British Navy Sailors

[jdobbin]

This could get serious if they are not turned over immediately.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17752685/

Iranian naval vessels on Friday seized 15 British sailors and marines who had boarded a merchant ship in Iraqi waters of the Persian Gulf, British and U.S. officials said. Britain immediately protested the detentions, which come at a time of high tension between the West and Iran.

In London, the British government summoned the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Office. “He was left in no doubt that we want them back,” Britain’s Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said after the meeting.

[PolyNewbie]

The US has been kidnapping Iranian military officials for months. They have also been going in and conducting terrorist missions inside Iran.

[geoffrey]

I'd give alot of money to be in that room of the foreign office hearing the Brits tear that ambassador to peices.

I think a little show of force is in order.

[Liam]

I'm the kind who thinks it wise to talk first but be ready to pack a heavy punch. If Britain decided to pack a heavy punch, I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with them on this one. No doubt.

[Liam]

The US has been kidnapping Iranian military officials for months. They have also been going in and conducting terrorist missions inside Iran.

*Even if* this were true, what bearing would it have on this situation? Gee, the US has kidnapped Iranian military officials... I suppose that would justify Iran's taking French aid workers hostage? How about Kuwaiti defense personnel? Italian missionaries? I mean, maybe you'd have a point if Iran took some US soldiers hostage, but being an apologist for Iran in this situation tells me that you're more driven by anger against the west than reason. If not, I simply do not see the point of your post.

[Jerry Galinda]

He is a typical childish boy who is convinced that every evil comes from the West.

[PolyNewbie]

I mean, maybe you'd have a point if Iran took some US soldiers hostage, but being an apologist for Iran in this situation tells me that you're more driven by anger against the west than reason.

I'm not apoligising for anyone & Iran isn't my favorite country. Applying double standards does not help understand or resolve this issues and these wars are not being fought on behalf of the public interest in any way.

I'm sure that Iran had an equally corrupt government to ours at one point although since Bush Sr & Clinton ours has gone far more corrupt and has been taking us on a dangerous path that ends in civilian labour concentration camps. We have these wars because too much power is concentrated in too few invisible hands.

[betsy]

The US has been kidnapping Iranian military officials for months. They have also been going in and conducting terrorist missions inside Iran.

Just curious, you on the side of just about anyone against the west...particularly Bush?

[Liam]

I'm not apoligising for anyone & Iran isn't my favorite country. Applying double standards does not help understand or resolve this issues and these wars are not being fought on behalf of the public interest in any way.

Yeah you are, you're justifying an aggression against one people because of the acts of another. Isn't that kind of like the arguments you reject vis a vis the Iraq war: Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11, therefore, attack Iraq?

[Jerry Galinda]

“these wars are not being fought on behalf of the public interest in any way” ??????

Which wars ?

Civil war in Iraq ?

Who had begun the war in Iraq ?

Who had begun the war - Iraq versus Iran ?

Why the border between these countries seems to be entirely arbitrary ?

Why the borders are artificial ?

What is it – public interest ?

Are you sure that democratic countries in Near East are not in public interest ?

[Figleaf]

I'd give alot of money to be in that room of the foreign office hearing the Brits tear that ambassador to peices.

I think a little show of force is in order.

It seems like a little show of force is what has led to the problem.

[Figleaf]

Who had begun the war in Iraq ?

The most recent war in Iraq was started by the United States.

Who had begun the war - Iraq versus Iran ?

Iraq, using U.S. supplied weaponry.

Why the border between these countries seems to be entirely arbitrary ?

It's not. Unlike many countries in the middle east and Africa, Iran's territorial footprint is not a straight-up creation of colonial powers.

[obsidian]

what do any of you think China and Russia would do if we attacked Iran? is there not a alliance between them? do they not have significant investments in Iran? have they not been selling them weapons?

iran has been on americas hitlist for quite some time now...

we would do the same if Iranian soldiers were in Canadian waters.

[DogOnPorch]

Who had begun the war - Iraq versus Iran ?

Iraq, using U.S. supplied weaponry.

Incorrect: The Iraq military pre-invasion was made up primarily of French and Russian military equipment...not American. Iran however still has quite a lot of US equipment from the Shah days. But they have spare parts problems, naturally. Iraq today is armed with...guess what? Soviet era Russian weapons just like before. Saddam's old gear...just like minor league hockey...lol.

http://www.acepilots.com/mt/2006/07/07/old...new-iraqi-army/

Iraq did indeed 'start' the Iran Iraq war...but only after months of cross-border fighting and Iranian calls for Saddam to be ousted. Saddam wasn't in the mood for their crap, more or less...and he attacked. The US assistance at this point came as a result of Iran holding American hostages for over a year after the Islamic Revolution...you might recall. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

The most recent war in Iraq was started by the United States.

Well...yes and no. The no-fly war had been going on for literally years with Saddam taking pot shots at UN aircraft and such. Also, had Saddam not invaded Kuwait, he'd still be there to this day as opposed to dead on the gallows. Out of sight...out of mind.

...what do any of you think China and Russia would do if we attacked Iran?

Anything but a war with the USA...stamp feet a lot and sound decisive. China wants business as usual as it needs this period of prosperity to work out and create a proper market economy before they either pollute themselves or overpopulate themselves right out of their own home. Russia likes stirring the pot...has for centuries...for the want of money if nothing else. But Russia would secretly view Iran being dropped a few notches as a good thing...weapon sales aside. Radical Islam is a problem there, too.

For some expert opinions that you may trust more than mine...I suggest the Iranian Defence Military Forum. They talk about this stuff alot. Good pics from the Iran-Iraq war, too. Rare stuff.

http://irandefence.net/

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

The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.

---Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

[PolyNewbie]

Betsy:Just curious, you on the side of just about anyone against the west...particularly Bush?

Betsy, I am on the side of the people. These wars are nothing more than an out of control oligarchy declaring war on the people.

[Figleaf]

Who had begun the war - Iraq versus Iran ?

Iraq, using U.S. supplied weaponry.

Incorrect: The Iraq military pre-invasion was made up primarily of French and Russian military equipment...

I didn't say 'exclusively' U.S. supplied. The poison gas Iraq used on the Iranian boy-army was supplied by the US.

Iraq did indeed 'start' the Iran Iraq war... Saddam wasn't in the mood for their crap, more or less...and he attacked. The US assistance at this point came as a result of Iran holding American hostages for over a year after the Islamic Revolution...you might recall. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

I'm not sure what to make of your comment. Surely you are not suggesting that Saddam's whims are a justification for international war, and surely you are not suggesting that the U.S. history of blunders and bullshit in the region (including support of the repressive Pahlavi regime in Iran before the revolution) establish any sensible basis for judging rights and wrongs. Right?

The most recent war in Iraq was started by the United States.

Well...yes and no. The no-fly war had been going on for literally years with Saddam taking pot shots at UN aircraft and such. Also, had Saddam not invaded Kuwait, he'd still be there to this day as opposed to dead on the gallows. Out of sight...out of mind.

You are correct. It would be more precise to state that the most recent intensification of hostilities into open warfare was started by the United States.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm not sure what to make of your comment. Surely you are not suggesting that Saddam's whims are a justification for international war, and surely you are not suggesting that the U.S. history of blunders and bullshit in the region (including support of the repressive Pahlavi regime in Iran before the revolution) establish any sensible basis for judging rights and wrongs. Right?

I'm not sure what to make of yours...lol. Iran and Iraq are fairly special cases as far as history goes as they were both moving towards joining the Axis during WW2 and both had their governments replaced with pro-Allied governments. Both then became part of the essential lend-lease connection to the Soviet Union. Oddly enough the Americans had little to do with the Shah's getting into power (other than the post war CIA coup) as it was Stalin and Churchill who did the needed deed. Post WW2, they were two of the few Muslim nations in the area that weren't thought of as Warsaw Pact proxy nations...that is to say...they were 'friendly towards the West'.

As far as chemical weapons...the US companies (not the government, mind you) did sell some material for chemical weapons...but they weren't the top suppliers by far.

From wiki's article...

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

According Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.

VX is the worst stuff ever made....

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

Democracy is indispensable to socialism.

---Vladimir Lenin

[Borg]

I got a blister on my heel while wearing a new pair of shoes.

There MUST be a way I can blame Bush and Blair for this.

After all the leather came from the United States and the shoes were made in London.

Borg

[Jerry Galinda]

The most recent war in Iraq was started by the United States."

It's a consequence of the first war in Gulf - which should be ended up. Unhappily it wasn’t “done” at once.

“Iraq, using U.S. supplied weaponry.” ???????????

American weaponry ???????? They had Russian tanks T-72, BTR, artillery, aircraft MIG-23, MIG-29 and so on and so on.. Obviously – USA supported this war because of Islamic revolution in Iran. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It was opportunity – big occasion to weak Iran.

It's not. Unlike many countries in the middle east and Africa, Iran's territorial footprint is not a straight-up creation of colonial powers.

The same old argument – naïve people who believe that “bad” borders – artificial borders in Asia and Africa were created by colonialism – is a relics of colonialism.

Borders in Europe – ages of wars – two World Wars ; millions of refugees, millions DISPLACED PERSONS - and – for many people borders are unjust, conflicts are possible – such as Yugoslavia and so on.

E.g. – Ethiopia – mixture of nationalities and ethnic minorities , strange – artificial borders- and this country wasn’t a colony. Borders of this country are not changing from ages. Nobody can create justified borders – especially in Africa and Asia. Too many nationalities, minorities and languages.

The most important for me is the question – “What is it – public interest ?

Are you sure that democratic countries in Near East are not in public interest ?”

[mcqueen625]

The US has been kidnapping Iranian military officials for months. They have also been going in and conducting terrorist missions inside Iran.

Was these assertion of your's actually in some actual news report or are they coming out of your obvious hate for the Americans that you just make these theings up in your head. I read a lot of news, and I have not read where the U.S. or any Western countries have been committing acts of terror anywhere including inside Iran.

[Figleaf]

The most recent war in Iraq was started by the United States."

It's a consequence of the first war in Gulf - which should be ended up. Unhappily it wasn’t “done” at once.

“Iraq, using U.S. supplied weaponry.” ???????????

American weaponry ???????? They had Russian tanks T-72, BTR, artillery, aircraft MIG-23, MIG-29 and so on and so on..

Q.V. my answers to similar questions already, above.

...

Borders in Europe – ages of wars

In point of fact, Iran's borders are mostly the result of a similar process. Unlike Iraq/Syria/Jordan, for example.

The most important for me is the question – “What is it – public interest ?

Are you sure that democratic countries in Near East are not in public interest ?”

Your question invokes a fallacy -- presuming that democratic countries would be created by the policy(s) at issue.

Undoubtedly democratic institutions are preferable to arbitrary or autocratic ones anywhere. Can they be created by violating international law? Can the be created by propping up questionable regimes? Can they be 'created' at all?

[mcqueen625]

So its ok for the Americans to invade an ocupy any country they please?

For the Americans to be a part of political kidnappings around the world?

But its not OK for Iran to capture foreign soldiers illegally in the territory?

This forum is not about the U.S. or what they have done or haven't done, this is about the Iranians kidnapping British military personnel in Iraqi waters and nothing else. If this is not the subject you wish to discuss maybe you should go on one of the many "Hate the U.S." forums.

Meanwhile back to the subject of this forum which is the capture of British military personnel outside Iranian waters. Is this going to turn into another Embassy like deal when the Iran government encouraged radical Islamist to invade the U.S. Embassy in Tehran a number of years ago and held them for an extended peeriod. Werer I the British government I would be telling the International community that I would regard what Iran has just done as a "Declaration of War" agaisnt Britain and tell the Iranian that unless those personnel are released immediately thata full military response was coming againt the people of Iran. If this is allowed to continue and fester it will just encourage Iran and other nations like North Korea to further ignore the international community regarding nuclear weapons. Russia probably won't like a military respose against Iran but then Russia, France and China seems to be taking a consiliatory stance against any suggerstion that the International community get tough with rogue nations. Could it be that this is where these rogue nations are getting help with attempting to arm themselves with WMD?

[mcqueen625]

we would do the same if Iranian soldiers were in Canadian waters.

The point is that from all reports I have read these British military presonnel were in Iraqi waters not Iran's

[Borg]

The accuracy of those reports may / may not be an issue. However the Captain of the Cornwall stated emphatically they were NOT in Iraq waters.

Disputes over territorial waters are ongoing all over th world - in fact Canada has several with the United States and with Denmark.

I suspect sabre rattling at this time would be more detrimental to the cause than not. I also suspect those soldiers may be gone for a very long time unless there is some serious negotiating from both sides.

Unfortunately, the Iranians have very little to lose and much to gain - so they will be in the drivers seat - should they indeed even be interested in solving this issue.

The Brits care far more about the welfare of their people than the Iranians would about Iranian soldiers or sailors.

I suspct it will play out over a couple of months - hope I am wrong but that is my immediate take on this one.

Borg

[DogOnPorch]

Apparently the sailors have been relocated to Tehran. The plot thickens...dubious 'confession' that they were in Iranian waters. We'll see... The Shatt al-Arab is not open ocean but a narrow waterway/river...where the exact line is in dispute.

This is similar to a previous incident a few years back. They're testing the waters, indeed.

As per chemical weapons: it should be noted that VX nerve agent takes

...not present in Iraq. One might wonder where the 4500 some odd tons of the stuff has ended up. I know, I know..."no WMDs were found"...but the reality is that this stuff has gone SOMEWHERE.

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

Rich, you do me better than I do--you finish this. I’m going for a sandwich!

---Ronald Reagan to Rich Little during a Whitehouse Press Conference