Iran playing games

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by ElTigre


This is only true for warships passing through other nations territorial waters by mistake ("innocent passage"). The British ships however boarded a neutral vessel. If we accept the Iranian point of view (which I don't), a strong case can be made that the detaining of sailors who just boarded a neutral ship in the territorial waters of another nation is perfectly legal.

wouldnt that require a request for assistance from the neutral ship to the govt of Iran? Which AFAIK did not occur here, as all the neutral states accept the de facto boundary.

[Ramo]

Edit: Wrong thread, I'll get to this later.

[SlowwHand]

How about Iran contesting the coordinates as expressed by the Brits, countering with their own coordinates, which are also outside their territorial waters?

Dumbasses.

[Ecthy]

Wasn't that discussed a few days ago already? But if it makes you feel better you can repeat factoids endlessly.

[SlowwHand]

Cocky little bastard, aren't you ?

[Ecthy]

Yes. I'd get fired many times in Dis' former job

[DRoseDARs]

Not going to bother read through the thread, but Iran is releasing all 15 soldiers thanks to British diplomacy.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Jaakko
The attitude is born out of four years of continuous and unmitigated failure and incompetence by the US in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of dead people. Didn't mean to aim it at you.

I didn't accept it as aimed at me.

I really dislike people belitteling points of view which they don't agree with.

Also - not all agressive decisions are a result of an evil grunt colonel, like they show in the movies. That is crap. More often than not, the military ranks go for the less aggressive stance.


[q]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Kidnapping, arrest, whatever you want to call it, if you want to argue semantics go argue with a brick wall.

I'm not the one arguing semantics

What the Iranians did in Iraq was illegal and the US (as an active ruling force) had every right to stop them.

What the brits did in Iraqi waters was in no way comparable, and it was illegal for the Iranian forces to kidnap them.

The semantic difference between kidnap and arrest is important because of legitimacy issues.

And how on Earth does that change the fact that the British sailors/ marines got screwed over asa result of the Iran/ US interplay in Iraq (which was the original point being countered)? It doesn't, pretty damn obviously.

How about the british sailors got screwed as a result of aggressive Iranian policies and their pursuit of atomic weapons?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Not going to bother read through the thread, but Iran is releasing all 15 soldiers thanks to British diplomacy.

yay

[DRoseDARs]

And neoconservative penises go flaccid everywhere... poor babies were jonesing for war.

[Drake Tungsten]

Iran wins.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
How about the british sailors got screwed as a result of aggressive Iranian policies and their pursuit of atomic weapons?

Yeah, absolutely true, that's a big part of it. It's also likely they felt like taking a potshot at a Western nation in response to having a few of their own officials apprehended while commiting illegal activity in Iraq the other day.

Now, please keep your hand on your knee lest it jerk all the place, but why does someone pointing that out make you seem to think the Iranian actions are being condoned or justified? Because they're not.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Iran wins.

Is it just me, or does he look like The Fonz? AAeeeee!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
And neoconservative penises go flaccid everywhere... poor babies were jonesing for war.

The time for military action would have been when if the mother ship had been closer to the sailors and in a position to kill/capture the people trying to ambush them.

[lord of the mark]

I am glad for the safety of these sailors.


Just curious - is Iran returning their GPS equipment? Or will they hold on to it, like last time?

Since we are always told that Ahmadinajad doesnt really run things in Iran, can someone tell me how this whole incident fit in with the Rafsanji attempt to restrain Ahmadinajad?

Is Iran going to return the money they made while the price of oil spiked due to the crisis they manufactured?

What do we think Iran will do the next time they have domestic difficulties and need to create a crisis? Will they try something new, or kidnap British sailors again? Will the RN continue to patrol the Gulf?