UK sailors captured at gunpoint by Iranian Forces

Again you are a base hypocrite.

If these waters were not Iraqi or Iranian then the UN mandate to search shipping applied. If the waters were definable they were Iraqi and the UN mandate ran.

If this was international waters then the UK's actions were legit.

Ahh, but then you wouldnt want to let the need for a consistant legal or moral standpoint get in the way of banging your drum would you?

hehehe I'm always on the minority side. ;)

If they weren't defined you can't say whether they were International, Iranian, Iraqi or Swiss for that matter. All you can say is that the British came out all guns blazing, loading the cannons with tripe and certainty but it seems reason and prudence may have been better ammunition after all!

I was starting to wonder if someone had hacked the GPS system but it seems Quiet Sound has a more parsimonious explanation.:goodjob:
 
It does seem these waters are disputed. It sounds to me like the Iraqis and Iranians need to move to the table or the Iranians should let these sailors go till this border is settled.

Ib 1639, the Persians and Ottomans signed an agreement dividing the territory, but without a careful land survey. Bickering continued for centuries, with Iraq claiming the entire waterway right up to the Iranian shoreline.

In 1975, however, the two countries signed a treaty recognizing the middle of the waterway as the international boundary. Five years later, Saddam Hussein tore up the treaty and invaded Iran, unleashing a devastating eight-year war.

Much of the fighting centered around the waterway. When the Iranians captured the Faw Peninsula on the southern end of the channel in 1987, Iraq lost its shipping lanes and had to turn to Kuwait and Jordan for help in exporting its products.

.....

It is up to each country to decide their borders," said Farhan Haq, a U.N. spokesman. "The United Nations does not draw borders. What the recognized borders are in that waterway is the decision of Iran and Iraq."

But Tehran and the new Iraqi government have never signed a treaty to replace the Shah of Iran's agreement with Saddam, meaning control of the waterway remains a matter of dispute, said Lawrence G. Potter, an associate professor of international affairs at Columbia University.

"The problem is that nobody knows where the border is," Potter said. "The British might have thought they were on their side, the Iranians might have thought they were on their side."

For the Iranians, who have a much longer coastline, exercising their claims to the area is both emotional and strategic. The Iranian cities of Abadan and Khorramshahr lie along the waterway.

Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, said the Iranian interest in defending its claims explains the move against the British.

"The only reason they would do what they've done is to show that they feel strongly about those waters," he said. "This is the sort of thing they will want to ratchet down very quickly."

The sailors' commander said they were patrolling Iraqi waters, on the Iraqi government's behalf.

Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that he doubted that the Iranians would risk harming their relationship with the Iraqi government over the waterways.

"There's always been a dispute about where the line is, but it returned to status quo since the end of the war in 1988," said Telhami. "They have a good relationship with the Iraqi government right now, so it would be surprising if they wanted to open border issues with them at this point."

With tensions high over Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, and recent U.S. detentions of Iranians in Iraq, Potter said, Iran may have found a way to assert itself internationally without provoking serious repercussions.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/16962931.htm
 
Yes, I'll happily admit I was wrong to simplify the border situation so much earlier in the thread! However obviously if they are in contention that doesn't give Iran the right to arrest UN-mandated patrollers in the area, but it is worth considering.
 
Those waters have always been disputed. I said this in my first post here. These borders have been disputed for longer than some CFC posters have been alive.
 
Which is why you think we should kidnap 200 of the public and murder a whole lot more of them?

Murder? Interesting choice of words, it tells a lot about you.

International politics is based on reciprocity. Iran started this so it is natural that Iran should face consequences.

Unfortunately it is impossible to differentiate between the government and the population. It didn't stop your country from "murdering" (you chose this word, not me) hundreds of thousands of German civilians by indiscriminate carpet bombing of German cities.

I object to the American government, and to some extent, my government. Does that mean that I should murder people for my cause? Of course not. That's exactly what terrorists have done. The attacks in the UK and the US killed members of the public because they opposed the government and its actions. How does this make you any different from them?

You live in a fantasy world of moral relativism, like many people on this forum.

If the UK punished Iran by force, it would be justified, since Britain has been in fact attacked by Iran. On the other hand, terrorists like the ones who bombed London were fanatics, who targeted innocent people in order to promote their anti-western, anti-liberal, simply evil agenda.

These are two completely separate and unrelated things. If you're making this comparison, again, it tells something about you.
 
Whaaaaa like a baby. Regardless of the sufferings of others, US media censorship and propaganda exists. What does it matter that it has been, and is still worse in other nations?

I am just saying that you obviously don't have any idea what does "censorship" and "propaganda" mean.
 
Unfortunately it is impossible to differentiate between the government and the population. It didn't stop your country from "murdering" (you chose this word, not me) hundreds of thousands of German civilians by indiscriminate carpet bombing of German cities.

You live in a fantasy world of moral relativism, like many people on this forum.

If the UK punished Iran by force, it would be justified, since Britain has been in fact attacked by Iran. On the other hand, terrorists like the ones who bombed London were fanatics, who targeted innocent people in order to promote their anti-western, anti-liberal, simply evil agenda.

These are two completely separate and unrelated things. If you're making this comparison, again, it tells something about you.

I'd disagree with you - the standards must be applied to both sides or they are worthless. "Justification" cannot be considered because during times of conflict both sides usually beleive they're "right". When pissed off, either it IS ok to "not differentiate between the government and the population" or it is NOT ok. Anything else is hypocrisy.
 
Iran is practically a neo liberal goverment. I beleive you mean anti conservatism.
 
Murder? Interesting choice of words, it tells a lot about you.
About me? I was just interpreting what you put in some of your posts:

Iran needs to be punished for this insolence. Give them 3 days to hand over your sailors, and if they fail to comply, arrest 10 times as much Iranians and hold them until they release them. If that doesn't work too, start throwing bombs at them.

International politics is based on reciprocity. Iran started this so it is natural that Iran should face consequences.
Well if they did enter Iranian waters then it's effectively an illegal invasion, whether its accidental or not. Iran isn't doing anything illegal by not releasing them. But of course, I think Iran should face consequences if they fail to comply with UK demands.

Unfortunately it is impossible to differentiate between the government and the population. It didn't stop your country from "murdering" (you chose this word, not me) hundreds of thousands of German civilians by indiscriminate carpet bombing of German cities.
That's what happens during wars where the existence of your country is threatened so severely. We were at war with Germany, we're not at war with Iran.

You live in a fantasy world of moral relativism, like many people on this forum.

If the UK punished Iran by force, it would be justified, since Britain has been in fact attacked by Iran. On the other hand, terrorists like the ones who bombed London were fanatics, who targeted innocent people in order to promote their anti-western, anti-liberal, simply evil agenda.

These are two completely separate and unrelated things. If you're making this comparison, again, it tells something about you.
Britain has not been attacked by Iran, therefore it's hardly justified. Making up these "facts" doesn't make your point true.
 
I'd disagree with you - the standards must be applied to both sides or they are worthless. "Justification" cannot be considered because during times of conflict both sides usually beleive they're "right". When pissed off, either it IS ok to "not differentiate between the government and the population" or it is NOT ok. Anything else is hypocrisy.

It's not about if it is OK or not, it is about whether it is possible, and the answer is obviously "no".

On the other point: standards favour the undemocratic regimes. They've become very proficient in abusing the standards Western countries created after WW2 to evade justice.

I am not buying that. I'll trust a democratic, liberal country over a dictatorship any day and I'll support it in any fight with dictatorship (no matter what form does it have), and I don't care what standards or international law say.

Undemocratic regimes deserve nothing, they have no legitimacy.
 
About me? I was just interpreting what you put in some of your posts:

You did a bad job then.

Well if they did enter Iranian waters then it's effectively an illegal invasion, whether its accidental or not. Iran isn't doing anything illegal by not releasing them. But of course, I think Iran should face consequences if they fail to comply with UK demands.

They were not there.

I have a small advice for you: when an undemocratic country says something is true, it is usually false. When it says something it did was just, it is usually unjust.

Undemocratic regimes lie all the time.

Anyway, even if they were in Iranian waters, Iran has no right to treat them like this and abuse them for its own propaganda, it's a breach of Geneva conventions.

That's what happens during wars where the existence of your country is threatened so severely. We were at war with Germany, we're not at war with Iran.

So you say it was OK - to throw incendiary bombs on innocent German women, children and old people (because no able bodied men were left there), for no military purpose, solely as a revenge for what they did during the Blitz? And BTW, most of the worst bombing happened in 1944, when Britain's existence was not threatened.

Now, when we uncovered your hypocrisy, let's get back to Iran. The fact that any war would hurt also the Iranian civilians is by no means a relevant argument. War is by its very nature destructive and it always hurts innocent people. But it is sometimes the only way how to force a state to comply when diplomacy failed.

Britain has not been attacked by Iran, therefore it's hardly justified. Making up these "facts" doesn't make your point true.

Who's making up facts?

Iran illegally seized British sailors. It refused to hand them back, it abuses them for its propaganda, it threatens to try them for espionage, which means they might be executed.

This is casus belli. It has always been. How many times do I need to repeat it, before some people understand this basic matter of fact?
 
WHOA! This whole water territory disturb is a red herring. Like wow really. I seen the maps the UK laid out to show where they say their people were, Today I seen the maps Iran laid out to show were they say the 15 people were at. If you look at the maps you will see both sets claim the same boarders for the water ways.

So until Iran starts claiming that the the coordinates the UK gave is in Iran's waters, we can table this side topic as it was no bases. If and when Iran claims the UK coordinates are Iran's waters and not Iraq's, then we may have something to talk about, but right now it isn't anything else other then a red herring.

All i have is youtube for a link, but its Iran's TV news http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULcXAJ_wgjo&mode=related&search=
 
Undemocratic regimes lie all the time.

British government I'd like to introduce you to Mr Bare-Faced Lie.
Mr Bare-Faced Lie the British government.

Oh you've met already!

You shared a bunk at Eton?

:)

I'm not sure it's true that 'democratic' governments lie less than others. In fact, if you have some form of democracy, the lie is the principal tool of government backed up by propaganda. Dictators don't need to lie because the people have no choice. Of course they still lie but that's out of habit.

I don't think that people who have manoeuvred themselves into office using the media and the ballot box are any more honest than those that have manoeuvred themelves into power using the party system.
 
WHOA! This whole water territory disturb is a red herring. Like wow really. I seen the maps the UK laid out to show where they say their people were, Today I seen the maps Iran laid out to show were they say the 15 people were at. If you look at the maps you will see both sets claim the same boarders for the water ways.

So until Iran starts claiming that the the coordinates the UK gave is in Iran's waters, we can table this side topic as it was no bases. If and when Iran claims the UK coordinates are Iran's waters and not Iraq's, then we may have something to talk about, but right now it isn't anything else other then a red herring.

Good point, Woody. But Xen and some others are so keen to see the fault lying with the UK government that they will grab onto anything as proof that we're being lied to and that the Iranian action is justified.
 
if you have some form of democracy, the lie is the principal tool of government backed up by propaganda.

That is a seriously jaundiced view you got there, Xen. It's the sort of thing which goes down very well with the anarchists I used to hang around with when I was a student, but I doubt that your base assumptions are shared by much of the UK population.

Governments do lie, but totalitarian ones can find it very easy to make it a constant habit. Democratic ones can get completely garroted by those lies that they make becoming uncovered. Compare the North Korean approach (lie - all the time - about everything) with the reaction to Watergate.
 
BBC just told that navy crew is going to be freed "as a gift to Britain". Not sure about the timetable, or if the promise helds this time. They're still showing live feed from Tehran.

Ok, should be "after the news conference".
 
I'm not sure it's true that 'democratic' governments lie less than others. In fact, if you have some form of democracy, the lie is the principal tool of government backed up by propaganda. Dictators don't need to lie because the people have no choice. Of course they still lie but that's out of habit.

No. Even dictatorships have to base their power on something. Dictatorships often have well funded institutions brainwashing their people.

But Iran is neither totalitarian or a complete dictatorship, people there still have influence over the governments decision.
 
BBC just told that navy crew is going to be freed "as a gift to Britain". Not sure about the timetable, or if the promise helds this time. They're still showing live feed from Tehran.

Ok, should be "after the news conference".

Looks like Britains 'softy softy nudge nudge' tactic has worked then.
 
Looks like Britains 'softy softy nudge nudge' tactic has worked then.

Has it? Or did the threat of harsher actions change their mind. Or has Amadinadeuchbag used the release as pure propaganda to make him self look good for his people as he releases his hostages for easter and the birthday of mohamed like its some kind of gift.
 
Has it? Or did the threat of harsher actions change their mind. Or has Amadinadeuchbag used the release as pure propaganda to make him self look good for his people as he releases his hostages for easter and the birthday of mohamed like its some kind of gift.

Well they are being released, and hardliners certainly wont be happy in Iran. So yes it has worked, now I am not saying what the softly softly approach was all peaceful by the british it may have included threats, in fact it was only yesterday blair said the next 48 hours are critical so i am guessing he clearly knew something.
 
Back
Top Bottom