Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum
 
register chat members links refer search home
INReview INReview > Hot Topics > Post-9/11 Era > Increasing Tentions with Iran
Search this Thread:
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   
EUCLID
Mastermind

offline
Registered: Mar 2003
Local time: 02:30 AM
Location:
Posts: 911

post #31  quote:

quote:
h@ts said this in post #30 :
Iran has said if we admit we were wrong they will release the sailors.

What do we do? Say sorry and get the sailors back or refuse the offer and prolong the sailor's capture?



Saying we are sorry or admitting fault when we are not at fault is the absolutely worst thing we could do.

On the face, it appears as though this was a simple enforcement matter wherein Iran believed their border was being violated, perhaps due to a basic disagreement or misunderstanding of where the border is. If that were the case, they would have released the 15 sailors by now, after realizing that they intended no harm to Iran. But in actuality, Iran did this in calculation for a higher objective to push back against the Great Satan.

It is not as if this were a minor issue that we over reacted to and thus drove up the stakes. Iran knew there would be a strong reaction with a demand that the sailors be retuned. Anybody knows that would be the case under these circumstances. A strong reaction would have been as predictable as what happens when you poke a hornet’s nest.

In my opinion, confessing to fault when it is not true would be worse than a rescue attempt that results in the deaths of the 15 sailors. Iran is engaging in this to jerk us around. They have already reneged on their promised release of the woman. I guarantee you that if we did admit fault, Iran would not release the 15 sailors. They would make another demand instead. The last time they were in this driver’s seat, they rode it for 444 days.


Old Post 03-29-2007 02:18 PM
Click here to Send EUCLID a Private Message Find more posts by EUCLID Add EUCLID to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore EUCLID REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
lodgebo
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4383

post #32  quote:

Why should we apologise we have done f**k all wrong plain and simple.

Also H@ts you need to do alittl research those waterlines were drawn up and agreed by the UN, Iran and Iraq many years ago and for many years Iran has stuck to them now they get all rowdy about them. Regardless anyway ships have soverign powers and should have been told to turn back not be captured thats in interntional law.

Also what do you think we should have done in the first instance asked nicely for them back and when they said no piss off and sing Kumbya and pray for the sailors we should call that plan Z.

IMO opinion we should not apologise for the waterway, the emabrgo, the UN condemantion that is coming, the condemnation of othe Gukf states and if it comes to it the death of any Iranians that get in our way if we have to get the troops back.

Also are we all so blind we can't see the ploy by Iran? we apologise and that's an admittanmce and will be used in evidnece against these sailors that why they want an apology and I would love to see this tape that shows the sailors in Iranina waters as well.


Old Post 03-29-2007 04:47 PM
Click here to Send lodgebo a Private Message Find more posts by lodgebo Add lodgebo to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore lodgebo REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #33  quote:

quote:
EUCLID said this in post #31 :On the face, it appears as though this was a simple enforcement matter wherein Iran believed their border was being violated, perhaps due to a basic disagreement or misunderstanding of where the border is.


If the British government knew the border was in any way disputable - and this fact has since come out but not from the Blair's government - they should have played it a bit cooler. When you've blown your top there's no where left to go. Because of this the incident quickly turned into a stand-off.

quote:
If that were the case, they would have released the 15 sailors by now, after realizing that they intended no harm to Iran. But in actuality, Iran did this in calculation for a higher objective to push back against the Great Satan.


That's one of many possibilities. It could be just tit-for-tat posturing. It could be because the US is flying unmanned drones through Iranian air space. It could be that they genuinly believed these sailors were sailing in Iranian territory.

quote:
It is not as if this were a minor issue that we over reacted to and thus drove up the stakes.


Of course we over-reacted. The media immediately blew it up into a fully fledged military incident because of the way the British governments reacted, when it could have firstly be dealt with as a border dispute.

quote:
Iran knew there would be a strong reaction with a demand that the sailors be retuned. A strong reaction would have been as predictable as what happens when you poke a hornet’s nest.


And WE should have know that the Iranians were expecting the exact reaction we gave them, and therefore they were already one step ahead of us. This today from Mr Larijani, head of Iran's supreme national security council, said: "It was announced that a woman in the group would be freed, but (this development) was met with an incorrect attitude." Doesn't that sound like they are telling us off for having a tantrum?

quote:
The last time they were in this driver’s seat, they rode it for 444 days.


The were some British soldiers taken not that long ago, maybe a year, and they were not held for too long.


Old Post 03-29-2007 05:07 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #34  quote:

quote:
lodgebo said this in post #32 :
Also what do you think we should have done in the first instance asked nicely for them back and when they said no piss off and sing Kumbya and pray for the sailors we should call that plan Z.


I don't think the British government should have gone on television and started demanding something they couldn't back up with any force. What they then did behind the scenes is a totally different matter. And that should have been the real diplomatic response.

quote:
Also are we all so blind we can't see the ploy by Iran? we apologise and that's an admittanmce and will be used in evidnece against these sailors that why they want an apology and I would love to see this tape that shows the sailors in Iranina waters as well.


If that's the case then I would presume the Iranians know we will not be able to apologise.


Old Post 03-29-2007 05:19 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #35  quote:

The British postion could well be softening. This from Lord Triesman saying if we did stray into Iranian waters it could have been accidental:

quote:
Lord Triesman, a Foreign Office undersecretary who had held talks with Iran's ambassador on Saturday, told Sky News there was good evidence the men were in Iraqi waters, but that the issue of whether the sailors had strayed into Iranian waters was only a technical one.

"I've been very clear throughout that the British forces do not ever intentionally enter into Iranian waters," he said. "There's no reason for them to do so, we don't intend to do so and I think people should accept there's good faith in those assertions."

http://abcnews.go.com/International...=2980163&page=2


Old Post 03-29-2007 05:32 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
White Tiger
Trust Me

offline
Registered: Mar 2004
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: The Historic City of Portsmouth, England
Posts: 2622

post #36  quote:

This is the timeline of events so far:

1. Iran recieves the message that the UN voted unanimously to impose sanctions on their nuclear programme, several sorces claim that the Revolutionary Guard will do something in retalliation. ((This could be an unrelated event but speculation surrounds the actions of Iran so soon after this UN decision was reached))

2. British sailors returning to HMS Cornwall after inspecting an Iraqi ship are ambushed by a number of heavily armed Iranian gun-boats and escorted into Iran to be held at an undisclosed location. UK insist the sailors were in Iraqi waters

3. Iranian news releases statement claiming that the British sailors agressively entered their waters and admitted to doing so and claim that they have GPS evidence to prove it. UK still insist that sailors were in Iraqi waters.

4. Iran refuse to tell UK where sailors are being held and a number of Iranians demand the Sailors be put on trial. Prime Minister Tony Blair says it is "serious" and calls for a swift end to the "unjustified and wrong" detention. UN calls fro the sailors to be released.

5. Iran says the 15 sailors are being questioned but were not taken in exchange for Iranians held by the US in Iraq. The UK holds a third meeting with Iran's ambassador. In Tehran, the British ambassador is assured the missing personnel are "fit and well". Iraq's minister of foreign affairs tells Iran the British personnel were in Iraqi waters.

6. Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman says the UK could release evidence to prove the group was in Iraqi waters. Tony Blair talks of a "different phase" in diplomatic efforts if current moves fail, the sailors were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate, he adds. The BBC is told the group are being held in Tehran, where Iran says they are being treated humanely.

7. Iranian state television broadcasts an interview with Faye Turney (the capture female sailor) and footage of the servicemen. They had "obviously" trespassed but their captors had been friendly, she says. The programme also shows a personnal letter written by Turney to her family. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki says Ms Turney will be released within two days. The Royal Navy presents GPS evidence it says proves the group were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were seized. Iran claim that the Sailors were 0.5 nautical miles inside their waters.


Old Post 03-29-2007 09:50 PM
Click here to Send White Tiger a Private Message Find more posts by White Tiger Add White Tiger to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

oneofpeace
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 03:30 AM
Location: United States
Posts: 3972

post #37  quote:

I don't understand what appears to be your defense of Iran and anything but less than truthful here h@ts. Of course anyone can make an argument but given Iran's erratic behavior as of late, I find it hard pressed to believe anything they have to say about those soldiers being almost 2 miles inside their water way.

Even if you believe they were up to something, what could that be so far out in the water? I guess the boarding of that ship was something they decided to do while conducting a covert op?

It just doesn't jibe and given Iran's propensity to compound and already difficult situation in the M.E., I say they are playing more of the games they've been playing since this Iraq debacle.

If you can only see the lies of Blair and not hose of Ahmandinejad, then you're having trouble processing actual events in that region.


Old Post 03-29-2007 10:18 PM
Click here to Send oneofpeace a Private Message Find more posts by oneofpeace Add oneofpeace to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore oneofpeace REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #38  quote:

quote:
oneofpeace said this in post #37 :
I don't understand what appears to be your defense of Iran


Why? It's pretty clear what I'm saying, and I'm not supporting Iran, I'm questioning people's automatic assumptions. What I know about this incident will change as it unfolds. I don't automatically believe either Iran or Blair's government when they make claims.

quote:
Of course anyone can make an argument but given Iran's erratic behavior as of late, I find it hard pressed to believe anything they have to say about those soldiers being almost 2 miles inside their water way.


I don't know what particular erratic behaviour you're talking about but if it's relevant to the argument post it, or your just talking hot air.

quote:
It just doesn't jibe and given Iran's propensity to compound and already difficult situation in the M.E., I say they are playing more of the games they've been playing since this Iraq debacle.


Come-on, everyone is playing "games" in the Middle East, to "compound and already difficult situation". There are Hawks in Washington that are determined to attack Iran. You give me a good reason why I should trust either the Bush or Blair governments? I certainly don't trust Iran's government but unlike the US and UK they are not the country starting wars. They are the country under threat.

quote:
If you can only see the lies of Blair and not hose of Ahmandinejad


If I can only see... blah blah blah? Blair lies. Bush lies. Ahmandinejad lies.


Old Post 03-29-2007 11:21 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

EUCLID
Mastermind

offline
Registered: Mar 2003
Local time: 02:30 AM
Location:
Posts: 911

post #39  quote:

As Iran nears the goal of producing nuclear weapons, there is a belief that they must be stopped before they reach the so-called point of no return. It is thought that the only ones who would stop them would be Israel and/or the U.S. I read a book called, “Showdown With Nuclear Iran” by Michael D. Evans. In it Mr. Evans outlines the consequences of either taking preemptive action against Iran or not doing so. Of course the consequences of taking out Iran’s nuclear capability are huge. Unlike Iraq’s nuclear reactor that Israel took out in the 1980s, Iran’s facilities are much larger. Much of it is deep underground, and mingled with civilian areas, so thousands of civilians would be killed. Of course Iran would also retaliate with a declaration of war on Israel and the U.S. by launching missiles on the assets of both countries throughout the Middle East and Europe.

But Mr. Evans says that, from Israel’s point of view, the only thing that would be worse that a preemptive strike would be letting Iran acquire nuclear weapons. He also says that the U.S. does not have the political will to take preemptive action, so from Israel’s point of view they have to take preemptive action. There is no other choice. It is only a matter of when. The only thing that could derail this inevitable clash is if Iran changes their mind about acquiring nuclear weapons. But that seems unlikely, given how far they have come, and that they are only 1-2 years away from their goal.

So the world waits for what appears to be an inevitable preemptive attack on Iran by Israel. But I have had a feeling that the ironic surprise will be that Iran will be the first one to make a move, not Israel or the U.S. I think there is a high probability that this will happen very soon, likely in relation to this developing hostage crisis. Both sides are posturing and rattling sabers, and there are no rules to the game that is being played right now as tensions and provocations escalate.


Old Post 03-30-2007 03:39 AM
Click here to Send EUCLID a Private Message Find more posts by EUCLID Add EUCLID to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore EUCLID REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #40  quote:

quote:
EUCLID said this in post #39 :
[B]As Iran nears the goal of producing nuclear weapons, there is a belief that they must be stopped before they reach the so-called point of no return.


What gives us the god given right to decide who has the bomb? Who tells the US to stop developing new nuclear weapons (bunker busters were the last ones I heard of). Who stopped Pakistan, or Israel? Who's telling the UK they must stop the update of their Trident nuclear missile system at a cost of £70,000,000,000 which they have just voted through parliament?

This arrogant attitude stinks to heaven, and must grate with countries around the world. It is saying - only we are responsible enough to have the bomb. Only we can have the capacity to nuke you. You only have the capacity to be nuked, so do as you're told.

I would rather Iran did not have the bomb, but I don't see us rushing to become nuclear weapon free, and until we do get rid of ours the hypocrisy is damaging and extremely bad for relations between countries.


Old Post 03-30-2007 10:45 AM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #41  quote:

UN support for Britain was hardly overwhelming yesterday, with Russia refusing to allow the words "immeditae release" in any statement, and again today the British government is back-peddling and softening its tone.

Iran is isolated but so it seems is the Blair government. Even America is saying very little.

quote:
LONDON (AFX) - Britain today said that it was not seeking a confrontation with Iran over the 15 naval personnel currently being detained.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman told reporters this morning that despite Iran parading the marines and sailors on television yesterday, it was not Britain's intention 'to resort to rhetoric' to resolve the issue.

'We want this resolved as quickly as possible', he said. 'We do not want a confrontation over this.'

He added, 'We are not seeking in any way to put Iran in the corner.'

http://www.forbes.com/business/feed...afx3562840.html


Old Post 03-30-2007 11:37 AM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
White Tiger
Trust Me

offline
Registered: Mar 2004
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: The Historic City of Portsmouth, England
Posts: 2622

post #42  quote:

quote:
h@ts said this in post #40 :


What gives us the god given right to decide who has the bomb? Who tells the US to stop developing new nuclear weapons (bunker busters were the last ones I heard of). Who stopped Pakistan, or Israel? Who's telling the UK they must stop the update of their Trident nuclear missile system at a cost of £70,000,000,000 which they have just voted through parliament?

This arrogant attitude stinks to heaven, and must grate with countries around the world. It is saying - only we are responsible enough to have the bomb. Only we can have the capacity to nuke you. You only have the capacity to be nuked, so do as you're told.

I would rather Iran did not have the bomb, but I don't see us rushing to become nuclear weapon free, and until we do get rid of ours the hypocrisy is damaging and extremely bad for relations between countries.


The difference being that the UK and US have stopped testing nuclear weapons and have them solely as a defensive thing where as Iran has been openly agressive to a number of countries around the world and just by them refusing to let the UN check their nuclear capabilities and their nuclear programme it seems that they have something that they dont want the UN to know about.

If Irans nuclear programme is just for an improved power source for Iran then there is no problem with the UK, US or UN, however since Iran refused to allow UN inspectors to see the whole of their nuclear programme we cannot be sure whether or not they are devolping weapons.

Iran has forced the UN to make sanctons on their Nuclear programme by refusing to allow the UN to see all of it. This means that the UN fear Iran are making nuclear weapons and with Iran open hostilities towards the US, Isreal and this recent feud with the UK they fear the begining of a nuclear war.


Old Post 03-30-2007 11:43 AM
Click here to Send White Tiger a Private Message Find more posts by White Tiger Add White Tiger to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #43  quote:

quote:
White Tiger said this in post #42 :
The difference being that the UK and US have stopped testing nuclear weapons


That's wrong. American has been developing new nukes, there called bunker busters. And Britain has just passed a bill through parliament to update our Trident nuclear capabilities.

quote:
and have them solely as a defensive thing


Anyone can claim their weapons of annihilation are "defensive". I think it was Reagan who called his weapons "peace keepers". It's pure George Orwell double speak, and it's complete BS. Nukes are about power and about being bigger and tougher than anyone else.

quote:
where as Iran has been openly agressive to a number of countries around the world


Please compare the very real aggression of the US/UK to Iran in the last 10 years. And despite the wars we've started (that's us not Iran starting wars) we still claim the divine right to keep and develop nuclear weapons while demanding other do not. It's a dangerous and damaging hypocrisy.

quote:
and just by them refusing to let the UN check their nuclear capabilities and their nuclear programme it seems that they have something that they dont want the UN to know about.


Or maybe Iran is just sick of being pushed around and told what to do by hypocrites and liars.

quote:
with Iran open hostilities towards the US, Isreal and this recent feud with the UK they fear the begining of a nuclear war.


The US has more nukes than anyone in the world. Israel has nukes. The US has openly threatened Iran, put them on a silly "axis of evil" list. Do you think maybe Iran has any legitimate worries about its own security?

It's not that long since the US and UK overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran. We may not pay to much attention to that insignificant detail of history but for the Iranians it's probably seared into their brains.


Old Post 03-30-2007 01:05 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

oneofpeace
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 03:30 AM
Location: United States
Posts: 3972

post #44  quote:

quote:
h@ts wrote
Why? It's pretty clear what I'm saying, and I'm not supporting Iran, I'm questioning people's automatic assumptions. What I know about this incident will change as it unfolds. I don't automatically believe either Iran or Blair's government when they make


Just as you can look at Blair and Bush and discern whether events support their positions, you can also do so about Iran. Clearly they have an agenda in the conflict of that region just as you say Bush & Blair did.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what’s going on here and it appears you’re being less than honest.

quote:

I don't know what particular erratic behaviour you're talking about but if it's relevant to the argument post it, or your just talking hot air.


How about the retching up of rhetoric about obliterating Israel? Or how about their refusal to negotiate about their nuclear program? How about their involvement in the chaos in Iraq or the rhetoric on their websites speaking of how they will capture American and British soldiers then they turn around and do this?

If you don’t see this as erratic behavior then what would you call all of it, more “hot air”?

quote:

Come-on, everyone is playing "games" in the Middle East, to "compound and already difficult situation". There are Hawks in Washington that are determined to attack Iran. You give me a good reason why I should trust either the Bush or Blair governments? I certainly don't trust Iran's government but unlike the US and UK they are not the country starting wars. They are the country Ander


I find it funny how you can earnestly condemn your country and mine while seemingly living the benefit of the doubt to Iran? As more information unfolds about what’s happened, it’s becoming clear that Iran is lying. Your position of “who knows who’s lying or not” is and blind as those who believe Bush’s intentions were pure about Iraq.

Furthermore, Iran undeniably with the help of Bush, has exacerbated the issues there with the rhetoric, their nuclear program and now the capture of those soldiers and flat out lying about it. Despite all Bush’s and Blair’s shenanigans, it still shouldn’t obscure what is blatantly obvious.


Old Post 03-30-2007 01:50 PM
Click here to Send oneofpeace a Private Message Find more posts by oneofpeace Add oneofpeace to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore oneofpeace REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
White Tiger
Trust Me

offline
Registered: Mar 2004
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: The Historic City of Portsmouth, England
Posts: 2622

post #45  quote:

Let me run through a few things.

I have never denied the UK or US hostilities towards Iran however Iran has been openly been hostile to many countries and are seen as a treat by many countries in the Gulf, not just by the UK or US.

Due to a treaty signed toward the end of the Cold War there is no country is allowed to test Nuclear weapons in any real sense of the word. They can develop weapons but not test them.

A trident nuclear intercontinetal balistic missile has never been fire in anger and has only ever been employed in a defensive position. The trident was developed during the Cold War as a deterant to the Soviet Union, the Trident is there simply to put off countries that have nuclear weapon from attacking the UK.

I do not deny that the UK or US has been agressive toward Iran however Iran has also been agressive toward the UK and US so you cant really say that this is the fault of the UK or US.

Whether or not Iran has been 'pushed around by the UN', as you claim h@ts, doesn't really have precident here. The simple fact is that this whole Iranian nuclear programme argument could have been avoided if Iran had been willing to cooperate with the UN inspectors and shown them every aspect of their nuclear programme.

Let us not forget that Iran are the ones who claim that their Nuclear programme is simply for peaceful uses however when asked to show the evdence for this claim they refused. If it is for peaceful uses then Iran should allow the inspector to see their whole programme if only to put the countries that are worried about Iran nuclear capabilities at ease.

The final thing is that the UN is made up of 192 different countries of which include the UK, US, and yes even Iran. Every country that in a member of the UN that has Nuclear weapon has them inspected by the UN, every country in the UN that has nuclear capabilities has an inpection done by the UN, every country except Iran. What makes them any different? Why should they be exempt from ispection when every other country that has a nuclear programme isn't?

To many it may seem that this Nuclear arguement a UK and US vs. Iran issue, it isn't, it is a UN thing, something that is supposed to happen that Iran has refuse to allow to happen. The fact the you know that the US is developing a new nuclear weapon and the the UK are updating theirs shows that they are following UN guidelines. It shows that they are being open and honest with their nuclear programmes and allowing the UN to do its job.

Iran on the other hand refused to let the UN do its job and subsequently have put themselves in a undesirable position within the UN and have recently lost a vote in the UN which means that sanctions are going to be placed on Iran nuclear programme itself, lost the vote unnanimously I might add.

There is no problem with Iran having nuclear capabilities if they are honest and inform the UN what exactly they plan to do with their nuclear capabilities.


Old Post 03-30-2007 02:01 PM
Click here to Send White Tiger a Private Message Find more posts by White Tiger Add White Tiger to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #46  quote:

quote:
oneofpeace said this in post #44 :It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what’s going on here and it appears you’re being less than honest.


Since when has it been easy to figure out who's doing what in the Gulf? Considering the amount we've interfered politically and militarily in the region it's almost like many western countries think we own the place, to do with and shape however we see fit.

quote:
I find it funny how you can earnestly condemn your country and mine while seemingly living the benefit of the doubt to Iran?


See my previous post - Blair lies. Bush lies. Ahmandinejad lies.

quote:
As more information unfolds about what’s happened, it’s becoming clear that Iran is lying.


Or if you actually want to be honest and see this incident in anything but b&w terms, it's still not clear who is lying.

I think Iran should hand these sailors back. I also think Blair has completely botched this incident. So much so the UN seems reluctant to fully support him, and the US is staying well out of it.


Old Post 03-30-2007 03:25 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

oneofpeace
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 03:30 AM
Location: United States
Posts: 3972

post #47  quote:

quote:
h@ts wrote
Since when has it been easy to figure out who's doing what in the Gulf?

then says..
Considering the amount we've interfered politically and militarily in the region it's almost like many western countries think we own the


I find this to be somewhat of a double standard. On one hand you say how do we know, then you point to how we know the West has agendas in that region.

Plainly put, we know the West has agendas in the region because of their actions. Likewise, we know Iran’s has agendas by theirs. Now, I’d be the first to call a spade a spade. Bush and company are wrong on many levels but it doesn’t automatically make Iran’s claims credible.

Weigh the story and you can come to a reasonable conclusion that mostly likely, Iran is lying in this particular instance.

quote:

Or if you actually want to be honest and see this incident in anything but b&w terms, it's still not clear who


The British presented evidence with GPS coordinance showing where the sailors were accosted. Iran is showing soldiers under duress saying “yeah we entered Iranian water”. I can see how you can come to the conclusion that it’s still not clear.

quote:

I think Iran should hand these sailors back. I also think Blair has completely botched this incident. So much so the UN seems reluctant to fully support him, and the US is staying well out of it.


Botched this incident? How? Their soldiers were accosted and the world told they were in Iranian waters. Blair has told the world they were in Iraqi waters and Iraq has backed this summation. Are you blaming him for going to the UN?

You know h@ts, you say that you are neutral many times but your postings don’t reflect such a position. In as much, I can say that you’ll never blame anyone but the US and Briton for everything, but then again, maybe I’m lying too right?


Old Post 03-30-2007 03:48 PM
Click here to Send oneofpeace a Private Message Find more posts by oneofpeace Add oneofpeace to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore oneofpeace REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #48  quote:

quote:
White Tiger said this in post #45 :
I have never denied the UK or US hostilities towards Iran however Iran has been openly been hostile to many countries and are seen as a treat by many countries in the Gulf, not just by the UK or US.


In polls carried out world wide the United States - the country that bombed the crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq, where 650,000 people have since died - is considered by many to be the most serious threat to world peace. A difficult concept to get you're head round unless you've been on the receiving end of the laughable nick-named, MOABs, the mother of all bombs! Nice.

quote:
A trident nuclear intercontinetal balistic missile has never been fire in anger and has only ever been employed in a defensive position.


Saying they are only employed in a defensive position means nothing. We can either fire them or not. Which gives us the capability to annihilate whole cities. That capacity to destroy countries is a powerful threat to possess and if anyone wants to know how seriously a country is taken that has that capacity, compare Iraq and North Korea.

quote:
The trident was developed during the Cold War as a deterant to the Soviet Union, the Trident is there simply to put off countries that have nuclear weapon from attacking the UK.


So is it okay for Iran to build the bomb just so long as they paint the words "use only in defense" on the side of them?

quote:
I do not deny that the UK or US has been agressive toward Iran however Iran has also been agressive toward the UK and US so you cant really say that this is the fault of the UK or US.


What we've done to Iran over the decades and what they have done to us is not comparable. Same goes for Iraq. Same goes for Saudi Arabia etc.

quote:
The simple fact is that this whole Iranian nuclear programme argument could have been avoided if Iran had been willing to cooperate with the UN inspectors and shown them every aspect of their nuclear programme.


But they haven't. Do you propose we bomb them, invade the country, destabalise the place, turn it into the rogue state we already think it is? Or how about we set a president and say no country should be allowed to possess nukes and stop being so hypocritical about it.

quote:
Let us not forget that Iran are the ones who claim that their Nuclear programme is simply for peaceful uses however when asked to show the evdence for this claim they refused.


You're right, they should. And because of the debacle in Iraq the US is in no position to force them to open up their facilities.

quote:
Why should they be exempt from ispection when every other country that has a nuclear programme isn't?


Again you're right. They should not be exempt.

quote:
It shows that they are being open and honest with their nuclear programmes and allowing the UN to do its job.


It's easy to be open and honest about your nukes once you have them, in fact it'd be pretty stupid having them and not making sure the whole world knew you had them.

quote:
Iran on the other hand refused to let the UN do its job and subsequently have put themselves in a undesirable position within the UN and have recently lost a vote in the UN which means that sanctions are going to be placed on Iran nuclear programme itself, lost the vote unnanimously I might add.


The neocons have been chomping at the bit for regime change in Iran since they came to power. If it wasn't the nuke issue it'd be something else. Iraq didn't even have any WMD and they got obliterated.


Old Post 03-30-2007 03:53 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #49  quote:

quote:
oneofpeace said this in post #47 :
Weigh the story and you can come to a reasonable conclusion that mostly likely, Iran is lying in this particular instance.


You're not weighing anything. You don't hide the fact that you hate Iran. Don't pretend you are weighing evidence and seeing how it balances.

quote:
The British presented evidence with GPS coordinance showing where the sailors were accosted.


The Iranians did likewise, and the sailors admitted they were in Iranian water. Whether or not the Iranians were lying or that the sailors were coerced into saying what they said, I had no way of knowing. But then I automatically didn't just think we must be telling the truth. Blair has a habit of lying. I rarely even bother listening to him anymore.

Then it came out that the borders on these waters have been disputed for years, something that should have meant the British used tact instead of blowing their stack by a good mile when the initial incident happened. We turned what could have been a simple border incident into a political nightmare, where the Iranians have made us look stupid. Answer this question: how did making demands on national television that we couldn't back up help those sailors?

quote:
Iran is showing soldiers under duress saying “yeah we entered Iranian water”. I can see how you can come to the conclusion that it’s still not clear.


I presume this happened. You seem to magically know it happened.

quote:
Botched this incident? How? Their soldiers were accosted and the world told they were in Iranian waters. Blair has told the world they were in Iraqi waters and Iraq has backed this summation. Are you blaming him for going to the UN?


If we want the sailors back we can be smart or stupid. So far we've veered on the side of stupidity.

quote:
you’ll never blame anyone but the US and Briton for everything, but then again, maybe I’m lying too right? [/B]


What are you talking about? I blame the Iranians for not giving the sailors back. That they are still captive is an indisputable fact, and Iran is playing a dangerous political game.


Old Post 03-30-2007 04:12 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
White Tiger
Trust Me

offline
Registered: Mar 2004
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: The Historic City of Portsmouth, England
Posts: 2622

post #50  quote:

Also oneofpeace you have to add that Iran have refused to let the UK, Iraq, UN or Turkey have any contact with the british personnel held in Tehran so all we are getting out of Iran is their side of the story and occaisonal television coverage from Iranian TV which it truthfullness is highley questionable.

There is also speculation that Iran is manipulating the situation, forcing the British personnel to write letter specifically edited by the Iranian powers and foring the British personnel in front of Television cameras when the British government told them not to.

Due now to Iran seemingly refusing to work with the UK in resolving this issue the UK has gone to the UN to ask for assistance, he UN have called for Iran to release the personnel, and Iran has sent the British government a letter acusing them of making this issuean international issue rather than just an issue between UK and Iran by going to the UN.

Iran dont seem to be behaving like a country that has done nothing wrong.


Old Post 03-30-2007 04:15 PM
Click here to Send White Tiger a Private Message Find more posts by White Tiger Add White Tiger to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

Staff
White Tiger
Trust Me

offline
Registered: Mar 2004
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: The Historic City of Portsmouth, England
Posts: 2622

post #51  quote:

quote:
h@ts said this in post #48 :


Saying they are only employed in a defensive position means nothing. We can either fire them or not. Which gives us the capability to annihilate whole cities. That capacity to destroy countries is a powerful threat to possess and if anyone wants to know how seriously a country is taken that has that capacity, compare Iraq and North Korea.


I am not denying that Britain has the capabilities to do just what you claim, what stops them is that they are one of the principle name that signed the treaty at the end of the Cold War and have been one of the major voice in nuclear dissarmament. There is obviously some sort of military and political reason we have the trident however we dont tend to see the nuclear weapon of the UK as offensive weapons because they have never been used as such.

quote:
So is it okay for Iran to build the bomb just so long as they paint the words "use only in defense" on the side of them?


I have no problem with them having a nuclear defense sytem, weapon or not, the problem is that the revolutionary Guard who are in control in Iran are very anti-semitic in their views and really, after their irratic behaviour recently and thier behavour towards the UN, it would be in question whether or not they could be trusted with that kind of power.

quote:
What we've done to Iran over the decades and what they have done to us is not comparable. Same goes for Iraq. Same goes for Saudi Arabia etc.


I suppose you are right there but still Iran must share some the blame for the increasing tentions in the middle-east as their attitude towards the US and the UN in particular have forced the problems to become worse.

quote:
But they haven't. Do you propose we bomb them, invade the country, destabalise the place, turn it into the rogue state we already think it is? Or how about we set a president and say no country should be allowed to possess nukes and stop being so hypocritical about it.


I think that the increasing prussure against Iran inside the UN itself will sort this out eventuallay. As I said there are 192 countries in the UN and while Iran could compete with the UK or US in such matters they have no chance of competing with the UN.

However it was attempted at the end of the Cold War to try and remove all nuclear weapons from service but no one could reach a suitable agreement at the time.

quote:
You're right, they should. And because of the debacle in Iraq the US is in no position to force them to open up their facilities.


It is not up to the US to inforce the inspection of Nuclear weapons however it is up to the UN and the UN are already taking steps to force Iran to show them the extent of their nuclear programme.

quote:
The neocons have been chomping at the bit for regime change in Iran since they came to power. If it wasn't the nuke issue it'd be something else. Iraq didn't even have any WMD and they got obliterated.


I dont condone the Iraqi war becuase there was no real problem with Iraq, except perhaps the obvious difference between the higher ups of Iraq and the normal people. Iran however have made no attempt to allieviate the growing pressure on them, it wouldn't hurt their pride to much to allow the UN to do their job, it wouldn't damage their way of life or foriegn relations if they just allowed the UN to check their nuclear programme from the start.

Iran cannot blame anybody for their situation they find themselves in with their nuclear programme and the UN except themselves and the Revolutionary Guard.


Old Post 03-30-2007 04:48 PM
Click here to Send White Tiger a Private Message Find more posts by White Tiger Add White Tiger to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

oneofpeace
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 03:30 AM
Location: United States
Posts: 3972

post #52  quote:

quote:
h@ts wrote
You're not weighing anything. You don't hide the fact that you hate Iran. Don't pretend you are weighing evidence and seeing how it balances.


Hate Iran? That seems a bit over the top. Do I see the events in that region enough to know when someone’s story seems full of bull? Maybe.

Iran’s rhetoric lately falls in line with them doing exactly what they are accused of. Now if you construe that as hate, ok. So is it safe to say that you then hate the US and Briton?

quote:

The Iranians did likewise, and the sailors admitted they were in Iranian water. Whether or not the Iranians were lying or that the sailors were coerced into saying what they said, I had no way of knowing.


Iran has threatened to kidnap US and British soldiers because the US caught Iranians training insurgents inside of Iraq and held them. Now, we have the accosting of British soldiers. Now they put these soldiers on Iranian tv and their saying “yeah we entered Iranian waters” and you can actually take that as credible?

I find your sense of playing ignorant wanting. That or your blind hatred of the West has obscured you from any credible perspectives whatsoever.

quote:

Then it came out that the borders on these waters have been disputed for years, something that should have meant the British used tact instead of blowing their stack by a good mile when the initial incident happened


Blowing their stack? They kidnapped British military people who weren’t in their territory.

I find you’re uninformed about this matter. Iran has stated these soldiers were taken 2 miles inside of their undisputed territories, a charge that changed from them being .03 miles inside of their “undisputed” territories after the British provided evidence to the contrary.

quote:

We turned what could have been a simple border incident into a political nightmare, where the Iranians have made us look stupid


It’s statements like this that makes it hard to take you serious. Undoubtedly if the US or Briton had entered Iranian waters and accosted Revolutionary Guards, You wouldn’t think this incident was a “simple border incident”. Your ascribing to this as being so shows a voluntary will to blindfold yourself to support your obviously biased foundations.

quote:

I presume this happened. You seem to magically know it happened


I saw a hostage from the Iran kidnappings in 1979 not only identify Ahdmandinejad as one of the kidnappers but say when they put them on tv, they showed them with food and made them make statements and when the cameras went off, they took the food and through them back into confinement

Now is this undeniable proof? No, but given the history of this idiot and his rantings, it’s certainly more plausible to believe they were forced into making those statements than they simply asked for cameras so they can tell the world how unjust their British government is. Cut me a freaking break with this bs will ya.

quote:

If we want the sailors back we can be smart or stupid. So far we've veered on the side of stupidity


Again you’re just repeating yourself without qualifying this statement so I ask again. In what way did Blair proved to “veer on the side of stupidity”?


Old Post 03-30-2007 06:52 PM
Click here to Send oneofpeace a Private Message Find more posts by oneofpeace Add oneofpeace to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore oneofpeace REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

oneofpeace
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 03:30 AM
Location: United States
Posts: 3972

post #53  quote:

quote:
White Tiger wrote
Also oneofpeace you have to add that Iran have refused to let the UK, Iraq, UN or Turkey have any contact with the british personnel held in Tehran so all we are getting out of Iran is their side of the story and occaisonal television coverage from Iranian TV which it truthfullness is highley questionable.


It’s incredible that any reasonable person can take Iran putting these soldiers on TV as something resembling credibility of proof. Almost nonstop their state run new bombard Iranians with anti-US and British propaganda. I don’t believe the word questionable accurately reflects that circus they put on TV as “proof”.

Now I don’t agree with the war in Iraq nor with Bush’s decisions to invade or the way he’s managed this war. However, that doesn’t obscure me to what is apparently obvious.

If this situation blows up beyond control, I’m sure we’ll see h@ts in these forums laying blame on the British. In my opinion, he lacks any insight largely due to his distain for the West.


Old Post 03-30-2007 06:56 PM
Click here to Send oneofpeace a Private Message Find more posts by oneofpeace Add oneofpeace to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore oneofpeace REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #54  quote:

quote:
oneofpeace said this in post #52 :
[B]Do I see the events in that region enough to know when someone’s story seems full of bull?


Peace, to you the events are irrelevant and what Iran say is irrelevant because to you everything they say is a lie. You're whole argument is based on how you feel towards the country, and their hostility to Israel.


quote:
Now they put these soldiers on Iranian tv and their saying “yeah we entered Iranian waters” and you can actually take that as credible?


Yeah, of course that's what I said, blah blah blah. Sometimes you're just not worth responding to.

quote:
I find your sense of playing ignorant wanting. That or your blind hatred of the West has obscured you from any credible perspectives whatsoever.


There's nothing more ignorant than making assumptions based on preconceived biased notions, which is exactly what you've been doing.

quote:
I find you’re uninformed about this matter.


Well I'd already read and seen EVERYTHING you've posted before you put it on here, so maybe we're both uniformed.

quote:
It’s statements like this that makes it hard to take you serious. Undoubtedly if the US or Briton had entered Iranian waters and accosted Revolutionary Guards, You wouldn’t think this incident was a “simple border incident”. Your ascribing to this as being so shows a voluntary will to blindfold yourself to support your obviously biased foundations.


Please tell me how "demanding" the release of the sailors on national television after the initial capture helped in their release. I'm not saying they shouldn't have asked for them back. I'm talking about the counter productive way they went about it.

quote:
it’s certainly more plausible to believe they were forced into making those statements


You are hilarious. Of course it's plausible they were forced into making the statements. Who said it wasn't?

quote:
In what way did Blair proved to “veer on the side of stupidity”?


I've said it several times but again...

Making demands that can't be backed up by force (and the other sides knows this) may make good sound bites for politicians who want to look tough on TV but it backfired and meant we moved into a stand-off position with Iran immediately.


Old Post 03-30-2007 08:46 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

oneofpeace
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 03:30 AM
Location: United States
Posts: 3972

post #55  quote:

quote:
h@ts wrote
Peace, to you the events are irrelevant and what Iran say is irrelevant because to you everything they say is a lie. You're whole argument is based on how you feel towards the country, and their hostility to Israel.


Once again you are off base. I look at Iran, their president and his rhetoric. In like manner I saw Bush’s rhetoric about Saddam’s possession of WMD and don’t agree with him. You on the other hand can hear Iran say I’ll kidnap, do it, then you’ll say it could be possible that they’re telling the truth.

Ahman’s hatred for Israel is blatant and he makes no bones about it however that’s a digression. So be it, we’re talking about this incident and all indicators thus far says Iran is lying. If that circus they’re showing on TV doesn’t convince you certainly nothing I say will ever do it.

quote:

Yeah, of course that's what I said, blah blah blah. Sometimes you're just not worth responding to.


Did you not say….

“the sailors admitted they were in Iranian water. Whether or not the Iranians were lying or that the sailors were coerced into saying what they said, I had no way of knowing.”

So what’s the problem? I was responsive to your nonsense. Your statement would lead anyone to believe you hold some credibility in Iran’s “proof” with the confession of those British soldiers who now suddenly sees the light of their wayward government.

quote:

There's nothing more ignorant than making assumptions based on preconceived biased notions, which is exactly what you've been doing.


Preconceived? The U.N. told Iran to release the soldiers. Do they have preconceptions too?

quote:

Please tell me how "demanding" the release of the sailors on national television after the initial capture helped in their release. I'm not saying they shouldn't have asked for them back. I'm talking about the counter productive way they went about it.


They seized British soldiers in sovereign waters and you want the Brits to ask them nicely to return the soldiers? Talk about the pinnacle of absurdity.

Blair had every right to do so, especially in light of the rhetorical threats Ahmanihajad makes on national almost every other day. I find this position preposterous. If this problem escalates, it is Iran’s fault for accosting the soldiers in the first place.

quote:

You are hilarious. Of course it's plausible they were forced into making the statements. Who said it wasn't?


What’s hilarious is that you give equal weight to the possibility that they’re telling the truth, otherwise you wouldn’t have made such a ridiculous statement about Iran showing proof.

quote:

Making demands that can't be backed up by force (and the other sides knows this) may make good sound bites for politicians who want to look tough on TV but it backfired and meant we moved into a stand-off position with Iran immediately.


You are delusional if you think Iran would simply release those soldiers because Blair asked for it “nicely”. What Iran has done was illegal now you want Blair to “ask nicely and maybe he would have gotten the soldiers back”.

You couldn’t be more backwards if you tried. It isn’t Blair that is flexing here, it’s Iran who is on an absurd mission to show the Islamic world that they can stand up to the superpowers. You’re dismissal of Iran’s provoking behavior in favor of the “its Blair’s fault” notion is utterly, utterly absurd.


Old Post 03-30-2007 09:58 PM
Click here to Send oneofpeace a Private Message Find more posts by oneofpeace Add oneofpeace to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore oneofpeace REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #56  quote:

quote:
oneofpeace said this in post #55 :
You on the other hand can hear Iran say I’ll kidnap, do it, then you’ll say it could be possible that they’re telling the truth.


That's just twaddle.

quote:
So be it, we’re talking about this incident and all indicators thus far says Iran is lying. If that circus they’re showing on TV doesn’t convince you certainly nothing I say will ever do it.


More twaddle.


quote:
So what’s the problem? I was responsive to your nonsense. Your statement would lead anyone to believe you hold some credibility in Iran’s “proof” with the confession of those British soldiers who now suddenly sees the light of their wayward government.


Now you're just becoming annoying.

quote:
Preconceived? The U.N. told Iran to release the soldiers.


Yes, I agree with the UN. There is no reason to hold these sailors. Wake up. Iran is wrong to keep them.

quote:
They seized British soldiers in sovereign waters and you want the Brits to ask them nicely to return the soldiers? Talk about the pinnacle of absurdity.


Yes I want Blair to tickle the Iranian PM till he laughs so hard he doesn't notice the sailors have escaped.

quote:
Blair had every right to do so,


Blair says the most important thing is the release of the sailors. Well that takes political skill and tact. Not shoving a bull in a china shop and wondering why all the plates got wrecked.

quote:
What’s hilarious is that you give equal weight to the possibility that they’re telling the truth, otherwise you wouldn’t have made such a ridiculous statement about Iran showing proof.


Yes that's hilarious. Fancy me wanting to give equal weight to who's telling the truth when I don't know any facts. What ever was I thinking? Of course we never lie and they always do. You have enlightened me.

quote:
You are delusional if you think Iran would simply release those soldiers because Blair asked for it “nicely”.


Yes, I'm delusional, even though it's you that insist that you know what would have happened had Blair not demanded the release of the sailors immediately. The last time British soldiers were taken they were released within 3 days.

quote:
You couldn’t be more backwards if you tried.


Now I'm apparently retarded.

quote:
It isn’t Blair that is flexing here, it’s Iran who is on an absurd mission to show the Islamic world that they can stand up to the superpowers. You’re dismissal of Iran’s provoking behavior in favor of the “its Blair’s fault” notion is utterly, utterly absurd.


My point, which is wasted on you, is that Blair's government has allowed Iran to been seen to flex its muscle by making demands we can't back up. Iran is now clearly provoking Britain and making us look stupid, impotent, and weak.


Old Post 03-30-2007 10:55 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
White Tiger
Trust Me

offline
Registered: Mar 2004
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: The Historic City of Portsmouth, England
Posts: 2622

post #57  quote:

EU foreign ministers have demanded the immediate release of 15 British navy personnel seized by Iran a week ago. The 27 ministers voiced "unconditional support" for Britain in the dispute, in a statement agreed at a meeting in the north German port city of Bremen.

They urged "the immediate and unconditional release" of the crew.

The EU said it reserved the right to take "appropriate measures" if Iran did not comply - though the measures were not spelled out.

The BBC's Oana Lungescu in Bremen says the strongly-worded EU statement goes much further than the UN's expression of "grave concern" about the Iran-UK dispute on Thursday.

Earlier, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy described Iran's detention of the Royal Navy crew as "a very serious and unacceptable act which we immediately condemned".

"We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the British," he added.

The UK Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, did not explicitly ask for a suspension of EU business ties with Tehran. France and other big European countries, including Germany and Italy, have important economic interests in Iran and would be reluctant to heed such calls, our reporter says.

The European external affairs commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, warned that the EU had to be careful at a very delicate moment in relations with Iran.

Europe should make clear where it stood, she said, but also hold the door open to negotiations on Tehran's controversial nuclear programme.

The foreign minister of Turkey, whose country is trying to intervene on the UK sailors' behalf, was also invited to the meeting in Bremen.

The ministers also discussed the Middle East and Kosovo.

A paper prepared for the meeting says an EU police mission - the largest of its kind set up by the bloc - could be in place in Kosovo for at least two years and the international community will need to raise $2bn (£1bn) to prop up the province's fragile economy.


Old Post 03-30-2007 11:56 PM
Click here to Send White Tiger a Private Message Find more posts by White Tiger Add White Tiger to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #58  quote:

Peace -

You need to calm down, stop posting stuff in the wrong thread and listen.

My argument is that I try not to make assumptions without any facts, and I was talking about the initial incident that happened several days ago. Since then things have changed.

quote:
So I guess these sailors suddenly asked for a camera so they can tell the world how unjust their government is but if you’re saying it’s “twaddle” then someone can get the notion that you believe the soldiers.


You're speaking twaddle again. Did I ever say the sailors asked for a camera, or that I believed that they hadn't been told what to write and say?

quote:
If that assumption is correct, then you must give equal weight to both positions. And if that is so, then you must believe that Iran could be telling the truth and that their proof of evidence is credible.


Both Iran and Britain said the sailors were in Iranian/Iraqi waters. That I was giving equal weight to. Okay?

quote:
So if Iran is wrong to keep them then that suggests they were wrong to take them in the first place doesn’t it?


How's that? If the Iranians believed the sailors had sailed into Iranian waters they had every right to arrest them. The incident should then have remained a dispute about the border line. Instead we demanding the immediate release of the sailors. I am suggesting this approach was counter productive. Do you think it was the right approach?

Once it became clear who and what the sailors were doing, the Iranians should have released them.

quote:
Is any of this Iran’s fault?


Iran are in the wrong for not releasing the sailors.

quote:
Not without respect to you personally h@ts but your position seems too ridiculous to entertain at times.


Not without respect to you, peace, but the "ridiculous position" was purely an invention in your own head.


Last edited by h@ts on 03-31-2007 at 06:51 PM |
Old Post 03-31-2007 05:56 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

oneofpeace
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 03:30 AM
Location: United States
Posts: 3972

post #59  quote:

quote:
h@ts wrote
How's that? If the Iranians believed the sailors had sailed into Iranian waters they had every right to arrest them. The incident should then have remained a dispute about the border line. Instead we demanding the immediate release of the sailors. I am suggesting this approach was counter productive. Do you think it was the right approach?


Well I said I would give but I just can’t seem to help myself..

FACT. Iran says the arrested the soldiers over 2 miles from the position Briton say they were in. Iran changed their claims from .3 to almost 2 miles. Briton never changed their story.

Furthermore, the position where Briton says they were taken and Iran denies is NOT inside of Iran’s territories so someone is intentionally lying.

Now I understand how you didn’t want to jump to any conclusions. If you look at my posts, you’d see I didn’t chime in at the onset but only after Briton and Iran presented their proofs.

So I’m baffled. Let’s be clear about it. Do you believe Iran or Briton? If you’re still neutral as you seem to be saying, why is that, because there still isn’t enough proof?

quote:

Not without respect to you, peace, but the "ridiculous position" was purely an invention in your own head.


In my head hey? You still haven’t said whether Iran was wrong for arresting those soldiers. In fact, you haven’t said much of anything except that Blair is wrong.

Why I think your position is ridiculous is because after all that’s happened, it seems you’d rather believe that there’s not enough facts to support a claim either way. By now, it should be obvious whom is jibing who.


Old Post 04-01-2007 02:08 AM
Click here to Send oneofpeace a Private Message Find more posts by oneofpeace Add oneofpeace to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore oneofpeace REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
lodgebo
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 08:30 AM
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4383

post #60  quote:

A few things I have noticed about what is going on in Iran. Firstly despite waht has been said here the UK does have the full support of the US it also has the full support of the EU and the majority support of the UN only Russia dragging her heels screwed up the resolution apparently the moderate Iranians want the sailors released.
Also it has been claimed to day that this kidnapping was preplanned a group of dissedent Iranians sent a letter dated Friday claiming this, now the date is intresting because most Iraninas did not know about this on Friday due it still being the Persian new year.
Another thing nobody else has noticed but I belive is telling is that it's the sailors not the marines that have been paraded on TV. This is important because speaking from experience Marines are trained and told that unless your life is in danger if you are captured you say nothing and refuse deals and do not get involved in propaganda, sailors don't get that kind of training I think Iran knew this and as such have used the sailors not the marines,. it also probably proves that the marines beliove that they are not in imminent danger.
The problem is this Iran must know that in terms of options that the UK has extraction of the sailors is soon going to become the only option, so I am thinking that maybe thats what they want maybe a reason to attack Britain or British intrests which in turn would mean America assisting the UK wqhich would then give Iran reason to attack American intrests esp American intrests in Israel. Now that might sound carzy but we are hardly dealing with a country full of sane leaders.


Old Post 04-01-2007 02:32 AM
Click here to Send lodgebo a Private Message Find more posts by lodgebo Add lodgebo to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore lodgebo REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote
Time: 08:30 AM Post New Thread   
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
INReview INReview > Hot Topics > Post-9/11 Era > Increasing Tentions with Iran
Search this Thread:
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
Forum Policies Explained
 
Rate This Thread:

< >

Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.61922598 seconds (96.35% PHP - 3.65% MySQL) with 41 queries.

ADS

© 2013, INReview.com.   Popular Forums  All Forums   Web Hosting and Web Design by Psyphire.
INReview.com: Back to Home