Why I can't say Iran is wrong

[mudesi]

It's a simple exercise in observing the facts regarding this particular incident as we know them at this point versus our preconceived perceptions of Iran.

- Iran claims British troops were in its waters. Britain claims otherwise. As of this post, I have not seen definitive proof of either's claims. Given the credibility of the UK and the United States government over the past 3 years or so, it is quite hard to choose one's version over the other.

- There is absolutely zero evidence that Iran has tortured or is torturing the soldiers. If, eventually, they are released, I suppose it will be a simple matter of asking them whether or not they were.

- If it is true that the Brits were in Iranian waters, then I cannot and will not chastise Iran because of previous indiscretions, actual or conceived. In this particular incident, Iran is right in detaining the soldiers if it is indeed true that they were in Iranian waters.

Let us make the assumption (and I admit it is only that) that the British troops were in Iranian waters. Many here are claiming that Iran should have "done the right thing" and not unnecessarily antagonize the west.

I ask you to put yourself in their shoes for just a moment (It's not hard, really. Try it!). They have witnessed a direct neighboring country have it's government overthrown and descend into civil war. They have seen it all happen without provocation or justification, on top of numerous war crimes committed in the prosecution of said war, by the very nation they claim occupied their waters. If you are Iran, what would you do?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

1. Watch out for the AIPAC apologists...

:spank:

[Skinner]

13. AIPAC apologists?

Who mentioned anything about Israel. Or AIPAC?

[bryant69]

19. AIPAC apologist could be anywhere

We must live in constant fear of them. Why even I could be an AIPAC apologist. So it is best to live in a state of fear and suspicion constantly.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lurking Dem]

23. BWA!

Thanks, I needed that!

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

31. What has this got to do with AIPAC???????

This is a dispute between Iran and the UK, not Iran and Israel.

[pampango]

34. Come on, you guys know what omnipotent racial/ethnic group

AIPAC represents don't you? Be afraid, be very afraid! :scared:

[rockymountaindem]

45. I know, we... I mean *they*... could be anywhere

Never know where you might find one of them there Israelites!

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mudesi]

3. I wonder

I wonder where you make a connection of "Iran = Al Qaeda", considering Al Qaeda are predominantly Sunni (and from Saudi Arabia, mind you), while Iran is predominantly Shiite.

[Jonathan50]

9. Al Qaeda isn't "predominantly" Sunni, it is *virulently* Sunni..

If they were to find a Shiite in their midst they would cut his head off and play soccer with it.

[moodforaday]

4. Plus, US is holding Iranian officials

The story was reported here on DU when it happened in January, but you won't hear about it much:

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News - US silent on detained Iranians

WASHINGTON - As the Western media focus on the fate of 15 Britons detained for allegedly trespassing into Iranian waters, the status of five Iranian officials captured in a US military raid on a liaison office in northern Iraq on January 11 remains a mystery.

Even though high-level Iraqi officials have publicly called for their release, for all practical purposes, the Iranians have disappeared into the US-sanctioned "coalition detention" system that has been criticized as arbitrary and even illegal by many experts on international law.

Hours before US President George W Bush declared that they would "seek out and destroy the Iranian networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq", US forces raided what has been described as a diplomatic liaison office in the northern city of Irbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, and detained six Iranians, infuriating Kurdish officials in the process.

The troops took office files and computers, ostensibly to find evidence regarding the alleged role of Iranian agents in anti-coalition attacks and sectarian violence in Iraq. One diplomat was released, but the other five men remain in US custody and have not been formally charged with a crime.

"They have disappeared. I don't know if they've gone into the enemy combatant system," said Gary Sick, an Iran expert at Columbia University who served in the White House under president Jimmy Carter. "Nobody on the outside knows."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC31Ak04.html

[cali]

5. Well, they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. n/t

[TheWatcher]

20. Do you actually have a reasonably thought out response to his post

Or is this the best you can do?

[trumad]

25. Too funny

Who imitated who?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=524501

[Leopolds Ghost]

35. Iran imitated the US in capturing the foreign agents. That is what cali meant.

[Strelnikov_]

40. I do not understand your post. Please explain. n/t

[sam sarrha]

6. it is the mentally ill nation building again..same delusions that got us into Iraq.. maybe Iraq was

just a Typo.. they meant Iran to begin with..

[pretzel4gore]

7. the depravity...

before the iraq occupation, back in '02 or so, i heard a british journalist discussing that area of mideast and its relations with the west. AS brutal and harsh and ruthless as saddam hussein, the syrians, the turks, the afghanis, the indians, the kuwaitis, jordanians, the Iranians and saudis etc were, he said, they all marvelled at the sheer depravity of the americans, the brits and the rest of the westers...the program continued discussing the events that were happening then, but it was as if the 'sheer depravity' of our side is accepted as normal, as routine, by everybody who knows what's going on...but very few westerners realize this, of course, as we are told that it's we who are the put upon, overly generous and slow to anger ones with too much dignity to be vicious little pigs!.....and that's wrong. the same enemy of the peace movement really is the bastards who are trying to provoke iran, and who've killed 1/2 million iraqis (and who sold weapons to both sides during iran iraq/war-remember the USS Stark? saddam has his military nail the USS Stark because of weapons from the iran contra affair used against his men, but the pigmedia played the incident down cuz they supported saddam in his war and couldn't well condemn him)

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. Not to mention well documented history...

... of aggression by UK and US&A vs. Iran.

>>ask you to put yourself in their shoes for just a moment (It's not hard, really. Try it!). They have witnessed a direct neighboring country have it's government overthrown and descend into civil war. They have seen it all happen without provocation or justification, on top of numerous war crimes committed in the prosecution of said war, by the very nation they claim occupied their waters. If you are Iran, what would you do?>>

[Jcrowley]

10. UK-Iran marine incident part of larger war provocation plan

Is UK-Iran marine incident part of larger war provocation plan?

While Western media coverage has done little beyond echo and embellish Tony Blair’s immediate shrieking and bellicose assertions (“there was no justification whatsoever . . . completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal”), and the predictable Bush administration support for Blair (the White House “fully backs Tony Blair and our allies in Britain”), and the impending political onslaught against Tehran, little if any analysis has been devoted to the context of what has led up to this incident.

In 2003, Tehran sent a sweeping proposal to the Bush administration (via the Swiss Embassy) for dialogue and regional cooperation. White House officials confirm that this memo was widely circulated and discussed -- and rejected (top Bush administration officials profess a convenient “memory lapse”).

The American and British military-intelligence buildup towards a spring 2007 attack is a known fact. Wall Street is anticipating war. The Iran-Iraq region has been brimming with increasing Western intelligence agency activity for well over a year. George W. Bush personally ordered provocative covert operations several months ago, aimed specifically at baiting Iran into a war and a nuclear confrontation. The illegal raid of the Iranian liason office in Irbil, Iraq, has been used as part of a larger case of cooked and false intelligence against Tehran. A number of Iranians, including high-ranking Iran Revolutionary Guard officials, have been captured by Western forces. A top Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated by the Mossad. Bush also gave a “shoot to kill” order to hunt down and kill Iranians in Iraq. Iran’s intelligence minister, Gholam Hossein Ejeli, claims that Iran has uncovered a network of 100 CIA and Mossad agents.

A multinational consensus has already been built in support of an attack on Iran, which is now militarily and politically encircled (a full-scale US-British military buildup is underway). In a March 28 interview on Air America Radio, Senator Carl Levin echoed the simple-minded Bush-Blair propaganda that Iran alone is provoking a confrontation with the West, alone guilty of “brinksmanship” and “nuclear ambitions.” Levin repeated the popular assertion that President Ahmadinejad is insane, and that the US Congress is “uniformly” behind stopping Iran, which is “pressuring the West” (no mention of the overwhelming pressure against Iran, by the West). Levin’s dim-witted and dangerous views are shared by Democrats and Republicans alike.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1908.shtml

Ganging up on Iran

<snip>

So now ask yourself the question posed at the beginning of this column again. Is Iran an aggressor or a victim? Perhaps you’re still not convinced. Before you answer think on this.

In 2003, Tehran proposed negotiations with the White House over its nuclear programme and offered to cease its support for groups that the US deems “terrorist.” This overture was rejected out of hand by President Bush.

Today, Bush and Co. are intent on cornering Iran with the object of regime change. According to the New Yorker’s investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, there are plans on the table to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities using bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons. Ironic isn’t it! Hersh says Bush privately calls the Iranian president “the new Hitler.”

Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February that the Bush administration is seeking a pretext to attack Iran.

At the same time, Washington is funding Iranian opposition groups in the diaspora as well as militant ethnic separatist groups within Iran. There have already been several violent incidents in country stamped with the CIA’s fingerprints.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1901.shtml

[beyurslf]

11. If Iran had accidentally wondered into the waters of the UK, where would the

Iranian soldiers be right now? Had Iranian soldiers accidentally wondered into US waters, where would they be right now? Are we the only ones allowed to protect our waters?

[pampango]

33. A more apt example might be what would happen to Canadian

or Mexican sailors if they wandered into US waters, since those navies routinely operate close to our territorial waters. (Britain's navy does, after all, operate right next to Iranian waters under a UN mandate.) Would we detain them? I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. And I doubt that we would seek to have them confess on TV to having violate our territorial waters.

Now if Chinese (or Russian or Iranian) sailors suddenly turned up in our waters, there might be a more pointed inquiry as to the reasons for their presences.

As I remember a US intelligence gathering plane had to crash land in China several years ago. The airmen were held for a week or two and eventually released unharmed, as I recall. I do not remember that they were "requested" to write letters denouncing their mission or to "voluntarily" appear on Chinese television, but perhaps someone else remembers this episode better than I do. The spy plane would have been a more provocative mission than sending 15 sailors to board an Indian merchant vessel in what turned out to be disputed waters. China certainly handled the situation quite reasonably, in my opinion.

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. Nonsense. The apt example is if Britain invaded Canada and started siezing US ships in Great Lakes.

I noticed you and Skinner and a bunch of others ganging up on the AIPAC
sub-thread as if you were personally wounded by the remark. Why is that?
They are a segment of the Democratic Party that is in favor of war with
Iran. I'm about to post an expose by an AIPAC executive committee member
detailing how conference members and Democratic Party operatives (who
depend on them as a major funding ally) are being rah-rahed into support,
or at least, stand silent when and if we invade Iran. They have hijacked
a major source of funding for the Democratic Party and the DLC types don't
mind because hawkish foreign policy is the primary transformation they
seek in creating a pro-business Democratic Party. The entire Wall Street
business community and the congressmen in their pocket require control of
Mideast Oil to prevent US economic hegemony from collapsing. AIPAC are
merely pawns in this game, a communications link between the business wing
of the DLC and the neocons, who are in search of a party.

[roamer65]

12. Iran has always been touchy about the Shaat al Arab waterway.

It is the border between Iraq and Iran's Khuzestan province. Khuzestan contains 90% of Iran's known oil reserves and is inhabited by mostly Shi'a Arabs. The Iranians are scared the Iraqi chaos will spread over into Khuzestan and thus are very touchy about that region. Many battles took place here during the Iran - Iraq War. Blair should apologize for the incursion, whether it happened or not. That will kick the ball right back into Iran's court. If they won't let the sailors go after that, then look at other options.

[stillcool]

14. I must say...I thought I was beyond...

being surprised by the circuitous logic expressed by some members of DU, but the reaction to this whole brou-ha-ha is stunning. It's not as though there haven't been a zillion articles about the designs the U.S/U.K./Israel crew have on Iran. It's not as though what happened has not been predicted ad nauseum. And yet...still...we have an entire chorus singing as one on the evils of Iran. I don't get it. I'm going to post a hodge-podge of articles in case anyone cares to read?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1463845.htm
Last Update: Tuesday, September 20, 2005. 0:09am (AEST)
'Undercover' Britons detained after Iraqi police shoot-out
Iraqi authorities have detained two British nationals in the southern city of Basra for firing on police, a senior Iraqi official says.
The official said he had been informed by the British military that they were undercover soldiers in civilian clothes.
"They were driving a civilian car and were dressed in civilian clothes when a shooting took place between them and Iraqi patrols," the official told Reuters.
"We are investigating and an Iraqi judge is on the case, questioning them."
British military authorities said they could not confirm the incident but were investigating.
- Reuters

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ed436938-a49d-11da-897c-0000779e2340.html
US marines probe tensions among Iran’s ethnic minorities
By Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: February 23 2006 19:07 | Last updated: February 23 2006 19:07

The intelligence wing of the US marines has launched a probe into Iran’s ethnic minorities at a time of heightened tensions along the border with Iraq and friction between capitals.
------------------------
The research effort comes at a critical moment between Iran and the US. Last week the Bush administration asked Congress for $75m to promote democratic change within Iran, having already mustered diplomatic support at the UN to counter Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons programme.

At the same time, Iran has demanded that the UK withdraw its troops from the southern Iraqi city of Basra which lies close to its border. Iran has repeatedly accused both the US and UK of inciting explosions and sabotage in oil-rich frontier regions where Arab and Kurdish minorities predominate. The US and UK accuse Iran of meddling in Iraq and supplying weapons to insurgents.

US intelligence experts suggested the marines’ effort could indicate early stages of contingency plans for a ground assault on Iran. Or it could be an attempt to evaluate the implications of the unrest in Iranian border regions for marines stationed in Iraq, as well as Iranian infiltration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lieutenant-Colonel Rick Long, a marines spokesman, confirmed that the marines had commissioned Hicks and Associates, a defence contractor, to conduct two research projects into Iraqi and Iranian ethnic groups.
Hicks and Associates is a wholly owned subsidiary of Science Applications International Corp, one of the biggest US defence contractors and deeply involved in the prewar planning for Iraq.

The Strategic Assessment Center of Hicks and Associates advertises one of its current projects as the “Impact of Foreign Cultures on Military Operations”. SAIC confirmed it completed the confidential studies for the Marine Corps.
Newsday
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145871467.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-06-02-iran-soldiers_x.htm

U.S. soldiers taken captive by Iranians
WASHINGTON (AP) — Four U.S. soldiers and five civilians in two boats were taken captive by Iranians, blindfolded and interrogated before being released, U.S. Central Command said Monday. Two of the civilians were still being held.

Four soldiers from the Army's 1092nd Engineer Company, a civilian Army contractor, two civilian captains and two boat drivers were sailing up the Shatt al Arab waterway in the al Faw peninsula Sunday to pick up Iraqi South Oil Co. personnel when they were taken by force by Iranians, a spokesman, Cmdr. Dan Gage, said from Central Command headquarters in Tampa
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Initial medical examinations indicate there were no injuries or signs of physical abuse, Gage said.
The group may have moved into Iranian territorial waters, he said. The Mini al Bakr platform is very close to Iran's declared international water boundaries.
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/06/22/iran_seizes_3_british_vessels_8_crewmen/
Iran seizes 3 British vessels, 8 crewmen
By Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press | June 22, 2004

TEHRAN -- Iran seized three British military patrol boats yesterday in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, Iraq's main link with the Persian Gulf, and eight armed crewmen were detained for entering Iranian territorial waters.----------------------

Britain confirmed the seizures and said it was in contact with Iran to resolve the situation.

The waterway that divides Iran and Iraq has long been a source of tension between the neighbors. The 1980-88 war between Iran and Iraq broke out after then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein claimed the entire waterway-------------------------
Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Iranian naval guards, "acting upon their legal duty," seized the boats and detained the occupants when they entered Iran's territorial waters, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

The Arabic-language Al-Alam television reported that the three British boats were seized at about 11 a.m. and that crew members were carrying maps and weapons. It said the boats were confiscated between the Bahmanshir and Arvand rivers, which would put them in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, east of the Iraqi city of Faw.
© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Iran
from the book
The CIAs Greatest Hits
by Mark Zepezauer

The history of the CIA in Iran shows that it isn't the failures of the agency we need to worry about, numerous though they are. Its successes-and Iran is one of the biggest-are far more dangerous.
The CIA did exactly what was asked of it in Iran, deposing a mildly nationalist regime that was a minor irritant to US policymakers. As a direct result, a fiercely nationalist regime came to power 26 years later, and it's proved to be a major irritant to the US ever since.
In 1951, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, "the most popular politician in the country," was elected Prime Minister of Iran. His major election plank was the nationalization of the only oil company operating in Iran at that time-British Petroleum. The nationalization bill was passed unanimously by the Iranian Parliament.
Though Mossadegh offered BP considerable compensation, his days were numbered from that point on. The British coordinated an international economic embargo of Iran, throwing its economy into chaos. And the CIA, at the request of the British, began spending millions of dollars on ways to get rid of Mossadegh.
The CIA's plans hinged on the young Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, a timid and inexperienced figurehead. (He was a mere shadow of his father, who had led a pro Nazi regime during World War n. ) In 1953, with CIA backing, the Shah ordered Mossadegh out of office and appointed a Nazi collaborator as his successor. Demonstrators filled the streets in support of Mossadegh, and the Shah fled to Rome.
Undaunted, the CIA paid for pro-Shah street demonstrators, who seized a radio station and announced that the Shah was on his way back and that Mossadegh had been deposed. In reality, it took a nine-hour tank battle in the streets of Tehran, killing hundreds, to remove Mossadegh.
Compared to the bloodshed to follow, however, that was just a drop in the bucket. In 1976, Amnesty International concluded that the Shah's CIA-trained security force, SAVAK, had the worst human rights record on the planet, and that the number and variety of torture techniques the CIA had taught SAVAK were "beyond belief."

UN Calls US Data on Iran's Nuclear Aims Unreliable
By Bob Drogin and Kim Murphy
Los Angeles Times
February 25, 2007

Tips about supposed secret weapons sites and documents with missile designs haven't panned out, diplomats say.

Although international concern is growing about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran. The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran's long-secret nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic was developing illicit weapons.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out." The reliability of U.S. information and assessments on Iran is increasingly at issue as the Bush administration confronts the emerging regional power on several fronts: its expanding nuclear effort, its alleged support for insurgents in Iraq and its backing of Middle East militant groups.
------------------------------------------------------------
American officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on Iran's nuclear plans and programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove. The IAEA has its own concerns about Iran's nuclear program, although agency officials say they have found no proof that nuclear material has been diverted to a weapons program. Iran's Islamist government began enriching uranium in small amounts in August in a program it says will provide fuel only for civilian power stations, not nuclear weapons.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/iran/general/2007/0225unreliable.htm

A Predator Becomes More Dangerous When Wounded
By Noam Chomsky*
Guardian
March 9, 2007

Washington's escalation of threats against Iran is driven by a determination to secure control of the region's energy resources.
In the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington's basic demands: Iran and Syria. Accordingly both are enemies, Iran by far the more important. As was the norm during the cold war, resort to violence is regularly justified as a reaction to the malign influence of the main enemy, often on the flimsiest of pretexts. Unsurprisingly, as Bush sends more troops to Iraq, tales surface of Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Iraq - a country otherwise free from any foreign interference - on the tacit assumption that Washington rules the world.

In the cold war-like mentality in Washington, Tehran is portrayed as the pinnacle in the so-called Shia crescent that stretches from Iran to Hizbullah in Lebanon, through Shia southern Iraq and Syria. And again unsurprisingly, the "surge" in Iraq and escalation of threats and accusations against Iran is accompanied by grudging willingness to attend a conference of regional powers, with the agenda limited to Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. The message was that the US attacks at will, as long as the target is defenceless. Now Iran is ringed by US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf, and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to US support.

In 2003, Iran offered negotiations on all outstanding issues, including nuclear policies and Israel-Palestine relations. Washington's response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer. The following year, the EU and Iran reached an agreement that Iran would suspend enriching uranium; in return the EU would provide "firm guarantees on security issues" - code for US-Israeli threats to bomb Iran.
About the Author: Noam Chomsky is co-author, with Gilbert Achcar, of Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/iran/economy/2007/0309predator.htm

[Jcrowley]

30. kick for this

[malaise]

15. Great post

Objective but in these times objectivety is not popular.

I would add that if I had seen all those war ships lined up outside my border after the slaughter in Iraq, I'd show them I wasn't joking either.

Bush and Blair have lost all credibility after Iraq.

[Buzz Clik]

16. This is typical bullshit by Iran AND the UK. We've seen it many times before.

North Korea grabbed a US submarine under Gerald Ford's watch while we were playing cat and mouse.

China grabs the spy plane in the first months of Bush's presidency.

No doubt there are dozens of incidents just like this. Iran and the UK (and the US) will run this for all it's worth with lots of sabre rattling, snarling, agonizing, protesting, marching, threatening, and then it will be over.

:yawn:

[LeftishBrit]

32. I think you're probably right (hope so, anyway)

There is a lot of posturing on both sides. But it COULD flare up into something worse.

I don't trust Blair, but I don't think Iran should be holding on to the troops. The UK and Iran are not at war (yet! and I hope not ever), and if our troops accidentally entered their waters, the proper response would be to kick them out, not to detain them.

[Peace Patriot]

17. It's very difficult sorting out my personal beliefs, inclinations and rules of behavior

from matters of state--involving diplomacy, sovereignty and war. The OP puts the question in a personal way. What would I do if I were Iran? Well, it's not possible for me to BE Iran. But if I were--if I could somehow BE the collectivity that is Iran, or perhaps--an easier idea to grasp--could be someone in a position to make policy for Iran--I think I would be doing just as Iran is doing. They have little choice. Personally, I oppose the spread of nuclear weapons, for instance--but I don't think Iran has much choice in the matter, surrounded by the US military's massive war machine, with more US destroyers arriving weekly, with the man in charge of those forces having identified my country as part of the "axis of evil," with my neighboring country in ruins from invasion, mass murder and occupation perpetrated by the same leader, and with Israel's nukes and intentions lurking (and the bombing of Lebanon as a possible test run). How could Iran, as a nation, not feel deeply afraid? And they have harmed no one. They have invaded no one. They have not shown the slightest tendency toward imperialism. Add to this, of course, that in THEIR living memory--if not in ours--the US/UK/Israel smashed their democracy to bits, back in 1954, and inflicted them with 25 years to torture and oppression under the horrible Shah of Iran. They have absolutely no reason to trust us.

And in this situation--after Iranian diplomats in their neighbor country of Iraq have been kidnapped and taken into secret detention by the US--they find a UK scout ship lurking near their shores, no doubt spying and helping to concoct an ILLEGAL and unconscionable attack on their completely lawful and sovereign nation.

Personally, I hate for ANYONE to be in captivity, and I feel for those UK sailors. They are under orders, and are not responsible for their government's policy. If they object, they get court-martialed, and if they had objected in THIS situation--a situation of peril--they could be shot. There is no evidence that the Iranians practice torture. I pray that they do not, and are acting responsibly and morally toward their captives. I hope they release them immediately.

I also feel for the Iranian diplomats who were kidnapped. And I think it would be fair for Iranians to say, "Give us back our diplomats, and we'll give you back your sailors." I wouldn't play it that way--because I so abhor captivity--but I think it would be fair. Bush practices torture, the bastard. There is a high likelihood that these Iranians are being tortured. I pray for their well-being and immediate release. It is a very sad day for me, I'll tell you, when I fully expect that the UK captives are being better treated by the Iranians than the Iranian captives are being treated by the US--that I trust a foreign country to behave decently more than I trust my own, which I don't trust at all.

The US/UK under Bush and Blair are ONLY out for Iran's and Iraq's oil. They have absolutely no right to be occupying Iraq--and had no right to invade it--and they have absolutely no right to be threatening Iran, to be building up forces around Iran, and to attack Iran. I distrust them completely. I think they are monsters. And I think that it is very justifiable for Iran to insist on the integrity of its waters, to not take any incursion from these illegitimate military forces whose leaders are constantly threatening them, and to demand respect for their sovereignty. To the letter--and then some.

The UK was in the wrong. What was it doing patrolling so close to Iranian waters that there could be any question of a violation? It's not as if UK naval ships lack appropriate equipment to know where they are. It was more than likely a deliberate provocation. Bush and Blair are spoiling for more bloodshed. They want that oil very badly, for their corporate puppet masters (or their corporate puppet masters may abandon them to their fates, at the hands of their own people). I pray that the Iranians will not allow themselves to be US/UK patsies for provocation to war. You can almost smell another "Gulf of Tonkin" coming, and it's fairly clear that the American people don't have sufficient representation of their views in Congress to prevent it.

[cali]

22. I appreciate your trying to separate

personal inclinations from the facts, but perhaps you might want to consider the facts. You ask:

The UK was in the wrong. What was it doing patrolling so close to Iranian waters that there could be any question of a violation?

It was operating under a U.N. mandate with the permission of Iraq to carry out the U.N. mission in Iraqi waters. That's what they were doing.

Did they stray into Iraqi waters? That's certainly possible. Would they have been there at all, had it not been for Blair's complicity in this vile war? No. But those facts, do not place GB in the wrong here. And had Iran merely captured the brits and held them for a day or so, tht wouldn't have been so awful either. But that's not what they're doing.

[mudesi]

27. But why should they?

I only want to address your specific assertion that Iran ought to have only held them for a day or so. After all that has happened in the region, with the UN breathing down Iran's neck regarding nuclear weapons, with Bush amassing aircraft carriers and all but openly threatening war, what kind of action can they take besides the hard line? More importantly, why should they give in? Had Iranian soldiers been in American waters, do you think Bush wouldn't have sent them to Gitmo?

This is a chess game. Iran's actions are in its best interests, and until I see evidence of actual violations of the Geneva conventions or any other international law, they have a legitimate beef.

[brentspeak]

29. Thank you, Ayatollah Khomenei, for providing us here with the latest propaganda

"...and until I see evidence of actual violations of the Geneva conventions or any other international law..."

And thank you for the Chuckle Of The Day, too.

[Leopolds Ghost]

38. When did Ayatollah Khomeini become the new US boogeyman?

[Peace Patriot]

28. Cali, I think you're putting an unreal coloration on the UK's presence within

Iranian waters, or so close to them as to cause an incident. The Iraqi government is not legitimate. It is the creation of an invading force, which cannot operate in its own country except from inside a US bunker, and which is being strongarmed by that invading force to sign oil contracts that give away much of Iraq's only resource to corporations of the foreign countries that have invaded them. To say that the UK is operating with "Iraq"'s permission is really stretching the facts in an unrealistic way. As for the UN, its diplomats were victims of the civil war that the US/UK has fomented, and it ended up washing its hands of Iraq, and saying that it was the US's responsibility. (You broke it, it's yours.) Also, considering the bully force of the US in the UN--and how the Bushites kicked it around like a dog in the leadup to this entirely illegal invasion--I don't consider the UN say in the matter to be anything more than a piece of paper. If there were any real democracy in the UN, the US/UK would have been punished for this heinous war and world sanctions imposed on us--and Middle Eastern countries would have long ago taken over and brought about a peaceful settlement of the warring factions.

I don't think that this was any innocent UK incursion, or accidentally straying too close. I think it was deliberate. I think the facts overwhelmingly support that--the huge US military buildup in the Persian Gulf, the saber-rattling against Iran, the example of Iraq. And that very much influenced the answer I gave to, what would I do if I were Iran?

As for holding the UK captives, what do you say about the US Iranian captives? The US action, in invading Iran's embassy, was even less justified than the Iranians' capture of the UK sailors. So, why don't you react to that as well? The Iranians have been held a lot longer, and are very likely being tortured--because that's what the US does now. It tortures Arabs and Muslims. I don't particularly like thinking like a "state," when it comes to prisoners. But--in trying to do so--it seems to me that Iran was ALREADY provoked by the US, on the matter of capturing nationals and holding them. Why are THEIR nationals being held, and why for so long?

I am not an "eye for an eye" person. I believe that that is how horrible wars start. So, if I could, I would urge Iran to release the UK sailors as a gesture of peace, and for humanitarian purposes. But I am not THEM. I am not surrounded by, and threatened by, a huge military machine, and subject to daily saber-rattling. And that was the question; what if you WERE Iran--in their situation? And, looking through THEIR eyes--from the point of view of a sovereign state, trying to defend itself against overwhelming force, in that situation--it is justified. I HOPE there is a debate about this in Iran--and that the peacemakers and humanitarians prevail. But the US/UK, right now--taking all of what they are doing into consideration--are completely undermining those kinds of forces or factions in Iran. They are spoiling for war. And Iran has its back against the wall. That is the situation from THEIR point of view, in my opinion.

[Leopolds Ghost]

37. So, it's not wrong that GB ships patrolling Iraq territory, boarding foreign ships in Iran waters??

Purely to protect Iraqi oil, so it can be sold to Exxon in return for bribes of millions of dollars to every Shi'ite militia?

You have a funny sense of ethics on this issue. Ever heard of fruit from the poisoned tree?

My sense of ethics (both religious and secular) tells me it doesn't matter how evil your enemy is, you treat people a certain way because you are in the right and they may not be. That means consistently doing the right thing, not honoring immoral war and invading territorial waters to prevent Iran from selling arms to Shi'ites we are arming, and thereby undercutting their dependence on us, which is necessary to passing the oil law.

[countryjake]

49. Thank you for presenting the situation in such a reasonable & humane manner!

To put ourselves "in the shoes" of an entire nation is such a mighty question in the first place, how to consider that is nigh on to impossible.

My personal thought on the day the incident began being reported, with the requested UN sanctions against Iran being tossed aside as "Top News of the Day" to be replaced with headlines of Brit "Hostages", how can one not imagine the reality of the prospect that Iran faces, of being starved into submission by supposedly "legitimate" coalitions who, for years, have called for "regime change" there & have effectively decimated neighboring Iraq with their naked aggressions?

Your reply is so well thought-out & well said, if only I could nominate this alone, I would.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Peace Patriot]

21. Brentspeak, you are not responding to the question. The poster didn't ask whether

it was stupid or not, or whether it was right or not, or whether any of the associated actions was stupid or right, but, what would YOU do if you were Iran?

It's a difficult question to answer. I tried to. And I am curous what your answer would be.

[brentspeak]

26. The question asked was a rhetorical question, and a stupid one at that.

Rhetorical questions aren't intended to elicit a direct answer. And this individual is asking the rhetorical question as a bizarre defense of Iran's actions of parading captive sailors in front of cameras to recite Iranian propaganda. Besides the obvious fact that such actions violate the Geneva Conventions in about as brazen a manner that any child could understand, the "answer" I would give is also pretty obvious.

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. What about when we parade WOT captives in front of cameras and make them recite stuff?

And some of those guys are truly evil, too.

[brentspeak]

42. What about the Man On The Moon?

The topic is about Iran and British captives.

[Vidar]

41. Obnoxious? Often. Demented? Sometimes. Wrong? No!

[Bucky]

43. Parading foreign military prisoners in front of cameras for propaganda violates Geneva Convention

What they're doing is categorically wrong; it's also a violation of international treaties that Iran has signed. They need to send the British sailors back to Britain. It's that simple.

[Pavulon]

44. Why I can! Nothing like a good old fashion

show trial. Soviet style. That will work out really well for Iran.

Lets see, where shall I start?

Iran took British prisoners, unlike Americans, they are not going to be dismissed because of the current administration's popularity.

Iran is about to get sanctioned by Europe for enriching uranium beyond the 10% mark you need to boil water in a reactor.

Europe is now pissed off.

If there is anyone in Iran with any sense they will release the sailors, who are obviously not SAS, and get back to funding the insurgency on the side.

Else the results for them could go bad money wise or really bad when superpowers decide to start breaking their toys.

What they are doing is against international law.

[Strelnikov_]

46. "or really bad when superpowers decide to start breaking their toys"

Seems to be a bit of a blithe take on the infrastructure and population of Iran.

Are you lost?

[Pavulon]

47. Floaty and flying toys

would probably go first. Get a grip on reality.

Read my posts, get a grip.

This is about sanctions. You think they accidentally kidnapped europeans?

If they did what a horrible mistake...

If they don't give the people back there will be a shooting war.

[Strelnikov_]

48. And what, praytell, are "Floaty and flying toys"

Are you actually applying this blithe term, on a forum that advertises itself as 'liberal' 'progressive', to weapons or war? Weapons designed to kill and maim fellow members of the human race?