Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Iran captured fifteen British Royal Navy personnel during a "routine boarding operation" in Iraqi waters on Friday, Britain's Ministry of Defence said.

Iran's ambassador in London has been summoned and Britain is demanding the immediate safe release of the sailors.

"At approximately 1030 Iraqi time this morning, 15 British naval personnel, engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters ... were seized by Iranian naval vessels," the ministry said in a statement.

"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office. The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23679879.htm

Iran =  not the sharpest knives in the drawer

nothing new here... ahppened back in '04 too, though then it was deemed that the brits were actualy in the wrong spot...... this time they were not.


if any die..... we know what will come.


question is with what will britian and her allies reach out and touch them with.

first target everythign that beeps of radiation

Could be nasty. Could go ok.  :confused:

Nothing? Oh wait, I know, a military response from Israel, right?!

ww4 ?

Can we have a third one first, just for numerical continuity?

I think Iran is trying to do some posturing here since the UN voted in favor of the sanctions.

I bet all the British Navy personnel get released unharmed.

if you want to get technical...... then it would be WW4 as WW3 would be the war on terror. its global its banrupting countries and everyone is involved..... just because there is no real state to target and destroy does not mean its not a WW.

America is fighting a global war on terror. No-one else seems to be. And it's less global than specifically localized in the middle-eastern region. Don't see the U.S. targeting too many African or Asian terrorist groups. If you want to get technical, it's not a world war unless there's an actual war and a large portion of the world is actively fighting it. Technically.

hmmm im sorry..... i guess britian is not fighting and loosing troops? nor canada, nor the dutch, nor the germans, nor the french, nor teh spanish, nor the SK's nor the aussies, nor the japs, nor any other number of countries actively fighting this war. and like i said before if there is no real country to target, then the war is fought everywhere, in many differnet ways. local police and nationl investigations tracking down cells in their own countries and such..... But i guess you are blind to the other countires bleeding fighting this war as well?

You mean the other countries who contributed token forces and have since backed-out, announcing phased or complete withdrawals from the actual theater of the actual war?

And I'm sorry but if you're going to count law enforcement and intelligence agencies counteracting terrorism as "waging war" then every civilization in recorded history has been fighting the same war. To most of the world terrorism isn't a fun new concept, we've all been trying to avoid being senselessly killed by people with grudges for a long, long time. At least, since long before 9/11. 

Comparing "the war on terror" to trench warfare at the beginning of the 20th century or a land, air, and sea war which saw the deaths of tens of millions of people in six short years is pure political hackery.   

you my friend need to do some research on all nations in the war on terror.... then come back...... oh and token forces?..... compare it to teh size and type of armed forces that they have.

oh and for a world war aid.... what is a world war?

a war in which the major nations of the world are involved
check


A world war is a military conflict affecting the majority of the world's countries. World wars usually span multiple continents, and are very bloody and destructive.

check

I need do no research, as I've been paying attention. Nearly half of the countries involved in the ridiculous coalition of the willing have withdrawn every one of their troops (including two of the countries you specifically mentioned). Of those remaining, about a quarter have less than 100 troops deployed, and the rest have fewer than 1000 - with the exception of the US, the UK and South Korea. Some countries have fewer than 50 troops involved. Some have fewer than 20.

How silly of me to overlook those wholehearted, vital contributions. If we're talking comparisons to military size, well, I'm pretty sure that 15 troops isn't nearly reflective of the size of the Netherlands military and 4 or 5 is probably less than Slovakia could really spare, even on a bad day.  The UK deployed over 40,000 troops on day one, less than a quarter of those remain.

So go ahead and maintain that the war on terror is comparable to actual world wars, that's fine, it's your burden.

While I can accept that not having a definable enemy or battlefield doesn't necessarily mean you can't be at war it does seem to logically follow that if those factors are combined with a lack of actual military objectives and a lack of physical fighting (at least by those who aren't trapped in a country that they invaded for reasons seemingly unrelated to terrorism, like WMDs and "liberating the Iraqi people") then you might not actually be involved in a world war.

Arguing semantics, are we?  Then let's!

a war in which the major nations of the world are involved

Well, the US and the UK are involved. Oh, and Latvia, Moldova, Albania and Mongolia. And Iraq. That should cover the requirement. Totally checked. Of course, there is no major nation on the opposing side. . . but that can't possibly be what they mean.


A world war is a military conflict affecting the majority of the world's countries. World wars usually span multiple continents, and are very bloody and destructive.

Let's see. . . about 192 countries are recognized by the UN. We have about 25 countries deployed in Iraq, and Iraq makes 26. Well, if we discount all of the nations who backed out of the war and demand that they be demoted from country status that reduces the pool by about 10 to 15, so we have 26 of 173. Plus, America is big, and lots of countries not involved are small. If we go by surface area, the US counts for maybe 40. Call it 50. So that's 75/173. Now, let's cut China out because they're too busy keeping our economy afloat with cheap low-end merchandise to play the game. And they're big too, so they can counter balance our earlier arithmetic and count for 50 other countries as well. Let's eliminate 50, we've got 75/123. That's pretty good, definitely a majority. But let's slam dunk this one! Russia is hardly even a country, more a loose web of abstract suffering. And hey, they're pretty big too. Let's pretend Russia is another 50 countries and eliminate 50 from the equation. Now we have 75 out of 73! Tell me that's not a World War!

And yes, the "Global War On Terror" might only be a fraction as bloody as, well, nearly every other armed conflict involving more than one country (and less bloody than most civil wars but screw them, they're not global so they don't count) but we have much more media nowadays than they did back in 1945 so there's much more blood running down many more screens! And if we're fighting a war of ideas, the idea of violence is as good as actual violence, I suppose. Check and double check! 

I don't see how in the world you can consider the "war on terror" as a world war.  Its basically the war in iraq which has done next to nothing to fight terror, only increase it.

a world war will be when either

1). the US and israel take on the arab nations of the middle east

or

2). Russia and China vs. the US and her allies

China is going to be a very serious threat to the US in the next decade.

I see that you are casually ignoring the fact that the netherlands still have close to 2000 troops in afghanistan (which I used to be part of) excluding several squadrons of f16 fighter jets and apache helicopters....

Not saying this is a world war just making sure you get your facts straight...

You're right, I had casually ignored Afghanistan. Largely because I don't know the breakdown of deployments there. I think the total was around 40,000 last time I heard anything about it, but I don't recall where or when I read that so I'm not going to inject that figure into the argument. It's not a negligible sum either, compared to troop levels in Iraq or even the number of private military contractors alleged to have been in Iraq (somewhere in the region of 120,000 in total, apparently). 

everyone tends to forget about "the 'ghan" and the nations involved there.

oh and 25 since the statement "size and type of armed forces" is lost but seems to fall on country size how im not really sure but ok.... and since you forget about the above mentined war (part of teh overall war on terror) you need to add in canada as the 2nd largetst country in the world and as a % of its "army size" has approx 15-17% deployed personal, and the US has approx 20% in iraq. and 22.6% in iraq and "the 'ghan". so in % canada is def holing it own with regards to the US

17,900 US deployed in "the 'ghan"

Sure, we can add Canada to the list. But the question isn't actually about military size, type, or deployments, those are merely amusing distractions. The heart of the matter is really whether the military and political effects of the war on terror are comparable to either of the "world wars". I don't think that it's possible to make a realistic argument which would put the war on terror in the same bracket as either, though it certainly could have escalated to that level eventually had the US not alienated its allies so early on. The war on terror seems largely a political creation, and largely fought in the realm of PR  and media innuendo (on the part of western countries that is, the actual terrorists are more inclined to use more effective weapons).

In my opinion,  it's really a matter of political convenience. Bush declared war on something which every major country was already taking measures against. In that respect it bares more resemblance to the "war on drugs" or the "war on crime," in both composition and result. True, many people have died because of this "war" but I don't feel that deaths or shots fired or boots on the ground are the right way to measure the credibility or meaning of this crusade. 

"Crusade" was a poor choice of words there, a little too loaded. I was just looking for an alternative to saying "war" again.

gurantee the S.A.S will be on standby to resuce them.

I doubt it, they're in Tehran.

irans leaders a bullshitting nob and needs to be blown away.

Why do we let this shit happen? Where was HMS Cornwall, why weren't these people being backed up? Also, just after this happened Iran should have been told, either release them within 6 hours or your presedential palaces are been blown to shit by cruise missiles, i guarantee they would have been released!

too little details about the exact area to give a good answer as to why they werent backed up by the Frigate. However if we want to speculate we could assume that the area they were in could have been to shallow for the frigate to render direct support, as well as angle of attack for teh IRN patrol boats could have been in such away that firing on them could have caused the FF deaths of the bording party. The fact that the borading party was only carrying small arms, and the iranin boats carrying bow mounted MG's put the boarding party at a disadvantage. most frigates carry helos that are equipped for TSAR and ASW weather these helos could ahve been used to provide fire support is doubtful and IR could ignore in attempts at buzzing of them and still allow them to capture the BP. All and all the Iranians proscuted a flaw in the borading party procedures which allowed for this to occur. if noe of that was a factor then the commanding officer of teh frigate will be releived from command, most likely any way.

the fact that they are not all over the news saying yes we were in the waters of iran boads well that they were actually not in the wrong spot and were actually still in iraqi waters. What we have here though is a power play by Iran tring to say hey we can do waht we want when we want.

What is the mood of the people in the UK regarding this?  Is this the top news story in the country?

According to this article, the US is holding 300 individuals linked to Iranian intelligence agencies, most captured over the past 2 months.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/03/us_holds_300_prisoners_linked.php

So, in addition to hoping to gain leverage against sanctions over its nuclear program, apparently Iran is looking for a prisoner swap. 

This all reminds me of that "Bad Idea Jeans" SNL skit.

I would be absolutely shocked if there is a "swap" of any kind.  Iran better be REALLY careful here - Bush and his cowboys are probably looking for ANY reason to start a war in Iran.

Yep

you sir need to do research. The British fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but have since taken thousands of their troops out of Iraq. 45,000 were present at the start, 7,100 are their now.


If Britian declares war on Iraq there will none of this messing around. The forces of Iraq will be hopeless.

This statement does not make sense - Are you talking about Iran or Iraq?

Iran, my mistake :hihi:

Yeah, that's what I thought. Yeah, I would'nt mind seeing the Brits blow some sense into that little Iranian fucker, myself.

Does anyone know the UK reaction to this?  Are people up in arms? Are they so war wearied from Iraq that nobody is saying they should fight, that a swap would be acceptable?

I wonder if they were US troops what the average person would be saying......

Old Mags would have taken care of things if she were in office.....

we need to send SAS or something in! own those damn turds.

The UK forces would get annihilated by Iran if they went it alone. We might be able to successfully invade Iceland for example, but not a major military power halfway around the world. And enough with the SAS already, we don't even know where they are.

directed at me or 25?

iran doesnt have a proper army, its just got terrorists.

and half built nukes. we should wipe them out with some well place strategic missles.

Sure. That worked out wonderfully in Afghanistan and Iraq, what could possibly go wrong?!


Oh, you mean nuke them? That would be great! Then all of the troops could come home! Horizontally! (Or in tiny ziplock baggies.)

Have you ever read a book? Just curious.


Yeah, let's start a nuclear war over 15 servicemen who aren't dead or even injured.

Why hasnt America waded in an expressed its solidarity with Britain?

Bloody typical, they stand on the sidelines, but if this involved US troops they'd demand British support and unquestionably get it

Take it easy  - America has Britain's back ..period. It does'nt need to be announced - and if Bush or C.Rice did come out and talk tough right now they would get blasted by both the US and British press for trying to use this situation for their own benefit.

I'm sure Blair and Bush have already spoken about this, and Blair told him to lay low while they try to work it out -

Bush & Cheney have been salivating for a REASON to bomb those fucking nuke sites - 

Izzy, make up your mind, do you want the US getting involved in every international affair (as many people criticize us for doing) or can we just let other countries handle their own business from time to time.  Plus, as comamotive says i think it goes without saying the US would back the UK in a heartbeat.  This is probably GOOD news for Bush, Cheney and the rest of the cowboys on the ranch.

I like how it's all " NO WE WEREN'T IN ILLEGAL WATERS ! we were in Iraqi waters ! " ..... ahahah .

it's like " NO, Mr Judge, i was not stealing that house, i was stealing that other one ...." :)

do you realize how little sense your post makes?

Hmm...Iran gave an initial position of the arrest that is within Iraqi waters.  They later revised it so that it was in Iranian waters. 

So it's more like "Mr. Judge, we caught him at the crime scene, which is two miles from the crime scene."  Yeah...that makes sense.  Iranian credibility is low on this one. 


I agree with the other comments that their's an unspoken rule that the US has Britain's back.  If, God forbid, one of those sailor's showed up headless in some alley, there'd be Hell to pay (which is convenient for Iran, since the US is the Great Satan!).

This is wrong.  You can't fight a eight year war (Iran-Iraq war, 1980-1988) with "terrorists" as your army. 


Yes.  I agree.  Air superiority to win a war.  It didn't work in Vietnam.  It didn't work in Iraq.  But I'm SURE it'll work this time!  Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to use my second amendment rights to hunt the flying pigs outside.  ::)

i was joking Butters .... the invasion in iraq ....

As a Brit, the last thing I want (and probably the first thing Iran wants) is for the Bushies to get overtly involved. We may not be able to fight a war by ourselves but I would think we're a whole lot better at diplomacy - which is what is required right now.

Understandable for sure, but don't be so sure that diplomacy is going to work. You're dealing with a very crazy guy in Iran right now. If those Brits don't make it back to your soil, I would definitely understand why Blair would choose to handle this militarily.  And, I don't blame you for being gun-shy either about Bush, but if this thing gets ugly - trust me when I say you are going to be glad the U.S. has your back should you require assistance.

what scares me the most is that my generation, and little bit older, have no sense of what a world war means, and they are so deeply engaged in fantasy war movies and video games, that they don't really understand the impact of "taking a military action".

it's very scary.

UK will definitely need American assistance, if only to learn from them what not to do:

http://www.answers.com/operation%20eagle%20claw

There are degrees of involvement.....

What greatly angers me about this isnt what Iran did - its the cowardly surrender of the British forces

They were there to defend Iraqi territory and in the face of an invading force they gave up when they had 2 carrier groups in support

I hope they are court martialled upon release and thrown out of the army - they were there to fight and they cant even defend themselves!

They are utterly worthless to the Iraqi people they are there to protect

ahahah ahaha ahahah ahahh ahahh .... ah ..... ah .....hum.

There seems to be signs of a backdown by Iran today - we'll see how it unfolds. I'm not sure what unilateral military options Blair has really, which means it would come down to US help - and then you edge towards a war that probably elements of the US and Iranian leadership want and we (the UK) certainly don't.

Aren't you being a little hard on them?  You don't know exactly what happened out there. Don't assume that the Iranians approached them with a big flag sporting Iranian symbols and colors .  They could have been real friendly at first , then sent hundreds of armed ment aboard a vessel with only 15 to defend it.

dicks. not nukes. just like those tomahawk things, ones which can do some serious blowing up.

agreed - and fighting back could have escalated things in a heart beat.  they did the right thing by standing down and trying to resolve things diplomatically.  To me, whats ridiculous is how long its taking to get them home.

Eh, speak for yourself.  I think in the information age we live in we are seeing the ugly side of war.  We see the youtube videos of sadamm being hung, the videos of people being beheaded, of IEDs exploding, of marines getting sniped....its not glamorized at all - its real uncut, raw footage.

How much have we had to give up for being at war? Not much at all. Wars of decades past were much harder on the general population- food rationing, lesser availability of certain items was common- they even made pennies out of steel since they need the copper for bullets. Also, no person is forced to fight , there has not been a draft since Vietnam. We may not like the politics of war, but unless you are someone who has directly been affected by a loss or injury of someone you know or care about, we haven't suffered much compared to the WW2 generation or older baby boomers.

I agree with you GnRFL, but wat-ever was talking about war depicted in movies and video games.  Not many video games focus on food rationing or making pennies out of steel you know?  :hihi:    He was referring to the horror of war, the death, the destruction that is romanticized in movies and played in video games.  During most of WW2 dead bodies weren't even showed on film.  Compare that to vietnam where the news brought it into americans living room.  now compare it to the internet age - the horrors of war are a click and a download away.  even most of the recent war movies don't glamorize war but show how awful and terrible it can be, private ryan, black hawk down, we were soldiers....

sure there are some jack-offs out there who want to "kill em all" at the drop of a hat, but to think that our generation hasn't been exposed to the realities of war is wrong.

I'm curious...does anyone know if the female sailor taken captive is a Muslim?  Because, if not, I think it odd that they forced her to wear a headscarf.

(http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/070328/nn_maceda_iran_070328.vsmall.jpg)

If Western states forced foreign religious garb on Islamic captives, they'd shit.   

I don't think she's Muslim. They don't allow women to appear on TV without a headscarf, so yeah she was probably asked to wear one.

Yeah.  Asked.  The same way prisoners are "asked" to wear orange and to undergo cavity searches. 

If she's not Muslim, she should have "asked" them to go fuck themselves.

Not when she's "asked" by a bunch of gun carrying Iranian ninnies.  :hihi:

Iran is trying to blackmail the British by using their captured troops as a bargaining chip. How wrong is that? We were actually getting to a point where the US was starting to open some kind of dialogue with Iran regarding Iraq. I think it is obvious Iran can not be trusted, this confirms it. Iran has no interest in stability in the region or a stable democracy in Iraq ( which would not be a threat  to them). Iran is power hungry and wants to dominate the region. One of the biggest losers are the Iranian people, they have to live under that government.

As much as i disagree with their actions.

I am sick of hearing the west blaming their "enemies" anytime they do something wrong to us. This is so hypocrite.
We've been wrong doers for decades, and we expect our "enemies" to behave like angels.

Stability and peace, cannot be reached until there is a balanced equilibrium in a situation.

My point is you cannot ask some kid not to try to bite your arm while you're punching him the face.

Iran has very much interests in stability in Iraq. But not interest in having the west all tangled up in there. This will only lead to corrupt leaders who will please the west with one hand (security/anti-terrorist fights) and please chosen elites with the other (money, cash). This will not work.
Take Yemen for example, a stunning case of duplicity and hypocrisy. A political mess stuck between American orders (security) and Radicals society (its people like to hear about anti-usa ramble and anti-isreal policies)


The west need radically change the way they are involved over there. The new Human Rights Counsel at the UN is the way to go, stability to the people,  by the people.

Again, i hope these 15 soldiers will be released.
But then again, who is in guantanamo?

you make some great points, especially about guantanamo.

but lets be honest here, Iran aren't 100% innocent.  they've been sponsoring hezbollah for years now, a known world terrorist group.  they are definitely taking advantage of the clusterfuck that is Iraq and are trying to seize more power in the region.  The US under the Bush Regime is just as guilty of trying to seize power but two wrongs don't make a right.

their current actions are doing nothing more than to stir up more trouble - nothing good can come of this.  those troops should have been released by now.  Iran is simply flexing her muscles while pissing off the rest of the world (minus china and russia who will be Iran's allies in WW3).

as for western influence in the Mid East - we need to finally resolve the israeli/palestine conflict, find alternate fule sources and get the fuck outta there.

I agree with you to a large extent.  God knows that the US government is largely culpable for the way it's perceived around the world (especially in Latin America). 

Personally, I've never understood many of our foreign policies.  For example, the way to make China a more responsible state is to engage them, bring them into the world market, etc.  But the way to make Iran or Cuba more responsible is to ignore them as best we can?  We spend far too long licking our wounds over past mistakes (such as those with Iran and Cuba), when engaging them would be far more beneficial. 

That said, as bad as the US has been over the last 60 years, in terms of harmful foreign policies, there is a difference. 

When innocent Iranian (or Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim) civilians are killed, I do NOT charge into the street to fire my gun in the air in celebration while shouting "God is great.  Death to Islam."

When the Iranian government makes outrageous statements about the non-existence of the Holocaust, Western Jews (and others with at least half a brain) do not run to their local Persian rug store and burn it down.

That any American supports Palestinian independence is a miracle, when some of the first images from the Middle-East, on 9/11, were of Palestinians dancing in the streets and passing out free candy.

I take no joy when any of them die.  They relish such moments.  That's the difference. 

Well i see your point.

But (yes there is a but ... ;) )

these rejoyced blood-thirsty arabs you see on tv ARE your typical trailer park trash that hangs around with an american flag everywhere, not able to point out where australia is, and say things like "lets? nuke ragheads".

That's the case.
YOU are smart. YOU are not on Al-Jazeera TV because you dont matter.
Intelligent pacifist from Palestine are not on CNN (or fox). Because CNN wants you to think that all palestinian want to kill israeli and americans.
That all iranians want to kill you and make you believed in their god and make your wives wear the burka.

But NO. they just want to live on their own. Have water. Not to go through 45 checkpoints in their OWN land, not to see a WALL built in the desert.

1st step will be to discard the people who cannot reason (bush, Ahmadinejad, fox news, extremists)
When the smart and reasonable people will be the ONES talking, then we can achieve something.

Unfortunalty, the bad ones are in power. As long as Condoleeza Rice is in the game, we're stuck.
The people who can talk and think, are left out of the game.

Butters > 100% with you. Iran is nowhere to be an angel. israeli/palestine conflict is indeed key.

COMAMOTIVE > never said Iran is a victim. everybody is a victim. and don't be crying when you pay 45$ for gas, then you'll see the real impact of world war.

I certainly don't believe this of all Iranians (or Arabs or Muslims, for that matter).  But when you see people weeping over thousands of dead, one moment, and then see a jubilant crowd of Palestinians take to the streets to celebrate, it's an image that sticks with you.

Either way, you can't get anywhere by ignoring those with whom you disagree.   

Also, I disagree that resolving Israel-Palestine is a magic bullet to fixing the Middle-East.

We still face the basic problem that we can support oppressive regimes or, if we don't support them, risk their overthrow and replacement by more extremist elements.  Again, I echo the sentiment that getting off oil will be wonderful. 

...so if an Iranian brigade turns up in Baghdad it would be better for allied forces there to surrender and 'try to resolve things diplomatically'?

They were there to defend the area from enemies, enemies which included Iran

According to the reports they were ambushed as they climbed back aboard their boat with no chance to react

IDIOTS - thats what a LOOK OUT is for

They werent selling cookies, they were involved in a military operation and they dont think to have someone watching for trouble??

A brigade vs. 15 marines....yeah, i'd hope they surrender.  better to live then to die for no reason (kinda like the entire war).

From what I have been told by serving members and have read b4, standing orders for female personel in arab contries "off duty and outside the wire" is that they must respect teh customs of the local population. If that means they are to wear a head scarf then they wear a head scarf. In saudi if you are off duty and in the presence on local nationals you must be in full military dress, or be in (cant remember teh name) full body robe and vail to cover yourself completely. Now this may ahve changed in the recent times. Now with her appearing on TV.... she would be dressed "properly" in female muslim attire, and there would be no beaf about it as there are guns.... and well it would not be very high horse of us if we did flip

Bush has done nothing but provoke Iran, then cries foul when they react. At the same time, the administration is too clueless to engage Iran in any other fashion. Iran has been attempting to negotiate with us for years. The Bush administration has refused any and all suggestions to join them at the table.

And what of the irony that had we not interfered with internal matters in Iran over the past 50+ years, they might be our strongest ally in the region today?

so lets ban muslims from wearing there robe clothes they were (i have no idea what they are called)
As thats just the same forcing someone who does not believe in that religion to wear that head thing.

you must be very st*pid. it's a matter of culture not religion. and we have to be smart about it.
Do you know there are tribes in the world that walk around naked, if they come to Paris / NYC we asked them to dress, because that's how we do, we don't want people naked - and i'm glad.

Islamic countries ask women to hide their hair. That's all. It didnt kill that girl to put a scarf.

When XYZ culture goes against some local "way of life" they can be altered.
Example: in france, religious signs are NOT ALLOWED in school (scarf, cross, star of david ...).

You do realize, of course, that there's a difference between someone who leaves their "naked tribe" to visit a "clothing required" country, and someone who is kidnapped/captured, forced to wear a particular religious garb, and shown on television in violation of the Geneva Conventions? 

Forcing a captive to follow the mandates of a religion is wrong.  She isn't respecting local custom while on furlough.  She isn't "off duty and outside the wire."  She was (probably wrongly) taken captive and presumably forced to follow local religious custom.  If that's allowed, then I suppose we could swap out all the Korans in Guantanamo for Bibles.   

^^^ good point.

i kinda see both sides here though and don't think a big deal should be made about a scarf on her head.  the real issue is her and the other troops being taken in the first place.   i'm sure this is just fuel on the fire for a lot of Brits though and I dont' blame them for being pissed.

they are not depriving her rights, they are just making her follow local rules.
i really dont see the big deal, western journalists do that in these countries.

then again, she is fuckin military, i think she can take it ....

and you know, if BIG countries around the world were respectful to international law, it would show an example

How can a country like iran not behave like that when

- US and Israel keep voting against any UN resolution on Human Rights
- US / Europe ABDUCT people off the street
- US / Europe hold prisoners without justice


come ON.

She's a hostage being paraded on TV to make false statements under duress, how much more rights could she be deprived of.

Your hatred pours out of you

really? i didn't know that part of it....   That is f'ed up.

Iran was an ally until the Islamic revolution in 1979.

The US is an enemy because of actions just like the one we are facing today with the kidnapped British seamen. Reminds me of the hostage crisis 25 years ago. So to say Bush is responsible for Iran's aggression is absurd. 

Yep, they're concentrating on her as the only female. They've also made her write 3 letters which you can read here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6509581.stm

i was only talking about the scarf thing .... if you didnt notice ....

COMAMOTIVE > actually i'm sure i have WAY LESS hatred than you do. i can bet on that. but hey, think as you want.

Maybe - but then I guess I hide it better?  I don't know buggin' - but when it comes to things involving the USA - I don't see the objectivity there on your part

How can you possibly isolate her rights about the headscarf from the rest of it. It's not like she is in Iran on vacation and appearing on a TV chat show.

There's a difference between doing something voluntarily or for your job, and because someone who's taken you hostage makes you. 

For fucks sake, the last time Iran took prisoners, they were subjected to a mock execution, involving armed soldiers standing around a would-be mass grave.  Is that local custom?  Welcome to Iran!  Let's get that mock execution out of the way, then go to the museum!


Of course she can take it.  That's not the point.


I agree that the "big" countries need to show an example better than what they have.  But that's a poor excuse, and you know it.  By your logic, I should be allowed to murder my wife, because OJ did.  Just because there are instances when rules are broken, that does not justify further violations of those same rules.   

Here are some articles of the Third Geneva Convention:

Article 13: Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
---This is violated when she's forced to write letters and to "confess."  It's also violated when the sailors are shown on television.

Article 17: No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
---Again, probably violated to force the "confession."

and i agree with those articles.
do we follow them, us civilized countries ? often not.

as we say " hospital mocking the charity " - french saying

again, i condemn all of what the iranian is doing. but i was pointing that the scarf thing is REALLY NOT the focus point here.
there are more important matters in the issue.
 

There's certainly some of the pot calling the kettle black, and I agree it's not the main focus.  Just something that, if something similar were done to Muslim prisoners, would probably result in riots across the Middle East.

well, let's be smarter than them ragheads ;)

* i have DragonBall Z on Wii, i gotta play more now ! the go clubbin' *

PEACE

exactly thats all the point of this teh scarf is pointless and trivial to the overall discussion.

agin to make the point, the reason why we are not fussing about it.... is simply because of our "openess to others beleifs/customs" and we will abide by them as they are in teh eutopian ideal fine no matter how different they would be from our own........ to the point of human rights violations areas that would cause more tehn superficial psychological scaring.


there were a few mentions of teh geniva convention and how that Iran is violating the standards laid down with in it. since there is no war with Iran thenit does not fully apply..... yes they were taken hostage from another country with intent, howeverbased on Irans stance of illegal entrance then they are within their own right to proscute though it is a fabricated situation. The denying of access to consulte with their diplomatic rep's can get a bit intresting, though even with westren law if someone enters illegaly... "and are caught" they will be arrested and deported, or they can claim asslyum... lol... if they are entering to preform a criminal act they will be charged and locked up..... they will get access and counsel... and even access to thir own goverment reps.... but i start to wonder.... simply the convention really does not directly apply, but the basis should still be used as a guide to trement of prisioners regardless of the state of affairs and relations between the capturing country and the captured persons country

Of course, this ties in greatly with the captured combatants held at Guantanamo and elsewhere.  Technically, they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions, because they aren't part of an state military.  But I personally don't want to deny these protections to anyone based on such trivial issues, which were written in the early part of the 20th century, and are somewhat out of date.   

Now Iran wants to put the 15 sailors on trial for " violating  international law"

Wasn't international law violated when Iran put the British sailors on TV with coerced apologies?

see the Gitmo side is plain fucked.... because a vast majority of these POW's are from teh former state military, or thoes that fought on behalf of it. and they should be considered POWs. however the brits dont fall into that distenction as their is not state of hostilties present between Irand and Britian. So they are being held under local law. If britian interdicts with its military then the proper state of affairs exist and they become POWs.....

However i do agree with you that the GC needs to be overhauled and realined to a modren reality of warfare and enemies of the state.

you there are "Human Rights" too .... they cover a lot of things already ... we don't need a state of war to protect people.
well RightWingers don't like Human Rights anyway, cause it can slow down profit sometimes ;)

Where do you come up with your shit?  What you define as "human rights" is subjective at best.  The limit of a right or freedom is when it limits that of another.  The so called "rights" you espouse limit or hinder one segment of the population over another.  Doesn't that seem contradictory to rights?  Middle-Eastern nations that grasp no concept of human rights garner no attention from you, yet Western nations, namely the US, who founded the concept of human rights are the recipients of all your rhetoric and babble.  People don't have a right to equal health care because you would FORCE others to pay for the service of others.  People do have the right to life because you would be prohibiting someone from negatively affecting them.  You advocate alot of negative rights with no justification.  You continually refer to the military as a bunch of "kids" that don't know any better, but I think it's you that needs to put the video games aside and enter the real world.  There is a reason why your opinions are held by a laughable minority and often possess no capital.  The real leaders and decision makers know your ideas are about as plausible and realistic as the video games you play.

Bush calls on Iran to free U.K. sailors
AP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush&printer=1;_ylt=AjOtx21RDMZz.OJFAgr3FZgGw_IE

President Bush on Saturday said Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines was "inexcusable" and called for their immediate, unconditional release.

Bush said Iran plucked the sailors out of Iraqi waters. Iran's president said Saturday they were in Iranian waters and called Britain and its allies "arrogant and selfish" for not apologizing for trespassing.

"Iran must give back the hostages," Bush said at the Camp David presidential retreat, where he was meeting with the president of Brazil. "They're innocent. They did nothing wrong."

It was the first time that Bush had commented publicly on the captured Britons. Washington has taken a low-key approach to avoid aggravating tensions over the incident and shaking international resolve to get Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program.

Bush did not answer a question about whether the United States would have reacted militarily if those captured had been Americans. The president said he supports British Prime Minister Tony Blair's efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, now in its second week.

Bush would not comment about Britain's options if Iran does not release the hostages, but he seemed to reject any swapping of the British captives for Iranians detained in Iraq.

"I support the prime minister when he made it clear there were no quid pro quos," Bush said.

Like Bush's words, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments were his most extensive on the crisis. They tracked tough talk from other Iranian officials, an indication that Tehran's position could be hardening.

"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery," Iran's official news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise."

Britain, however, appeared to be easing its stance, emphasizing its desire to talk with Iran about what it termed a regrettable situation.

"I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said at a European Union summit in Bremen, Germany. "What we want is a way out of it."

Iran appeared unreceptive to possible talks with Britain.

"Instead of apologizing over trespassing by British forces, the world arrogant powers issue statements and deliver speeches," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in southeastern Iran.

The British sailors were detained by Iranian naval units March 23 while patrolling for smugglers near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that has long been a disputed dividing line between Iraq and Iran. Britain also insists the sailors were in Iraqi waters.

In London on Saturday, the political wing of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen Khalq said the capture was planned in advance and carried out in retaliation for U.N. sanctions over Iran's nuclear program. The group is listed as a terrorist group by Britain, the U.S. and the European Union.

Blair has expressed disgust that the captured service members had been "paraded and manipulated" in video footage released by Iran. He warned Tehran that it faced increasing isolation if it did not free them.

Britain has frozen most contacts with Iran. The U.N. Security Council has expressed "grave concern" about the incident. The EU has demanded the sailors' unconditional release and warned of unspecified "appropriate measures" if Tehran does not comply ? a position the Iranian Foreign Ministry called "bias and meddlesome."

Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a professor of politics in Tehran's Allameh University, said he's convinced that Iran is prepared to stand its ground and insist that the British violated Iranian territory.

"Iran will seriously continue the case and will put them on trial," Bakhshayesh said. "Only an apology by Britain can stop it. Iran thinks that Britons trespassed to test Iran's reaction, and now London is trying to isolate Tehran instead of apologizing."

But British officials are hopeful that diplomacy can resolve the crisis. The Foreign Office confirmed Saturday that Britain had replied to a letter received earlier in this week from the Iranian embassy. It declined to reveal the nature of either letter.

"We have been exchanging letters with the Iranian government, and we will continue to conduct or diplomatic discussions in private," a spokesman said on the government's customary condition of anonymity.

Iranian students target U.K. Embassy
About 200 students throw rocks, fire crackers; Britain weighs new dialogue

TEHRAN, Iran - About 200 students threw rocks and firecrackers at the British Embassy on Sunday, calling for the expulsion of the country?s ambassador because of the standoff over Iran?s capture of 15 British sailors and marines.

Several dozen policemen prevented the protesters from entering the embassy compound, although a few briefly scaled a fence outside the compound?s walls before being pushed back, according to an Associated Press reporter at the scene.

The protesters chanted ?Death to Britain? and ?Death to America? as they hurled stones into the courtyard of the embassy. They also demanded that the Iranian government expel the British ambassador and close down the embassy, calling it a ?den of spies.?

Britain?s Foreign Office said there had been no damage to the compound.

A British Foreign Office spokeswoman in London, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with government rules, said diplomats were working normally inside the embassy.

?There is a police presence outside and there is no risk to those inside,? said the spokeswoman.

Britain and Iran are at a standoff over the 15 seized sailors and marines. Britain said they were in Iraqi waters when detained, but Iran has contended the Britons entered its waters illegally.

British government and defense officials refused to discuss a report that claimed a Royal Navy captain or commodore would be sent to Tehran as a special envoy to negotiate the return of the personnel.

The official would deliver an assurance that British naval crews would never deliberately enter Iranian waters without permission, the Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported.

Transport Minister Douglas Alexander said Britain was engaged in ?exploring the potential for dialogue with the Iranians.?

?The responsible way forward is to continue the often unglamorous, but important and quiet diplomatic work to get our personnel home,? Alexander told the British Broadcasting Corp.?s Sunday AM program.

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett appeared to soften rhetoric against Iran Saturday ? though she stopped far short of the apology sought by many in Iran.

?I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen,? Beckett said in Bremen, Germany, before returning to England. ?What we want is a way out of it.?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17896952/
*************************************************************************

Yeah, talk about not getting the point.  The idea that someone is protesting the British in this is truly hysterical.  :rofl:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html

The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, the main U.S. military outpost in Iraq's eastern Diyala Province bordering Iran, U.S. troops recount events reluctantly, offering details only on condition that they remain nameless. Everyone seems to sense the possible consequences of revealing that a clash between U.S. and Iranian forces had turned deadly. And although the Pentagon has acknowledged that a firefight took place, it says it cannot say anything more. "For that level of detail, you're going to have to ask the [U.S.] military in Baghdad," says Army Lieut. Col. Mark Ballesteros. "We don't know anything about it."

A short Army press release issued on the day of the skirmish offered the following information: U.S. soldiers from the 5th Squadron 73rd Cavalry 82nd Airborne were accompanying Iraqi forces on a routine joint patrol along the border with Iran, about 75 miles east of Baghdad, when they spotted two Iranian soldiers retreating from Iraqi territory back into Iran. A moment later, U.S. and Iraqi forces came upon a third Iranian soldier on the Iraqi side of the border, who stood his ground. As U.S. and Iraqi soldiers approached the Iranian officer and began speaking with him, a platoon of Iranian soldiers appeared and moved to surround the coalition patrol, taking up positions on high ground. At that point, according to the Army's statement, the Iranian captain told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that if they tried to leave they would be fired on. Fearing abduction by the Iranians, U.S. troops moved to go anyway, and fighting broke out. Army officials say the Iranian troops fired first with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, and that U.S. troops fell further back into Iraqi territory, while four Iraqi army soldiers, one interpreter and one Iraqi border guard remained in the hands of the Iranians.

The official release says there were no casualties among the Americans, and makes no mention of any on the Iranian side. U.S. soldiers present at the firefight, however, tell TIME that American forces killed at least one Iranian soldier who had been aiming a rocket-propelled grenade at their convoy of Humvees.

The revelation comes amid rising tensions over the past week since Iran captured 15 British Navy personnel in waters between Iran and Iraq. Analysts have suggested that some Iranian officials have argued against speedily returning the Brits, preferring to use them as a bargaining chip in Tehran's efforts to free five of its own officials captured by the U.S. in Erbil earlier this year. News that an Iranian soldier had been killed in a clash with American forces would do little to ease those tensions.

In the months after the incident, U.S. forces have kept up joint patrols on the Iran-Iraq border, where their movements are closely monitored by Iranian outposts. Increasingly, however, U.S. troops stationed in Diyala Province are moving to help counter-insurgency efforts in the Baqubah area, leaving a thinner American presence at the border. On some days, says Lt. Col. Ronald Ward, the U.S. commander tasked with helping Iraqi units maintain border security in the area, no U.S. troops appear there at all.

I know Butters will get off and shout me as an anti semite pro nazi pro islam anti christian pro iran .... whatever ... but Iran DID turn all this issue at their advantage.
It was a very well handled diplomatic process.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain

The suspicious British and American silence and well-mannered handling of the situation tells a lot about the real truth ...

anyway, Iran, Usa, Israel .. fucked up countries i tell you :) most hated countries in the world according to bbc ;)

What is "the real truth"?

hahaha any other assumptions you want to make about me?  Maybe you're just being passive aggressive about your true nature??  Think about it bud.

I find it funny that you think coerced confessions and taking prisoners using false accustions is "handling it well".   ::)

I was just saying, that the played it well - in the sense that they got away with it.

Butters i ain't making assumption about you, just teasing you about the fact that you love to see me as an anti semite, nazi anti american anti capitalist (i'll give you that one) anti israel mofo :)

We can argue about the issue, but i personnaly think that Iran got away with the story pretty easily, and managed to turned it at their advantages (engaging diplomatic talks, making the international community forget about the nuclear ....)

Diplomatically, or strategically it was well played.

Real truth : meaning we don't what happened. iranian waters? Iraqi waters? mission ? behind the scenes talk ....

i don't think ANYONE forgot about the nuclear program, this incident only exacerbated it.  I'm sure it made UK citizens angry and only helps the US in telling the world how dangerous Iran can be.

As for you being an anti-semite, anti-US - i don't need to say it, you do a fine job on your own of letting people know  : ok:

I dont see the way you do. The output of this little crisis i say.

On the last sentence ... blah.

Thats the smartest thing I've ever heard you say  :hihi:  :peace:

The UK has/had a better diplomatic relationship with Iran (having embassies) and is more pro-Palestinian than the US. And with the UK as the US most likely "go to" ally if there is any "multilateral" military action because of the nuclear program, but also the most likely buffer against it, parading UK sailors/marines on TV with coerced confessions was pretty dumb. No one who doesn't already hate the US is going to buy the pardoning bullshit.

I'm very happy that no violence or military action was caused by this - and I am thrilled that the guys are ok, but c'mon - Am I the only one who feels a little creeped out that these guys had to apologize and thank this little ass-pirate on National TV for being allowed to go home after they were fucking kidnapped? >:( >:( >:( >:(

Glad they are free and safe now!  : ok:

we'll never know what was said behind the scenes.  I would wager the UK said if you don't release them we will flatten some buildings.  Iran then said, fine, but you need to let us release your men without losing face with our hard-liners.  So the marines apologize, but not the UK itself...... 

Like someone else said, nice to see this not escalate.

 :beer: On British soil!  :beer:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264181,00.html

(http://www.foxnews.com/images/274983/0_62_040407_uk_saildor_airport.jpg)

Is that Giovanni Ribisi on the bottom right?

i dont know man. i think these kinda of thoughts / opinions are the reasons the world is so tensed. if *even* the mainstream public thinks that issues can / are managed with violence and menaces we're doomed.

and that arrogant power supremacy is out protection. it took us nowhere.

but, i guess the MI5 knows better and thinks otherwise ...

glad they're home anyway. PEACE

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1259413,00.html

The captain in charge of the 15 marines detained in Iran has said they were gathering intelligence on the Iranians.

Sky News went on patrol with Captain Chris Air and his team in Iraqi waters close to the area where they were arrested - just five days before the crisis began.

We withheld the interview until now so it would not jeopardise their safety.

And today, former Iranian diplomat Dr Mehrdad Khonsari said if the Iranians had known about it, they would have used it to "justify taking the marines captive and put them on trial".

Captain Air and his team were on an 'Interaction Patrol' where their patrol boats came alongside fishing dhows.

The operation was mainly to investigate arms smuggling and terrorism but Captain Air said it was also to gain intelligence on Iranian activity.

He told Sky Correspondent Jonathan Samuels: "Basically we speak to the crew, find out if they have any problems, let them know we're here to protect them, protect their fishing and stop any terrorism and piracy in the area," he said.

"Secondly, it's to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us.

"Whether it's about piracy or any sort of Iranian activity in the area. Obviously we're right by the buffer zone with Iran."

The UK Defence Secretary Des Browne told Sky News it was important to gather intelligence to "keep our people safe".

He said: "Modern military operations all have an element of gathering intelligence.

"We need to understand as much as we can about the environment we operate in and intelligence gathering is an every day part of that."

He added: "The UN mandate would clearly empower the military taskforce to gather information about the environment in which they were working."

Captain Air said that fishing dhows had been robbed by Iranian soldiers on a number of occasions.

"It's good to gather int on the Iranians," he said.

Fifteen sailors and marines were taken captive nearly two weeks ago after the Iranian government claimed they had strayed into their waters.