Iran making same mistake as Iraq

[BBC-B Get'in'mah'bell-E]

I’m of the belief that Iran WANTS a war with the West. They possibly do already have nuclear devices too; if only small yield field weapons bought from Russia/China.

As far as I’m concerned Iran is attempting to flex its muscles to impress the Arab world, proving the West to (so far) be ineffective against it. You know what, its currently succeeding – I have never seen Britain look so impotent and it’s a shame.

Other people may be willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt – I won’t, they hate the West and the way they have used the captives show’s them to be a rouge state that has little concern for humanitarian behaviour, even less a reason we should want them to have nuclear technology. Lets not forget the clear threat to Israel they made.

This is likely (in my personnel view) the start of a wider middle-east conflict, now involving Iraq, Afghanistan, USA and with the statement from the EU – twenty seven European nations. Like I said, just the –start- so at the moment its all diplomatic talk. If it were to go physical however; nations covering a large part of the world have taken sides. My fear being; and dear lord I hope I’m wrong, this could be the pre-cursor to a global conflict.

To the hard core liberals, I said these are just my views – no need to get offensive if you don’t agree with them.

[Kronos]

Well let's face it, Iraq II-the second blasting was a push over because they were fucked from the first war. If they are stupid enough to go to war AGAIN and ALONE we are all fucked, Iran won't take this layin down and well when the missiles hit Israel we're all fucked and say hello to world war 3!. We're due a world war about now aren't we anyway, after a while the human race needs to screw itself. Subconscious self imposed population control of the male of the species init


*consciencious objector*

[Darth Bungle]

Just as a point of information.

America kidnapped, I don't think there is any other word for it, five diplomats from the Iranian embassy/consulate in Iraq in January.

No Iranian official has seen them, no-one has heard from them, we do not know what conditions they have been kept in.

Say what you like about Iran, but you have to admit that there are no obvious signs that the captured soldiers have been treated badly, just imagine if the images had shown them being paraded around hooded and in shackles, like the prisoners at Guantamo, then the outrage that would be justified.

Showing captured soldiers on tv is inhuman? I don't think so, do we forget the human pyramids of Abu Gharab? Compared to how our allies treat prisoners I think the Iranians have conducted themselves well.

[kalmar]

Just as a point of information.

America kidnapped, I don't think there is any other word for it, five diplomats from the Iranian embassy/consulate in Iraq in January.

No Iranian official has seen them, no-one has heard from them, we do not know what conditions they have been kept in.

Really? I hadn't heard anything about that.. Why are the Iranians not making the fairly reasonable point about giving their lads back?

I agree with the other points though. We (well, the US) don't have a leg to stand on.

[Darth Bungle]

I was wrong...

It was six Iranians:

US Iraq raid draws Iranian anger
Iraq map
US forces have stormed a building in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six people said to be Iranians, prompting a diplomatic incident.

Iranian and Iraqi officials said the building was an Iranian consulate and the detainees its employees.

The US military said it was still investigating, but that the building did not have diplomatic status.

The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to local media.

AFP news agency quoted Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman as saying he did not know the nationality of the six but said they were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces".

"I can confirm for you through our forces there that this is not a consulate or a government building," he said.

However, Tehran said the attack violated all international conventions. It has summoned ambassadors from Switzerland, representing US interests, and Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 251167.stm

I am pretty sure that the people captured in this raid have not been released, at least I cannot remember reading anything to indicate they had been.

Maybe the Iranians are asking about these people, who knows...

[edit]

I found a quote from Commodore Nick Lambert, the Royal Navy commander of the operation on which the Marines were captured:

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated."

And this from Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan and former head of the maritime section of the British Foreign Office, who has considerable experience negotiating disputes over borders extending into the sea.

"The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree on their bilateral boundary, and they have never done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force...Anyway, the UK was plainly wrong to be ultra-provocative in disputed waters...

"They [the British Marines] would under international law have been allowed to enter Iranian territorial waters if in "hot pursuit" of terrorists, slavers, or pirates....But they were looking for smuggled vehicles attempting to evade car duty. What has the evasion of Iranian or Iraqi taxes got to do with the Royal Navy?"

[BBC-B Get'in'mah'bell-E]

The treatment of Abu Gharab detainees during that period (I’ll presume it got better after the scandal) was wrong – and deserves no defence. The situation isn’t the same however.
The numbers of captives differ considerably and we were in a state of war, fighting an insurgent army.
It also wasn’t the state that chose to display them on TV.

The state (and that words important) of Iran has chosen to use these illegally detained individuals for its own political gain. They may look healthy, but I bet they are saying what they are on Iranian TV out of duress.

Regarding the Iranian captives held by the US, the evidence of Iran providing equipment to the insurgents looks strong. So I’ll play the game of “giving the benefit of the doubt", now has anyone thought that the US may have good reason for detaining these people?

[Darth Bungle]

I would presume very little with regards American treatment of prisoners. Let us also not forget that the civilian death rate in Iraq is running at a mere 3,000 or so a month.

You make a good point with regards the state and the displaying of pictures of Abu Ghraib. If the American state had it's way then those pictures would never have been shown!

I have no doubt that the British prisoners are being forced to say what they have been, but what is inherently wrong about showing them on tv?

It shows to everyone that they are alive and well, I fail to see how this is 'barbaric' or 'inhumane'.

The US may well have good reason for detaining those people, if that is the case then why is it unreasonable to presume that Iran might have good reasons for detaining the navy personnel?

[Kemper_Boyd]

Other people may be willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt – I won’t, they hate the West and the way they have used the captives show’s them to be a rouge state that has little concern for humanitarian behaviour, even less a reason we should want them to have nuclear technology. Lets not forget the clear threat to Israel they made.

I don't think it's about hatred of the West, though they use that as part
of their propaganda, it's about capitalising on the disarray in Iraq to
become the leading power in the region. One of the fears the US has is
that if Iran gets the bomb Saudi Arabia and Egypt will follow. Saudi
Arabia already has the ballistic missiles, and there has been concern that
they also had contact with A. Q. Khan.

[Darth Bungle]

A cynic might suggest that American foreign (and perhaps to a greater extent domestic) policy is based on hatred of blacks, browns, non-Christians and poor people...

That or unfettered worship at the altar of Mammon.

But let's keep this about Iran.

A cynic might also suggest that America is looking for any excuse to attack Iran. For what reason I do not know because if they do attack Iran - and let's face it America will start this, Iran may be bellicose but they're not *that* crazy - it could actually spell disaster for American troops, and not just Iranian civilians.

History kind of paints America as the agressor and not Iran, I think I am correct in saying that Iran has not started a war in about 200 years.

Now let's ask how many wars and coups America has started or organised over the last 200 years...

Then let us ask who is more likely to want to start another war in the middle east?

Iran would get hammered, big time by American air power, they'd be able to fight back and cause a lot of damage to American troops - not civilians. But on the other hand they would most likely face some heavy civilian casualties and as one of the prime functions of a state is to protect it's citizens it would not be in Iran's interests to start a war with America. That's not to say they shouldn't be ready for one if it comes.

[BBC-B Get'in'mah'bell-E]

History kind of paints America as the agressor and not Iran, I think I am correct in saying that Iran has not started a war in about 200 years.

America has a history of meddling, true to be sure.

Regarding your comment on Iran there, I have to ask if you factored in Iran’s current president. Because the statements he made regarding Israel puts him on a par with old Adolf in the crazy genocide killer stakes.

So your right (perhaps.. . I’ll have to read up on Iranian history) They probably haven’t started a war in the last 200 years, then they’ve only been acting a little crazy since the mid 70’s so lets give them time.

[Darth Bungle]

Meddling is a bit of an understatement...

Ah, the 'wiping Israel off the map' comment... I was wondering when that would get mentioned. I've been saving this for a rainy day:

The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

What did he mean? In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the "occupying regime" in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, "This too shall pass."

From 'Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth' http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e14733.htm

But would the western media wilfully mistranslate or misconstrue the words of the Iranian president to increase hostility towards his country?

Perish the thought [/Chopper]

[kalmar]

America has a history of meddling, true to be sure.

Regarding your comment on Iran there, I have to ask if you factored in Iran’s current president.

A nut he may be, but apparently he has about as much political clout in their system as Boris Johnston, so I wouldn't worry about it.

[edit] Read Darth B's post. Blimey, I am learning stuff today

[arron]

[I don't think it's about hatred of the West, though they use that as part
of their propaganda, it's about capitalising on the disarray in Iraq to
become the leading power in the region. One of the fears the US has is
that if Iran gets the bomb Saudi Arabia and Egypt will follow. Saudi
Arabia already has the ballistic missiles, and there has been concern that
they also had contact with A. Q. Khan.

I think that is one of the things that is overlooked - that there are various local power struggles in the Middle East which are ongoing. As Hugo Chavez has found, oil and standing up to larger countries can go together, and do your local reputation no harm at all.

I would imagine that Syria, certain Saudi backed groups and Iran are all making territorial hay whilst the chaos shines. Having oil certainly makes you more difficult to oppose.

[ddraig]

Adam Curtis's 3rd installment of his latest series called The Trap (you can catch it on google video) does a great job of describing how some of the Iranian Shia adopted a revolutionary & radical political ideology after the Western backed overthrow of the populist Mossadeqh in Iran, which brought in the Shah.

Isnt it an odd circumstance that a BBC film crew happened to be on board the HMS Cromwell and filmed a human interest interview with the lady marine just a few days (EDIT: A few hours even?) before she was captured, which got broadcast immediately? Probably just a weird coincidence.

As far as Iraqi WMD, its been shown that the administration wilfully ignored CIA reports (as well a UN weapon inspectors) that there was nothing there. Allegedly Valerie Plame was part of an active CIA op which was trying to stop black market sales of NCB weapons in the region when she was outed.

[Crystal_sword]

Let me clear a few misconceptions.

Iran

Ah, the 'wiping Israel off the map' comment... I was wondering when that would get mentioned. I've been saving this for a rainy day:

The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Yep, agreed.

---------

I do say, as much as i dont like Iran, i Really Don't think USA or the UK can be pointing fingers at any country these days. What with its credibility being a little dodgy.