Iran playing games

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Drogue
Indeed, as my mother always used to say, resorting to swearing just shows you don't have a wide enough vocabulary to insult someone properly. There is never a need to use swear words.

I beg to differ. Certain times the use of extremely profane swear words such as the 'C' word are an entirely fitting way of describing exactly what I think of him in a clear and concise manner - you will never be able to accuse me of pompous verbosity...

However I will indeed respect the rules of this site as I always do and let the language filter take the strain...

Sloww, methinks if you try posting a thread about whether I should be banned it may backfire - I welcome the opportunity to see whether you've got the guts to put your money where your mouth is, *****.

[TheStinger]

I think Mobius and Slow are secretly in love

[Drogue]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Can I start a thread on whether Mobius should be banned?
Please?

No

Originally posted by TheStinger
I think Mobius and Slow are secretly in love

I think this thread should get back on topic.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Drogue
There is never a need to use swear words.

BS.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by curtsibling

I am glad to have the USA backing our nation on this one.

Soon the US/UK might be 'redocorating' Tehran.

Yep we got your back on this one...... Maybe..... or not

Pelosi Refusing to Support British on Iran?

It's hard to believe, but that's what we're hearing from Capitol Hill. A resolution has been proposed in the House of Representatives that condemns Iran for the seizure of British sailors and marines, expresses support for our British allies. It's hard to see anything controversial in that. But apparently, the resolution has languished all week while Pelosi refuses to allow it to come to the floor.

Earlier today, Congressman Eric Cantor wrote the following letter to Pelosi:

Dear Madam Speaker:

Fifteen kidnapped British marines and sailors recently became the latest victims of a systematic Iranian campaign of terror and international defiance. The illegal seizure of the British forces is a signal that Iran views us as powerless to prevent it from realizing its aggressive ambitions.

For the sake of our standing in the world, our allies and most importantly the 15 British personnel and their families, I urge you to bring H. Res. 267 to the floor today before we adjourn. The resolution calls for the immediate and unconditional release of the British marines and sailors. It would also call on the U.N. Security Council to not only condemn the seizure, but to explore harsher sanctions to counter the growing Iranian threat.

A Republican Congressional staffer writes:

It is simply staggering to me that Pelosi refuses to stand beside America's closest ally. I literally would not have thought this possible, until I saw it this week.

Staggering, indeed. We'll see what happens this afternoon.

[Ramo]

Those are important parts of the resolution. Im glad the guys in the previous incident were let go unharmed, but the implication that "alls well that ends well" is the last word is mistaken IMHO.

It's pretty damn unimportant relative to the safety of the British sailors and marines.

In other news, Craig Murray, who was the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan says:

The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.

But there are two colossal problems.

A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only harden the Iranian position.

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/weblog.html

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ramo

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/weblog.html

Interesting, thanks for the link. Be sure to read the comments too, there's a good discussion going on:

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/fake_maritime_b.html#comments

Another Blog discussing the borders drawn on the British map:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2007/03/blairs_faked_bo_1.html

[Patroklos]

My understanding is the Iranians have built up a large store of civilian looking speed boats which can quickly be turned into suicide bomb boats.

Those would be the IRCGN speed boats/jet skis I was talking about. But no matter what they look like, if any vessel gets anywhere near a vessel in the straights during a shooting war with Iran they are toast. Thats why I say an initial attack by Iran would be the only chance they have of getting a warship, since until shots are actually fired it is our ROE to be deescalatory, ie give the Iranians the benefit of the doubt.

I think it was a very good decision for the Brits not to start shooting, because then the story would be "Brits attack Iranians in thier own territorial waters." The rhibs the US and the Brits use for these boarding operations are not very robust, and if it is loaded with a full boarding party then they are also slow. There are three types of NATO bardings; compliant, noncompliant, and opposed. Compliant means you ask the master over bridge-to-bridge or whatever and he agrees, non compliant means he doesn't agree but doesn't actively try and prevent your boarding. Opposed is exactly what it says, to included passive techniques like putting barbed wire over the life lines. Most Coalition forces in the NAG are only allowed to do the first two types of boardings, special forces do opposed boardings.

What does all this mean? That the Brits were probobly doing a routine boardng of a dhow, happens every day all over the Gulf, and were not equipped/prepared to take on a few Iranian patrol craft.

[kittenOFchaos]

Originally posted by curtsibling
I have a feeling that those sailors where probably SBS or something similar.
And I guess that our people discovered something iffy aboard that Iranian ship.
........As in imported-nuclear-components-iffy...

The fat chick is SBS?

Don't make me laugh.

Nooberosity Curt.

[DinoDoc]

Cudos to the Brits for showing more backbone than Bush did when our servicemen were held hostage in violation of international law.

[SlowwHand]

That's a crock.

[Edan]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Ultimately we had 15 people taken who are unharmed -

How do we know that? Alll we have is video of six of them who appear to have no visible injuries.

[MOBIUS]

[Drake Tungsten]

Is there any enemy of America that Ramo won't side with?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Everyone knows Moby's been to Tehran to see them all. And after all, we know we can rely on any pseudo-Islamic news source, because we know they are only interested in the truth.

How are things in Mobystan?