# Iran detains and televises UK sailors, tensions escalating...



## Carol (Mar 28, 2007)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/w...bl&ex=1175227200&en=a28cefc5ede33ce4&ei=5087





> LONDON, March 28  The dispute with Iran over Britain's captured sailors and marines escalated sharply on Wednesday when Britain froze all bilateral business with Iran and the Iranians displayed some British prisoners on state television  an act condemned by the Foreign Office here as completely unacceptable.
> 
> Britain and Iran also argued over whether the 15 Britons were in Iraqi or Iranian waters when they were seized.  One of the captured sailors, Faye Turney, 26  the only woman among the 15 Britons  was shown on Iranian television wearing a black head scarf and saying, Obviously we trespassed into their waters and praising her captors as very friendly, very hospitable and very thoughtful, nice people.


----------



## BrandiJo (Mar 28, 2007)

dunno if its 100% truth the pic wiht the artical isnt of a black headscarf​


----------



## Carol (Mar 28, 2007)

If you scroll down about midway you will see a close-up TV shot of Ms. Turney wearing a black headscarf.


----------



## TimoS (Mar 29, 2007)

As I'm not familiar with how the US government works, I hope someone can answer a question that's been on my mind  As the tension over Iran seems to be growing stronger (and apparently at least the russians are predicting that USA will attack), my question is that what would happen if your president says that USA attacks but cannot convince the congress? Can he declare war all on his own? What confuses it for me is that the according to the news here congress isn't supporting the war in Iraq anymore, but the president can basically ignore them. Ok, I admit, that is very likely oversimplifying a very complex issue, but to someone not very familiar how a foreign government works that's the way it looks


----------



## Blindside (Mar 29, 2007)

TimoS said:


> As I'm not familiar with how the US government works, I hope someone can answer a question that's been on my mind  As the tension over Iran seems to be growing stronger (and apparently at least the russians are predicting that USA will attack), my question is that what would happen if your president says that USA attacks but cannot convince the congress? Can he declare war all on his own? What confuses it for me is that the according to the news here congress isn't supporting the war in Iraq anymore, but the president can basically ignore them. Ok, I admit, that is very likely oversimplifying a very complex issue, but to someone not very familiar how a foreign government works that's the way it looks


 
The use of force was already authorized (2002) so the the President can continue being in a state of war.  Theoretically this Congress could "undeclare" the war but that won't happen.  With regard to Iran, US Presidents are authorized wage war in a limited capacity without the authorization of Congress under the War Powers Act.


----------



## Carol (Mar 29, 2007)

TimoS said:


> As I'm not familiar with how the US government works, I hope someone can answer a question that's been on my mind  As the tension over Iran seems to be growing stronger (and apparently at least the russians are predicting that USA will attack), my question is that what would happen if your president says that USA attacks but cannot convince the congress? Can he declare war all on his own? What confuses it for me is that the according to the news here congress isn't supporting the war in Iraq anymore, but the president can basically ignore them. Ok, I admit, that is very likely oversimplifying a very complex issue, but to someone not very familiar how a foreign government works that's the way it looks



Well...to give an oversimplified answer...there is a difference between "war" and "troop involvment".  Despite the President saying we are "at war" and using terms like "War on terror", this is not a declared war that we're in.  

The president being the commander-in-chief can sign an executive order to deploy troops but....they need money, just like you, me and everyone else.  The president can't control spending, only Congress can.  

So....

Congress is there to reperesent the voters.  The voters have expressed a sentiment against the war and elected in new people that represent these views.  If the president and Congress can't agree on principles, then the main weapon that Congress has is to cut spending in order to force the hand of the president to scale back the deployment.   Who is caught in the middle?  Our hardworking troops trying to do their job.


----------



## TimoS (Mar 29, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Who is caught in the middle?  Our hardworking troops trying to do their job.



As usual. Thanks for the answer


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Mar 29, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Well...to give an oversimplified answer...there is a difference between "war" and "troop involvment". Despite the President saying we are "at war" and using terms like "War on terror", this is not a declared war that we're in.
> 
> The president being the commander-in-chief can sign an executive order to deploy troops but....they need money, just like you, me and everyone else. The president can't control spending, only Congress can.
> 
> ...


 
So sadly true. Both parties pay lip service to "Support the Troops!" but neither does in reality. They are a political football. Many Democrats, IMO, _hoped _desperately that the war would turn out badly so that Bush and the Republicans would be blamed and lose power, and so many Republicans, IMO, considered party loyalty more important than asking hard questions and demanding accountability. I, at different points in my life, have been a member of both - now I am an Independent who will NOT join either.

ON TOPIC:

This was damn stupid on Iran's part. What were/are they thinking? Apparently even _they, the Iranians, _first gave the GPS coordinates where these sailors were "arrested" as IRAQI waters! They can't even be incompetent competently.


----------



## exile (Mar 30, 2007)

Jonathan Randall said:


> This was damn stupid on Iran's part. What were/are they thinking? Apparently even _they, the Iranians, _first gave the GPS coordinates where these sailors were "arrested" as IRAQI waters! They can't even be incompetent competently.



Bad, bad idea to mess with the Brits if you're a jumped-up third rate military power. Ask the Argentinians. 

I think there are two alignments of forces in Iran, fighting hard for control behind the (fairly flimsy) facade of unity there, and the confrontational crazies are currently in the driver's seat. As was the case in Argentina on the eve of the Falklands War. Note what happened to the Argentinian military dictatorship shortly after the _loss_ of that war, however! (A similar set of circumstances brought an end to the military/facist reign of the `colonels' in Greece in the 1970s and the collapse of the Papadoupolous dictatorship. Military dictatorships that lose wars don't fare well. Iran is a somewhat different case but there's enough in common...) 

Things could well play out along the same lines here, if the situation continues to go seriously sideways, as it's showing every sign of doing...


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 30, 2007)

Jonathan Randall said:


> So sadly true. Both parties pay lip service to "Support the Troops!" but neither does in reality. They are a political football. Many Democrats, IMO, _hoped _desperately that the war would turn out badly so that Bush and the Republicans would be blamed and lose power, and so many Republicans, IMO, considered party loyalty more important than asking hard questions and demanding accountability. I, at different points in my life, have been a member of both - now I am an Independent who will NOT join either.


 
Jonathan Randall ... as a member of the Democratic Party, I find your interpretation insulting and disgusting. While you claim you are an independent, you have bought into the hyperbole of the Republican ideologs of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly when you claim what the Democrats 'hoped' for.

Because the members of the Democratic Party listened to the Administrations answers provided to some hard questions, and expected accountability (how long will the war last? how much will the war cost?) you step up to the line of calling them treasonous. 

Very Unpleasant.


TimoS ... As US law currently stands, Congress has the power to declare war - which it has not done since WWII. Congress also has the authority to raise money to fund the military, and actually raise the military. Once a military is engaged, the President has authority over the military commanders.

In 2001, the Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force against the entities invovled in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks (broadly defined as al Qaeda and the Taliban).

In 2002, the Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq, to bring Saddam Hussein into compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions and General Assembly Resolutions.

The President would have no legal authority, at this time, to perform military action against Iran, unless he tied it to one of those two actions. The Administrations argument would be that Iran supports Hezbollah, a terrorist organization (also a humanitarian organization), and therefore could be attacked under the 2001 authorization. Or, the President may argue that Iran is backing the insurgents in Iraq ... (building Improvised Explosive Devices) ... and therefore could be attacked to defend our military forces in Iraq. Both arguments have been floating around for quite some time in our newspapers.

A United States plan to attack Iran has been discussed on this message board many times ... (as well as elsewhere) ... search for PNAC ... the Project for a New American Century. What is happening in the news, today, convienently follows an outline defined a decade ago.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 30, 2007)

Jonathan Randall said:


> This was damn stupid on Iran's part. What were/are they thinking? Apparently even _they, the Iranians, _first gave the GPS coordinates where these sailors were "arrested" as IRAQI waters! They can't even be incompetent competently.


 
What they were thinking is that they've been poking the bears with a stick since 1979 and nobody has done a goddamn thing about it.  Why would they stop now?  Nobody will do anything about it this time either.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 30, 2007)

Found this article - Iran's Latest Hostage Gamble - which seems to agree with exile's analysis of the situation, and suggests that the attack was a desperate response to the targeting of these factions by UN sanctions.

I still don't think the US or Britain will do anything, though.


----------



## Shuto (Mar 30, 2007)

Interesting link CoreyKS.  Thanks


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 30, 2007)

Wow, lots of good material today.  Misunderstanding and Iran


Update:  And another - Houses of Straw by VDH


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> you step up to the line of calling them treasonous.
> 
> Very Unpleasant.



I'm sorry... where did he do this?  I saw him state that _*IN HIS OPINION*_ he thought many democrats hoped the war would turn out badly to make the republicans look bad...

In his opinion... not "Its a fact" and "many" not the whole party, and "hoped" not worked to make... Worked to make would make them treasonous...


----------



## Tames D (Mar 30, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Well...to give an oversimplified answer...there is a difference between "war" and "troop involvment". Despite the President saying we are "at war" and using terms like "War on terror", this is not a declared war that we're in.
> 
> The president being the commander-in-chief can sign an executive order to deploy troops but....they need money, just like you, me and everyone else. The president can't control spending, only Congress can.
> 
> ...


Good answer Carol.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 30, 2007)

We will get our sailors and marines back by diplomatic means then we'll send the SBS (Special Boat Squadron,like the SAS only better, they are Royal Marine Commandos) in to blow something up that the Iranians are rather fond of, like their government perhaps. Seriously though, reprisals will be taken but only after Leading Seaman Turney and the rest are back safe. LS Turney is married to a fellow sailor and has a young child. They and their families have our thoughts over here and prayers for a safe return.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 30, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> I'm sorry... where did he do this? I saw him state that _*IN HIS OPINION*_ he thought many democrats hoped the war would turn out badly to make the republicans look bad...
> 
> In his opinion... not "Its a fact" and "many" not the whole party, and "hoped" not worked to make... Worked to make would make them treasonous...


 
Google "weasel words"

I don't care what is opinion is ... he stated that "*many Democrats* hoped desperately that the war would turn out badly".

Name Two, and provide validation.


----------



## Carol (Mar 30, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> We will get our sailors and marines back by diplomatic means then we'll send the SBS (Special Boat Squadron,like the SAS only better, they are Royal Marine Commandos) in to blow something up that the Iranians are rather fond of, like their government perhaps. Seriously though, reprisals will be taken but only after Leading Seaman Turney and the rest are back safe. LS Turney is married to a fellow sailor and has a young child. They and their families have our thoughts over here and prayers for a safe return.




Good thoughts and prayers your countrymen, Tez. :asian:


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 30, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please, return to the original topic.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 30, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Good thoughts and prayers your countrymen, Tez. :asian:


 
Thank you, it's very much appreciated. 

The latest news we've had.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6509813.stm


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> he stated that "*many Democrats* hoped desperately that the war would turn out badly".



No, he didn't.  

He stated that it was HIS OPINION that they feel that way.

There is a HUGE difference between FACT, which you are trying to claim he stated, and OPINION which he actually stated.  Instead of me Googling _*Weasel Words*_, why dont you grab a dictionary and check the words* "Fact" and "Opinion".*


----------



## exile (Mar 30, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> We will get our sailors and marines back by diplomatic means then we'll send the SBS (Special Boat Squadron,like the SAS only better, they are Royal Marine Commandos) in to blow something up that the Iranians are rather fond of, like their government perhaps. Seriously though, reprisals will be taken but only after Leading Seaman Turney and the rest are back safe. LS Turney is married to a fellow sailor and has a young child. They and their families have our thoughts over here and prayers for a safe return.



Amen to all of that, Tez.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 30, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> No, he didn't.
> 
> He stated that it was HIS OPINION that they feel that way.
> 
> There is a HUGE difference between FACT, which you are trying to claim he stated, and OPINION which he actually stated. Instead of me Googling _*Weasel Words*_, why dont you grab a dictionary and check the words* "Fact" and "Opinion".*


 
GENTLEMEN! Ah now I have your attention, I apologise for shouting but this thread has been designated British and there's a young Brit mum out in Iran who's wondering if she'll ever see her husband and child again.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 30, 2007)

Designated British? 

Gee, I thought I answered, thoughtfully and in detail, the question from the poster from Finland. I didn't realize Finland was part of the empire.

I don't go categorizing all Brits by the behavior of the royal sons - which has been especially uncouth of late, hasn't it? That I call out the broad-brush-painting of countryman (not a Brit, by the way) shouldn't be cause for a fight. 

And, when American airmen found themselves in an unfriendly country, under unfriendly circumestances a few years back, I am fairly certain I made no attempts at levity or bravado about blowing up Chinese government buildings. It would probably benefit us all if we allowed the diplomats to do their jobs. 

And, lastly, it seems to me that the gender of the soldiers in question should be irrelevant. There have been several memorable threads on this board about soldiers being soldeirs, regardless of whether they are male or female. Did that opinion go by the wayside when a face was broadcast in the news?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 30, 2007)

My post was more angled to being a tactful way of saying why are you two sniping at each other in a not very nice way, should have just asked I guess.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 30, 2007)

We should blast the one refinery they have. They would be driving size 11 1/2's leather in a week.

PS: Put Mike on Ignore, it makes for a much more plesant martialtalk experience.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 30, 2007)

A number of posts have come to the attention of the Moderation team, therefore:

_ATTENTION ALL USERS:_

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

Sheldon Bedell
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 30, 2007)

One OT remark in response to the last.  

It seems to me that Mike likes to argue and discourse; to do that he'll take a contrary position and dispute the corner.  It can appear to be a bad trait if you are deeply passionate about the subject at hand but it does make for interesting threads (and it should not necessarily be taken to mean that he actually holds the opinions he cogently puts forward).

In this case, I confess my hackles rose because it's British servicemen being puppeted on the political stage but I stamped on that as the issues too important to get irrational about.

If I'm missing any points from page one of the thread, please bear with me (I'll edit as necessary once I've gotten out of the hole I've dug by leaping in feet first and have read the other posts ).

Does anyone truly think that the Iranian government, with all the provocations being offered it at present, would be so daft as to deliberately antagonise Britain this way?  The only thing that would make that sensible is if they're using our servicemen to 'send a message' to a certain other countries leader of limited acuity.

EDIT: Ah, reading material others linked to it seems that maybe they just *are* that barmy.

I believe (*Tez* can you help?) that we still do not use women in off-ship combat missions (or those where conflcit is likely) so that would make the whole Iranian side of the story a fabrication i.e. that the 'team' was operating in their waters as a provocation.  That assumes that in such a volatile environment that a Royal Navy unit would not have a clue as to whose 'waters' they were in.

Given the unlikelyness of this (watch me be wrong now) it is monumentally stupid of the Iranians to claim otherwise - noone would believe it and tensions would rack up immediately, perhaps to the point of actual hostilities.

Regardless of their religious fanatacism, no government, at present, would willingly court open warfare with a military machine built up to battle the monolith that was the Soviet Bloc.

So what's going on?  

I don't know whether to be astounded, disbelieving, angry, scared, sceptical, conspiratorial or what.  Feeling as I do about governments the world over (self serving, every man jack of them) I can't help but think that this is all a little too convenient for those wanting another Bogey Man to scare us into accepting oppression and the sacrifice of our fellows as the price of 'freedom'.

I'm tired and a little drunk now, so forgive any hyperbole but the feeling of powerlessness to effect a juggeranaut being rolled towards a 21st Century Crusade is hard to shake .


----------



## Carol (Mar 30, 2007)

I don't think Iran wants to harm the British soldiers.  I think they are putting them on display as a way of flexing their muscles a bit and showing that they too have the power to make the whole world stop and watch.

The fact that the woman is wrapped in a black veil I think is a very good sign for her overall safety.  I believe that for as long as she maintains the veil, she will have less likely of a chance of being sexually abused by male Iranian operatives and more of a chance of being tended to (and protected) by female Iranian operatives.

Its a terrible situation but I'm being guardedly optimistic.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 30, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> It seems to me that Mike likes to argue and discourse; to do that he'll take a contrary position and dispute the corner. It can appear to be a bad trait if you are deeply passionate about the subject at hand but it does make for interesting threads (and it should not necessarily be taken to mean that he actually holds the opinions he cogently puts forward).


 
I will disagree with you here. I care deeply and passionately about those topics in which I comment. And the opinions I hold, are held strongly. I do not take positions to be contrary. 

As for your use of the word 'argue', if we look to a dictionary, we will see a description (or several) that aptly apply. 



> Main Entry: *ar·gue* Pronunciation: 'är-(")gyü
> Function: _verb_
> *1* *:* to give reasons for or against something *: [SIZE=-1]REASON[/SIZE]* <_argue_ for a new policy>
> *2* *:* to contend or disagree in words *: [SIZE=-1]DISPUTE[/SIZE]* <_argue_ about money>
> ...


 
I can only hope that my arguements are done with discourse; especially as described in the archaic defintion. 



> Main Entry: *1dis·course* Pronunciation: 'dis-"kors, dis-'
> Function: _noun_
> *1* _archaic_ *:* the capacity of orderly thought or procedure *: [SIZE=-1]RATIONALITY[/SIZE]*
> *2* *:* verbal interchange of ideas; _especially_ *: [SIZE=-1]CONVERSATION[/SIZE]*
> ...


 

Apparently, absent in this discussion, is the possibility that the British soldiers were in the territorial waters of Iran. What are the ramifactions if this is evidenced? Don't nation-states have the right to protect the territorial integrity? 

And a truly logical discussion would need to consider the justification and authorization of British sailors in Iraqi territorial waters? 

Further, any reasoned discussion would also consider the Iranian diplomatic officials being detained by United States coalition forces in Iraq, since a raid in January.


----------



## exile (Mar 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And a truly logical discussion would need to consider the justification and authorization of British sailors in Iraqi territorial waters?



How so? What would the presence of British sailors in _Iraqi_ territorial waters `logically' have to do with their kidnapping at gunpoint by _Iranian_ military forces and removal to _Iranian_ territory? You're invoking `logic' in connection with this action by the Iranian military. Well, let's see. The British sailors are, by your hypothesis, `in Iraqi territorial waters'. Along come some Iranians, into these same Iraqi waters, and forcibly detain the British soldiers. The British and the Iranians are both in Iraqi waters (by the presupposition of your comment quoted above); neither of them has any more or less right than the other to be there. One puts a gun to the other's head and forces them onto the first one's territory. And it's not the British who do this. 

This thread is about the detention of British soldiers by the Iranian military.  Mind pointing out the `logical' connection?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Mar 31, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Jonathan Randall ... as a member of the Democratic Party, I find your interpretation insulting and disgusting. While you claim you are an independent, you have bought into the hyperbole of the Republican ideologs of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly when you claim what the Democrats 'hoped' for.


 
How could I buy into "hyperbole" that I don't listen to? Can't stand either Rush or Bill O'Reilly. I have spent many, many hours listening to left-wing talk radio and reading left-wing forums, and the joy _of some _that the war is going badly, and thus harming the Republicans, is quite pronounced.

Hey Michael, have you ever read a book by Eric Hoffer called "The True Believer"? It speaks much about folks who follow and swallow their party's line regardless of the facts. Both the EIB (Rush's outfit) and Air America have MORE than their fair share of "True Believers". I stand by my position - folks in BOTH parties put their own party before their country.





michaeledward said:


> Because the members of the Democratic Party listened to the Administrations answers provided to some hard questions, and expected accountability (how long will the war last? how much will the war cost?) you step up to the line of calling them treasonous.
> 
> Very Unpleasant.


 
The hell they did - most of them made a _calculated and opportunistic political decision, _IMO, that NOT supporting the President on an attack on Iraq would harm their OWN political interests. Sorry, but if I, on a dial-up Internet connection, could come to the conclusion by July 2002 that much, if not most, of the Administration's case for war against was bogus and ill-advised - they with their vastly greater resources could as well. 

NOPE, the Democratic Party as a whole is as corrupt, but not so near as competent at gaining/holding power, as the Republican Party.

I'm sure to your mind, that makes me a Bush supporter. That would be very funny since I voted, admittedly reluctantly, for Kerry. There was never any chance that I would vote for Bush in 2004.

In any case, *the important thing is the SAFE and SPEEDY return of the British Sailors!*


----------



## TimoS (Mar 31, 2007)

Jonathan Randall said:


> The hell they did - most of them made a _calculated and opportunistic political decision, _IMO, that NOT supporting the President on an attack on Iraq would harm their OWN political interests.



That's actually my understanding of the situation also: many supported the attack on Iraq because to do otherwise would have been a political suicide at that time


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 31, 2007)

@Mike

Sorry, my friend.  I didn't mean to impune anything negative about your passion for the subjects you dispute.  I was actually trying to 'fight your corner' a bit but didn't do a very good job.

I would say that your last sentence has some bearing on the current fracas - I had forgotten about the Iranian officials being detained.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2007)

TimoS said:


> That's actually my understanding of the situation also: many supported the attack on Iraq because to do otherwise would have been a political suicide at that time


 
TimoS, there is some truth in that statement. But, that statement does not stand alone. Along with that statement, one should look to the timing of the vote for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (H.J.Res 114).

When was this bill put before members of Congress?
When was the election? 
Recall that in August of that year we starting hearing of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), and what were they peddling (selling, marketing)?

I will be glad to discuss these items in more detail, if you wish. 


Jonathan Randall - it becomes possible for you to buy into the hyperbole of the "right wing echo chamber" because the stories that originate in these far right talk radio shows and magazines soon become news stories about the stories in the mainstream media. As an example, I will point to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. A completely fabricated set of assetions that lived only in fringe media, until picked up by Drudge and Fox.

Please, name two Democrats that hoped the war would go badly, and provide evidence. 

exile, if the British sailors have no authority to be in Iraqi waters, then there are clearly two wrongs in process. There used to be an adage about that, somewhere. 

Also, please note that there were four premises put forth in my arguement (at least).  Choosing one of those premises, exaggerating it, while ignoring the others, and then knocking it down, is building a straw man fallacy.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> @Mike
> 
> Sorry, my friend. I didn't mean to impune anything negative about your passion for the subjects you dispute. I was actually trying to 'fight your corner' a bit but didn't do a very good job.
> 
> I would say that your last sentence has some bearing on the current fracas - I had forgotten about the Iranian officials being detained.


 

Sukerkin, I did not take your comments as negative in any light. I thought it was a thoughtful, and deliberate use of those words. And, quite correct use of language. I have found that I can disagree quite strongly with people whom are very dear to me and still treat them with respect and dignity. Those are not mutually exclusive states of mind. 

I believe in spaces such as this, however, that the word 'argue' can be mis-interpreted from the meanings found in the dictionary, to something more along the lines of 'pick a fight'. 

:asian:


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> exile, if the British sailors have no authority to be in Iraqi waters, then there are clearly two wrongs in process. There used to be an adage about that, somewhere.



To repeat (though it shouldn't be necessary): this thread is specifically about the abduction of some British sailors by some Iranian sailors. Right? _You_ bring in the presence of British sailors in _Iraqi_ waters and somehow connect this with the legality of the Iranians kidnaping them. If the Brits have no right to be there, the Iranians have no right to be there, and vice versa, fine. But how on earth does this wind up legitimizing the kidnapping of one by the other? You seem quite anxious to avoid the final connecting-of-dots to make your argument stick. If you and I are both at a certain location illegally&#8212;and here I'm just adopting your premise, for the sake of trying to follow your argument&#8212;how does that legitimize your putting a gun to my head, handcuffing me, and taking photos of me on your cell phone and broadcasting them? 



michaeledward said:


> Also, please note that there were four premises put forth in my arguement (at least).  Choosing one of those premises, exaggerating it, while ignoring the others, and then knocking it down, is building a straw man fallacy.



Oh no, not at _all_, and you know it. You're well aware that the straw man fallacy is based on setting up and knocking down an argument or set of claims that the text you're criticizing _didn't actually make._ What I'm doing is taking part of your argument, one&#8212;_you_ explicitly made, as anyone who reads your post can verify&#8212;and questioning your reasoning; in particular, I'm trying to dig out the covert premises which lead you to bring in the `red herring' of connecting the British presence in Iraqi waters to the legality of the Iranian's kidnapping these British soldiers&#8212;the theme of this thread. 

And as for my `exaggerating' the importance of the point... well, as I said, _you_ brought the point up, not me or anyone else. If you can defend it, fine; if not, acknowledge that, instead of throwing words together on the page to create the illusion of multiple lines of support for your conclusion. The point is, I'm trying to get a sense of the logic of the way you construct arguments, and I find your statements on this particular point rather telling in that respect.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 31, 2007)

Sukerkin is right, women are never put into frontline or combat positions in the British forces, women aren't allowed to be infantry soldiers nor Royal Marines.They have only support roles in the forces. We have a couple of fighter pilots in the RAF but that is the only combat role any woman has. the fact that the Iranians picked on the female of the party to use for propaganda makes it a gender issue. 

It may well be that forums are difficult places to hold debates because of the lack of facial and body language to help with the interpretation of the words but sometimes posts come across as nothing more than petulant.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2007)

exile, threads on discussion boards are rarely, if ever, about one thing "specifically". Threads tend to pulse and breathe with attitudes and opinions of participants. Moderators will at times attempt to re-direct divergences, if the wandering goes too far afield. 

If threads truly were "specifically" about an idea, what need would there be for a reply from anyone? All participates could just adopt the original posters premise and end the discussion. 

So, riddle me this - Mr. adopt my premise - what if the British soldiers were in Iranian territorial waters? I brought this argument to the table, first, if I recall.


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> exile, threads on discussion boards are rarely, if ever, about one thing "specifically". Threads tend to pulse and breathe with attitudes and opinions of participants. Moderators will at times attempt to re-direct divergences, if the wandering goes too far afield.
> 
> If threads truly were "specifically" about an idea, what need would there be for a reply from anyone? All participates could just adopt the original posters premise and end the discussion.



All of this is _way_ beside the point, as you are surely aware. You were constructing an argument in the context of a discussion of a certain topic: the treatment of British sailors by the Iranian military. You brought up certain facts which you claimed were relevant to a wider discussion of the logic of... something. That something was, presumably, the treatment of those sailors. And the point which you were apparently making was that _if_ those sailors were in Iraqi waters, and if they were, as you appear to be suggesting, there illegally, then the actions of the Iranians who themselves would have had to venture (illegally, right?) into Iraqi territory to kidnap them would in some way be _justified_. So it seems that your original line of argument, the one you apparently now wish to retire, accepts a double standardit is illegal for the Brits to be in Iraqi waters but legal for the _Iranians_ to not only be there, but to apply armed force against those British sailors, and broadcast pictures of them in detention all over the world. Given your willingness to entertain this double standard, your overall take on the situation strikes me as being, well, a little compromised, eh?



michaeledward said:


> So, riddle me this - Mr. adopt my premise - what if the British soldiers were in Iranian territorial waters? I brought this argument to the table, first, if I recall.



Why so anxious to drop your original point, ME? Has it become a little problematic? Let me instead counterpose a question to _you:_ what do you think you'd be saying if the British had come across some Iranian sailors in Iraqui territorial waters and had forcibly detained them, taken tons of footage of them and produced some convenient videos showing the Iranians objecting to their own country's up-to-its-eyebrows involvement in the Iraqi civil war? And had, in the course of this detention, forced one of the soldiers to wear a cross around his neck in accord with the religious symbolism of the Church of England? Before we change the topic to one more convenient to you, why don't you follow out the `logic' of your own implicit argument from your previous post just a bit further?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2007)

exile said:
			
		

> Why so anxious to drop your original point,


 
exile ...

The waters in question are in dispute. It is one of the few things that almost all of those not directly involved agree upon. Your demand that we consider the premise that the Iranians took the Brits into custody in Iraqi waters ignores this completely. 

And, you seem to be changing the topic from the *detention* of the British solders to the *treatment* of British soldiers. 

While we can certainly discuss both, but it would be helpful if we discussed one of them at a time, rather than calling me out for not discussing the treatment when I am discussing the detention. 

You call out my 'original point' ... let's review. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> *(1)*Apparently, absent in this discussion, is the possibility that the British soldiers were in the territorial waters of Iran. What are the ramifactions if this is evidenced? Don't nation-states have the right to protect the territorial integrity?
> 
> *(2)*And a truly logical discussion would need to consider the justification and authorization of British sailors in Iraqi territorial waters?
> 
> *(3)*Further, any reasoned discussion would also consider the Iranian diplomatic officials being detained by United States coalition forces in Iraq, since a raid in January.


 
Now, I have added numbers, so that we can be clear on what my "original point" may have been. Number 1 seems to point to British Soldiers in Iranian Territorial waters.  Number 2 looks to the actions of Brits in Iraqi waters. Number 3 looks to a retaliation for Coalition abductions. 

Now, as I remember my basic math, 1 comes before 2. So my original point does not appear to be British occupation of Iraq. 

And, nowhere in this discussion am I making comments about the *treatment* of detained soldiers. I am making comments about the *detention*. 


I guess that after Abu Ghraib and Saddam Hussein's publicity photo in his underwear, maybe we Americans should not be so quick to yell about treatment before we ascertain the legitimacy, or illegitimacy of the detention. Wasn't it our current Attorney General who told use the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and outdated?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 31, 2007)

As I know and work closely with all three Services I'm going to be pendantic here and say that it wasn't British *soldiers* who were captured by the Iranians, it was Royal Marines and Royal Navy personnel. The three services are very independant and very proud of their apartness. With their _hundreds of years _of experience it would be *very *surprising if the Royal Navy personnel didn't know exactly where they were therefore it's a very safe bet to say they were in Iraqi waters not Iranian.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...gShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2007)

Would it be correct to describe these personnel as 'sailors'? I mean no disrespect by the term selected. Often I will use service personnel or service members. In this discussion I know I have defaulted to soldiers when describing the detained Brits. 



I understand that a former British Ambassador (to Uzbekistan), one Craig Murray, has had this to say on the topic. 



> There is no agreed maritime boundary between Iraq and Iran in the Persian Gulf.


 
The relevant commander of coalition Naval Task force, Commodore Peter Lockwood, has said



> No maritime border has been agreed upon by the two countries


 
The Stars and Stripes - an United States military Newspaper, has this too say.



> Bumping into the Iranians cant be helped in the northern Persian Gulf, where the lines between Iraqi and Iranian territorial water are blurred,


 
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/both_sides_must.html

So, while it may be true that the British service personnel were exactly where they say they were, it is far from certain that the location in question is unquestionably within Iraqi waters.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 31, 2007)

I think you need to be very careful about believing Craig Murray, he says he 'exposed' human rights only after himself being exposed of dodgy dealing.

The Roayl Navy is the Senior Service and takes that position very seriously, calling them soldiers would be considered fighting talk in Pompey and Plymouth and dear me, matelots can fight..............! We are talking hundreds of years of rivalry here not just a small bit of inter service banter. I can put my hand on my heart and say the personnel being held in Iran would be far more insulted to be called soldiers than they would be anything else. No one has any worries at all in this country about their morale and their fighting spirit, they will retain their unique sense of humour as you will see when they are released.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3839


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> exile ...
> 
> The waters in question are in dispute. It is one of the few things that almost all of those not directly involved agree upon. Your demand that we consider the premise that the Iranians took the Brits into custody in Iraqi waters ignores this completely.



Ah, my mistake. When you referred to British sailors in _Iraqi_ territory in your post, I naively concluded that you were talking about... well,  British sailors in _Iraqi_ territory... a pardonable error, you'll admit! 



michaeledward said:


> And, you seem to be changing the topic from the *detention* of the British solders to the *treatment* of British soldiers.



I know, I'm probably confused about many things, but I can't help thinking that detaining people is _itself_ a form of `treatment' of them. And that the other aspects of that `treatment' depend on the success of the `detainment' part of the `treatment'. 



michaeledward said:


> While we can certainly discuss both, but it would be helpful if we discussed one of them at a time, rather than calling me out for not discussing the treatment when I am discussing the detention.



Fair enough!




michaeledward said:


> Now, I have added numbers, so that we can be clear on what my "original point" may have been. Number 1 seems to point to British Soldiers in Iranian Territorial waters.  Number 2 looks to the actions of Brits in Iraqi waters. Number 3 looks to a retaliation for Coalition abductions.
> 
> Now, as I remember my basic math, 1 comes before 2. So my original point does not appear to be British occupation of Iraq.



No no no. You were providing a set of discussion points all of which bear on a `truly logical discussion'. Discussion of what? Of the thread topic, right? You were sayingplease don't try to deny itthat the unspecified actions or whatever of Brits in Iraqi waters is germane to the issue of the kidnapping of British soldiers by Iran. That's the sticking point, I'm afraid. 



michaeledward said:


> And, nowhere in this discussion am I making comments about the *treatment* of detained soldiers. I am making comments about the *detention*.


 
Agreed. We can partition the issue into two kinds of treatment: kidnapping (or if you prefer, detaining) British sailors and forcing the women among them to wear the mandated garb for women under Islamic law, televising them, and eliciting public statements from them under very, very suspicious circumstances....



michaeledward said:


> I guess that after Abu Ghraib and Saddam Hussein's publicity photo in his underwear, maybe we Americans should not be so quick to yell about treatment before we ascertain the legitimacy, or illegitimacy of the detention. Wasn't it our current Attorney General who told use the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and outdated?



Et tu quoque, Brute? (Sorry, couldn't resist). Let me turn your argument around for you. Was is nasty, wicked and morally abhorrent at Abu Ghraib? You bet! So is this treatment, by the same criterion, nasty, wicked and morally abhorrent? Well, _you_ tell _me_... :wink1:


----------



## Carol (Mar 31, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I think you need to be very careful about believing Craig Murray, he says he 'exposed' human rights only after himself being exposed of dodgy dealing.
> 
> The Roayl Navy is the Senior Service and takes that position very seriously, calling them soldiers would be considered fighting talk in Pompey and Plymouth and dear me, matelots can fight..............! We are talking hundreds of years of rivalry here not just a small bit of inter service banter. I can put my hand on my heart and say the personnel being held in Iran would be far more insulted to be called soldiers than they would be anything else. No one has any worries at all in this country about their morale and their fighting spirit, they will retain their unique sense of humour as you will see when they are released.
> http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3839



I made the same mistake in calling them soldiers as well.  I apologize for my ignorance and appreciate the correction, as well as the correction.  Thank you very much!


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 31, 2007)

whole thing seems a little revenge like IMO: http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37142

And for a little satire, here's Terry Jones: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2047128,00.html


----------



## Stan (Mar 31, 2007)

While we all hope for the safe return of the service people to Britain, maybe a good (though uncomfortable) question to ask is at what cost to British national interests should the British government seek their return.  Hostages are taken to pressure the group to which they belong into a compromising action.  Should the government of Britain make concessions to Iran that they normally wouldn't, for the sake of the captured Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel?  At what point would Iranian demands go too far, necessitating a more forceful approach from Britain even if it means risking the hostages?

I know this is a very tough question.  That's why I'm asking it.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 1, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> I made the same mistake in calling them soldiers as well. I apologize for my ignorance and appreciate the correction, as well as the correction. Thank you very much!


 
They just get a bit touchy as they consider the Army junior to them,well I guess over a thousand years of existence can do that to you.

A simple point here, if the waters are in dispute the Iranians can have no proof that the British personnel were in Iranian water. Stan is right, the hostages were taken to provide Iran with something they want. 
LOL at Terry Jones, quite often the epithet "Guardian readers" is flung at people in the same way that Americans say "communist"!
Margaret Beckett is negotiating the release of the personnel, with her ineptitude she may well cost them their lives.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 1, 2007)

Not much to add except that my fingers are crossed for those sailors.

I *hope* that Iran will come to its senses and back down(they've tried posturing like this before).

I FEAR that the outcome will be much worse.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 1, 2007)

One interesting thing, when Leading Seaman Turney made her "confession" she sent out a code that it was false as was the letter she wrote. She referred to her ship as "Foxtrot 99" instead of "Cornwall". All sailors refer to their ship/boat by name never a callsign. Good on yer lass!


----------



## exile (Apr 1, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> One interesting thing, when Leading Seaman Turney made her "confession" she sent out a code that it was false as was the letter she wrote. She referred to her ship as "Foxtrot 99" instead of "Cornwall". All sailors refer to their ship/boat by name never a callsign. Good on yer lass!



Brilliant woman!

But it wasn't really necessary  (though it probably will prove useful in responding to those who trot out such `confessions' as evidence that even the sailors themselves know they were being bad). Forced confessions have a long and dishonorable history in oppressive authoritarian states, and the conditions to which these sailors are being subject makes it obvious to anyone who isn't blind that their kidnappers were quite likely to try it on...


----------



## jdinca (Apr 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Jonathan Randall ... as a member of the Democratic Party, I find your interpretation insulting and disgusting. While you claim you are an independent, you have bought into the hyperbole of the Republican ideologs of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly when you claim what the Democrats 'hoped' for.
> 
> Because the members of the Democratic Party listened to the Administrations answers provided to some hard questions, and expected accountability (how long will the war last? how much will the war cost?) you step up to the line of calling them treasonous.
> 
> Very Unpleasant.


 
You sling the hyperbole pretty well yourself, based on the above quote. I find it insulting that you think that Jonathans point of view could only be because he has bought into the "Republican Idealog hyberpole", as opposed to paying attention to what both sides have to say and drawing an independent conclusion. 

There are crooks and idealogues on both sides of the aisle. It's politics. Neither side is clean. It boils down to personal opinion as to who you choose to align yourself with, as in "I like my jerks better than I like your jerks". Regardless of which ideology you choose to go with, the bottom line is that our soldiers get stuck in the middle.


----------



## jdinca (Apr 1, 2007)

Jonathan Randall said:


> This was damn stupid on Iran's part. What were/are they thinking? Apparently even _they, the Iranians, _first gave the GPS coordinates where these sailors were "arrested" as IRAQI waters! They can't even be incompetent competently.


 
Actually, not so much. Iran is gambling big time but could come out on top. If Britain responds aggressively, Iran stands to gain the support of others in the middle east. If Britain continues to take the passive approach, they, and by proxy the west, will seem weak. Strength of the opponent goes a very long ways in that part of the world. 

In addition, Iran can now put pressure on the US, through Britain, to get their operatives back that were caught in Iraq. This issue also keeps Iran on the front page as the power in the region. 

As for accuracy, it's already been proven on a number of occasions that the quality of the rhetoric has much more influence that the facts of the situation. That's a page right out of good old American politics. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, and only use as much of the truth as you need to to support your story". The Iranians are proving to be very adept at that concept, especially since their message is aimed at the people of the region, as opposed to the rest of the world.

Yeah, President "Member's Only" is whacked but not as much as the Ayatollahs pulling his strings, and the people who do not favor what they're doing are not yet in a position where they can effect a change. This whole issue could also be viewed as an attempt at pulling the Iranian people "back into the fold", after they slapped the president in the local elections.


----------



## Lisa (Apr 1, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Thread locked pending Admin review.

Lisa Deneka
MT Assist. Admin*


----------

