Iran... ok, now we have a problem.
 

Just classic examples of countries arguing over undefined borders.

I'm not British.

Their bad...sucks to be them. :)

See, you're just as big an a-hole as me.

And this is a surprise?

No, my inner monologue comes out when I drink.

Ah, the return of the Wise Alkie Sage!

It has to be some sort of misunderstanding. Or maybe the Iranians figured the British were an easy target. I figure worst case scenario, this will be like that situation we had in China early in the Bush administration.

Actually they did this to the Brits a little while back, gave back the people, kept the boats. If only Maggie Thatcher were in charge, then we'd get some action!

She's not really my type, but beauty's only a light switch away.

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

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

I'm sure that in some neocon watering holes they're saying that this is because the British started withdrawing from Iraq.

With us juggling Iraq and Afghanistan, I hope the British aren't expecting a lot of help from the US.

Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.

It would seem that the Brits were conducting a search which A) may have been illegal and B) could very likely have been in an area out of their jusdiction.

If this is the case, the Iranians were simply following international law as it stands. In any case, I'd say it's unlikely to escalate beyond a bit of petty name calling by people who're not likely to affect the outcome of events anyway.

The Iraq government says their own fisherman said the Brits were out of Iraq waters. However the Brits were captured by what would be the equivalent of US National Guard operated by state churches. It is not certain who to believe.

Apparently these Brits have been taken to Tehran - maybe 1000 miles away. This could be just to have them separated from Islamic Guards, or to prepare for their release to the British Embassy. However, last time this happened, British Iranian relations were not so tense and cold. It may take a month to resolve this minor and, quite frankly, still only trivial situation.

Rich, the US is not the only country to have troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure you have the majority, but you *are* the world's greatest military power. Bush could not have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq without British support, so you guys do owe them support, and recognition. Blair is on the way out, so this is why British troops are being reduced - note: not withdrawn. You can hate Bush all you like, but please remember that British troops have died supporting their country's ally, the USA.

The Times "How Britons were conned by Iranian gunboat trick" summarizes how Iran was able to do what they did. Their subtitle for the article is: "The speed and cunning shown by the Revolutionary Guards suggests that their action was premeditated."

It was a carefully planned ambush:
The story goes on. Iran gave a set of coordinates for where the incident took place. Brits mapped it and pointed out that it was in Iraqi waters.

Iran then said "oh never mind, that first set was a mistake, here are the REAL coordinates," and sent a second set of coordinates which was in Iranian waters.

But by then the Brits had flown over the still-stationary Indian vessel, with a GPS unit; they released a picture of the result to show where it took place, in clearly Iraqi territory.

Same thing discussed from a strategic perspective in:
Options limited in Iran stand-off

It's not a major problem when observing from a strategic objective. But it could become major and problematic as defined here. Deja vue a silly spy plane incident when some wanted a boogey man and therefore war with China.

Does anyone here really think that the US is going to enter a war with Iran over 6 British sailors? I am a strong supporter of US-UK ties on many levels. But does anyone really think this is some kind of plan by Blair and Bush to start a war with Iran????

I don't know what to think when it comes to Bush anymore.

Um, there weren't even six British sailors captured by Saddam. Just an old grudge.

And there's an even older grudge against Iran. Ironically, the one that caused us to prop up Saddam in the first place.

Well the US didn't mind getting inolved in a dispute over a couple of border guards in Lebanon. What's the difference? Who is a more important ally is probably more the question.

I heard that this could be about a prisoner exchange too. I forget if it was from here or somewhere else...

Yea, we have captured and detained a number of Iranian's suspected of supplying the insurgency with weapons and training, just like they have been doing in Lebanon.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/new...p?storyid=9633

Thanks. I know we all bitch, both American and British dwellars, about the war; but we have lost a number of young soldiers in Iraq fighting that war, several of them from my own area. I am totally aganst the war in Iraq and have been from the start, but not because I don't want british soldiers to die and don't mind American soldiers dying. Mistake though I firmly believe it was to invade Iraq, and no matter how fervently I believe the American President persuaded/led my own country into an illegal, or at the very least ill-advised, war, the fact remained we stood with America. From the first reports of the 9/11 attacks right through to the decimation of Baghdad and beyond. You dragged us into this, and because we see where it is going and because our politicians can no longer sell us a broken and tarnished vision and start to reduce our involvement, you say fuckem?

My God, this 'special relationship', shoulder-to-shoulder friendship with America was worth mortgaging what little goodwill we had left with the rest of the world eh?

Well anytime you all would like to just start to go it alone without US support I am all for it. How about we break realations and see where that gets both our countries?

Is this one of those, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem", accusations?

Nope, it was a response to Mercenary's post. :)

Notice classic symptoms of - the underlying principles behind - 'big dic' thinking. "Screw you. You cannot live without us."

Do we call it selfishness, egotism, tactlessness, rudness, impudence, or simple disrespect? Probably all. All is probably necessary to know things without first learning facts. To know things only because TheMercenary has a political agenda that justifies all and that makes him so predictable.

What has TheMercenary just posted to DanaC? In simplest terms: "fuck you - I am an American".

Still thinking about those "Big Dicks", but you can't answer a simple question about your own experiences. Ok. Carry on...:rolleyes: :fumette:

It would damage both of us. That's hardly the point. Are you suggesting that friendship is something that can only ever be on your terms? If so then it is not friendship. It may be useful, but lets not dignify it with a term of endearment which one side clearly does not feel. What you have just written is similar in nature to a form of blackmail, which suggests that we should just put up, or shut up, regardless of how your country treats us, because we'd be worse off without you. Again, that's not friendship.

It seems more like an Iranian plan to put one over on Britain, and indirectly the US. Ahmadinejad gets to act like a big shot and Iran gets to act as the innocent party (I don't know whether they are or not, but at this point I'll take the word of our government over that of the Iranians). On a brighter note, they're being released which is good. Ahmadinejad said it was "a gift to the British people", which was nice of him.:rolleyes:

Ah, I agree, but this is what you said:

We didn't "drag you" into anything. And when you start ranting about "illegal war" you sound like any other lefty here in the US, something I don't buy, but it sure attempts to deflect any responsibility off those who love to parrot it. Look I have the greatest respect, understanding, and admiration for the UK. But don't act like someway you and your country were dragged into anything. Hell, talk about going it alone, considering the token contributions most of the other countries have given, not the UK, we have been pretty much putting our boys through the grinder at a rate that far exceeds that of any other country. I for one understand and appreciate the contributions you all have made. The sooner we all get out the better. Let us not forget that these are problems made for the people by elected governments, not by the populace in general.

Did the hostages say anything about being made to say that they were in Iranian waters?

I don't think they are actually on home land yet.

And of course, the other side is completely innnocent of that.So goes the other way. Iraq painfully shows that the US cannot do it alone as well and clearly indicates the downfall of Pax Americana.

Fair comment.

The "fuckem" comment related to this Merc, I do believe the war was illegal. I think my country was absolutely hands down right to stand next to yours after 9/11, and to support your efforts in Afghanistan where the perpetrators of that atrocity were hiding. I think we were completely wrong to go with America into Iraq, where there was no threat to either of our nations and where nobody who could possibly be considered culpable of 9/11 was hiding. It was an illegal and ill-advised war, and in following America into it we have damaged our own international reputation as much as America has damaged hers. I believe it was a mistake for America to invade Iraq. I believe that Britain has compounded her friend's mistake by jumping into it with her instead of standing to one side and saying, well if you really feel you need to then go ahead, but in this instance we will not be with you.

President Bush showed very clearly how little his administration valued the British involvement when he point blank refused any amelioration of his plan or any extended time for weapons inspections despite Blair's urging. Several times during that process Blair was shown to simply be ignored and have absolutely no diplomatic weight with Bush whatsoever. In terms of our ability to influence Bush and his administration, we might as well be a little-known banana republic somewhere. Blair was totally humiliated in his own country and in Europe, by Bush's attitude to him.

Also, Yugoslavia had nothing to do with 9/11, and Milosevic was merely a misunderstood dictator who had to be brutal to his people in order to keep the country together.

"Also, Yugoslavia had nothing to do with 9/11, and Milosevic was merely a misunderstood dictator who had to be brutal to his people in order to keep the country together."


And that relates to Iraq how?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and Hussein was merely a misunderstood dictator who had to be brutal to his people in order to keep the country together.

This we agree on. I wish you or your country no ill will. In fact, as stated in a previous post on another thread, if called upon by my country to preserve your republic, I would gladly sacrifice myself to do so. We are joined through history. This we must agree on...

I liked Blair's comment about having confidence in the intelligence of the people to recognize this as an act of theater. Great response.

But what about the rest of the audience? The ones watching around the world, especially 2nd and 3rd world?
Is Robin Hood a good guy or bad guy? The peasants say good, the aristocracy says bad....same kind of theater with the same results.
Exactly why we're losing the war in Iraq no matter what the actual outcome.

The two do not equate. Nobody tried to sell the action in Yugoslavia as a response to the threat they posed, or their role in 9/11. The Bush administration did try to sell action in Iraq as a response to the threat they supposedly posed and their supposed role in 9/11.

Also both Milosevic and Hussein were total unmitigated bastards, who oppressed their people and made the lives of those who disagreed with them difficult or entirely untenable. That's not the point. If international law recognised dictatorship as a valid reason for invading and occupying a country we would have far more wars than we currently do. If the invasion had happened directly after Kuwait, it could have been justified imo.....if it had happened directly after the gassing of the Kurds it could have been justified (soon as someone uses the genocide word, international law allows for action). If the assistance which had been offered to the opposition in Iraq had actually been forthcoming when they attempted to overthrow their dictator, that would have been entirely justified, as that would have been assisting the people in their own self-determination.

The invasion of Iraq was not in any of these circumstances, the invasion of Iraq was an opportunist move by a president and administration who deemed it useful to America to do so.

Agreed. I would have it no other way. *smiles*

When I rail against decisions by the American administration, that is as far as it goes. I have never ceased to feel culturally and historically linked to America as a country and Americans as a People. I doubt there's many people in the UK that don't feel that bond of kinship. In a way that's what makes it so frustrating when the Administration acts with such disdain towards us.

Yugoslavia wasn't a threat, but it's OK since it wasn't SOLD as a threat.

Iraq was more of a threat than Yugoslavia, by anyone's measure, but it's NOT OK since it was sold as a threat.

Not sure I follow.

Thus, Yugoslavia was illegal and unjustified.

What does "international law" say about a statute of limitations on gassing people? How much time has to pass before they got away with it?

Does bin Laden face a similar deadline? If a decade passes and he hasn't been caught, does he get away too?

A statute of limitations is about punishment. Was the entire Iraq war a punishment for Saddam? Well, um, yay, I guess. He's one of the many dead. We win.

Yugoslavia wasn't about punishment, it was about stopping something currently in progress.

Well put HM.

The action against Yugoslavia was not taken because Milosevic was a dictator. It was taken in order to stop ethnic cleansing and prevent what may have been edging into genocide.

The mere fact that a country is ruled by a dictator, however unpleasant that might make life in that country, is not alone justification for invasion.

More of a threat to whom? To America? Oh come on, who are
you kidding?.....to the UK? I really don't think so. To its neighbours? Well maybe, but if we invade every country that is a threat to its neighbours, then we'd better get a fucking big task force over to some of the African countries. Iraq was not a threat to us, it was merely sold as a threat to us in order to justifiy military action. Yugoslavia was not a threat to us, but nor did anybody try to tell us otherwise.

A statute of limitations is about justice and prosecution. A sentence is about punishment.

You have answered my question, in a roundabout way. If they gas people, and then STOP, once they stop it's no longer "currently in progress", and at that point it's against "international law" to invade or otherwise violate their "sovereignty".

You know that we don't invade every contry that is doing something bad, or has ever done something bad.

Why did we not attempt to do something about Iraq when they were engaging in ethnic cleansing? Why did we not attempt to do something about Iraq when the opposition within the country tried to overthrow their dictator on the understanding that we would all help?

It's not acceptable to just invade a country and then point to what the dictator did a decade earlier and say "see, that's why".

But it does set the precedent that we can invade any country we want, if they have ever done anything bad, ever.

Yes and yes, Iraq was more of a threat than Yugoslavia, both to the US and the UK.

An existential threat, maybe not. But as a bad actor? Sure.

Iraq was a terrible threat to "international law", as a system of sanctions devolved into Iraqi poverty, and a UN scandal involving billions upon billions of dollars in oil contracts scuttled any interest in cutting Gordian's knot.

And Iraq was indeed a heavy sponsor of terrorism; see Abu Nidal organization, payments to suicide bombers, and the sorta-not-disputed Salman Pak for just three examples.

You know that we don't invade every country that is "a terrible threat to international law" or "a heavy sponsor of terrorism."

We have established your position: if they gas people, and then STOP, once they stop it's no longer "currently in progress", and at that point it's against "international law" to invade or otherwise violate their "sovereignty".

Can you think of an event between those difficult and terrible situations, and 2003, that might have changed the global response to such things?

Think hard.

I guess I need to be clear: I'm not saying the war was a good idea. I'm saying it was more complex than you nutters want to write off.

I don't know whether you've been clear or not; I'm just tail-posting. But, for kicks, define: nutters.

I tend to use terms from the British-American dictionary when talking to Brits

You're also pointing out that the justifications for the Balkan deal were similar and the left needs to quit pretending to be antiwar. Resisting the urge to bomb our way to sunshine and happiness is beyond our present political system.

That's true; and it's not unfair either, to point out that Serbia is not exactly sunshine and happiness yet; Kosovo is still a UN protectorate; and Milosevic died of natural causes, after "international law" couldn't figure out if he was guilty after five years of trial.