Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Iran: Britain Must Admit Navy "Trespassed"

Iran today demanded that Britain publicly lie and humiliate itself if it ever wants to see its Navy personnel again. "First they have to admit that they have made a mistake. Admitting the mistake will facilitate a solution to the problem," said Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. Of course the West has become so weak-kneed that we can all expect that British groveling will be involved.


  1. Iran is milking this for all it is worth, I'll give you that. And it is humiliating. But the facts surrounding this situation are being lost under the hype (on both sides). When British sailors were captured in 2004 in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway,they admitted guilt because the border (although semi disputed) is more clearly accepted between Iraq/Iran. Britain admitted fault just to end the whole affair, because the dispute leant more to Iran being right.

    Waters "outside" of the Shatt-al-Arab (where this latest incident supposedly took place) have "NEVER" been mutually agreed upon by Iran and Iraq though.Due to this,the British government has created an imaginary maritime border temporarily, and this is the one that is being used on all the news networks to show Britain was in the "right". True if they believe their "own" map, but an outright lie if they're telling the world that this line is an internationally agreed upon border that Iran should recognize too.

    It is not. What we are left with is a childish dispute and nothing more. A dispute that some are getting so worked up over now, that they want to go and "nuke iran".

    Iran doesn't have to recognize this imaginary line Britain is using, and Britain doesn't have to recognize the imaginary line that Iran is using. Because neither Iran or Iraq came to any agreement over this area. Iran wants Britain to admit a mistake because they see it as a mistake by Britain. Britain will refuse because they think they are in the right (according to their map). It is annoying to see British sailors paraded on Iranian TV. But that is what happens when Iran is constantly having pressure put upon it by outside nations.

    If the debate were really to go ahead, some could argue that the imaginary line being used by Iran, is older than the one being used by Britain. Irans imaginary line was there first, we could say. Britains came recently. Of course, I'd assume people who want to bomb Iran over this issue,don't care about such details because it makes their "legitimate" case for war,wobble.

  2. When I said "the West has become so weak kneed" it is attitudes like that that I had in mind. It is a pathological need to excuse evil at every opportunity. I for one have never urged the bombing of Iran because of this issue. Iran should be bombed at its nuclear facilities for much larger reasons than the fate of these 15 soldiers, and I suspect that ultimately that is exactly what will happen without regard to this particular issue, those this could turn into a justifiable pretext to move of the larger issue at hand, and that is Iran and a Nuclear bomb. In any event, let be encourage you to scroll down to the video of Evan Sayet. Please watch it even if you disagree with it completely. It's a bit long (50 min) but well worth it. It will explain in detail how we "Neocon" came to think the way that we do. And I am proud of it.

  3. Please tell me what is "weak kneed" about looking into what we are fed by our government and then spread by our media, and checking if those facts are correct? Weakness exists in just buying whatever we are told, and being led by the nose don't you think? Or do you promote that people just accept blindly?

    At the moment,I don't have time right now to watch the whole video (but I will) and only saw the first 10 minutes or so of the video.

    Having watched that first part and by you pointing me towards it,it appears you think I'm someone who hates Britain or America and that I'm "siding with the enemy". One of those folks who would probably accuse me of being a "traitor" simply because I don't just swallow the government line without looking a little deeper myself. You began your response with "it is attitudes like that", suggesting I'm excusing evil (pathologically). Bizzare.

    Nobody is excusing anybody here. I'm pointing out the root of this ridiculous situation that is being hidden by both sides, which proves that both sides are neither right 'nor' wrong, and that both are simply going by imaginary lines which have not been accepted internationally. Neither side can claim they are being legitimate. Both claim their lines are official.Both are talking nonsense.

    Iran is certainly acting like a child gloating over its trophy, and I have not 'excused' such behaviour at any time. Britain should not have to apologize in order to secure release. But the truth is, there is no difference in Irans government feeding its citizens that we were in 'Iranian' waters, and the British government feeding its citizens we were in 'Iraqi' waters. Both are misleading us.

    I fully support the restrained way in which Britain is currently dealing with this matter. Didn't Churchill (who I know you admire) once say "Jaw-Jaw,Not War-War" until no other option exists?

    Many Britons (since this GPS article published by the British government) now wish we'd gone in with full force immediately. But that would have given Iran what it "wanted". Given them an excuse to call "us" the aggressor. People must realize this. The British government saying that without a doubt we were in Iraqi waters, is witholding something. Without knowing the whole story, our people here have been unncescessarily wound up to "attack" aggressively, because they are not being told "why" Iran views this as trespass.

    Eventually,we may "have" to take a much harder line in order to free our people, and I will support it if it comes to that (when all other options fail) because Iran has been holding these people too long already. But until then I will challenge the "official" version of events given from 'both sides.

    Iranian citizens have been behaving with more caution and moderation in their opinions over this matter than the brutish aggressive comments I've been reading from many of my fellow Brits on some newsboard. That is interesting.

  4. Of course, I never called you a "traitor", nor did I recommend a bombing campaign in relation to this matter alone. As mentioned, there are far larger justifications and needs to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities than the issue of 15 kidnapped sailors. Watch the entire video when you have a chance.
    Your mention of "both sides" is a product of conditioning from childhood which precludes you from recognizing and confronting evil. The very world "evil" probably makes you squirm because the world in which you grew up (I grew up in the same culture), you were likely taught form age 5 that everything is relative, all ideas have equal merit, and that you should be non-discriminating in every aspect of life, including in the battle of ideas. These principles, deeply ingrained in millions of Westerners limits your ability to distinguish good from evil, right from wrong, success from failure, etc... And has eroded your basic instincts of survival and self-preservation to the point where you will see good as bad, up as down, right as wrong, etc... as long as you can continue to avoid the harsh reality that not all ideas are equal an that there is real evil in the world that must be confronted. Anyway, that's my free psycho-analysis for the day. Watch the video and take your best shot. Best,

    PS: Your Churchill quote is indeed correct. Again, I have not advocated bombing Iran on this issue. Yap, Yap is probably the only alternative at this point on that matter.

  5. No mention of the maps then? Ah,well I didn't think anyone would be interested. It disturbs certainty. My experience (no,I wasn't taught this at age 5) in life,has shown me that the world is frequently "grey"and not a clear cut "black or white". Nobody needed to tell me this. Even when early experiences 'appeared' to be showing me the world was a clear cut case of black and white,things were not as they appeared. That is the awful truth.

    Once you look beneath the surface,you will be horrified. It frequently shows itself when it comes to politicians and politics. If you subscribe to the spin that there is a clear wall between "good" and "evil" and the two don't mirror each other,I'd say you need to read more history and how this popular theory has often been proved delusional.

    That wall is as fake as the 2 maps these nations are using and calling each other "wrong" with.But I'm glad that you at least agree that diplomacy is the way to approach this particular crises until there is no other option.

  6. One of the reasons that I ignore the "map" is because my position is; even if they did stray accidentally into Iranian territory, so what? Do you believe thay were an "invasion" force? You always empahsize "context", then how about a little context in this case? So no, unlike you I would believe the British position over the Iranian position, but even if the British position is wrong, that would justify this circus? I don't think so. It's all part of your usualy tendency to automatically excuse evil, and bending over backwards to fail to recognize evil when it is staring you in the face. All it takes for evil to prevail in the world is for good people to sit back and do nothing, or in your case, to excuse it all day long in the name of some sort of religion that cannot see anything but shades of gray. I will grant you that it is not a good idea to always see things in black and white, and to recognize the nuances. But at the end of the day we live in the real world, not the theoretical world that you seem to prefer. Are you a college professor or teacher of some sort? because they tend to fall into that trap more than most.

  7. Did I say that I believe the Iranian position 'over' the British,Joe? Not that I'm aware of.

    My view is that 'both' are witholding vital information about this whole border affair,and that is my concern here. My position is that both sides are playing a game by presenting their maps as "official" (when they're not) to their citizens and to their media.

    Both sides are witholding information which "might" settle this a lot quicker. Iran certainly seems to have an agenda for doing so. Britain perhaps too,considering its existing tensions with Iran.

    Once again you say I'm bending over backwards excusing evil. Although I condemn the way in which the Iranians are making TV celebs out of British sailors and 'possibly' coercing confessions out of them,I don't consider this latest game they are playing, "evil" either.

    It is petty. But "evil"?

    Having their heads carved off on camera and then shown on BBC? Well, that is something else entirely.

    Although that may still happen (very little chance of it I'd guess),at the moment the sailors are just being used as toys in a silly political tit for tat and ego posturing that is taking place on both sides. If they had first appeared wearing orange suits with blindfolds on and some guy standing behind them reading loudly from a sheet while holding a knife, this would be a "completely" different matter. You say "so what" if it's somehow proved (which I don't think can happen because both are using unconfirmed maps) that they did stray into Iranian waters. Hmm.

    I'm not sure if Britain or the U.S would just say "so what" if a patrol boat of armed personel was drifting around in their waters.

    Granted,I don't know how it works with the coastal patrols in U.S/U.K but here I believe we tend to warn them and escort them out first, I think. Only arresting them if there is clear evidence of some crime or they want to question. I'll certainly admit that we don't show captives on TV and get them to confess. Iran obviously does things quite differently.

    Suggestion : A nice quote from me for any " wooly minded liberal moonbat quote of the week" posts= "Iran obviously does things quite differently". :D

    No,I don't think they were an invasion force. I have also stated above, that should diplomacy completely fail (which is possible if both sides keep being stubborn), or if the sailors are harmed,then Britain will have to take hard action, and I will support its action to get our people back.

    Going in 'now' with all guns blazing, simply gives the Iranian regime what it probably "wants".

    It wants someone to attack "it" in my opinion. Whoever is pulling the strings behind the scenes in Iran, has probably got all this worked out if it "was" a pre planned capture, and knows that most westerners would love to send a gunboat or the SAS in. Military analysts here in UK have said such suggestions are delusional.The SAS flying into the middle of Teheran on a daring "who dares wins" mission would satisfy our British egos for sure, but would probably end up with their dead bodies being shown along with a perfect 'excuse' to declare Britain an aggressor.

    Diplomacy must crawl onwards. As boring and meek as it is,it must.

    So I don't consider this a case of "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". Both sides (if they were willing) could sit down together and come to a clear agreement on this border once and for all, for the release of the hostages and also to prevent future hullabaloo like this. But no, both are prolonging this affair by insisting they are going by official borders that the world fully agrees upon.

    (which isn't the case)

    No I'm not a teacher nor a college professor. I've been working full time since the age of 17 in the real world and don't languish in colleges and university observing life from a theoretical viewpoint.


  8. Have you counted how many times you mentioned "both sides"? You certainly seem eager to see "both sides" when it comes to conflict between the arsonist and the fire department. When I say "evil," I mean it in the larger sense when it comes to Iran, of which this little incident is only further evidence there of.

    I have no doubt that a precise bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities; a campaign that will set back their nuclear ambitions by decades is the answer. It will achieve the right message, eliminate a growing threat and do so with minimal casualties to ourselves. Naturally the risk is high because it is not entirely possible to know the Iranian response and its capabilities, but that risk is miniscule compared to the risk of sitting back and doing nothing as these Mullah obtain nuclear weapons.

  9. Yes I am eager to see both sides, Joe. In regards to a targetted bombing of Iran,my view is concern should be less about Irans military capabilities, but more a case of how most every day Iranians that didn't even support Ahmedinejad, will respond to an outside power bombing selected targets from the air, and denying that nation to develop nuclear power. I'm not so sure they're just going to shrug their shoulders and say - "Oh well". It will send a message alright. But the chances are, it won't be one that will cause them to shrug their shoulders and surrender.


Please keep it clean. Comments do not reflect the opinion of this blog and are the sole opinion of the commenter. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. Of course, opposing views are welcomed.

Auto-flagged and monitored IP addresses:
Teksavvy - IP 76.10.141, Onterio, Canada.
Charter Communications - IP 68.188.68. Ballwin, Missouri