Now that the British sailors are free...response?

[LoBlo]

Now that the British hostages are to be released, what *should* Britain's naval policy be? They could continue just as before and risk another nabbing, they could back down and give the Iranian border more space, or they could step up patrols, but keep a tighter grip on their patrol boats.

A related question is not what they should do, but what they *will* do.

Personally, I'ld like to see the British government up the patrols 3 fold and bring their large boats closer in for tighter protection to their patrols. A few Lockheed FireScouts overhead within visualazation of the boarder at all times would be handly as well.

[STEED]

This is the second time and may not be the last time, Iran are sly wolfs be warned.

[Skybird]

Beef up those silly ROE that they have. Bring to trial those who are responsible for the stupid ROE that have been in place until now. Incompetence should be held responsible, and then being removed from service. I tend to prioritize the focussing on the political leadership here.

[robbo180265]

The whole Iran thing really worries me. Because of Iraq and the way that's gone, I don't think Blair thinks he can count on public backing if he risks another war in the Middle East. And I think that's why there wasn't any sabre rattling going on.

The trouble is, as much as I was against the invasion of Iraq I can see Iran for what it is - a country full of nutters who are about to get nukes, and that really scares me. Also if we invade or attack there's the risk of a proper East v West scenario which scares me too.

I really have no answer to this one and that's what scares me the most.

[The Munster]

Well, this is my response, bring our young men and women back to the UK. Let the Middle East be, because there will always be unrest in this region due mainly to religion, territory and fanatics.
Let them blow each other up, why should we be caught up in it ?!

[SUBMAN1]

Well, this is my response, bring our young men and women back to the UK. Let the Middle East be, because there will always be unrest in this region due mainly to religion, territory and fanatics.
Let them blow each other up, why should we be caught up in it ?!

Because as soon as some FANATICAL leader gets in charge, it will no longer be just about them, it will be about us too!!! Imagine a land where we leave Al Qeida to its devices - They eventually train and come after us over here. They will not stop. They can only be estroyed. There is no middle ground. They beleive it with all their hearts. So if you don't mind crusing down to your local cafe, and having 15 people body parts flinging blood into your soup on your night out, then let them be. If you don't like that idea, better stay on board.

-S

[Yahoshua]

Skybirds' already said most of it for me.

However, Iran should be strongly warned that such behavior will NOT be tolerated again.

[ASWnut101]

Drop a few JDAM's on the harbor that the Iranian Patrol Boats originated from.;)

[jumpy]

About time.
This particular charade was allowed to continue for far too long.

What may be taken for shrewd political manoeuvring over in Iran can be generally and truthfully regarded by the rest of the world as a thinly disguised attempt at sabre rattling; that the UK should view it as anything other than the Iranian authorities thumbing their nose at the west is inconceivable.
As for the statements of the sailors and marines... well they smell of the same rotten dung as those who were paraded in front of the Arab media by Saddam, cap in hand saying how 'sorry they were and how they are that in your wisdom that you are letting us go home sir....' BS. ...Like they had any choice in the matter.

Had we kidnapped a bunch of their sailors and played them to the world press they would be calling in no uncertain terms for our collective blood.

Still, except for anyone who has been living on mars for the last 50 years or so, this is of no surprise whatsoever.

The next time this kind of 'accident' occurs (and I'm sure it will at some point) it ought to be made clear that any vessel coming within 500m of any British warship or boarding party will be assumed to be of aggressive intent and fired upon. However I seriously doubt such a ruling would come to pass, even were it to be realistically entertained by the MOD or the government.

Ah well, I suppose the unctuous wheels of diplomacy will continue to turn ever so slowly in respect of matters such as these.

[waste gate]

Who said 500m? Try ten times that distance.

A small boat travelling at 20KT will be on them in less than one minute. There is also the problem of naval artillery, it just isn't that accurate.

That is how the Iranians captured the 15 to begin with.

[bookworm_020]

The Royal Australian Navy had the same problem when the Iranians tried to do the same thing to them. The officer in charge of the party was able to call in a helicopter and extract the the boarding team by air, avoiding sapture.

The British salior didn't have that option as the helicopter had to return to be refuled.

Local air cover is nice, but if your out gunned you have to play it smart, or you and others could end up dead.:hmm:

[Enigma]

I can see Iran for what it is - a country full of nutters who are about to get nukes, and that really scares me.

As far as the government and Irans extremist community, this is true. However, by all accounts, the younger generation is almost pro western, and pretty disgruntled about the government in Iran, too. Theres an amazing contrast between the generations in Iran. Koppel did a very interesting program from Iran last year that portrayed this very well....

[baggygreen]

Well.. lets see. its happened twice now, and i'd be willing to bet a pretty sum that Iran have scored something out of it, something along the lines of a quiet concession in the sanctions against it, an eye turned blind to a shipload of something...

regardless, its happened twice. Chances are it'll happen again. So, you sink the Iranian ships, just as insurance:yep:. even better, sink their whole friggin navy!

The ultimate in gunboat diplomacy - you kidnap 15 soldiers, you lose 15 ships. that works for me

[ASWnut101]

I can see Iran for what it is - a country full of nutters who are about to get nukes, and that really scares me.

As far as the government and Irans extremist community, this is true. However, by all accounts, the younger generation is almost pro western, and pretty disgruntled about the government in Iran, too. Theres an amazing contrast between the generations in Iran. Koppel did a very interesting program from Iran last year that portrayed this very well....

Really, it's the total religious devide in the country that shows the difference, not nessecarely the age/generation. A friend of mine got back from Iran last year, and nearly all of the Persian (oldies and the children) populace are either afraid or angered by the government, while the Arab populace is more slanted twoards the Government (Anti-West Arabs). I've said it a million times, and here's once more: Persians hate Arabs. Arabs hate Persians. Arabs have control over the Persians at this moment, further inflaming the hatred between the two groups.

The friend also indicated that the Arab populace was much more violent, from muggings to kidnappings.


In all, if you were to attempt a war with Iran, siding with the Persians and then (somehow) instigating a revolution will cause the country to collapse on itself.

[ASWnut101]

Well.. lets see. its happened twice now, and i'd be willing to bet a pretty sum that Iran have scored something out of it, something along the lines of a quiet concession in the sanctions against it, an eye turned blind to a shipload of something...

regardless, its happened twice. Chances are it'll happen again. So, you sink the Iranian ships, just as insurance:yep:. even better, sink their whole friggin navy!

The ultimate in gunboat diplomacy - you kidnap 15 soldiers, you lose 15 ships. that works for me

I think the Iranians don't even have 15 ships...:|\\

[baggygreen]

aww sh!t ay...


i know! make up the difference in anti-aircraft batteries!

[The Avon Lady]

Now that the British sailors are free...response?
Britain has flown now but we'll all pay for it later.

Skybird mentioned toughing up those ROEs. Is that referring to Rules of Engagement or Rules of Embarrassment.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy for the return of the sailors but I'm anxious to hear how and why they were converted to spineless dead fish for all the world to see. Was that part of their training or were they threatened?

Stay tuned for the next round.

[danlisa]

Our service men & women do a fantastic job in very stressful & dangerous areas. We sometimes forget this. The government should not.

If a member of the armed forces is captured/taken hostage or otherwise detained (without due reason) we should not pussy foot around and just get them out. They've earned that right.

Welcome home.:up:

[1mPHUNit0]

Stay tuned for the next round. Oh yhea you need war against Iran and Súria
Like was on Iraq
Like was on lebanon
Like is on Palestine
You live for wars and occupations

[The Avon Lady]

You live for wars and occupations
Yeah. It's a blast! :roll:

And you live for blaming everyone else except yourselves for your problems.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2228/stopwhiningro3.th.jpg (http://img401.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stopwhiningro3.jpg)

[baggygreen]

Imp, i know im only speaking personally and theres only a few members here who agree, but as far as im concerned, if we DONT fight them now, it's more of a problem later.

Its not as though there isnt enough to justify going n getting em anyways - the kidnapping of personnel and theft of military property is, in my opinion, enough to warrant a strike.

Doesnt necessarily mean a war.. if Iran is stupid enough to try something after say, a quarter of their military assets are destroyed in a nice little strike, the type of which has been seen before, we can just go n destroy another quarter. If they wanna keep it up, bye bye Iranian military!

[jumpy]

Who said 500m? Try ten times that distance.

A small boat travelling at 20KT will be on them in less than one minute. There is also the problem of naval artillery, it just isn't that accurate.

That is how the Iranians captured the 15 to begin with.
La de da, you pedantic so and so :rotfl::-j
It's an arbitrary number which I used to illustrate the point about interferance with our navy and how it could be dealt with. I didn't say 'anyone had said that' lol
Maybe I should have rephrased it to read "for example, any vessel coming within 500m of any British warship or boarding party... "
lol

[elite_hunter_sh3]

ASW. JDAMS suck... get some MOABs... minimum 8:arrgh!:

http://www.technochitlins.com/mt-archives/MOAB.jpg

kaboom.

[bradclark1]

I'm very happy for the return of the sailors but I'm anxious to hear how and why they were converted to spineless dead fish for all the world to see. Was that part of their training or were they threatened?

I've been thinking about that but I'm holding off judging until they tell their story.

[danlisa]

I'm very happy for the return of the sailors but I'm anxious to hear how and why they were converted to spineless dead fish for all the world to see. Was that part of their training or were they threatened?
I've been thinking about that but I'm holding off judging until they tell their story.
Isn't that SOP?

I'm sure that I've read (Bravo 2 Zero & Tornado Down, pinch of salt/artistic license) that the standard proceedure to be as submissive & non-combatant as possible to ensure that you are not singled out by your captors.

I'm also sure that there a 2 other possible reasons.

The first being that it's probably not a good idea to act all macho/conquering hero types after a situation like this, doing so is likely to inflame matters and probably increase the likelyhood of this happening again.

The second is a little more sinister. To gain public support by showing our down-trodden or mistreated troops returning home. Now, why would the government need to raise public support.:hmm:

[August]

Name, rank, service number and date of birth only.

If tortured hold out as long as possible and then attempt to give misleading or inaccurate information.

Constantly attempt to escape and force the enemy to use an inordinate amount of troops to guard you.

Demand to see representatives from the Red Cross.

[Godalmighty83]

iam sure that those sailors+marines are in for a bit of a bashing at base for appearing so eager to get on TV but i doubt much more will happen.

i expect the navy will move a helo-carrier into the area soon to give more air support.

we simply need more ships/aircraft covering operations near any 'disputed' territory. give hms invincible a lick of paint and a modern air group and that should do, a light carrier would be more useful in the shallows then a big nuke stuck further out.

[STEED]

Britain's naval policy is to get it in the neck as are government makes cutbacks, stand by for more next year. :nope:

[bradclark1]

Name, rank, service number and date of birth only.

If tortured hold out as long as possible and then attempt to give misleading or inaccurate information.

Constantly attempt to escape and force the enemy to use an inordinate amount of troops to guard you.

Demand to see representatives from the Red Cross.
The reality is closer to what danlisa says though to a point. It all depends on what your job is and situational awareness.
Bravo 2 Zero's experience was somewhat different then this.
It's a fact though that if they want to break you you will be broken. The only question is how long to hold out with minimum trauma to yourself and until your information is useless. I don't think this situation was anywhere near the ballpark for that line of reasoning though.
These guys knew they were good propaganda and they layed it on thick and fast which was a little disappointing. Just have to wait for their story.
As far as attempting to escape you had better be sure you can do it because legally you can be executed if recaptured.

[Platapus]

It only took six days back in 1973.

When did the first statement come out from the British naval personal? Three days, I think.

It is possible explaination worth investigating.

I will await their versions of that happened with great interest.

[August]

As far as attempting to escape you had better be sure you can do it because legally you can be executed if recaptured.
I seriously doubt that as I believe the Geneva convention specifically recognizes that it is the duty of every servicemen to escape if possible.

BTW below is the US POW Code of Conduct

The Code of Conduct outlines basic responsibilities and obligations of members of the US Armed Forces. All members are expected to measure up to the standards embodied in the Code of Conduct. Although designed for a POW situation, the spirit and intent are applicable to service members subjected to other hostile detention. Such service members should consistently conduct themselves in a manner that avoids discrediting them and their country. There are six articles of the Code of Conduct that address situations and decision areas that, to some degree, may be encountered by all personnel. It includes basic information useful to POWs in their tasks of surviving honorably while resisting their captor’s efforts to exploit them to the enemy’s advantage and their disadvantage. Such survival and resistance require varying degrees of knowledge of what the six articles mean. President Dwight D. Eisenhower first published the Code of Conduct for members of the Armed Forces of the United States on 17 August 1955. In March 1988, President Ronald W. Reagan amended the code with gender-neutral language.
ARTICLE I.
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
ARTICLE II.
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
ARTICLE III.
If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
ARTICLE IV.
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
ARTICLE V.
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
ARTICLE VI.
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

[Iceman]

Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy for the return of the sailors but I'm anxious to hear how and why they were converted to spineless dead fish for all the world to see. Was that part of their training or were they threatened?


:lost: Ditto...

[Platapus]

[quote=bradclark1]I seriously doubt that as I believe the Geneva convention specifically recognizes that it is the duty of every servicemen to escape if possible.

The Geneva Conventions (note plural) do recognize the right of a PoW to escape. However if the escaping PoW commits any illegal acts they can be tried in civil court for those illegal acts but not for the act of escaping.

[The Avon Lady]

[quote=bradclark1]I seriously doubt that as I believe the Geneva convention specifically recognizes that it is the duty of every servicemen to escape if possible.

The Geneva Conventions (note plural) do recognize the right of a PoW to escape. However if the escaping PoW commits any illegal acts they can be tried in civil court for those illegal acts but not for the act of escaping.
Hah! Entering a country without a tourist visa. Damned if they escape. Damned if they don't.

[bradclark1]

As far as attempting to escape you had better be sure you can do it because legally you can be executed if recaptured.
I seriously doubt that as I believe the Geneva convention specifically recognizes that it is the duty of every servicemen to escape if possible.

I wounder where I thought that one up from.:hmm:
Article 92 of Geneva Convention III covers that.
Reading the Code of Conduct brings back memories though.

[Bilge_Rat]

NUKE THEM!






















...so sorry, my hand slipped, I meant, of course, reestablish bilateral and multilateral dialogue aimed at engaging the moderate elements in the regime to bring the country back into mainstream international community... ha the hell with it, I'm sticking with my original statement.

[Ishmael]

The Brits were released after one Iranian diplomat, kidnapped in Iraq in January by "Unknown gunmen" was released day before yesterday. Also, the US finally agreed to allow the Iranian govt reps to meet with these 5 Iranians illegally arrested in Kurdistan in January.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/30/192/

But the real targets of those arrests got away. Here's the link to that:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece

Only Bush & Blair could make Ahmedinajad look statesmanlike and generous before the world's public opinion.

Of course, all parties involved deny any linkage of actions here.

[fatty]

My two cents:

Should: back down, de-escalate. You do not teach a dog a new trick by kicking him when he does it; you give him a treat instead. Positive reinforcement. UK leaders should publically suggest that the US withdraw one of the carriers from the Gulf, emphasizing the fact that the security situation improves when Iran demonstrates a willingness to co-operate.

Will: probably nothing worth mentioning. I imagine some patrol routes may be adjusted to keep distance from Iranian naval bases, and commanders may get a stern talking-to about vulnerable deployments in hazardous environments.

:sunny:

[The Avon Lady]

BTW below is the US POW Code of Conduct
Useful link (http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/code_of_conduct/the-code-of-conduct.shtml).

[The Avon Lady]

US State Dept.: Iran accused of 'hostage' diplomacy (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1891523.htm) - with comments from former UN ambassador John Bolton as well.

[jumpy]

I know this is from the daily mail (I have previously described that paper as a 'thinly disguised tabloid'), but I have to say I find much of what this guy is saying to be spot on, if a little close to the knuckle. hehe

CLICKY (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/dailymail.html?in_article_id=446978&in_page_id=1790)

To put it another way:

We may have no pride left, but we've still got a great sense of humour.

[Fish]

As far as attempting to escape you had better be sure you can do it because legally you can be executed if recaptured.
I seriously doubt that as I believe the Geneva convention specifically recognizes that it is the duty of every servicemen to escape if possible.

BTW below is the US POW Code of Conduct

The Code of Conduct outlines basic responsibilities and obligations of members of the US Armed Forces. All members are expected to measure up to the standards embodied in the Code of Conduct. Although designed for a POW situation, the spirit and intent are applicable to service members subjected to other hostile detention. Such service members should consistently conduct themselves in a manner that avoids discrediting them and their country. There are six articles of the Code of Conduct that address situations and decision areas that, to some degree, may be encountered by all personnel. It includes basic information useful to POWs in their tasks of surviving honorably while resisting their captor’s efforts to exploit them to the enemy’s advantage and their disadvantage. Such survival and resistance require varying degrees of knowledge of what the six articles mean. President Dwight D. Eisenhower first published the Code of Conduct for members of the Armed Forces of the United States on 17 August 1955. In March 1988, President Ronald W. Reagan amended the code with gender-neutral language.
ARTICLE I.
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
ARTICLE II.
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
ARTICLE III.
If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
ARTICLE IV.
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
ARTICLE V.
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
ARTICLE VI.
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

Good point, but they where no POWs. No war between Iran and UK.

[bradclark1]

BTW below is the US POW Code of Conduct
It's just the "Code of Conduct". I must of said it dozens of times during inspection of the guard. I embarrassed myself with that statement. Not the first time and I guess it won't be the last.:oops:

[bradclark1]

I know this is from the daily mail (I have previously described that paper as a 'thinly disguised tabloid'), but I have to say I find much of what this guy is saying to be spot on, if a little close to the knuckle. hehe

That young officers career is ruined and I doubt the enlisted are going to go much higher. The reporter sounded kind of dorky and behind the times about the female though.

[Ishmael]

US State Dept.: Iran accused of 'hostage' diplomacy (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1891523.htm) - with comments from former UN ambassador John Bolton as well.

Well, at least the Iranians didn't make them sign a statement saying they were not tortured or agree not to sue the government or speak in public about their confinement to the press for a year like we made David Hicks do. Of course, this so-called "one of the worst of the worst" gets nine months in an australian prison.

RE: John Bolton. Wasn't he Cheney & Rumsfeld's henchman who browbeat CIA analysts and threatened them with firing if they didn't back up the Office of Special Plans reports about Iraqi WMDs?

Here's a link to interesting article by Wayne Madsen on a subject of great interest to me. If true, it puts the North Korean deal into a whole new perspective. I just hope it's correct and everything is properly safeguarded. I applauded the Bush 41 admin. for having the courage to take control of & safeguard the S.A. & Khazakh arsenals.

April 6-8, 2007 -- The CIA's Counter-Proliferation Division (CPD) and British intelligence have evidence that then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney lost three nuclear weapons in 1991.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

[Platapus]

[quote=Ishmael
Well, at least the Iranians didn't make them sign a statement saying they were not tortured or agree not to sue the government or speak in public about their confinement to the press for a year like we made David Hicks do. Of course, this so-called "one of the worst of the worst" gets nine months in an australian prison.

[/quote]

Well he will actually serve 6 years 1 month in prison total. Only the last 9 months will be in an Australian prison. The court sentenced him to 7 years in prison so he is only getting a break of 11 months. Well within the United States Federal guidelines for early release for good behaviour. So in effect all that is happening is that he is being transfered to serve the final portion of his prison term closer to home. This is not an unusual situtation.

[Ishmael]

[quote=Ishmael
Well, at least the Iranians didn't make them sign a statement saying they were not tortured or agree not to sue the government or speak in public about their confinement to the press for a year like we made David Hicks do. Of course, this so-called "one of the worst of the worst" gets nine months in an australian prison.



Well he will actually serve 6 years 1 month in prison total. Only the last 9 months will be in an Australian prison. The court sentenced him to 7 years in prison so he is only getting a break of 11 months. Well within the United States Federal guidelines for early release for good behaviour. So in effect all that is happening is that he is being transfered to serve the final portion of his prison term closer to home. This is not an unusual situtation.[/quote]

Right. This so-called "bad Guy" is essentially sentenced to time served for violation of a law that was not on the books when he was arrested. All original charges against him were dropped. So they kept him until a law could be passed to charge him under. Then the railroad began in earnest. Here's a link to what went down at his trial.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-candace-gorman-/justice-guantanamo-style_b_44394.html

I don't know about you, but if this is the new face of American justice, then I am ashamed to be an American.

[baggygreen]

but Ishmael,

there is one point surrounding his detention and trial that is constantly and conveniently ignored by the majority of popular media, namely that it was his own defences fault for up to half of his lengthy (? arguable) stay. if they hadnt challenged almost every single point, and hadnt stringed things out as much as they did, he woulda been to trial years ago.

[moose1am]

Hitler lost WWII for many reasons. Some might suggest that one of the reasons Germany lost WWII was because they opened up a second front against Russia before they had conquered the West or Britain. Armies can only fight in so many places at one time even during WWII.

So maybe the British were smart to not want to start another shooting war against Iran AT THIS TIME.

We have over 40,000 US Troops in Afghanistan today and we have two aircraft carriers in the region now. The stated reason for the second Aircraft Carrier Battle Group being in the Region is for the upcoming spring Taliban offensive in Afghanistan. It's expected that the Taliban will try to make a resurgence in Afghanistan this spring.

And with all the other troops fighting in Iraq we may not have the necessary troops and equipment to fight a third war in Iran.

Unless the USA restarts the draft there are not going to be enough volunteer troops to fight on three different fronts and maintain the troops in Europe and Korea at the ready state.

We only have so many aircraft carriers and ships. And our main battle tanks have to be refurbished after so many hours of operation in the sand desert environment. Same with the helicopters and airplanes.

And we have to keep a watchful eye on other countries such as China. That's a huge job with China and Russia still actively making new weapons.

This Iranian hostage situation ended much better than I expected. And think of the consequences for the worlds oil supplies if a shooting war were to break out in the Persian Gulf were almost 60% of the worlds oil flows from? You want to start a third world war try cutting off the oil to India and China and see how they react! When we cut off the oil to Japan back in 1941 the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor and started WWII with the US and Japan and Germany.

[August]

I thought this article was right on target. Mods please forgive me for posting the entire thing. I don't have the link and it's fairly short anyways.

Washington Post
April 6, 2007
Pg. 21

Britain's Humiliation -- And Europe's

By Charles Krauthammer

Iran has pulled off a tidy little success with its seizure and release of those 15 British sailors and marines: a pointed humiliation of Britain, with a bonus demonstration of Iran's intention to push back against coalition challenges to its assets in Iraq. All with total impunity. Further, it exposed the impotence of all those transnational institutions -- most prominently the European Union and the United Nations -- that pretend to maintain international order.

You would think maintaining international order means, at least, challenging acts of piracy. No challenge here. Instead, a quiet capitulation.

The quid pro quos were not terribly subtle. An Iranian "diplomat" who had been held for two months in Iraq is suddenly released. Equally suddenly, Iran is granted access to the five Iranian "consular officials" -- Revolutionary Guards who had been training Shiite militias to kill Americans and others -- whom the United States had arrested in Irbil in January. There may have been other concessions we will never hear about. But the salient point is that American action is what got this unstuck.

Where then was the European Union? These 15 hostages, after all, are not just British citizens but, under the laws of Europe, citizens of Europe. Yet the European Union lifted not a finger on their behalf.

Europeans talk all the time about their preference for "soft power" over the brute military force those Neanderthal Americans resort to all the time. What was the soft power available here? Iran's shaky economy is highly dependent on European credits, trade and technology. Britain asked the European Union to threaten to freeze exports, $18 billion a year of commerce. Iran would have lost its No. 1 trading partner. The European Union refused.

Why was nothing done? The reason is simple. Europe functions quite well as a free-trade zone, but as a political entity it is a farce. It remains a collection of sovereign countries with divergent interests. A freeze of economic relations with Europe would have shaken the Iranian economy to the core. "The Dutch," reported the Times of London, "said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue." So much for European solidarity.

Like other vaunted transnational institutions, the European Union is useless as a player in the international arena. Not because its members are venal but because they are sovereign. Their interests are simply not identical.

The problem is most striking at the United Nations, the quintessential transnational institution with a mandate to maintain international peace and order. There was a commonality of interest at its origin -- defeating Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. The war ended, but the wartime alliance of Britain, France, the United States, China and Russia proclaimed itself the guardian of postwar "collective security" as the Security Council.

Small problem: Their interests are not collective. They are individual. Take the Iranian nuclear program. Russia and China make it impossible to impose any serious sanctions. China has an interest in maintaining strong relations with a major energy supplier and is not about to jeopardize that over Iranian nukes that are no threat to it whatsoever. Russia sees Iran as a useful proxy in resisting Western attempts to dominate the Persian Gulf.

Ironically, the existence of transnational institutions such as the United Nations makes it harder for collective action against bad actors. In the past, interested parties would simply get together in temporary coalitions to do what they had to do. That is much harder now because they believe such action is illegitimate without the Security Council's blessing. The result is utterly predictable. Nothing has been done about the Iranian bomb. In fact, the only effective sanctions are those coming unilaterally out of the U.S. Treasury.

Remember the great return to multilateralism -- the new emphasis on diplomacy and "working with the allies" -- so widely heralded at the beginning of the second Bush administration? To general acclaim, the cowboys had been banished and the grown-ups brought back to town.

What exactly has the new multilateralism brought us? North Korea tested a nuclear device. Iran has accelerated its march to developing the bomb. The pro-Western government in Beirut hangs by a thread. The Darfur genocide continues unabated.

The capture and release of the British hostages illustrate once again the fatuousness of the "international community" and its great institutions. You want your people back? Go to the European Union and get stiffed. Go to the Security Council and get a statement that refuses even to "deplore" this act of piracy. (You settle for a humiliating expression of "grave concern.") Then turn to the despised Americans. They'll deal some cards and bail you out.

[kurtz]

[quote=LoBloPersonally, I'ld like to see the British government up the patrols 3 fold and bring their large boats closer in for tighter protection to their patrols. A few Lockheed FireScouts overhead within visualazation of the boarder at all times would be handly as well.[/quote]

However we scrapped the three ships which could enter shallow water with enough firepower to make it worthwhile so we ended up with an unsuitable ship for the job which couldn't sstay close enough to the patrol.

Why? because Gordon Brown despite levying ever larger taxes on the population has squandered it on immigrants, slack jawed layabouts and any teenage girl bright enough to work out that if she can have a baby she'll be given a house and money until the bastards 16.

[Tchocky]

Krauthammer missing the point as usual.
I expect to see a current event bent to fit a particular pre-existing opinion, it's normal. But that column is cut-paste garbage. He fished out an anti-EU-UN screed and tacked iran to the start of it. Hope he's paid well for that ****.

[August]

Krauthammer missing the point as usual.
I expect to see a current event bent to fit a particular pre-existing opinion, it's normal. But that column is cut-paste garbage. He fished out an anti-EU-UN screed and tacked iran to the start of it. Hope he's paid well for that ****.

If the shoe fits I guess...

You have to admit, neither the UN or the EU did squat.

[Tchocky]

I suppose I'd rather hear his opinion on Iran and the sailors, rather than what he thought about the EU/UN a couple of months ago. Bleh.

Well, you could tack it back to the Iraq War. Neither the UN or the EU unambiguously supported that, so the welfare of those engaged in military operations there fall under the protection of their governments. Anyway, the EU is not a supra-governmental organisation. If I was one of the sailors who had been captured, I'd be praying to Whitehall, not Brussels. Because that's where the responsibility lies.
A government will always say they are in the right, but why should the EU or the UN get involved when it's not clear who crossed the border? That's Westminsters job.

[August]

Eh, seems to me the EU seems more interested in maintaining business as usual with Iran than helping one of it's members.

[Skybird]

I agree with August here. While I opposed premature military action that would have only been payed for with the blood of US and Brtitish troops in Iraq and would have triggered an increase in terrorist activity in the West as well, I also was not surprised, but still disappointed about the lacking support for the British by the EU. Krauthammer is right when asking why the economical and financial potentials to put pressure on Iran have not been used. It also seems to me that there was a bit of an attitude of leaving the British alone - as a sanction for having been so disobedient towards the will of the EU when starting the Iraq war.

I will not see during my lifetime that the EU members will learn to speak with one voice and become a strong political body. A strong economical player, yes. A strong bureaucratic rulership, yes, if not by size of the institutions than nevertheless by the ammount of democratically un-legitimized power and influence - but it will never become a strong political player - strong by its own capacities and degrees of freedom of acting.

Winner by points in this affair is Iran, and Ahmadinejahd (rallying some more support behind him and raising his popularity slightly, which before was in free fall). Looser is the British MoD for idiotic ROEs and allowing the sailors to sell their storys (meanwhile stopped), Blair for having fired a lot of words, but unable to fire deeds, and the EU for leaving Britain completely alone.

[The Munster]

Knew this would happen, 2 of them have sold their stories to the gutter press
Money Money Money
When I was in the Militiary, I had to sign the Official Secrets Act preventing me from divulging any information to the 'outside World' ?!
Obviously that doesn't happen anymore !

[The Avon Lady]

US State Dept.: Iran accused of 'hostage' diplomacy (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1891523.htm) - with comments from former UN ambassador John Bolton as well.
Well, at least the Iranians didn't make them sign a statement saying they were not tortured or agree not to sue the government or speak in public about their confinement to the press for a year like we made David Hicks do.
Document, please.

David Hicks? You compare an illegal combatant, not covered by the GC, with uniformed UK naval personnel? Suit yourself!
Of course, this so-called "one of the worst of the worst" gets nine months in an australian prison.
Big mistake. He should have gotten 9 decades.

And where does your quote "one of the worst of the worst" come from and why is that in any way accurate?
RE: John Bolton. Wasn't he Cheney & Rumsfeld's henchman who browbeat CIA analysts and threatened them with firing if they didn't back up the Office of Special Plans reports about Iraqi WMDs?
I don't know. Was he? You seem to know. Document, please.

What I do know is he was the best US UN ambassador since the days of Moynihan and Kirkpatrick and the US will regret letting Bolton slip away from that position.
Here's a link to interesting article by Wayne Madsen
Conspiracy crackpot. Look him up, folks. Don't be shy.

Sad shape the world is in.

[Skybird]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Terminology is important to avoid confusion.

[The Avon Lady]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Terminology is important to avoid confusion.
No problemo! :smug: From the same page: Current US Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Current_U.S._Law).

[Skybird]

Note that it says: "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

"The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus )

what it effectively all means is that the US can take prsioner anyboy they want by simply labelling him as "unlawful". Neither the subject, nor lawyers or person related to the subject are allowed to give evidence that he is not what he is accused of, for the subject is stripped of all according rights. His case even must not be heared. He can be held captured for unlimited times and, as we have seen, even years. there is no counter-checking of the system by democratically legitimated institutions of the satte, and thuzs the people. It is arbitrary "justice" and the public is simply allowed to believe that it all is working good, or not. It is not allowed to check it. checks and balances are a basic principle of democarcies, and their accordign legal systems as well.
This is the reason why the world and in fact a good ammount of the Ameivan people as well is mocking at Bush for these laws and demand them to be taken back. they are worth a tyrannay, not the hostrical standards of America, or the West.

Since amongst other ethnicities, your Jewish ancestors suffered so dearly from such understandings of arbitrary justice in Germany, I am wondering why an Israeli is so readily defending such standards, AL. As just said some days ago in another debate: this practicing is not a bit different to GeStapo practcing. It is simply out of control and no longer counterchecked from outside the system.

Concerning "illegal" fighters", I cannot say if the meaning in English is exactly the same as "unlawful", but in German (illegal versus ungesetzlich/gesetzlos) it is a difference, and a huge one. By terms of logic, something like "illegal combatants" cannot even be imagined to exist. That's why years ago when Bush first came out with that phrase, lawyers and audience from around the world were laughing about him. It is debated until today if the Amerian argumentation concerning the status of illegal fighters and the GC is valid, or not. I tend to disagree.

"In the United States, the Military Commissions Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006) codified the legal definition of this term, and invested the U.S. President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) with broad discretion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretion) to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. However the assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists contradicts the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_Former_Yug oslavia) in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Red_Cross) commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, that every person in enemy hands must either be a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, and that "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law" "

Recall the past before hailing such eliminations of basic rights. Especially you, AL, your people and we over here should know better than anyone else.

Bush once said that there is nothing wrong with dicatatorship - as long as he would be the dictator. I am not so sure anymore that he really meant it just as a joke. the number of attempts by him to avoi9d the democratic principle of checks and baalnces, and to shift powers to him that cannot be interferred with by other institutions of the state is tell-taling. That man is drunken of himself.

I wish it would have been a second brain cell that he drank.

[The Avon Lady]

Recall the past before hailing such eliminations of basic rights. Especially you, AL, your people and we over here should know better than anyone else.
I believe the law has been similar in the US for decades and is not a fabrication of Bush, nor Hitler for that matter.
Bush once said that there is nothing wrong with dicatatorship - as long as he would be the dictator.
Et tu, Skybird? Twisting words to suit your agenda? False but accurate?

:down:

What George Bush said in 1998 as governor of Texas and regarding the difficulties of governing Texas, was:

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier... So long as I'm the dictator.
That man is drunken of himself.
I would say this is more true of the delirious anti-Bush crowd - and I don't care much for the guy myself. Welcome to the club!

[The Avon Lady]

Recall the past before hailing such eliminations of basic rights. Especially you, AL, your people and we over here should know better than anyone else.
I believe the law has been similar in the US for decades and is not a fabrication of Bush, nor Hitler for that matter.
Though mention of Hitler is relevant to this matter: Ex parte Quirin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin).

Roosevelt the dictator! :roll:

Roosevelt=Hilter! :roll:

Yeh. :roll:

Sure. :roll:

Back on topic....................

Remember when Britain was Great (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187320.php)? :cry:

[micky1up]

typical anti jewish and american bull from a nation who violated an entire generation not once but twice back into your hole where you belong i would rather you thanked the US/UK not only for getting rid of hitler but for the years of stedfast defence against the USSR these obviously so quickly forgotton

[micky1up]

I know this is from the daily mail (I have previously described that paper as a 'thinly disguised tabloid'), but I have to say I find much of what this guy is saying to be spot on, if a little close to the knuckle. hehe

That young officers career is ruined and I doubt the enlisted are going to go much higher. The reporter sounded kind of dorky and behind the times about the female though.


you clearly cant comprehend the difference between combatants and not combatants and that young officer will go far you dont know how the royal navy works at all they all will just for the PR


with reguards to the comment about surrendering and WE are not at war with iran those sailors had a strict ROE rule of engagment if they had beached those rules bye bye career and the reason why the US forces make so many mistakes is because they feel in every situation they have to respond with force those sailors did exaclty the right thing when faced with overwhelming odds and lived to tell the tail ,how many US personnel over the years have died needlessly because of false inbred patriotism ,the royal navy is repected around the world for not being trigger happy for not over reacting the wrong decission in that situation would have played directly into the hands of iran

[bradclark1]

you clearly cant comprehend the difference between combatants and not combatants and that young officer will go far you dont know how the royal navy works at all they all will just for the PR

No, I don't think you comprehend. The workings of military are the same the world over, doesn't matter which flag flies. Time will tell who's right. I believe the powers that be will not/do not think highly of every one going on tv nor acting like they are at a party nor of allowing themselves to be stripped of their uniforms. Bright orange jump suits or nice suits there is no difference. It's sending a message.
I think placing the ship between the frieghter and Iranians would have stopped anything before it even started. I would assume the ship would have had radar and could see a cluster of Iranian boats.

[Skybird]

I believe the law has been similar in the US for decades and is not a fabrication of Bush, nor Hitler for that matter.

Date of origin of the relevant ammandement: 17th octobre 2006.

Bush once said that there is nothing wrong with dicatatorship - as long as he would be the dictator.
Et tu, Skybird? Twisting words to suit your agenda? False but accurate?

What George Bush said in 1998 as governor of Texas and regarding the difficulties of governing Texas, was:

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier... So long as I'm the dictator.

I remember something from later times, when he was already president. I never took note of Bush when he still was in Texas.

-----

Oh, and look, after a longer time there is mickey again, throwing stones from inside the glass-house...

[The Avon Lady]

I believe the law has been similar in the US for decades and is not a fabrication of Bush, nor Hitler for that matter.

Date of origin of the relevant ammandement: 17th octobre 2006.
So? The essential laws were already in place. They got toughened? I would think you're the last one here not to comprehend that there's a difference between the means and methods of said Nazi saboteurs versus today's Islamic ones.
Bush once said that there is nothing wrong with dicatatorship - as long as he would be the dictator.
Et tu, Skybird? Twisting words to suit your agenda? False but accurate?

What George Bush said in 1998 as governor of Texas and regarding the difficulties of governing Texas, was:

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier... So long as I'm the dictator.
I remember something from later times, when he was already president. I never took note of Bush when he still was in Texas.
Well, then, by all means document it, please. :roll:
Oh, and look, after a longer time there is mickey again, throwing stones from inside the glass-house...
Mickey's remarks are disgusting and have no place here. :down:

But what "glass house" are you referring to? :hmm:

[Skybird]

I believe the law has been similar in the US for decades and is not a fabrication of Bush, nor Hitler for that matter.

Date of origin of the relevant ammandement: 17th octobre 2006.
So? The essential laws were already in place. They got toughened? I would think you're the last one here not to comprehend that there's a difference between the means and methods of said Nazi saboteurs versus today's Islamic ones.

Et tu, AvonLady? Twisting words to suit your agenda? False but accurate?

I did not talk about Nazi saboteurs and islamists, I talked about the Gestapo being allowed to arbitrarily arrest whomever they wanted and being convered by valid laws concrning that.

Bush once said that there is nothing wrong with dicatatorship - as long as he would be the dictator.
Et tu, Skybird? Twisting words to suit your agenda? False but accurate?

What George Bush said in 1998 as governor of Texas and regarding the difficulties of governing Texas, was:

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier... So long as I'm the dictator.
I remember something from later times, when he was already president. I never took note of Bush when he still was in Texas.
Well, then, by all means document it, please. :roll:[/quote]

Yes, i may have seen a report or a news or a program or red this or that and here and there - and will remember every detail or sources and origins even years and decades later and for the rest of my life. ASWnuts tried the same on me some days ago. The fact that I cannot remeber if it was on ARD or ZDF, daily news or magazine, and what year, does not mean that I never have seen it. There is a world beyond the internet, you know. and as a matter fo fact we all, you included, spend most of our life with using and referring to knowledge that we gained - although we may no more remember when and how we gained it. That is absolutely the norm. In this reagrd, internet has severley limited what we perceive as reality, like TV before. It only is true if it is linked on the web. Well, if bush can claim the bright to arbitrarily arrest people and hold them unlimited times withoiut ever jusrtifiying by deeds and evidence that this is reasonable, then i can claim the right to refer to memories - even if I cannot refer to an internet source.

For example I also remember quite some stuff about stellar constelaltions and basic astronomy. But don't ask me how I gained that knowledge, and by what books.

Oh, and look, after a longer time there is mickey again, throwing stones from inside the glass-house...
Mickey's remarks are disgusting and have no place here. :down:

But what "glass house" are you referring to? :hmm:
The history of postWWII interventions of his own country. Needless to say that I do not see that history as glamourous and sacred as he does.

For an end, I really can only wonder why it is so acceptable for many people if basic laws that are essential to prevent a justice system becoming arbitrarily are cut back more and more, and how it could be considered as an acceptable method if neither the legislative body of a nation nor the people, it's representatives and institutions are allowed to countercheck sentences and procedures that lead to these without ever showing evidence and proof. It also is unacceptable that it makes no more differences is a confession is being gained by the use or force and torture, or not. In the medieval, women confessed they were witches and practices black magic, only to escape further torture. what worth can have a confession have if it is being gained under thread of torture or unlimited imprisonment? It has zero value, none.

That part of the justice system that has been designed and tailored by Bush & Gang and led to the erection of Guantanamo camp, is completely beyond control. And that is extremely dangerous, and has striking similiarities wioth the rules by which the GeStapo or the StaSi were allowed to operate.

Not to accept this taking place is what separates "us" from "them". Giving in to the persuasion to allow it happening that we mimic the standards of "them" (because it appears to make our job of needing to prove accusations instead of taking an accusation as proof for a guilt) is what makes the differences between "us" and "them" disappearing. If we act by the rules "they" are living by - then we are not any better than they are. Instead we are becoming what they are. That is not only a shame, but also a rape of the ideals on which the US once has been founded, and by which they claimed for the better part of their young history that they set new standards of justice, freedom and democracy in the world: but since sometime after WWII, these claims are no longer justified. But nobody, including Nixon, helped to speed this detoriation so massively like Bush did.

Of course, medias and economical oligarchies need to be mentioned too. But that is a different thread.

[August]

Well if you think about it it's a lot easier to get things done in a dictatorship than a republic or democracy. In a democracy everything must be debated and argued over ad infinitum, often argued so much that nothing gets accomplished. Various factions support or oppose every action often for reasons that have little to do with it's true merit.

Not so in a dictatorship. Once he is convinced of the merit of a particular action the dictator just says "do it" and it is done, end of story. A far more efficient system.

The big problem however is getting a dictator who makes decisions in the interest of his entire people and that is what GB was talking about.

[The Avon Lady]

I had a huge reply to your last post, Skybird, but it went the way of my stalled browser session a few hours ago. I cannot be bothered to rewrite everything.

The bottom line is that I ask why is Bush like the Gestapo but not Roosevelt - or is he?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Getting back on topic

I think Britain should by all means re-open diplomacy with Iran, yet it should also keep its guard up and revise its Rules of Engagement system. I'm more than a little bit irritated that the UN and the EU were silent during this whole affair. I was under the impression that this was the main thing both of those organisations were combating, yet when the poopie hits the proverbial fan, they're nowhere to be found.

I've about had it with other countries crapping all over us Brits.

[Skybird]

AL,

since I did not compare Bush to the Gestapo, but compared certain new legal (or should I say: non-legal? :88) ) procedures to the Gestapo, your question is pointless anyway and just destracts attention by trying to change interpretation of what I said.



August,

the problem is the same in monarchy as well as in democracy: how to prevent corruption of those in power. If you have a good, fair, reasonable, educated king/queen, it could be a blessing for the country, eventually. If he is a selfish egoist, or incompetent, he is a tyrant. Candidates to become kings usually receove special training and education far above the average in today's representative monarchies. Whereas in a democracy, comoetence is no criterion. If some fool has just the ability to moilze the masses in a speech, or is backed up by financial support so that he can "overkill" his rivals for an election by "out-shine him in the medias, eventually (and today: very often) the populistic opportunist with bad character and zero competence will win.

"Star Wars i-iii" showed the kingdom of naboo - where kings/queens get elected for some time by the people. :lol:

"Dune" by Frank Herbert describes all known univese ruled via feudal structures.

"Hellstrom's Hive" by Frank Herbert describe a total collective like in an insect state, where the interests of the the many totally dominate the fate of the one, and consumes any individuality. Which could be understood as the most absolute consequence of "democracy". It is surprising how democracy and totalitarianism can give an impression of beeing so very close in nature.

I believe that democarcy works best in smaller communities. For greater communities (don't aks me for the deciding criterion), I tend to believe that a democarcy will work so bad and tend so strictly to become a victim of oligarchies abusing it, that I slightly prefer to put my money on feudal structures. But whatever you prefer, the basic problem remains: the unreasonable and seflish basic attitude of man. Democracy functions by the basic assumption of man being reasonable, altruistic, and concerned about the well-being of the community, not just his own. Communism bases on much the same assumption. All three are highly vulnerable for failing for the very same reasons.

Makes you wonder if we really have changed at all over the last centuries and millenia. "There is nothing new under the sun - except what just has been forgotten." (some Spanish wise man, Santayana, maybe).

[The Avon Lady]

AL,

since I did not compare Bush to the Gestapo, but compared certain new legal (or should I say: non-legal? :88) ) procedures to the Gestapo, your question is pointless anyway and just destracts attention by trying to change interpretation of what I said.
Want to play games? Here's the rephrased question, hopefully revised to your satisfaction:

Why are Bush's legal procedures like the Gestapo's but Roosevelt's weren't - or were they?

Lights out here. G'nite.

[micky1up]

you clearly cant comprehend the difference between combatants and not combatants and that young officer will go far you dont know how the royal navy works at all they all will just for the PR

No, I don't think you comprehend. The workings of military are the same the world over, doesn't matter which flag flies. Time will tell who's right. I believe the powers that be will not/do not think highly of every one going on tv nor acting like they are at a party nor of allowing themselves to be stripped of their uniforms. Bright orange jump suits or nice suits there is no difference. It's sending a message.
I think placing the ship between the frieghter and Iranians would have stopped anything before it even started. I would assume the ship would have had radar and could see a cluster of Iranian boats.


really ive severd nearly 20 years in the royal navy they were paraded by the MOD in front of the cameras in the PR battle with iran and their small craft were armed only with machine guns the iranian had heavey caliber weapons the fight would have lasted 30 seconds with the royal navy crew dead WE are not at war with iran so fighting would have created a massive incident if not a war the crew's rules of engagemnet wouldnt allow for this incident because it was totally unexpected so the OIC (officer in charge) did exactly the right thing he prevented a major incident which may have led to war . you clearly have no concept of rules of engagement and the mandate that the royal navy is thier under , so in the end war was avoided the peraonnel are back unharmed , your way would have culminated in the deaths of many people


and PS the navies of the world are not the same at all we all have different policys strategys and backgrounds ive no doubt the US navy would have went in gung ho and lost its men as it has on so many occasions

[Skybird]

AL,

since I did not compare Bush to the Gestapo, but compared certain new legal (or should I say: non-legal? :88) ) procedures to the Gestapo, your question is pointless anyway and just destracts attention by trying to change interpretation of what I said.
Want to play games? Here's the rephrased question, hopefully revised to your satisfaction:

Why are Bush's legal procedures like the Gestapo's but Roosevelt's weren't - or were they?

Lights out here. G'nite.

Where the hell should I have mentioned Roosevelt, and what has he to do with the present Guantanamo procedures? I talked about switching off essential safeties that had been implemented to prevent the state practicing arbitrary justice to it's liking without the american people being able to countercheck that, and control that. As I already have quoted: "instruments for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action." I compared the laws allowing Guantanamo to the methods of the Gestapo that also was not to be held responsible for their ways of going, and was allowed to arrest anybody at their will, without needing to justify themselves, or being hindred by any laws, and even was allowed to held people as long as they wnated withiut any regulations, or even let them disappear.

Read those two wikipedia entries again, maybe that helps to understand my criticism.

[Takeda Shingen]

We're wandering. Stay on topic. Great Britian, Iran, sailors. Remember? We are beyond the scope of this topic.

[micky1up]

AL,

since I did not compare Bush to the Gestapo, but compared certain new legal (or should I say: non-legal? :88) ) procedures to the Gestapo, your question is pointless anyway and just destracts attention by trying to change interpretation of what I said.
Want to play games? Here's the rephrased question, hopefully revised to your satisfaction:

Why are Bush's legal procedures like the Gestapo's but Roosevelt's weren't - or were they?

Lights out here. G'nite.

Where the hell should I have mentioned Roosevelt, and what has he to do with the present Guantanamo procedures? I talked about switching off essential safeties that had been implemented to prevent the state practicing arbitrary justice to it's liking without the american people being able to countercheck that, and control that. As I already have quoted: "instruments for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action." I compared the laws allowing Guantanamo to the methods of the Gestapo that also was not to be held responsible for their ways of going, and was allowed to arrest anybody at their will, without needing to justify themselves, or being hindred by any laws, and even was allowed to held people as long as they wnated withiut any regulations, or even let them disappear.

Read those two wikipedia entries again, maybe that helps to understand my criticism.


they cannot be compared to the gestapo its not even the same ball game the genocidal tourture and killing of anybody in there way tell me where are the majority of prisoners now? getting released or being prooved to terroists yes they were ill treated but trying to compare that with the gestapo only makes you look foolish and desparate to fling mud anyway you can on the us

[Barkhorn1x]

Right. This so-called "bad Guy" is essentially sentenced to time served for violation of a law that was not on the books when he was arrested. All original charges against him were dropped. So they kept him until a law could be passed to charge him under. Then the railroad began in earnest. Here's a link to what went down at his trial.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-candace-gorman-/justice-guantanamo-style_b_44394.html

I don't know about you, but if this is the new face of American justice, then I am ashamed to be an American.

Oh, wah wah wah for David Hicks. Really!! :roll:

And he got to Gitmo how exactly. Oh yea - he was picked up on the battlefield fighting for the Taliban. You know the Taliban don't you? Those atavistic head choppers would turned Afganistan back to the 7th century.

Here is some more info. about David:

In the documentary Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, Terry Hicks reads out excerpts of David Hicks's letters, in which Hicks says that his training in Pakistan and Afghanistan is designed to ensure "the Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim law again". He denounces the plots of the Jews to divide Muslims and make them think poorly of Osama bin Laden and warns his father to ignore "the Jews' propaganda war machine," [35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks#_note-21)
Hicks allegedly told fellow recruits at his training camp he wanted to "go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews", "crash a plane into a building", and "go out with that last big adrenalin rush."
"He once told me in Afghanistan that if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' ect [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out," writes former Camp X-ray inmate Abbasi. [23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks#_note-Time)
"I got to fire hundreds of bullets. Most Muslim countries impose hanging for civilians arming themselves for conflict. There are not many countries in the world where a tourist, according to his visa, can go to stay with the army and shoot across the border at its enemy, legally." Hicks stated in a letter to his father whilst serving in Kashmir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks#Hicks.27s_support_of_terrorism

What a sweetheart. And the kind of guy you really want walking the streets. :stare:

It'd be mighty nice if you were more concerned about the rights of the victims of terror than the rights of the perpetrators. :nope:

[Tchocky]

AAARGH!! *head explodes*

so we can **** around with an honest justice system as long as we don't like the defendant? beautiful.

Topic:

Bradclark - the ship couldnt be placed between then Iranians and the freighter because the water was too shallow. That's how the sailors were taken prisoner, the Cornwall couldnt get to them in time. Or at all

[Barkhorn1x]

We're wandering. Stay on topic. Great Britian, Iran, sailors. Remember? We are beyond the scope of this topic.

Ooops, sorry - posted before I saw your post.

OK - on topic, Iran:
- provides weapons to Iraqi insurgents to kill US and UK troops
- threatens to wipe Israel off the map
- holds Holocaust Denial conference
- is the primary bankroller of Hezbollah - one of the worlds leading terrorist organizations
- kidnaps 15 UK sailors/marines in Iraqi waters
- continues quest to aquire nuclear weapons

...and the EU does basically nothing - as they don't want to mess w/ a major trading partner.
...the UN does basically nothing - is ANYONE suprised at this?
...and the US does basically nothing, except detain some of their operatives in Iraq.
...and Israel does basically nothing - except wait for Hezbollah to attack again - will ANYONE be suprised by this?

It's all of a piece and it's all bad as the West lacks the spine to do what must be done here.

[Tchocky]

From the BBC
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon held talks with Iran on the detention at a summit in Riyadh. And the European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he had spoken briefly to Iran's foreign minister and reiterated the EU's call for an end to the "illegal" detention.
Securing release of the sailors was the role of the British Government, I don't know what everyone here expected the EU or UN to do that the British Gov wasn't/couldn't.
I'd say that had aggressive EU/UN moves been made, we'd have an outcry against Eurocrats or peaceniks stepping on Britannia's toes.
While I think of it, if US personnel had been captured, would y'all be looking towards the UK?

[Barkhorn1x]

AAARGH!! *head explodes*

so we can **** around with an honest justice system as long as we don't like the defendant? beautiful.


Yea, that's exactly what I said. :roll: :roll: :roll: Nice way of reducing what is a complex issue to a silly drive by quip.

Here is what the Geneva convention has to say on the subject of who is a legitimate POW:


Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. 4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.


Do you see how 2 a., b., and d. - and heck, probably b. - don't apply to the Taliban??

While you sit and clutch your worry beads over how bad some scumbag Aussie jew hating terrorist wanna-be is getting screwed, the hard core Talibani's sitting in Gitmo are counting on your type to get them out so they can go back to the 'stan and kill more infidels.

[Tchocky]

My type? Nice.
Already off-topic, Tak might kill us and dance on our graves.

Response to iran? Best thing right now is to do nothing. iran is so bloody unpredictable these days

[Skybird]

they cannot be compared to the gestapo its not even the same ball game the genocidal tourture and killing of anybody in there way tell me where are the majority of prisoners now?

I referred to Guantanamo and certain legal changes that allow to imprison and interrogate people there without ever needing to justify that to a countrcontrolling instance. I compared methods, not the goal they are aiming for. I fail to see why that is so difficult for you and AL to understand. the procedures that could lead somebody to Guantanamo are as much beyond legal control as was the arbitrary action of the Gestapo. And in both cases it was/is intentional.

getting released or being prooved to terroists
Proove it! That is what court proceedings and legal examinations is about. You can't say somebody is prooven to be a terrorist simply because he is in prison. The meaning of court proceedings is to proove that it is justfied that somebody is held as a prisoner, and to proove his guilt. You say that somebody is guilty and a terrorist - simply because you accuse him of that and have arrested him! Welcome back to the medieval! being accused is the same as being proven to be guilty, now!? You lead basic legal principles ad absurdum!

yes they were ill treated but trying to compare that with the gestapo only makes you look foolish and desparate to fling mud anyway you can on the us
Nerve-killer you are. I talked about the arbitrariness that now is allowed to send somebody to Guantanamo, or another prison oversea that also is not run by american standard laws. I did not say anything in this thread about the mistreatement and tortuing in these places.

Will you and AL please try to understand now what I was talking about. I'm getting tired of needing to repeat that again and again, and fighting off answers to things that I never have said.

It's not difficult to understand what I said.

Really, it is not.

Promised.

[Platapus]

While it is always handy to hate the Iranians, let’s look at this list

Iran:
- provides weapons to Iraqi insurgents to kill US and UK troops

Even if this is true, how is this different from the United States arming the Mujahideen during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Soviet Union invades Afghanistan to “liberate” them. The United States, not really caring about the Afghans but wanting to hinder the operation of the Soviet Union arms, through Pakistan, the insurgents (Muhahideen). Was it ok for us to do it but not ok for Iran to do it? If it is bad for one, why not bad for the other?


- threatens to wipe Israel off the map

Mahmoud Ahmadienjad is the President of Iran and has called for the elimination of Israel. The only problem is that the President of Iran has no control over the military and has no authority to declare war. The Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, does have control over the military and does have the authority to declare war. In June 2006, Khamenei made an official statement that Iran has no intention of taking military action against Israel.

Why do we believe the man who has no authority (Ahmadienjad) and not believe the man who has the authority (Khamenei)? Is it because Ahmadienjad feeds our perception of Iran so we listen to him while Khamenei’s statements refute our perception of Iran so we ignore him? If we are to listen to one, we need to listen to all. Or preferably we should only listen to those who have the authority to take action.


- holds Holocaust Denial conference

Holding an academic conference to refute a concept that has overwhelming evidence supporting it may be folly but hardly a threat to the world. So what if everyone at this conference voted that the Holocaust did not happen? What effect would that have on the world?


- is the primary bankroller of Hezbollah - one of the worlds leading terrorist organizations

Out of the 216 countries in the world only six consider Hezb Allah of Lebanon (for there are many Hezb Allah organizations, some friendly) as a whole a terrorist organization. The vast majority of the world considers Hezb Allah of Lebanon a legitimate resistance movement and NGO. They consider the military branch of Hezb Allah, Al-Muqawawama al-Islamiyya only to be a terrorist organization. Many in the United States don’t even know the difference between Hezb Allah of Lebanon and Al-Muqawawama al-Islamiyya.

- kidnaps 15 UK sailors/marines in Iraqi waters

It is still unclear what waters the UK sailors and marines were located. The border terminus in the Avandrud or Shatt Al-Arab estuary is unclear and has been in official dispute between the Iranians and the Iraqis. Prior to the Iran-Iraq war, treaties were signed, and then broken. A formal renegotiation between Iran and Iraq concerning the boundary in the estuary has not occurred. While the UK may claim to know precisely where the boundary line lays, the matter is far from concrete. What is on a UK map is not necessarly what is on the Iranian map. There is much ambiguity in this case. While I do not agree with how the Iranians handled this at first, I do not believe that any side can claim absolute innocence. I am just happy it was able to be handled diplomatically.


- continues quest to acquire nuclear weapons

There has been no evidence presented that supports this hypothesis. Tricky Cheney logic aside, the absence of evidence means the presence of uncertainty. While we may fear that the Iranians intend to produce nuclear weapons, the actual answer is “we don’t know”. We don’t know if they are, and we don’t know if they aren’t.



So continue to hate the Iranians if you like, but please acknowledge that this hate is emotionally based. Myself, I am more interested in working with the Iranians both diplomatically and economically so that there is no such fear between our two cultures.

[bradclark1]

really ive severd nearly 20 years in the royal navy they were paraded by the MOD in front of the cameras in the PR battle with iran and their small craft were armed only with machine guns the iranian had heavey caliber weapons the fight would have lasted 30 seconds with the royal navy crew dead WE are not at war with iran so fighting would have created a massive incident if not a war the crew's rules of engagemnet wouldnt allow for this incident because it was totally unexpected so the OIC (officer in charge) did exactly the right thing he prevented a major incident which may have led to war . you clearly have no concept of rules of engagement and the mandate that the royal navy is thier under , so in the end war was avoided the peraonnel are back unharmed , your way would have culminated in the deaths of many people


and PS the navies of the world are not the same at all we all have different policy's strategy's and backgrounds ive no doubt the US navy would have went in gung ho and lost its men as it has on so many occasions
It's no argument about the boarding party. I agree with you. I never argued that point. My question is what was the ship doing? What range is it's radar. My disappointment is in the actions of those sailors after capture. In fact it's the actions of the officer and senior enlisted sailor or marine, the rest just followed their leaders. You think this helped his career I think it put the brakes on it.
What were the ROE and what mandate is the navy under? I don't think any of it covers what they were doing on TV, or being stripped of their uniforms, or playing happy kissy with that countries leader on TV.
I'd say they were played like a violin and used like a condom.

[Barkhorn1x]

Response to iran? Best thing right now is to do nothing. iran is so bloody unpredictable these days

Game, set, match to Iran!!! :rock: That's precisely how they want you to think.

[fatty]

Response to iran? Best thing right now is to do nothing. iran is so bloody unpredictable these days

Game, set, match to Iran!!! :rock: That's precisely how they want you to think.

I welcome our new Muslim overlords :roll:

[Barkhorn1x]

Can you believe this guy?? :huh:

While it is always handy to hate the Iranians, let’s look at this list

Iran:
- provides weapons to Iraqi insurgents to kill US and UK troops

Even if this is true, how is this different from the United States arming the Mujahideen during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Soviet Union invades Afghanistan to “liberate” them. The United States, not really caring about the Afghans but wanting to hinder the operation of the Soviet Union arms, through Pakistan, the insurgents (Muhahideen). Was it ok for us to do it but not ok for Iran to do it? If it is bad for one, why not bad for the other?
Did the US INVADE Iran?? I think not. Is Iran acting defensivly? I think not.


- threatens to wipe Israel off the map

Mahmoud Ahmadienjad is the President of Iran and has called for the elimination of Israel. The only problem is that the President of Iran has no control over the military and has no authority to declare war. The Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, does have control over the military and does have the authority to declare war. In June 2006, Khamenei made an official statement that Iran has no intention of taking military action against Israel.
So Ahmadienjad - a figurehead according to you - can say whatever he wants then w/o approval from the mullahs? Nice logic there chief.

Why do we believe the man who has no authority (Ahmadienjad) and not believe the man who has the authority (Khamenei)? Is it because Ahmadienjad feeds our perception of Iran so we listen to him while Khamenei’s statements refute our perception of Iran so we ignore him? If we are to listen to one, we need to listen to all. Or preferably we should only listen to those who have the authority to take action.
Perhaps its because Iran's ACTIONS are bellicose in the extreme and Khamenei is no moderate despite your good little dhimmi assurances.


- holds Holocaust Denial conference

Holding an academic conference to refute a concept that has overwhelming evidence supporting it may be folly but hardly a threat to the world. So what if everyone at this conference voted that the Holocaust did not happen? What effect would that have on the world?
See the point above and ask an Israeli if he thinks that this has no effect.


- is the primary bankroller of Hezbollah - one of the worlds leading terrorist organizations

Out of the 216 countries in the world only six consider Hezb Allah of Lebanon (for there are many Hezb Allah organizations, some friendly) as a whole a terrorist organization. The vast majority of the world considers Hezb Allah of Lebanon a legitimate resistance movement and NGO. They consider the military branch of Hezb Allah, Al-Muqawawama al-Islamiyya only to be a terrorist organization. Many in the United States don’t even know the difference between Hezb Allah of Lebanon and Al-Muqawawama al-Islamiyya.
Hezbollah is as Hezbollah does. It IS terrorist organization as evidenced by its ACTIONS. I am really not interested in your opinion that the vast majority of the world considers Hezzbollah of a legitmate "resistance movement".

- kidnaps 15 UK sailors/marines in Iraqi waters

It is still unclear what waters the UK sailors and marines were located. The border terminus in the Avandrud or Shatt Al-Arab estuary is unclear and has been in official dispute between the Iranians and the Iraqis. Prior to the Iran-Iraq war, treaties were signed, and then broken. A formal renegotiation between Iran and Iraq concerning the boundary in the estuary has not occurred. While the UK may claim to know precisely where the boundary line lays, the matter is far from concrete. What is on a UK map is not necessarly what is on the Iranian map. There is much ambiguity in this case. While I do not agree with how the Iranians handled this at first, I do not believe that any side can claim absolute innocence. I am just happy it was able to be handled diplomatically.
Much ambiguity huh? Yea, the ambiguity of an unprovked kidnapping.


- continues quest to acquire nuclear weapons

There has been no evidence presented that supports this hypothesis. Tricky Cheney logic aside, the absence of evidence means the presence of uncertainty. While we may fear that the Iranians intend to produce nuclear weapons, the actual answer is “we don’t know”. We don’t know if they are, and we don’t know if they aren’t.
Wow. You ARE delusional. :yep: Hey, when they actually test a bomb would you agree w/ the evidence then??

So continue to hate the Iranians if you like, but please acknowledge that this hate is emotionally based. Myself, I am more interested in working with the Iranians both diplomatically and economically so that there is no such fear between our two cultures.
One thing is for sure, any fear that Iran may have had for Great Britian has been replaced by contempt. And this contempt ensures that the little movie we saw last week will be played out again and again. Really, when are you going to wise up and understand that negotiations w/ Islamist states is not reciprocal?

The mind boggles, it truly does. :roll:

[Iceman]

Makes you wonder if we really have changed at all over the last centuries and millenia. "There is nothing new under the sun - except what just has been forgotten." (some Spanish wise man, Santayana, maybe).

lol...some spanish wise man..maybe the preacher was from Spain Doh!

Ecclesiastes 1
[9] The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
[10] Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
[11] There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Ecclesiastes 12
[8] Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.

This subject is a perfect example for why one should read Ecclesiastes...

[Platapus]

I am really not interested in your opinion that the vast majority of the world considers Hezzbollah of a legitmate "resistance movement".

Well there you go. It is interesting that you disagree with me but you did not offer any supporting information. It is ok that you disagree with me, but if you were trying to convince me with your logic, I am afraid you failed.

I have to ask.

Why the personal attacks in your response? Is that the only way you can discuss issues? My response to one of the posters was not personal or insulting in any way. But you felt it necessary. I wonder why?

I feel very sorry for you.

[baggygreen]

platapus - granted, there is no absolute proof which has been released to the public that Iran is chasing up nukes.

But. (theres always a but)

Iran is able to exploit enough oil from its territory to export to the world as well as power their own infrastructure for centuries yet. Hundreds of years worth of fuel are readily available to the Iranians, yet they 'need' nuclear power to be able to provide enough energy for themselves?? One must ask.. why?:hmm:

Additionally, we have got i believe leaked reports that there were Iranians present at the Korean nuclear tests, and i recall watching a program on the father of Pakistan's nuclear program fairly recently, where it was suggested that several missing pakistani nuclear scientists can now be found in Iran.

On top of that, we need to consider the relations between the US and Iran, and the US and NK. NK have now got the bomb, its proven, and hey presto the US is sitting down and talking to them, lifting sanctions and unfreezing assets. How would that look to an Iranian? It tells them that he who possesses a bomb is safe from attack, and will instead be treated with respect, able to make demands and expect them to be complied with.

Regardless of what Iran might say, or how sceptical you may be about reports that come out of the US by the govt, its a very very good expectation that the Iranians are after the bomb, no matter what they tell the media.

[Platapus]

Iran is able to exploit enough oil from its territory to export to the world as well as power their own infrastructure for centuries yet. Hundreds of years worth of fuel are readily available to the Iranians, yet they 'need' nuclear power to be able to provide enough energy for themselves?? One must ask.. why?:hmm:
Did we ask that same question in the 1970’s when the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi contracted with the United States for 20 nuclear reactors to be constructed by the year 2000? We did not seem to have a problem with Iran, on top of the second largest oil field, building a nuclear industry... especially when we had the contract.

The Oil has not changed, only the government. So I am suspect of any argument that bases the legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear industries on its oil supply. Did you know that Iran has to import gasoline? They may have the oil fields but they are just as dependent as we are on the refineries in other countries.


We need to be honest here.


We approved of the Shah's Iran of having nuclear industries because we liked him and he did what we liked. I certantly hope no one is suggesting that the Shah was a nice and kindly leader who loved his people. He was a cruel dictator who enslaved his people, but, at least he was our dictator.


We disapprove of the Iranian Republic of having nucleaer industries because we don't like them and theydon't do what we like.



On top of that, we need to consider the relations between the US and Iran, and the US and NK. NK have now got the bomb, its proven, and hey presto the US is sitting down and talking to them, lifting sanctions and unfreezing assets. How would that look to an Iranian? It tells them that he who possesses a bomb is safe from attack, and will instead be treated with respect, able to make demands and expect them to be complied with.

An excellent and reasonable point. And one that sends the wrong message if we wish to limit countries making nuclear weapons. You are quite right, with our current foreign policy, any country would presume it is in their best interest to make nuclear weapons.

will instead be treated with respect
This, in my opinion is a good thing. We should treat all countries with the respect. Our history has not always followed this.

Regardless of what Iran might say, or how sceptical you may be about reports that come out of the US by the govt, its a very very good expectation that the Iranians are after the bomb, no matter what they tell the media.
I am not disagreeing with you. The point I was trying to make is that currently we have considerable uncertainty based on a lack of evidence that can either confirm or refute our hypothesis.

I feel that before the United States takes any action, that we use all our resources to mitigate that uncertainty. Don't let's fear whether Iran is or is not making nuclear weapons, lets find out. Lets use all our diplomacy resources as well as cooperate with other countries in their diplomatic efforts instead of antagonizing Iran with our rhetoric. Until we get evidence that Iran is moving down the road to nuclear weaponization, we should watch them and study them.. carefully and with discipline. Everything the Iranians say should be carefully, unemotionally, and non-politically checked and verified. Once we have evidence one way or the other, then we can start taking foreign policy actions but until then, we must accept the frustrating state of "we simply don't know".

My favourite Damon Runyon qoute is "trust but verify". I think it applies to Iran.

[baggygreen]

I think that the nuclear deal with the Shah was not so much because of his being such a magnaminous leader - he certainly wasnt. But, as you say, we liked him. He was reliably on our side, and iran was as close as it has ever been to an ally - thus the offer of help, and thus the contract.

i ought to have clarified, by all means all nations oughta be treated respectfully, very true - but at the same time, that respect ought to be mutual and not based on fear. As far as i can tell, the iranians have hardly given the British any respect in recent times..

You are right, of course, in suggesting we wait before acting. I know I've often put forward my own opinion that we oughta wreck their military etc.. thats because i've got a certain gut feeling we'll end up being really badly surprised. Its also why im not in charge! The problem is that, like in NK, there isnt really a way to know for sure until a bomb goes off, if the country doesnt want it known. And is there anyone who doubts that a nuclear-armed iran would be a bad thing??



hey, look at that, civil exchange of opinions on world relations - three cheers!:lol:

[Yahoshua]

Just neer know what to expect in these forums.....


http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/hopscotch.gif

[The Avon Lady]

I've about had it with other countries crapping all over us Brits.
Then you won't mind reading England's own Melanie Phillips: Weep for Britain (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1487). Indeed. :oops:

Plenty more will need weeping for if we don't wake up.

[Enigma]

Game, set, match to Iran!!! :rock: That's precisely how they want you to think.

I seem to recall a certain President telling me to go shopping or the Terrorists would win. Rings a bell.

[Iceman]

When you start talking about nuclear, what is the point of having the technology really? To make bombs or energy? Either way, what is every nations point of trying to acquire it really? No one addresses this. Does Every, single, nation, on planet Earth need nuclear technology to make energy and to fell really secure? If the answer is yes...wtf are we humans doing? We must be really really ignorant people almost not worthy of survival.If the point of every nation is to feel secure and to have plentiful energy then wouldn't it be prudent on behalf of the planet for the leading nations to say enough is enough is enough and step in and assume total control of this very very dangerous technology that can be used for good or evil?.Are'nt we past the conquering the new frontier stage of our exsistence yet?For the leading nations of the world to continue to allow smaller nations to begin to "Dabble" with fire we invite our own doom.

I truly believe that this is why a passage in the KJV Holy Bible states by Jesus Christ....

Matthew 24
[21] For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
[22] And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.


Humans are not capable of ruling themselves or this planet without help.Since the time of cain and able nothing has changed.You ask who are the "elect" in this passage?...those who believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God sent to save the world.

God be with you all in this perilous time we live in.

[The Avon Lady]

Game, set, match to Iran!!! :rock: That's precisely how they want you to think.
I seem to recall a certain President telling me to go shopping or the Terrorists would win. Rings a bell.
I don't understand your point. :hmm:

UPDATE: We must have lost. :(

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7016/saudiburqasp8.jpg

[micky1up]

really ive severd nearly 20 years in the royal navy they were paraded by the MOD in front of the cameras in the PR battle with iran and their small craft were armed only with machine guns the iranian had heavey caliber weapons the fight would have lasted 30 seconds with the royal navy crew dead WE are not at war with iran so fighting would have created a massive incident if not a war the crew's rules of engagemnet wouldnt allow for this incident because it was totally unexpected so the OIC (officer in charge) did exactly the right thing he prevented a major incident which may have led to war . you clearly have no concept of rules of engagement and the mandate that the royal navy is thier under , so in the end war was avoided the peraonnel are back unharmed , your way would have culminated in the deaths of many people


and PS the navies of the world are not the same at all we all have different policy's strategy's and backgrounds ive no doubt the US navy would have went in gung ho and lost its men as it has on so many occasions
It's no argument about the boarding party. I agree with you. I never argued that point. My question is what was the ship doing? What range is it's radar. My disappointment is in the actions of those sailors after capture. In fact it's the actions of the officer and senior enlisted sailor or marine, the rest just followed their leaders. You think this helped his career I think it put the brakes on it.
What were the ROE and what mandate is the navy under? I don't think any of it covers what they were doing on TV, or being stripped of their uniforms, or playing happy kissy with that countries leader on TV.
I'd say they were played like a violin and used like a condom.

in a ideal world you have a point in the royal navy with the MOD pulling the strings and the PR campaign with iran they will do anything to get one over i wouldnt be surprised if the guy dosent make it to admiral , no matter what size of vessel they had no ROE to engague the irainians no shots were fired no hostile intent untill the sailors where kidnapped and tell me with 4 gunboats in close proximity to the navy ribs how the hell is anyomne going to make sure our own side didnt get hit

[Skybird]

Iran is able to exploit enough oil from its territory to export to the world as well as power their own infrastructure for centuries yet. Hundreds of years worth of fuel are readily available to the Iranians, yet they 'need' nuclear power to be able to provide enough energy for themselves?? One must ask.. why?:hmm:
they need it indeed. Currently they use so much of their oil themselves for keeping up traffic and economy needs, that they do not sell enough of the oil they produce to make the needed income to keep their economy running. This disbalance between the oil they produce and the oil they sell (and the generated income) is a long-known issue wih Iran, and it is a real problem. So: yes, they do need alternative energy like nuclear energy indeed. I know it sounds absurd for an oil-producing country, but it is true.

[micky1up]

nuclear power is the only way ahead for energy the oil aint going to last forever but irans intrest in nuclear power isnt for energy its for the bomb you dont need centrfuges to make energy you need them to get weapons grade material to make a bomb that swhy they have been black market buying al the centrefuges they can get hold of

[Skybird]

I did not say they do not want the bomb. I just said that they have an essential interest in civilian nuclear energy as well. ;) Personally, I am very convinced they are wanting the bomb as well, because they even need it, else they sooner or later get accused of being close to getting it, and being attacked. I am sure they learned the lesson from the Iraq war, and the many lies and manipulations by which it was excused. The only way to keep the Americans an armslength away is - actually owning nuclear weapons. Having no nukes will lead to military actions sooner or later.

Never expect your enemy to have an obligation to act stupidly.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Is Iran looking toward other measures to improve power generation? Or are they focusing primarily on nuclear power?

[bradclark1]

Is Iran looking toward other measures to improve power generation? Or are they focusing primarily on nuclear power?
Whatever gives them the biggest bang for the buck!:rotfl::rotfl: I just kill me.

[The Avon Lady]

...the UN does basically nothing
On the contrary! The UN is busy as a bee (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25091_Iran_and_Syria_Lead_UN_Disarmament_Co mmission).

[Barkhorn1x]

...the UN does basically nothing
On the contrary! The UN is busy as a bee (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25091_Iran_and_Syria_Lead_UN_Disarmament_Co mmission).

Oh I did see that - amazing. Just as bad as the UN Human Rights Council :yep:

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=3698367

Time to send the UN packing and convert that valuable real estate into office space or condo's.

The whole idea of the UN is a joke when more than half of the member states sit and vote on measures and yet they deny the same right to their citizens at home. Time to establish a new goals oriented organization based on bona fide republics or parliementary democracies ONLY. Hint - China, North Korea, Cuba, Suadi Arabia, Sudan Iran or Zimbabwe need not apply.

[Iceman]

I wonder what has become of the captives?..haven't heard much about it.

Had one question for AL...if these had been Israeli soldiers do you think the response would have been similiar to that which happened in Lebanon?...I am thinking if it was American soldiers it would have become a nasty situation...I am thinking much of the same...I know it is a "What if" scenario...and cannot be known but I am just thinking how fragile the world situation is atm.....

[The Avon Lady]

Had one question for AL...if these had been Israeli soldiers do you think the response would have been similiar to that which happened in Lebanon?
That depends on 2 things:

1. Each particular hostage scenario.

2. Whether I'm in charge or the current idiots are.

[Iceman]

Had one question for AL...if these had been Israeli soldiers do you think the response would have been similiar to that which happened in Lebanon?
That depends on 2 things:

1. Each particular hostage scenario.

2. Whether I'm in charge or the current idiots are.

http://www.cyberallies.com/support/nfphpbb/images/smiles/headbang.gif

[Heibges]

I can't help but thinking that if the United States and Great Britain had not overthrown Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq, then installed and supported the evidoer the Shah, then had Jimmy Carter toast the Shah on New Years 1977, that we wouldn't be in the current situation with Iran.

As yee sow, so shall yee reap.

[The Avon Lady]

I can't help but thinking that if the United States and Great Britain had not overthrown Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq, then installed and supported the evidoer the Shah
Correction: the Shah had been the monarch of Iran since 1941.

Think again.

[Heibges]

I can't help but thinking that if the United States and Great Britain had not overthrown Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq, then installed and supported the evidoer the Shah
Correction: the Shah had been the monarch of Iran since 1941.

Think again.

No need to.

[The Avon Lady]

I can't help but thinking that if the United States and Great Britain had not overthrown Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq, then installed and supported the evidoer the Shah
Correction: the Shah had been the monarch of Iran since 1941.
Think again.
No need to.
Excellent summation.

[The Avon Lady]

I wonder what has become of the captives?
Asked and answered (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/02/freed-uk-sailors-back-in-the-persian-gulf/).

[Iceman]

Thank You AL...

This was funny I thought on the comments from the link you gave AL...

"Well, they ought to just remove the Union Jack from their halyard and replace it with a white flag everytime they go out in their little dinghy’s. There’s no sence in inciting the Iranians."

lol...