Bring the Brits Back Home

Edited by Zagros - 28-Mar-2007 at 11:48

Yes, Craig Murray. You Bring up all these people that really have no credibility
what so ever.

He was not sacked. He was removed from his post because he broke the rules within the Foreign office. Charges were made against him, many of which were dropped - for insuffecient evidence. He wasn't been particularly Diplomatic either, Karimov was supported under British Policy. It is NOT his job to attack Governments in other nations. If he had wanted to do that, he should LEAVE a government job.

He has never provided evidence of Britains involvement in such crimes either, nor has anyne really. It is the US and the CIA that are engaged in such crimes, although there has been evidence of MI6 being involved. (oh and it was reported by the nasty, state controlled BBC that did an expose on rendition)

You trust the word of a man thats angry against the British Government and would do anything to denigrate its name. I mean you might as well interview Napoleon on the Matter.


Edited by Ovidius - 28-Mar-2007 at 11:58

Chauvinist? No. Prgamatist? Yes.

I agree that if the British agents were in Iranian waters, it would be a breach of international law, and they could be legally held (much the same as the way the US is holding those "armed foreign agents" they apprehended in Iraq), but from the evidence I've been able to gather, it seems that they weren't in Iranian waters. Ergo, I believe their seizure and detention to be illegal.

I disagree with the former foreign minister to Uzbekistan. For oen thing, it's a bit unpatriotic to support the seizure and detention of one's own countrymen, but that's not the real issue. British and American naval forces have good reason to be checking maritime shipping on it's way to Iraq. The insurgents and al-Qaeda have to be receiving their weapons and materiel from somewhere, afterall. They should police the shipping just as they should police the borders and underground smuggling channels. It's a matter of national security not only for European nations, but for the national security of Iraq as well. Since Iraq's navy isn't up to the mission yet, it's only natural that Britain and the US should help them to acheive the goal of restricting unauthorized weapons shipments into the country. Your Foreign Minister friend seems to forget that fact, it seems.


"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.'"

Iran calling America the 'Great Satan' are equally inflammatory. Their stated intention to aquire nuclear-capabilities are in direct opposition of not only the US foreign policy, but the policies of every anti-Nuclear-proliferation organization worldwide as well. Their seizure of British sailors is inflammatory. Ahmadinejad's denial of the holocaust is inflammatory. The two sides have conflicting interests, I agree. Both are equally inflammatory to one another. But the first act of Ayatollah Khameini's Revolution was to abduct American diplomats and civilians in 1979, and to hold them for 444 days. So I guess you could say, the modern Iranian government started it?

Look, two different sides, two different views. I support my tribe. You support yours. But since we all know the power of the American and British militaries, it seems rather stupid of the Iranian government to try to provoke them into what could result as an armed conflict. If Tehran wants world-wide legitimacy, they ought to learn how to pick their battles. As it is, they're alienating sympathy from just about everyone in the western world. Like I said, it's an immature foreign policy from an insignificant nation that is afraid the world will forget them if they don't initiate a new diplomatic crisis every few months.

Cheers.

I'd love to continue this debate, but I have to go to class. I'll be more than happy to jump back into it in a few hours. Ah, the rigors of University life...

This: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1602389,00.html  was an interesting article on the subject.

The British officers in command should be shot. ANd the sailors should be court martialed upon return to acertain the truth. Lets see a sensitive border, which is disputed and you are patrolling it unarmed! For Gods sake, the Iranians are much more likely to shoot than make a request for arbritation. Checco's Anglo empire is not only imperialistic, it is inane.

Look, two different sides, two different views. I support my tribe. You support yours. But since we all know the power of the American and British militaries, it seems rather stupid of the Iranian government to try to provoke them into what could result as an armed conflict. If Tehran wants world-wide legitimacy, they ought to learn how to pick their battles. As it is, they're alienating sympathy from just about everyone in the western world. Like I said, it's an immature foreign policy from an insignificant nation that is afraid the world will forget them if they don't initiate a new diplomatic crisis every few months.

No, not everything the West says is twisted, just everything the foreign office of the United Kingdom and Downing Street say are twisted. And hey, I have just as much doubt as anyone about what the Iranian government says, as I have already expressed in this thread.  What got me going was the bellicose rantings of Ovidius, who, because of his hurt pride at the UKs standing as a 2nd/3rd rate power advocates airstrikes before anything has even been confirmed on the matter.

I guess I could see where your coming from.

I chose the Marines because they are supposed to be alittle better then the army, in some regards, and ofcourse different then the coast guard who play two very different roles. I couldn't think of another equivalent in the US Military because I don't think they quite fit in with our Special Forces. Maybe the Rangers? I don't know.

Originally posted by Sparten The British officers in command should be shot. ANd the sailors should be court martialed upon return to acertain the truth. Lets see a sensitive border, which is disputed and you are patrolling it unarmed! For Gods sake, the Iranians are much more likely to shoot than make a request for arbritation. Checco's Anglo empire is not only imperialistic, it is inane.

They weren't unarmed??

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.

Yes, Iranian TV news vs BBC news. Please.

said: �Obviously we trespassed in the waters.�

How is that an admission of Guilt. She says its obvious based ont he fact they were picked up by two torpedo boats full of IRanian Guardsmen. If i was on some land and a farmer walked up with his sheepdog and shotgun, I'd probably believe that I 'might' have trespassed. Based on the reaction, not on evidence.

What got me going was the bellicose rantings of Ovidius, who, because of his hurt pride at the UKs standing as a 2nd/3rd rate power advocates airstrikes before anything has even been confirmed on the matter.

I did not advocate this action. What I advocate is ACTION in general. My point is that there is very little else we can do. Those are the options - attack by Special Forces or Airstrikes. I didn't say I was supportive, but if the diplomacy fails, this is what the British government will have to do.

these were my EXACT WORDS

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.

Somehow believing that the British government would come out and lie about where the British servicement were is really a silly statement. I don't understand your position. The British government is possibly the most regulated and checked government in the World. Our media is extremely thirsty for such stories. If those servicemen were not where the Foreign Office say they were then it will be found out and Margaret Beckett WILL lose her job.

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.