| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2007 10:06:36 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
1. What do you think that their bad intentions might be? I think that they were captured either because they unlawfully entered Iranian territory (most states (inc. US and UK) arrests illegal aliens for the same reasons), or by mistake, or in an attempt to gain some diplomatic leverage. I am not sure that any of those reasons are "bad" in an evil sense (though they may be contrary to our interests).
2. It takes no genius to see that both governments have a huge interest in presenting evidence that they were acting within international law (and both have done so). I personally think that the British evidence is a bit more convincing too, but I am not blind to the alternative nor the the fact that the alternative view could be presented differently and more convincingly.
3. If the US were to respond with a military invasion, would that make the US a bully picking a fight on a pretext? |
1. not sure what their bad intentions are, but I'll bet everything I own they don't have good intentions! I heard the rule for when someone enters your water you chase them away, not take hostages. If they refuse to run you have a fight. So they are already being bad simply for grabbing them.
2. The British hasn't changed their story, and didn't give evidence that contradicted their story on the first release. I have a lot of trouble beleiving anything from Iran, now when they have to change their story... It's possible they made a mistake and thought they were in Iran water, but then they should still not have grabbed them and they should still not be holding them.
3. If the US responded it would be wrong because Iran did not take US people hostages. If the British end up having to use military tactics to get their people back it's called standing up for yourself.
...And what good does it do to parade them on TV and demand that they admit guilt before releasing them? Nothing good about this.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 11:02:23 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If it was a mistake, why not just release them?
The Iranian government has a history of hostage taking, including implications that the current president was involved in the 1978 seizure of the American embassy, why is outright kidnapping such a stretch? |
I am not saying that Iran is not taking advantage of the situation - just that it may not be as straightforward as Flash insinuated in his first couple of posts, nor that by being able to comprehend that the soldiers may have been trespassing (which would entitle a nation state to arrest them) that I am automatically an Iranian sympathiser. |
I never said you were an Iranian sympathizer.
Iran is taking advantage of a situation they created by taking hostages in the first place. Why would Iran go to all the trouble to capture them? Why not follow convention and simply chase the Marines from the area? |
|
|
|
03/29/2007 08:34:30 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I am sure that the soldiers will be released with little cost if we persevere with our current diplomatic approach - |
Britain needs to apologize
"The global positioning system on the ship proves the vessel was "clearly" 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters and that the boat was "ambushed" by the Iranian forces, British Vice Adm. Charles Style said."
I am not sure if an apology to Iran is considered "little cost"? Certainly in terms of immediate lives, it would be far better to loose a little face to secure 14-15 marines lives - however in terms of long term political posturing, the weak will always be trodden by the strong.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2007 08:38:10 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Louis:
And by the way - the title of the thread should be 15 Britons in Iran. :P |
Louis - please forgive my misuse of the '. As an English Literature major with a philosophy minor, I have always claimed poetic license when any gramatical error found its way into my writings.
;-}
We now resume our civil discourse...
|
|
|
|
03/29/2007 09:00:42 AM · #30 |
|
|
|
03/29/2007 09:12:26 AM · #31 |
|
|
|
03/29/2007 09:48:34 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Flash:
As an English Literature major with a philosophy minor, I have always claimed poetic license when any gramatical error found its way into my writings. |
Spelling too I guess. :P Btw, I enjoy being a hypocrite. (I misspelled 'apostrophe' five or six times in the aforementioned thread.) |
|
|
|
03/29/2007 09:51:09 AM · #33 |
From the article: "This reflects negatively on bilateral relations." Good grief. So what's kidnapping soldiers, a bouquet of roses? |
|
|
|
03/29/2007 02:13:56 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I am sure that the soldiers will be released with little cost if we persevere with our current diplomatic approach - |
Britain needs to apologize
"The global positioning system on the ship proves the vessel was "clearly" 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters and that the boat was "ambushed" by the Iranian forces, British Vice Adm. Charles Style said."
I am not sure if an apology to Iran is considered "little cost"? Certainly in terms of immediate lives, it would be far better to loose a little face to secure 14-15 marines lives - however in terms of long term political posturing, the weak will always be trodden by the strong. |
In my opinion, it would be entirely inappropriate to apologise.
I think that it is becoming increasingly clear that a solution involving little or no loss of face for either side needs to be found, and I am sure that it will be (or at least *could* be).
|
|
|
|
03/29/2007 02:25:56 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I never said you were an Iranian sympathizer. |
Then perhaps you would explain what you meant by "and thus again you give me the impression that you are sympathetic to Iran's cause".
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Iran is taking advantage of a situation they created by taking hostages in the first place. Why would Iran go to all the trouble to capture them? Why not follow convention and simply chase the Marines from the area? |
Given the apparent confusion about the coordinates of the ship in Iran I still have no trouble believing that the capture could have been effected by mistake.
Against those who have said it, I think it a little perverse to say that the Iranians deliberately and knowingly invaded Iraqi territory and kidnapped the soldiers, but then were mistaken about the coordinates of the capture when giving two sets of coordinates.
I think that the reason for the capture was opportunism in the context of political hostility. It is hard to give a counter example, given the different geography and circumstance, but I find it hard to believe that an Iranian gunboat operating off, say, Florida would be subject to nothing more than a chasing off, or that there would be no consequences whatsoever for the soldiers. Taking a hard line on trespass when your borders are being militarily threatened is not incomprehensible.
I listened to an ME expert speaking this evening on the radio who said that the video might seem perplexing (what was it intended to achieve?) - but that the Iranians may have intended it to defuse the situation by showing the soldiers to be safe but misjudged the British popular reaction to the style of video.
Message edited by author 2007-03-29 14:28:02.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2007 02:31:38 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I have always claimed poetic license when any gramatical error found its way into my writings.
|
"...when any grammatical error has found its way..."
(sorry - couldn't resist!)
|
|
|
|
03/29/2007 02:38:56 PM · #37 |
I'd bet this was a planned mission by Iran to grab some hostages. I doubt this was a simple patrol that came across the Britons and chose to capture them. They watched them inspect ships for a few weeks and came up with a plan to come in and take them without a fire fight. They probably intentionally grabed Britons rather then Americans as well.
And again, the rule of the sea is to chase them out, not take hostage. Even IF they were in Iran waters, Iran is not justified in taking them hostage.
This is Iran testing to see what they can get away with.
Message edited by author 2007-03-29 14:39:19. |
|
|
|
03/29/2007 02:43:29 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I never said you were an Iranian sympathizer. |
Then perhaps you would explain what you meant by "and thus again you give me the impression that you are sympathetic to Iran's cause".
|
I would gladly explain it if I had said it. I did not.
I believe it was Flash who posted the phrase you attribute to me. |
|
|
|
03/29/2007 02:51:01 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Iran is taking advantage of a situation they created by taking hostages in the first place. Why would Iran go to all the trouble to capture them? Why not follow convention and simply chase the Marines from the area? |
Given the apparent confusion about the coordinates of the ship in Iran I still have no trouble believing that the capture could have been effected by mistake.
Against those who have said it, I think it a little perverse to say that the Iranians deliberately and knowingly invaded Iraqi territory and kidnapped the soldiers, but then were mistaken about the coordinates of the capture when giving two sets of coordinates.
I think that the reason for the capture was opportunism in the context of political hostility. It is hard to give a counter example, given the different geography and circumstance, but I find it hard to believe that an Iranian gunboat operating off, say, Florida would be subject to nothing more than a chasing off, or that there would be no consequences whatsoever for the soldiers. Taking a hard line on trespass when your borders are being militarily threatened is not incomprehensible.
I listened to an ME expert speaking this evening on the radio who said that the video might seem perplexing (what was it intended to achieve?) - but that the Iranians may have intended it to defuse the situation by showing the soldiers to be safe but misjudged the British popular reaction to the style of video. |
I don't think an Iranian gunboat operation off the coast of Florida is a good example, for many reasons. They have no ongoing military operations nearby, they have not been routinely patrolling the area for some months without incident and there's little confusion about where international waters begin and end.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2007 03:47:47 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
I have always claimed poetic license when any gramatical error found its way into my writings.
|
"...when any grammatical error has found its way..."
(sorry - couldn't resist!) |
I completely understand. Sometimes the temptation is strong!
|
|
|
|
03/29/2007 03:49:49 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I never said you were an Iranian sympathizer. |
Then perhaps you would explain what you meant by "and thus again you give me the impression that you are sympathetic to Iran's cause".
|
I would gladly explain it if I had said it. I did not.
I believe it was Flash who posted the phrase you attribute to me. |
Although I'm a bit confused on who was quoting whom when, I certainly admit to the phrase "sympathetic to Iran's cause" as originally posted by me.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2007 07:14:49 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
...that it may not be as straightforward as Flash insinuated in his first couple of posts, nor that by being able to comprehend that the soldiers may have been trespassing (which would entitle a nation state to arrest them) that I am automatically an Iranian sympathiser.Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Matthew:
[quote=Spazmo99] I never said you were an Iranian sympathizer. |
Then perhaps you would explain what you meant by "and thus again you give me the impression that you are sympathetic to Iran's cause".
|
I would gladly explain it if I had said it. I did not.
I believe it was Flash who posted the phrase you attribute to me. |
Sorry - the confusion started when I was not clear in the first of the above quotes that I was explaining to Spazmo my response to Flash.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2007 07:26:01 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't think an Iranian gunboat operation off the coast of Florida is a good example, for many reasons. They have no ongoing military operations nearby, they have not been routinely patrolling the area for some months without incident and there's little confusion about where international waters begin and end. |
The general point I was trying to make was that when you are dealing with military forces in what you think to be your territorial waters from a nation that has expressed deep hostility to you, then capture may not sound so unreasonable.
It is very easy to think in terms of right and wrong and to forget that there are people with all the same capacity as you or me facing the exact same issue from the other perspective - but from a different (not necessarily wrong) history and potentially opposite point of view. Words like evil have very limited place in this kind of analysis and are too easily bandied around.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 12:29:15 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't think an Iranian gunboat operation off the coast of Florida is a good example, for many reasons. They have no ongoing military operations nearby, they have not been routinely patrolling the area for some months without incident and there's little confusion about where international waters begin and end. |
The general point I was trying to make was that when you are dealing with military forces in what you think to be your territorial waters from a nation that has expressed deep hostility to you, then capture may not sound so unreasonable.
It is very easy to think in terms of right and wrong and to forget that there are people with all the same capacity as you or me facing the exact same issue from the other perspective - but from a different (not necessarily wrong) history and potentially opposite point of view. Words like evil have very limited place in this kind of analysis and are too easily bandied around. |
Ah yes, the Iranian government must not be evil, they just commit evil acts. Repeatedly. Even in the very act of their creation.
Message edited by author 2007-03-30 00:30:54. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 11:15:33 AM · #45 |
Todays's MSNBC article
"I don̢۪t know why the Iranian regime keeps doing this, all it does it heightens people̢۪s sense of disgust."
I Agree
On a different note - this quote "On Friday, however, the Turkish prime minister̢۪s office said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had indicated his government is willing to reconsider freeing Turney, who is married and has a young daughter." brings up the issue of women in the military and women's rights in general. If there is to be no distinction between the genders, then what does it matter that this female marine has a husband and daughter? My point, is that it does matter, as most would feel (imo) that special consideration should be given, and have her reunited with her family. Since it matters, then why do we insist on being politically correct and pretend that the genders are equal. They are not. Certainly not in War. My opinion is that the male marines are capitulating to their captors demands (read admissions of trespass) in an attempt to sheild the female marine from potential harm or threat of harm. I do not believe for one moment that these marines are espousing their quoted positions FREELY and without duress.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 12:54:22 PM · #46 |
On top of everything else, the Iranians hate the Beatles. :(
"In Tehran, about 700 people staged a brief demonstration against the British sailors' actions. Leaving Tehran University campus after Friday prayers, the protesters walked a few hundred yards down the road chanting "Death to Britain!" and "We condemn the British invasion!"
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 02:22:16 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Ah yes, the Iranian government must not be evil, they just commit evil acts. Repeatedly. Even in the very act of their creation. |
Maybe its time to review the list of accusations laid against the door of the US: some of those acts are "bad" - some (not necessarily me) would class them as evil (today heralded the release of another probably innocent man after 5 years of solitary confinement without trial in Guantanamo Bay). Does that make the US an evil regime?
I would argue not - but by your standards (if yu could apply them objectively) it would be.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 02:42:04 PM · #48 |
Matthew, speaking generally, I'm sure you would agree that the possibility exists for a regime to be inherently bad, in the sense that its government or even its raison d'être is inimical to its environment, its people, its international community, or the world in general. As an obvious example, who could argue but that Germany from 1933 to 1945 was "bad". Perhaps you could also agree that Zimbabwe's current regime is "bad" for its people.
Likewise, consider the actions of the Iranian government in this case. They have apparently abducted foriegn nationals from waters they don't control. They have promised release of the female service person, and immediately reneged on that promise. And today, it is painfully obvious that the entire incident is being used by Iran as a propagandist tool of happenstance.
Whereas I appreciate the logic of perspective, and I subscribe to the notion of the non-existence of evil, it strains credulity to suggest that this issue does not show that Iran is "bad". It is extremely bad, especially in light of the current nuclear crisis with Iran. At the very least, it underscores how bad this regime is for its own people when you consider that baiting foreign Western powers is merely going to foment resentment toward Iran at best, and push those powers ever closer to armed conflict at worst. How is this good for Iran? How does this demonstrate Iran's neutrality? How is this a reasonable response to whatever provocation they feel threatened by? |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 02:55:20 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Ah yes, the Iranian government must not be evil, they just commit evil acts. Repeatedly. Even in the very act of their creation. |
Maybe its time to review the list of accusations laid against the door of the US: some of those acts are "bad" - some (not necessarily me) would class them as evil (today heralded the release of another probably innocent man after 5 years of solitary confinement without trial in Guantanamo Bay). Does that make the US an evil regime?
I would argue not - but by your standards (if yu could apply them objectively) it would be. |
Would you also argue that Iranian and the US governments operate equivalently free societies? Or are the freedoms of individuals in a society irrelevant to the good or evil contained therein?
There is a large difference between those detained during operations on a battlefield on which a government is actively engaging an enemy and those captured and held as pawns by a government which is supposedly not involved in active conflict.
As for the individual released from Guantanamo, was he also paraded on TV and forced to make false, public proclamations of guilt?
Message edited by author 2007-03-30 15:02:03. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 05:39:43 AM · #50 |
Your comments are so ignorant, Matthew, that I don't even know where to begin. Come spend a little more time over here in the Middle East and have your eyes opened. Better yet, just go into London and look at the filthy extremists that are taking over your nation so you can catch a glimpse of what your future will be like if better men than you don't put their lives on the line while your sort sits back and whines.
Message edited by author 2007-03-31 05:52:43. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/18/2025 03:07:55 PM EDT.
