UK sailors seized by Iranians

[Cyrus]

How can you not relate to it? Do you expect the world to bend over backwards and do whatever we tell them to? When you act the way we acted during this war, consequences of our actions are going to come up. Now they are comming up and its not pretty. We basically trashed Europe, and destroyed the ME. Is that not apparent?

Sell out? How's that selling out. Even the soldiers want to come back home because they know the job can't be done. I think your attitude is more dangerous and will get them killed in Iraq for no reason.

 

[denverdoc]

I think we've reached the end of our debate. I fully understand your position on the matter. You do have what can be considered a point, I just cannot personally relate to it at all. I just hope that the most of us have not totally sold out our comrades over there.

I'm not sure whether "comrades" is a communist innuendo. Our only allies, correct me if I'm wrong, are Saudi Arabia and Israel. Too tougher "masters to please" simultaneously I cannot imagine. Sure we have fair weather friends all over the region, but this is the game. Please saudis to keep our cars running, please Israel because it weilds such political influence $$$ here.

Theres only one way out. Well two, if you want to atomically annihilate the region.

Or raise the price of petrol to what the rest of the world pays, and seek with government subsidy, industries best replies. You may need to "ration" gas for 5 years during the transition, but its been done before. People survive. It may even cut a major artery into the plastic but very porous palaces at a distance trend. There are so many ways around this besides force. You could cut the impetus for terrorism behind the knees with a rational FP and domestic energy policy.

But this is the interest of all except those reaping obscene profits from the status quo, and who usually have more to say about our leaders than common sense would otherwise dictate.




"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the ony one."

 

[Yonoz]

You're digressing again...

Am I? Your previous posts dealt more with Palestinians & cluster munitions than they did with the actual topic of this thread.

...so rather than write an essay discussing the minutae I'll reiterate my original point for you which is really quite simple. Blair claims to be disgusted at his people being shown smiling and apparently reasonably happy

http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-blair_300307_1230,00.html"

I really don't know why the Iranian regime is doing this, I mean all it does is enhance people's sense of disgust at captured personnel being paraded and manipulated in this way, it doesn't fool anyone...

(Manipulated meaning coerced into "confessing")

...whilst in Iranian detention and yet he expressed no such disgust at TV film of prisoners, who's capture and treatment he was complicit in, being paraded on TV manacled, hooded, in orange jumpsuits and wearing sensory deprivation headware. Personally I find that hypocritical.

If those were agents of another state that were unlawfully captured by Britain then I would agree, though I have not seen the said video.

Oh and by the way according to a poll in the Sunday times only 7% of the British public favour military action against Iran under any circumstances so Blair needs to get over his disgust smartish and get down to serious negotiations. The Iranians are asking for an official apology and a guarantee the British will not trespass in their waters again. Before you attack me for repeating this please note I personally did not draft these demands and have no idea whatsoever if they were in Iranian waters or not.

Well the British MoD has released a http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DB42AC92-E1CC-4478-9910-B8CB299A6612/0/HeloGPS.jpg" (the ship that was searched is in the background).
I do not know what "any circumstances" means but if that includes a hypothetical circumstance of Iran punishing those sailors, the British may as well sell all their navy and military equipment.

 

[ukmicky]

They should have just apologised got them back and then retracted their apology. Some people have no sense :)

 

[Art]

They should have just appologised got them back and then retracted their appology. Some people have no sense :)

I agree Apologise, get your people home, announce an investigation, publish your findings that you hadn't entered Iranian waters and then protest to the Iranian gov't.

 

[BobG]

Quite the pessemist. What does that mean to you? Iraq will always be. And it will be a much better country when all is said and done. But, like anything, it will probably get worse before it gets better, IMO. And I'm all for getting out if that is the will of the people there.

So, your poker buddy, is he saying he wasted his time there? I just don't believe you.

Our soldiers there on the streets, mingling with locals as well as the children, will tell you differently.

But, it is off topic, which is a sad way to argue your point, IMO

Your perception of the military's attitude towards Iraq is about two years out of date: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/. The attitude has gone from overwhelming support in 2003 and 2004 to "slipped significantly" in 2005 to "increasingly pessimistic" in 2006.

 

[Astronuc]

Your perception of the military's attitude towards Iraq is about two years out of date: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/. The attitude has gone from overwhelming support in 2003 and 2004 to "slipped significantly" in 2005 to "increasingly pessimistic" in 2006.

The military did its part, but the civies of the Bush administration (or regime, or syndicate) failed miserable to perform, except perhaps to help themselves to taxpayer money.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, looks like there has been a little bit of on topic debate...

Hypothetical scenario, what if the Royal Navy began sinking Iranian military ships? Let's say a ship every 6hrs that Iran refuses to release the prisoners.

I honestly believe that a lack of action is actually escelating the situation to a future catastrophe. We are all kitty footing around so much that we allow this crap to happen. Just like with children, they will do anything they are allowed to, plus a little more to push their boundaries.

Now if the UN is involved Iran will really be shaking in their sandles. OOOOH. Please. Noone has any rocks anymore. All bark and no bite. The Iranians are going to just going to soak this up. Laughing at our lack of resolve.

If you set aside the flowery language (and c'mon, cyrus, who here doesn't speak in rhetoric?), how about answering the question or examining related ones?

These soldiers were surrounded by an overwhealmingly large force, too far from their protection (not sure why they were so far away). But they probably didn't figure on this incident being as big as it has become. Had they, they may have resisted capture.

This is an act of war, these soldiers could have legally resisted, and had these soldiers resisted capture and a fight broken out, their odds of survival wouldn't have been very high: but then, the British (and perhaps there were others in the area who could have helped...) could have easily sunk every Iranian military ship in a 30 mile radius. It is a poker game, and though ultimately the British have the overall winning hand (a real navy), throwing it down doesn't seem worth it if the immediate risk is that high. But Iran's actions are changing the risk calculus, and not in a good way for Iran.

I don't think "upping the ante" by starting to blow up Iranian ships is a good idea because of the fact that Iran can just start killing hostages, but the next time Iran pulls a stunt like this, don't you guys think that Iran is likely to find their navy at the bottom of the Gulf in short order?

I think Iran is blundering here. Perhaps this was a decision by a roge unit and the gov't is now covering for them, but if not, I don't think they have the slightest clue what they are doing. They don't understand diplomacy, leverage, public opinion, propaganda, or military risk. Can anyone tell me what they hoped to gain by this? Hostage-for-hostage bargaining chips? (which is plausible, but there is no evidence for it at this point).

 

[BobG]

I think Iran is blundering here. Perhaps this was a decision by a roge unit and the gov't is now covering for them, but if not, I don't think they have the slightest clue what they are doing. They don't understand diplomacy, leverage, public opinion, propaganda, or military risk.

I'd have to agree. It would be hard to look at this situation and have any idea of Iran was doing. The situation has lasted over a week and there's still no clue what's going on. It is starting to look like something that just happened and Iran's still trying to figure out if there's any advantage to be had from the situation.

 

[Kurdt]

I think what has become clearer over the past few days is the specific motivation for Iran to capture these people. It was revealed that a letter from the Iranian foreign office stated that the UK wouldn't necessarily have to apologise to get the military personnel released. All they would have to do is talk about how this could be prevented in the future. With territorial waters in dispute in that region it is clear that Iran wants to redefine the borders.

I think the method they've chosen is not productive to furthering their wants.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps, but it seems like an awfully big risk to take for the sole purpose of getting the UK to acknowledge a border dispute. The next time something like this happens, they may find themselves without a navy in very short order.

 

[Kurdt]

Perhaps, but it seems like an awfully big risk to take for the sole purpose of getting the UK to acknowledge a border dispute. The next time something like this happens, they may find themselves without a navy in very short order.

Perhaps it would have been more of a risk with American sailors but the UK is slightly more diplomatically inclined or at least used to be before Blair. There seems to be significant movement on both sides recently so we'll just have to wait and see how it pans out. But as far as I can see I think that has been the motivation and it certainly seems to fit the facts given so far.

Also one must remember that people in the middle east do have very different methods to the west and so that tends to leave us in the west baffled at times.

 

[Anttech]

This is an act of war, these soldiers could have legally resisted, and had these soldiers resisted capture and a fight broken out, their odds of survival wouldn't have been very high:

Well the UK government disagrees with you. The fact of the matter is the UK is not at war with Iran. Obvious no?

 

[drankin]

Well the UK government disagrees with you. The fact of the matter is the UK is not at war with Iran. Obvious no?

He didn't say they were "at war" he said that Iran committed an act of war. Obvious, no?

 

[OSalcido]

Sure it holds water. You just destabilized their immediate neighbor.

What if tomorrow China came in and destroyed Canada and Mexico. Don’t you think that would affect us just as bad?

Never thought of the situation in that regard.. very enlightening remark. I do think it would affect us as badly and that the Iranians have every reason to feel threatened.

 

[Anttech]

You can't commit an act of war and not go to war. It is either an act of war or it isnt. There is no book (or even a treaty of some sort) that describes what is and what isn't an act of war, so the only way one can know is look at the effect of that act. The effect is not War so how does one say it is an act of war then.?

Russ is exaggerating. Its an opinion of his, not a hard fact.

 

[OSalcido]

This is an act of war, these soldiers could have legally resisted, and had these soldiers resisted capture and a fight broken out, their odds of survival wouldn't have been very high: but then, the British (and perhaps there were others in the area who could have helped...) could have easily sunk every Iranian military ship in a 30 mile radius. It is a poker game, and though ultimately the British have the overall winning hand (a real navy), throwing it down doesn't seem worth it if the immediate risk is that high. But Iran's actions are changing the risk calculus, and not in a good way for Iran.

I don't think "upping the ante" by starting to blow up Iranian ships is a good idea because of the fact that Iran can just start killing hostages, but the next time Iran pulls a stunt like this, don't you guys think that Iran is likely to find their navy at the bottom of the Gulf in short order?

I thought this was the "next time"... the iranians already did this same thing before. My guess is that the soldiers remembered the previous incident and were counting on being released unharmed, rather than unloading on the iranians and getting shot at. A reasonable action.

 

[Kurdt]

Never thought of the situation in that regard.. very enlightening remark. I do think it would affect us as badly and that the Iranians have every reason to feel threatened.

I'm not sure that they feel threatened, I'd say they feel empowered. I say this because Saddam was the guy keeping Iran in check and now he's gone Iran sees the oppourtunity to becoe the dominant power in the middle east. This whole seizure of UK sailors could Iran testing how far they can stretch their muscles.

Thats the other side of the argument. I suppose they could feel threatened in many ways.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps it would have been more of a risk with American sailors but the UK is slightly more diplomatically inclined or at least used to be before Blair.

When Iran has taken Americans hostage, it has lasted an awful long time. I think our predilection toward resistance is justifiable - and the UK may see that after thi incident.

But as far as I can see I think that has been the motivation and it certainly seems to fit the facts given so far.

That what? What has been the motivation?

 

[russ_watters]

Well the UK government disagrees with you. The fact of the matter is the UK is not at war with Iran. Obvious no?

You must have misread what I said. I didn't say the UK was at war with Iran.

You can't commit an act of war and not go to war.

Why not?

Russ is exaggerating. Its an opinion of his, not a hard fact.

Not opinion, not exaggeration, straightforward logic based on the definition of the word and international law. This is such an obvious thing, it defies my imagination to wonder how you could disagree. Please state your argument.

How would you categorize this act? State your point and make your argument.

 

[drankin]

You can't commit an act of war and not go to war. It is either an act of war or it isnt. There is no book (or even a treaty of some sort) that describes what is and what isn't an act of war, so the only way one can know is look at the effect of that act. The effect is not War so how does one say it is an act of war then.?

Russ is exaggerating. Its an opinion of his, not a hard fact.

You are saying that in order for an act of war to take place, a war has to actually take place as a result? A dictionary is a wonderful thing.

act of war
–noun an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.

 

[russ_watters]

I thought this was the "next time"... the iranians already did this same thing before. My guess is that the soldiers remembered the previous incident and were counting on being released unharmed, rather than unloading on the iranians and getting shot at. A reasonable action.

Well yes, except that the last time they weren't held for very long (I can't remember for how long). So this next time isn't quite the same as the last time. Iran is upping the bet.

 

[Anttech]

You can't commit an act of war and not go to war.
Why not?

Its a logical statement which is very easy to follow:

If it *is* an act of war, a war has to follow it. If it a act of aggression that is different.

You are saying that in order for an act of war to take place, a war has to actually take place as a result?

Congratulations! you are correct

http://www.google.be/search?q=defin...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Stop cherry picking.

 

[russ_watters]

Its a logical statement which is very easy to follow:

If it *is* an act of war, a war has to follow it. If it a act of aggression that is different.

That isn't an argument or an explanation, Anttech, it is an assertion. Explain your assertion!

Why Does a war have to follow an act of war?

Stop cherry picking.

Cherry picking? Huh?

Btw, your google doesn't have anything to do with this issue. This isn't a video game and it isn't a written document justifying war. What was your point with that? What is going on here?!?

The only thing I can think of that might connect that Google to this conversation supports my position, not yours, but I'll let you defend your assertion first...

 

[drankin]

Its a logical statement which is very easy to follow:

If it *is* an act of war, a war has to follow it. If it a act of aggression that is different.

Congratulations! you are correct

http://www.google.be/search?q=defin...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Stop cherry picking.

You just gave us a link to wikipedia article of the computer game "Act of War"! :rofl:

I just gave you the dictionary definition to the term "act of war". It doesn't require that a war has to result in order to complete the definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act of war

 

[Anttech]

Cherry picking? Huh?

Not you, but --> drankin

Russ, there are no international treaty which define what is and what is not an act of war.
There is no clean cut definition we can use to determine what falls into the area of "act of war" and out with the scope of that definition.
Therefore if something is claim as thus, it must be followed by a war, which was not the case.
It was an act of aggression if the UK soldiers were taken from Iraqi water, which I tend to believe is the case.
It was not an act of war, nor was it a declaration of war; (metaphorically or actually speaking). Which could be said to be an act of war, right?
Regardless if you follow my logic or not, you are exaggerating IMHO. And your assertion is an opinion not a hard cold fact.

 

[Kurdt]

That what? What has been the motivation?

Territorial gains as I mentioned in the previous post Sorry should have been clearer. As I said before I think we're just going to have to wait to see, pure speculation on my part.

 

[Anttech]

You just gave us a link to wikipedia article of the computer game "Act of War"! :rofl:

I just gave you the dictionary definition to the term "act of war". It does require that a war has to result in order to complete the definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act of war

Drankin, wasnt the first warning shot across your bow not enough? don't ad hom! Or blaitently Lie

I gave you a link to the google define macro, you didnt give a link, until now. Anyway you do realize that Reference.com just copy pastes from Wiki?
Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hom
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[drankin]

If you are found wrong, it does not mean that you were personally attacked for crying out loud.

Anyhow, the point is, capturing sailors of another country that you are not at war with can be reasonably perceived as an act of war.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, there are no international treaty which define what is and what is not an act of war.
There is no clean cut definition we can use to determine what falls into the area of "act of war" and out with the scope of that definition.
Therefore if something is claim as thus, it must be followed by a war, which was not the case.

Your argument (such as it is - it doesn't say much) contradicts your end assertion, Anttech. Your argument says (really just implies) that an act of war is an act on which a war can be/is justified, but your assertion is that an act of war is an act that a war follows. You are right that there is not set law that defines it but even if there was, laws and punishment are not automatic. The person the "act" was committed against still gets to choose the response.

Besides, just because a person says a certain act precipitated a war, that does not necessarily mean it is a just cause for war. Ironically, your assertion follows that in the sense of 'it is a fact because I say it is a fact'.

In any case, this is all irrelevant. You understood that my usage meant 'an aggressive act that is a just cause for war' (presumably because you know that that is the correct/conventional usage ), so why bother being argumentative about it?:

It was an act of aggression if the UK soldiers were taken from Iraqi water, which I tend to believe is the case.

Yes (more or less...). So you agree that this was a wrongful aggressive act and therefore a justifiable basis for war. Fine. Good. We agree. The point I'm making by pointing that out is that if the UK so chooses, they would be justified in sinking every Iranian military ship in range, should the Iranians pull something like this again. That's why this is a big risk for Iran.

Most of the rest of your post there isn't complete sentences and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sorry, I can't comment on that...

 

[russ_watters]

Territorial gains as I mentioned in the previous post Sorry should have been clearer. As I said before I think we're just going to have to wait to see, pure speculation on my part.

Fair enough.

 

[drankin]

Anyway you do realize that Reference.com just copy pastes from Wiki?

Wrong. Do you just make this stuff up?

http://dictionary.reference.com does not reference wikipedia. Their references are listed here: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/about.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act of war

On the bottom of the definition of this link it states the source:

"Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006."

 

[Anttech]

so why bother being argumentative about it?:

Because IMO it is an exaggeration that's why.

Yes (more or less...). So you agree that this was a wrongful aggressive act and therefore a justifiable basis for war. Fine. Good. We agree.

I agree that it was a wrongful act of aggression, but I don't agree it is enough to go to war on!. That is why I am disagreeing with you on that word anyhow I don't think it is an act of war, especially an act with a view to starting a war.

Most of the rest of your post there isn't complete sentences and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sorry, I can't comment on that...

ermm yeah whatever

 

[Anttech]

Wrong. Do you just make this stuff up?

http://dictionary.reference.com does not reference wikipedia. Their references are listed here: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/about.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act of war

On the bottom of the definition of this link it states the source:

"Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006."

Ohh I suppose you miss the 2 links? 1 taken from Reference.com one from wiki.org, funny enough reference.com was a word for word copy from wiki. Give it a rest:

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hom

In case you missed it the first time.

Here is another:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Casus_belli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

To answer you question, no I don't make it up.

 

[drankin]

Ok, when I gave you the definition of "act of war" you attempted to lessen the validity of the definition because it was from reference.com and they also list wiki stuff. But, as shown, reference.com does just that "references" other sources. In this case "act of war" was referenced from Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

So, can we agree that the definition is valid and continue the topic?