Iran to free the sailors
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave. He repeated Iran’s view that the British sailors and marines “invaded” Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a “gift” to Britain.
He said they would be taken to Tehran airport and flown home within hours. Downing Street welcomed news of the release, while Iranian state media said the British crew members “shouted for joy” on hearing the news. [BBC News]
To be honest I haven’t blogged about this for various reasons. I found there to be lots of posturing on either sides, silly calls for war, laments that this was an example of British influence waning abroad, citing this as an example that Ahmadinejad wants to provoke war etc. There may be an element of truth in all of them.
But demanding your country go to war just because other countries are not offering you sufficient ‘respect’ reminds me tactics that gangs use in crime-ridden streets. They want to give the impression that they are ‘hard’ even if they’re blatantly not and will react to any slur on their ‘honour’ with excessive force to keep up the pretense. This is not to say Iran’s actions were justified or right but any call for war was just idiotic posturing that the Foreign Office was never going to take seriously.
There is an increasing tendency for commentators here to itch for silly confrontations just to prove they stand for the right ideals. Really, please, put your member away and stop waving it around. You know what they say, people in glass houses…
Update: More amusing commentary from Juvenal and Beau Bo D’or
… should not wave their memebers around. The neighbours might be watching
Justforfun
To be honest I haven’t blogged about this for various reasons. I found there to be lots of posturing on either sides, silly calls for war, laments that this was an example of British influence waning abroad, citing this as an example that Ahmadinejad wants to provoke war etc. There may be an element of truth in all of them.
… and that is why it is a very interesting piece of current affairs.
Cheers Sunny,
TFI
Iranians arrest/kidnap British service people, Sunny talks about penises…hmmmm…:P
Anyway, fair point Mr Hundal, wanted to blog about it too but didn’t feel anything useful could be added in the mess. I think Craig Murray had some of the saner things to say about situation though…
… yes but reading the wide range of diverse comments from the colourful range of personalities that frequent this site is what makes it an interesting read, unlike CIF etc, where there are to many people commenting and you get lost.
However if you don’t post about something, the people here won’t comment. Perphaps, when in doubt, rather than post an article for comment, just ask for comment?
TFI
That was pure political theatre at its finest!
Check mate to Ahmadinejad.
The whole global media machine had to sit through that entire 45-rant….
On the other hand, we are getting our people back, we didn’t back down and it was the Iranians who actually committed the crime of kidnapping in Iraqi waters.
We internationalised the dispute, held our nerve and President Eichmann wannbe gets his moment too.
No one looks too bad. Problem solved.
Score this 1 for UK and 1 for the more sensible elements in the Iranian Establishment.
Score 0 for the fundie nutters/Iranian War Party
Drat
Should have read ‘wannabee’
Thick fingers!
No one looks too bad. Problem solved.
I agree. I didn’t see any reason for a British apology… maybe the Iranian politicians could offer one first for calling for ‘Death to Britain’ every 5 minutes?
The sensible elements prevailed, which is how it should have been.
TFI - Sure, people may be itching to comment on such issues but its only useful if the writers here are adding something to the debate in a useful way. Otherwise we could have an open thread on every topic.. not sure if that would be very useful.
You know what they say about not looking a gift horse in the mouth…I think the UK should be grateful for this present.
Now that its over, did anyone see Mark Urban on Newsnight analysing the footage. He mentioned one of the Marines still had his gun with him, when he was on pictured on the Iranian launch having a fag, sitting under the IRI flag. Was this all a Holloywood stunt, like Capricorn 1? I mean - we have all the IRIs stolen billions in our banks so of course they will do what we say. Or am I the only madman left.
Anyway I am glad - perhaps sanity has become the new black.
Justforfun
Can we now release Amir back into the bosom of PP?
By the way Sunny, given the history of our evil pair (Bush and Blair), if I was running a country on a neo-con hitlist - I would stand firm at the first sign of foreign tentacles. Of which there are many.
The question yet to be raised is why had Blair allowed it to escalate, at the possible expense of the liberty of the 15?
The question yet to be raised is why had Blair allowed it to escalate, at the possible expense of the liberty of the 15?
Because he’s a psychopath? Seriously, I’m glad more level headed people on both sides appear to have held sway and stopped their bonkers leaders from causing too much trouble…
I’m glad they’re free.
Now what about the Guantanamo 500+?
Sid,
What about all those political prisoners tortured and murdered.? All those homosexuals hanged in public. All those trade unionist, teachers, lecturers, students etc persecuted by the regime. The Arabs in the south. What about freedom of expression? What about freedom for women?
Welcome to Iran. Who is the psychopath? Get a grip Leon.
lithcol, you’re little litany is more descriptive of post-US-invaded, “liberated” Iraq than Iran.
Too right Sid, would have been better to let Saddam and his cronies continue their murderous regime. Didn’t see public hanging of homosexuals though. Perhaps they were more discreet.
I could give you a larger litany but why bother your mind is made up. I am no apologist for US or UK adventurism in the middle east.
Iran will change and given the events of today it will be sooner than later.
Too right Sid, would have been better to let Saddam and his cronies continue their murderous regime.
Sorry, it’s worse in “Liberated Iraq” now than when Saddam and his cronies were around.
I bet you were baying for invasion in the same manner in 2003. Except now you’ve made the small exchange od the letter “q” for the letter “n”.
So Iran yielded to Tony’s 48 hour deadline, or am i missing something?
Well said Sid.
The families of the freed servicemen should be asking questions of Blair through their MPs and the media.
Even the security council pretty much said that Britain had not offered evidence that Blair was telling the truth.
It was simple. Satellite imagery would have resolved it - hopefully not quite the way Colin Powell’s powerpoint was used - but it would have been enough. We should have had Russian, US, Chinese, Indian or anyone else offer up their own images. Perhaps, maybe they did have their own images, which is why the security council had to water it all down.
Let’s face it, the US taking diplomats are called arrests, anyone else its hostages. Face up to it.
The front Blair presents is not being bought by the rest of the world.
It was simple, they strayed. ‘Oops sorry’ is as far as it need have gone. The families should not have had to be dragged through this.
It bears repeating:
Now what about the Guantanamo 500+?
Oh yes, the much much bigger question - what about the Guantanamo Bay 500?
Wrong place wrong time - or rather right place right time because it fits the message and objective.
Lithcol how many trade unionists did the US have Saddam kill? How many in Indonesia? How many in El Salvador? How many?
How many trade unions are allowed to freely associate, assemble, organise under the new US-Iraq constitution?
This made me laugh:
Britain: Can I have my ball back please?
Iran: No, I was here first.
Britain: No you weren’t. Give me my ball back!
Iran: Not until you admit that you smell of poo.
Britain: Don’t be ridiculous, just give me the ball back.
Iran: Not until you say that you smell of poo.
Britain: [sighs] This is so stupid. OK, I smell of poo.
Iran: Did you hear that everyone? Britain said he smells of poo! [throws ball back]
Britain: I only said that to get my ball back. Everyone knows I don’t smell of poo. Anyway, I had my fingers crossed when I said it. Everyone hates you. You’re just a big bully.
The stakes may be higher in the Gulf, but the principles are the same.
“Britain: I only said that to get my ball back. Everyone knows I don’t smell of poo. Anyway, I had my fingers crossed when I said it. Everyone hates you. You’re just a big bully.”
Blair: And wait ’til my mates turn up. And you know that little playground you got there? Well, it won’t be there tomorrow.
Excuse me Sid. Did I say anything about approving the invasion of 2003. I was dead against it. Not for selfish reasons like the cost to our armed forces or monetary ones for the country. Primarily because it was obvious that without the murderous terror imposed by Saddam, the country would descend into anarchy.
Similarly I am against any military adventurism in Iran. Does seem though that Sunni regimes in the region are a tad worried about its nuclear ambitions. We live in interesting times, but then we always have.
Extraordinary isn’t how many people want ot live in the land of the great satan.
Lithcol, sorry for butting in but your little comment at the end is a bit stale:
“Extraordinary isn’t how many people want ot live in the land of the great satan.
Its not extraordinary at all! People have families and dependants and they will do their utmost for them - it is a human endeavour. To think or propose otherwise on a site like Pickled Politics (presumably a fair number of us have connections with the sub-continent and either have relatives or have come here to make a living) is rather weak.
Do you not envisage a world where people can move from one hemisphere to another without having to worry? Worry that you are not going to be turned back because you are poor? Or you are from a poor country?
Do you not worry that you would be treated poorly because of the status ‘nominally’ attributed to your country?
This is the streotyping at a grand scale - the only scale the powerful and the elites understand. Why you choose to be in the same category I will not understand. Unless of course you are of their ilk.
Or would you rather I treated you as an individual who may have pre-conceived ideas (and yes even agenda), with a view to appraising you with my perspective?
Extraordinary isn’t how many people want ot live in the land of the great satan.
Not as extraordinary as the number of post-coital Iraq war dissenters now, compared to the number in 2003.
Precisely Refresh. Land of opportunity. Make your own way. Sink or swim. Freedom to be yourself etc. Of course America does not have the social security and more or less free healthcare systems of Europe, so you have got to really work hard and improve yourself. Many from all over the world have and are doing so.
No country in the world allows totally free immigration. Do you really think that the people of this country would tolerate unlimited immigration? It has nothing to do with the powerful and the elite. They will suffer very little. The people suffering in this country with the recent influx of members of the new EU states are the less well off, the less skilled and educated. Top that with a massive influx of poor people from elsewhere and the result will be the collapse of the health system and social welfare etc.
I forgot Refresh, what subcontinent are you talking about. If it is India, seems to be a land of opportunity, although of course the majority of its citizens are extremely poor and will probably remain so. Similarly China. In fact it is the same story for any country you wish to name. The poor will unfortunately always be with us.
Lithcol
You deserve a full response - but for now I would specifically say that I do not add to your position in any way.
People act and move based on economic imperatives. The way forward is to enhance the economic position of other parts of the world. I know for example of ‘illegal immigration’ into Korea and now no doubt into China.
But the discussion really needs to get back to the freeing of our servicemen.
So…. Iran yielded to Tony’s 48 hour deadline, or am i missing something?
With your #30 you are beginning to make the discussion interesting - but for now we should leave it.
Doesn’t of course enhance your position on Iran, which I thought was intended to inflame.
Be interested also to pursue the number of trade unionists killed in various spheres.
Again lets leave it for now.
El Cid, Yes Iran caved in! Bloody typical, no stamina these furriners.
As an aside I was listening to Radio 2 (Peebles I think) and he played Lying Eyes (Eagles) and throughout all I could think of was Blair.
In our house watching his eyes has become a hobby - a bit like the twitchers but with our Tone you don’t need the binoculars
El Cid - no, you aren’t. Iran bottled it.
Funny that the Iranians have given three GPS readings for the alleged locations of the UN mandated RN patrol. Two of which were actually in Iraqi waters.
Third time they managed to come up with one marginally in Iraqi waters.
The UK Govt stated immediately what its patrols position was and has been consistant throughout.
LOts of quiet diplomacy has succeeded where bellicose thundering would have made the situation worse. The posturing has been left to the kidnappers.
I know its tempting and, lets be honest, desperately fashionable to blame Blair for everything but he has played this one by the book - worked with his officials, worked with the EU (who commendably came out in force - but didn’t under or over do it) and as the UK presence in Iraqi is under a UN mandate he went to the UN. The Iranians can bleat all they want about the UK ‘internationalising’ the situation but I think that ship sailed when the kidnapping took place.
This crisis also illustrated that whilst Iran is home to a very powerful ‘war party’ there is also a strong ‘pragmatism party’ - thankfully they won out.
A trial would have been a PR disaster for the Iranians - kidnap UN mandated persons, in Iraqi waters from a task of stopping weapons shipments into southern Iraq. With the best will in the world that looks crap and with one of the defendant been a wife and mother the Iranians would have just looked like cruel bullies (which indeed is how a good portion of the Rev Guards acts)
Curses again.
‘marginally in IRANIAN waters’
Sorry, special needs moment!
Well, I say “bottled it”. I read somewhere that Iran has just finished a period of public holiday, the result probably being that more sensible and level headed people in government have returned to their desks and talked their more excitable colleagues down.
I’m not sure how TB is supposed to have allowed this to “escalate”? I mean, I’m not his biggest fan, but given that virtually every tabloid and phone-in radio show in the country was baying for military action against Iran I thought he acted with considerable restraint.
Inflame Refresh! No way. Didn’t want the war with Iraq. Our service personnel wouldn’t have been put in harms way.
Happy for the current resolution but am not complacent that the regime will not use recent events for whatever advantage internal or external .
Iran will implode and who will be the catalyst, its people of course. US keep out.
It has a huge proportion of its peoples under the age of 35. High unemployment and poverty amongst the young, major drug and prostitution problems and corruption and repression.
Oh and by the way they love a good joke. Humour, makes the world go round.
you wear socks with your sandals don’t you?
Just sandals and a jock strap. Socks are for wimps.
Not sure that every phone-in baying for blood, on the back of a jingoistic medai, is quite what Tony needed to escalate the matter. They’ve been escalating it with Iran for a little while - some of us seem to have detected.
Its probably useful to be clear on whether you want a war with Iran or you don’t.
And if you do - on what grounds? For being part of the axis of evil? Or perhaps arc of convenience?
Or just a pile of bullshit?
As for UN mandated patrolling of waters - now how did that come about? Reject the UN’s advice that said you should not invade Iraq. Then invade and then engineer a mandate, via the UN, to say it was right that the invaders should now control Iraq’s destiny?
All the while have an eye on your next goal - Iran. Now is it any wonder Iran should be very particular about its borders?
Blair played by no (expletive deleted) book - he played it to his and Bush’s advantage (or tried) - without thought to the family and the servicemen/woman. He certainly didn’t play it to the advantage of long-term peace.
He lied us into the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in our history, and you believe him on this? And if you were to believe him, to think he handled it by the book - well he’s all yours.
This is an almost absurdly ‘third way’ (remember that?) resolution, both sides can claim victory but neither won in a clear sense (although I reckon Britain looks like a bunch of wimps in the eyes of Bush administration)…
For those stupid enough to call for military action against Iran I would suggest the following reading material: http://www.iranbodycount.org/analysis/
Lets just leave the buggers alone for the time being. As soon as they start waving their members around passé Sunny, sorry nuclear tipped rockets, then let them know that that would be a bad idea. As if they didn’t know already.
Sad to say the cold war of my youth seemed a safer time than what is currently the case.
Been thinking much the same over the past few years.
Touche.
[...] By info@associatedcontent.com (Joni) wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave. He repeated Iran’s view that the British sailors and marines “invaded” Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a … [...]
Thank goodness I am not alone:
“However, Paul Carman, the father of Lt Carman, criticised Tony Blair’s handling of the hostage crisis saying: “I’ve been very disappointed and in some cases extremely angered by what I regard as risible attempts at bravado, absolutely ridiculous school boy diplomacy.”
So who was really ‘callous and cruel’ at the expense of someone else’s son’s welfare?
What deadline was that? I never saw Blair saying “Give them back, you have 48 hours or else”.
The world is a simple place for Refresh. Its quite cute really, he has a rule book and knows who all the bad guys and good guys are. He has some ideas that he bleats everyday: Bush is evil, Blair is evil … they LIED TO US!! Genocidal Muslim dictators hell bent on destruction of The Evil and Vivicous West (aka. Bush, Blair, me, you, your mama) are just misunderstood and much nicer than our spawn of evil democratically lected leaders!
Once you have a narative, just bend the facts to fit it.
Hey at least he manages to spell to Blair correctly, I think that sarcasm isn’t the lowest form of wit, the lowest form of wit is spelling it Bliar.
TFI
Iran bottled it, Iran bottled, na, na, na, na, naaaah
The Daily Mail and Express think otherwise. Hmmmm, wonder why that is?
TFI
I think it would be much better if you addressed the issue.
Perhaps the world is a lot simpler than it used to be, I think Blair and Bush were trying to see to that.
If I am wrong, elaborate on the complexities you see.
“Bush is evil, Blair is evil … they LIED TO US!!”
Did they or did they not lie? Were they not responsible for a close on 1 million dead?
“Genocidal Muslim dictators hell bent on destruction of The Evil and Vivicous West (aka. Bush, Blair, me, you, your mama) are just misunderstood and much nicer than our spawn of evil democratically lected leaders!”
Go ahead, name and shame these genocidal Muslim dictators.
Military action against Iran is simply not going to happen (from the UK at least) - wouldn’t have the votes in the Commons.
Any precipitous action by Blair would lead to his downfall.
“”Did they or did they not lie? Were they not responsible for a close on 1 million dead?”"
Saddam Hussein lied constantly and killed close to 2M and, hey, he’s faced justice (imperfect but what the hell, he deserved far worse).
Muslim Dictators - well we’re one down as of last year.
Only the Sudanese are currently bent on genocide, still thats one too many.
Hi Refresh!
I’m just interested in what everyone else has to say, I’m not deluded into thinking that my take on the subject is interest to anyone. But since you ask …
Personally I think that our esteemed leaders were Wrong, rather than they Lied. This is because I try and see incompetitence over conspiracies whenever possible. Although once you believe in Father Christmas or a great big beardy man in the sky, its easy to believe in any old cr*p.
Although it this story is interesting, as the Iranian Government managed to achieve both incompetitence and conspiracy when it took them three (?) stabs to “prove” that OUR boys (+1 girl) where in Iranian waters. This is shameless, reckless lying.
Incidentall I think that Katy is right, they level headed people got back from the holidays and stamped it out quickly.
Moving on to a tasteless joke:
*holds pinky to corner of mouth*
“A MILLION dead?”
Dunno, mate. Where did you get this number from? Or did you get confused with TB? Tony Blair / Tuberculosis … easy mistake to make really …
Seriously, where did you get that number?
Quite frankly I don’t think I need list genocidal Muslims dictators that have been or gone. Does calling for the destruction of the West, the USA, the UK and Israel and dreaming of the return of 12th Imam make him Genocidal? I Dunno. Was Hitler genocidal before he invaded Poland?
I think it would be much better if you addressed the issue!
TFI
Wouldn’t it be nice to go back in time, tell Sadam what would happen if he didn’t comply with the UN and let the inspectors go everywhere before the war? Wouldn’t it have been nice if his arrogance was less and he had stepped down before the invasion started? Wouldn’t it have been great if Saddam decided that moving his country to a decomcracy by himself?
Of course, only Bush and Blair can be blamed for anything that has happened over there, Saddam, his hands are clean!
TFI
Close to 1 million - its already reported that an estimated 650,000 have died in Iraq since the invasion. Prior to that it was reported that over 500,000 died as a consequence of sanctions.
I do not necessarily disagree on Katy’s take on the subject. It needed cool heads to resolve the matter. That’s how things should be done.
Do you disagree that Iran had no need to be nervous about excursions (and near excursions) into their waters?
As for incompetence - well when it comes to deaths then what do you expect from our leaders? Resignations perhaps?
Or as the US have done, booted out the war contingent in Congress and Senate. Its good to see Pelosi challenging the White House by visiting Syria. That is how you resolve matters.
I had always anticipated that it would be the American people who will put an end to this - as it was in Vietnam (3 million dead).
As for lies, they were just that. Facts to fit the objectives (remember the Downing Street Memo).
You say Bush and Blair were wrong - in what way were they wrong?
As for genocidal muslim dictators, I do think you should list them as they seem to be central to your theories.
As for the 12th Imam, I have no idea about that. Isn’t that similar to the Christian (and Muslim) belief about the return of Jesus?
Isn’t it similar to the Jewish belief in Greater Israel?
Your #55
You might recall that the UN inspectors report to the UN was stolen from their offices before it could be read by anyone other than the US. The US then released it having ‘edited’/'censored’ it.
Given that sort of ‘wrong-headedness’ was it not clear that there was no chance the UN Inspectors would be allowed to finish their task - by George W. Bush?
I beleive the UN asked for the inspectors to complete their job before any haste by Bush with cover from Blair. But that was seen as a threat to the objective. It could have only meant one thing, that the inspectors would not find anything and that would remove the public reason for the invasion.
Incidentally I too wished for Saddam to turn to democracy, before falling on his sword. That truly would have been an outcome that would have given me what I wanted and deflated the Bush-Blair team.
I would also add, had that happened and the 60% vote the Shia may have got itself would be seen as a threat to Bush’s goals. At least it wouldn’t have resulted in a bloodbath.
But we can’t all have what we want.
amusing bit of showmanship and drama wasnt’ it - and it made me laugh when Ahmadinejad said here’s an easter pressie for you folks and oh tony you should listen to the british public.
turning the tables neatly? now if people say we must go to war they’ll find it a bit difficult - but they gave them nice grey suits and let em come home for easter…
This “crisis” and the antics on both sides will mark the end of a decade of adventurism by Tony Blair and I think represent the (very) last gasps of Empire. Never mind if Iraq or Kosovo or Sierra Leone were justified it’s more a case of what the UK is and what it wants to be at the beginning of the 21st Century. And what it plainly doesn’t want to be anymore is an imperial power. Tony Blair, I suspect, will be viewed as “the last emperor”.
i think everyone’s ‘won’ - britain might look like a bunch of wimps to some nutty ‘we sure would have invaded by now’ presidents - but- they’ve managed to get their people back without resorting to violence so that’s pretty good for diplomacy. and iran’s managed to come out looking ‘we could have been really mean but instead we’ve given you a gift’ which is miles better off than what could have been.
“Score this 1 for UK and 1 for the more sensible elements in the Iranian Establishment.
Score 0 for the fundie nutters/Iranian War Party”
good one -common humanist. nice nick as well
Refresh, you sound like the left-wing version of a neo-con.
you see, hear what you want to see, hear
El Cid, I only speak as I find. If I am wrong in some of the facts I pointed out, then feel free to say.
Neo-cons want war, and more war. I don’t. A slightly different approach.
There are some ‘facts’ that you mentioned which are right, and some which suit your argument but which are plainly not what most people would call ‘fact’.
Also, you seem to blame one side more than the other.
El Cid, tell me which ones. I am open to discussion.
Blaming one side more than the other - yes I do. I blame Blair for being so bellicose. I am much more inclined to be with the James Baker gang - talk talk. Not the Bush approach of ratcheting up, which is what Blair was inclined to do. And I would say it was the Foreign Office which comes out better (yet again), for bringing some sense to Downing Street.
You might recall the Cod War, where our frigates were chasing and being chased all over expanded territories around Iceland? And that was just over fishing rights.
Iran and any other nation under imminent threat are likely to do what it takes to protect its territories.
Do you disagree that Iran had no need to be nervous about excursions (and near excursions) into their waters?
Refresh, are you saying that if the soldiers were not in Iranian waters, then the fact that they were near Iranian waters would justify kidnapping them? If so, I must try running that argument past you the next time Israel takes pre-emptive action.
Iran and any other nation under imminent threat are likely to do what it takes to protect its territories.
Ooh, I’m saving that one for the next I/P thread too. You can’t have it both ways.
When exactly was Blair bellicose?
His people were kidnapped from Iraqi waters, operating under a UN mandate.
The iranians committed a crime (I know this comes as a shock to alot of people but…..people other then Brits, Americans and Israelis can do….bad things! I know, I know, calm down at the back there)
Our EU allies supported us and as the UN mandate was in operation we went to the UN. Exactly as we should.
Blairs 48 hour ultimatum was timed to coincide with the return from holiday of senior Iranian ’sensibles’. We do have people in the FCO that study these things you know.
But obviously easier to blame everyone but the Iranians - who are actually to blame.
That would be the next time two nuclear powered carriers under the Hamas flag conduct exercises within 100 miles of the Israeli coastline?
This started off as a silly argument and it’s getting sillier.
His people were kidnapped from Iraqi waters, operating under a UN mandate.
wooo hahahahaha.
I recall how those precious UN mandates disappeared up the collective backsides of the Bush Administration when it was time to invade, sorry liberate, Iraq.
Cheers Sonia
I am indeed very common………and am occasionally accused of being human…….
And time will tell if those Iraqi waters they were operating in were illegally gained in any case.
Nice one Katy - I thought twice about putting that in. LOL
First we should lower the temperature - you’re calling it kidnapping.
What I actually said was that Iran is rightly nervous. I don’t approve of pre-emptive action.
“Iran and any other nation under imminent threat are likely to do what it takes to protect its territories.
Ooh, I’m saving that one for the next I/P thread too. You can’t have it both ways.”
LOL, I thought about that too, before I posted.
That does not mean I approve, it says that’s how nations are.
As for Israel, well you know my thoughts for the way ahead. All positive and all inclusive.
“”I recall how those precious UN mandates disappeared up the collective backsides of the Bush Administration when it was time to invade, sorry liberate, Iraq”"
Thats just a irrelevant remark to obscure the fact that I am right, the legal situation since May 2003 is that US/UK etc forces are present in Iraq under a legal UN mandate.
The Iranians committed a crime. Thats a fact jack.
Can we have Amir back now? Please.
Chris - the point I’m making is that people tend to get very excited about pre-emptive action when some states indulge in it, but are quite happy about it when other states do. I thought that was a valid point, but I’m sorry if it’s pissed you off. No one’s forcing you to read the thread if you don’t like it.
Refresh - I do indeed, and we are mostly in agreement as I recall. (It is kidnapping, though. It is. Go on. It is. You know you’d be calling it kidnapping if it was the UK and 15 Iranian soldiers. Wouldn’t you? Eh? Eh?)
Yes, and we remember well the horse-trading that went on to secure that particular UN mandate.
Remember that there was a group of Iranian diplomats that were kidnapped by USA in the first place? What UN mandate were they apprehended under, again?
Katy –
Yes - and the (imaginary) day when the scenario I outlined takes place you’ll see quite a few non-interventionists switch their positions.
I’m not pissed off - but you don’t have much of a point, hypocrisy exists, but is in this case somewhat obscured by certain facts on the ground.
You mean the IRG officers in civilian clothes and armed to the teeth? Those ‘diplomats’?
The US caught the Iranian IRG upto no good. How many Iraqi civilians have been caught in IRG supplied bomb blasts I wonder?
The problem with the IRG Officers is that the US has, as usual, gone about things in a blundering, myopic manner - denying consular access etc. I don’t know
quite what they were thinking of with that.
A crime is a crime is a crime.
Katy, this is where you get me totally wrong.
You cannot genuinely resolve matters by having double-standards.
Either both sides kidnap or both sides arrest.
Yeah, as if British Service guards patrolling Iraqi(?) waters aren’t armed to the teeth either and “up to no good” as well. That’s pure doublé standards.
Humanist
“You mean the IRG officers in civilian clothes and armed to the teeth? Those ‘diplomats’?”
This is the first I’ve heard of this - can you point to any source which backs up your claim?
Refresh
The Times story with more details of the equipment they were caught with I can’t find so here’s the Beeb follow up - the original story link has gone too 8-(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6525545.stm
Sid Love
Their role was to stop arms shipments into Iraq - to save lives ultimately but sustain whatever fantasy you want about the oooohhh nasty royal navy if you want.
Does anyone have a link for this, I haven’t seen Blair saying Iran had 48 hours to hand over the detainees…
humanist - that link is only as much as we know, it was the additional claim you are making I am interested in.
Their role was to stop arms shipments into Iraq - to save lives ultimately but sustain whatever fantasy you want about the oooohhh nasty royal navy if you want.
oooooh nasty navy? What a vivid imagination you have. We’re talking about international law here. As opposed to sentamental spin on the culpability narrative of “us against them”.
With Iraq imploding next to them, and USA threatening attack at every opportunity, Iran have reason to be jittery. That boat was apprehended in Iraqi waters, but no indication of where they might have been.
And its funny how Iranian diplomats are always potential terrorists and insurgents “armed to the teeth” whereas our military personnel operating caught operating a dubious reconnaissance mission are “Blair’s people”.
Anyone attempting to gain the moral high ground out of this episode to pin the blame on the other are cover versioning the BeeGees:
Arr Arr Arrse talkin
Youre telling me lies, yeah
Jive talkin
You wear a disguise
Arrse talkin
So misunderstood, yeah
Arrse talkin
You just aint no good
Another favourable outcome of this episode is that it has shown that Ahmadinejad is not the Sun King of Iran. He operates in a hierarchy and answers to sensible people above him. So those who like to make out that Iranian Foreign policy is the sum of Ahmadinejad’s personal prejudices are also arrse talkin.
i’d read the iranian bloggers if i were you. there’s a nice piece on it in the times, although hoder (who i rather like) certainly maintains that the iranians got the better of the uk.
and as for this:
Isn’t it similar to the Jewish belief in Greater Israel?
there is *no* “jewish belief” in “greater israel”. there are a variety of right-wing zionist political beliefs in “greater israel”, ranging from the early “revisionists” (the ideological founders of the likud party) who considered that the balfour declaration referred to the entire british mandate (thus including the west bank and “transjordan”) all the way to the nutty religious “land of israel” lot who make the mistake of conflating the biblical, religiously-defined borders of the *LAND* of israel with the rightful borders of the sovereign *STATE* of israel. this therefore makes the *state* into a *religious* institution which presents certain difficulties considering the at least half of the population that defines itself as “secular” to say nothing of the religious part of the population that, despite its beliefs, doesn’t think much of an iranian-style theocracy run by beardy thugs and crooks, which is what they would get.
*jewishly* speaking, i have a religious obligation to live in the *land*, not the *state*, although it is not clear whether that obligation presupposes the coming of the Messiah. practically, of course, at this point it would be much easier for me to live in the *state* than the *land*, because much of the land is under arab sovereignty and therefore i am banned by the relevant governments, as a jew, from living there or obtaining citizenship, to say nothing of land - despite the fact that my family probably lived by the banks of the euphrates before the arabs arrived. that’s not really the point though, although i note in passing that under existing palestinian authority law, sale of land to a jew is punishable by death.
damn these throwaway remarks…
b’shalom
bananabrain
Sid - The difference between the British Forces and the Iranian Diplomats is that the British Forces are openly armed and uniformed and overtly carrying out their tasks. The Iranian Diplomats appear to have been carrying out covert operations.
oh, save your breath, chairwoman auntie. some of the people here simply refuse to recognise the difference between british democracy and iranian theocracy. i’m sure they’d enjoy being baha’is or yezidis - or hindus - under the regime of “moderates” like khatami.
harrumph.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Chairwoman, if there is a sectarian civil war imploding on your border, with US F16s operated by trigger-happy teenagers flying overhead why the fuck would you go in overtly?.
Heh which diplomats don’t carry out covert operations?
i’d read the iranian bloggers if i were you.
What makes you think I don’t sunshine? I also have very close Persian family. I think that beats your jaundiced reading of a few blogs, oh self-righteous one.
i didn’t tell you what i thought of the blogs, actually. i said they were worth reading, i believe. i’m not expressing a particular viewpoint on them, as they express a number of different opinions. and i didn’t just mean you yourself, but you generally.
and you can be every bit as self-righteous as you claim that i am - but let’s not get into that right now.
b’shalom
bananabrain
yes, let’s not…
I think you have too rosy a picture of what the UK gets up to, with countries its no longer in conflict with let alone those it may or may not attack.
nb I admit to laughing when all the usual jingoists came out to say britain should go to war, and damnit if maggie were here she’d show blair how to have a backbone and send in the sas, because quite clearly over the last 10 years Tony Blair has let his pacifist qualities shine through.
Wouldn’t you be paranoid if the Russians were after you?
nb nb i found this to be quite an interesting read
The russians are the man!
I thought thats where the revolution was coming from!!! i need to know who the man is so i can’t fight him, at the same time i need everyone to tell me who’s the man as i fight the man. 
Goodness, Sid, you are tetchy today.
And so am I. Tetchy, that is.
I’m starting an Easter open thread, like, NOW.
Goodness, Sid, you are tetchy today.
If BB and I can’t have a good kvetch, what good is PP, I ask you.
hur hur hur
must be the matzah flatulence kicking in….
b’shalom
bananabrain
yeah Katy! we need an Easter thread..it’s so gorgeous outside and i can’t wait to get of town tomorrow! what you’all doing? Sid - how was the 26th celebration? i was soo tired apres work i knew there was no chance i was going to get up and go..
Sid - trying to increase your pistachio concession?
Justforfun
Sid & Kulvinder - I may be older but have neither reached my dotage, nor become suddenly gullible. Of course all governments have ‘diplomats’ carrying out covert operations in the countries - friendly and unfriendly - to which they are posted.
However, with the two incidents under discussion, one group, which we will call ‘The British Troops’ were uniformed, armed, and operating openly, and the other, which for want of a better term, we will call ‘The Iranian Diplomats’ were not.
What holes are you going to attempt to pick in that I wonder.
justforfun - He’d be nuts not to
it was excellent, sonia. We did a dramatised reading of Tahmima’s book. Went down a storm. Got lots of compliments from the ladies about my voice.
Okay, the open thread is up. No one can say I don’t do my bit for intra-thread harmony.
As much as I couldn’t give a rat’s penis for Iran, it’s silly to call this an unprovoked attack. After all, it’s not like America measures nautical miles before they feel like can indefinitely detain whom they damn well please. And ooh, Iranians are such barbarians for parading the captors on TV.. at least they flipping well publically admitted they were holding hostages and gave their families the hope that they weren’t being tortured in secret CIA camps
That’s a big rat’s penis, Kismet.
Kismet, why don’t you update your blog? I keep hanging around there hoping for a new thread and you never do one. It is like being stood up EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Welcome to my world katy…
Yep, all sides are complicit in torture but only the US has the resources to be able to torture all over the world…
“Yep, all sides are complicit in torture but only the US has the resources to be able to torture all over the world…”
…and not tell anyone or bow to any pressure
It stinks. America go round pissing the world off and the British get the shit end of the stick for it every time
Oh and while we on the topic, the bit about ‘if a man can go to war why shouldn’t a woman’, sure women have every right to be as war-mongering as men, but whether you’re in Iran or Bolton, a 3 month old kid needs its mother
irresponsible twat
whether you’re in Iran or Bolton, a 3 month old kid needs its mother
I don’t know anything about Turney’s domestic situation, but I find it difficult to disagree with that as a statement of principle.
Regarding women in the military I defer to Bill Hicks and his skit about gays in the military…
CW, no holes, but i don’t really see the problem with carrying out covert operations.
Kulvinder - say the Iranian diplomats were selling/giving/planting bombs or something similar - in a civil war. There is something morally wrong with that. Of course, evidence should be presented and due process carried out as soon as possible by Iraqi authorities. If not, they are being kidnapped/held hostage.
Going over an international border - which they may not have done in any case - is not morally wrong. It may be illegal. And in context it may be felt as threatening. It may even be deliberately provocative as part of a game. But then, again a trial is necessary. In this case due process was offered, but the British media did not trust it or see it as necessary, and the Iranians did not help themselves appear trustworthy by creating a media circus.
But Chairwoman - I would rather have been one of the soldiers kidnapped by Iran than a diplomat kidnapped by the US or a political prisoner in Iran or an alleged terrorist in Guantanamo Bay. I think it was a symbolic drama for the Governments (and they could make it so due to our forms of media reporting) with nothing to do with morality, legality or compassion. Just realpolitik dressed up as a battle between good and evil.
TBH if they didn’t do that to protect their ‘own’ or people they feel ‘connected’ to id accuse them of gross negligence. If for instance the american army - or an arab army for that matter - invaded Ireland, i’d pretty much be doing as much as i could to kill as many of the soldiers as possible, or at the very least raising funds etc.
nb the people using the bombs are free to turn down my or the iranian’s help.
The term saving face was used quite a bit. In this sense saving face is bound up with honour etc which really means opposing sides don’t want to experience blushing faces. OK lets all posture so we all don’t get blushing faces!! Some of the language over “where the boundary was” reminds me of some of those neighbourhood squabbles over garden boundaries. It is here, no it isn’t!! You smell then. Pity though both sides have power and weapons.
Okay, resistence to occupation (as opoosed to participation in a civil war) - I can see your argument there Kulvinder.
If that is the case, then sure it morally more justifiable in the customary framework. and also in the customary framework, the occupier is bound to be nasty when they catch supporters of a resistence. Though maybe by handing them over to Iraqi authorities or at least holding a trial the US can persuade themselves they are not actually occupiers. Not having done so, I suppose they inadvertantly are legitimising resistence further.
Well the actions of the occupier are pretty much central to the whole thing. As i said in a previous thread, the treatment of those you consider undesirable is a black and white issue - just like the death penalty. There are no shades of grey. Unless you adhere doggedly to that absoluteness you will eventually become that which you fight against.
The treatment of individuals in US ‘custody’ around the world is comparable to the treatment of those in Iranian custody - inclusive of prolonged detention without due process, torture, the use of the death penalty, isolation from the outside world etc. Some of that may even happen during British detention (as the case of the soldier admitting to war crimes shows). There are those who console themselves with the fact that the US/UK do that on a scale entire orders of magnitude smaller than Iran. To me thats irrelevant - the fact you do it is enough.
Since both sides broadly ‘act’ in a similar manner you’re left with the real politik choice of sympathising with those that are least likely to detain and torture you. The war on terror isn’t about superior moral principles, but choosing which evil is lesser to each man.
Kulvinder, ever the nutter
David Brent Alert. Fact.
The war on terror isn’t about superior moral principles, but choosing which evil is lesser to each man.
Kulvinder - Good even Sir, may I, on behalf of the freedom loving peoples of this planet we call Earth, welcome you to the real world. I hope you have had a pleasant journey. What can I get you? You have been away a long time. Travelled to the future? What was it like? Sorry, you must be tired after your journey. Tell us later when you’ve had a chance to look around and see what a Utopia we have built here. Is it better where you have come from? I believe the pistachios are nice :-).
Justforfun
Anyway….. Puffy… if that is your real name.. #59 .. let’s think about that a little bit. Tony Blair, the last Emperor. Hmmmm. The last gasps of Empire. Hmmmmm. Do you mean British Empire and British Emperor?
In a more belligerent mood I might choose to interpret it as a Freudian slip. But let’s be friendly and assume that it was an accident by a proud British national. So, by imperialistic foreign policy, you mean interventionist? If I recall, Blair did say we needed to have a debate about our foreign policy a few months back. Is that what you are referring to?
Frankly, I’m not sure I want my country to become Belgium. Discuss
some thoughts:
There wasn’t much more (since the domestic propaganda ends had been achieved) the Iranians could have done with the sailors than release them.
There has been much verbiage about the iraq war and how blair/bush totally deserved this incident as well as much handwringing over poor iran, the eternal victim of western imperialism. But not a peep about how Iran has been the number one beneficiary of the Iraq debacle and indeed, an active player in the sectarian politics and violence that engulfs it.
For Katy and Kismet, that female soldier’s child is 3 years old and not being privy to her domestic arrangements, i’d hesitate to jump on a bandwagon that has ahmadinejad on it - we all know the Iranian track record on women’s and children’s rights.
Kulvinder
You keep speaking up because if John Bolton and his Neo Con fuckwits had their way, we would be at war NOW and 15 members of her majesty armed forces would be the first casualties.
I’ve just watched the first interviews given by the freed sailors on the BBC and was stuck dead with incredulity. The only thing worse than Iranian propaganda done well, is British propaganda done poorly. Worse still was the behaviour of the British, who had already written the headlines before a word was spoken. They wanted chapter and verse on how badly the wicked Iranians had treated “our boys”. What they were left with were a few days solitary confinement and a blindfold. Big deal. For this “our boys” sang for their supper. By their latest performance, they’re still singing now. This story isn’t over yet. I suspect the Iranian have something else up their sleeve.
Something, when Iranian women want help from jumped up westeners concerning their liberation, they will ask for it. Until then, Mirax etc, shut the fuck up. The last thing that these women need is people like you “defending” them.
I meant to say…..British Press.
This is my overview.
Somebody, somewhere is lying. I’m stuck by two things. The covering Lynx helicopter that returned to HMS Cornwall to “refuel” and the fact that six Iranian gunboats managed to slip unseen by both HMS Cornwall’s radar and the retreating Lynx. Now unless the Iranians are now employing stealth technology on their gunboats, then something doesn’t add up. Could it be that the sailor got caught doing something, with their pants down? They were mostly certainly caught doing something.
Mirax, I’ve now heard that the child is three, one, six months old and three months old. I’m not going to avoid jumping on a bandwagon just because Ahmedinejad, about whom I have made my feelings clear, happens to be on it as well.
Anyone else think that the harrowing tales of interrogation weren’t that bad ?
‘they were subjected to random interrogation and rough handling, and faced constant psychological pressure, they said.’
Sounds like a week at butlins.
One thing is for sure, thanks to Blair the default position of a lot of British people is to believe another government, rather than their own. Great.
^ Yup, to be frank it doesn’t sound much worse than what would happen during civilian police questioning let alone by the armed forces of another country. I’m not even sure what ‘random interrogation’ is meant to mean, what would they have prefered questioning at the top of the hour only?
The ‘worst’ they seem to have ’suffered’ was the mock execution, which im sure no british soldiers in iraq have ever done.
nb i was responding to inders
Apologies, heres the link
You may have a point there Kulvinder in the current context, although the central issue of whether they were kidnapped illegally remains unresolved….
But what about those horrible, badly-cut shiny suits.. surely that was uncalled for
Kidnapped is an over-emotive word, regardless its not as clear cut as you think
Kulvinder, did you read what I wrote?
yes?
i said it was still an open question, yes?
I doubt the Iranian’s will prosecute those that ‘abused’ the sailors, after all they only have the detainees word of what actually happened
apologies
what’s the Iranian equivalent of Panorama?
One thing is for sure, thanks to Blair the default position of a lot of British people is to believe another government, rather than their own. Great.
That’s been bothering me too. Not only because it says something rather depressing about the credibility of our current administration, but also because it’s based on a logical fallacy. The proposition that our administration is corrupt and untrustworthy does not automatically lead to the conclusion that all other administrations apart from the US and Israel must be inherently more honest, open and ethical, which is what a lot of people seem to think - even Kulvy, who I consider to be a reasonably sensible and rational sort of person when he isn’t talking about cannibalism, would take Russia’s word over the UK’s, which is astonishing when you think about some of the stuff that Putin’s got up to.
I continue to think what I’ve always thought, which is that government inevitably leads to corruption and the best you can do is put a system in place which allows the people ruled by the government some leeway in who rules them every so often.
checks and balances, checks and balances
it troubles me too, coz it makes us weaker
Perhaps it’s a measure of how long Labour’s been in power. By the time the Tories got this far down the line the wheels had come off for them too. Although I think Tory premiers were always much stronger abroad than TB is. I don’t mean in terms of popularity, but in terms of strength. If you take Margaret Thatcher (and for the record I loathed her then and haven’t changed my mind), she was always, always seen as a very strong leader, and respected for that, even if she wasn’t well liked by other countries. TB, on the other hand, seems to be seen as both underhand and weak, which is very bad.
Actually, I think TB handled this particular scenario well. But maybe his hand was forced.
Trouble is, he’s damaged goods and Iraq has been a foreign policy disaster. He just about carried public opinion using lies in the face of no UN backing, and in so doing has damaged the credibility of our institutions. The damage could be lasting. It will be harder to close ranks in the face of a crisis in the future.
IMHO we don’t know what the man in the street thinks. The MSM is so busy plugging its anti-Blair agenda, that the opinions of the population at large has become irrelevent.
Not being a Blair fan myself, it usually amuses me, but right now I think it’s crass and does the country no service.
Katy
Think what you like about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he didn’t lie his country into an illegal war with Iraq. As an object lesson into how prisoners of war should be treated while in the custody of the enemy, Iran still comes out on top. Two weeks ago 12 british soldiers were acquitted of the murder of a Iraqi hotel waiter. To date NOT one british member of the armed forces as been found guilty of crimes against humanity. I prefer to look at the evidence.
Something else!
1.7 nautical miles, are we taking the piss!
Katy and Chairwoman
Think what you like about Mrs Thatcher but she did lie to the country either or if she did, she wasn’t caught.
Dude, you’re not really being balanced now are you?
You seem to have made your mind up on the issue of where they were, for example.
You also seem to be lapping up the Iran PR unquestioningly and arrived at the conclusions they wanted you to arrive to. Maybe you’re ripe for being played because of Iraq, but you’re being played nonetheless. Sorry, it’s just how I see it.
I hate this world of spin we live in.
I mean she didn’t lie! I’ve got a rotten bout of the flu. Where’s the chicken soup?