.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Sonic, either you support the Iranian action or you don’t. Which is it? It’s not so hard. Tell us which.
I said you smeared when you implied dave wanted to Nuke Iran. You continued smearing with the accusation of War Porn. You might like to hide behind logic chopping and ambiguous language. But your intent is crystal clear.
And you are quite at liberty to condemn the Iranian practice of using children to clear minefields during the Iran-Iraq war if you wish. I just assumed you wouldn’t want to, because you defend the Iranians against any criticism at all.
So logic chop and argue semantics about kidnapping if you like. But answer the question.
Do you support the Iranian action? Was it right? Or was it wrong?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:57 am
I think it is premature to suggest a war is about to happen.
The Persians are clever people and will seize upon this detention to get as many concessions as possible from the Coalition of the Willing.
The best way to play this cat and mouse game is to do nothing immediately but in Tony Blairs words “Ratchet up the ante through diplomacy”
March 30th, 2007 at 11:58 am
I think it is premature to suggest a war is about to happen.
The Persians are clever people and will seize upon this detention to get as many concessions as possible from the Coalition of the Willing.
The best way to play this cat and mouse game is to do nothing immediately but in Tony Blairs words “Ratchet up the ante through diplomacy”
March 30th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Actually no David C. I accept what you say. It seems a perfectly reasonable position to me.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:58 am
“The fact of the matter is there’s little difference between the US, the UK, and Iran.
Hopefully they’ll all kill each other with nukes sometime soon and we’ll be left in peace.”
Wow I thought out nutters were as nutty as you can get. But we have a new record ladies and gentleman. Let;s givge that man a prize.
err – if people are so intellectually dishonest as to compare friendly fire incidents to a deliberate kidnapping and parading of hostages on TV, then I will aggressively attack on that. I will not attack for an honest point of view, but your arguments are so dishonest, I reacted aggressively.
If you can not see for yourself the evidence that Iran is in the wrong, I am amazed. Let me recap:
(a) Clear GPS proof they entered Iraqi waters
(b) Rather than warn British patrol, the ambused and kidnapped them
(c) They have acted like the typical terrorist gand by parading them on TV
(d) They are coercing them to make statements against their will
(e) They are proven to have lied at least once abotu their location, so why would you beleive their second claim, made three days later
Nothing the Iranians have done has been in good faith. They can resolve this immediately.
And now we turn to Sonic. For the third time Sonic is unable to answer. He says open negotiations. That is not an answer. Of course one should talk at first. But what do you do Sonic if Iran refuse to release them.
Do you reward their act of kidnapping or do you leave them to rot in Iranian jails?
Your inability to answer this Sonic speaks volumes.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:58 am
$200 a barrell will never happen!!, its just BS from a nutter, him along with Mr Chavez will find out like all Dictators that wispering death will fall upon them.
Interesting article here
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-timeline.htm#070221
March 30th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
DPF why should we trust the Brits so implicitly? Did they not lie about the Iraqi WMD? The “Smoking gun” document they presented to Parliament was a complete fabrication. Could they not be lying again to justify their position? I’m not saying they are but I think you need to take a more balanced view rather than just being biased by your own political prejudices.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Both sides might be “right” about the border infringement, or absence of one.
I am not an expert in these matters but even the BBC (not especially known for its impartiality) tells us that this border is not just a question of drawing lines on maps – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6496559.stm. This one is apparently reset every so often as a result of seasonal changes, but this hasn’t happened in recent years because of the situation in Iraq.
So the British will be using maps showing mutually agreed and disputed territories and policing the zone according to their lights. Not surprisingly the Iranians aren’t necessarily going along with it, just as the US ignores various UN declarations and directives when it suits.
And I would still like to see a plot of the Cornwall’s manoeuvres over the previous 24 hours, along with those of its tenders. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they were in disputed waters or even in the Iranian zone. We haven’t been given the full story here.
A point seemingly missed so far in this thread is that, according to the British, the Iranians adjusted the reported position of the British vessels not once, but twice. The first two positions were on the Iraqi side, according to Britain. Let’s assume that the Iranians aren’t stupid and just for a change, let’s assume they’re not lying. Let’s assume that the Iranians didn’t actually know what map the British would be using, and chose positions out of their plot of the moves that were on their side of the line as they saw it. Just because they keep “changing their story” doesn’t mean they’re actually lying.
Give them some credit. Yes they’re a different colour and a different religion and have expressed enmity against the West, but that doesn’t make them automatically wrong in whatever they assert.
Like the British have never lied about military positioning. Ha.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
David, as I’ve pointed out twice now there is no agreement on what are “Iraqi” waters and what are not.
Every point you make afterwards falls over due to your continued inablilty to notice that inconvienent truth.
The British Commander’s original statement was
“the British commander says
“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated”
Lets start from that, not from you screeching ‘well if not war then what?’
March 30th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
“Yeah, it’s alnmost as whacked out as the theory that Iraq had WMDs. You didn’t believe that crock, did you David?”
There still are WMD’s. Just because they were taken across the border to Syria doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Don’t get to warm and cosy in that blanket of security Ross. It has huge holes in it
March 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
There’s a logical flaw in your argument Cathi. The Iranians first gave co-ordinates that supposedly justified the claim the UK was in Iraqi waters. But then they had to change their story to a new set of co-ordinates, the first co-ordinates had them in Iarqi waters and they knew that, whatever maps they are using, they knew there first co-orinates put the UK in Iraqi waters. That’s why they had to change their stroy. They are lying.
As Garton Ash says
“Only someone whose political and moral compass is totally disorientated by hostility to American and British policy could dare to suggest that this act of shameless, lying, cross-border piracy is justified or excusable.”
March 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
So how did the Iranian discussion go then, Sonic.
“Captain, there are some Briish in disputed waters who may have marginally strayed into an area we currently regard as hours, miles from anything important. What shall we do?”
“Quick, board their ships and capture them !”
You’re right of course. That happens all the time. Why just the other day the French kidnapped some British sailors. And the Aussies imprisoned one of our Frigates. And those Canadians – why they are always capturing American Captains! FOR GODS SAKE GET REAL. What do you think would happen if the Phillipines kidnapped some Chinese sailors around the Spratlys?
Your refusal to condem the Iranian actions suggests that you will support them at all costs, even against our traditional allies and against the United Nations.
Condemn the Iranian actions Sonic.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
“err – if people are so intellectually dishonest as to compare friendly fire incidents to a deliberate kidnapping and parading of hostages on TV, then I will aggressively attack on that. I will not attack for an honest point of view, but your arguments are so dishonest, I reacted aggressively.”
You keep using words like “Deliberate kidnapping”. As I’ve asked in just about every post so far, how are you so certain that this isn’t actually a mistake? I raised that particular friendly fire incident as a parallel because:
1) I believe it to be a mistake.
2) It was something that the US was rather unwilling to front up to in an open and honest fashion.
3) It was a considerably more serious mistake than detaining some people would be – it caused death.
4) It also happened in the same region, and was also carried out against US troops.
Again, where is your evidence that Iran’s actions are a “deliberate kidnapping” rather than actions they’ve taken on the honest belief that they were acting within their rights?
I don’t think you get to judge whether or not I’m making a dishonest case. You have this absolute certainty that Iran’s actions are deliberate aggression, I’m asking you for evidence. All of your responses to me are based on the assumption of your initial position being true – I’m asking you not to assume your views are true, but to support them.
That would be a measure of reasonable political discussion rather than rabid shouting, and I’d have thought it’d be behavior that you’d be wanting to demonstrate by example around here.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I see the one trick Donkey has not changed his spots!
Raise questions=Support Iran.
Could you keep it down Donkey, the grown-ups are trying to talk.
Thanks
March 30th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
It’s not actually a breach of the Geneva Conventions to show the British soldiers on TV since Iran & the UK are not actually at war, yet…
March 30th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
DPR – I think err.. has got a point.
Sonic: Condem the Iranian actions.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Oops: I meant: DPF – I think err.. has got a point.
Sonic: Condem the Iranian actions.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Clearly the coffee isn’t helping. US=UK at one point above.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Wow Sonic new lows for you. If onky you could be so energetic in other endeavours. Can one just imagien if the US had done what Iran just did – Would SOnic come up ith 25 versions of why the US is right? No – he would cry bloody murder.
And I have condemned the US for stuff like torture at Abu Gharab. If it was the Iranians Sonic would be defending their torture.
On a different note comments are going to be turned off for an hour or so while I deal with some spam – it is currently hitting at 500/hour.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
” new lows for you”
Pointing out facts and quoting Winston Churchill is a low?
I’ll show you what a low is Mr F, unfounded smears like
“If it was the Iranians Sonic would be defending their torture.”
Now that is a low.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
That’s right Sonic, if you can’t address the argument, resort to abuse.
I don’t mind you supporting Iran, if that’s what you really believe. I just wish you had the courage to state your beliefs clearly instead of hiding behind distration, smear, logic chopping and semantics.
So: Do you condemn the Iranian actions? Support them? Hold some other view? I’m NOT talking about resolving the situation, I’m atlking about the initial kidnapping/detention/imprisionment/capturing of the British personnel?
I’ve asked you 10 million times now Sonic. And you’ve ducked the question every time.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
lets go nuclear
March 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Sonic – you have done nothing but invent excuses for Iran. You coud get hired by their state broadcaster.
You claim to be against torture. Well let us hear you condemn the obvious coercion, which may involve treats or violence, on the female sailor to make her make those public broadcasts contray to the Geneva Conventions which condemn such things.
Just come and say you condemn it, without making excuses for them.
And then try coming out and demanding Iran release the sailors.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I’ve made my position very clear a number of times now. If these troops were in Iranian waters is very much a moot point (both sides propaganda norwithsanding)
I’d hope to see a diplomatic solution that frees them as soon as possible.
Any threats of torture or actual torture are unacceptable.
Now you can withdraw your baseless smears Mr F.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
David C said “DPF why should we trust the Brits so implicitly? Did they not lie about the Iraqi WMD?”. Where is your proof the Hutton report was a fabrication?
The list of world leaders, US politicians of all political stripes and global intelligence agencies that believed Saddam had WMD is long and illustrious and includes: Pres Bill AND Senator Hillary Clinton, a raft of Clinton administration senior officials, Senator John Kerry, Britain’s MI6, the CIA, the Russian equivalent, the Israeli Mossad, the French DGSE and Jacques Chirac, the Germans and so on and so on. Did they all lie??? Oh no-only the wicked warmongering Bush of course and his poodle Blair. The Iraqis had WMDs and had proved it because they used them (against the Kurds and Iranians). Saddam played cat and mouse with the UN weapons inspectors – if he had no WMD why the obfuscation? He had the will, the personnel and some of the material that was of course not found when the Coalition forces invaded. That doesn’t mean Bush and Blair lied – it means they relied on the best intelligence available and on past behaviour and prescedent. Full examiniation of the UN Oil for Food scandal tells us the lengths and scope the Iraqi regime went to attempt to bribe foreign governments (specifically France, Russia and Germany) to ease/eliminate the sanctions so that what he didnt have in terms of WMD he would soon obtain.
As for Sonic, eer and the ever stoned philU – if this was truly a case of the British straying inadvertantly into Iranian waters as the Iranians fallaciously claim, why no warnings as is customary in such instances. You are foolishly naive to believe the Iranian assertions as to territory since their story changes. This is a deliberate act of provocation made by the Mullahs who rightly have calculated the West is weak and impotent and will not strike back. Sounds like Hitler and the Sudentenland and Alsace Lorraine all over again in 1936. Appeasment and more appeasement ultimately led to WW2.
You cry negotiation and diplomacy – for crying out loud the British Foreign Office have been engaging in nothing but vigorous diplomacy for days now. David Farrar has asked all you lefty peacenicks to tell us what we do if after all the diplomacy is exhausted and the Iranians still hold the sailors – THEN WHAT?
March 30th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I wouldn’t bother David. The moderate Left media in Britain has been hammering Iran over this so to some extent, to any extent that could be expected, your request has been met. They aren’t falling for the Iranian bullshit about being in Iranian waters.
Julian Borger is most likely on to something – http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/julian_borger/2007/03/the_video_techniques_of_the.html
He suggests the Islamic Revolutionary Guards sprung this kidnapping for reasons of their own and the Iranian Foreign Ministry are busy unwillingly having to cover and looking like fools in the process.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Iran has not declared war on anyone yet. She has committed a blatant act of war against Great Britain and by having been found to have special forces troops in Iraq operating with the terrorists she has comnmitted an act of war against Iraq. The next logical step id for Britain to inform Iran that if Iran does not release the captures British soldiers and sailers that Britain will be at war with Iran.
And in the long run, that might be a very good thing.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Hooray! Our lawless imperialista are going to get even with their fundamentalist terrorists!
March 30th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Hooray! Our lawless imperialists are going to get even with their fundamentalist terrorists!
March 30th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
From Wikipedia:
Translation of phrase “wiped off the map”
Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad’s phrases in Persian as a statement that “Israel must be wiped off the map”[4][5][6], an English idiom which means to cause a place to stop existing[7].
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]
According to Cole, “Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian” and “He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.”[9]
March 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Wanna know who else has violated the Geneva Convention?
March 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Hooray! Our lawless imperialists are going to get even with their fundamentalist terrorists!
March 30th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Tell us which states defy UN resolutions the most!
March 30th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
“And in the long run, that might be a very good thing”
If you are hiding away in New Zealand and not in the military that is.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
David wrote: “And I have condemned the US for stuff like torture at Abu Gharab”.
Yeah, you have although whether you convinced anybody by that is another matter.
You still haven’t explained why you haven’t criticised the US despite the fact that they seized several Iranians in Iraq late last year. A double standard no doubt.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Israel has violated NUMEROUS treaties dating back to the 70s. Nobody does anything. US blatantly IGNORES the UN NUMEROUS times but when Iran does it, oh hey thats illegal!
March 30th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Why do people believe the British know exactly where the troops were picked up? This is the same ‘elite’ organisation that accidentally ‘invaded’ Spain when it was meant to be ‘invading’ Gibralter – http://www.guardian.co.uk/gibraltar/story/0,11525,652616,00.html
The Iranian regime is pretty disgusting and it would be nice if it was gone, but looking at the successes of Afghanistan & Iraq hoping this will happen with US / UK intervention is akin to leaving your kids with Graham Capill and hoping they’d be alright.
The UK & US bleating on about the treatment of the captured marines is breathtaking when put aside their treatment of prisoners over the past few years .
March 30th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Love the Capill analogy!
March 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Don’t forget the 45 minutes to Armageddon B.S. that Blair went on and on about.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
“You still haven’t explained why you haven’t criticised the US despite the fact that they seized several Iranians in Iraq late last year. A double standard no doubt.”
Probably because they were actually IN Iraq, though I’m sure they were just helping rebuild some schools and help stem the insurgency, right ross?
March 30th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
OMG Iran has agents everywhere?
Why do you want to stop the cruise missiles of Freedom and the JDAM’s of Liberation?
March 30th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I have not read through all of the posts because they tend to deviate into ad hominum weirdness, but just to point out some discrete facts that factor into this incident.
1) Their lightly armed nature, lack of air cover and daylight nature of the operation would indicate that the British boarding party were in Iraqi waters;
2) they were taken prisoner by amphibious Revolutionary Guard units;
3) there are several overlapping political jurisductions in Iran and the Revolutionary Guard have an unusual degree of autonomy and freedom of action, as well as being more militant than the central Iranian government;
4) British forces seized five Iran consular officers in Basra a month or so ago, and it is widely suspected that they were/are Revolutionary Guards coordinating resistance movements in Southern Iraq (the Iranians have not denied the claim although they demand the release of their diplomats citing a breach of diplomatic immunity). Those officials are still in British hands;
5) Ergo, this is most likely a tit for tat move on the part of the Revolutionary Guards done without the prior knowlege or approval of the Iranian central government;
6) Hence, while it may be a provocation by the Guard to incite a larger conflict, it is not an act of war by the Iranian state;
7) Therefore the preferred solution will be an exchange of prisoners negotiated diplomatically rather than war (which as has been pointed out would not serve any interest other than that of militant elements in the Revolutionary Guard at this point).
I must say that the tone of the original post was a bit surprising. It reminds me of the neoconservative “chicken hawk” calls to invade Iraq. I suggest that rather than succumb to provocation and worry about appeasement, the UK understand the internal Iranian power struggles that are behind this incident. After all, if one is to go to war–which in this case would be a bad idea for a variety of reasons–one preferably should do so at a time and place of one’s choosing, not according to the timetable and interests of the opponent.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Sonical Ali rides again
March 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
You have made your position very clear Sonic. You will avoid criticising Iran at all costs.
That is the sum total of your intellectual contribution to this debate.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Hear Hear Kiwi in America. I think that Iran has watched with glee as America and co have made a pig’s ear of their foray into Iraq and now seem to think that Western countries lack strength and resolve. This snatch is designed to test that theory and I’d bet that they’re of the opinion that nothing untoward will happen to them, and unless they do something really dumb, they’re right.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
paul g, what’s the chances of Ahmadinejad having a hand in this?
March 30th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Thanks Paul for your normal well informed perspective. And I will happily plead to being provocative in the opening post.
But taking your theory that the capture was not done by the Iranian Government per se, the Govt are the ones who dictate what happens after they were captured. they could have just claimed a propoganda victory and let them go. But by keeping them, and parading them on TV, they are deliberately provoking the UK.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“The Iranian regime is pretty disgusting and it would be nice if it was gone, but looking at the successes of Afghanistan & Iraq hoping this will happen with US / UK intervention is akin to leaving your kids with Graham Capill and hoping they’d be alright.”
What a weird and ridiculous analogy Clint! Are we to take from this that if US/UK are like Graham Capill, that the Taliban and Saddam Hussain and sons are like you? I feel sorry for your kids.
Thomas Pebble said:”Israel has violated NUMEROUS treaties dating back to the 70s. Nobody does anything.”
Resolutions like this one Thomas?: # * Resolution 487: ” . . . ’strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”. Yeah shame on Israel, poor old Saddam. When you’ve finished sniveling about Israel, perhaps you’ll start criticizing Sudan and Rwanda (hello? Genocide?), Zimbabwe, China, Cuba, North Korea, need I go on? No, we’ll never see you spending your time criticizing them will we Thomas, far cooler to take pot shots against Israel with all the resolutions drafted by the likes of it’s neighbors who have brought war to its boarders since it’s creation.
Thomas Prebble also said “Love the Capill analogy!”
Now why doesn’t that surprise me….
March 30th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I’ll plead ignorance to the question of who controls who in Iran but could it be that the Govt needs to keep the Rev Guards happy and organise the prisoner exchange mentioned by Paul.
It is possible also that the propoganda victory that they would seek would be to a different audience than the UK / US and friends.
Britains military capabilities aren’t so great as Blair likes to state – their tanks / boots /rifles etc seem to not work that well in desert conditions.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Did someone here mention the Geneva Convention which seemed to be a sound idea about the time I was born? Does anyone remember the Convention’s conclusions about the sawing- off of prisoners’ heads? Global Jihad? you know,that sort of thing…
March 30th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I back the USA /UK /Australia 100% on WAR issues . Time to get some balls utopians ?
March 30th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Wow there’s some willfully literal people here.
Exclamation Mark, Thomas Prebble gave you a clue when he mentioned the word analogy, it was an analogy for hopeless optimism.
Another analogy is one for people that are happy – “they are like a pig in shit”. This doesn’t mean that the person in question is either a) a pig or b) in shit.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Give sonic a break Just wants to make sure that when the ragheads arrive in NZ can show all the evidence to avoid the sword on neck. heh sonic Will you put in a good word for me with the mullahs.
Come on sonic Just for old times sake. After all I havent really given you a bad time (grovel grovel)
March 30th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Hi sonic -lol
March 30th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
“? Does anyone remember the Convention’s conclusions about the sawing- off of prisoners’ heads”
I know the idea that Iraq and Iran are actually two different countries is a little hard to as Iran (shia Muslim) and Al Queda (Sunni Muslim) don’t like each other very much.
I know they are all dusky foreign types but do try and keep up.
Geneva convention only applies in wartime (which is why the USA and UK have been ignoring it in Iraq and Afghanistan, without a squeak from those who suddenly seem so keen on it)
March 30th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I see GD’s paranoia pills have ran out again.
Say it after me GD, no-one is coming to kill you.
Why not have a nice cup of tea and a lie down?
March 30th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
paul g,
Very cogent analysis as always. Thank you. At the same time:
1) Their lightly armed nature, lack of air cover and daylight nature of the operation would indicate that the British boarding party were in Iraqi waters;
A quite reasonable deduction, but equally possible :
1. They believed they were in Iraqi waters, while the Iranians believed they were interloping in theirs.
2. Or perhaps it was intended that they should be picked up. How interesting that:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2398883.ece
The woman who was captured by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards while serving with the Royal Navy in Iraq spoke of her devotion to both her family and her job just hours before she was seized.
Are we witnessing an elaborate charade that is being played out by both sides, for their own purposes?
March 30th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Sonic forget the Geneva convention as that lunatic dictator smack in the face Sadism bastard really thought about that when we gassed thousands of his fellow countrymen !!
March 30th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
No Redrag, I don’t think we are. The complexity of putting such a thing a together and then carrying it out without being found out make landing a man on the moon look easy…mmm, maybe not the best analogy, but then again maybe it is.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I also support the UK and USA in their efforts to rid the world of these spineless suicide retards. Unfortunately it seems to have a common thread – read Muslim. I don’t see too many Europeans lining up to blow themselves into the next life.
Some New Zealanders have lost their guts and have chosen to live as cowards, constantly bleating about the Big Bad West. Get a back bone or move to Iran. Their ideologies would suit you.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Sonic – the propaganda war for the reds is not going to good this week . Did you like the comments from the Russian General darling ? ggggggggrrrrrrrr.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
I hope those nasty iranian muslims dont behead or stone any of the hostages, its bad enough they made the girl wear a berqua.
I say bomb the living bjeeses out of them
March 30th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Nearly 5.00 pm folks. Smartarse free commentating begins shortly thereafter.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Hello 101keyboard Division. You’re new. Have we met before, perhaps? From the sound of you, you’re the type of person willing to apostrophise your opponents as being in the service of evil.
Now, do we already know anybody like that?
March 30th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Candida – “I also support the UK and USA in their efforts to rid the world of these spineless suicide retards.”
We’re actually talking about the evil, kidnapping, nuclear toting Iranians, not the Iraqi spineless suicide retards – do keep up.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Clint – you need to read more. The Muslim extremists have their roots in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan etc. etc. These are the people who want the West destroyed
March 30th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
“Wow there’s some willfully literal people here.” Thats what happens when you try to be clever by comparing the US and UK to a child molester.
I know what an analogy is Clint, hence I also used the word, yours was a really stupid one.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Candida, Iran is a Persian country, all the others you mention are Arab (except Afghanistan).
They are a different entity, and this thread is dealing with the UK vs Iran standoff, not the suicide bombers in Iraq.
Simplification of issues is facile whether it be America causes all evil / Israel is a terrorist state / all muslims are suicide bombers.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Iran is trying to make a stand against the UK – in the process thumbing its nose at the USA. They are also queueing up to support the anti-West forces in Iraq. It is gutless supporters like you who justify these kidnappings only because it is anti-West
March 30th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Exclamation Mark,
as my last reply said, the two things compared in an analogy do not need to share anything apart from the likelihood of what they are being compared with.
You may think it stupid but that doesn’t make it an invalid analogy – how you jump to me being the Taliban & Saddam Hussein doesn’t appear to follow any path apart from being straight name calling. How am I analoguos to them?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Candida,
nowhere have I justified or supported the kidnappings.
Your name calling lessens the impact of any argument you might have.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
“as my last reply said, the two things compared in an analogy do not need to share anything apart from the likelihood of what they are being compared with.”
Right so how do the US and UK compare with Graham Capill? Gee, you can’t really compare them can you? In comparing you to Hussein and the Taliban, I thought this would illustrate what an idiotic analogy it was that you made.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Farrar: “Imagine the outcry if the UK or US had done this to Iran.”
Yes, just imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Farrar seems to be a very slow learner. Wasn’t he head cheerleader for Israel when they decided to invade Lebanon to get their kidnapped soldiers back? How did that brilliant plan work out for them?
March 30th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
There’s a logical flaw in your argument Cathi. The Iranians first gave co-ordinates that supposedly justified the claim the UK was in Iraqi waters. But then they had to change their story to a new set of co-ordinates, the first co-ordinates had them in Iarqi waters and they knew that, whatever maps they are using, they knew there first co-orinates put the UK in Iraqi waters. That’s why they had to change their stroy. They are lying. – Neil Morrison
I don’t think so Neil. I interpret it that the Iraqis’ first report of the position was accusing the British of being in Iranian waters, the British pointed out it wasn’t as defined by the UN, the Iranians picked another position thinking it proved the British had crossed the line, the British pointed out AGAIN that it wasn’t. The one they’ve picked now is on the Iranian side of the line whoever draws it, and the British say they were never there.
This is why I want to see the plot of the previous 24 hours.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Cathi, yes but you were asking us to give the Iranians, or more probably in this case the Revolutionary Guards, “some credit” and the fact that they were plucking co-ordinates out of thin air doesn’t really support your case. If they had legitimate grounds to hold the UK troops then that must have been because they knew the co-ordinates. But by their own admission they didn’t and it was only at the third go that got what they needed.
Further to paul g’s post, The Washington Post has really intriguing ideas about what’s motivating the Revolutionary Guards to act so crazy –
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901985.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
If it was a Bond movie it’d be entertaining.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Sonic – I really can not believe you are siding with the Iranians. I suppose when you have no friends it is difficult to know who your friends are. I suggest you get the fuck out of NZ – we don’t need you.
March 30th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
What’s that burning smell?
Ah, it’s Sonic’s intellectual credibility, going up in smoke …
March 30th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
fd, don’t worry. The smell will be gone in less han a minute.
March 30th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Paul Buchanan has made some relevant points about the autonomy and freedom of action of the Revolutionary Guard units in this provocative sea incident with the British Navy. The Iranian’s by taking this action have clearly breached international legal sea conventions as agreed to by the world community.
While it is true that in this situation the maritime borders are not demarcated, the baselines used by Iran to determine its maritime borders are not accepted by any other country in the Gulf and contravene the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Seas.
Iran is a signatory to the Convention and is obliged to obey it under international law. If there is an argument over the boundary, as some postings here claim, then the Iranian Revolutionary Guard units are as guilty as the British navy in entering disputed waters.
The maritime borders were not imposed by the British government, they were drawn up by the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein. The present Iraqi government has accepted the territorial borders demarcated by the Saddam regime. As foreign forces are there on a UN mandate, they are obliged to defend Iraqi territory.
Even if one accepts the Iranian boundary, Iran is still not permitted to arrest these personnel. If the military forces or civilians of another state violate territorial waters, the first action by the Iranian would be to ask them to leave. This kind of border violation is usually solved by border officials, not by gunboats manned by Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Iran has previously abided by this convention by requesting that Azerbaijani boats crossing into territorial waters claimed by Iran in the Caspian Sea leave the area, which they do. Moreover, the British naval personnel were not belligerent – their light weaponry could not even be used to take out one IRG boat. It is relevant here that Commodore Nick Lambert the commander of HMS Cornwall, who was responsible for the captured Marines, was restricted by the current rules of engagement forbidding any action to stop the Marines being taken as this would be seen as an escalation of a crisis which in effect places the British navy in a position where it cannot defend it’s very own personnel.
Iran perhaps does have a defence, if its territorial claims could be backed by international law (which does not appear to be the case). While military units do have the right to innocent passage through territorial waters, the British naval personnel were not in the process of passage and Iran could argue that they were not innocent. Nevertheless, they would still be obliged to request the personnel to leave in the first instance.
The rights and the wrongs of the Iraq War do not enter into the equations. If those who want to justify these arrests by supporting Iran’s spurious legal claims, they are going to lose the argument. Moreover, it makes you wonder whether they are simply appeasers for a corrupt and despotic regime.
It is of a surprise to me those who would seek to defend a regime with an atrocious human rights record and which kidnaps and assassinates civilians living abroad while being a major sponsor of world terrorism. Iran is financing Hezbollah and Hamas and is a principal source of war and instability in the Middle East. Iran’s involvement in Iraq is a major factor behind the bloody terrorism there and the fact that there is a reluctance to deal with Iran in Iraq has been one of the major mistakes that has been made. When the five Iranian Revolutionary Guards were captured in January in Iraq, along with the defection of two highly-placed Iranian agents, the astounding scale of Iran’s involvement in Iraq could no longer be denied and also failing to deal properly with Iranian aggression for the past three decades is a sign of weakness which has encouraged Iran to ratchet up its attacks.
In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini declared war on the West and the West took no notice. In the years that followed, Iran repeatedly attacked western interests and the response has always been muted, presumably for fear of something worse. Iran believes the West will not act. They are banking with some confidence on appeasement by the West and history tells us what horror awaits those who believe you can appease tyranny.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
David
It will be (b). Brtian will negotiate and concede a little. Otherwise it is stalemate with no talk. Since the UK does not want war with Iran, and does want its sailors and soldiers back, they will negotiate (as oppossed to simply making demands). Iran captured them so they can negotiate – they now have negotiating leverage. So both countries have a negotiating interest. What we are seeing now is the maximisation of negotiating positions, before actual talks start.
I expect there will be some talks on the nuclear issue – ultimately some agreement on what part of the fuel cycle Iran can keep – which wont be zero. But of course this will be all publicly disconnected from the current issue. The NPT does not stop countries having some level of involvment in the fuel cycle eg Japan. But of course it is subject to a full IAEA inspection regime
By the way not shooting back was smart. If faced with overwhelming odds, surrender is the obvious option, if you beleive that there will be at least some level of observance of the rules of war. And I think US service personnel would do the same in the same circumstances, notwithstanding bluff and bluster. A few M16s are not much against multiple 25MM turreted guns. US sailors and soldiers are not keen on suicide, which was the choice that faced the Royal Marines.
Wayne
March 30th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Neil, I was suggesting we don’t assume they’re making the coordinates up. It seems you can’t do that.
I think they knew the coordinates perfectly well. I think the British did too. I think ships move and so do boats, and I think there are plenty of plot points we don’t know about. It’s a possibility the Iranians chose three different ones from their list. It’s not a given that they made them up.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Storm in a tea cup. So Iran have taken a few soldiers captive, for who knows what reason. Could be legitimate, might not be, time will tell. As to the people who are talking about war in relation to this incident, well, it just becomes ever so transparent that they just can’t wait to see the hurt put on Iran, justification or no justification. To them it’s all another Rambo movie – where the forces of “good” defeat “evil”, and so the mythology that they’re brought up with is played out, and all is right with the world.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
The Brits should go int the Iranian embassy in London and take the iranian staff as hostages,thatd do the trick
March 30th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Sonic,err,I have some sympathy for you.I have a friend who thinks that she was abducted by aliens.She is otherwise intelligent.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Sonic,err,I have some sympathy for you.I have a friend who thinks that she was abducted by aliens.She is otherwise intelligent.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:50 am
philipjohn
I bet if Iraqi troops had done the same to Iranian sailors you’d be a little less sanguine. Imagine if Israeli troops did the same to Egyptian or Lebanese sailors – well I’m sure you’d be full of outrage complete with the full range of relevent Geneva Convention breaches to back your outrage. The UN of course would immediately condemn Israel with a quick and unambiguous resolution. The double standard of lefties like you is so blatant its pathetic.
As for your “who knows what reason” bleat – its pretty obvious why. A good read of Serum’s excellent post would be a good start.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:10 am
Peripheral but interesting read on why the US needs to have plans for retreat from Iraq, in the event their supply lines are targetted, which event would certainly happen if they became involved within Iran
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind124.html
March 31st, 2007 at 10:43 am
serum,
A nicely written and coherently argued post. And if I had more time I would take great pleasure in taking it apart…but I will content myself with just this one point.
It is of a surprise to me those who would seek to defend a regime with an atrocious human rights record and which kidnaps and assassinates civilians living abroad while being a major sponsor of world terrorism. Iran is financing Hezbollah and Hamas and is a principal source of war and instability in the Middle East.
Substitute the word “USA” for “Iran” in this paragraph and see for yourself if it really looks much different. Human rights? Think Guantanemo Bay. Kidnaps and assaninations? Think the “extraordinary renditions”. Prinicple source of war? Which nation has large bases in dozens of countries around the world? Which nation outspends the rest of the world combined on its war machinery, which nation has sent troops to invade on average about one new nation (for one reason or another) per year for the last 100 years?
And most tellingly, which nation has most recently invaded another major country, on now proven false pretexts, resulting in a bloody shambles that has dragged on now for almost as long as WW2?
On the other side of the ledger I have socially mingled and worked with both Iranians and Americans in the course of the last 30 years, and find much to respect, indeed admire, about both of these very different nations. When any peoples turn their energies to constructive uplfting purposes I am delighted. By contrast, when I see those energies directed to warfare, to the rearing of the Four Horses of the Acopolypse, to the dark madness that is war… I despair.
It is an immature reasoning to conclude that just because I cannot support the US/UK actions in the Middle East, automatically this means that I am a supporter of Iraq or Iran. This dictate that “either you are for us or against us” belongs in the schoolyard. Grow up folks.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:00 am
RedRag, I don’t think the issue on this thread has been “either you are for us or against us”. Rather the issue is that some people have become so morally and intellectually twisted they cannot to condem a blatant act of aggression against a UN sponsored British force.
There are several loud voices that refuse to accept any criticism of the Iranians over this. Now, anti-establishment, anti-west propaganda is fine, up to a point. But when it gets to the point that people can’t find anything wrong with illegal military attacks on the west, that point is passed, and the point of moral bankruptcy is reached instead.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
David/Neil: This is a classic instance of a ‘nested” game. The inner game is being played between the Iranian government and the Revolutionary Guard. The Guard has demonstrated that it can do what the diplomats could not do, which is advance the eventual repatriation of the Iranian officials detained by the UK. It present a fait accompli that the diplomats–one of the more moderate and secular elements in the Iranian central government– have to resolve via negotiation with the UK (the larger game), and the Guard can extract other concessions from the government at a time when moderates are arguing for better accomodation with the West on nuclear and other issues. Ahmadinejad probably had no prior knowledge of the plan in spite of his connections to the Guard, but can now use the event to press Guard interests within the regime.
In the larger game the incident allows Iran to remind the UK and US that brinkmanship works both ways, and offers a reality check for Western hawks who believe that military power can bring the Persians to heel.
The UK understands that it is prudent to support the position of Iranian moderates within government, so diplomatic negotiations must succeed and concessions will therefore have to be made. The exchange of prisoners will ensue, although posturing and propaganda will continue well after the swap takes place.
The British navy will review its procedures and tighten force security to account for these type of low-level attacks.
The spanner could be a UK inability or refusal to release the detained iranian officials or worse yet, that one or more of them is dead or in Iraqi government custody. That complication will kill the deal and increase the Guard’s desire to use the UK prisoners in a more ugly way in both games.
Barring that eventuality, normal transmission should resume fairly shortly.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Paul Buchanan –Your view that President Ahmadinejad had no prior knowledge of the British Navel incident is open to speculation since the radical leadership of the hard-line Tehran group is fronted by both Ahmadinejad and Gen. Rahim Safavi, commander of the Revolutionary Guards whose naval wing performed the seizure of the British Marines. From events to date it is becoming clear that the challenge within the Iranian leadership regarding the manipulation of those captured Marines is being dictated by the above hard-liners whom, it appears, have currently gained the upperhand and have stepped up their aggression, threatening to charge the kidnapped Marines with espionage and even denying them British consular access.
In situations like this, successful negotiations as far as the British are concerned are advantageously conducted from a position of strength and unfortunately in spite of all the latter hyped up political statements emanating from Tony Blair his initial passive and semi-conciliatory response has given the Iranian’s the advantage in the war of words. Combined with the almost forgotten and ineffectual response by the British Authorities to the kidnapping of Alan Johnston, the BBC correspondent in Gaza, despite the British knowing, one would assume, which terrorist group was responsible for his capture, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards serving with Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza would have notified Johnston’s situation to Tehran which would have taken cognisance of the British inaction as an indicator for their strategy to deal with the British Marines.
While Alan Johnston’s fate can probably be relegated to an agreed sum paid out to his abductors the British Marines fate is being manipulated for political gain by various factions within Iran and externally to the political detriment of the British Authorities. With the Americans having captured in Iraq eight Iranian Revolutionary Guards and holding them in American custody, the Iranians operating within Iraq have failed in their campaign of abducting US troops in Iraq and using them as bargaining chips for the release of their Revolutionary Guards, are now perhaps trying an alternative approach on the hapless British Navy Marines and would indicating a dim prospects of a quick release of the Marines
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:05 am
Yes, Serum. Exactly.
Which is why the said Marines should have put up a fight instead of meekly allowing themselves to be taken as hostages.
Probably fighting would have resulted in some casualties, but, shit, these people were meant to be military personnel partrolling in a war zone, ffs – not pathetic ‘mummy who just wants to come home’ as the press have characterised one of them.
A firefight in Iraqi waters with the Marines calling for air support and/or reinforcements and screaming blue murder about Iranian infringment would have had a damned sight better outcome for the British than this god-awful mess.
Fighting might well have resulted in the Revolutionary Guards backing off (and, laughingly, trying to gain international sypathy via their BBC/Reuters sympathisers) but even if it racheted up the tension with Iran, this would have served to highlight Iran’s agressive intentions, which would be considerably to the British advantage.
Allowing oneself to be taken as a hostage to be used any way the Iranians want to use you is *not* a helpful military tactic in anyone’s book.
Also, FFS, get the girls out of the military. A woman with a young child has no place patrolling an internationally disputed border in a place like the Shat-Al-Arab. Christ almighty…. haven’t these people got any sense?
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:09 am
Yes, Serum. Exactly.
Which is why the said Marines should have put up a fight instead of meekly allowing themselves to be taken as hostages.
Probably fighting would have resulted in some casualties, but, shit, these people were meant to be military personnel partrolling in a war zone, ffs – not pathetic ‘mummy who just wants to come home’ as the press have characterised one of them.
A firefight in Iraqi waters with the Marines calling for air support and/or reinforcements and screaming blue murder about Iranian infringment would have had a damned sight better outcome for the British than this god-awful mess.
Fighting might well have resulted in the Revolutionary Guards backing off (and, laughingly, trying to gain international sypathy via their BBC/Reuters sympathisers) but even if it racheted up the tension with Iran, this would have served to highlight Iran’s agressive intentions, which would be considerably to the British advantage.
Allowing oneself to be taken as a hostage to be used any way the Iranians want to use you is *not* a helpful military tactic in anyone’s book.
Also, ffs, get the girls out of the military. A woman with a young child has no place patrolling an internationally disputed border in the Shaat-Al-Arab. Christ almighty…. haven’t these people got any sense?
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:28 am
Sorry about the double comment. I must learn to ignore seizures, lines of script and error messages when posting, and have ‘faith’ that it has worked. Next time I’ll go for a coffee and hang loose… relax and visualise myself floating gently among the reeds and and wildlife on a placid waterway with nothing but the sound of fish jumping and beautiful multicoloured ducks paddling in the shallows…. somewhere nice and tranquil. Like the Shaat-Al-Arab. I hear thats a nice place at this time of year. It is a UN-listed wildlife treasure, you know. Maybe I’ll see a pretty young mother there, nestling her child to her bosom and laughing playfully with her handsome young friends as they dangle their fingers in the waters without a care in the world… mmm… what a nice warm image.
I’ll do this creative visualisation now, instead of panicking that my comment won’t get through. Here goes.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Before buying generic viagra read this.
I’ve got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.
May 19th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
oqwcaghfe gdcmxnzl nyacp tmvnre iyjr stowmfeai rtke
May 19th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
oqwcaghfe gdcmxnzl nyacp tmvnre iyjr stowmfeai rtke
May 19th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
oqwcaghfe gdcmxnzl nyacp tmvnre iyjr stowmfeai rtke