Came by this today on the newswire, its from last Friday:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html?cnn=yes
Basically, an American patrol on the Iranian border was surrounded by Iranian soldiers on Iraqi soil and told not to move. Being not British, the Americans moved. The Iranian troops opened fire and the Americans returned. The encounter ended with Iranians retreating into Iranian territory.
I find it interesting at how under reported it was in the media.
quote:
Being not British, the Americans moved.
HAH!
Ahmadinejad is trying as hard as he can to get carpet-bombed.
No offense to our British allies of course, but as even they will admit - their rules of engagement are basically "dont."
From a forums at the London Times (paraphrased), "So we allowed them to just kidnap 15 of our soldiers and their boats because they never shot at them. So if they chose to come and take the destroyer they were deployed from would we have just let them have it?"
This happened in September and we're just hearing about it?
I've come to the conclusion that an all out beatdown is inevitable in the Middle East.
It will be ugly, but it just seems like that part of the world needs an enema so they can get out of the Dark Ages.
There are exceptions like Dubai and Yemen, but for the most part all the Arab, and yes I know Iranians are Persian but I include them because their leadership is ****ing stupid, is stuck in the Dark Ages.
Until Iran is beat into submission, our troops are going to be deployed in the ME for a very long time.
I stayed up last night to watch the various news channels. The sailors smiling and chatting with the Iranian president was nauseating.
I'm anxious to hear what is said in interviews after they are returned to safety. Just curious if the Brits have really turned into a bunch of P@##$s or not.
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
I've come to the conclusion that an all out beatdown is inevitable in the Middle East.
It will be ugly, but it just seems like that part of the world needs an enema so they can get out of the Dark Ages.
It would be ugly alright, but for the country that consumes 25% of the world's oil (//%22http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption%22). Where have I heard "Bring it on" before?
That settles it, I'm moving to Niue, they only consume 20 bbls of oil a day.
Vatican city does pretty well on oil too. Though they have had a few foreign policy snafu's in the middle east in their history.
Given how the so-called "Iraqi Waters" that Britian claimed its sailors were in turned out to be "Disputed Waters" left over from the Iran-Iraq War, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this ended up being something similar.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Given how the so-called "Iraqi Waters" that Britian claimed its sailors were in turned out to be "Disputed Waters" left over from the Iran-Iraq War, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this ended up being something similar.
Can you give me source not written in Farsi that backs that up? The official position (//%22http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032800294.html?nav=rss_world/mideast%22) of the UK is that they were in Iraqi waters. Even if they were in "disputed waters" that doesn't give Iran the right to take hostages, unless I misunderstand the term "disputed."
More at The Guardian (//%22http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2050452,00.html%22)
quote:
Bilateral talks on disputed Gulf waters on agenda
Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday April 5, 2007
The Guardian
Britain is ready to discuss with Iran the whole question of territorial waters in the northern Gulf, the issue which was ostensibly the cause of the crisis, military officials said yesterday. "Who claims what waters needs to be resolved; there's no legal binding agreement," observed a senior defence source.
But before that the 15 sailors and marines seized by Iranian revolutionary guards will be debriefed, the navy will conduct a postmortem and a board of inquiry will be set up. They will address a host of questions, not least about training and the rules of engagement, defence officials admitted.
Article continues
They will look again at Iran's claims that the crew of two British boats which boarded the Indian-flagged merchant vessel 13 days ago were in Iranian waters. "If the incident occurred where the MoD claims, the British position appears strong but there are sufficient uncertainties over boundary definition to make it inadvisable to state categorically that the vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time of the arrest," said Martin Pratt, of Durham University's International Boundaries Research Unit.
It's not 100% clear, as previously assumed.
This Is London (//%22http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391596-details/Questions%20on%20the%20Iranian%20hostage%20crisis%20that%20must%20now%20be%20answered/article.do%22)
What I stated is the official position of the MoD. Personally, I tend to trust them rather than the guy that denies the Holocaust.
Regardless of whether they were or were not in "disputed" waters makes no difference. The fact that it's "disputed" waters means Iran has no right to take hostages any more than Iraq would have the right to take hostages if they found them.
The only justification of Iran taking hostages would have been if the UK sailors were in IRANIAN waters, period.
Disputed means that both the Iranians and the Iraqis claim it. It's the wild wild west, don't go there and you won't have any problems.
I wouldn't believe our own DoD 100%. It appears that in a way, both the Iranians and the MoD were correct. And Iran did admit that British sailors ended up there accidentally. Iran kept them out of Iranian Courts, and Iran and the UK are going to discuss the disputed waters.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Disputed means that both the Iranians and the Iraqis claim it. It's the wild wild west, don't go there and you won't have any problems.
I wouldn't believe our own DoD 100%. It appears that in a way, both the Iranians and the MoD were correct. And Iran did admit that British sailors ended up there accidentally. Iran kept them out of Iranian Courts, and Iran and the UK are going to discuss the disputed waters.
Iran kept them out of the courts because we have a President with an itchy trigger finger and an extreme distaste for terrorist nutjobs. Make no mistake about it, those two carrier groups hanging out in the Straits of Hormuz had more to do with Iran's Easter "gift" than anything.
So we have to stay out of any waters that Iran claims? Well damn, they occupied several small islands in the Gulf of ARABIA (note: I dont call it the Persian Gulf just to irritate Iranians) and claim the entire straight. Guess our carriers are stuck, that sucks.
Of course, the UN recognized the territory as Iraqi waters and the straights as international waters. But if IRAN says it might be there's I suppose we had better stay out. Oh wait, territorial waters are government by the International Treaty of the Sea and not Iran. Thank god. (holy cow, I learned the maritime law I learn).
Basically, even if the Brits were in Iranian waters the appropriate action would have been to escort them OUT of their waters. Confiscating their arms, taking them prisoner, and parading them on television was probably NOT the appropriate thing to do.
I liked Michael Savage's solution:
They should have started sinking two of Iran's naval vessels a day from day 1. They would have decimated the navy in about three weeks, then Iran's territorial waters would have become somewhat irrelevant.
In the origin documentation on costal waters they were set on the cannon distance to protect the shore of the country.
With the subs firing missiles what could one define as "territorial waters?"
What would US do if Iranians were to be in our territorial waters?
We have a whole passel of detainees locked up presently, many because we didn't like their looks. Although this is beginning to alarm the ME, we still will furnish little information on holding them.
We have established a civil war in Iraq trying the reinstall an exile government. We are dead set on starting the third world war.
Among those countries are nuclear warheads with the missiles capable of deliver them. They are children centuries old and we are still in dippers needing to be changed.
Lets get the hell out of there with our threatening carriers .
quote:
In the origin documentation on costal waters they were set on the cannon distance to protect the shore of the country.
So what?
quote:
With the subs firing missiles what could one define as "territorial waters?"
They're those funny little lines on that map they keep pointing at.
quote:
What would US do if Iranians were to be in our territorial waters?
Probably stick our foot up their a**. No one was in THEIR territorial waters. Have you not read anything on this?
quote:
We have a whole passel of detainees locked up presently, many because we didn't like their looks.
Care to back that up buster?
quote:
We have established a civil war in Iraq trying the reinstall an exile government.
Um. I think it was Zarqawi who admitted to exacerbating the issue, but what would he know?
quote:
Among those countries are nuclear warheads with the missiles capable of deliver them. They are children centuries old and we are still in dippers needing to be changed.
So what?
quote:
Lets get the hell out of there with our threatening carriers
Thank god you don't have a say in our foreign policy, and sentient adults do.
I have a great book by Professor Rex Zedalis called International Energy Law that goes into great detail about the history behind and the law of territorial waters:
http://www.amazon.com/International-Energy-Law-Rex-Zedalis/dp/0754621642/ref=sr_1_1/002-1627715-2424801?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175808128&sr=1-1
I'd be willing to loan it to you if you are interested.
Basically, territorial water started out at 3 miles because of the cannon range. Then they were extended to 12 miles. Now it is largely recognized that a nation has an exclusive economic zone out to the edge of their continental shelf or a minimum of 125 miles. At the time it was believe no one could have a use for the land under such waters beyond the shelf, since you cant drill there. However, new drill technologies are begging to open up possibilities OFF the shelf. This has spurred some conflict in the North Sea and looming issues in the Sea of Japan and the Gulf of Mexico.
This norm is shatter where countries cannot clearly delineate 125 miles and have to split the difference (Cuba and the USA for instance). Furthermore, international shipping channels are sometimes opened by treaty and exempted from the norm. However, the situation at hand is a linear delineation problem - drawing a line from the coast out that would incorporate an area into two countries. Similar to the Belgium-German water dispute in the 1990s.
It is my understanding that the Iran-Iraq territorial water dispute was settle by the United Nations Commission on maritime law shortly after the US turned over governmental operations to Iraq. I also understand that Iran has little use or need for recognizing the territorial sovereignty nor the rule of law if it conflicts with its own agenda. It is also worth pointing out that Iran has changed its OFFICIAL location of the conflict after initially reporting coordinates that were well inside Iraqi waters.
Therefor, I am forced to conclude that the events that transpire were likely INSIDE Iraqi waters but the Iranians were operating under the assumptions they were in their waters. By the time they realized their mistake, they could not save face and had to play it out.
(feel free to correct me on the law, that was from memory on a class I took a few years ago and havent had to reference since. Or were you not really interested in the law of the sea?)
The only correction I'd make, is back on that article from the Guardian:
quote:
They will look again at Iran's claims that the crew of two British boats which boarded the Indian-flagged merchant vessel 13 days ago were in Iranian waters. "If the incident occurred where the MoD claims, the British position appears strong but there are sufficient uncertainties over boundary definition to make it inadvisable to state categorically that the vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time of the arrest," said Martin Pratt, of Durham University's International Boundaries Research Unit.
They're mentioning the position as pointed out by British MoD, not Iran. They're stating that the position Britain claims their sailors were in: it appears to be a strong case, but it's not entirely correct or clear to say that is Iraqi waters.
It's not entirely incorrect either, but the explanations both from Britain and Iran seem to have similar credibility.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
The only correction I'd make, is back on that article from the Guardian:
quote:
They will look again at Iran's claims that the crew of two British boats which boarded the Indian-flagged merchant vessel 13 days ago were in Iranian waters. "If the incident occurred where the MoD claims, the British position appears strong but there are sufficient uncertainties over boundary definition to make it inadvisable to state categorically that the vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time of the arrest," said Martin Pratt, of Durham University's International Boundaries Research Unit.
They're mentioning the position as pointed out by British MoD, not Iran. They're stating that the position Britain claims their sailors were in: it appears to be a strong case, but it's not entirely correct or clear to say that is Iraqi waters.
It's not entirely incorrect either, but the explanations both from Britain and Iran seem to have similar credibility.
Nevertheless, the sailors are now out of harm's way, and we still have a crazy dictator bent on provoking an all out mid-eastern war.
"There is a tide in the affairs of men.........."
History records that incidents such a the tide of "territorial waters" often have swamped nations when they are caught in the undertow of the reclining tides.
The situation at hand with our interfering in their continues squabbling is liken to the old west ballad "Don't take your gun to town tonight".
CF in his post is well three pages ahead of where the interpretations we want to apply on this among many other incidents of which we are using to provoke the ME, in this undeclared war, to force unacceptable demands on people who don't want to accept our society or religion.
We want to use the UN rules that are to our advantage but to hell with them when we want to circumvent them.
They may have a dictator that is laying the foundations for an all out war but also we may have a president that is sitting at the other end of the table. In the today's world of invading of nations with justification based on hearsay, it could be better to save face and redraw before it ends up like the last two attempts to control the ME.
It is so easy to blunder in where the angels would not tread.
CF your point is well made as a logical explanations.
There is one question that we are overlooking. It is not my intention to suggest that out government would use false information to justify the action of Britain who is removing their troops from the area.
It has been indicated that a third ship may have been involved.
If you were in charge of a merchant ship on the high seas and entered in a area where an embargo was in effect and your ship was approached by a small boat with 7 armed Marines and 8 Sailors would you not consider you were under an unlawful search or attack?
What would you consider the need for the sailors except to commandeer your ship?
To protect your ship would you send a sos out for help?
If two gunboats answered your call from the closest land area would you turn them away because of the flag they were flying?
Does not the positing satellite pinpoint the location of where it all happened?
So much has been unanswered on this incident but the attention has been diverted to the holding for questioning those involved.
Of course our government would not give its citizens false information nor make false statements.
quote:
In the today's world of invading of nations with justification based on hearsay
Prove it.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
CF your point is well made as a logical explanations.
There is one question that we are overlooking. It is not my intention to suggest that out government would use false information to justify the action of Britain who is removing their troops from the area.
It has been indicated that a third ship may have been involved.
If you were in charge of a merchant ship on the high seas and entered in a area where an embargo was in effect and your ship was approached by a small boat with 7 armed Marines and 8 Sailors would you not consider you were under an unlawful search or attack?
What would you consider the need for the sailors except to commandeer your ship?
To protect your ship would you send a sos out for help?
If two gunboats answered your call from the closest land area would you turn them away because of the flag they were flying?
Does not the positing satellite pinpoint the location of where it all happened?
So much has been unanswered on this incident but the attention has been diverted to the holding for questioning those involved.
Of course our government would not give its citizens false information nor make false statements.
I think Rosie O'Donnell and Altruismsuffers just had a love child.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
In the today's world of invading of nations with justification based on hearsay
Prove it.
Four years with 30,000 American casualties and increasing, either dead or wounded, over a hundred thousand of the people that believe a creator assigned them the land forever, on hearsay of possibly they had weapons of mass destruction we have rekindled their civil war, with more loss of the youth of our future reported daily?
And you say prove it?
Have you ever looked at the real world.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
In the today's world of invading of nations with justification based on hearsay
Prove it.
Four years with 30,000 American casualties and increasing, either dead or wounded, over a hundred thousand of the people that believe a creator assigned them the land forever, on hearsay of possibly they had weapons of mass destruction we have rekindled their civil war, with more loss of the youth of our future reported daily?
And you say prove it?
Have you ever looked at the real world.
Hearsay huh? Let's look at this issue again.
Iraq had WMD, an undeniable fact. There were inspectors there to confirm the destruction of WMD that Iraq ITSELF declared. This defacto means they ADMITTED to the UN an the world that they possessed WMD. Were we to give the benefit of the doubt to the man who had flouted resolution after resolution from the US? No sensible person could have.
The question then becomes what happened to all the WMD that both Saddam and the UN AGREED THAT HE HAD? Your guess is as good as anyone elses, but to state that Iraq had no WMD is patently false as they admitted having as much. Interesting that he had exactly ZERO WMDs, that's kind of an odd number don't you think?
Saddam, the UN, France, Britain's MI6, Germany, Russia, Israel...and the list goes, on publicliy acknowledged that Saddam had WMDs and WMD programs either latent or blatant. After invading Iraq we soon learned that he was in discussions with NK to buy weaponry off the shelf (//%22http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/01/1070127352268.html%22) from Kim Il Kook, and the head of his nuclear program Mahdi Obeidi led us to a nuclear centrifuge (//%22http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/%22) that they had buried in his back yard. Yet we were still to believe Saddam and take him at his word?
We were warned ad nauseam before the invasion that WMDs were to going to be used not only against the USA, but Israel. Saddam had previously used said WMD on Kurdistan and Iran. Again, we were supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt?
Saddam NEVER accounted for his WMD, and to this day, no one can explain what happened to all the WMD he declared to the UN.
With all that said, I believe that you may misunderstand the term "hearsay."
Ignoring the other falacies in the statement and the simplification of the scenario (WMDs != the only reason for war)...
[edit]I wrote this as IP wrote his post so bare with me here[/edit]
Hearsay is a statement brought by someone other than the declarent to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
In the matter at hand, the declarant was the United States (Bush admin) and the statement brought was that Saddam had WMDs. BY definition, the declarent of the statement cannot be accused of hearsay never mind the fact that the statement was being made not to prove that Saddam had WMDs but to prove war was justified. Being a statement BY the declarent to prove something other than the truth of the matter asserted the United State's case for war was in no way hearsay.
Hearsay would be to say for the US to say "Israel said that Iraq has WMDs" as stated proof that Iraq had WMDs.
What the United States had in its case for war was circumstantial evidence and conjecture. Just like we did when we went to war with Spain after the sinking of the Maine, Mexico after they "invaded" their territory of Texas, and Germany after they sunk the weapons transport Lusitania. While in error in all of the above, such forms of evidence ARE evidence and can be used to prove ones point when used properly (I make no comment as the propriety of said information in this case).
Per your "one" question that I neglected:
quote:
It has been indicated that a third ship may have been involved.
If by may have you mean "necessarily" you are correct. All parties indicate the British sailors were searching a merchant vessel at the time.
quote:
If you were in charge of a merchant ship on the high seas and entered in a area where an embargo was in effect and your ship was approached by a small boat with 7 armed Marines and 8 Sailors would you not consider you were under an unlawful search or attack?
Not if I was in water patrolled and subject to search by a United Nations mandate that had been ongoing for 4 years or similar circumstances (ie Iraqi coast guard in Iraqi waters).
quote:
What would you consider the need for the sailors except to commandeer your ship?
Perhaps to navigate the vessel they were currently occupying, secure attachment to the merchant vessel, and facilitate boarding. As well as to properly inspect the ships log, port of origin papers and cargo.
quote:
To protect your ship would you send a sos out for help?
If I saw the British marines approaching my ship I would not send out an SOS. My first thought would be to prepare myself to be boarded and accumulate all of my needed documents to try and make it as minor of an interruption into my commercial activities as possible and AVOID getting shot.
In waters patrolled by American, British, and Iraqi forces under a UN mandate to search merchant ships this came as no surprise.
quote:
If two gunboats answered your call from the closest land area would you turn them away because of the flag they were flying?
Since you asked it, yes, I would refuse. If my vessel was being searched by the British and the Iranians came to 'help' I would thank them for their efforts and turn them aside. I do not recall the last time the British hired privateers to pirate merchant ships but Iran is currently accused of doing just that. I trust Britain over Iran.
quote:
Does not the positing satellite pinpoint the location of where it all happened?
Yes, and both the merchant ship in question and the British place it in Iraqi waters. Iran initially placed it in Iraqi waters and has since changed the position.
quote:
....Of course our government would not give its citizens false information nor make false statements.
My god, why the hell not? Remember when we told school children to hide from nuclear weapons under their desks or when pot smokers at their babies?
I hope I have answered your question(s).
I believe Madam Speaker had a meeting last week with the baby sitter of Iraq's WMD's- President Asshat.
I thought it was "general asshat."
Sorry about that sometimes I get confused on my superlatives. [;)]
Sorry that I questioned the half reported incident. I assumed hearsay was spoken by the third party and had little credibility.
Thus the creditability of the persons reporting the incident, leaving out the full particulars, that is hidden behind the sanctioned UN, which has been like a fellow hiding behind the tree.
The search for the WMD can be proven each day by the participants in the ongoing searches. In fact it would seem that by the increasing explosions and ground-to-air missiles the searchers are blindfolded.
Being one that has trouble recognizing that the sprit and the body separates when the body grows cold, I would assume that the noble justification of the search for WMD would have come to a positive conclusion by now. We could post it on the headstones of over three thousand and increasing graves that their losses were not in vain.
Ever story teller has a different story to tell...
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Sorry that I questioned the half reported incident. I assumed hearsay was spoken by the third party and had little credibility.
Thus the creditability of the persons reporting the incident, leaving out the full particulars, that is hidden behind the sanctioned UN, which has been like a fellow hiding behind the tree.
The search for the WMD can be proven each day by the participants in the ongoing searches. In fact it would seem that by the increasing explosions and ground-to-air missiles the searchers are blindfolded.
Being one that has trouble recognizing that the sprit and the body separates when the body grows cold, I would assume that the noble justification of the search for WMD would have come to a positive conclusion by now. We could post it on the headstones of over three thousand and increasing graves that their losses were not in vain.
Ever story teller has a different story to tell...
Yep. Some story tellers prefer to use fact and logic and some...well...
And the three thousand centrifuges (reported last night they are planning on 50,000) for uranium enrichment won't exist when we finally have to invade Iran either. Doesn't mean they weren't shuttled off somewhere else.
".........we finally have to invade Iran..."
Lets see Russia is assumed to have the 2nd largest oil reserve but they are buying M.E. oil.
China has not searched for oil although the dinosaurs that laid down the oil covered the entire planet. China depends on the M.E. for oil.
China has mastered nuclear elements and rockets. Ripley's marching Chinese that could march six abreast over a cliff forever, need a population reduction.
India rides the fence.
The relations between both the super powers grow more strained with the passing of each day. The Blimmies need the oil but they are going home.
We won't have to invite them to come on because they could be on their way.
Half the world have nuclear arms. We should be digging us a "fraidy hole" instead of beating our chest and yelling like Tarzan.
When are we going to invade Iran?
You know. If any of that made a lick of sense...I would attempt a response. And I would ask for clarification, but past experience tells me that would be a waste of time as well.
Try again in English bubba.
The post requires deep thought. During the flash of time we will be on the planet we have succumbed to again the violence that surpassed even that of Rome.
In our nation's capital elaborate fraidy holes are provided while the general public must follow as sheep to the slaughter house if ever a rocket is lunched. Course there will be up to 28 minute time lapse before touch down after star wars identify an incoming rocket.
London was subjected to the buzz bombs and V2 rockets in the 40's therefore as the Iraqi policing escalates they have demanded their leaders get the hell out of the conflict.
Is it so hard to understand we are a mixing pot of immigrants, established as a prison camp, domineering the American native. The mixing pot contains the ingredients as those of theNebuchadnezzar statue in his dream. Even in the melting pot they will not mix. In the lands we take our melting pot they will not accept the responsibility to stir the pot.
Even the once leaders of our military are reluctant to take over a cause that is doomed to results like Nam and Korea, They see a 6 month war going on as a civil war for years with increasing casualties.
Among us are those who think war is only play where the dead are only playing dead. The graves of those who will not be in the future picture are the ones who have paid for our negligence.
We love war and want to enforce on others the thrill of controlling them. In our homeland the number one resources to intimidate our people is through propaganda.
Even our own civil war continues, that took the lives of 25% of the participants' ; it continues hidden in the darkness of today.
Like England, listening to their people, who hosted the exile government of Iraqi, listen now to our people and "Get to hell out of the Iraqi civil war."
Shadows, I sincerely mean it when I ask this question. Does this style of writing come easily to you or do you put considerable effort into it? It has a strong resemblance to haiku and is difficult to follow (as others have indicated).
It comes easy to me as it is written on the assumption that readers have a reasonable knowledge of current and past events. I have a hard time thinking that the world was created in the fortnight with the breaking of each dawn being where history begins. The retaining of past events, in the single limited brain of our species, should and could be used as a guiding point for those who will become the future.
I have no reason to believe that among the species that retaining past experiences, in order to guide the future, that we will leave as a pattern to enable those who replace us, to continue a productive society and find a viable road to succeed by our faults.
As we are guided by the past which we bring into the present, projecting into the future and retain the hope that we can be a service to the future, not reverting back when society emerged from the caves.
The past artifacts are dug up today and reassembled in order to understand those societies that have come before us. It is our duty and obligation of a learned society to leave our foot prints in the sands for the future generations.
This style of writing comes easy to me as it is way to recall what many of the present wants to overlook.