Britain has been linked with terrorist attacks inside Iranian territory so I for one can understand the sensitivity towards the royal navy's rubber dingies.

 

I hate to see such matters esculate, but there is no option but a show of force against Iran, which means airstrikes or some other form of action.

 

I don't think Britain is in any position to carry out such a thing, considering its disposition.  And this isn't the first time Britons or Americans have been apprehended after transgressing Iranian territory.  But hey, it isn't Iran who has stationed troops THOUSANDS of miles from home on the back of colonial delusions of grandeur.

Iran will release them. Just taking her time.

 

Umm, yea OK Brian.  Do you have any idea how far the horizon stretches at sea?  The Iraqi fishermen are well savvied up on where the borders are, and even at that, fishermen hardly amount to aggressive, armed foreign agents. 

 

Britain has been linked with terrorist attacks inside Iranian territory so I for one can understand the sensitivity towards the royal navy's rubber dingies.

Terrorist attacks inside Iran? Whatever. Evidence please?

 

I don't think Britain is in any position to carry out such a thing, considering its disposition.  And this isn't the first time Britons or Americans have been apprehended after transgressing Iranian territory.  But hey, it isn't Iran who has stationed troops THOUSANDS of miles from home on the back of colonial delusions of grandeur.

A. You would be suprised at how little of the British military is actually in action. Most is actually deployed in places like Germany and Bosnia. Most of our serious forces are still in Britain. Infact I just talked to a British Marine on Saturday, who has been put on standby with his regiment at their HQ. When British diplomats disapeared in Ethiopia, taken by Eritrean rebels, the SAS was sent to the area immediately. So we clearly have the troops available.

B. It is not the first time that troops have been apprehended, no. But not normally for this type of thing.

Colonian delusions of Grandeur? What are you talking about. Now the war in Iraq is probably a mistake, but i don't believe it had anything whatsoever to do with Colonial delusions, but to do with realistic choices made in and around the first meeting wtih President Bush and Tony Blair.

What other Colonial delusions do we have? None really. We have troops in places like Belize, but for training purposes. We still keep forces in Bosnia and Kosovo - under a UN Mandate. We have troops in Germany still, but based on Agreements made at Yalta and in the 50years following the End of the War. Nothnig to do with Colonial Delusions. Maybe you should look up the Word Colonial in the Dictionary.

And I did read the report and the two sets of information being handed over could easily be more lies, again the UK governemnt does not have much integrity so everything that comes from especially the foreign office and downing street must be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

Again, I wouldn't worry too much, a well deserved slap on the wrists and they'll be on their way home.  which is more than what we can say for the Iranian hostages kidnapped in Turkey and Iraq.

A bit of a chauvinist then are we Brian?  Sunni Pan-Arabists would, however, tend to disagree with you though.

 

Following: This chap was sacked as British ambassador to Uzbekistan after whistle blowing of the UK/Us's use of that country as a 3rd party torture service.

 

Iran arrest of sailors legitimate:Former UK envoy Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - ?2005 IranMania.com LONDON, March 27 (IranMania) - Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray supported Iran's decision to arrest 15 UK marines in the Persian Gulf last week, IRNA reported. "In international law the Iranian government were not out of order in detaining foreign military personnel in waters to which they have a legitimate claim," Murray said, who was also a previous head of Foreign Office's maritime section, carrying out negotiations on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. "For the Royal Navy, to be interdicting shipping within the twelve mile limit of territorial seas in a region they know full well is subject to maritime boundary dispute, is unnecessarily provocative," he said. The former envoy said that this was "especially true as apparently they were not looking for weapons but for smuggled vehicles attempting to evade car duty." "What has the evasion of Iranian or Iraqi taxes go to do with the Royal Navy?" he questioned in comments on his webpage, set up after he was sacked from his post in 2004 after criticizing British foreign policy. While working for the Foreign Office, Murray was also head of the UK's Embargo Surveillance Centre, analyzing Iraqi attempts to evade sanctions and providing information to UK military forces and to other governments to effect physical enforcement of the embargo. He said that under international law, Britain would have been allowed to enter Iranian territorial waters if in "hot pursuit" of terrorists, slavers or pirates. But added "they weren't doing any of those things." "Plainly, they were not engaged in piracy or in hostilities against Iran. The Iranians can feel content that they have demonstrated the ability to exercise effective sovereignty over the waters they claim," the former envoy said. He criticized the "ridiculous logic" of Prime Minister Tony Blair, saying he was creating a mess that "gets us further into trouble." The Daily Mirror, which has been an outspoken opponent of the Iraq war, reminded its readers Monday that "if the UK had never joined the disastrous invasion of Iraq, the 15 would not have been put in a position where they could be seized." In its editorial on the incident, it also said that "US threats in the recent past to launch military strikes on Iran have inflamed tensions." http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=50544&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs - http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=50544&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

 

I think Iran has been looking for a opportunity to capture Western soldiers. They threatened to do it a couple weeks ago since they believe we took one of their top Generals. I mean, this wasn't even the Normal Iranian Navy that went out, it was their Guard that went out and captured them. The Guard is chosenby those they deem very loyal; and they are given the best equipment and are very well paid to keep them loyal. To send these guys out to me means that they were up to something. Their Navy could have just went over and warned them to get out of their waters, but this was a elite force with intentions to take captives.

 

With that said, I believ no harm will be done to the British soldiers. The Iranians are using this for political leverage. It's been shown that they get support when they stand up to the "Imperial West", and this is the strongest way of doing it. They may also use them as bargaining chips, if they get what they want, then the soldiers were returned. If the West goes back on ther word after getting the soldiers back, that'll just give the Iranian government more leverage, so it can be a win-win situation for them.

 

haha. Well said. after all which goverment have credibility.

they had to be in iranian territorial waters...it's expected of British imbeciles who don't even know the proper term of the Persian Gulf.

 

they can not continue to breach Iran's territorial integrity. They have come into our waters on numerous occasions and not followed our warnings and this is what happens. We were lenient before but they went too far and are in our custody. Good news.

 

That is chauvinism - and besides, I don't approve of imperialism, be it "Anglo", "Persian", Islamic or anything else so what do I care?  Blow your Anglo trumpet.  Is Checco your real name?  Not very Anglo.

 

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy They are agents of the UK governemnt, they are armed and they aggressively stop and search vessels around and inside Iranian waters, according to the Iranian authorities How come everything the West says is twisted and information is changed, but everything the Iranian Government is to be believed when it's known that they aren't exactly the most freedom loving Government. I mean, I believe you said it too in the past that you'd like to see the current Iranian government gone, if I remember correctly.

 

 

What Blair meant when he said he would take things to a different level has been seen today - apparently Britain has frozen all trade with Iran.  Well, a barrel of oil is now trading at almost $70 a barrel I guess that loss has been immeasurably off-set. 

 

 

 

Hear, Hear!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21467214-2,00.html

 

The service people have admitted they were in Iranian waters and have apologised for their mistake.  I think if they were adamant they were in iraqi waters they would have refused to admit to a lie like the brave American pilot captured in Somalia who faced a much grimmer fate at the time than any of these people ever have.

 

 

This is indeed good news because it was broadcast on the Arabic language channel. To be cynical, the Mullahs have impressed the Arab masses with this, so the service people's release will be imminent.   There is precedent after all.

Iran doesn't need to wait for them to come over the border to capture them, it's easy enough in Iraq.

I think it's easier to have the enemy come to you. Not only that, but politically it makes you look like you were the victim in that the enemy went into your boundries.

By saying they went into Iran's waters, then it makes the case legitimate for them.

The IRGC have naval, air, land and special forces and are responsible for security in different, more sensitive, areas from the regular navy. They share the same role as the regular army but with a different command.

But wouldn't that be like the US sending out the marines to take care of a job that the Coast Guard does? The Navy should have been able to take care of 15 soldiers on a foreign ship, no? I'm just curious about this because to me it's like sending out the special forces, these are the most loyal and the best equiped of all the Iranian forces supposedly.

And btw they are not equivalent to the Marines in any way.  They are the Guards of the Islamic Revolution and more closely resemble the Praetorian guard than anything else - but with a much wider scope.  I don't think they are necessarily better paid than regulars but they are religious zealots and have a die before surrender mentality.

I didn't know they were religious zeolots though. They were the ones that did the wave attacks though in the Iran-Iraq war right? Now a days I'd see new recruits joining to get themselves better off in life, though I could be wrong. But being on the good side of the government, being equiped well, and paid pretty decently sounds like a good career choice if your going for the military career.

I hate to see such matters esculate, but there is no option but a show of force against Iran, which means airstrikes or some other form of action.

 

"no option but a show of force against Iran, which means airstrikes or some other form of action" - some other form of forceful action?  You advocate starting a war over 15 personnel held under suspicion of entering another nation's waters illegally and who are probably held in a more comortable state right now than back home and most certainly a navy ship with imminent release? 

 

Somehow believing that the British government would come out and lie about where the British servicement were is really a silly statement.

 

Unless it was a deliberate act of provocation, something which the UK has not been unknown for, I mean searching merchant ships for CARS in a hotly disputed border area with a potentially hostile power? Please. 

 

And none of this has anything to do with Pride or a loss of face of our nation. Its to do with British people getting taken frequently from different areas of the World. The British Government should take a stand of some sort, especially if the release of our troops isn't immediate.

 

Perhaps if Britain didn't participate in the illegal invasion of another sovereign nation then none of this would have happened, think about it that way.

 

The only thing that disappoints me is the Iranian reaction which is always so brash and undiplomatic otherwise they acted as any nation with dignity would.

indeed, we should not negotiate with terrorist groups, rebel forces or dodgy Islamist nations in the middle east.

 

Well, as well as harbouring and arming terrorists you do, on all counts, and would otherwise stand to lose billions upon billions in trade and arms deals (Saudi Arabia and the ilk).  

 

We Iranians have imperialist Anglo terrorists to thank for the Islamist regime.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rais-Ali, Dalire Tangestaani, can attest to that. Roohash shaad(Long live his soul) for fighting the British imperialistic army.

Ravaneshan shad.

 

How do you figure? We backed the Shah...

 

Mohamad Mossadegh, "you" masterminded the downfall of his democratic government and installed the hated Shah leading ultimately led to the 1979 popular revolution which was, alas, hijacked by the Islamists (whose propaganda, interestingly enough, was bradcast and spread in Iran by state controlled BBC).

 

The root of all the Mullahs' powers in the modern day stem from the British who also funded them in the 40s to counter Iranian nationalism which threatened their hegemony in Iran.

 

They were even in my town, my grandmother recalls stories of rape and other ill treatment of Iranians such as second class status in their own country.  Pfft.  That is what they did and I am glad it only lasted a few years, not like what they did in India or other countries unlucky enough to have been consumed by their evil empire. 

 

Never again.

 

Funnily enough my dad met one of the occupiers in a pub in Scotland a few years ago who was stationed in our town.  I had half a mind to go over and interrogate him.

 

 

 

 

 

Also the Iranian side was anticipating a special envoy from the UK to come to arrange the release of the men, but what they received were threats which led to a statement telling the British that the era of bullying is over.

 

Source: FT - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3ffaff0e-dd61-11db-8d42-000b5df10621.html - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3ffaff0e-dd61-11db-8d42-000b5df10621.html

 

This is what brits do to their prisoners. Listen to the animals:

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11880.htm - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11880.htm

 

And na, I am saying these guys are lucky they weren't on the other side and captured by the Brits or Americans, half of them would have suffered a brutal death by now.

 

 

Get off your high horse, the British have as much blood on their hands as anyone - wasn't it the Brits who invented concentration camps, afterall?

 

And no, my slights are not against the British people but, as I have explicitly stated, the Toffs at the top with a superiority complex.  Get it right.  Almost anywhere that there's a problem or dispute in the world, you can be sure the British have had a hand: Arabs/Israelis, Iran/Iraq, Kashmir, Afghanistan, SubSaharan Africa, etc.

 

I also find it rather insulting that you bring up Guantanamo Bay in reference to British soldiers. Britain is not America, it is not part of America nor does it support what its going on in Guantanamo bay.

 

Oh please, we've all seen the pictures with prisoners in Iraq with bags tied over their heads being pissed on.  what about that hotel worker, I forget his name - father of two - brutally beaten to death after being tortured.  Isolated? No, just uncovered - not even the tip of the iceberg.

 

 

 

 

 

It's torture, using methods such as those you can get anyone to admit to anything.

 

It is funny, brits are crying that they are capture where they occupied.

 

 

The border is disputed and the borders as presented by the British are not agreed between Iran and Iraq and Britain, as much as it would like to think it is, is no arbiter on the issue.  As far as what they were doing there, who knows, they personally are innocent as far as I am concerned - it is those who would put them in harms way using such ridiculous pretences who have a lot to answer for.

 

 

 

Just so we're clear: With strobe lighting TWENTY FOUR HOURS A DAY without rest, food or sleep.  THAT IS TORTURE BY ANY STANDARD.

 

 

 

They think they have a UN mandate, but as far as I remember, what the UN says does not matter - didn't the UN deny permission to invade thus making the brutal occupation of Iraq illegal in the first place?

 

 

 

And no, my slights are not against the British people but, as I have explicitly stated, the Toffs at the top with a superiority complex.

Toffs? Labour Government? Where exactly do you get your facts from?

Get it right.  Almost anywhere that there's a problem or dispute in the world, you can be sure the British have had a hand: Arabs/Israelis, Iran/Iraq, Kashmir, Afghanistan, SubSaharan Africa, etc.

No, you can be sure that the dispute started in the Post-Colonial period. Britain had an Empire stretching accross the World, it doesn't take a genious to work out why statistically if there is a problem in the World, Britain is likely to have been involved in that nations History at some point or another.

 

 

 

 

 

As for evidence, use google - everything I have said can be affirmed by mainstream media, since that is my source of info in teh first place.

 

Some rational views from Westerners on the situation, seems more than enough people in the UK (with the exception of Ovidius types) know their government for what it really is, a self serving, manipulative lying propaganda machine.

 

If Iranian sailors entered British waters, the British would arrest the Iranians. The Iranians would then protest that they had not been in British waters; but the British public would not believe that.

That is exactly what has happened but in reverse.

-- E Taylor, PARIS

If the UK soldiers detained by Iran should be returned, then so should the Iranian liaison employees detained by the US on Jan 11th this year, whose fate still remains unknown. Bet then again, recent events have shown that there are two sets of laws, one of which applies to people we like, and the other which applies to those we don't.

-- Martin, England, UK

Imagine a situation whereby Iran had invaded and occupied France and routinely sent patrols into the English Channel to search for "smuggled cars" on ships. Would that be tolerable to the UK? If not, why not? The converse situation is a reality with the British occupation of Iraq and Royal Naval presence and activity in the Persian Gulf.

-- M. M. Zaman, UK/Canada

Tony Blair said ..."In the end, it is a question really for the Iranian government as to whether they want to abide by international law or not". I assume that he dare not ask himself this question as the answer is all too apparent. Last time our troops were held by Iran the same denials and accusations were made by the British govt. They were in fact in Iranian territory violating international law. Our govt lies to do what it wants. Time for a regime to change - ours, not theirs

-- Richard, London

Will the U.K. now seize Irananian naval vesels patroling off Cardiff in the Bristol channel? The absurdity of the Western military presence in the 'Persian' Gulf heralds back to the days of White Man's Burden. The hyopocrisy of western outrage is comical. Exactly why is a British ship within a thousand miles of the Persian gulf?

-- Bill wontanabee, Canada

The UK must keep its nose out of other peoples affairs. What sanctions are in place against the military ruler of Pakistan who has atomic weapons, overthrew a democratically elected government and refuses to allow elections in his country. Mugabe has slaughtered hundreds of thousands and no one even talks about invading Zimbabwe. Iran wants nuclear weapons, the UK says these are necessary for security in a modern world.
It is the hypocrisy of the Western powers that really annoys.

-- Arthur, Derby

The capture of 15 British sailors is the Iranian response to the UK / the US cat and mouse game against Iran. The UK / the US are testing Iranian response and determination in their preparation for strike against Iran.

The Iranian rapid response was to send a signal to Blair to stop illegally entering Iranian territorial waters on Arvandrud in the Persian Gulf.

-- Azar, Wheaton, IL , USA

Source: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5882&&edition=2&ttl=20070329160223 - http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5882&&edition=2&ttl=20070329160223

 

Also Despite Tony Blair’s adamant denial that the 15 British sailors and marines captured by the Iranians were intruding in Iranian waters, Commodore Nick Lambert, who headed the British naval task force, was by no means as categorical: “There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters.” He said, but then—in a statement he probably now regrets– he continued : “Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated”. .... http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/lando/49845/ - http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/lando/49845/

 

And of course, anything to embarras the West is something to get off on.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and by people around him do you serious think I mean those low life opportunist ex-socialist losers?  No, I mean his civil servants.  And yea, I know what a toff is, my sister's married to one and my other is a policy advisor at an important UK ministry, working with such prominent civil servants every day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea? well why don't you TRY looking.  I first heard of this on BBC news.  Here's the first thing that cropped up on google.

 

Northern Ireland: Reports detail Britain’s collusion with loyalist murder squads By Steve James 26 April 2004 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/irel-a26_prn.shtml - Use this version to print | http://www.wsws.org/cgi-bin/birdcast.cgi - Send this link by email | https://secure.wsws.org/phpform/use/comments/form1.html - Email the author Four reports by Canadian judge Peter Cory into collusion between state authorities and the killers of two human rights lawyers, a Catholic worker, and a pro-British Protestant loyalist were finally published on April 1. The British government’s decision to release the reports followed legal action by the families of those killed and threats by Cory himself to release his reports if the Blair government continued months of prevarication. In all four cases—the murders of lawyers Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson, Catholic worker Robert Hamill, and Loyalist Volunteer Force leader Billy Wright—Cory called for public inquiries with full powers to call witnesses. The outcome of Cory’s investigations is a serious blow to the Blair government. At a time when it is trying to present its occupation of southern Iraq as more humane than that of the US in the rest of the country, further exposure of state involvement in the assassination of human rights lawyers and political opponents during Britain’s decades-long occupation of Northern Ireland is highly embarrassing.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/irel-a26.shtml - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/irel-a26.shtml

I didn't say all civil servants, or even the majority, are toffs, my sister's one.  And those prime ministers you speak of, ever heard them speak?  Sound pretty Toffy to me, perhaps they had to "adjust" themselves to be acceptable to the toffy aristocrats. Ever heard of the coup planned by the secret 'toff' service against Harold Wilson? And hey, the question was, when was the last time..?  John Major doesn't count, he wasn't grass roots - not by a long shot.

 

This labour government is only labour by name - here's a question, when was the last time a man from working class background was prime minister?  only indoctrinated toffs can hold that position.

 

Umm, no I only said that this labour government's labour by name, look right there it says so. I didn't call the whole government toffy, and I stated that prime ministers are either toffy OR indoctrinated.  Miss that? I suggest you read a little closer.

 

Wow, living in Britain. Have you been tortured or brutally murdered yet?

 

Uhh? No, I have never been captured in a military operation, nor have I partaken in any live operation .  As to the first part, I am a naturalised Scot and I am working on the Britain part - I unofficially campaign for the SNP, and have converted quite a few of my friends.   And since I pay my none too modest taxes to this dumb government, I have every right to say as I please, so shove your "wow".  Having said that, I don't approve of MY money being wasted half the world away in a futile imperialist adventure that has cost the lives of up to 1 million other human beings, maybe you do.

 

Perhaps if it were Iran's navy conducting operations just off the Forth estuary my opinion would be different, but that's not the case, is it?

Pfft... Since you're so lazy...

 

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/fisk10.html - http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/fisk10.html

 

 

The dogs were acquitted too, military justice.

 

 

Ahhh, your democratic unionist tendencies begin to show themselves. What have the SNP done in the past?

 

Shall we discuss what unionsists did in Scotland in the past?  No we shan't we'll be here all day discussing ethnic cleansing.

 

Besides, anything you uncover is irrelevant considering, as you say, "it was in another age".

 

You support a Nationalist Party and sit here and believe you have a right to an opinion.

 

Any credibility you had just disappeared with this statement.

 

All the hysteria about an attack against Iran twists these idiots around.  "If we hold hostages, the pussy West will not attack the courageous revolutionary guards."  There is not going to be an attack, as there are other ways of dealing with an isolated, deadbeat regime that gets wet thinking about killing Jews and "bringing the West to its knees."

 

When the tactical well is dry, and you are desperate, you hold hostages, extort minor favors and thump your chest to drum up opposition to evil outside "threats."  If the regime has not come up with anything else since 1979, it betrays their hollow weakness.

 

The Iranian military is publicity pictures of 50 year old technology available in minimal numbers; painted rust and zealots stuffing the Quran down their pants.  For Christ's sake, they could not even defeat the Iraqi army in eight years.

 

This is all TV for the masses, and the Iranians are not even fooled.  They are smarter than that; smarter than their religious Gestapo and their delusional bearded bosses.

 

 

 

Because I want secession of Scotland from the union that negates my credibility? Whaaaaat? Yea, that makes sense.

 

Supporting the SNP is not against the law, yet. Though it seems if you had your way we'd be living in a police state.   No wonder you support gunboat diplomacy . 

 

 

 

 

Umm. get your facts right, Iraq was defeated after two years, Saddam offered an unconditional end with reparations of $800m, The mullahs just did not accept his surrender.  Simple as that.  

 

 

 

This government went against the will of its people in invading Iraq and as such is worthy of no loyalty, equally I am an Iranian citizen, does that mean I should be loyal to the mullahcracy? Hell no.   I will not follow blindly SCOUNDREL CHARLATANS who put those whom they command in unnecessary danger.

 

My loyalties are to Iran and Scotland, not the Crown or the Mullahs.  I have said this many times to other people, the only time I would take up arms would be if either of my countries came under a physically unprovoked attack.  I perceive the British presence in Iraq as an imperialist aggressive, murderous adventure designed to line the pockets of MNCs and their political lackies.  As a consciencious peace loving individual detest the fact that my tax money is being wasted half way across the globe on such an endeavor.

 

Is that clear enough?

 

NB: An example of gun boat diplomacy is when the Crown, in 1812, sent a boat up the Potomac and levelled Washington over some trade dispute.

 

 

Originally posted by Zagros As for evidence, use Google - everything I have said can be affirmed by mainstream media, since that is my source of info in the first place.

You cannot just say "use Google" and leave it at that. You need legitimate sources and you know that. You are just skirting the issue by not giving us source.

 

 

Originally posted by Zagros Some rational views from Westerners on the situation, seems more than enough people in the UK (with the exception of Ovidius types) know their government for what it really is, a self serving, manipulative lying propaganda machine.....

 

And this proves what exactly? For one, I know plenty of people in America who don't like what we are doing in Iraq. I also know plenty of people that do like what we are doing. You can't just cherry pick a few comments and say that they are representative of a whole populace.

 

Secondly, who says that the average citizen knows what they are talking about? If I had to choose between the information the British military is giving me and that of the typical Joe who reads BBC, I would go with the info given by the real authority.

Zagros, I took your challenge. I Googled "common British interrogation methods." The results of the first page were interesting.

There were two links to the torture methods of countries other than Britain. (Those countries being Saudi Arabia, USA and Iran.)

 

There were 3 links to torture acts committed 30 years ago at the height of the Northern Ireland dispute.

 

There was one link that was looking at the morality of torture in general.

 

There was also one link on British laws regarding torture.

 

And finally, there were three links, two of them from the same website, which mentioned with current British torture routines. One of the websites was the online journal of The Guardian, a newspaper that is dominated by leftists and has taken a hostile stance towards the military of USA and the UK since 2003. The third website was a blog, and it was nothing more than a post referencing the aforementioned Guardian article.

 

Oh, please, Zag....Iraq was defeated and the mullahs refused to accept an Iraqi surrender?  The "wink" is kidding, right?

 

So Iran slogged on for six more years and lost 1,000,000 men or whatever......for what reason?  Now - there is malfeasance in office by the regime.  Time for another revolution.

 

The peoples of Iran deserve better than to become martyrs for the benefit of guys who are worse than the Renaissance Catholic Church.

 

 

 

Yes, of course.  A million casualties for.....uh, let's see, hmmmm.  The integrity of the revolution.  That's it.

 

Now the revolution screws them at every turn.  That's a winner.

 

And all those people elsewhere just live to be mean to Iran, necessitating their activities in Lebanon and inside Iraq and in manufacturing crises in disputed waters.

 

Every time one of these things hits the fan oil prices go up.  As Iran has nothing else going for it, you have to view it as state financial planning -   the only way they can pay the Russians what they owe them.  Pretty lame, and a bad credit risk.  The Russians are welcome to that.