Am I the only Cynic in the Village?

[Dick Smith]

She's an Able Seaman, and stop sniggering at the back!

I imagine the scenario was that the sea-boat was sent out to check this merchant vessel (hence the crew consisting partly of sailors and partly of armed marines) and into view hove an Iraqi patrol vessel and collected them all up. No idea how far away the ship they came from was (I forget the name) but the thought process probably involved was - we have two choices, open fire or do nothing. If we open fire that equals at the very least a major international incident, at worst an undeclared war, and we probably lose the sailors and marines. So, best to let them be captured and then negotiate them out again, no fighting, no loss of life.

In other words, the captain of the HMS thingy was thinking like a policeman rather than a rufty-tufty marine type. Which was pretty clever of him, really, and I expect it was what the Iraqis anticipated he would do.

There may be orders to do things this way in these circumstances, but whatever, there has been no criticism of the officer in charge, so there is at least official approval of his actions.

[chris pp]

Interesting articles,  Treize Vents.

I have a completely open mind on this issue, I certainly don't trust our Governments to tell the truth, the list of their lies and deceits is too long.

Chris

 

[fulcrum]

TV

Very interesting and humourous articles. After I watched the TV tonight I felt sure that the 15 won't come to any real harm.

[Chas]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]She's an Able Seaman, and stop sniggering at the back![/quote]

Leading Seaman - spot the  "anchor" rank badge on her left arm

[TreizeVents]

Interesting that you found the possibility that the UK government might be lying "humourous".  But there was a fair bit of humour in one of the articles.  I really dislike it when governments lie even though they do it all the time.  I just find it a recurrent source of annoyance.  Especially when they do it about war, which they always do.

What is it "on TV" (French? English?) that made you think all would be well for the captured military?  And did you think that the captured soldiers were treated badly before and were in danger?  I never thought they were in danger of any kind, and they seemed to be treated quite well from the beginning.  Non?

[TreizeVents]

[quote user="WJT"]Sorry TV, couldn't get past most of the first article. I guess there are times when you may have to treat someone differently when they threaten to blow themselves up. I am not condoning anything just an observation. Not sure if Iran would worry about the British captives wanting to harm themselves and others at the same time.[/quote]

What did you think of the other two?

I don't get your point about people threatening to blow themselves up.  Who was doing this in this case?  The Brits?  Sorry I just didn't get the point even though I re-read it several times.  Can you elaborate?  Ta.

[Renaud]

When you think how astute Iran have been at creating and manipulating this crisis and consider that they soon will have a nuclear bomb - this makes the case for Britain's retention of Trident.

[Deimos]

[quote user="Renaud"]When you think how astute Iran have been at creating and manipulating this crisis and consider that they soon will have a nuclear bomb - this makes the case for Britain's retention of Trident.[/quote]

Trouble is, who says the Iranians will have a nuclear bomb.  Same people that told us all about Saddam's WMDs.  About how these could be deployed to attack us within 45 minutes, etc..  I have no idea about what they may or may not have in future - but I can see no reason to believe people who have "vested interests" and who have only recently been caught red handed lying to get their own way.  They say something like a "To be caught out one is unlucky, twice ..." (cannot remember the exact saying).

One thing I think that Iraq and Iran do have in common is "loads of oil".

Ian

[WJT]

Renaud, it is very scary indeed.  TV, the first article was enough for me "No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch".  Implying they are correct and we are not. That is what I was referring to. I did look at the other two and granted they aren't the same, but after quickly looking at the first was just not interested in hearing a view of an individual journalist that feels this way frankly.

As I said before, I'm not condoning anything but I certainly feel the two situations are different. The Iran crisis is a very scary one indeed, I am glad I'm not the one having to make the big decisions at the moment but do have more faith in our leaders than the Iranian leader to do the right thing. That sort of journalism turns my stomach and I feel incites behaviour even more and perhaps could ultimately be responsible for the death of more of our very brave boys (and girls) over there at the moment. [:@]

[WJT]

[quote user="Deimos"]

[quote user="Renaud"]When you think how astute Iran have been at creating and manipulating this crisis and consider that they soon will have a nuclear bomb - this makes the case for Britain's retention of Trident.[/quote]

Trouble is, who says the Iranians will have a nuclear bomb.  Same people that told us all about Saddam's WMDs.  About how these could be deployed to attack us within 45 minutes, etc..  I have no idea about what they may or may not have in future - but I can see no reason to believe people who have "vested interests" and who have only recently been caught red handed lying to get their own way.  They say something like a "To be caught out one is unlucky, twice ..." (cannot remember the exact saying).

One thing I think that Iraq and Iran do have in common is "loads of oil".

Ian

[/quote]

I agree with what you say, however, Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers to blow themselves up and kill civilians in the meantime. He made it very clear he wanted nuclear weapons and in fact even though the intelligence was very poor, one of the reasons it was so poor is because he actually believed he had the capability. The scientists he had working for him didn't want to tell him otherwise.

Iran has a lunatic holocaust denier and would love to obliterate Israel and the west and it appears they too want nuclear bombs. Not to mention the many insurgents that are being trained and supplied coming into Iraq from Iran and killing our boys and the Iraqi civilians daily.

The old argument about oil, personally I would love to know how we are benefiting from all of this oil we are taking as well.

 

[MrCanary]

I was about to throw in my three-pennyworth when I re-read Dick Smih's last post. That effectively sums it up for me too.

Dealing with the facts, they were all 'arrested' for crossing the border into a foreign country without that country's permission. To make the situation worse, these people that entered into that country were armed forces from another country - us, the UK. The arresting country are now apparently going through the process that they consider to be their right, detaining and interviewing these 'invaders' to establish whether or not their 'invasion' was deliberate or accidental.

Now, before anybody jumps down my throat, these are the 'facts' of the Iranian case.

The problem with their evidence is whether or not their interpretation of the border is correct. They say it is, we say it is not. I think we all know that they will not chnage their minds, even if the truth is staring them in the face.

So, we are left with dealing with 'their facts' as above, but not allowing them to make too much political mileage out of the situation.

Thus, we, the UK, are dealing with the situation with this criteria in mind and, I have to say for the present, are probably doing so quite well. 

[Deimos]

[quote user="Prasutagus"]

The problem with their evidence is whether or not their interpretation of the border is correct. They say it is, we say it is not. I think we all know that they will not chnage their minds, even if the truth is staring them in the face.

[/quote]

It is starting to look as thought their "facts" regarding the border might actually be correct.  Seems the definition of the border is the projection of the centerline of a waterway and the sand banks are continually moving (as they do in some areas) - causing the border to be continually moving.  That is all fine unless the charts you are using are 1970 charts - which is what the British Navy were doing !!

Personally I cannot comment on whether they were over the border or not as I have no charts, no "inside information", etc.  Just that for all the posturing Tony is doing, his "proof" is based on potentially flawed facts (does not mean he is wrong neither does it mean he is right - just that it is open to question).

Ian

[fulcrum]

[quote user="TreizeVents"]Interesting that you found the possibility that the UK government might be lying "humourous".  But there was a fair bit of humour in one of the articles.  I really dislike it when governments lie even though they do it all the time.  I just find it a recurrent source of annoyance.  Especially when they do it about war, which they always do.

What is it "on TV" (French? English?) that made you think all would be well for the captured military?  And did you think that the captured soldiers were treated badly before and were in danger?  I never thought they were in danger of any kind, and they seemed to be treated quite well from the beginning.  Non?

[/quote]

TV

I'm presuming your reply was to my post.

I read the first two articles and found them both quite humourous and it put a light hearted slant on what is after all a ridiculous situation. The fact that our government lied is neither here nor there. All governments lie when they feel it is appropriate. I posted earlier that I couldn't understand what the rest of the fleet was doing while these unfortunate crew were going about their job and then getting captured. There was a reference to this fact in one of the articles.

With regard to the television program that I saw. That was on C*N news and showed the crew in comfortable attire smoking and laughing (smiling anyway) and not seeming too phased by what was happening. Hence my comment about them not coming to any harm.

I too thought they were never in danger of any kind, and they seemed to be treated quite well from the beginning. 

[Alan Zoff]

No doubt had a foreign warship positioned itself just outside New York and allowed some of its crew to slip into America's territory, the Americans would have taken no notice. Yeah, right.

Double standards everywhere (we can have WMDs/nuclear power but you can't;  international law v Guantanamo Bay). All westerners are good; no-one else can be trusted, etc.

Propaganda abounds on all sides. My wife, through her work, is dealing regularly with "ordinary Iranians" and finds them utterly charming and "normal". They bear no resemblance to the crazed people who appear on our TV screens, so which are representative of the people as a whole? Very difficult to know what to believe but all too easy to tar everyone with the same brush when what we are shown and told is being manipulated by governments.

[TreizeVents]

[quote user="WJT"]

I agree with what you say, however, Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers to blow themselves up and kill civilians in the meantime. He made it very clear he wanted nuclear weapons and in fact even though the intelligence was very poor, one of the reasons it was so poor is because he actually believed he had the capability. The scientists he had working for him didn't want to tell him otherwise.

Iran has a lunatic holocaust denier and would love to obliterate Israel and the west and it appears they too want nuclear bombs. Not to mention the many insurgents that are being trained and supplied coming into Iraq from Iran and killing our boys and the Iraqi civilians daily.

[/quote]

I find some of these arguments quite correct factually, but quite irrelevant to making any kind of calm judgement or making any kind of rational decisions.  For example "kiling civilians"...  For over two centuries, gradually and now totally unmistakably and always, nearly any kind of war, occuptiaon or invasion involves primarily killing civilians in huge numbers.  Always more civilians than soliders.  So telling me that someone or some coutnry or some weapon is particularly awful because they or it kills civilians is not an argument for anything except an anti-(all) war position, with which I agree.  Obviously I don't applaud killing innocent civilians, but that is what happens.  If they are killed by low level tactics like suicide bombers or medium level or by high level weapons, is really just a matter of how much money the "fighters" have.  These dyas they call this asymmetrical warfare, and accept that budetary restrictions on the part of poor folks means they use "poor people's tactics".  Mass destruction is the highest level, but not everyone can afford that threat.

"Everyone" wants nukes, tanks, fighter planes, nuclear reactors and missles.  And there is market for them, either in the form of reactors which eventually might make the fuel, or just plain buying the bombs and weapons.  Both France and Britain are serious major arms dealers, and both also want to sell reactors toanyone who will pay.  Admittedly they are not alone (and not the biggest sellers) in selling arms and reactors, but hey, its a global marketplace.  Those are BIG markets.

As for the lunatic holocaust denier, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I have seen him several times on TV and read some of what he says, translated from Farsi.  I admit he is a bit strange to my ears and eyes.  First of all, he doesn't deny the holocaust happened, but he says that the Palestinians should not have been forced by Europeans to pay the price for what Europeans did.  An intriguing argument and one that is hard to find an answer to.  Second, he is a smart guy and nearly always answers questions with questions that show he knows very well what is going on.  Even if he is a little bit dippy, he is not the power in Iran, its the clerics, the Supreme Leader of Iran.  He is just a rather unpopular mouthpiece.  He should be gone within a few months, certainly by 2009 when he will lose the next election.  He lost the local ones recently.  teh Iranians don't like him.  I think he embarasses most of them.  He is history.  Don't worry about him.  Who listens to every upstart braggart anyway?  Many countries have them.

I also find it odd that nearly everyone is training armed forces or police forces in this country or that, but when Iran trains a few, they get busted heavily.  Everyone does this.  Why pick on them?  Besides, it is pretty well known that nearly all the "insurgents" in Iraq are Iraqis of one kind or another.  Although some would try to tell you they are all from Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan or Iran.  They are locals, 98%.  Even American generals will agree with that.

In my mind, the main thing that is clear is that if a bunch of Moslems/Arabs/Comminists do something, it is awful and horrible, but if we white Western folks do it it is business as usual.  Who actually has all the bombs, righ tnow?  Who is not getting rid of them very fast, right now?  I repeat, I am for NONE of this invasion, bombing, occupation, killing civilians, defense stuff.   To condemn the brown guys and applaud the white guys is just plain hypocritical, or maybe worse.  EVEN IF I would always and obviously rather live in Britain than Iran or Iraq. I have enough problems in France with the language and strange culture.  I do not support all that "our boys" do, in the Iraq invasion or in the World Cup.  Sometimes we are the bad guys or we do something stupid.  We should call a cat a cat.

PS  Last time I saw Ahmadinejad on the box (French TV) and he was asked about Israel, he gave the example of the Soviet Union as what he meant.  He said that regime is gone now.  That "country" no longer exists.  Like he wants the Isreali regime/country to go.  He has never said he wants all Jews in Israel to be wiped out.  Never.  Just get rid of the government which thinks and has thought for 50 years, that violence and defense will be the answer.  It ain't and won't.

PSS  I still don't like Ahmadinejad or want to live in Iran.  Mind you, everyone I know who knows that country and Iranians says it is fabulous and they are great people. 

[powerdesal]

[quote user="Alan Zoff"]

No doubt had a foreign warship positioned itself just outside New York and allowed some of its crew to slip into America's territory, the Americans would have taken no notice. Yeah, right.

[/quote]

Alan,

I really think you have failed to make the right point with that statement above.

First, the waters off New York are clearly agreed internationally, there is no disputed line of demarcation.

Second. In the case of no state of war being declared, it is international practice to warn the transgressors verbally and give them an opportunity to reverse their error, then, if they do not take the verbal warning seriously they are physically escorted from the territorial waters in question, particularly if talking about small boats and an obvious motheship close by. Only as an absolute last resort would the small boat crew be apprehended and arrested.

Third. In the event of the last resort above they would not be denied consular access and would not be paraded on TV for propaganda purposes - not even by the Americans.

In the Iranian case, the position of the international maritime bounday is NOT agreed, there is therefore a serious potential for error by BOTH sides. This does not automatically make the Iranians right (or wrong). They could quite easily have verbally warned the RN boats and, if necessary, escorted them back to the Frigate, following it up with a Diplomatic protest. This would have been the normal civilised way of behaving. The fact that they did not is clear indication that they wanted to make a big thing of it for their own political purposes, both internally and externally.

The gung ho armchair warriors who cant understand why the boat crew allowed themselves to be taken without firing a shot and why the Frigate did not open fire are living in a dream world of video fiction. If shots had been fired it could easily have been taken as an act of war against Iran, a situation that no sensible person wants.

The subsequent events of TV parades, supposed letters from the RN crew, photo shoots etc are PR posturing by Iran for the benefit of the Iranian people and the rest of the Arab World.

I have no personal objection to Iran having Nuclear power for electricity generation, but, having lived in the Arab World for more than 20 years I can say that the states on my side of the Gulf will not be happy if (when) that day happens. The Persians and Arabs have an enmity stretching back a very long time, they also have very long memories.

Finally, to contrast the present Iran / UK problem with Guantanamo is to be overly simplistic.

[Alan Zoff]

I quite agree that my points were oversimplistic, not having the time - or the qualifications - to make a more knowledgeable contribution. I was merely using the crude examples to suggest that we shouldn't necessarily accept what we are being asked to believe - by either side. Different scenarios rarely "equate" but the principles can be similar.

[Russethouse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6525905.stm

Without reading the whole post I can't see quickly if this has been posted before, so I have posted just in case it hasn't.........

[WJT]

Yes, very good news! Now my conspiracy theory; something happened behind the scenes and because the British government hasn't come out strongly (in either case, in my opinion) in the last couple of days against the Iranian accusations of the ship being in their territory, has perhaps eased the way and help them not to loose face. It is sickening, but I think they are all sucking up now. But it is just a loony theory as most conspiracy theories are so perhaps I'm wrong.

TV, I disagree with your post, with the exception of agreeing with your statement about the ordinary Iranian, I do feel very sorry and sad for them. But in regards to some of the other comments, I personally don't know how anyone could possibly compare or try and justify the recruitment of mostly young men to blow themselves up on buses and cafés for example to kill as many innocent civilian men, women and children as possible. Yes, war is horrific but I don't think our governments (or Israel) set out to kill innocents intentionally as these people do. Shame the leaders never do this to themselves, (I wonder why this is never questioned) they only recruit mostly very young and vulnerable boys and make financial gifts to the families to encourage it even further.

You have to wonder if they had had a reasonable leader that could have negotiated with Israel in the first place and stop the suicide bombings, by now they would have their own state. So where does the real  blame lie right now as we speak?

As far as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I think calling him a bit strange is a complete and utter understatement in my opinion. Personally, I wouldn't like to see him have nuclear weapons nor get anywhere close to one for whatever reason they can come up with. He has made it clear how he feels and I would not trust him not to use them. I do hope you are right in what you say about him not being re-elected because I feel that the moderate Iranian is having a huge price to pay for this leader and of course has for a long time with the fanatical clerics running the country.  There are still many including students in prison for trying to speak out against them and this was even before the lunatic.

In any case, it is very good news in this instance and it looks as if the 15 are safe and will be freed.

[TreizeVents]

[quote user="WJT"]

TV, I disagree with your post, with the exception of agreeing with your statement about the ordinary Iranian, I do feel very sorry and sad for them. But in regards to some of the other comments, I personally don't know how anyone could possibly compare or try and justify the recruitment of mostly young men to blow themselves up on buses and cafés for example to kill as many innocent civilian men, women and children as possible. Yes, war is horrific but I don't think our governments (or Israel) set out to kill innocents intentionally as these people do. Shame the leaders never do this to themselves, (I wonder why this is never questioned) they only recruit mostly very young and vulnerable boys and make financial gifts to the families to encourage it even further.

You have to wonder if they had had a reasonable leader that could have negotiated with Israel in the first place and stop the suicide bombings, by now they would have their own state. So where does the real  blame lie right now as we speak?

As far as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I think calling him a bit strange is a complete and utter understatement in my opinion. Personally, I wouldn't like to see him have nuclear weapons nor get anywhere close to one for whatever reason they can come up with. He has made it clear how he feels and I would not trust him not to use them. I do hope you are right in what you say about him not being re-elected because I feel that the moderate Iranian is having a huge price to pay for this leader and of course has for a long time with the fanatical clerics running the country.  There are still many including students in prison for trying to speak out against them and this was even before the lunatic.

In any case, it is very good news in this instance and it looks as if the 15 are safe and will be freed.

[/quote]

Glad the lads and lasses are back.  Now we can hope that all of them come home soon.  What a disaster, that invasion.

As for your comments WJT, of course well everyone is entitled to their view.  Especially on a Forum [:D]  When the Israelis (or anyone at all) do actions like they did recently in Gaza and in Lebanon, they know very well they are going to destroy homes, factories, water plants, power plants, road communcation and kill loads of civilians.  So do Hezbollah, although their rockets were so low quality and so impossible to aim (they were much like artillery shells, no guidance) they hardly did any civilian damage.  Check it out if you think they ripped apart Israeli life.  They both know that, I know that, and surely you know that.  I doubt if any of the suicide bombers could get close to a military base, but I am sure they would do so if they could.  As I recall, in the last little war the number of civilians killed on each side was vastly, utterly disproportionate.  But that's war, when one side is the fifth biggest military power on earth, and the other is a bunch of fairly well supplied guerillas.  By the way, most of the soldiers on every side are young and innocent.  They always are.  They go into battle scared and knowing they might die, but some of them don't.   So now you know someone who thinks there is not a big difference between a bomb arrivng from 35,000 feet or a rocket from 1,000 feet and some semtex strapped to a body.  Killing civilians is killing civilians.  Although if you asked me, I would say that morally, suicide bombers rank well below nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and even below knocking out water supplies and power stations.  The Palestinians would be happy to use those big weapons, but they JUST DON'T HAVE THEM.  They are all killers, but some are sanctioned by a state. 

I do agree about the old guys who send the young guys into battle while they sit at home, and also, usually, protect their own kids from serving.  You forgot one thing.  The soldiers are most often young, but also poor, without any other real hope for a job or a career.  Not forgetting a few of them have wanted to be soldiers all their lives, and love it.  The fact that "gifts" are made to dead soliders families is not that unusual.  Palestinians do not have a big system of military benefits, hosptials, pensions and widows/widowers support.  I cannot figure out why you are so bent out of shape about Saddam sending a bit of money (or so we are told, some claim it was just publicity), when all countries support their soldiers or families "after".  The Palestinians are POOR.  They can't do that kind of support for dead fighters.  Of course they don't have an "army" as such, so they don't have "soldiers" as such.  They have practically nothing, as such.  I am assuming that you see some, just a bit, of justice in the Palestinians being a bit annoyed about thier land being occupied, walled off, controlled and, well, let's say it, stolen.  It would annoy anyone.  Really annoy them.

Well perhaps my evaluation of Ahmadinajad is an understatement.  I am British.

But your demonisation of him is, in my view, without a lot of foundation.  Have you done any independent work on him and what he says?  I have, because I wondered how somoene could deny the holocaust and be such a jerk.  And tell me this, are you really confident that the guys in North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia, the USA, France, and dare I say it, the UK, are so trustworthy in their use of those weapons of mass destruction.  Do you think maybe if there were NONE of them, we would all sleep a little better?  I do.  So the real question is how to get those guys who already have them to give them up, NOT how to demonise someone who DOES NOT have them, cannot have them for at least 4-8 years, depending on who you believe.  Where is the immediate danger?  I repeat, do you really trust the guys running Bushland?

OK, I admit, I trust Tony more than Bush.  But its a tricky decision.  However, who has been doing the invading lately?  Who has been attacking, occupying and scaring us all?  Who has been cruising around off the frontiers of Iran with two battleships and air force bases within striking distance?  Last I heard, the only people suffering in North Korea were the North Koreans.  As for Pakistan, I am sure you would agree its not a model democracy and paece loving dictator.  Those weapons of mass destruction are plain and simply dangerous.  And I don't want to pay for another generation of Trident to protect us from whom, exactly?  sorry that paragraph is so full of related but unconnected comments.  Take them one at a time.  I have gone on long enough.

[Gastines]

As a last post ,I would like to say that I'm glad the situation has been resolved. Most of the problems seem to arise because the western world doesn't understand the eastern world's culture. It wasn't that many years ago when I can remember all the panic associated with the waving of the little Red Book,all pals now they are churning out profits for the big companies.With all the problems going on in the world today it's a pity the powers that be can't put their heads together to resolve some of them.At most meetings it seems it is too difficult to agree on the order of seating  The only words used now seem to be Global Warming and tax everything we can blame on it,apply their thoughts to something there isn't a cash return at the end of it and it is put on the back shelf.  I expect you can tell I have a dim view of politicians and the religous leaders who seem to hold such power come a close second.

Regards.

[Deimos]

[quote user="TreizeVents"]Glad the lads and lasses are back.  Now we can hope that all of them come home soon.  What a disaster, that invasion.
As for your comments WJT, of course well everyone is entitled to their view.  Especially on a Forum [:D]  When the Israelis (or anyone at all) do actions like they did recently ...
...
...
[/quote]

Well said - and I agree with pretty much everything you said (and said well) - though was not going to have the forum software repeat it all in a box.

Ian

[WJT]

Gastines, couldn't agree more.  TV, I started to type a post and thought it really would be a waste of time, not that I don't think you are worth it, just know I would be wasting my breath. We are just poles apart away on this issue I'm afraid. I totally disagree with your views on this and will never no matter how nicely you put it, ever be able to morally make that connection.  But that's me. [:)]

[fulcrum]

I too am very glad it has all ended and all fifteen personel are to be released. They looked in good spirits and I'm sure their own diplomacy skills also helped in ensuring their release. Good ending.