Iran making same mistake as Iraq

[Space Cowboy]

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

Are there any liberals here? I thought the prevalent viewpoint was more left-wing/socialist?

[snaff]

The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.

But there are two colossal problems.

A) 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 their bilateral boundary, and they never have 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.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2 ... ime_b.html

[Space Cowboy]

What a crock; there isn't an agreed boundary except for ... when it suits the Iranians to say the British soldiers were inside it. As for measuring it, err, you've just said it's fake so what is the point of measuring it?

So when is your one-way ticket booked for Iran? Get away from this oppressive and lawless regime, eh?

[snaff]

What a crock; there isn't an agreed boundary except for ... when it suits the Iranians to say the British soldiers were inside it. As for measuring it, err, you've just said it's fake so what is the point of measuring it?

So when is your one-way ticket booked for Iran? Get away from this oppressive and lawless regime, eh?

This is a false dichotomy. The point is that it is not only Iran who wants to present the issue as a simple one of boundary incursion, but the British too, and this when it is quite clearly not a simple issue. Why are we being told that it is a simple issue?

Further, it means that either side can easily raise the ambiguity of the boundary as justification for their actions without losing face, as a diplomatic means to defuse the situation. I'm less concerned with Iran's motives, but would like to know why my government doesn't want to bring a quick and peaceful resolution to this.

[Viscount Charles]

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.

Bollocks.

Firstly you completely ignore what has been done - physically or mentally - to get those people "prepared" for the cameras. Treating them humanely will NOT persuade a UK serviceman (or woman) to willingly be used for propaganda purposes on TV.

It's also inhuman (and somewhat provocative) to parade them on TV. The purpose of that is so clearly NOT to persuade the families at home that loved ones are fit and well - a consular access visit would do that. No, it's propaganda - to win support amongst the Iranian people by justifying an act of war, and to undermine the troops' support here in the UK. The fact that Iran doesn't understand that the footage achieves the opposite is just another example of their misjudgment. And of course this sort of material would be illgal under the Geneva Convention, *if* we actually were at war with Iran.

I agree that the move was a setup. I also agree that it was probably done to put pressure on the US over the Iranian diplomat "kidnapping" (as well as showing the UK to be pretty weak). Which is another mis-judgment - the US won't release any prisoners just because some "limeys" got nabbed.

One smart move was picking on UK soldiers, though. If the Iranians had tried the same with US personnel, then there would most likely have been a gun battle there and then. And *if* any of the Americans had been captured, the B52s would have been in the air within 24 hours, loaded for bear. I'm not saying that either would be a good thing, of course, but Iran would have known that the Americans would shoot first, send diplomatic protests later. Whereas we send a strongly worded letter of complaint. "Stop, or I'll shout stop again" comes to mind.

[Space Cowboy]

What a crock; there isn't an agreed boundary except for ... when it suits the Iranians to say the British soldiers were inside it. As for measuring it, err, you've just said it's fake so what is the point of measuring it?

So when is your one-way ticket booked for Iran? Get away from this oppressive and lawless regime, eh?

This is a false dichotomy. The point is that it is not only Iran who wants to present the issue as a simple one of boundary incursion, but the British too, and this when it is quite clearly not a simple issue. Why are we being told that it is a simple issue?

I believe that is what I was saying, that it's a false dichotomy, but then I wasn't the one to bring it up in an effort to justify the actions of Iran. I don't really know why people should be seeking to justify those actions, but then when certain sections of society see the US and the UK as the aggressors then I guess the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is what holds sway.

A communique issued by the EU had this to say;

The European Union deplores the continued arrest of 15 British citizens by Iran on 23rd of March and underlines the European Union’s unconditional support for the government of the United Kingdom.

All evidence clearly indicates that at the time of the seizure, the British Naval personnel were on a routine patrolling mission in Iraqi waters in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723. The seizure by Iranian Forces therefore constitutes a clear breach of international law.

So the EU are happy with the evidence to suggest it took place in Iraqi waters.

The European Union repeats its call for the immediate and unconditional release of the British Royal Naval personnel. The European Union furthermore calls on Iran to immediately inform the government of the United Kingdom about the whereabouts of the British Naval personnel and grant consular access. The fundamental rights of all prisoners in Iran must be scrupulously respected.

The EU Foreign Ministers requested the High Representative to present the EU position to the Iranian government. Should the UK citizens not be released in the near future, the EU will decide on appropriate measures.

Some measure of condemnation for the actions taken by Iran, but I'm sure there'll be a response along surely to point out why Iran is justified.

[Crystal_sword]

And of course this sort of material would be illgal under the Geneva Convention

Me thinks the Geneva convention went down the bog after the war with Afghanistan.

Does anyone know what Iran are saying about the Future of the 15 British Navy personnel?

Do they want to trade them for their own captives ?

[clovis]

And of course this sort of material would be illgal under the Geneva Convention

Me thinks the Geneva convention went down the bog after the war with Afghanistan.

Does anyone know what Iran are saying about the Future of the 15 British Navy personnel?

Do they want to trade them for their own captives ?

does the convention apply, we aren't actually at war within Iran (their proxies yes, but that's a different story).

Then again, this is an act of war on Irans part, it's just they know that we're a paper tiger nowadays, and we won't do anything about it except bitch and moan. If this had been U.S. or Isreali people taken the shooting would have started already.

And as for the EU, yeh some comdemnation of sorts on paper, but what about the call for export bans etc, ha we can whistle over that

EU refuses to back Britain over call to threaten exports freeze

The Times
Tom Baldwin in Washington, Dominic Kennedy and David Charter

March 31, 2007

European foreign ministers failed last night to back Britain in a threat to freeze the €14 billion trade in exports to Iran, as the hostage crisis descended into a propaganda circus.

Tony Blair could only issue a new statement of disgust as Iran tormented him with another sailor’s video confession and a fresh letter from the young mother detainee.

A first written message from the Tehran Government offered some hope of a deal, but time is running out before the Iranian new year holiday ends and militant students and politicians return to business.

EU foreign ministers meeting in Germany called for the sailors to be freed but ruled out any tightening of lucrative export credit rules. The EU is Iran’s biggest trading partner. British officials are understood to have taken soundings on economic sanctions before the meeting but found few takers.

= = = = =

Old Europe has about 20 billion dollars worth of reasons "to be elsewhere" when Great Britain reaches out to its EU "partners"...
_________________

[Dr Morbeus]

What a crock; there isn't an agreed boundary except for ... when it suits the Iranians to say the British soldiers were inside it. As for measuring it, err, you've just said it's fake so what is the point of measuring it?

So when is your one-way ticket booked for Iran? Get away from this oppressive and lawless regime, eh?

I don't really know why people should be seeking to justify those actions

All evidence clearly indicates that at the time of the seizure, the British Naval personnel were on a routine patrolling mission in Iraqi waters in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723. The seizure by Iranian Forces therefore constitutes a clear breach of international law.

So the EU are happy with the evidence to suggest it took place in Iraqi waters.

Some measure of condemnation for the actions taken by Iran, but I'm sure there'll be a response along surely to point out why Iran is justified.

Cowboy, I find myself agreeing with you totally (so apologies over that stupid spat we had the other day).

The anoying thing for me about this is the way the point at issue gets hi-jacked by the anti Bush/Blair lobby. Discuss the issue on its merits? No way - these people launch into their usual "we have no right to be there" speeches etc, and begin the round of justifying Iranian actions by proxy. We are a long way short of perfect but those of us in favour of standing up to Iran are not automatically supporters of Bush, Abu Gareb or Guantanamo. What we are not though are apologists for a despotic regime like Iran who are actively involved in financing terrorism and whose President, we all know, was actively involved in the 1979 US hostage crisis.

I'd like to get our servicemen back, preferably without us caving in to these people.

[Dr Morbeus]

PS - I'm not a liberal or left-wing socialist type either.

edit - bad move, my mother warned me never to talk politics. It always ends it tears.

[kalmar]

I find it interesting when people are bandying about GPS data, it means you can go and have a look yourself

MOD's map showing their version:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/ED95D49E ... Slide1.JPG

That helicopter picture with the coordinates:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DB42AC92 ... eloGPS.jpg

Put those coordinates into Google Maps and you get this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q ... iwloc=addr

You can see the channel coming out of the river quite clearly there on the satellite photo, and how the boat is on the western side of it (apparently would be on dry land at very low tide), and is therefore arguably in Iraq, from the layman's point of view.

However, where it is legally or maritime-wise is much more complicated, with the factor that the there is no such convenient dotted line that everyone agrees about, even though the MoD has drawn one in.

Craig Murray investigates:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2 ... l#comments


[edit] oops, didn't notice Snaff had already linked that, ah well

[betamax]

What a crock; there isn't an agreed boundary except for ... when it suits the Iranians to say the British soldiers were inside it. As for measuring it, err, you've just said it's fake so what is the point of measuring it?

So when is your one-way ticket booked for Iran? Get away from this oppressive and lawless regime, eh?

I don't really know why people should be seeking to justify those actions

All evidence clearly indicates that at the time of the seizure, the British Naval personnel were on a routine patrolling mission in Iraqi waters in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723. The seizure by Iranian Forces therefore constitutes a clear breach of international law.

So the EU are happy with the evidence to suggest it took place in Iraqi waters.

Some measure of condemnation for the actions taken by Iran, but I'm sure there'll be a response along surely to point out why Iran is justified.

Cowboy, I find myself agreeing with you totally (so apologies over that stupid spat we had the other day).

The anoying thing for me about this is the way the point at issue gets hi-jacked by the anti Bush/Blair lobby. Discuss the issue on its merits? No way - these people launch into their usual "we have no right to be there" speeches etc, and begin the round of justifying Iranian actions by proxy. We are a long way short of perfect but those of us in favour of standing up to Iran are not automatically supporters of Bush, Abu Gareb or Guantanamo. What we are not though are apologists for a despotic regime like Iran who are actively involved in financing terrorism and whose President, we all know, was actively involved in the 1979 US hostage crisis.

I'd like to get our servicemen back, preferably without us caving in to these people.

So disagreeing with Britain's take automatically makes someone a terrorist sympathizer, but disagreeing with Iran's take doesn't make you a supporter of the people on the other side? A perfect specimen of the crested double standard- here, in my study! Where's my pin, card and killing jar?

The alternative way of looking at this is that people who desperately want the Union Jack to shine spotlessly (Which it has never done, sadly recorded history agrees with me) wait like vultures for any point in an argument when they can deploy the ultimate in stagnation tactics- "You are anti- this that and the other". It forces any debate to become polarized into Anti and Pro (with the actual debaters leaving in disgust after failing to get a word in) and makes actual discussion without conflict impossible.

I've highlighted some of the most telling parts of your post in italics. I find them most suggestive. They read like a laughter reel to me, aware as I am of the fact that no country can be trusted not to get up to dirty tricks every now and again. Saying we are better than Iran because Iran is "actively involved in financing terrorism" means that you think Britain doesn't and never has and isn't right at this moment involved in shady arms deal to despots and human right abusers.

[kalmar]

So disagreeing with Britain's take automatically makes someone a terrorist sympathizer, but disagreeing with Iran's take doesn't make you a supporter of the people on the other side?

You're either with us or against us, betamax. We have camps for people like you.

[betamax]

So disagreeing with Britain's take automatically makes someone a terrorist sympathizer, but disagreeing with Iran's take doesn't make you a supporter of the people on the other side?

You're either with us or against us, betamax. We have camps for people like you.

No Butlins can hold me, Cochise

[Dr Morbeus]

I've highlighted some of the most telling parts of your post in italics. I find them most suggestive. They read like a laughter reel to me, aware as I am of the fact that no country can be trusted not to get up to dirty tricks every now and again. Saying we are better than Iran because Iran is "actively involved in financing terrorism" means that you think Britain doesn't and never has and isn't right at this moment involved in shady arms deal to despots and human right abusers.

You are talking a load of bollocks. If you don't like who we sell arms to then vote for another party, which your right. I don't recall saying the UK was perfect but we are better than a regime like Iran's, self appointed religious junta and we can vote Blair out. I don't think the Iranians will be able to vote out the Ayatollahs any time soon, regardless of who they put up as a figurehead. The reality is that Iran is indeed a rogue state - for anyone to seriously state otherwise really flies in the face of the facts.

And by the way, I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself when I say Iran is a terrorist state. I'm certainly not speaking on behalf of or in support of the UK Govt.