Iran attacks british forces

[geni]

Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.

The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm


I could understand NK pulling this kind of stunt but Iran?

[Pro7]

this will give bush a reason.

[BPSCG]

I could understand NK pulling this kind of stunt but Iran?You're right; one of them is an oppressive, unstable-fanatic-run totalitarian state increasingly flexing its muscles while attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. The other is a small country just west of Japan.


He said naval authorities were doing everything possible to ensure their safe return...

"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."
Or else what?

[andyandy]

apparently they could be looking to link this to the current incarceration of 5 iranians [diplomats/revolutionary guards depending on who you believe] in Iraq. Expect some "you release ours, we'll release yours" bargaining....

[geni]

You're right; one of them is an oppressive, unstable-fanatic-run totalitarian state increasingly flexing its muscles while attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. The other is a small country just west of Japan.

NK tends to only think in the short term which is why they have done things like this in the past. Iran though is generaly a bit more careful.


Or else what?

Well technicaly anything up to and includeing reduceing Tehran to smokeing bedrock.

However on the basis we don't appear to have heard from Blair or Brown not much.

[Tailgater]

this will give bush a reason.

Didn't know he was president of UK too.:eek:

[Hutch]

apparently they could be looking to link this to the current incarceration of 5 iranians [diplomats/revolutionary guards depending on who you believe] in Iraq. Expect some "you release ours, we'll release yours" bargaining....

Not an impossible supposition, andy x 2. The other is that some local commander went off on his own and now the Government has to find a way out without embarrasment.

I'm sure The Mail and The Telegraph are pining for the glorious days of the old empire, where a British Man-o-War would sail up to the nearest port and drop a few shells on the town until the "wogs" returned the sailors.

Trouble is, the "wogs" now have missiles and guns of their own--and know how to use them. Takes all the fun out of Empires...

We shall see. I expect a quick resolution--but you never know...

[Dr Adequate]

Or else what? Or else ... we have all the military options that the US has, including nukes.

---

But apart from that, think about what you just said, you ******* lump of ****.

When your country came under attack on 9/11, we didn't stand about saying "so what are you going to do about it?" We pledged ourselves as your allies. Tony Blair stood on the steps of 10 Downing Street and said that we stood "shoulder to shoulder" with you --- and I wept.

And now, you ******* ****, you see that a member of the "axis of evil" has taken military action against British servicemen, we issue an ultimatum, and your response, as an American, is "or else what"?

You stupid whining ungrateful son of a bitch --- or else you and your country can **** off and die, do I make myself clear?

If you want to have allies, you should be allied to them. We are still fighting "shoulder to shoulder" with you in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have given our money and the blood of our children for your cause --- and you, it seems, have no gratitude, no decency, and no honor.

If I thought that every American was so personally stunted and morally crippled as you are, then on 9/11 I'd have gone out into the streets and danced the Palestinian Fandango.

Do I make myself clear?


Dr. Adequate; You have an obligation under your membership agreement to remain civil toward other members of the forum. In the future, please refrain from posting in a way that personalizes the argument.

[Darth Rotor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm

I could understand NK pulling this kind of stunt but Iran?
Geni, this is not the first time Brits have been arrested in Shatt al Arab, it happened in 2004, June.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-21-iran_x.htm

It got sorted out then, this will get sorted out.

CmdrStone, you are full of beans. The Iranian Navy was most likely enforcing their territorial waters, just as Canada arrested a Spanish fishing ship a few years back. This is not aggression of any sort by Iran.

Dr A:

Hmm, interesting rant.

Please note that this will most likely get sorted out as the 2004 incident did, the Brits are good at working with people in that part of the world.

ETA: Admiral Fallon is not an idiot. Tony Blair is not an idiot. Robert Gates is not an idiot. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not an idiot. The usual outcome is to let the papers print their bullspit, and work out a deal. The news cycle is in many cases a lot of ash and trash.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

Hmm, interesting rant. I post something like this every three months or so, when the right-wing loonies forget that we're your allies, and start banging on about how we're all cowards and want to appease terrorists and are just going to lie down while our 2% Muslim population are going to impose shari'a law 'cos we're all "liberals" and for some magic reason will therefore welcome Islamofascism.

I hear this endless hateful whining again and again from the right-wing US whackjobs.

We've spent billions to support America, and our soldiers keep on dying because we're fighting on your side, and now ...

And now people like BPSGC won't support the UK against Iran, when we are clearly in the right.

As I said, people like this display:

No gratitude.

No decency.

No honor.

I recall that you are an ex-serviceman, so I suppose that you understand what I'm talking about. When you fought alongside the British, you wouldn't have left a British serviceman to be captured 'cos "or else what". You yourself would have been the "or else". That is what I mean by "honor".

And this is what ****s like BPSGC will never understand.

[Darth Rotor]

I recall that you are an ex-serviceman, so I suppose that you understand what I'm talking about. When you fought alongside the British, you wouldn't have left a British serviceman to be captured 'cos "or else what". You yourself would have been the "or else". That is what I mean by "honor".

And this is what ****s like BPSGC will never understand.
One of my most trusted colleagues for about 4 months in a hot and nasty place was an RAF Wing Commander. My office mate for three years in NATO was a Royal Navy commander. A Royal Marine Major was also in my circle of "favorite people" in my NATO job.

My brothers in arms, end of story.

DR

[Garrette]

While I very strongly suspect that Darth Rotor is correct in his assessment that this will get worked out, I've little doubt the US will back the UK in whatever course it takes, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I've worked with the Brits, too, and would stand alongside them under any circumstance if only for another opportunity to eat in their Officer's Mess. That's the way an army should be.:)

As a bit of an aside, one gentleman with whom I worked somewhat closely and who was among the most respected of servicemembers during the early days after the fall of Baghdad, especially in the HACC and the CPA, was Colonel Schollum. Australian, to be technical about it, but the feeling's were the same, and once past the professionalism he told some great bawdy jokes.

[rikzilla]

Or else ... we have all the military options that the US has, including nukes.

---

But apart from that, think about what you just said, you ******* lump of ****.

When your country came under attack on 9/11, we didn't stand about saying "so what are you going to do about it?" We pledged ourselves as your allies. Tony Blair stood on the steps of 10 Downing Street and said that we stood "shoulder to shoulder" with you --- and I wept.

And now, you ******* ****, you see that a member of the "axis of evil" has taken military action against British servicemen, we issue an ultimatum, and your response, as an American, is "or else what"?

You stupid whining ungrateful son of a bitch --- or else you and your country can **** off and die, do I make myself clear?

If you want to have allies, you should be allied to them. We are still fighting "shoulder to shoulder" with you in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have given our money and the blood of our children for your cause --- and you, it seems, have no gratitude, no decency, and no honor.

If I thought that every American was so personally stunted and morally crippled as you are, then on 9/11 I'd have gone out into the streets and danced the Palestinian Fandango.

Do I make myself clear?

Crystal.

Dude, look don't start taking Palestinian fandango lessons just yet. We USians are well pleased and appreciative of your friendship with us. I think what Beeps was getting at is that this is clearly a small-scale incident, ie not 9/11esque in the least. No one is dead, no one is likely to end up dead. Therefore the issuance of ultimatums at this early juncture is...well...premature.

Remember your history. King Stephen was fond of issuing ultimatums that he never meant to carry out. Having taken William Marshall's 6 year old son hostage to enforce the rules of a truce during the siege of Pembroke castle, King Stephen told Marshall to cease resupplying his castle in violation of the truce or he would hang the boy. Since Marshall was both callous and sly he told the King to go ahead and hang the child:

""I still have the hammer and the anvil with which to forge still more and better sons!"

Of course Stephen couldn't bring himself to do it because...well...he was a good man, but his misuse of the ultimatum made him a bad king.

I think what Beeps is asking makes sense.

this incident is not anywhere near the scale of 9/11...it's more accurately likened to the US/China spy plane incident. If you recall we had to negotiate our way out of that one...just like you lot will have to do with old Abnerjihad.

Yeah, it sucks and we feel for you....but the fact is no one is in any danger here...as long as things don't spiral out of control. Issuing empty ultimatums is a good way to screw this up though.

-z

[BPSCG]

I post something like this every three months or so, when the right-wing loonies forget that we're your allies, and start banging on about how we're all cowards and want to appease terrorists and are just going to lie down while our 2% Muslim population are going to impose shari'a law 'cos we're all "liberals" and for some magic reason will therefore welcome Islamofascism.

I hear this endless hateful whining again and again from the right-wing US whackjobs.

We've spent billions to support America, and our soldiers keep on dying because we're fighting on your side, and now ...

And now people like BPSGC won't support the UK against Iran, when we are clearly in the right.

As I said, people like this display:

No gratitude.

No decency.

No honor.

I recall that you are an ex-serviceman, so I suppose that you understand what I'm talking about. When you fought alongside the British, you wouldn't have left a British serviceman to be captured 'cos "or else what". You yourself would have been the "or else". That is what I mean by "honor".

And this is what ****s like BPSGC will never understand.Okay, I was going to let your first post go.

Number 1: Despite your use of the term, it is not an ultimatum unless there's a threat behind it, expressed or implied. My "or else what?" was asking just that - where's the ultimatum?

Number 2: If it came down to a clash of arms between the UK and Iran, I would hope and expect my government would do everything in its power to support the UK, because the UK has been a good friend, in good times and bad.

Number 3: Grow up.

[Jon_in_london]

Dr. A.

While I agree with an second your sentiments, BPSCG has a point. WTF are we going to do? Nuke Tehran? And then what......

The truth is that this government has squandered the billions that should have been used to maintain our capability of independent global force projection. There isnt anything we could do. By the governments own admission, they have cut our armed forces to the degree that independent military action is simply no longer viable- this in order to play sidekick to the global playground bully.

While the posts of some Americans here warms the cockles of my heart, the truth is we are playing a game of naughty wheelbarrow with a US administration that views us very much as the mummy and themselves very much as the dadddy. GWB will not spend a single dollar or shed a drop of American blood to save the life of any given number of UK servicemen or women.

"Or else, what?" Well, if the US wont support us then "or else" we go and sulk in the corner for a while.

Sad but true.

[Dr Adequate]

Or else what?

My brothers in arms, end of story.

Two Americas.

I pledge myself to the second.

[rikzilla]

Jon,

You guys don't have a thing to worry about. You know we'd back you guys to the hilt... The point is that despite what we think of Iran...they are a legitimate government. We can work with them to resolve this thing. It's not like AQ took your guys you know...if that was the case it'd be grim indeed.

Honestly, unless old Abnerjihad has already cooked up his bomb he's not about to invite an attack that could derail his nuke ambitions. He has bigger fish to fry than 15 Brits you know.

-z

[Darth Rotor]

Two Americas.

I pledge myself to the second.
While I think your reaction to Beeps was excessive (gee, I've never gone off like that, have I? :blush: :blush: ) I appreciate the sentiment in your pledge.

The "special relationship" is a long way from being interrupted.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

Okay, I was going to let your first post go.

Number 1: Despite your use of the term, it is not an ultimatum unless there's a threat behind it, expressed or implied. My "or else what?" was asking just that - where's the ultimatum?

Number 2: If it came down to a clash of arms between the UK and Iran, I would hope and expect my government would do everything in its power to support the UK, because the UK has been a good friend, in good times and bad.

Number 3: Grow up. You backpedal well. Does the US have an Olympic backpedaling team? You'd be good. Suddenly "or else what?" implies that we'd have the full support of the USA. Splendid. You could have said that you'd support us all the way --- you could have used, for example, the phrase "shoulder to shoulder" --- instead of posting "or else what?"

So now you have to backpedal like it's going out of fashion.

I'm glad I convinced you that you were wrong, but your attempt to pretend that you agreed with me all along is just pathetic.

[Dr Adequate]

You guys don't have a thing to worry about. You know we'd back you guys to the hilt... I hope that this is true.

But when I read BPSGC writing what he wrote, then I don't believe that every American will "back us to the hilt".

I get the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, that if British servicemen are kidnapped by Iranians, then one or two of you, such as BPSGC, might say "or else what?" i.e. the same thing that fanatical shi'ite muslims might say.

Because this is what the ******* **** did in fact say.

[WildCat]

You backpedal well.
Backpedal from what? The position you attributed to him in the strawman you built?

How wonderful you chose the JREF to throw your little temper tantrum. Grow up, indeed.

[Ziggurat]

Suddenly "or else what?" implies that we'd have the full support of the USA.

No, it doesn't. The "or else what?" comment doesn't imply anything in any direction about US support. And the question still stands, whether or not the US backs the UK: what threat is being put on the table here? Having the full support of the US may broaden the possible answers to that question, but it doesn't actually provide the answer.

[Dr Adequate]

Backpedal from what? The position you attributed to him in the strawman you built?

How wonderful you chose the JREF to throw your little temper tantrum. Grow up, indeed. This post would have more relevance to the subject under discussion if it related to the subject we were discussing.

If you have any actual criticisms of my point of view, you'd probably look smarter if you actually posted them.

[Ziggurat]

I get the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, that if British servicemen are kidnapped by Iranians, then one or two of you, such as BPSGC, might say "or else what?" i.e. the same thing that fanatical shi'ite muslims might say.

You are wrong, so let me correct you. This is the internet: tone of voice and body language don't get transmitted in text, and when you ascribe such components to a textual communication, you're going to make mistakes. This is one such example. There's no need to read his question that way, and your decision to do so and then start hurling personal insults (rather than ask exactly how he meant it) just makes you come off as a hyper-sensitive whiner.

[Dr Adequate]

No, it doesn't. The "or else what?" comment doesn't imply anything in any direction about US support. But this is clearly not true.

Apart from that, good answer.

Damn, if only it related to the real world in any way whatsoever, that would have been an excellent point.

You want to try again?

[WildCat]

This post would have more relevance to the subject under discussion if it related to the subject we were discussing.
The subject was entirely manufactured by you. "Or else what" did not imply anything vis a vis US support for the UK. You built the strawman, then threw a hissy fit about it.

Stop acting like a child.

[Dr Adequate]

You are wrong, so let me correct you. This is the internet: tone of voice and body language don't get transmitted in text, and when you ascribe such components to a textual communication, you're going to make mistakes. This is one such example. There's no need to read his question that way, and your decision to do so and then start hurling personal insults (rather than ask exactly how he meant it) just makes you come off as a hyper-sensitive whiner. Ah, I see. I shouldn't have answered what he actually wrote: that's just me being "hyper-sensitive". Instead, I should have replied to something he didn't write. Otherwise, I'm "whining".

That's nearly the stupidest justification for backpedalling that I've ever read, but try again, you might come up with something even dumber.

[BPSCG]

Because this is what the ******* **** did in fact say.Okay, it's obvious you want to pick a fight, for reasons only known to you. Sorry, I can't accommodate you. Don't waste keystrokes on my posts any more, because you won't get any response.

[Dr Adequate]

The subject was entirely manufactured by you. "Or else what" did not imply anything vis a vis US support for the UK. You built the strawman, then threw a hissy fit about it.

Stop acting like a child. I see. You still wish to run away from the point of view which you are not able to defend.

Run, little doggie, run!

:run:

[Ziggurat]

But this is clearly not true.

It may be clear to you. But for some strange reason, you're the only person it's clear to. Doesn't that suggest that maybe, you know, it isn't so clear?

You want to try again?

Let me make it simple for you. Suppose the UK had full backing from the US in whatever course of action the UK decided to pursue, that we'd do anything you requested of us to resolve this. The question still stands: if you want to make a demand from the Iranians, you need to make a threat. It may not be a threat of violence, but if there's no threat, it's not a demand, it's a request. The UK wants it viewed as a demand, so they better be ready to make a threat of some sort. What will that threat be? That question exists regardless of US involvement. And it's a question you have studiously avoided. Which is quite silly of you, because there are a few possible answers which are fairly obvious.

[Dr Adequate]

Okay, it's obvious you want to pick a fight, for reasons only known to you. Sorry, I can't accommodate you. Don't waste keystrokes on my posts any more, because you won't get any response. So, you are completely unable to defend your point of view. And you are so frightened of people debating you that you refuse to debate your point of view.

As I have pointed out, you are a stupid coward.

And now you acknowlege that you can't even argue against this.

You stupid cowardly dishonorable ungrateful liar.

[WildCat]

I see. You still wish to run away from the point of view which you are not able to defend.

Run, little doggie, run!

:run:
No Dr. A, you made up a point of view that nobody - including BPSG - advocated and then you threw a hissy fit about it. Obviously, like a spoiled child you're going to keep throwing your hissy fit.

Have fun with that, I'm not here to babysit you.

[Dr Adequate]

It may be clear to you. But for some strange reason, you're the only person it's clear to. Doesn't that suggest that maybe, you know, it isn't so clear? But this is a lie. My point is quite clear to Darth Rotor, who, as a US serviceman, has served side by side with British servicemen in Iraq.

When you stop reciting stupid stinking lies, then maybe I will engage with you in debate. Until then, you are a stupid stinking liar.

[Dr Adequate]

No Dr. A, you made up a point of view that nobody - including BPSG - advocated and then you threw a hissy fit about it. Obviously, like a spoiled child you're going to keep throwing your hissy fit. But, you see, you are lying.

Telling me lies about my opinions does not make the facts go away by magic, because reciting nonsense does not in fact change reality.

[Tailgater]

"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

Ok. I love the brits and fully support them with whatever they decide and I'll ask the question. Or else what? I think it is a fairly important question in the current climate.

[LawnOven]

Hey, come on, you guys should be fighting about which one of you hates Ahmadinejad the most.

Ahmadinejad is a giant douche bag.

discuss.

[Ziggurat]

But this is a lie. My point is quite clear to Darth Rotor, who, as a US serviceman, has served side by side with British servicemen in Iraq.

Is that why he said, "Interesting rant"? Because he agreed that BPSCG meant the US wouldn't support the UK? He didn't say anything to that effect. Are you posting drunk?

When you stop reciting stupid stinking lies, then maybe I will engage with you in debate. Until then, you are a stupid stinking liar.

:rolleyes:

[ZeeGerman]

My my,
sometimes I really wonder what happend to good manners here.

Beeps asks "or else what"
Dr. A. gets it down as "or else what are you going to do if uncle sam doesn't help you?- neener neener", throws a fit (understandable) and overdoes the reply.
In a kind discussion Beeps could have replied something like " hey man, don't get me wrong, I didn't mean no offense but blah blah", to which Dr. A. could have answered "Ups, sorry then forget what I said".
It's really not so hard to say sorry, if you stepped on somebody's toes, even to someone you disagree with most of the time.
Instead we get this bickering about who's right and who is not and the whole thread goes south.

Regarding the issue at hand, I'm with Rik and D.R., the soldiers will probably be back within a week.

Zee

[Dr Adequate]

Ok. I love the brits and fully support them with whatever they decide and I'll ask the question. Or else what? Or else:

(1) The British have all the military options available to Americans. We have everything from nukes to the SAS. We can do military stuff. That's one answer to "or else what?" That's why you wanted us as allies.

(2) Apparently you Americans love us Limeys and fully support us. You said so in your post. And you are the world's only super power. That also is, surely, an answer to the question "or else what?" As we are your allies, surely you are on our side? "Or else what?" Or else, at least, the US will back us up, rather than saying "or else what?"

We are your allies. Honor requires that you guys should side with us against Iran, rather than sitting on the sidelines and asking us what we're going to do about it. If you won't, we shall draw our own conclusions.

[Darth Rotor]

Is that why he said, "Interesting rant"? Because he agreed that BPSCG meant the US wouldn't support the UK? He didn't say anything to that effect. Are you posting drunk?

Posting pissed means something different to a Brit than to an American who may, or may not, be up on Brit slang. :cool:

I do not want to get involved with this pissing contest, as I've been in too many lately. Y'all be good. I am off to get pissed on tequila and beer, and to watch a ball game.

You all have a lovely weekend. If the incident in the Shatt al Arab starts World War III (not bloody likely) it's been a real treat knowing you all via internt. :D

(EMP will likely put the internet down anyway)


DR

[mummymonkey]

"Or else what?" indeed. As an ex-serviceman I agree with BPSCG. If the Foreign Secretary was being interviewed on Newsnight the first question Paxman would ask is "Or else what?" (Perhaps he might phrase it differently)
I wonder what her answer would be?

[Dr Adequate]

Is that why he said, "Interesting rant"? Because he agreed that BPSCG meant the US wouldn't support the UK? He didn't say anything to that effect. Of course he said no such thing.

So, in order to justify your lunatic ravings, you have to lie about what Darth Rotor posted?

I'm half surprised. I knew you'd have to tell some lie, but I didn't realise that you'd go so far as to lie about the opinions of a US war veteran.

Now I think about it, this is not the first time. I remember "Swiftboating".

[Tailgater]

Or else:

(1) The British have all the military options available to Americans. We have everything from nukes to the SAS. We can do military stuff. That's one answer to "or else what?" That's why you wanted us as allies.

(2) Apparently you Americans love us Limeys and fully support us. You said so in your post. And you are the world's only super power. That also is, surely, an answer to the question "or else what?" As we are your allies, surely you are on our side? "Or else what?" Or else, at least, the US will back us up, rather than saying "or else what?"

We are your allies. Honor requires that you guys should side with us against Iran, rather than sitting on the sidelines and asking us what we're going to do about it. If you won't, we shall draw our own conclusions.

But America does not make the Uks decisions for them. Just because the UK has a military, does not mean they will threaten to use military force. There are other means of pressure to use, and with multiple other countries already involved over nuclear talks, it would be interesting to know what the end result to the demands are.

[headscratcher4]

Interesting turn of events.

Of course, what gets left out of these discussions, is Iran's long history with the Brits...not an excuse, mind you, but perhaps a contributing additudinal factor (i.e. why Iran would risk this).

Next to America, the Brits are Iranian enemy number one. Go back to the first time the Shah was overthrown by a democratically elected Parliment under the leadership of Mosedeq. The Brits controlled the Iranian oil industry...and as was the pattern in such cases...pretty well excluded Iran from not only participation in the industry, but very much discriminated agaisnt Iranians in their own country.

Mosedeq's solution? Nationalize the British oil holdings. The British response? Well, it was after the war and they didn't have the military might they once did...so, they got the US and the CIA to step in and organize a counter coup that overthrough the elected government (they were socilists/prot-communists in the parlance of the time) and replace it with the once toppled Shah, who proceeded to create a liberl but police state, crushed his poltical oposition and limited freedom of speech, action etc. (making room for dissent only within the realm of the relgious schools, giving rise to Khomeni, et. al).

So, while it presents many confusing situations, today's incident was a opportunity for some faction or other to show that it was standing up to Western impreialism of the kind that historically contributed to the opression of the Iranian people.

I don't think they ultimately are looking for war or an armed conflict at this time, but there is a lot of pride involved. And, while that can be irrational (look at President Bush fighting the fights he thinks his dad lost), it can be extreemly dangerous.

[geni]

Expecting the US to attack Iran is unreasonable. The US can bomb Iran but then so so can britian. Invasion is imposible for both short of instituteing a draft and being prepared to accept significant casulties.

However were a problem that was more within the capacity of the US to deal with (say argentina invades the falklands again) I would hope aid would be rather more concrete (mind you there are rumors around that the US might have been prepared to lend an aircraft carrier last time athough what the Royal navy could have done with it is open to question).

[Dr Adequate]

But America does not make the Uks decisions for them. Of course not. What on earth does that have to do with anything I've posted?

Oh, wait, it doesn't.

[Tailgater]

Of course not. What on earth does that have to do with anything I've posted?

Oh, wait, it doesn't.

We are your allies. Honor requires that you guys should side with us against Iran, rather than sitting on the sidelines and asking us what we're going to do about it. If you won't, we shall draw our own conclusions.

As an ally who will support you, the thought of what you will do is relevant. Sitting on the sidelines is the only thing we can do, while you decide what to do.

[Dr Adequate]

"Or else what?" indeed. As an ex-serviceman I agree with BPSCG. If the Foreign Secretary was being interviewed on Newsnight the first question Paxman would ask is "Or else what?" (Perhaps he might phrase it differently)
I wonder what her answer would be? I wonder if her first answer would be "Well, of course, in answering your question, I must take into account the fact that Americans are saying "or else what?" rather than affirming their allegiance with the UK."

No, this is not what they are saying. Bush isn't saying "or else what", Rumsfeld isn't saying this, it's just a bunch of right-wing loonies who are saying this.

Whereas the sane right-wingers agree with Darth Rotor, Bush, and Rumsfeld.

Of course America is backing us on this one. But the right-wing nutjobs aren't. Because they hate anyone who isn't American even if we're their allies and are attacked by their enemies.

Dolts.

[Dr Adequate]

As an ally who will support you, the thought of what you will do is relevant. Sitting on the sidelines is the only thing we can do, while you decide what to do. No, you can say that you support us all the way and are "standing shoulder to shoulder" with us, just as Tony Blair did on 9/11.

And I'm pretty sure this is what Bush et al are actually doing: I haven't googled it, but I'm willing to bet that your actual government is on our side while the looneys sit around pretending that it's nothing to do with them.

[Ziggurat]

Of course he said no such thing.

Hmm, interesting rant.

He did indeed, and YOU even quoted that bit.

So, in order to justify your lunatic ravings, you have to lie about what Darth Rotor posted?

:rolleyes: Yes, I also have to eat babies.

I'm half surprised. I knew you'd have to tell some lie, but I didn't realise that you'd go so far as to lie about the opinions of a US war veteran.

YOU are the one who lied about Darth's posts. In no part of his post did he express the opinion that BPSCG's question indicated BPSCG thought the US wouldn't or didn't support the UK. His expressions of his own support for the UK don't change that. Which is why you can't quote any part of Darth's post to indicate otherwise. If he wants to come back here and express such an opinion he's certainly free to do so, but so far he hasn't.

[Tailgater]

No, you can say that you support us all the way and are "standing shoulder to shoulder" with us, just as Tony Blair did on 9/11.

And I'm pretty sure this is what Bush et al are actually doing: I haven't googled it, but I'm willing to bet that your actual government is on our side while the looneys sit around pretending that it's nothing to do with them.

Ok, I think I see where you're coming from, but if these were US troops and Bush came out and said the exact same thing, my first thought would be the same. When someone demands something, they usually want to finish the sentence. I have three kids and I don't demand anything without telling them what will happen to them.

[steverino]

I would like to say that my dad was a navigator in Tibenham, England, in WWII. For some time he flew in B24B's under his commander, Jimmy Stewart. Now he's a damn liberal.:p

Also, I would like to insert something else. I'd do Posh Spice. There. I said it. Carry on.

[Tailgater]

Steverino,

You are the cherry on top of every thread I read. :D Carry on as well.

[Ziggurat]

Go back to the first time the Shah was overthrown by a democratically elected Parliment under the leadership of Mosedeq.

Mossadegh didn't exactly overthrow the Shah. He managed to wrest considerable power away from the Shah, but the Shah remained the Shah throughout the entire event. Furthermore, Mossadegh himself was appointed prime minister by the parliament upon recommendation of the Shah himself.

they got the US and the CIA to step in and organize a counter coup that overthrough the elected government

Parliament did not change. Only Mossadegh, the prime minister, was deposed. He was elected by parliament (which remained after he was deposed), not by any popular vote. And constitutionally, his dismissal was arguably within the Shah's power anyways.

[fishbob]

The question still stands: if you want to make a demand from the Iranians, you need to make a threat. It may not be a threat of violence, but if there's no threat, it's not a demand, it's a request. The UK wants it viewed as a demand, so they better be ready to make a threat of some sort. What will that threat be? That question exists regardless of US involvement. And it's a question you have studiously avoided. Which is quite silly of you, because there are a few possible answers which are fairly obvious.

The demand is perfectly effective with no threat stated. UK has not limited their options or committed to something that might turn out to be inappropriate, the Iranians know that UK has all manner of credible threats at their disposal - but don't know which to expect. Making a threat at this time would be counterproductive and just plain silly.

[Ziggurat]

The demand is perfectly effective with no threat stated.

Only if there's an implied threat. At this stage, what is the implied threat? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm asking what it is.

Making a threat at this time would be counterproductive and just plain silly.

They've got time and don't need to commit to anything particular at this moment, and I don't doubt it will get worked out. But a demand must have a threat of some sort, be it explicit or implicit, or it simply isn't a demand.

[mummymonkey]

.. the Iranians know that UK has all manner of credible threats at their disposalWhat are you thinking of fishbob?

[Thunder]

If the Brits want to go to war over this that is there choice, but I hope they don't. The USA will support them either way...have no doubts about that.

[Dr Adequate]

He did indeed, and YOU even quoted that bit. You are a halfwitted liar. Darth Rotor never said that "he agreed that BPSCG meant the US wouldn't support the UK".

Even you, stupid drooling liar that you are, have admitted that "he didn't say anything to that effect." You admitted 17 posts ago that he never said any such thing, and the words "he didn't say anything to that effect" are yours. I am quoting you when you admit that he said no such thing. You admitted that he didn't say that, and now, you twisted dirty filthy liar, you say that "he did indeed". You stupid lying filth.


Dr. Adequate - This post came before my previous warning, but again, please keep in mind your membership agreement.

[Dr Adequate]

Let's watch it again in slow motion.

He didn't say anything to that effect.

Of course he said no such thing.

He did indeed.

First you say that Darth Rotor didn't say some nutty stuff that you made up in your head.

Of course he didn't, so then I agreed that he didn't say any of the gibberish that you hallucinated.

Then you insist that he did.

I don't know how to ask this tactfully, but are you completely freakin' insane?

[Ziggurat]

Let's watch it again in slow motion.

Ah, I see. I misunderstood your reference (I thought the "no such thing" refered to the "Interesting rant" part).

So apparently now you do not claim that Darth said that BPSCG's question implied anything about the US's support for the UK. Which means that you ARE alone in that assesment (ala my posts #22 and #30), and bringing up Darth possibly understanding other aspects of your initial response to BPSCG was merely a distraction. Congratulations: you didn't lie about Darth's post, you just tried to bring up irrelevant aspects of it in defense of your own untennable position.

[fuelair]

Dr. A.

While I agree with an second your sentiments, BPSCG has a point. WTF are we going to do? Nuke Tehran? And then what......

The truth is that this government has squandered the billions that should have been used to maintain our capability of independent global force projection. There isnt anything we could do. By the governments own admission, they have cut our armed forces to the degree that independent military action is simply no longer viable- this in order to play sidekick to the global playground bully.

While the posts of some Americans here warms the cockles of my heart, the truth is we are playing a game of naughty wheelbarrow with a US administration that views us very much as the mummy and themselves very much as the dadddy. GWB will not spend a single dollar or shed a drop of American blood to save the life of any given number of UK servicemen or women.

"Or else, what?" Well, if the US wont support us then "or else" we go and sulk in the corner for a while.

Sad but true.I hope you are wrong about Shrub - but he is a full scale rectum - and anyone who puts their faith in him is likely to find themselves over a rail getting Shrubbed the wrong way.:jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp

[Mike B.]

We are your allies. Honor requires that you guys should side with us against Iran, rather than sitting on the sidelines and asking us what we're going to do about it. If you won't, we shall draw our own conclusions.

Don't worry, we will always support you in the Middle East, just ask Anthony Eden...er, no...

[fishbob]

Only if there's an implied threat. At this stage, what is the implied threat? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm asking what it is.



They've got time and don't need to commit to anything particular at this moment, and I don't doubt it will get worked out. But a demand must have a threat of some sort, be it explicit or implicit, or it simply isn't a demand.

The demand itself, as stated, IS an implied threat.

[fishbob]

What are you thinking of fishbob?

Doesn't matter what I am thinking. What are the Iranians thinking?
The UK has all manner of troops and weapons, some pretty close to the neighborhood - as does the US, and that guy from Palau is probably still around.

[Art Vandelay]

You people are trying to discuss the issue rationally with Dr A? Good luck. This is the guy who presented a list of claims that I hadn't supported, and then, when I pointed out that I hadn't made those claims and he was attacking a strawman, claimed that presenting a list of claims and saying that I hadn't supported them in no way implied that I had made the claims.

And yet asking what Britain's plans are is somehow saying that we don't plan on supporting them.

[Art Vandelay]

And if all Britons were as dishonest, rude, conceited, intolerant, sanctimonious, self-righteous, immature, and all-around poor excuse for a human being as Dr A, I wouldn't want the US spending effort helping them.

[fuelair]

And if all Britons were as dishonest, rude, conceited, intolerant, sanctimonious, self-righteous, immature, and all-around poor excuse for a human being as Dr A, I wouldn't want the US spending effort helping them.

And imagine what he would have said if he didn't admire and respect Dr. A!!!!:D

[Darth Rotor]

Uh, guys?

I just got back from the ball game, and I am a bit pissed, in two ways. One is the tequila, the other is that our side lost 6-3.

When people are arguing over something I posted on a JREF forum, the chances are that the discussion has long since passed the "value added" stage.

As much as I'd like to be imminently quotable, this is not an occasion where I have been. No TLA for me. :cool:

Let's all trust Mr Blair's government in the UK to do as they did in 2004, and get this all sorted out. I have every confidence that they will, and no bombs, no missiles, no nukes will fly over this bit of skullduggery in the warm and nasty waters of the Persian Gulf.

DR

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Perhaps this will touch a nerve with veterans, and if so I apologise in advance, but why would soldiers surrender to clearly unstable hostile militaries?

I can't speak from personal experience, of course, but I just don't think I'd trust the current Iranian regime to be humane. They're not humane to their own citizens, why would they treat foreign soldiers with any respect? I think I'd take the easier death by gunfire or explosion than whatever tortures might await. I often wondered the same thing about the civilians taken hostage and then brutally executed on camera by the various factions. At some point, I'd make a grab for the rifle, make them shoot me.

And then again, I've never been in the situation. And I'm no psychologist, so I don't know how people think under mortal duress.

[Ziggurat]

I can't speak from personal experience, of course, but I just don't think I'd trust the current Iranian regime to be humane. They're not humane to their own citizens, why would they treat foreign soldiers with any respect?

Because it's bad PR, and it gains them little (unlike torturing their own people, which keeps them in line and gets mostly ignored by the rest of the world).

I think I'd take the easier death by gunfire or explosion than whatever tortures might await.

Judging by the last group of brits to be held by Iranians, they probably won't be tortured or even treated all that badly, though I doubt they're having fun.

[Ziggurat]

The demand itself, as stated, IS an implied threat.

That's quite possible, but what threat is implied?

[The Atheist]

Someone forget to take his pills this morning? Hmmm?

Making a mountain out of a molehill would be a mild metaphor by comparison.

[The Atheist]

Also, I would like to insert something else. I'd do Posh Spice. There. I said it. Carry on.

You, on the other hand, sir, are unwell!

Victoria Beckham????

You'd have more fun with a medical skeleton! And it would probably have more meat on its bones. Surely, you mean any of the other Spices? Even Scary, you ask? Posh is bloody scary!

[fishbob]

That's quite possible, but what threat is implied?

The unstated threat is an advantage to UK. Why screw up the deal at this stage?

[Dr Adequate]

You people are trying to discuss the issue rationally with Dr A? Good luck. This is the guy who presented a list of claims that I hadn't supported, and then, when I pointed out that I hadn't made those claims and he was attacking a strawman, claimed that presenting a list of claims and saying that I hadn't supported them in no way implied that I had made the claims. This is, of course, not true, which is why you are completely unable to substantiate it.

Just for that, I'm going to bump your "liar" thread in FC again.

Do you ever get tired of humilliating yourself in public?

[my_wan]

The unstated threat is an advantage to UK. Why screw up the deal at this stage?

I agree. I would never state the threat. When the time comes I would just do it. Just like when the time comes the UK will have our support. No need to state that either.

[Dr Adequate]

And if all Britons were as dishonest, rude, conceited, intolerant, sanctimonious, self-righteous, immature, and all-around poor excuse for a human being as Dr A, I wouldn't want the US spending effort helping them. But since your childish fantasies apply neither to me nor my countrymen, why do you mention this?

I think you will find that few people will understand the relevance of the disgusting fantasy world in your head to any actual situation that happens in the real world.

[rikzilla]

Chill out Dr. A Heal thyself with this: :chillpill

Now that your BP has receded and stroke is no longer imminent; please realize that there are many, many people in the USA who would support sinking the Iranian Navy just to see a smile cross old Maggie's face. Are 15 squaddies worth going to war for? My short answer is: yes.

Fear not, the Iranians have much to lose and little to gain by harming these guys in any way. There will be negotiations and compromises demanded and made. Diplomats will blow smoke up each others arses. The Iranians will make the best deal they can, but they are not stupid. They have far more to lose than a group like Hezbollah or AQ, and nothing to gain by going all jihadi on these guys.

-z

[Darth Rotor]

Perhaps this will touch a nerve with veterans, and if so I apologise in advance, but why would soldiers surrender to clearly unstable hostile militaries?

I can't speak from personal experience, of course, but I just don't think I'd trust the current Iranian regime to be humane. They're not humane to their own citizens, why would they treat foreign soldiers with any respect? I think I'd take the easier death by gunfire or explosion than whatever tortures might await. I often wondered the same thing about the civilians taken hostage and then brutally executed on camera by the various factions. At some point, I'd make a grab for the rifle, make them shoot me.

And then again, I've never been in the situation. And I'm no psychologist, so I don't know how people think under mortal duress.
Most likely, a firefight did not erupt due to the Brits' discipline in following their RoE when trouble arose.

I'd give a case of beer to have been with the captain on the Cornwall and see how he handled this situation.

I imagine he aged about a year in an afternoon. He's got 15 of his men taken, and he was probably, due to the RoE, powerless to do what his seafarer's gut demanded of him: kill any jackanape who messes with his sailors and marines. :(

DR

[JamesM]

is there any chance we did this on purpose to provoke an incident?

[Darth Rotor]

is there any chance we did this on purpose to provoke an incident?
Who is this "we," paleface? ;)

Given the UK's stated drawdown plan, and Mr Blair's current political position, I have a hard time seeing him and the MoD in London buying into a deliberate ruse intended to give an excuse for the Americans to attack Iran, using British troops as the cat's paw.

Do you see it differently? If so, why?

DR

[rikzilla]

Who is this "we," paleface? ;)

Given the UK's stated drawdown plan, and Mr Blair's current political position, I have a hard time seeing him and the MoD in London buying into a deliberate ruse intended to give an excuse for the Americans to attack Iran, using British troops as the cat's paw.

Do you see it differently? If so, why?

DR

Hey da gub'mint "did" 9/11....why wouldn't they do this right James?

-z

[my_wan]

is there any chance we did this on purpose to provoke an incident?

It's much more likely Iran did it on purpose. They get their primary power from inciting hatred for the US. They get to blame us for the condition of their people while living high on the countries resources. As long as it's someone else's fault they get a free pass. They even use child shields etc to hide behind and use against us when we are forced to defend ourselves.

Hey da gub'mint "did" 9/11....why wouldn't they do this right James?

-z

So you are claiming we did what I just said about Iran. When you get evidence I will listen. The evidence so far is no better than the evidence that the grey aliens did it. Look at the anti bush media. Don't you think a high powered reporter would sell their soul for the story if they could get the evidence? Do you think the "gub'mint" is that good at keeping secrets? If you really want to keep saying that list every piece of evidence and really try to falsify every one. Show the list and ask for help in falsifying them. Just repeating the "gub'mint" did it is a dead end even it were true. People say Bush lied about WMD then keep saying this crap without even trying to consider facts. :relieved:

EDA: Not personal rikzilla. ;) Meant as a general message to CTers.

[JamesM]

Given the UK's stated drawdown plan, and Mr Blair's current political position, I have a hard time seeing him and the MoD in London buying into a deliberate ruse intended to give an excuse for the Americans to attack Iran, using British troops as the cat's paw.

Do you see it differently? If so, why?
I have nothing but pointless, and eminently ignorable speculation.

I've just grown cynical about this sort of thing. I'm not suggesting this is designed to synthesise a casus belli, just that there may be more to this than simple "we were in Iraqi waters this is INTOLERABLE!"/"oops, we accidentally entered Iranian water, it was all an honest mistake!". Could be a covert thing gone wrong, could be a simple prodding of the Iranians prior to UN Security Council Nuclear Stuff, that got out of hand.

Or it might just be a mistake.

[JamesM]

Hey da gub'mint "did" 9/11....why wouldn't they do this right James?
I find your insinuation I advocate 9/11 CTs bizarre.

Something like how the catastrophic British intervention in The Suez Crisis was presented to the public is more apposite.

[The Atheist]

I find your insinuation I advocate 9/11 CTs bizarre.

Something like how the catastrophic British intervention in The Suez Crisis was presented to the public is more apposite.

Touche.

[The Atheist]

Has anyone seen a printout of the GPS of where this boat was?

Darth, you're the expert. The vessel would be using GPS, real time plotting and that there must be a record of it? That right, or am I a bit ahead of the Navy?

If so, the Poms letting everyone know would be a good start. If they were in Iranian waters, I certainly wouldn't be bitching about it.

[Darth Rotor]

Has anyone seen a printout of the GPS of where this boat was?

Darth, you're the expert. The vessel would be using GPS, real time plotting and that there must be a record of it? That right, or am I a bit ahead of the Navy?

If so, the Poms letting everyone know would be a good start. If they were in Iranian waters, I certainly wouldn't be bitching about it.

I don't have a plot. I am sure the Captain of the HMS Cornwall had a running plot of his own position, and the position of whatever his boat crews were investigating. I better not speak further until I have found or figured out positions that are well documented.

In an arrest/seizure of this sort, the disagreements tend to begin at "we were in international/Iraqi waters" versus "no you weren't, you were in Iranian waters" and since the upper Persian Gulf and the Shatt Al Arab have been under contested status on any number of occasions (the 1975 agreement considered) I expect that "who was where on whose plot" is a factor in this.

If the Iranian and Brit navigation plots did not agree (not sure if Iranian Rev Guards naval units use GPS plotting, though I suspect they do) this becomes rapidly a "he said she said" sort of bickering.

I do not know, and can only surmise, the relationship between whoever the Brit boat crews were inspecting to the Iranian Rev Guard, and any covert operation Iran was running.

This arrest may have been a preemptive move to preclude the Brits uncovering some Iranian skullduggery in the area.

DR

[The Atheist]

It all appears to be pretty relaxed on the water - The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2387844.ece)has good coverage.

No precipitate action, she'll be right - bit of sabre-rattling at worst, it appears.

[Darth Rotor]

It all appears to be pretty relaxed on the water - The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2387844.ece)has good coverage.

No precipitate action, she'll be right - bit of sabre-rattling at worst, it appears.
Good link, thanks.

Last night, Commodore Lambert denied his men had strayed into Iranian waters, insisting they were half a mile inside Iraq around Marakkat Abd Allah. "My immediate concern is for the safety of my people and their safe return," he said. "Everything is being done ... at the highest level of the UK government and by our coalition partners to ensure that this is possible."

Officers said they hoped this was an error of judgement made by a local commander that would be resolved with negotiations. "I hope we find this is a simple misunderstanding at the tactical level," the Commodore said.

While tensions at national level have been strained lately, the British insist that they have maintained a cordial relationship with the Iranians. The border is indistinct and frequently the Iranians stray close to the coalition ships but, until now, they have moved back across the diving line without dispute.

Commodore Lambert said: "We have a healthy, professional respect. We police and patrol our side, and they police and patrol their side."
I hope Commodore Lambert is right.

DR

[fuelair]

Perhaps this will touch a nerve with veterans, and if so I apologise in advance, but why would soldiers surrender to clearly unstable hostile militaries?

I can't speak from personal experience, of course, but I just don't think I'd trust the current Iranian regime to be humane. They're not humane to their own citizens, why would they treat foreign soldiers with any respect? I think I'd take the easier death by gunfire or explosion than whatever tortures might await. I often wondered the same thing about the civilians taken hostage and then brutally executed on camera by the various factions. At some point, I'd make a grab for the rifle, make them shoot me.

And then again, I've never been in the situation. And I'm no psychologist, so I don't know how people think under mortal duress.It isn't people, generally, it is people specifically. As a rule, if there is any possible way I will do my best to take some with me - especially with primitives (fundies, IRA, Basque seps, etc, etc ). Many/most soldiers nowadays are not warriors, they are soldiers. Soldiers are trained to follow certain rules in certain situations - those rules assume all sides will follow them. That is not and never has been true - but the training still is done as if it is. The British soldiers did what they were supposed to(like the case from many years ago when two British soldiers were watching the funeral of some ira rectum, the crowd spotted them, broke into their car, beat them to death and left them in the area. BOTH HAD LOADED PISTOLS, NEITHER FIRED because they followed procedure. Had it been me, before the crowd got close enough there would have been an Irisher dead or with a major wound for every bullet in my magazine before they got me(and it would have been very likely I would have had extra magazines - always do with the .45s). I do not believe in going out of my way to eliminate people but I will not die for my killers without some return on it.

[Art Vandelay]

I can't speak from personal experience, of course, but I just don't think I'd trust the current Iranian regime to be humane. They're not humane to their own citizens, why would they treat foreign soldiers with any respect?Because they're answerable to Britain for what happens to British soldiers. For their own citizens, they aren't answerable to anyone.

I think I'd take the easier death by gunfire or explosion than whatever tortures might await. I often wondered the same thing about the civilians taken hostage and then brutally executed on camera by the various factions. At some point, I'd make a grab for the rifle, make them shoot me.I guess in that sort of situation, the hostages cooperate in the slim hope that they will be released. And some of them are, so it makes sense that someone would hang on to chance that they'll be one of those. What I don't get is people being forced to dig their own grave. At that point, the writing should be on the wall.

This is, of course, not true, which is why you are completely unable to substantiate it.

Just for that, I'm going to bump your "liar" thread in FC again.

Do you ever get tired of humilliating yourself in public?

In case people don't know what thread you're talking about: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2457072#post2457072

I've posted my response there. Here's the most important parts:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1243495#post1243495
Do you have any actual arguments against the following propositions:

(1) Desecrating Afghan bodies and then boasting about it is stupid.
(2) Not caring about the problems this will cause in Afghanistan is dumb.
(3) Desecrating the bodies of your enemies is a war crime.
(4) War crimes are illegal.
(5) The "Islamic world" was not indifferent to 9/11.

Or do you prefer to repeat your pitiable exhibition of gibberish, lies, hypocrisy, and distortion?

Or then again, you could decide that you've made enough of a clown of yourself, and keep your stupid mouth shut.

Me, I'm betting on the second possibility. But do feel free to surprise us all.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1244548#post1244548
I attributed no claims to you whatsoever.

[The Atheist]

I hope Commodore Lambert is right.

DR

No offence, but I think it's probably lucky it was a bunch of Pommies who were kidnapped. They're a little less likely to over-react, I suspect.

Anyway, I understand that St. Helen Clark is going over to sort it out. She's arrived in Teheran and if the Poms aren't back by midnight she's going to stay for a week.

No contest.

[Darth Rotor]

No offence, but I think it's probably lucky it was a bunch of Pommies who were kidnapped. They're a little less likely to over-react, I suspect.
Perhaps, there is some grounds for your assumption on that, given the Brit style.
Anyway, I understand that St. Helen Clark is going over to sort it out. She's arrived in Teheran and if the Poms aren't back by midnight she's going to stay for a week.

No contest.
ROFL, is this the old joke about houseguests, fish and Kiwi's smelling a bit ripe after three days? :D

DR

[The Atheist]

ROFL, is this the old joke about houseguests, fish and Kiwi's smelling a bit ripe after three days? :D

DR

Yep. If they're not sent back in the first week, she's staying a month!

[Dr Adequate]

Hey, Art Vandelay.

You yourself established a thread where you could degrade and humiliate yourself.

It's right here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59147).

Some people are not interested in watching you wallow in your own filth. I myself find it funny.

Either way, would you please make an exhibition of yourself on the thread of your choosing, rather than sliming your dirt all over these forums?

Cheers.

[The Atheist]

Some people are not interested in watching you wallow in your own filth. I myself find it funny.

Doc, you probably won't appreciate this, coming from me and all, but I'm gonna chip in anyway, because despite our wee contretemps a week or three ago, I still think you're an ok bloke.

I think you're going overboard here. Maybe taking a few deep breaths, or calculating pi to a hundred decimal places might help.

First, I think you jumped on BPSCG unnecessarily, and he and I are mortal enemies last time I checked. (waves to Beeps, Beeps shoots back both fingers) I'd love to find fault with his post, but I can't.

Second, picking on Art Vandelay is like picking on the boy with calipers on his legs. At least attack me or someone who will just tell you to #### off.

Cheers

[Antiquehunter]

All I gotta say is I bet there will be some juicy consulting opportunities in Tehran in about 4 years...

-SelfServing.

[Darth Rotor]

All I gotta say is I bet there will be some juicy consulting opportunities in Tehran in about 4 years...

-SelfServing.
Yes, and the question is, in what fields?

*ponders learning Farsi . . . *

DR

[Antiquehunter]

Farsi man formidum kam-ast.

But my spelling probably sucks.

Fields?

Well - everything from security, capacity development / public administration rebuilding in the post-conflict environment, health & sanitation would be a biggie, gender issues / women in government, rebuilding central government / rule of law...

You know - the typical Afghanistan / Iraq post-conflict fields of expertise... ;)

[Darth Rotor]

Farsi man formidum kam-ast.

But my spelling probably sucks.

Fields?

Well - everything from security, capacity development / public administration rebuilding in the post-conflict environment, health & sanitation would be a biggie, gender issues / women in government, rebuilding central government / rule of law...

You know - the typical Afghanistan / Iraq post-conflict fields of expertise... ;)
I don't see Iran in a war with much of anyone but themselves for the next four years.

We are watching a whole lot of bluff and blunder at the moment, as I read the tea leaves.

Oh, wait, those are coffee grounds.

Never mind . . .

DR

[fuelair]

Most likely, a firefight did not erupt due to the Brits' discipline in following their RoE when trouble arose.

I'd give a case of beer to have been with the captain on the Cornwall and see how he handled this situation.

I imagine he aged about a year in an afternoon. He's got 15 of his men taken, and he was probably, due to the RoE, powerless to do what his seafarer's gut demanded of him: kill any jackanape who messes with his sailors and marines. :(

DR

Once again, though not all that often, we agree.:mad:

[The Atheist]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1037745aed97d38ce6.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3699)

I'm blowing the whistle on you guys, sorry. There's far too much sense being made here.

People. This is a thread about Iran/Middle East/USA, you are not permitted to make sensible, articulated arguments. Stick to ad hominem and red herrings, please.

Darth, I'm nominating you for Secretary of State.

[Darth Rotor]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1037745aed97d38ce6.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3699)

I'm blowing the whistle on you guys, sorry. There's far too much sense being made here.

People. This is a thread about Iran/Middle East/USA, you are not permitted to make sensible, articulated arguments. Stick to ad hominem and red herrings, please.

Darth, I'm nominating you for Secretary of State.
I can play piano, but I don't have the legs for the job. ;)

DR

[Azure]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/26/wiran26.xml


Tony Blair warned Iran last night that it has only a few days to find a diplomatic solution to the escalating crisis over the 15 missing British sailors and Marines.

Margaret Beckett; Blair: Iran must free naval prisoners in days
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett held talks with her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki

As the tension grew, the first direct high-level talks took place between Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, and Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, to press Britain's concerns.


Or what?

[steverino]

NPR tonight is saying the 15 British men may go on trial for spying. This could really escalate. :(

[a_unique_person]

I don't see Iran in a war with much of anyone but themselves for the next four years.

We are watching a whole lot of bluff and blunder at the moment, as I read the tea leaves.

Oh, wait, those are coffee grounds.

Never mind . . .

DR

Given that Armadinajed is unpopular with the voters, he could be playing the classic wedge politics gambit. Take a stance that forces your countrymen to back their own country, or not. He wouldn't be the first to try it.

[Kerberos]

Most likely, a firefight did not erupt due to the Brits' discipline in following their RoE when trouble arose.

I'd give a case of beer to have been with the captain on the Cornwall and see how he handled this situation.

I imagine he aged about a year in an afternoon. He's got 15 of his men taken, and he was probably, due to the RoE, powerless to do what his seafarer's gut demanded of him: kill any jackanape who messes with his sailors and marines. :(

DR
I think that assumption is extremely questionalbe. Personally my guess would be that they surrendered not primarilly due to rules of engagement (though that whould not be understood to say they didn't follow RoE), but because they were outgunned. The brits were in rubber boats, if the Iranians were in a real warship, even a Corvette (ducks) resistance would have been suicide.

[andyandy]

Given that Armadinajed is unpopular with the voters, he could be playing the classic wedge politics gambit. Take a stance that forces your countrymen to back their own country, or not. He wouldn't be the first to try it.

i initially thought that this would be resolved relatively easily [albeit with plenty of diplomatic wranglings behind the scenes] but it would appear that the Iranian leadership are pushing for escalation.....

it's difficult to see what happens from here....

:boxedin::bigtank:

[OMGturt1es]

NPR tonight is saying the 15 British men may go on trial for spying. This could really escalate. :(

that's terrible news.

[Big Les]

Dr Adequate - is there no chance that the "or else what?" comment was intended to highlight the limited options available to any western government in a situation such as this? That's certainly how I read it; I really don't understand your outrage unless there's some prior history between you two that I'm not aware of.

[Darth Rotor]

I think that assumption is extremely questionalbe. Personally my guess would be that they surrendered not primarilly due to rules of engagement (though that whould not be understood to say they didn't follow RoE), but because they were outgunned. The brits were in rubber boats, if the Iranians were in a real warship, even a Corvette (ducks) resistance would have been suicide.
HMS Cornwall isn't a rubber boat, Kerberos. Since I don't have a plot on where Cornwall was relative to the rubber boats, I'll stop there. It's not as though lone rubber boats were patrolling the area, they were from a British Warship.

DR

[NeilC]

Dr Adequate - is there no chance that the "or else what?" comment was intended to highlight the limited options available to any western government in a situation such as this? That's certainly how I read it; I really don't understand your outrage unless there's some prior history between you two that I'm not aware of.

Thats how I read it too. And it's what I thought when I read Blair's words - and if they don't comply then what?

I wouldn't want to get involved in a war with Iran over a few soldiers. Remember that if the UK/USA are to believed then Iran's secret actions in Iraq have already led to the deaths of soldiers. I wouldn't want us to nuke them - can't kills millions of innocent people. Sanctions? That's already on the agenda re: their nuclear developments. I guess we could nip over the border and grab some Iranians? Would seem a bit churlish.

What I don't quite get is how they got taken in the first place with no shooting involved.

[rikzilla]

i initially thought that this would be resolved relatively easily [albeit with plenty of diplomatic wranglings behind the scenes] but it would appear that the Iranian leadership are pushing for escalation.....

it's difficult to see what happens from here....

:boxedin::bigtank:

The Chinese threatened the same thing over the spy plane incident. It's all in the game...I still don't think there's anything to fear. This posturing is a well-worn script.

-z

[Darth Rotor]

The Chinese threatened the same thing over the spy plane incident. It's all in the game...I still don't think there's anything to fear. This posturing is a well-worn script.

-z
Then again, we have USS Pueblo and USS Liberty to consider as precedents of things not going well, nor smoothely. (Granted, this was no Liberty incident, as apparently no one was shot.)

I am content to let the Brits muddle through this latest problem. They'll manage.

In a related note, Rep Jack Murtha's move to pass was a Congressional prohibition on administration action in Iran (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2878258&page=1)without Congressional permission. That might be seen, from the Iranian side, as a self limiting move that would allow them to screw with the Brits while the US would not respond immediately: a window of opportunity for pulling a fast one.

By ANNE FLAHERTY

WASHINGTON Feb 15, 2007 (AP)— A leading Iraq war opponent threatened Thursday to try prohibiting any U.S. military action against Iran without congressional sanction as House Republicans used military veterans within their ranks to oppose a resolution renouncing President Bush's Iraq troop buildup.

DR

[steverino]

...I still don't think there's anything to fear. This posturing is a well-worn script.

-z

But which script? I keep thinking this could go like the Iranian hostage crisis under Carter, but with higher stakes. It would be "funny" if it turned out Ahmadinejad was one of the original kidnappers after all.

[richardm]

What I don't quite get is how they got taken in the first place with no shooting involved.

Apparently this is the policy... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6491581.stm)


What are the rules of engagement in this type of situation?
The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting. The reason we are there is to be a force for good, to make the whole area safe, to look after the Iraqi big oil platforms and also to stop smuggling and terrorism there.
So we try to downplay things. Rather then roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.


Lovely turn of phrase there. That is the rule of thumb at the moment, anyway; however




If we find this is going to be a standard practice we need to think very carefully about what rules of engagement we want and how we operate. One can't allow as a standard practice nations to capture a nation's servicemen. That is clearly wrong.

[corplinx]

I wouldn't want to get involved in a war with Iran over a few soldiers.

Why a full blown war? Just bomb some government buildings, take out the nuclear capabilities, some munitions plants, and a list of suspected terrorist training camps.

Don't bother trying to invade and change the regime. Just cripple them. This is your moment to fix the Iranian situation.

[Antiquehunter]

Why a full blown war? Just bomb some government buildings, take out the nuclear capabilities, some munitions plants, and a list of suspected terrorist training camps.

Don't bother trying to invade and change the regime. Just cripple them. This is your moment to fix the Iranian situation.

And BAM! I have gainful employment for the next 5 years! Booyah!

[Kerberos]

HMS Cornwall isn't a rubber boat, Kerberos. Since I don't have a plot on where Cornwall was relative to the rubber boats, I'll stop there. It's not as though lone rubber boats were patrolling the area, they were from a British Warship.

DR

My bad, apparently I didn't read the article as well as I should have, though it's still a distinct possibility that they were outgunned.

[The Atheist]

Why a full blown war? Just bomb some government buildings, take out the nuclear capabilities, some munitions plants, and a list of suspected terrorist training camps.

Don't bother trying to invade and change the regime. Just cripple them. This is your moment to fix the Iranian situation.

That could be the most poorly-thought post I've yet seen.

Well played.

[Antiquehunter]

That could be the most poorly-thought post I've yet seen.

Well played.

And BAM! I have gainful employment for the next 5 years! Booyah!

And, I sincerely hope its accurate.

OK - perhaps not totally sincerely.

[The Atheist]

My bad, apparently I didn't read the article as well as I should have, though it's still a distinct possibility that they were outgunned.

Lemme see. If you have a look at what we know, I think we can work this out.

If the boats were in close proximity to the HMS Cornwall, then the Revolutionary Guard would have been seen coming and the RN would have been rightly prepared to kick them to touch.

The Navy sure as hell wasn't outgunned, but the 15 certainly were.

Nice to see the damyankees offerring advice to the Poms on this one. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2393337.ece)

[The Atheist]

I am content to let the Brits muddle through this latest problem. They'll manage. DR

As I just noted, it appears that the "incident" would already be far more serious if it weren't the Poms at the table. My suspicion is that under Erik Horner (any relation to "The Red"?) the situation could well have been this:

15 sailors armed with light, fully-automatic weapons, and little more, cruising around in rubber boats. After all, they're backed by a Royal Navy vessel capable of taking out San Francisco.

Large force of well-armed, including [presumably] at least one heavy, mounted machine-gun, Iranians arrive and call out "Give up".

15 bring up weapons and futilely open fire, only to be wiped out by the heavy machine-gun/s inside the first 30 seconds.

Time enough though to alert HMS Cornwall which goes to full speed and rounds on the attackers, sinking them. By this time, the Iranians are certainly in home waters.

The Revolutionary Guard, seeing their own men blasted out of their own waters open fire on Cornwall with missile attack from shore, sinking her.

Doesn't do it for me.

Thank god Margaret Thatcher isn't PM.

What happens next? Again, Darth has it right, I think. Fortunately, the PM is a spineless wanker and without US pressure to pull any triggers, he won't.

Iran puts them on trial as a showpiece, finds them guilty of violating Iranian waters and sentences them to 50 years' jail each.

Prisoner exchange takes place.

The world continues rotating.

While that won't please the "Nuke all ragheads" brigade, there wouldn't seem to be a better answer anywhere. I find it just a little ironic that despite Iraq still being an issue - for the people getting shot at anyway - the downside of opening another front in the war on [strikle]islam[/strike] isn't obviously apparent.

And a quick question of my good friend, the First Sea Lord:

WHERE, exactly - to the nearest millimetre or two, did this incident take place?

[The Atheist]

And, I sincerely hope its accurate.

OK - perhaps not totally sincerely.

What do you do?

[Darth Rotor]

The Navy sure as hell wasn't outgunned, but the 15 certainly were.

Nice to see the damyankees offerring advice to the Poms on this one. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2393337.ece)
The American LCDR was probably right. It is likely Americans would have fought and shot.

A few reasons.

USS Pueblo is one of them
Possibly a more permissive RoE and standing orders from Washington.
The tendency of Americans to be abused in captivity. Who needs that crap?
Earnest Will and Praying Mantis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Will).

We have a history of shooting to and fro with the Rev Guards in the Persian Gulf.
A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.

Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."
By the way, I'd like a nice, long talk with Horner. That sumbitch just disclosed RoE details, and a possible seam between US and UK RoE.

Way to backstab the Brits, numbnuts. :(

WHERE, exactly - to the nearest millimetre or two, did this incident take place?
That, sir, is the key question underlying this entire incident. It will inform the legal matter, under maritime law, of 'on the high seas' or "in Iranian waters" or "in Iraqi Waters." That in turn informs the diplomatic matter. Or, I hope not, other matters.

DR

[Antiquehunter]

What do you do?

I'm a consultant in International development, with a focus on post-conflict governance / institutional reform. My forte is taxation and customs policy and administration.

I've worked in a variety of countries, most recently Afghanistan for the past three years. Prior to here I was in East Timor long term and have worked short term in Kosovo and Papua New Guinea.

[Dorian Gray]

Or else ... we have all the military options that the US has, including nukes.

---

But apart from that, think about what you just said, you ******* lump of ****.

When your country came under attack on 9/11, we didn't stand about saying "so what are you going to do about it?" We pledged ourselves as your allies. Tony Blair stood on the steps of 10 Downing Street and said that we stood "shoulder to shoulder" with you --- and I wept.

And now, you ******* ****, you see that a member of the "axis of evil" has taken military action against British servicemen, we issue an ultimatum, and your response, as an American, is "or else what"?

You stupid whining ungrateful son of a bitch --- or else you and your country can **** off and die, do I make myself clear?

If you want to have allies, you should be allied to them. We are still fighting "shoulder to shoulder" with you in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have given our money and the blood of our children for your cause --- and you, it seems, have no gratitude, no decency, and no honor.

If I thought that every American was so personally stunted and morally crippled as you are, then on 9/11 I'd have gone out into the streets and danced the Palestinian Fandango.

Do I make myself clear?


Dr. Adequate; You have an obligation under your membership agreement to remain civil toward other members of the forum. In the future, please refrain from posting in a way that personalizes the argument.


I have to say that you are linking 9/11 with Iraq, so your credibility is shot. Blair stood with us rightly, because as far as I know 9/11 was an unprovoked attack, and we were going after Osama bin Laden.

I don't support the war. I don't think our troops should be there. but we are warring in or with Iraq. If our troops started going into Iran, or Iranian waters, and they got captured, while I wouldn't like it I really couldn't say anything about it.

If Iranian military ships entered British waters, what do you think would happen? Right. So how can you expect anything different when the situation is reversed?

[Azure]

Should you expect anything different?

What does Britain do if the sailors are murdered?

[The Atheist]

Should you expect anything different?

What does Britain do if the sailors are murdered?

No chance, why bother even speculating? I'd lay good odds that they're being reasonably well treated, as well. Almost certainly better treated than a US base or two treats its prisoners.

[Dorian Gray]

Or else:

(1) The British have all the military options available to Americans. We have everything from nukes to the SAS. We can do military stuff. That's one answer to "or else what?" That's why you wanted us as allies.

(2) Apparently you Americans love us Limeys and fully support us. You said so in your post. And you are the world's only super power. That also is, surely, an answer to the question "or else what?" As we are your allies, surely you are on our side? "Or else what?" Or else, at least, the US will back us up, rather than saying "or else what?"

We are your allies. Honor requires that you guys should side with us against Iran, rather than sitting on the sidelines and asking us what we're going to do about it. If you won't, we shall draw our own conclusions.
Someone turn off this pinhead's microphone, to paraphrase Bill O'Reilly.

It's a HUGE overstatement to try to compare 9/11 where 3000 people died and huge buildings were knocked down to this incident where 15 people in rubber dinghies were captured and will likely be released. It's also ridiculous to get all blustery and crazed over what is essentially a diplomatic situation, one that has happened before and been successfully rectified all by your widdle selves.

Furthermore, AS allies we expect you Brits not to do anything stupid like entering Iran's waters during a war with two of its neighbors! Why make a mistake like that? NOT TO MENTION, there IS a military precedent for going to war over the capture of a few soldiers - Israel going into southern Lebanon vs. Hezbollah - and look what happened there!

And finally, you are doing both of the above even as your troops are pulling out of Iraq, signifying that gee, you don't quite support us as much as you used to.

Meditate on that before opening your foolish mouth next time.

[The Atheist]

I'm a consultant in International development, with a focus on post-conflict governance / institutional reform. My forte is taxation and customs policy and administration.

I've worked in a variety of countries, most recently Afghanistan for the past three years. Prior to here I was in East Timor long term and have worked short term in Kosovo and Papua New Guinea.

Wow, that sounds like fun, plus you get to go to some interesting spots. I know a few people who've lived in Port Moresby - big ex-pat Kiwi community there, and I know a couple in East Timor right now.

I'll keep your details for a trip to NZ for when I've overthrown the government.

[The Atheist]

Meditate on that before opening your foolish mouth next time.

Nothing like fanning a fire which had all but gone out, eh?

[steverino]

I'm a consultant in International development... and Papua New Guinea.

Cool! So in New Guinea did you recruit? Then you'd be sort of a head-hunter.:D

[The Atheist]

Cool! So in New Guinea did you recruit? Then you'd be sort of a head-hunter.:D

:dl:

[Kerberos]

According to a Danish Newspaper the Iranians have sugested that teh Britts might have entered Iranian waters by mistake, which would seem to be a move towards defusing the situation.

http://politiken.dk/udland/article272482.ece (in Danish)

[RandFan]

You're right; one of them is an oppressive, unstable-fanatic-run totalitarian state increasingly flexing its muscles while attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. The other is a small country just west of Japan.:D

[Darat]

...snip...

And finally, you are doing both of the above even as your troops are pulling out of Iraq, signifying that gee, you don't quite support us as much as you used to.

...snip...

The withdrawal of UK troops is as was planned for at least the last couple of years. UK troops were to assume security responsibilities for certain regions in Iraq and as the Iraqis are able to take over those responsibilities the UK forces are withdrawn.

[Antiquehunter]

Cool! So in New Guinea did you recruit? Then you'd be sort of a head-hunter.:D

More.... brains....

[richardm]

Furthermore, AS allies we expect you Brits not to do anything stupid like entering Iran's waters during a war with two of its neighbors! Why make a mistake like that?

Thank you for assuming that it's the RN who are lying and not Iran. Mind you, they're not immune to errors of navigation (http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0207/0002070801.asp) but denying it wouldn't seem to be very helpful.

Meanwhile, Blair says that if diplomacy fails, attempts to free them will move to a " different phase (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6498611.stm)". No news yet on what this will be, of course. I find it hard to believe that we would start bombing Iran over this. I also don't believe that it would be an effective way to get them released.

[Darth Rotor]

Thank you for assuming that it's the RN who are lying and not Iran. Mind you, they're not immune to errors of navigation (http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0207/0002070801.asp) but denying it wouldn't seem to be very helpful.
Mr Blair was said the most important thing was the welfare of the eight sailors and seven marines from HMS Cornwall and securing their release.

"We have been clearly stating that we are utterly certain that the personnel were in Iraqi waters.

"We so far have not made explicit why we know that, because we don't want to escalate this."
That would probably be a GPS based plot from HMS Cornwall.

An Iranian source has told BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner the Britons are being interrogated to find out if their mission was intelligence-gathering.

The source said the investigation involved examining tracking equipment to determine exactly where the crew was captured.

In order for the Britons to be released "every vested interest in Iran would need to be satisfied they had not deliberately entered Iranian waters, nor were they spying", the source added.


This is the first of a few face saving moves, as the mission was clearly MISO.(Maritime Intercept/Security Operations)

DR

[Azure]

What the hell would they be spying on?

Oh wait...

[Kerberos]

Iran seems to be backing down, at least the Iranian embassy in Londons says that a negotiated solution is in sight.

http://politiken.dk/udland/article273571.ece (still in Danish)

Also the female sailor might be released soon according to the Iranian foreign minister.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/28/iran.uk.sailors/index.html (in English)

[NoZed Avenger]

The Brits released data showing that they were in Iraqi waters, and the US has steamed extra ships into the area, looking like a show of support and a vague threat if Iran doesn't start coming 'round to our way of thinking.

With the latest noises by Iran indicating that they might be willing to call it a mistake on Britain's part (i.e., the first stages of face-saving), things look a little more hopeful.

[Seismosaurus]

According to the news this evening, Iran claimed that they were in Iranian waters and gave some co-ordinates to back this up... which turned out to be in Iraqi waters! When this was pointed out the Iranians quickly said that no, they weren't picked up there, it was over here actually...

[Darth Rotor]

According to the news this evening, Iran claimed that they were in Iranian waters and gave some co-ordinates to back this up... which turned out to be in Iraqi waters! When this was pointed out the Iranians quickly said that no, they weren't picked up there, it was over here actually...
Sinbad the Sailor wept.

Are we watching Khalid Stoned Cops here? A freaking Megellan GPS costs less than 200 bucks.

DR

[Seismosaurus]

Sinbad the Sailor wept.

Are we watching Khalid Stoned Cops here? A freaking Megellan GPS costs less than 200 bucks.

DR

And apparently the nice folks in the Royal Navy were kind enought to not only take one along to the ship they were inspecting, they also took a photograph of somebody holding it up showing their location with the ship clearly visible in the background. Isn't that convenient?

[Art Vandelay]

How can they be accused of spying? Isn't a soldier properly uniformed, by definition, not a spy?

While that won't please the "Nuke all ragheads" brigade, there wouldn't seem to be a better answer anywhere.Better according to what standard? Rewarding hostage-taking simply causes more hostage-taking. The only way there should be a prisoners swap is if Britain goes into Iran and captures Iranian soldiers for the swap. No option which leaves Iran better off than they were beforehand should be even considered.

When the NK took our ship, we folded like a cheap table, apologized, then took back our apology like weasels. When China took our airmen, we again apologized, then again took back the apology. I can only hope that Britain isn't as spineless and dishonorable as we have been.

I find it just a little ironic that despite Iraq still being an issue - for the people getting shot at anyway - the downside of opening another front in the war on [strikle]islam[/strike] isn't obviously apparent.The front is already there. The only question is whether Iran is going to be the only one fighting on it. What's mystifying to me is that people don't see the downside of declaring open season on Allied personnel. And that people use the word "ironic" when they clearly don't know what it means.

I also don't believe that it would be an effective way to get them released.I don't see why getting them released is the central issue. The honor of Britain is far more important. Fifteen is lives is a small price to pay compared to the consequences of allowing Iran to intimidate Britain.

Are we watching Khalid Stoned Cops here? A freaking Megellan GPS costs less than 200 bucks. But then they'd have to rely on The Great Satan for their position. And it's "Magellan".

[Dorian Gray]

Nothing like fanning a fire which had all but gone out, eh?No, nothing. I would have blown on the embers, but I was afraid that would get this thread moved into the science section.

[Dorian Gray]

The withdrawal of UK troops is as was planned for at least the last couple of years. UK troops were to assume security responsibilities for certain regions in Iraq and as the Iraqis are able to take over those responsibilities the UK forces are withdrawn.

So the UK troops get moved to areas that aren't secure yet! Why should they get to say "well, suh, our area appears to be quite contained, so cheerio and ta-ta, see you next war"? All I'm saying is that if they leave instead of staying to help us out with the much harder Baghdad area, they are not really supporting us that much.

ETA: BTW, another thing that was planned is that we would be greeted as liberators with flowers, that we would find WMDs, etc., etc.

[Dorian Gray]

Thank you for assuming that it's the RN who are lying and not Iran. Mind you, they're not immune to errors of navigation (http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0207/0002070801.asp) but denying it wouldn't seem to be very helpful.

Meanwhile, Blair says that if diplomacy fails, attempts to free them will move to a " different phase (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6498611.stm)". No news yet on what this will be, of course. I find it hard to believe that we would start bombing Iran over this. I also don't believe that it would be an effective way to get them released.
I literally said that it was a mistake - to wit, "Why make a mistake like that?". I didn't say anyone was lying, strawhunter. And glad to see that you agree they are not immune to errors, which my thesaurus tells me is a synonym for 'mistakes'. However, with GPS systems and other navigation systems, it seems unlikely that Britain could go anywhere by mistake.

UK troops have been detained by Iran before, for the same reason, in June 2004. I strongly believe that the sailors will be released. However, they are not technically prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, just so you are aware. More like 'detainees'.

I would hope no one bombs Iran over this, or uses it as a pretext to bombing nuclear-related sites.

[Dorian Gray]

I don't see why getting them released is the central issue. The honor of Britain is far more important. Fifteen is lives is a small price to pay compared to the consequences of allowing Iran to intimidate Britain.
Honor is a horrible reason for letting people die. It's also a good way to start a war that goes on for 1400 years.

[Azure]

Honor is a horrible reason for letting people die. It's also a good way to start a war that goes on for 1400 years.

By backing down against Iran, you encourage them to pull **** like this more often.

[SezMe]

The front is already there. The only question is whether Iran is going to be the only one fighting on it. What's mystifying to me is that people don't see the downside of declaring open season on Allied personnel. And that people use the word "ironic" when they clearly don't know what it means.

"Allied" personnel??? We're discussing the Iraq war, not WWII. Try to keep up with the homework assignments, Art.

[NoZed Avenger]

Honor is a horrible reason for letting people die. It's also a good way to start a war that goes on for 1400 years.

I think his point was poorly made, but the gist seemed to be that folding in order to protect these 15 lives might well (and in his opinion would) lead to more and worse situations like this by encouraging the behavior -- trading a short term gain of 15 people released for a long term potential for hundreds or thousands of deaths or detentions later on.

So his calling it "honor" didn't really cover the point adequately (IMO), but that seems to be what he's getting at.

[Art Vandelay]

"Allied" personnel??? We're discussing the Iraq war, not WWII. Try to keep up with the homework assignments, Art.Oh, sorry. I was unaware that once a term is used to describe the events of WWII, it is forever lost from the English language for any other use.
:rolleyes:
Are you ever going to get tired of making an ass of yourself over your ridiculous obsession with me?

I think his point was poorly made, but the gist seemed to be that folding in order to protect these 15 lives might well (and in his opinion would) lead to more and worse situations like this by encouraging the behavior -- trading a short term gain of 15 people released for a long term potential for hundreds or thousands of deaths or detentions later on.

So his calling it "honor" didn't really cover the point adequately (IMO), but that seems to be what he's getting at.Thanks for giving another explanation. "Honor" is shorthand for a very complicated concept, and often it is not anything worth lives, but in this case it is. Look at the Iran-Iraq war. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost, and one of the contributing factors was the Iraqi perception that Iran was weak. Or WWII. Or the first Gulf War. Etc. Etc. Not vigorously defending one's reputation can have deadly consequences.

[Big Les]

Just in case Dr A is still reading this thread, it's worth noting that even the serving soldiers on arrse.co.uk are saying "or else what", from the perspective of those who have had their budgets cut year on year, yet are being asked to do more with less. Another interpretation of the post that doesn't require the poster to be slighting the UK or its armed forces, and wouldn't warrant your going off the deep end.

[richardm]

I literally said that it was a mistake - to wit, "Why make a mistake like that?". I didn't say anyone was lying, strawhunter.


Well, you know it was less the "Why make a mistake like that" and more the snotty "AS allies we expect you Brits not to do anything stupid like entering Iran's waters during a war with two of its neighbors!" which caught my eye. I inferred that to mean that you thought that they had, in fact been in Iranian waters and when they said they were not they were lying to cover this up. Conversely, when Iran insisted that they had been in Iranian waters then they were the ones telling the truth.

However, with GPS systems and other navigation systems, it seems unlikely that Britain could go anywhere by mistake.


You're doing it again! ;)


And apparently the nice folks in the Royal Navy were kind enought to not only take one along to the ship they were inspecting, they also took a photograph of somebody holding it up showing their location with the ship clearly visible in the background. Isn't that convenient?


Now I'm being careful about drawing inferences this time, but in case you're wondering why they would have this convenient photograph: the ship that was raided is still at anchor where it was when the sailors were seized. They flew the Lynx out with the handheld GPS so they'd have a nifty photo showing all the elements.

[Darth Rotor]

How can they be accused of spying? Isn't a soldier properly uniformed, by definition, not a spy?
Yes.
But then they'd have to rely on The Great Satan for their position. And it's "Magellan".
Oops, thanks for the correction, and the Rev Guard, Al Quds, and Iranian Air Force were happy to fly F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats, and to man Hawk missiles, against Saddam. Great Satan makes good hardware. Good soldiers know that.

DR

[simper]

"In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.

Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."

The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: " The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'" "


Fair play to Lt-Cdr Erik Horner. The British were very lightly armed and up against boats with heavy machine guns. Obviously any resistance would have resulted in the quick deaths of the British so its welcome that a senior US Officer is prepared to state that he expects his troops to commit suicide if they face a similar situation.

[simper]

So the UK troops get moved to areas that aren't secure yet! Why should they get to say "well, suh, our area appears to be quite contained, so cheerio and ta-ta, see you next war"? All I'm saying is that if they leave instead of staying to help us out with the much harder Baghdad area, they are not really supporting us that much.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6388717.stm

"Extra British troops are to be sent to southern Afghanistan, Defence Secretary Des Browne has confirmed.
The move, which the BBC understands involves more than 1,000 personnel, comes as about 1,600 troops are being withdrawn from Iraq."

The British military has been stretched to its limit for the last few years. Comments from senior military generals suggest that they think the war in Iraq has already been lost but that Afghanistan is a war that can be won and a war that they cannot afford to lose. Given that other Nato nations are unwilling to put fighting troops into Afghanistan I dont think its unreasonable that the British want to withdraw from Iraq and reinforce Afghanistan.

[LawnOven]

I'm surprised no one is talking about that video Iran made of the female soldier they said they would release and now are refusing to do:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1635479.php

I found that video completely disgusting.

[Thunder]

If Iran really wanted peace, they would just release the hostages. Maybe the Brits strayed into Iranian waters, but the border is very murky and this kind of mistake is very easy to understand. If Iran wants to turn this into a provocation for war, then that is their choice.

[WildCat]

Fair play to Lt-Cdr Erik Horner. The British were very lightly armed and up against boats with heavy machine guns. Obviously any resistance would have resulted in the quick deaths of the British so its welcome that a senior US Officer is prepared to state that he expects his troops to commit suicide if they face a similar situation.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt those inflatable boats traveled a hundred kilometers from their ship. Seems to me that there should have been a British warship close by that would have
1) Seen the Iranian vessels approaching and
2) Been able to intercept them before they got back to an Iranian port.

[WildCat]

I'm surprised no one is talking about that video Iran made of the female soldier they said they would release and now are refusing to do:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1635479.php

I found that video completely disgusting.
People don't care if 3rd world countries blatantly violate the Geneva Conventions. Frankly, the next time British or American forces fight a war against a country that respects the 3rd Geneva Convention it will also be the first.

[drkitten]

Frankly, the next time British or American forces fight a war against a country that respects the 3rd Geneva Convention it will also be the first.

You're right. The prisoners would be much better off in an American prison, with dogs chewing on their genitalia.

[LawnOven]

Well first they are British and not American, second they surrendered peacefully, third they are uniformed members of the military.

What is your source on the ball chewing?

I know that individuals in US prisons have been mistreated; frankly I find that disgusting too, but this is a little different. The British Soldiers weren't even engaged in combat.

[simper]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt those inflatable boats traveled a hundred kilometers from their ship. Seems to me that there should have been a British warship close by that would have
1) Seen the Iranian vessels approaching and
2) Been able to intercept them before they got back to an Iranian port.

You are right that the RN destroyer seems to have been incompetent for letting this happen but once the boarding team had been taken prisoner they probably had no option but to watch and wait. Lt-Cdr Horner however has said explicity that the boarding team should not have been captured as they should have used force to defend themselves. Assuming that a senior military commander would not say this without knowing the facts we have to assume that he would expect his men to die rather than be captured.

[Darth Rotor]

You are right that the RN destroyer seems to have been incompetent for letting this happen but once the boarding team had been taken prisoner they probably had no option but to watch and wait. Lt-Cdr Horner however has said explicity that the boarding team should not have been captured as they should have used force to defend themselves. Assuming that a senior military commander would not say this without knowing the facts we have to assume that he would expect his men to die rather than be captured.
As I said in my earlier post, LCDR Horner is being a bit of a back stabber to the Brits. His passing of opinion like that is bad form. He failed to recall rule number one: never overlook a chance to keep your mouth shut. The Brits are our Allies, Coalition partners, and good blokes. Playing "second guess the Brit CO of Cornwall" by XO of USS Underwood is not how you back up your team mate. Here is the apt Naval axiom: buddy is half a word, to some people.

I hope someone in Fifth Fleet makes sure the Fifth Fleet Commander (Vice Admiral Walsh (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=295)) and COMCENTCOM Admiral Fallon, hear about this lack of discretion. I hope Horner gets his arse chewed for shooting off his mouth at the expense of the Brits. (VADM Walsh knows how to deliver a crisp butt chewing.)

DR

[DanishDynamite]

The Iranian theocracy is posturing.

Any normal country would have apprehended foreign soldiers they thought were inside their borders and then would have sent then back.

Pure political posturing, presumably to remove attention from Iran's nuclear aspirations.

[NoZed Avenger]

Fair play to Lt-Cdr Erik Horner. The British were very lightly armed and up against boats with heavy machine guns. Obviously any resistance would have resulted in the quick deaths of the British so its welcome that a senior US Officer is prepared to state that he expects his troops to commit suicide if they face a similar situation.

The US officer should have -- IMO anyway -- kept his yap shut on things like this, for a number of reasons.

[WildCat]

You're right. The prisoners would be much better off in an American prison, with dogs chewing on their genitalia.
Dogs were used for intimidation (and the handler was convicted for it btw). But I'm not aware of any case in which a dog actually chewed on a prisoners genitals. So this is where you provide an example...

[andyandy]

i'd be really interested to know what the armed forces protocol is for capture situations [both UK/US if they differ]

with the release of a second letter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6508039.stm) purportedly from Turney - it raises the question to me of what standard proceedure is in such situations -

it's obvious from the language that it's been coerced - but are soldiers told to resist all coercion for such propaganda purposes? To use their discretion about how damaging their co-operation would be/not be? To co-operate under certain circumstances [eg torture?] To agree to any coercion regardless of consequence?

[ceo_esq]

You're right. The prisoners would be much better off in an American prison, with dogs chewing on their genitalia.

Then again, my dogs chew on their genitalia all the time, and while somewhat off-putting to watch, it probably doesn't rise to the level of torture.

[Darth Rotor]

i'd be really interested to know what the armed forces protocol is for capture situations [both UK/US if they differ]

with the release of a second letter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6508039.stm) purportedly from Turney - it raises the question to me of what standard proceedure is in such situations -

it's obvious from the language that it's been coerced - but are soldiers told to resist all coercion for such propaganda purposes? To use their discretion about how damaging their co-operation would be/not be? To co-operate under certain circumstances [eg torture?] To agree to any coercion regardless of consequence?

No comment. How the Brits train their sailors or soldiers is for a Brit who knows, or doesn't know.

Remember, Iran and the Brits are not at war, so the PoW training is only partly applicable. As I understand it, it was in the form of an arrest, or a seizure in territorial waters. (Uh, if they were in territorial waters, which the position of the ship being inspected argues against. Anchor swing for fifty, Alex. :p ) Merely entering territorial waters without permission is NOT a de facto act of war.

DR

[RyanRoberts]

Here's an image showing the official UK position on the locations of the vessels involved:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_rqH4fUbko2U/Rgr7uZ8V0MI/AAAAAAAAB-s/hSSmwm7Ick8/s1600-h/Slide1.jpg

The Cornwall was 8 miles away from the RIB when the incident occurred and communications were being relayed by the Lynx helicopter.


These particular people would not be trained in counter-interrogation techniques because they are not expected to be captured. But I think our guidance to anyone in that position would be to say what they want you to say, let's not be silly about it. Don't tell them secrets, clearly, but if they tell you: 'Say this', well if that's going to get you out, then do it. It means absolutely nothing, what they say, to be honest.


So on the face of it, there may have been a pretty serious blunder here. Sending out boats full of tempting potential hostages without sufficient protection seems more than a little irresponsible given the heightened situation after the recent capture of Revolutionary Guard officers in Iraq. There was an incident a while back that required helicopter extraction of sailors from a merchant ship too.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm surprised no one is talking about that video Iran made of the female soldier they said they would release and now are refusing to do:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1635479.php

I found that video completely disgusting.Agreed. I wonder if the Iranians really expect us to be so naive as to think that this was not the result of coercion, especially now that they're refusing to let her go. It's really an insult to our intelligence that they expect us to swallow this (on top of whatever coercion they used to get it).

You're right. The prisoners would be much better off in an American prison, with dogs chewing on their genitalia.And yet again we have someone trying to imply that the US ignores the GC, when no one in the GC thread was able to come up with a single violation.

Remember, Iran and the Brits are not at war, so the PoW training is only partly applicable. As I understand it, it was in the form of an arrest, or a seizure in territorial waters.Iwould think that POW protection still applies.


Oops, thanks for the correction, and the Rev Guard, Al Quds, and Iranian Air Force were happy to fly F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats, and to man Hawk missiles, against Saddam. Great Satan makes good hardware. Good soldiers know that. But as far as I know, the F series doesn't have any backdoors. GPS is dependant on satellites in the control of the US, and the US can stop the transimissions, or send deceptive transmissions, at will. Iran would be idiots to use GPS in anything but an auxiliary role.

Now I'm being careful about drawing inferences this time, but in case you're wondering why they would have this convenient photograph: the ship that was raided is still at anchor where it was when the sailors were seized. They flew the Lynx out with the handheld GPS so they'd have a nifty photo showing all the elements.Do you have more details? To whom does the raided ship belong? While is it still at anchor? So the GPS picture wasn't taken by the captured sailors?

[Azure]

If Iran really wanted peace, they would just release the hostages. Maybe the Brits strayed into Iranian waters, but the border is very murky and this kind of mistake is very easy to understand. If Iran wants to turn this into a provocation for war, then that is their choice.

Actually, they didn't.

Iran is full of ****.

[Daylight]

Looking at the video, isn’t it illegal to take her out of her uniform? What does the GC say about this?

[Kerberos]

Looking at the video, isn’t it illegal to take her out of her uniform? What does the GC say about this?

The Geneva Convention forbids unnecessarelly increased in text size as cruel if sadly not very unusual punishment. It also forbids them to make propaganda videos with captured soldiers. I'm not aware of any provisions against taking them out of uniform, and considering that PoW generally don't have spare uniforms on them, I would think that such a provision would be somewhat unsanitary.

[Art Vandelay]

The Geneva Convention forbids unnecessarelly increased in text size as cruel if sadly not very unusual punishment.You mean "unnecessarily increased-in-size text"?

I'm not aware of any provisions against taking them out of uniform, and considering that PoW generally don't have spare uniforms on them, I would think that such a provision would be somewhat unsanitary.I would think that forcibly removing any clothes, uniform or not, would be a violation of the GC.

[Kerberos]

You mean "unnecessarily increased-in-size text"?

Do you suffer from some kind of rare and exotic mental disorder that makes it impossible for you to understand any message that contains the slightest error? Because in that case allow me to extend my condolences. Otherwise you might want to tone down the anal-retentive elements of your posts.

I would think that forcibly removing any clothes, uniform or not, would be a violation of the GC. I doubt that she has been forcibly undressed. Of cause since the entire video is a GC violation, even I think in the extremely unlikely case she totally voluntarily decided to begin sprouting Iranian propaganda, it’s a bit of a non-issue.

[drkitten]

Dogs were used for intimidation (and the handler was convicted for it btw). But I'm not aware of any case in which a dog actually chewed on a prisoners genitals. So this is where you provide an example...

No, this is where you just provided an example for me. You are correct in that dogs chewing on prisoners' genitalia has not been proven. The word "genitalia" is a rhetorical flourish.

However, dogs chewing on prisoners has been (there are published photographs of the dog bites, and as you pointed out, the handler was convicted for unlawfully treatment of prisoners -- I believe, in fact, that two separate handlers were so convicted.)

I stand by my statement. The Americans on this board are in no position to complain of unlawful treatment of prisoners, given the documented history of actual physical injury to prisoners in US custody. To the best of my knowledge, the British sailors have suffered no injury as a result of their captivity -- which puts the Iranian theocracy one-up on the "who treats prisoners better" match.

[drkitten]

[Looking at the video, isn’t it illegal to take her out of her uniform? What does the GC say about this?

It says you should stop waterboarding prisoners in your own custody if you expect other people to take your protestations seriously.

[Ziggurat]

It says you should stop waterboarding prisoners in your own custody if you expect other people to take your protestations seriously.

Umm... they're holding British sailors prisoner, not US sailors. You're carrying water for the mullahs with this post.

[Kerberos]

No, this is where you just provided an example for me. You are correct in that dogs chewing on prisoners' genitalia has not been proven. The word "genitalia" is a rhetorical flourish.

However, dogs chewing on prisoners has been (there are published photographs of the dog bites, and as you pointed out, the handler was convicted for unlawfully treatment of prisoners -- I believe, in fact, that two separate handlers were so convicted.)

I stand by my statement. The Americans on this board are in no position to complain of unlawful treatment of prisoners, given the documented history of actual physical injury to prisoners in US custody. To the best of my knowledge, the British sailors have suffered no injury as a result of their captivity -- which puts the Iranian theocracy one-up on the "who treats prisoners better" match.
You appear to be ignorant, willfully I suspect of conditions in IRan. Allow me to educate you: Amnesty Internationals Iran repport from 2001

Torture/ill-treatment
torture tape graphic
Torture and ill-treatment, including the judicial punishments of flogging and amputation, continued.

* Akbar Mohammadi and Ahmad Batebi were tortured in the Towhid detention centre. Towhid, administered by the Ministry of Intelligence, was closed in August 2000 by order of the judiciary. Akbar Mohammadi stated that his feet were whipped with metal cables and that he was suspended by his limbs and repeatedly beaten. Ahmad Batebi stated that he had been beaten while blindfolded and bound, and ordered to sign a confession. He reportedly wrote that his head was plunged into a drain full of excrement and held under, forcing him to inhale excrement through his nose and into his mouth. The two men were sentenced to 15 and 10 years' imprisonment respectively.

There were continued reports of psychological torture including death threats. No investigation into any allegations of torture - such as those made by journalist Akbar Ganji, who stated in court in November that he had been tortured by prison officials at Evin - was known to have been undertaken.

At least 49 floggings were reported, many for ''depraved dancing'', and 10 amputations, often in connection with theft. However, the true number may have been considerably higher.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2001/webmepcountries/IRAN?OpenDocument

Also I noticed that you meantioned that The US prison guards were in fact punished in. IN contrast let me repeat a passage froim the above "No investigation into any allegations of torture - such as those made by journalist Akbar Ganji, who stated in court in November that he had been tortured by prison officials at Evin - was known to have been undertaken."

So no I wouldn't say that the Iranian theocracy treats prisoners better than the US.

[drkitten]

You appear to be ignorant, willfully I suspect of conditions in IRan.

Irrelevant treatment of incomparable group omitted.


So no I wouldn't say that the Iranian theocracy treats prisoners better than the US.

I'm sure you wouldn't. I'm sure you'll be happy to provide numerous other oranges, coconuts, cashews, and small rocks to compare against the apples, too.

[Kerberos]

Irrelevant treatment of incomparable group omitted.



I'm sure you wouldn't. I'm sure you'll be happy to provide numerous other oranges, coconuts, cashews, and small rocks to compare against the apples, too.

I'm happy to see that you find torture irrelevant when not perpetrated by Americans, but what kind of irrelevancies are we talking about specifically?

Irrelevancies such as comparing Iranian treatment of British soldiers with American treatment of Iraqis?

Or irrelevancies such as comparing how the Iranians, with the full knowledge of their government treat people in a specific high profile case with how Americans treat people in a case that you have specifically selected because it involves abused, and where the US government might not have known what happened?

ETA question.

[rikzilla]

No, this is where you just provided an example for me. You are correct in that dogs chewing on prisoners' genitalia has not been proven. The word "genitalia" is a rhetorical flourish.

That's what you call a lie? A "rhetorical flourish"? Wow, that's cool...maybe that's why the dems haven't tried to impeach Bush? He was merely rhetorically flourishing which is neither a high crime, nor misdemeanor.

However, dogs chewing on prisoners has been (there are published photographs of the dog bites, and as you pointed out, the handler was convicted for unlawfully treatment of prisoners -- I believe, in fact, that two separate handlers were so convicted.)

Please make up your mind. Either we are an evil people who condone torturing poor innocent jihadis, or we are a people who; even though at war; are willing to prosecute our own soldiers for their mistreatment of the prisoners in their charge. You can't have it both ways. Your example shows that we have prosecuted and convicted handlers for the unlawful treatment of prisoners.

I stand by my statement. The Americans on this board are in no position to complain of unlawful treatment of prisoners, given the documented history of actual physical injury to prisoners in US custody.

Seeing as how your own example points to Americans willing to prosecute, convict, and imprison their own soldiers for these misdeeds gives lie to your assertions. But sorry, perhaps you are merely making "rhetorical flourishes". Do you know of any Iranian soldiers or policemen being prosecuted by their own government for say; torturing gay people?? No? Those mullahs....so "progressive"!

To the best of my knowledge, the British sailors have suffered no injury as a result of their captivity -- which puts the Iranian theocracy one-up on the "who treats prisoners better" match.

If someone held you against your will; kidnapped for all intents and purposes; would you consider that you had suffered no injury?? Are we to understand that you are so personally morally stunted that you would hold up to us the Iranian theocracy as an example of mercy and justice???

Just who the hell do you think you are kidding anyway? This is a skeptics board! Go peddle your respect for theocratic thugs where people might actually be stupid, crazy, or traitorous enough to believe you. I hear Barbara Streisand has a forum....

-z

[drkitten]

I'm happy to see that you find torture irrelevant when not perpetrated by Americans, but what kind of irrelevancies are we talking about specifically?

International law unfortunately does not control a government's treatment of its own people. TIm McVeigh, for example, is not protected as a PoW. Under international law, the US can do more or less as it sees fit to its own citizens -- and Iran can do likewise.

Of course, I'm sure that you're equally appalled about how the United States has historically treated its own criminals and have for years been protesting, for example, the execution of minors and the existence of the Florence Supermax.

[drkitten]

Please make up your mind. Either we are an evil people who condone torturing poor innocent jihadis, or we are a people who; even though at war; are willing to prosecute our own soldiers for their mistreatment of the prisoners in their charge. You can't have it both ways.

Certainly I can. I believe -- although I can't prove it, unfortunately -- that the torture and abuse of prisoners was ordered by the US high command, and that the soldiers who were prosecuted were low-level fall guys whose prosecution was ordered to cover up the overarching patterns of abuse.

That's a pattern that has routinely emerged from interactions with the current US administration. Beyond the Abu Ghraib scandal, there's of course also Scooter-gate and the current US Attorney flap. Of course, it's possible that the same alleged pattern of order-abuse-and-then-throw-the-flunkies-to-the-wolves independently happens in each of these cases, but I don't find that nearly as credible.


Seeing as how your own example points to Americans willing to prosecute, convict, and imprison their own soldiers for these misdeeds gives lie to your assertions.

Wrong again.


If someone held you against your will; kidnapped for all intents and purposes; would you consider that you had suffered no injury??

From Wikipedia : "Injury is damage or harm caused to the structure or function of the body caused by an outside agent or force, which may be physical or chemical."

I would consider myself less injured than if someone then set a dog to chewing on my leg.

So, yes. Words have meanings.


Are we to understand that you are so personally morally stunted that you would hold up to us the Iranian theocracy as an example of mercy and justice???

No. You are to understand that the uniformed neoFascist thugs that you worship -- and by extension, you yourself -- are so morally stunted that you have sunk to the level below that of the Iranian theocrats. You have depraved yourself so deeply that the Iranians, for all their faults, are a substantially better example of mercy and justice.

I have little respect for the Iranians. But I'd really appreciate it if you explained why I should have more respect for people who order others set dogs to attack prisoners than I should for people who (gasp) photograph women in a headdress.

[Kerberos]

International law unfortunately does not control a government's treatment of its own people. TIm McVeigh, for example, is not protected as a PoW. Under international law, the US can do more or less as it sees fit to its own citizens -- and Iran can do likewise.

Of course, I'm sure that you're equally appalled about how the United States has historically treated its own criminals and have for years been protesting, for example, the execution of minors and the existence of the Florence Supermax.
Equally appalled? Hardly. I reserve the greater indignation for the greater human rights abuses. You see, I have a moral compass so incredibly finely tuned that it can register more options than good and bad. Rare cases of executing minors = bad, frequent cases of floggings for rape victims, mutilations for petty crimes, torture of inmates and system critics and executing minors (much more common than in the US unless I miss my guess) = much worse. You follow?

[rikzilla]

Certainly I can. I believe -- although I can't prove it, unfortunately -- that the torture and abuse of prisoners was ordered by the US high command, and that the soldiers who were prosecuted were low-level fall guys whose prosecution was ordered to cover up the overarching patterns of abuse.

So you have a theory eh?? Do you know Dylan Avery? You two should meet. You have a great deal in common.

That's a pattern that has routinely emerged from interactions with the current US administration. Beyond the Abu Ghraib scandal, there's of course also Scooter-gate and the current US Attorney flap. Of course, it's possible that the same alleged pattern of order-abuse-and-then-throw-the-flunkies-to-the-wolves independently happens in each of these cases, but I don't find that nearly as credible.

...oh and anti-government venom...you have that in common as well...



Wrong again.



From Wikipedia : "Injury is damage or harm caused to the structure or function of the body caused by an outside agent or force, which may be physical or chemical."

I would consider myself less injured than if someone then set a dog to chewing on my leg.

How 'bout rape? I guess that could also be done to you without "injury" as long as the rapist was gentle. So you'd be okay with that as well? Sure sounds like it.

So, yes. Words have meanings.
Yes, you have explained to me with a carefully worded definition that a person may be kidnapped, raped, and by that logic waterboarded without "injury". Damn! You should work for Karl Rove and Rummy, hell you should be the AG seeing as how you just spun the whole "torture" thingy so much more expertly that Mr. Gonzales ever dreamed of doing.



No. You are to understand that the uniformed neoFascist thugs that you worship -- and by extension, you yourself -- are so morally stunted that you have sunk to the level below that of the Iranian theocrats. You have depraved yourself so deeply that the Iranians, for all their faults, are a substantially better example of mercy and justice.

Wow! You are sooooo quotable! So humble little me is now a neocon "worshiper"? The troops are now "neoFascist thugs" and little ole me is worse than the crazy murdering mullas of Iran?? You are clearly insane. Please take some pills and calm down. Physician, Heal thyself!

I have little respect for the Iranians. But I'd really appreciate it if you explained why I should have more respect for people who order others set dogs to attack prisoners than I should for people who (gasp) photograph women in a headdress.

this is your conspiracy theory...not mine. Produce your evidence of conspiracy, then we'll talk. Until then please stay away from open flame. With all that straw you have handy you could spontaneously combust.

-z

[drkitten]

Equally appalled? Hardly. I reserve the greater indignation for the greater human rights abuses.

And therefore, you applaud setting a dog to chew on a prisoner's leg -- while being morally indigant about photographing a woman and broadcasting the photograph.

Colour me unsurprised.


(Oh, and if you think that execution of juveniles is "rare' in the States and "frequent" in Iran -- why has USA performed more than twice as many such executions as Iran since 1990? And if you think that torture of prison inmates is bad -- what do you think of the Florence Supermax?)

[drkitten]

Wow! You are sooooo quotable! So humble little me is now a neocon "worshiper"?

Yes.

The troops are now "neoFascist thugs"

Yes.

and little ole me is worse than the crazy murdering mullas of Iran??;

Yes.

I apologize. I had thought that you had no reading comprehension at all. I was wrong.

[Kerberos]

No. You are to understand that the uniformed neoFascist thugs that you worship -- and by extension, you yourself -- are so morally stunted that you have sunk to the level below that of the Iranian theocrats. You have depraved yourself so deeply that the Iranians, for all their faults, are a substantially better example of mercy and justice.
Really? Tell me does mercy and justice also only apply to the treatment of foreigners? If not I suggest a little game. I'll name Iranian human rights abuses and you name American ones. I'll start: I refer you to the Amnnesty international article above. your turn.

[Darth Rotor]

The troops are now "neoFascist thugs"
Yes.
Ah, I see you are from Portland, Oregon (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78170). :p

We seem to have strayed from the deal making that Mr Blair and crew need to undertake in order to get the 15 sailors out of Iran and back to HMS Cornwall.

My bet: Iran is asking them under the table to vote "abstain" or "no" on the latest UNSCR nuke sanctions donneybrook. (Yes, it' a long shot.)

DR

[rikzilla]

Yes.



Yes.



Yes.

I apologize. I had thought that you had no reading comprehension at all. I was wrong.

So you don't have any evidence to support your insane assertions of conspiracy? I am similarly unsurprised.

-z

[Kerberos]

And therefore, you applaud setting a dog to chew on a prisoner's leg -- while being morally indigant about photographing a woman and broadcasting the photograph.

Colour me unsurprised.

Colour me surprised, I had no idea I believed that, I'm sure you can back that up with quotes from me applauding Abu Graib.


(Oh, and if you think that execution of juveniles is "rare' in the States and "frequent" in Iran -- why has USA performed more than twice as many such executions as Iran since 1990?
Because their population is 4 times as large?

And if you think that torture of prison inmates is bad -- what do you think of the Florence Supermax?)
I haven't heard of Florence Supermax before. but tell you what, as I said i offered the AI article as my move. Why don't you provide an article from an equally reputable source about US abuses for example from Florence Supermax that you feel is equivalent to 49 floggings, many for things that wouldn't be considered crimes in the west, and 10 amputations? Go ahead.

[Big Les]

Umm... they're holding British sailors prisoner, not US sailors.

Worth repeating, I think. Banter about comparative human rights violations has precisely naff all to do with this situation, which is that Iran is in the wrong in this case; it has committed an act of piracy and kidnap, resulting in a very difficult diplomatic situation that could escalate or simply evaporate depending upon their actions and those of the UK government.

[Darth Rotor]

Colour me surprised, I had no idea I believed that, I'm sure you can back that up with quotes from me applauding Abu Graib.



Because their population is 4 times as large?


I haven't heard of Florence Supermax before. but tell you what, as I said i offered the AI article as my move. Why don't you provide an article from an equally reputable source about US abuses for example from Florence Supermax that you feel is equivalent to 49 floggings, many for things that wouldn't be considered crimes in the west, and 10 amputations? Go ahead.
ADX Florence was opened in November 1994.

OK, who wants to blame Clinton? :p

ADX is where the nastiest violent criminals are housed, with the intent of keeping them from killing prison guards and each other.

It's a "special" place.

DR

[The Atheist]

We seem to have strayed from the deal making that Mr Blair and crew need to undertake in order to get the 15 sailors out of Iran and back to HMS Cornwall.

My bet: Iran is asking them under the table to vote "abstain" or "no" on the latest UNSCR nuke sanctions donneybrook. (Yes, it' a long shot.)

DR

Can't imagine that will be it - Ahmedinejad's not stupid enough to think it would stick and it'd be too obvious. (Not to mention the Poms not going for it)

My pick, they'll be home within seven days as Iran shows the world what a wonderful, caring nation it is, spurning the opportunity of torturing or imprisoning "spies" to instead gracefully set them free.

Praise be to Allah.

[Overman]

What the hell is the british female solider saying?!?!?!?

Is she being forced?

[Art Vandelay]

Do you suffer from some kind of rare and exotic mental disorder that makes it impossible for you to understand any message that contains the slightest error?Do you have a mental condition which prevents you from posting in anything more than the minimum clarity necessary for readers to work out what you're saying, and which causes you to respond rudely when corrections are mentioned?

I stand by my statement. The Americans on this board are in no position to complain of unlawful treatment of prisoners,By that logic, Muslims are in no position to complain about American treatment of prisoners. Some Americans mistreat prisoners, hence no American can comment on mistreatment?

given the documented history of actual physical injury to prisoners in US custody. What, exactly, are you claiming to be documented physical injury?

To the best of my knowledge, the British sailors have suffered no injury as a result of their captivity -- which puts the Iranian theocracy one-up on the "who treats prisoners better" match.Let's pretend, just for a moment, that you were capable of looking at this rationally. Suppose a British sailor were told: "You can either participate in our propoganda videos, and confess to violating Iranian waters, or you can have a dog chew on your leg". Are we seriously expected to believe that the sailor would choose the former? It's clear to anyone who is neither a complete idiot nor an Iranian apologist that the Iranians have presented their prisoners with the credible threat of injury much, much worse than a dog chewing on their leg.

International law unfortunately does not control a government's treatment of its own people. You said that Iran treats its prisoners better. Not that it comports better with international law, but that it TREATS ITS PRISONERS BETTER. Did you really think that you'd get away with this weaseling?

Of course, I'm sure that you're equally appalled about how the United States has historically treated its own criminals and have for years been protesting, for example, the execution of minors and the existence of the Florence Supermax.Why in the world would anyone be appalled equally by Iran and the US?

Certainly I can. I believe -- although I can't prove it, unfortunately -- that the torture and abuse of prisoners was ordered by the US high command, and that the soldiers who were prosecuted were low-level fall guys whose prosecution was ordered to cover up the overarching patterns of abuse.So, on the one hand, we have unproven speculation, and on the other, we have absolute certainty that the Iranian government supports the current actions of their soldiers.

Even if the US did deliberately order the mistreatment of soldiers, at least they had the decency to stop when caught, and prosecute participants.

I would consider myself less injured than if someone then set a dog to chewing on my leg.I wouldn't, necessarily. Dogs can "chew" without breaking the skin.

I have little respect for the Iranians. But I'd really appreciate it if you explained why I should have more respect for people who order others set dogs to attack prisoners than I should for people who (gasp) photograph women in a headdress.Perhaps you could explain why you attack outright strawmen. They don't just photograph women women in headresses, they also do things much, much worse.

[The Atheist]

They don't just photograph women women in headresses, they also do thing much, much worse.

Do you have a mental condition which prevents you from posting in anything more than the minimum clarity necessary for readers to work out what you're saying

"Asked and answered, your honour!"

[Kerberos]

Do you have a mental condition which prevents you from posting in anything more than the minimum clarity necessary for readers to work out what you're saying, and which causes you to respond rudely when corrections are mentioned?

Just being anal retentive then, I suspected as much.

[Thomas1016]

Can't imagine that will be it - Ahmedinejad's not stupid enough to think it would stick and it'd be too obvious. (Not to mention the Poms not going for it)

My pick, they'll be home within seven days as Iran shows the world what a wonderful, caring nation it is, spurning the opportunity of torturing or imprisoning "spies" to instead gracefully set them free.

Praise be to Allah.

never under estimate the stupidity of politicians especially those with a personal agenda.

[The Atheist]

never under estimate the stupidity of politicians especially those with a personal agenda.

Or posters. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2448004#post2448004)

[Azure]

What the hell is the british female solider saying?!?!?!?

Is she being forced?

How hard do you think it is to coerce a woman into saying something in order to protect herself?

[Art Vandelay]

How hard do you think it is to coerce a woman into saying something in order to protect herself?Any reason why you specified "woman"?

Just being anal retentive then, I suspected as much.Måske JEG burde opstille i Dansk , og så er der ikke mere , selv om jer beklage sig mig mishandle JERES sprog , JEG tilkendegive jer hen til simpelt hen være " analog retentive ".

[Azure]

Well unless you threaten men with gay acts or something...

[rikzilla]

Chill out Dr. A Heal thyself with this: :chillpill

Now that your BP has receded and stroke is no longer imminent; please realize that there are many, many people in the USA who would support sinking the Iranian Navy just to see a smile cross old Maggie's face. Are 15 squaddies worth going to war for? My short answer is: yes.

Fear not, the Iranians have much to lose and little to gain by harming these guys in any way. There will be negotiations and compromises demanded and made. Diplomats will blow smoke up each others arses. The Iranians will make the best deal they can, but they are not stupid. They have far more to lose than a group like Hezbollah or AQ, and nothing to gain by going all jihadi on these guys.

-z

Forgot to mention that they'd all end up getting rich off their little Iranian adventure as well. Oh well, at least it's over and no one had to die.

-z

[Dr Adequate]

Yeah, we won, didn't we?

And some of our supposed allies still are whining about it.

Cheers, riz, and remember this: if British troops continue to fight on the side of the USA, and if I support this, it is not because I am supporting trash like you.

[Dr Adequate]

What, exactly, are you claiming to be documented physical injury? Okay, let's do this again.

TESTIMONY BY HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PATRIOT ACT BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES : Statement of Deborah Pearlstein, Director, U.S. Law and Security Program, Washington D.C. June 10, 2005. (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/PDF/hrf-testimony-061505.pdf)

One need not be an expert in U.S. and international human rights law to recognize the urgency of these questions. According to the Pentagon’s own figures, more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases already classified as homicides, and at least half of those were people who were literally tortured to death. To be clear, this is not a problem about a handful of actors from Abu Ghraib. Only 1 of the criminal homicides occurred at Abu Ghraib; the rest occurred at others of the two-dozen some detention facilities the United States maintains. Well beyond the few young soldiers facing courts martial from Abu Ghraib, 137 U.S. soldiers so far have been punished for acts of torture or abuse. Perhaps worst, the problem appears to be ongoing. At least 45 detainees have died in U.S. custody since Secretary Rumsfeld was informed of the torture at Abu Ghraib on January 16, 2004. This is not a problem first and foremost about our brave troops; this is a command responsibility.

[rikzilla]

Yeah, we won, didn't we?

And some of our supposed allies still are whining about it.

Cheers, riz, and remember this: if British troops continue to fight on the side of the USA, and if I support this, it is not because I am supporting trash like you.

You sure did. All you need is a big ole "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner right?

But you don't like "trash" like me? You do yourself no big favours calling other people childish names. I don't really know why you think I'm trash and between you and I, I just don't really care. You make yourself look boorish and puerile when you toss around such terms so carelessly.

-z

[Dr Adequate]

You sure did. All you need is a big ole "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner right? That meant something?

We won, Iran lost. Deal with it.

But you don't like "trash" like me? You do yourself no big favours calling other people childish names. I don't really know why you think I'm trash and between you and I, I just don't really care. You make yourself look boorish and puerile when you toss around such terms so carelessly. Believe me, riz, when I referred to you as "trash", there was nothing careless about it.

[Art Vandelay]

Isn't it interesting how first Dr A throws a temper tantrum because he managed to interpret a question as a declaration that the US wouldn't be supporting Britain, then he declares that Britain won, and mocks Americans on the basis of the implied accusation that they are disappointed that they didn't get to go after Iran.