Iran Captures British Forces
-
ArapaholeOriginally posted by Arapahoe:Moca
is call GPS everything is recorded so Blair is very sure they were on Iraqi water.
Thanks for being so patronising.
Does "GPS" provide answers to the question of ownership of a disputed area? -
Does "GPS" provide answers to the question of ownership of a disputed area?
In this case ist not a disputed area. Both the Iraqis and Iranians agree on the border, its a question of position. And then the GPS is a god help
MOD briefing shows Royal Navy personnel were in Iraqi waters"As shown on the chart, the merchant vessel was 7.5 nautical miles south east of the Al Faw Peninsula and clearly in Iraqi territorial waters. Her master has confirmed that his vessel was anchored within Iraqi waters at the time of the arrest. The position was 29 degrees 50.36 minutes North 048 degrees 43.08 minutes East. This places her 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters. This fact has been confirmed by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry.
"The Iranian government has provided us with two different positions for the incident. The first we received on Saturday and the second on Monday. As this map shows, the first of these points still lies within Iraqi territorial waters. We pointed this out to them on Sunday in diplomatic contacts.
"After we did this, they then provided a second set of coordinates that places the incident in Iranian waters over two nautical miles from the position given by HMS CORNWALL and confirmed by the merchant vessel. The two Iranian positions are just under a nautical mile apart – 1800 yards or so. It is hard to understand a reason for this change of coordinates. We unambiguously contest both the positions provided by the Iranians.
"I should just explain at this point that the boats remained connected at this point. One of the seaboats was connected via data link, which communicated its position continually to the ship where it was displayed, superimposed on an electronic chart, on a purpose built console. During the boarding this console was constantly monitored and indicated, throughout, that the boats had remained well within Iraqi territorial waters. -
and now we wait
-
The sailors say on video that they are in Iran waters
The video is shown throughout Iran -
Of course they say that mah, if you were in their position you will not say meh?
-
Lie if you have to, just get out safely.
-
it seemed like this is one of those internal struggle between the circular government vs religion cleric in power.
-
have 1 question?
Does the 5 power defence agreement with Britain work in the other direction? we help them instead?
Hypothetically the path with Iranian get worst. EU and US are politically paralyzed and are not able to apply any military pressure.
UK find itself going in solo situation, can Britain initiate the defence agreement ?
Anybody have thought on this subject? -
Brits in the Gulf and a doctored British Map ?
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray is now challenging the legitimacy of the map just published by the British government in the current dispute with Iran over those 15 captured British sailors and marines.
http://barrylando.com/?p=136
“Fake Maritime Boundaries
I have been unpopular before, but the level of threats since I started blogging on the captured marines has got a bit scary. It is therefore with some trepidation that I feel obliged to point this out.
“The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.
“But there are two colossal problems.
“A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.
“B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.
“None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only harden the Iranian position.”
When I spoke with the former Ambassador he told me how dumbfounded he is by the way in which the mainstream media continues to treat this dispute.
The BBC for instance has already interviewed a supposed expert regarding the map, who vouched for its authenticity. But the point is, as Craig Murray, points out, how can such a map exist if the subject of boundaries has never been settled between Iraq and Iran? Turns out the expert had been referred to the BBC by the British Ministry of Defense–who also turned out the plan.
Sounds like the rerun of a bad movie weÂ’ve already seen.
Just like the McMahon Line serving India's claims on China's border... it was never signed. -
^^
Then why did the Iranians change their claimed positions if they dont recognise the borderline? -
the FPDA was to safeguard the melaka strait(actually singapore).. nothing more.. it does not work the "other way".Originally posted by Arapahoe:have 1 question?
Does the 5 power defence agreement with Britain work in the other direction? we help them instead?
Hypothetically the path with Iranian get worst. EU and US are politically paralyzed and are not able to apply any military pressure.
UK find itself going in solo situation, can Britain initiate the defence agreement ?
Anybody have thought on this subject? -
Originally posted by MobyDog:
even so... generally the usual actions should be a diplomatic protest, only if repeated protest through a third party prove ineffective, and warnings of possible iranian actions to detain future incursion would such an overt action be authorised.
[b]Brits in the Gulf and a doctored British Map ?
http://barrylando.com/?p=136
Just like the McMahon Line serving India's claims on China's border... it was never signed.[/b]
seems to me... the iranians did a pearl harbour on the brits this time round... and the brits got caught with their pants down. -
that was about them helping us, and not the other way around .... the enemy was indonesia then ... what can we do anyways ? ...Originally posted by Arapahoe:have 1 question?
Does the 5 power defence agreement with Britain work in the other direction? we help them instead?
Hypothetically the path with Iranian get worst. EU and US are politically paralyzed and are not able to apply any military pressure.
UK find itself going in solo situation, can Britain initiate the defence agreement ?
Anybody have thought on this subject?
sides, you expect Malaysia to join in any action again Iran ? ... they'll start moving only when they perceive Muslims are being bullied ... be it bosnia, lebanon (they never got there) ... or somalia (where they realized that the locals didn't like them either ) ....
it'll be lucky if they don't join in the Iranians in thumbing the noses at the Brits ... -
Yup, FPDA is not like NATO. It is only valid for defending Malaysia and Singapore.Originally posted by Fatum:that was about them helping us, and not the other way around .... the enemy was indonesia then ... what can we do anyways ? ...
sides, you expect Malaysia to join in any action again Iran ? ... they'll start moving only when they perceive Muslims are being bullied ... be it bosnia, lebanon (they never got there) ... or somalia (where they realized that the locals didn't like them either ) ....
it'll be lucky if they don't join in the Iranians in thumbing the noses at the Brits ...
Unless, one of the sailors has Malaysian or S'pore blood.. 
-
If Malaysia sends a WARSHIP and navy personnel into waters claimed by SIngapore and start messing with our flow of shipping, I would be ashamed if all we did was write a diplomatic protest.Originally posted by tripwire:even so... generally the usual actions should be a diplomatic protest, only if repeated protest through a third party prove ineffective, and warnings of possible iranian actions to detain future incursion would such an overt action be authorised.
seems to me... the iranians did a pearl harbour on the brits this time round... and the brits got caught with their pants down. -
Just wack IRAN hard hard and get over with it once and for all. Film it on YouTube and send a copy over to N.korea.
Since Iran has no Nukes now, it would be the best time to do so now. Heck, it will even solve the problem in Iraq too.
Also, Britain occupies the moral upper ground now and can attack with full force and justification. US and Israel will also be happy to join in the fun. Don't think Iran can last long under full Uk, US and Israel attack. The mullah will be begging for peace before you know it. -
Actually...Originally posted by jianfish9:Just wack IRAN hard hard and get over with it once and for all. Film it on YouTube and send a copy over to N.korea.
Since Iran has no Nukes now, it would be the best time to do so now. Heck, it will even solve the problem in Iraq too.
Also, Britain occupies the moral upper ground now and can attack with full force and justification. US and Israel will also be happy to join in the fun. Don't think Iran can last long under full Uk, US and Israel attack. The mullah will be begging for peace before you know it.
Thousands of US soldiers had died in Iraq and Afghanistan already. I don't think even the US is ready to stomach another war. Bush and Blair are just trying to create some noise to divert attention away from a disastrous war effort in Iraq by creating Iran as the new "WMD". -
Well it depends... the Yanks are trigger happy enough to do some wacking- as long as it involves little risk to themselves.
I mean don't need a ground invasion, they are perfectly happy to oblige with airstrikes and all that stuff.
But of course, it's the Brits here, so they are a lot less trigger happy.
In any case, Iran is starting to become a pain in the butt for the whole world, and that includes even the arab nations. I doubt anybody would really protest much beyond the usual "eh, US why you so big bully?" if they are shaken down a little. -
As far as the nuclear thing is concerned, I really feel that the west, Russians and Chinese and their allies all have to disarm if UN wants the moral right to tell others what to do.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:In any case, Iran is starting to become a pain in the butt for the whole world, and that includes even the arab nations. I doubt anybody would really protest much beyond the usual "eh, US why you so big bully?" if they are shaken down a little.
NOBODY SHOULD HAVE NUCLEAR BOMBS. PERIOD. -
I'm afraid that's not going to happen anytime soon.Originally posted by Daniel-Lim:As far as the nuclear thing is concerned, I really feel that the west, Russians and Chinese and their allies all have to disarm if UN wants the moral right to tell others what to do.
NOBODY SHOULD HAVE NUCLEAR BOMBS. PERIOD.
But in the meantime we have to do our best to stop any more states from getting them. -
The UN is now paralyzed.
The new world order is a multi-polar mixed with religion alliance on one hand and economics interest in the other spectrum.
So somewhere in between Island like us is caught in the choppy wave. -
Same could be said of .. why they had given the initial location .. if they had such a recognised map to begin with.Originally posted by VikingS:^^
Then why did the Iranians change their claimed positions if they dont recognise the borderline? -
First of all... the FPDA is for the Defence of Singapore and Malaysia.. it is one way.. and I don't think there is a "commitment" on any parties... unlike NATO. But only that the five powers will be "consulted'.Originally posted by Arapahoe:have 1 question?
Does the 5 power defence agreement with Britain work in the other direction? we help them instead?
Hypothetically the path with Iranian get worst. EU and US are politically paralyzed and are not able to apply any military pressure.
UK find itself going in solo situation, can Britain initiate the defence agreement ?
Anybody have thought on this subject? -
Any idea who in the international community came up with this term "Grave Concern" -- China ?
because i have no idea what it actually mean or what its implicit meaning suppose to be a threat ? to whom? UK or iran? Walk by the grave yard is a grave concern....!!!
i think the brit must be really disappointed. -
Not a feasible option. Why?Originally posted by jianfish9:Just wack IRAN hard hard and get over with it once and for all. Film it on YouTube and send a copy over to N.korea.
Since Iran has no Nukes now, it would be the best time to do so now. Heck, it will even solve the problem in Iraq too.
Also, Britain occupies the moral upper ground now and can attack with full force and justification. US and Israel will also be happy to join in the fun. Don't think Iran can last long under full Uk, US and Israel attack. The mullah will be begging for peace before you know it.
1. If US or UK whack Iran, must do it to ensure all the nuclear & missile research and storage facilities completely destroyed (not just go in and rescue hostages). A superficial attack will result in ballistic missile attacks by Iran, or attacks by the Iraqi Shias allied with Iran on US/UK forces in Iraq, perhaps even missile strike on Israel from Iran or Hezbullah in Lebanon (which risks a much wider Arab-Israeli war). Also, many Iranian nuclear labs are either in residential neighbourhoods (ie. collateral damage, international outrage on the attackers) or too deep underground even for the latest "bunker busters" bombs.
2. Lack of political will. Blair's govt will face political revolt by his own Labour govt, even if if it is over 15 UK sailors, unless there are no other options for their release. US Congress is now Democrat-controlled, no stomach for another war after what has happened in Iraq.
3. The Brits have under 5000 soldiers in Iraq - not enough for any large-scale operation. US Forces (130,000) are severely depleted in Iraq theatre, most units, like retired Gen. McCaffrey said, at breaking point (under 50% op readiness). Air war alone is not enough to get rid of Iran's nuclear & missile programmes, boots on the ground are seriously needed to ensure Iran won't have nuclear weapons in 10 years. An invasion and possibly occupation is required. And Iran is not like Iraq in GW2 - they haven't been weakened and revenues from recent high oil prices have allowed them to go on a shopping spree for Russian arms lately. An attack/invasion will require hundreds of thousands of troops (and very high casualties) that US cannot handle right now.
4. Gulf states like UAE and Bahrain will not allow USAF to stage attacks on Iran from their bases, which means planes may be limited to Navy carrier-borne aicraft or from distant Europe (limited number of flights due to air-refueling requirements).