Believe what you want. Given the two choices I certainly believe that the British Government is more up front and honest than the Persians. I would go to bat for them and fight along them anytime. You give to much credit to the Iranians. They are no friend of anyone, least of all a western nation who is not muslim.

Just because they aren't friends of anyone doesn't mean they will lie every time.

I am not trying to come off as "I'm right and your wrong" because that would be hypocritical since neither of us can bring hard evidence of either side being right since both governments are trying to cover their asses.

I'll admit that you guys changed my stance from a slight pro-Iranian to dead middle but I'm still not finding anything convincing from either side.

[I wanted to edit that but my computer is going really slow]

There are three sides. The British, the Iranians, and the Indian ship that was boarded by the British. The Indian ship has confirmed the British story.

I will be surprised if they don't.

Why would you start off with a pro-Iranian stance?

I'm waiting for the tough questions. None of them brought back a watch up their ass.

The latest sources I was looking at was more pro-Iranian and I didn't hear about some of the information.

To be fair to pierce, there really is no general reason to assume Britain to be telling the truth. In this case I happen to think we were.....but at the same time our government is as capable of lying and as willing to do so as any other government.

Great Live Interview on now with the sailors and marines. Tells a different tale, eh? Exactly what I would have expected.

Yep. Pretty much panning out as most people thought it would.

Except that an original problem remains. Shatt al-Arab waterway changes. But what are Iran / Iraq waters remains subjective. Neither side has agreed to what is whose water or agreed to how law enforcement (ie searches for stolen cars) is to be conducted. That ambiguity still remains a potential if not the reason for this stand-off that (apparently) no one in high power on any side wanted.

Who was at fault or details of what happened remain secondary. Fortunately, those 15 Brits did not fight back - which is one reason why this stand-off could settle peacefully.

Generally speaking we make very polite [forced] guests :P

Considering how much coastline Iran has, I don't think they need to deter the Brits/UN in this little section to sneak anything into Iran. And if the Brits control the waterfront in this section of Iraq, this won't help sneaking anything into that country either.

The new and improved matériel appearing in Iraq could be coming over at any place, along thousands of border miles.

I see this as strictly posturing. The Iranians know the Brits care about 15 people, whereas Iran would blow up 15 of their own people without a second thought, if it served their purpose.

Fark headline: "Remember that time when we kidnapped your sailors, threatened them into making false confessions, and then let them go? Well, now it's time for you to do a favor for us"

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