SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Now that the British sailors are free...response?

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Now that the British sailors are free...response? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=110659)

[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.

[quote=Platapus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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-cand...e_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.

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.

Two or three front war?

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

[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.

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 ****.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

If the shoe fits I guess...

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

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.

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

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.

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 !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishmael

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

US State Dept.: Iran accused of 'hostage' diplomacy - 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!

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Terminology is important to avoid confusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

Terminology is important to avoid confusion.

No problemo! :smug: From the same page: Current US Law.