Iran detains British Sailors - again?

[nemaroller]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/....uk/index.html

Exactly how does a patrol boat dispatched from a frigate get subdued by the Iranian military? Wasn't the frigate watching the boarding from afar?

[zaza]

Don't suppose that anybody in that area of the world is looking for an excuse to say that the Imperialist West is picking another fight with an honourable Islamic Republic...

[mendhak]

It is widely believed in many parts of that country that the Britishers were taking a blasphemous and un-Islamic tea break in Iranian waters.

[zaza]

What really angered the Iranians, however, was the way the British crusaded wilfully into Holy Islamic Land as though they thought they were advancing on Jerusalem one thousand years ago, on their patrol boat stuffed with the latest military gadgetry and launched from an advanced modern frigate.

[NotLKH]

It had nothing to do with religion.

The British were following a prescribed mission plan approved by the UN to safeguard Iraqi Waters. There is no Color coding which easily deliniates between Iraqi and Iranian portions of said waters. Iranians claim the British crossed into their area, while the British maintain they remained on the Iraqi side and it was the Iranians who traversed out of their side.

What should have happened is that the referrees should have thrown a flag and reviewed the play, then deducted 10 yards from the team responsable for the foul.

[DeadEyes]

You think it would be easy to determine who is right, there is probably a load of
sats in geo syncrhonous orbit looking at the Iran/Iraq area.
Some army tech probably watched it happen in real time (maybe 24 is affecting my brain).
Great timing however, just before the UN went to vote about Sanctions against Iran.
Someone with a tinfoil hat might suspect that they had been sent there to cause an incident.
Just like when there is a vote in the British Parliment to give the police more powers against terrorists.
The number of armed cops hanging around the place increases.

[mendhak]

It had nothing to do with religion.

The British were following a prescribed mission plan approved by the UN to safeguard Iraqi Waters. There is no Color coding which easily deliniates between Iraqi and Iranian portions of said waters. Iranians claim the British crossed into their area, while the British maintain they remained on the Iraqi side and it was the Iranians who traversed out of their side.

What should have happened is that the referrees should have thrown a flag and reviewed the play, then deducted 10 yards from the team responsable for the foul.

Surely you, of all people, would have detected zaza's feeble attempt at sarcasm?

[nemaroller]

7 days now.
I wonder how they're making it without internet.

[FishGuy]

Anyone else getting slightly peeved at Iran now?

I think we should give our Tridents a run out, I mean they will be past their use by date in a few years and if you had bought some thing for a few billion quid you'd want to get some use out of it right?

[FunkyDexter]

The thing that strikes me is that there is no agreed border along that river space (there was a treaty but it was meant to be ratified every 10 years and was allowed to lapse while Iran and Iraq were at war) so any argument over who strayed into whose bit water is pointless because nobody agrees on who any of the water belongs to in the first place.

I suspect that the Iranians genuinely believed that the Brits were in their water and so arrested them. We, on the other hand, genuinely believed that they were in Iraqi water so reacted strongly with threats of going to the UN, embargies etc. Now we're like two guys in a carpark arguing over a parkingspace. Neither of us has any real entitlement to it but we're too commited to the row to back out without having our manhood slighted.

[Xanith]

The thing that strikes me is that there is no agreed border along that river space (there was a treaty but it was meant to be ratified every 10 years and was allowed to lapse while Iran and Iraq were at war) so any argument over who strayed into whose bit water is pointless because nobody agrees on who any of the water belongs to in the first place.

I suspect that the Iranians genuinely believed that the Brits were in their water and so arrested them. We, on the other hand, genuinely believed that they were in Iraqi water so reacted strongly with threats of going to the UN, embargies etc. Now we're like two guys in a carpark arguing over a parkingspace. Neither of us has any real entitlement to it but we're too commited to the row to back out without having our manhood slighted.

There are internationally recognized borders for both Iran and Iraq waters. Satellite information put the seizure of British troops inside Iraq territorial waters. Even Iran’s first coordinates they gave where they took British troops was also inside Iraq waters. It was only until they realized this did they say, oops, we made a mistake they were actually taken here, inside our waters.

The Iranians know what the internationally agreed borders are; they intentionally crossed over into Iraqi waters and seized British troops. The Iranians aren’t stupid; this was a calculated move by Iran to see exactly what the UK would do about it. Now they are parading UK troops across the airwaves “confessing” to crossing over into Iranian territory for propaganda purposes.

The only question left now is what is to be done about this situation if the soldiers are not released….

X

[FishGuy]

It only seems an issue because Iran know we care.

What would Iran do if we just didn't care, we could just say to them to keep them, it was their fault for getting caught and we have plenty more troops. Thus Iran non longer has any bargaining tool.

[nemaroller]

How about instead just destroying Iran's total inventory of tanks, airplanes, and sea-going vessels. That would more pressure on the hardliners since they would need to divert already scarce funds away from the public to fund new military.

Then the public would revolt against the hardliners for poking the West and its subsequent economic damage.

[Valleysboy1978]

Simple. Make any business arrangements in Iran illegal. Make travel to Iran illegal. Within months Iran will run out of precious food, water and supplies. The nation's economy will be destroyed, reducing the once powerful Iran to a third-world country.

[FunkyDexter]

There are internationally recognized borders for both Iran and Iraq waters.

Recognised? Arguably. Ratified by a current treaty? Absolutley not. That's the problem really.

It's also worth mentioning that, the last time this happened in 2004 and the British Goverment initially claimed the inicident had occurred in Iraqi waters it quickly transpired that the British boat had accidentally crossed into Iranian waters and the foreign office had to change their position.

From what I've read I think us Brits have a stronger argument that this incident took place in Iraqi waters than the Iranians do that it happened in Iranian waters, but I don't think it's as cut and dried as most of our media has portrayed it.
(Edit> Probably the strongest argument in our favour is that Iran tacitly agreed the border when we agreed we were in their waters in 2004)

How about instead just destroying Iran's total inventory of tanks, airplanes, and sea-going vessels.

It's been a huge success in iraq! ...oh ...wait ... no it hasn't.

[FishGuy]

Simple. Make any business arrangements in Iran illegal. Make travel to Iran illegal. Within months Iran will run out of precious food, water and supplies. The nation's economy will be destroyed, reducing the once powerful Iran to a third-world country.

Only if the rest of the world followed suit, I don't think they would.

The argument about being in their waters is rubbish anyway. They don't really care about that it's just a petty argument, they had planned the ambush in advance so they could gain politcal backing from their own people.

[MasterBlaster]

How about instead just destroying Iran's total inventory of tanks, airplanes, and sea-going vessels. That would more pressure on the hardliners since they would need to divert already scarce funds away from the public to fund new military.

Then the public would revolt against the hardliners for poking the West and its subsequent economic damage.

wouldn't it be eaiser to throw a party for the hardliners and then bomb the hell out of the place once everyone gets there? Maybe even a nuke for dramatic effect.

[nemaroller]

Please.... hardliners don't party.

[space_monkey]

"Its the end of world as we know it. And I feel fine." For some reason things like this remind me of that song.

[rory]

why do they look so jolly?
Would have thought theyd have put up some kind of fight ..??

[DeadEyes]

Simple. Make any business arrangements in Iran illegal. Make travel to Iran illegal. Within months Iran will run out of precious food, water and supplies. The nation's economy will be destroyed, reducing the once powerful Iran to a third-world country.

Illegal for who? There are plenty of countries that would ignore this for cheap(er) oil. Do you plan on telling the rest of the world what they can and can't do because a few british soliders violated Iranian waters (granted its impossible for us to tell if they did or not). I would imagine that most countries, in private anyway, would be quite happy to let them die rather than have oil prices shoot up for an extended period of time.

[davebat]

looks like they are being freed anyway

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

[mendhak]

Yeah, I just heard. Looks like the Iranians are releasing the seamen back onto the British.

[capsulecorpjx]

Yeah, I just heard. Looks like the Iranians are releasing the seamen back onto the British.

Where are the Iranians releasing the seamen? lol