Iran tries to capture Americans(?)

[cannon_fodder]

Came by this today on the newswire, its from last Friday:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html?cnn=yes

Basically, an American patrol on the Iranian border was surrounded by Iranian soldiers on Iraqi soil and told not to move.  Being not British, the Americans moved.  The Iranian troops opened fire and the Americans returned. The encounter ended with Iranians retreating into Iranian territory.

I find it interesting at how under reported it was in the media.

[iplaw]

quote:Being not British, the Americans moved.

HAH!

[Conan71]

Ahmadinejad is trying as hard as he can to get carpet-bombed.

[cannon_fodder]

No offense to our British allies of course, but as even they will admit - their rules of engagement are basically "dont."  

From a forums at the London Times (paraphrased), "So we allowed them to just kidnap 15 of our soldiers and their boats because they never shot at them.  So if they chose to come and take the destroyer they were deployed from would we have just let them have it?"

[Ibanez]

This happened in September and we're just hearing about it?

[Ibanez]

I've come to the conclusion that an all out beatdown is inevitable in the Middle East.

It will be ugly, but it just seems like that part of the world needs an enema so they can get out of the Dark Ages.

There are exceptions like Dubai and Yemen, but for the most part all the Arab, and yes I know Iranians are Persian but I include them because their leadership is ****ing stupid, is stuck in the Dark Ages.

[Conan71]

Until Iran is beat into submission, our troops are going to be deployed in the ME for a very long time.

I stayed up last night to watch the various news channels.  The sailors smiling and chatting with the Iranian president was nauseating.

I'm anxious to hear what is said in interviews after they are returned to safety.  Just curious if the Brits have really turned into a bunch of P@##$s or not.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

I've come to the conclusion that an all out beatdown is inevitable in the Middle East.

It will be ugly, but it just seems like that part of the world needs an enema so they can get out of the Dark Ages.

It would be ugly alright, but for the country that consumes 25% of the world's oil.  Where have I heard "Bring it on" before?

[Conan71]

That settles it, I'm moving to Niue, they only consume 20 bbls of oil a day.

[cannon_fodder]

Vatican city does pretty well on oil too.  Though they have had a few foreign policy snafu's in the middle east in their history.

[MichaelC]

Given how the so-called "Iraqi Waters" that Britian claimed its sailors were in turned out to be "Disputed Waters" left over from the Iran-Iraq War, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this ended up being something similar.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

Given how the so-called "Iraqi Waters" that Britian claimed its sailors were in turned out to be "Disputed Waters" left over from the Iran-Iraq War, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this ended up being something similar.

Can you give me source not written in Farsi that backs that up?  The official position of the UK is that they were in Iraqi waters.  Even if they were in "disputed waters" that doesn't give Iran the right to take hostages, unless I misunderstand the term "disputed."

[MichaelC]

More at The Guardian

quote:Bilateral talks on disputed Gulf waters on agenda


Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday April 5, 2007
The Guardian

Britain is ready to discuss with Iran the whole question of territorial waters in the northern Gulf, the issue which was ostensibly the cause of the crisis, military officials said yesterday. "Who claims what waters needs to be resolved; there's no legal binding agreement," observed a senior defence source.

But before that the 15 sailors and marines seized by Iranian revolutionary guards will be debriefed, the navy will conduct a postmortem and a board of inquiry will be set up. They will address a host of questions, not least about training and the rules of engagement, defence officials admitted.

Article continues
They will look again at Iran's claims that the crew of two British boats which boarded the Indian-flagged merchant vessel 13 days ago were in Iranian waters. "If the incident occurred where the MoD claims, the British position appears strong but there are sufficient uncertainties over boundary definition to make it inadvisable to state categorically that the vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time of the arrest," said Martin Pratt, of Durham University's International Boundaries Research Unit.

It's not 100% clear, as previously assumed.

This Is London

[iplaw]

What I stated is the official position of the MoD.  Personally, I tend to trust them rather than the guy that denies the Holocaust.

Regardless of whether they were or were not in "disputed" waters makes no difference.  The fact that it's "disputed" waters means Iran has no right to take hostages any more than Iraq would have the right to take hostages if they found them.

The only justification of Iran taking hostages would have been if the UK sailors were in IRANIAN waters, period.

[MichaelC]

Disputed means that both the Iranians and the Iraqis claim it.  It's the wild wild west, don't go there and you won't have any problems.

I wouldn't believe our own DoD 100%.  It appears that in a way, both the Iranians and the MoD were correct.  And Iran did admit that British sailors ended up there accidentally.  Iran kept them out of Iranian Courts, and Iran and the UK are going to discuss the disputed waters.