SAS raiders enter Iran to kill gunrunners (BRITISH special forces have crossed into Iran)

[CGowen]

BRITISH special forces have crossed into Iran several times in recent months as part of a secret border war against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Al-Quds special forces, defence sources have disclosed.

There have been at least half a dozen intense firefights between the SAS and arms smugglers, a mixture of Iranians and Shi’ite militiamen.

The unreported fighting straddles the border between Iran and Iraq and has also involved the Iranian military firing mortars into Iraq. UK commanders are concerned that Iran is using a militia ceasefire to step up arms supplies in preparation for an offensive against their base at Basra airport.

An SAS squadron is carrying out operations along the Iranian border in Maysan and Basra provinces with other special forces, the Australian SAS and American special-operations troops.

...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2691726.ece

[Joanne98]

1. I thought the British pulled out of Iraq? They must get lied to like us!

[NYVet]

2. Who crossed the border first, the British troops or the Iranian mortar shells?

I need more information before I decide who to condemn.


Edit spelling

[wtmusic]

3. British troops crossed the Iraqi border first

so you can start with them. They have no right to be there.

[NYVet]

5. I am talking about the Iran border.

Please keep the argument to the topic of the OP.

[wtmusic]

6. Unfortunately it's completely on topic

When did British soldiers earn the right to be in Iraq at all?

[NYVet]

7. I would have to sat that the right was granted under UN Resolution 1440...

You know, the one that required Saddam to prove that he didn't have WMD, and to allow free and unhindered access to the UN teams.

But humor me for a second.

Do 2 wrongs make a right? Just because the British are in Iraq, does that give Iran the justification to lob mortar shells at them and seize their sailors and marines in International Waters?
The last time I checked, Iraq and Iran didn't have a mutual defense treaty.

[wtmusic]

9. If you want to debate justification for the war, you will lose.

I have navigated every nook and cranny of that debate maybe 50 times here on DU (for starters, 1440 had nothing to do with "requiring Saddam to prove he didn't have WMDs". That is a purely neocon fabrication).

The myth is that there are two wrongs. Britain joined the US invasion of Iraq, they have already illegally invaded Iran, and will likely assist the US in a bombing campaign. Iranians are defending their own country from an impending foreign invasion, just as you or I might.

[NYVet]

10. I meant 1441, not 1440

The typing of 1440 was a mistake.


Full text of 1441 here in PDF format
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

Specifically page 3 paragraph 5

Quote "5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate,
unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including
underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport
which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole
discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

I guess I just read it to mean that Saddam had to cooperate fully or else face Severe consequences (aka we WILL blow your house down). But hell, I'm just a former infantry grunt and I might be wrong.




And can you show me the news articles of the British invasion of Iran? I missed that news story when it ran on the nightly news.



On Edit.
You never answered my question about 2 wrongs making a right.

[wtmusic]

11. And Saddam was in full compliance weeks before we attacked

so all of the President's hot air about "we want to avoid war" was, well, a bunch of hot air.

The UN mandate was exactly that - a UN mandate. Do you have the right to take the law into your own hands when you feel the government isn't doing it's job? Of course not -- and in international law, neither does the United States, nor any other country.

Worst of all, as it turns out, we were wrong. There were no WMDs, and most estimates suggest a million or more Iraqi deaths were the result. That's about four times the number of deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, and likely more than Saddam was responsible for in 30 years of brutal tyranny. All because we took the law into our own hands.

As described in the original post, Britain has been conducting raids into Iran for months. You can decide what you want about whether that's an invasion, but it's certainly an illegal violation of Iran's sovereignty. In the US we'd call it terrorism.

Re: you being "just a former infantry grunt" -- I respect the hell out of you guys. And I believe with all my heart that America's military is being used--their honor, their integrity, their loyalty are being trampled in the name of profit. That's a dirty f*cking crime and ought to be punished as such.

[NYVet]

12. But the question I asked is still not answered.

Did the Iranians start lobbing Mortar shells, or did the British cross the border first?

[wtmusic]

13. Who the hell knows if the Iranians lobbed any mortars

There is no video, no audio, no eyewitnesses. No evidence at all, except for the word of the reputable government which said Saddam had WMDs "without a doubt". :eyes:

As a vet you're familiar with psyops. You're being psyopped.

[Blackhatjack]

4. Many of the British troops were at the airport to be flown home when they were sent to Iran's border

Foreign press made note of the fact that the British troops had withdrawn from the southern areas of Iraq and were at the airport to be flown home, but that the deployment out did not happen for approximately 3500 British troops who were sent to the border with Iran.

There have been reports that US and British troops have crossed the border in skirmishes, but there has been little coverage in the US on this.

[barclaycard]

8. your understanding of the British deployments is somewhat misleading

the UK troops at Basrah Air Station are not 'waiting to be flown out' they are based there.

they have been withdrawn from Basrah city and redeplyed to the Airport because its a convenient place to put them, out of the way of the locals, attractive for logistical purposes but easy to deploy back into Badrah should they be asked - by the Iraqis - to do so.

they have also 'firmed up' the border, previously possibly the most non-existant international border in the world.