Options limited in Iran stand-off

[Cyclefrance]

Let's not forget that GPS receivers are only as good as the way they are set up. I use a Garmin etrek when cycling (similar to the one displayed in the newspapers showing the claimed coordinates for this fiasco), and had to reset the reference co-ordinates as I would otherwise be directed about 10 metres left of the road I was on - which could be quite critical if it ran alongside a railway line.

So, just maybe (and I do mean maybe), the Iranians hadn't set up their GPS properly - result being that the co-ordinates might say 'this is Iran', but the reality could easily be 'this is Iraq'.

Could this actually happen...?

An anecdote that you may find interesting from the days of the Iraq/Iran war of the 80's. I was working at a shipbrokers even then, and it so happened that one of the tankers we had contracted out for a client loaded a cargo of jet fuel and then ended up discharging in Bandar Abbas, Iran at a time when the Iranians were well short of fuel to fly their military aircraft.

Next voyage the vessel loaded out of the Saudi Gulf port of Ras Tanura to carry a cargo east to Singapore.

As she moved through international waters towards Quoin Island and then out to the Indian Ocean she would have passed very close to Iranian waters and, as it happened she was attacked by an over-enthusiastic Iranian air force pilot clearly out to have a go at something now he had the means to fly his plane! An exocet or some such air dispatched missile shot straight through the bows and out the other side of the vessel - the vessel that had just delivered the jet fuel now in the attacking aircraft! Not the most sensible courses of action seeing how few vessels would entertain such business in the first place.

Luckily the missile failed to explode (not properly primed) and there was no loss of life, just an over-utilised toilet aboard the tanker!

So, given the error-strewn course of events I've related above in respect of Iranian competence, could they possibly have messed the set-up of their GPS...? - hmm, a tough one, eh?

[piercehawkeye45]

Oh yeah, cause the British are so trustworthy...

Stop being a drone and realize that neither side is "rightous".

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Oh yeah, cause the British are so trustworthy...

Stop being a drone and realize that neither side is "rightous".

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.

[piercehawkeye45]

I don't trust any side.

[piercehawkeye45]

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.

[piercehawkeye45]

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]

[glatt]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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.

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.

[King]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If the sailors go back on their word then I will admit I am wrong (even though that isn't "definite proof" either).

I will be surprised if they don't.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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.

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by King

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

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

[DanaC]

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.

[TheMercenary]

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

[DanaC]

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

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.

[DanaC]

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