# Iran Seizes Three British Vessels, 8 Crewmen



## Freight_Train (21 Jun 2004)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5473446&pageNumber=0
Iran Seizes Three British Vessels, 8 Crewmen
Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:35 AM ET 
By Amir Paivar 
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran seized three British naval boats on Monday, which it said had entered its waters near the Iraqi border, and arrested eight British crew. 
While Tehran was deeply opposed to the U.S.-led war and occupation of Iraq, there has been little direct conflict up to now between the Shi'ite Muslim state and foreign forces along its western border. 
The incident is likely to place further strain on Tehran's ties with London which last week joined other European nations in condemning Iran for being less than fully cooperative with inspectors from the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog. 
"This morning three British vessels with eight crew entered the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters and Iran's naval forces, acting on their legal duty, confiscated the vessels and arrested the crew," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement. 
"The crew are under investigation in order to clarify the issue," he added. 
Tehran gave no indication of when or whether the British ships and crew might be released. 
The incident involving OPEC's second largest producer added to jitters on world oil markets, already unnerved by Islamic militant attacks on foreigners in Saudi Arabia and pipeline attacks in Iraq. Prices of gold, seen as a safe haven in times of instability, rose slightly on the news. 
Iran state media said the incident took place in the narrow Shatt al-Arab waterway which separates southwestern Iran from Iraq. 
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY 
Britain confirmed it had "lost contact" with three vessels and eight sailors in the strip of water. 
"We can confirm we did lose contact with a patrol earlier this morning and it does involve three small vessels and eight personnel," a Defense Ministry spokesman said. But he could not confirm they had been seized by Iran.
It said Britain had small naval ships there helping to train Iraqi police. 
"We are not talking about ships, we are not talking about warships, we are talking about small river patrol vessels," the spokesman said. 
A British diplomat in Tehran said the British government was in close contact with Iranian authorities in Tehran and London. 
Iran's state television said maps and weapons carried on the British vessels were confiscated. 
Revolutionary Guards spokesman Massoud Jazaeri told Reuters Iran was determined to defend its territorial integrity. 
"Anyone from any nationality entering our waters will face the same response," Jazaeri said. 
Iran's Revolutionary Guards, a branch of the armed forces charged with defending Iran's Islamic revolution, earlier this month seized some eight fishing vessels from the United Arab Emirates in a tit-for-tat measure after the Emirates took an Iranian boat which had strayed into its waters.


----------



## Military Brat (22 Jun 2004)

Ohh no, 3 "vessels"(more like patrol boats) entered the holy waters of the Iranian motherland?   : You know, if nothing better is going on in Iran than to worry about a few boats going into Iranian waters, then Iran is in a sad state of affairs. 

I say play hardball with them. Cut them off from the oil export industry, if that doesn't get their attention then send a few cruise missiles their way. Sure, oil prices might go up a couple bucks a barrel without Iranian exports, but that is better than rouge nations calling the shots.   :evil:


----------



## tabernac (22 Jun 2004)

> rouge


 Rouge is red in French. Its rogue.  ;D >Just missplaced the u.


----------



## casing (22 Jun 2004)

Military Brat said:
			
		

> ...if nothing better is going on in Iran than to worry about a few boats going into Iranian waters, then Iran is in a sad state of affairs.



Actually, I think if the 3 vessels are all Iran has to worry about, that is a very good thing.



> I say play hardball with them. Cut them off from the oil export industry, if that doesn't get their attention then send a few cruise missiles their way. Sure, oil prices might go up a couple bucks a barrel without Iranian exports, but that is better than rouge nations calling the shots.



For impounding a few boats with a few sailors?   It isn't like they sunk the boats.   Your suggested reaction would be a little extreme to say the least.   Not to mention not at all needed with all the existing problems going on.


----------



## ags281 (22 Jun 2004)

Military Brat said:
			
		

> Ohh no, 3 "vessels"(more like patrol boats) entered the holy waters of the Iranian motherland?   : You know, if nothing better is going on in Iran than to worry about a few boats going into Iranian waters, then Iran is in a sad state of affairs.
> 
> I say play hardball with them. Cut them off from the oil export industry, if that doesn't get their attention then send a few cruise missiles their way. Sure, oil prices might go up a couple bucks a barrel without Iranian exports, but that is better than rouge nations calling the shots.   :evil:



Um... last time I checked, they have a well-established right to call the shots in their own territorial waters. All nations do. Can you imagine what would happen if suddenly North Korean patrol boats were found in US waters unannounced? Dubbya would go spare! It sounds so far like they're acting well within their rights, and being somewhat reasonable about it. Unless additional info comes to light on the issue I'll have to remain of the opinion that perhaps the Brits should have brushed up on their navigational skills instead.

Cut off their exports? Send a few cruise missiles? Are you nuts? If you want to find an excuse to impose sanctions and start attacking random countries I think you'll need a MUCH better excuse than the fact that a country exercised it's legal right established by international treaties that your own country has signed.


----------



## Military Brat (22 Jun 2004)

Oh boy, you support a country randomly seizing boats at will? Geesh, vessels come into and out of Canadian waters dozens a day I am sure. You don't see those ships ceased and their crews paraded in front of the camera.  

Iran stepped out of line, and for that they should be punished. Besides, every time we buy a barrel of oil from the Iranians, it goes to fund their research for nuclear weapons, advanced missiles, or something of the like. 

If those sailors were Canadian would you just sit back and say meh, they need to brush up on their navigation skills? No, you would want to take all possible actions to get them home safely.

If you support the enemy(hardcore theocratic regime) holding our allies from simply trying to train Iraqi police officers, whose side are you really on?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jun 2004)

Rein it in there young one,
These were not just any boats, they were armed patrol boats, to equate that with trade boats coming in our waters is wrong.
If three of anybodies armed patrol boats came in our water I would expect them to either be seized or at least warned and escorted away.
And I'm just curious, when did we declare war on Iran? I must have missed them being our enemy.
 Your bravado undermines any valid points you may have.
BRUCE


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Jun 2004)

I watched the late news last night, and saw the Tommies in their desert DPMs blindfolded, and then later sitting, and all looking very poker faced. I am sure its not easy for them. Heck, how would you and I feel? maybe take teh time to think about it, as we sit infront of our PCs, TVs, or have a few beers, or just playing with your children. They are not as fortunate as us right now, and lets hope thy are released very soon.

Also videoed was their kit, ranging from wrist watches, comms eqpt, M16's with M203, and even their first-aid kits! Looks like more of a propaganda stunt done by Iranian forces more than anything, and maybe all over the UKs anti-nuke policy towards Iran. Personally i dont think any of these islamic countries should be allowed to possess anything nuclear, as there is too many radicals within who would just love to get some payback to the west.

I am sure in time, more sooner than later, the UK personnel will be released.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## NavyGrunt (22 Jun 2004)

Iranians have broken international law by interviewing the detainees on TV and now they are talking about "prosecuting" them. As for "armed patol boats" they were RHIBS with personal small arms. No HMG's or otherwise. Its a dick measuring contest. And I don't believe Iran should be doing things like this. It has to do with Britain calling out Iran on the nuclear issue. I can't believe Im hearing people condoning this. If we prosecuted everyone whos boat wound up in the wrong area the Canadian navy would be very busy.

Anyways I understand where you guys on "the other side" are coming from....Im just a little shocked.


----------



## ags281 (22 Jun 2004)

I'm not saying I support the Iranian government at all. I most certainly do not. A number of years back we had an Iranian refugee live with us for about a year after he escaped the war over there, and he had some pretty scary stories of oppression (I'm glad to say he's now a full Canadian citizen, has a successful career in engineering, and a family as well). I'm merely speaking to this specific incident independent of how I might feel about the Iranian government. Whether we like it or not, all countries - not just us and our allies - have full legal right to patrol their own territory. 

Yes it is true that we do allow many vessels to pass freely through our waters. Believe it or not, so does Iran. However, when a vessel is found that we do not agree to having in our waters (e.g. boat full of illegal immigrants) the boat is seized, and the occupants detained, just as Iran has done here. We did it not that long ago, and if you recall we even paraded them in front of all the news cameras and talked about prosecution. 

I am certainly not suggesting that I would give up on those sailors if they were Canadian. I would be quite shocked if the British government did not do everything in its power to have them returned. What I am saying, however, is that launching an immediate attack against Iran as was suggested would be way out of line. 

Is it a political pissing contest? Absolutely, and as such it requires a political response, not a military one.


----------



## Military Brat (22 Jun 2004)

The Iranians better watch out with those British warships venturing into their waters. Maybe the British are preparing for a big military operation against Iran. Watch out Iran, detain all them sailors, they might sink your vessels with those small arms they are carrying. 

The boats, yes they are armed, with small arms. So like C7s. Wow..those small arms will do some major damage to them Iranian navy vessels.  :

Pfft..this is ludicrous that anyone would defend the Iranians. And whomever said the Iranians aren't our enemy, well hate to break it to you, but yes, yes they are our enemy. We declared war on terror. They support, finance and carry out terrorism. Therefore indirectly we have declared war on them. To assume the Iranians are our friends is just beyong belief. 

The Iranians are just pissed off that the world community isn't going to let them march to their own drummer. They repeatedly break international laws, they have refused to allow inspectors to their nuclear program. They have something to hide or else the wouldn't have a problem with the inspections. Iran is a country that has no respect for international laws except when they can use it for their own personal gain (like this incident) and it is truly pathetic that anyone would defend these slimeballs.


----------



## devil39 (22 Jun 2004)

Military Brat said:
			
		

> Oh boy, you support a country randomly seizing boats at will? Geesh, vessels come into and out of Canadian waters dozens a day I am sure. You don't see those ships ceased and their crews paraded in front of the camera.
> 
> Iran stepped out of line, and for that they should be punished. Besides, every time we buy a barrel of oil from the Iranians, it goes to fund their research for nuclear weapons, advanced missiles, or something of the like.
> 
> ...



Military Brat,

Militaries should not be conducting combat operations, armed training missions, etc, uninvited in the sovereign territory or waters of another nation.   

This situation could probably have been better handled by the Iranians, and there likely is a certain amount of "dick stretching" and getting even for political issues of the recent past.

However, slapping sanctions and dropping bombs is not going to get anyones troops back any faster, in fact it will likely slow down the whole process.   Remember the old   adage of military force being an extension of diplomacy, or politics by another means.   Let diplomacy run its course in the short term.

I have a hard time believing this is the same Military Brat who was calling down Ralph Peters as "hate literature".   He never stated it is now time to bomb all Arabs, however you certainly wish to bomb the Persians.

I think that in Iran we have a very significant future ally, once they slip the bonds of the relatively unpopular theocratic regime.   It would not be wise to get the vast majority of Iranians united into hating the West, when right now they appear to admire the west and wish to be finished with the regime of the "mad mullahs".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jun 2004)

Just as a side note there, Military Brat, I wish you would put your age in your profile so that I could tell if I'm arguing a point with an adult or a 13 year old kid who has'nt ventured out of Mommy's womb yet and has no idea of the shitstorm the actions  he is proposing would cause.


----------



## NavyGrunt (22 Jun 2004)

I just once again want to distance myself from the idea of "military action". Im not sure what the answer is to this problem. All I know is it could have been handled better. I dont know how exactly but thats why im an Able Seaman. I do what Im told. I don't tell others what to do. 

I just hope that the Iranians handle this wisely.(and to a lesser extent the British as well.)

Also- This waterway is very narrow and the Iranians know that for the last while the Brits have been patrolling it looking for insurgents moving weapons. I believe (the following is Opinion) that the Brits accidentally crossed over the disputed boundries and the Iranians took advantage of this. Anyone who has been the Cox/n of a small boat will tell you that on a narrow waterway in reasonably bad weather you can get off course by quite a bit and not realize.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2004)

Military Brat, you must be a charmer at the Risk board, maybe you should stick to it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jun 2004)

Having sailed off of Iran for 2 tours I can say I can understand the Iranians point of view. Its hammered home that of all the nations there, you do not cross into their territory as they aggressively patrol and will defend it. Unless that is only the right of Western Nations (which seems to be Military Brats idea). If the Brits were where they were not suppose to be then they don't have a legal leg to stand on, that being said with Tehran in contact with London so quickly after the incident,all this will be will be posturing an a chance for Iran to score propaganda points.

Well put Rope Tech and very true.....narrow stretches of water is ambiguous at best.


----------



## NavyGrunt (22 Jun 2004)

You're the man whos been there EX. Id have to say that you would know better than I. As for the right of Iranians to patrol their boundries I agree. They have every right to board, seize, and detain any person in their own waters. I wouldnt want anyone taking that right from us. I just think that Iran didn't have to do what they did. I mean really the only reason they still have a land to defend is because of the west and europe.(and the Aussies, Wes calm down >) 

Mind you Id be a little weary of a small boat with armed men...even small arms....in my zone.

As a side note military brat some wise advice to follow would be- open eyes, shut mouth. Thats what I was told in BMQ and its good advice. You'll avoid all the belt fed cock of the military if you watch and learn from everyone who has gone and done before. When a man makes a mistake watch and learn, when they do something right watch and learn. Someday it'll be your turn to talk- but until then become preoccupied with learning, so when you do get your chance, you dont put your foot in your mouth.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jun 2004)

Well you have to look at it this way...who in the UK uses C7s/M16s? SAS and SBS supposedly do, so the Iranians are going to make the most of this.


----------



## Military Brat (22 Jun 2004)

I'm sure the Iranians are overjoyed with such an overwhelming response by you guys to defend their political system and it's decisions. The Iranians finance terror groups like Hezbollah, and reportedly are backing the Iraqi resistence to the Americans.

devil39, I never advocated bombing every Arab in Iran. I advocated punishing the Iranian regime for stepping out of line. Wether you think they stepped out of line or not, that is really up to you. But I admire the Iranian people, I think they are brave for wanting reform, for wanting to distance themselves from a theocratic regime but they can't do it alone. They need help from outsiders(British, American, etc.) to help them topple their government. 

Ex-Dragoon, I never said patrolling waters should be a right of only Western nations. I just think the Iranians went overboard here, they didn't need to detain a patrol boat that was simply training Iraqi police officers. 

I prefer to stand with our longtime ally, the British, rather than defending the actions of a rogue state like Iran. The choice is really yours, you can continue to defend the Iranian theocratic regime, or you can defend the British democracy. 

BTW, I prefer to debate the issues, rather than resort to namecallling. Maybe some of you will do the same?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jun 2004)

Read what you like Military Brat...I do not support the Iranian Goverment so please do not say I do. I do support the right of a nation to protect itself and its territorial integrity. I hear it all the time from people who think we should start sinking Spanish or other nations fishing boats because they are in violation of our territorial waters. Tehran is making a propaganda point.


----------



## NavyGrunt (22 Jun 2004)

Hey military brat guess what. Your barking up the wrong tree. We are concerned about the british soldiers. We would be angry if they were hurt. We are not "taking sides". We are being "adults" now run along.

Go jump in a boat slap some combats on put a rifle on your lap and speed at an american ship or a candian harbour. Dman right you'll be detained. I recall a certain American sub eaving a certain canadian harbour and a civi wanting to get a closer look so he jumped in his canoe and started paddling. He got within a 100m and was arrested at gun point by port security and was detained.....In canada.  He was not even a soldier and we did that to him. Why cant the Iranians defend themselves in kind- when ARMED SOLDIERS cross over.....


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2004)

> BTW, I prefer to debate the issues, rather than resort to namecallling. Maybe some of you will do the same?



Oh give it a rest.  Your incessant saber-rattling and jingoism is far from "debating the issue".


----------



## Military Brat (22 Jun 2004)

Yes, because the British sailors were speeding towards Iranian ports to get a closer look at their submarines and warships.  :

Puh-lease. They were on a training mission. They had no intention of going into Iranian waters. It was an accident. They weren't going to invade Iran, they weren't going to attack a port or a ship, they were training Iraqi police to IMPROVE stability in the region. 

You can't compare apples and oranges. The examples you gave and the Iran situation are two completely different things.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2004)

<click - ignore>


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jun 2004)

Oh there is no doubt that it was an accident but the point is *hello*....they violated the territorial waters of Iran without prior approval from Tehran. We know that, Tehran knows that and even you know that Military Brat, the point is the Brits are in the wrong. The Iranians could have just as easily blew them out of the water, but they didn't. They didn't shoot first and ask questions later, they stopped them and took the RN into custody just like most other nations would have done. I will play devils advocate here but if the situation was reversed and a naval Pasadaran unit strayed into Iraqi waters what do you think the end result would have been? Probably the same thing!


----------



## NavyGrunt (22 Jun 2004)

Im going to spare you a lecture. If you cant see the paralleL Thats your own thing. However I doubt an attempt to set american style democracy in their neighbours is seen by the Iranians as stabalizing the region. If anything I think they would be concerned about this. Maybe even skittish enough to enforce their boundries. But you're in high school so Im sure you know more than the actual CF members on the board.


----------



## Military Brat (22 Jun 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Oh there is no doubt that it was an accident but the point is *hello*....they violated the territorial waters of Iran without prior approval from Tehran. We know that, Tehran knows that and even you know that Military Brat, the point is the Brits are in the wrong. The Iranians could have just as easily blew them out of the water, but they didn't. They didn't shoot first and ask questions later, they stopped them and took the RN into custody just like most other nations would have done. I will play devils advocate here but if the situation was reversed and a naval Pasadaran unit strayed into Iraqi waters what do you think the end result would have been? Probably the same thing!



Yes, they may have violated territorial waters, I never disputed that, but I think their response is a little over the top. Detaining them indefinently, and threatening to prosecute them all because they made a navigational error?

Besides, two wrongs don't make a right. The Brits accidentally breaking the law isn't reason to parade detainees in front of state television(which is against international law as pointed out).


----------



## Military Brat (22 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> <click - ignore>



You have contributed nothing to the conversation anyways.


----------



## NavyGrunt (22 Jun 2004)

Your last post was more objective and I agree actually. BUT the point is they could have done less yes. But its not WRONG what they have done. It is over the top however I agree,

BUT!!!

EX dragoon pointed out that over there it is well known how strict the Iranians are about thier borders which means the Brits should have excercised better judgement and selected a better, less ambiguous training area.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jun 2004)

Not to go off direction here but


> Puh-lease. They were on a training mission. They had no intention of going into Iranian waters. It was an accident


How can you speak for the British ship?


----------



## Military Brat (22 Jun 2004)

Oh how stupid of me. 

I must have forgotten about the part in British naval training where the goal is to venture into enemy waters and get captured. 

If the Iranians are so strict about their borders, do you really think the Brits had any intention of actually going into their waters? Honestly. They ventured there accidentally.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (22 Jun 2004)

Who knows?  The British small boats could have been taking an SBS team in to blow up an Iranian Nuclear plant, or some other target.  Obviously, out of James Bondian patriotism the team itself jumped overboard to avoid capture.   ;D


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2004)

> Besides, two wrongs don't make a right. The Brits accidentally breaking the law isn't reason to parade detainees in front of state television(which is against international law as pointed out).



What law is this?   Are you referring to the Geneva Conventions?   I highly doubt they would be applicable considering Iran and Britain are not at a state of war and thus the detainees are not classified as POWs.



> You have contributed nothing to the conversation anyways.



The funny thing is, neither have you.   You've succeeded in taking a news story that was off the radar map and forming it into some Gulf of Tonkin incident.   As far as many here are concerned, your repeated efforts at blowing off any attempts to tell you that you're out in left field have already reduced you to relative obscurity on this forum.

Enjoy your 15 minutes.


----------



## Military Brat (22 Jun 2004)

Infanteer, I thought you put me on ignore. 

Also, even credible news agencies like CNN acknowledge that interviewing the sailors on state TV was against international law. I guess you live in your own bubble.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2004)

I am ignoring your whimsical geopolitical ramblings.

It is your smartass remarks that I have dedicated my attention to.


----------



## Military Brat (22 Jun 2004)

RopeTech said:
			
		

> Your last post was more objective and I agree actually. BUT the point is they could have done less yes. But its not WRONG what they have done. It is over the top however I agree,



So, in other words, you agree with me. 

I'm glad we got our underwear in a knot over nothing. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## NavyGrunt (22 Jun 2004)

Military Brat said:
			
		

> Oh how stupid of me.
> 
> I must have forgotten about the part in British naval training where the goal is to venture into enemy waters and get captured.
> 
> If the Iranians are so strict about their borders, do you really think the Brits had any intention of actually going into their waters? Honestly. They ventured there accidentally.




THE POINT WAS if there is a chance you could wind up somewhere you dont want to be CHANGE YOUR TRAINING AREA and you wont have an ACCIDENT. By the way your being a dick to everyone who doesnt share your viewpoint and its getting you attention in the wrong way.


----------



## Military Brat (22 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I am ignoring your whimsical geopolitical ramblings.
> 
> It is your smartass remarks that I have dedicated my attention to.



You mean like how you said Iran didn't break international law when news agencies around the world say they did?

Who's version shall I believe, the version of an egomaniac infantryman or the version of a worldwide news agency such as CNN? I think the answer is quite clear.

Maybe educate yourself before you talk like you know international laws like the back of your hand.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (22 Jun 2004)

Militarybrat, I think you need to learn to be a little more skeptical and a little less trusting of individual sources of info.  CNN, as well as anything/one else, is biased towards matters which affect its interests.  Violating a sovereign nation's territory is also a violation of international law, accident or not.  You can still be convicted of 'killing without intent', that is manslaughter.  The Iranians are breaking the law as well, but you can't deny that the Brits are in the wrong.

And can you honestly say that you yourself (not CNN) know int'l law, Iran national policy, or British military doctrine and operations like the back of YOUR hand?  



> Puh-lease. They were on a training mission. They had no intention of going into Iranian waters. It was an accident. They weren't going to invade Iran, they weren't going to attack a port or a ship, they were training Iraqi police to IMPROVE stability in the region.





> Iran is a country that has no respect for international laws except when they can use it for their own personal gain (like this incident) and it is truly pathetic that anyone would defend these slimeballs.





> Iran stepped out of line, and for that they should be punished. Besides, every time we buy a barrel of oil from the Iranians, it goes to fund their research for nuclear weapons, advanced missiles, or something of the like.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jun 2004)

Military Brat said:
*Maybe educate yourself before you talk like you know international laws like the back of your hand*. 

Hmmm maybe you should educate yourself on military matters and procedures before you talk out of you @ss like you have been. Read what people have been saying to you and get that chip off your shoulder. You are not winning any points with your antagonist approach.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jun 2004)

> quote
> Puh-lease. They were on a training mission. They had no intention of going into Iranian waters. It was an accident. They weren't going to invade Iran, they weren't going to attack a port or a ship, they were training Iraqi police to IMPROVE stability in the region.
> Quote
> Iran is a country that has no respect for international laws except when they can use it for their own personal gain (like this incident) and it is truly pathetic that anyone would defend these slimeballs.
> ...



Guys lay off. Military brat is obviously an expert on not only the British navy BUT the country of Iran as well. (and all the ARABS in Iran, as devilguy pointed out..)
This is yet another case of someone comming here who is right and 90% of the members of the board are wrong.


This is what is commonly refered to as the BAR EFFECT.
A young man   (recruit/message board guest) walks into the bar (message forum). Feeling like he needs to impress the fellows gathered around he starts talking pretty loud trying to get attention. Sometimes he knows what hes talking about, other times he's talking out of his ass. When the regular patrons look over, laugh and ignore him (because they've seen it a BILLION times) the new guy gets insulted, pissed, and begins to talk EVEN louder.   
What happens when the new guy's ego can't take it and he resorts to picking a fight with someone in the bar? Everyone kicks him out because their there to relax.

Relax and quit looking for a fight. Your going to end up getting pissed to the point where you break the rules, flip out and you get kicked out. It's happened a billion times. Your a civilian (albeit trying to joint he army) on a military website. Your not going to impress anyone by being a tough guy.


----------



## devil39 (22 Jun 2004)

Military Brat said:
			
		

> devil39, I never advocated bombing every Arab in Iran. I advocated punishing the Iranian regime for stepping out of line. Wether you think they stepped out of line or not, that is really up to you. But I admire the Iranian people, I think they are brave for wanting reform, for wanting to distance themselves from a theocratic regime but they can't do it alone. They need help from outsiders(British, American, etc.) to help them topple their government.



Military Brat,

You continue to show your ignorance, and I do not mean this as an insult.   Merely as a comment on your lack of knowledge of the topic at hand.   

You advocated bombing Iran.   

Now you claim you "never advocated bombing every *Arab* in Iran" (my bold and italics).   Do you know why I used bold and italic?

Iranians are not Arabs.   Iranians are Persians and Azeri in the majority (51% and 24%).   Only 3% Arab.


----------



## SFontaine (23 Jun 2004)

I'm of the opinion that the Marines made an honest mistake, as they have said already.. On CNN I saw pictures of the river and it's pretty damn hard to tell borders. 









The border is right up the center of the river and it's caused a great deal of debate between Iran and Iraq pre-War. Easy to make a mistake. Personally I think the Iranians are being overzealous here. The Marines apologized and should now be let go. Simple as that. Iran is just playing the big tough guy here.


----------



## NavyGrunt (23 Jun 2004)

hanks for the pic there bro. We've been over what you said and I think thats the general consensus on this board. What happened after the mistake- "The arrest" is the issue.


----------



## SFontaine (23 Jun 2004)

RopeTech said:
			
		

> hanks for the pic there bro. We've been over what you said and I think thats the general consensus on this board. What happened after the mistake- "The arrest" is the issue.



I skimmed a little 

Well like I said the arrest is just those gus tryin to be high and mighty. Not a lot of chances for those guys to be on top of something.


----------



## Pieman (23 Jun 2004)

> The border is right up the center of the river and it's caused a great deal of debate between Iran and Iraq pre-War. Easy to make a mistake


Just how wide is that river? The Iranians report that they caught the boats in their water 1km in their territory. Just not saying it is true, not saying it is a lie either. You have to take these reports with a grain of salt on both sides.

Either way, all these crewmen are going to be released:
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/23/world/newiran_brit040623

I don't think there is too much to be read into this situation. The Brits could have made a mistake, or more likely, they were conducting patrols a little bit inside Iran to make sure operatives were not trying to stage an attack from just inside the Iran boarder. Iran noticed this and after a while decided to intercept to make sure it was understood they did not want that happening. They never would have imprisoned the troops as they already got their point across. Just my theory on the topic.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jun 2004)

Pieman I agree with most with what you are saying except "they were conducting patrols a little bit inside Iran to make sure operatives were not trying to stage an attack from just inside the Iran border" you do not conduct patrols inside another's territory without prior approval. Thats a big diplomatic and military no-no. The end result of stuff like that is what you see here. Either way I am glad the RN personnel are going to be released like I mentioned earlier.


----------



## Pieman (23 Jun 2004)

> you do not conduct patrols inside another's territory without prior approval. Thats a big diplomatic and military no-no.


Yes, you are right. The only reason I stated that though was because my feeling is that Iran would not repond by arresting them unless it was happening on a frequent basis. But there is not much point to speculation, so I won't bother


----------



## bossi (23 Jun 2004)

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight ... it appears a diplomatic solution won out after all.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the analogous precedent whereby a certain country claimed sovereignty over ocean waters well beyond the normal, internationally recognised 12 mile limit 
(and so, the U.S. and other world powers would routinely send warships into the disputed zone just to "prove" their point that the 12 mile limit was the only one they'd recognise).
In this case, it's not surprising the boundary is disputed - "common sense" might suggest the boundary simply be equidistant from each shore, however ... (take a look at the border line drawn through the Great Lakes, for example, or in and around Sweden, Denmark, etc. ... "as clear as mud" ...).

Not much else left to be said, after this:



> * Iran frees 8 British sailors detained for illegally entering its waters *
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's Foreign Ministry said Iran had released eight British sailors detained for illegally entering Iranian waters.
> 
> "The eight British sailors, including six soldiers and two ranking military officials, have been released," a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman told The Associated Press Wednesday.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jun 2004)

Thankfully things were settled peacefully and diplomatically.


----------



## clasper (23 Jun 2004)

Although I was amused to notice that Iran is keeping the boats and equipment.  Perhaps a bit of shiny kit syndrome?


----------



## ags281 (23 Jun 2004)

clasper said:
			
		

> Although I was amused to notice that Iran is keeping the boats and equipment.   Perhaps a bit of shiny kit syndrome?



More likely them just trying to get every little ounce of victory out of this that they can. Not very often that they get to "win" a few points in one of these political contests.


----------



## Military Brat (1 Jul 2004)

> LONDON, England (AP) -- Eight British servicemen seized by Iranian troops last week on the Iran-Iraq border say they were "forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial waters" before they were detained, Britain's Defense Ministry says.


http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/01/iran.uk.ap/index.html

So, I was right in the end. Iran had absolutely no reason to detain these 8 men. Unfortunately most people on this board were too easily manipulated by the Iranian state-run television. The British sailors and marines didn't stray into Iranian waters, they were "forcibly escorted", in essence kidnapped by the Iranians. 

Anyone out there still willing to defend the Iranians?


----------



## winchable (1 Jul 2004)

Given the information these "other members of the board" had, they took a stance and defended what might not have seemed sensible to you, however they were being pragmatic given international law concerning boundaries in water.

No one had anyway of knowing they Sailors were forced into Iranian waters, not even yourself.
Now it appears that this is so, that is no reason to jump on your high horse and go "NYANYANYANYAAANYAAA"

The for, or against attitude you've taken in regards to people who do not agree with you, is a dangerous line of argument that is used by the very same tyrannical regime that is in question.

You'll find getting your opinions across to be much smoother, if you present them without resorting to the playground tactic of gloating over your opponent.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Jul 2004)

:'(
Here is a tissue Military Brat....when you sail in those waters and see the terrain maybe then you will have a valid opinion. If the Brits actually believed the Iranians were lying do you actually think they will be still talking to them? Hello!!! :

Until one side is proven 100% in the right then my opinion still stands based on the information that was available at the time.

Oh don't get cocky....you might find people less likely to help you out on these boards and outright dismiss your views and opinions as shyte.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Jul 2004)

I already dismiss him outright.  oh by the way Iranian State News is on my FAV list on my remote.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jul 2004)

So what, how does this support your idea that we should have bombed Iran?   You're making  an ass of yourself.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2004)

Did anybody else see comments to the effect that the disputed Boundar referred to by SFontaine is actually the issue.  Iraq, since the days of the British Mesopotamian Mandate of the 1920s has claimed the deepwater middle of the channel as the international boundary.  The Iranians have always claimed ALL the water as theirs.  They feel that the end of dry land on the Iraqi side is the end of Iraq.  Therefore anybody on that water other than Iranians are intruding into Iran and are there illegally as far as they are concerned.

That doesn't make there position right or wrong, but it does explain their position, a position that is likely to be very popular among their Republican elements.

We actually have a similar situation in the Dixon Channel between BC and Alaska.  It isn't unknown for Canadian authorities to confront and arrest US boats fishing in waters that the US considers legally theirs.  Not yet ready to nuke the Yanks.  Hope they aren't quite ready to nuke us.

What is wrong, as everybody on this board, most people at large and the moderate Iraqis that released the swabbies and squaddies and are soon to release their kit, realize is the way that the Republican elements treated the Brits.


----------



## Military Brat (1 Jul 2004)

How about we just let terrorist nations do as they wish, go into whichever waters they want, and break whichever laws they want with no retribution.  :

How do you suggest they be punished for what they did? After all, if the Americans or Brits seized Iranian patrol boats and paraded Iranian captives on TV, there would be world outcry about international laws being broken. 

But of course we live in a 2 tier world, where scolding our allies is fine but scolding any of our enemies is a taboo subject.


----------



## SFontaine (1 Jul 2004)

I think it's the way that you scolded our enemies that people have the issue with. From what I read you essentially said bomb em all and no regrets (In reponse to the initial taking). That's what people initially had the problem with. And now people are pissed cause you're acting like you knew this all along and that's why you said it.. If you had just said "Heh typical Iranian jackasses" I doubt anyone would have said anything but you had to go "NYA NYA NYA LOOK I TOLD YOU SO" and   I think that's what people have the issue with.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jul 2004)

Military Brat,
I very seldom resort to profanity[as you can tell by my by-line] but grow the f#$@ up!!!


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jul 2004)

I can see this is going nowhere fast.


----------



## Spr.Earl (4 Jul 2004)

To all have not read any previous post's in regards to this thread.
I will say one thing,having sailed up the Shat Alarab River and knowing how wide it is between Iraq and Iran I can't see
how they strayed into Iranian water's
The Shat Alarab river is the final confluance of the Tigrase and Uphratese River's,on the east side you have the Oil Refinerey complex of Kuromsha and another which I forget the name of which both are huge. on the west side(Iraq)is or was desert.

This river is why they had the War as it's Iraq's only gate way to the sea beside's Umqasar.


----------

