“15 British Agressors [sic] must be EXECUTED.” That was the placard being held up by some beetle-browed Iranian outside the British Embassy in Tehran. Well, I don’t entirely disagree. I certainly think that those British captives who have let themselves be put forward on Iranian TV, that woman wearing a headscarf, and the young man apologizing to the Iranian gangster-rulers, should be court-martialed for dereliction of duty when they get back to Blighty, with shooting definitely an option.
How on earth can Britons behave like that? A previous generation would not have done so. I knew the women of my mother’s generation pretty well (Mum was born in 1912), and I am certain that any one of them, given that headscarf and told to put it on, would have said: “You can hang me with it if you like, but I’ll be damned if I’ll wear the filthy thing.”
If you’re already having a lousy day, perhaps best to skip this one.
VDH;
We were all waiting for the final shoe to fall: It is America’s fault. And sure enough the Independent headline blaming us came in on schedule. The story line was predictable: We apparently tried to detain those masterminding the Iranian efforts to kill Americans in Iraq, then “botched” this illegal effort at getting “legitimate” diplomats, and thus left the poor British to sweep up the mess. So Bush — not lax officers, insane rules of engagement, or Iranian perfidy and aggression — did it after all.
If the Iranians believed a foreign nation’s military personal are operating in their territory, how are they in the wrong apprehending those personal? What would happen if Iranian naval personal were caught operating in Iraqi water or even say if caught inside New York harbour, would they just be politely told to go away? The most important thing to do is define the border soon so this doesn’t happen again. Lets not forget that this is the second time this incident has happened, and the last time the Brits openly admitted their boats strayed into the very same Iranian waters.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-24-iran-sailors_x.htm
albatros39a:
And you think the Brits wouldn’t have modified their orders to prevent a second occurrence?
Secondly, these waters have been disputed since Saddam went to war with Iran in the 1980-88 period.
Do try to stay up to speed.
They should bomb IRAN back to the stone age and turn the area where TERHAN sits into a crater
There are numerous serving and ex serving Canadian miliatry on this board. Can anyone elaborate on what the training these sailors might have had and what their standing orders might have been?
What are they for Canadian sailors, pilots, etc?
Lets point out that the last agreement between Iran and Iraq stated that the border will follow the deepest part of the channel in order that no nation can claim sole right to the waterway. Since that agreement was signed, the channel has moved to the west. The Iranians are not the ones who cancelled that agreement. So if the Brits crossed the channel, based on that past agreement, the British sailors would have indeed been inside Iranian territory.
Negotiations need to be carried out between Iraq and Iran to decide if the border still follows the channel agreed upon years ago, or whether it follows a static line on the British map.
“And you think the Brits wouldn’t have modified their orders to prevent a second occurrence?”
You would think so wouldn’t you? Ever heard of the term “military intelligence”?
“Secondly, these waters have been disputed since Saddam went to war with Iran in the 1980-88 period.”
The Iranians still go by the last agreement signed between the two nations. What else should they go by?
“Do try to stay up to speed.”
Sorry if you don’t like the way it is. Brits do make mistakes too.
“There are numerous serving and ex serving Canadian military on this board. Can anyone elaborate on what the training these sailors might have had and what their standing orders might have been?
What are they for Canadian sailors, pilots, etc?”
Canadians airmen (not sure about the navy) would have been given an escape and evasion course. Failing escaping and evading, you do not give information out without being asked, but don’t endanger yourself either. A trained interrogator will get the information out of you and can do it without even putting a hand on you. Seeing he is going to get the info anyway, follow the Geneva Convention to the best you can by giving name rank, unit, service number etc., but if you are in danger go ahead and co-operate. Chances are, any usable info your interrogator may get out of you will be quickly made obsolete by your own military.
Apparently Pappy Boynton once co-operated with his captors, the Japanese, by giving them the location of his C.O. hut. The C.O. was a man who apparently was highly unpopular with his men.
Albatross,
Thanks.
Has it just been the sailors who have been shown “co-operating” or have the marines been involved as well?
Hence the Brits are pronounced guilty by EROSION of the channel waterway! Next year the Iranians will be offside as the center of the Shatt Al Arab waterway has moved again, and the Brits take the Iranians captive?
So the coordinates released by the Brits were incorrect?
The Iranian coordinates were initially correct, but needed to be corrected again?
I’m glad the Iranians got their news release straight the first time. But of course that doesn’t cast doubt on the veracity of the information given in the first place.
But I forgot the Iranians don’t recognize the UN Security Council as a legitimate authority for matters nuclear or otherwise. Must be that UN Oil for Food scandal orchestrated by Saddam and participated in by a plethora of other states.
Small wonder the proposed solution should be solved bilaterally.
Guilty by EROSION, hang them high say the Iranian mobs.
Too stupid, it beggars belief.
I too, was surprised at the ‘co-operation’ of the sailors; don’t know if the marines co-operated.
No doubt the captives/hostages are being kept in the dark, without BBC/CNN access; the Iranians may simply have told them that they trespassed, and only need to apologize to be released. They may have been told that the border is in dispute, no matter which side they were on.
If this wasn’t the Middle East, and the fourth largest oil-exporter in the world, the Brits wouldn’t have to be so diplomatic.
Per Geneva Convention III
Article 13
“Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
[edit] Article 14
Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour.
Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men.
Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.”
I gather the Iranians interpret “public curiosity” and “respect for their persons and their honour” by parading detainees on television to ‘confess’ their trespass into disputed Iranian waters.
Nice little propaganda exercise, wasn’t it? If the UN had any gumption, they would have been all over this like a wet rag.
Imagine the hue and cry if the British had paraded Iranian detainees to ‘confess their trespass’ into UN controlled waters.
Hans,
I agree completely.
That’s what it was; a stunt to score propaganda points internationally, and make themselves appear ‘tough’ in the eyes of their own people (although, I believe the captives aren’t ‘technically’ POW’s).
Which brings me to something that REALLY ticks me off:
We treat even terrorists(!) within the rules of the Geneva Convention. I suppose that’s the price we pay for being a civilized society.
A week ago, I was curious what the GC rules were for NON-uniformed combatants, so I searched it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_humanitarian_law
For anyone’s who’s interested.
Should read : ‘For anyone who’s interested.’
If this wasn’t the Middle East, and the fourth largest oil-exporter in the world, the Brits wouldn’t have to be so diplomatic.
Iran has one fourth of the world’s natural gas reserves, that very vital resource that Putin is squeezing the EU with too, so expect nothing in support from the EU for the Brits, they won’t counter Putin either. Personally, I’d rather burn my furniture next winter than smarmily appease Iran, but, then again I’m not French, Dutch or German. Suffering to a socialist is an overpriced latte.
If the EU had a spine, principles and resolve, it could encourage and join the Brits in nailing Iran’s ng and oil installations. It would be a winter of hardship perhaps, but, how much are principles and liberty worth?
The unscrupulous slobs that continue to invest in Yukos keep Putin afloat. It’s all about immediate gratification versus long term goals, a mantra heard a million times by adolescents from good parents.
An anonymous cruise-missile strike on the reactor(s)?
I wonder if the Israelis, or anyone else, could pull it off?
Probably not, due to enhanced radar developements, I imagine … but I’m sure they, and others, are itching for an excuse to try.
Time to play advocatus angelus…
Problem’s simple, really. Cash liquidity in both shia and sunni states is far too great. They have oil and world oil prices are high. One of these situations has to dramtically change. No money = no mischief.
The second option requires that North America fracture the world market, and dramatically reduce our dependence on mideast oil. But then there is China to absorb the spare capacity.
Looks like the global oil market is safe.
The only other option is destroying the oil fields of any mideast nation that harbours terrorists. I suggest we begin with Iran.
World economy is resilient enough to accomodate losing Iran’s capacity. Meanwhile, oil extraction from saner parts of the world can ramp up, as can coal mining.
The only open question is: will China and Russia let us get away with it?
The oil fields ? Nah, China and Russia would never agree.
But the nuclear weapons capability, well, they would certainly look the other way, ‘cus it is THEIR future problem as well.
I just came in from the salt mines and see that the conversation is still going on.
Let me add something about the idea that they are treating everyone humanely and that no obvious torture is occurring.
You don’t have to torture people to get their cooperation.
First, the sailors and marine are probably following their orders in terms of behavior with a country where they’re not at war.
However, they can put the girl in one room and the guys in another room and say,
“You know, obviously her family doesn’t care about her because she is still in possession of all her sexual equipment. I hope you cooperate, so we don’t have to start slicing parts of her off to bring you for dinner.”
Likewise, they can go to the ranking member of the team and say similar things to him and so on and so on.
Plenty of pressure to enlist peaceful cooperation can be brought to bear.
Tenebris – I’m a big believer, call it tough love, that if you use your assets as in ME oil revenues to foster evil you lose your oil. If the US, Canada, and the EU tomorrow took away the ME oil fields from the Arabs I wouldn’t lose one night’s sleep agonizing over the morality of it.
What have these losers done, even for their own people, with the revenues to better and advance mankind. Of course lefties would swoon at the thought, but, the same question posed to them results in a zero.
The EU’s response to the sandbagged mess they are in, hate America. On any given day if they threw their lot in with the Americans and said enough is enough, the world’s creeps would be backing down.
Greg,
Undoubtably, they could try to traumatize/coerce the captives/hostages, but I think the Iranians are too smart for that.
Unless they were willing to put them on trial and imprison them, then I’m sure the Iranians are eventually planning to free them, and will know that the captives will all tell their story about detention/treatment.
Here’s their chance to appear slightly-civilized.
I think that David Frum is right here….. We should start measuring the values of a nation by what they do
“The “realist” foreign policy that has returned to fashion in recent months holds that we should judge foreign states not by their internal policies – human rights etc. – but by their external behavior.?
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTQwZjRjOGM4ZmJhNzRjM2ZkMWU4M2FlYTQ3MGVjMDQ=
Let’s start now!
Here we see Pelosi properly dressed for her future as dhimmi:
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070403/capt.xhm10204031738.mideast_syria_us_pelosi_xhm102.jpg?x=242&y=345&sig=cTrnWSwdWjeT3kk5uvS0WQ–
“Suffering to a socialist is an overpriced latte”
ROFL – now THAT was a good shot!
ET: re – your question, “Where is the UN?”, this worthless organization continues to show its true pedigree.
U.N. = Ultimately Neutered
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm