Should/Will Britain invade Iran?

[sluffy]

I can't wait for Andranik to be caught offside on Saturday

Just remember he's an Armenian Christian and not a member of the Imperial guard. While I agree it would be nice to hear from one of our Iranian posters, they do have to be a little circumspect in offering political views.

Is this a side swipe at muslims? "they do have to be a little circumspect in offering political views"..why?

No, it has nothing to do with Muslims. It has to do with the need for dissidents to be circumspect in countries where the penalties for disagreeing with governments can be harsh and there is little respect for privacy of communications. People who post here can possibly be traced and could be penalized for the 'disloyal' or 'treasonous' views uttered. It would be true under white Christian fascists and or atheistic communist regimes, as well as Islamic theocracies. You are fortunate to have been brought up in a liberal democracy where you can express disagreement with official policies - so was I. Yet it is a privilege we enjoy because, inter alia, our servicemen have protected it regardless of how new or shiny their suits are. If you don't understand that others are not in the same fortunate position of being able to express their opinions freely, then you are very naive. I was merely suggesting that people do not take out their anger at the Iranian government's action on any Iranian they happen to know - such as Ando - regardless of religion.

Well said Monty.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Thanks, Sluffy. I've just realized I've been adding info to a message that is now buried.

I did look up some stats on the death penalty, as follows:

Edit: I've just looked up some stats. According to Amnesty International most executions takes place in China. Second highest in the world is Iran, where stoning and hanging are employed, third is Saudi Arabia and fourth is the good old US of A. These account for 94% of all known executions in the world. In 2006 Iran executed 4 children and, since 1990, is the world leader in this regard. Frankly I'd be circumspect.

Iran was the only country known to Amnesty International to have executed juvenile offenders in 2005. Iran executed at least eight people in 2005 for crimes committed when they were children, including two who were still under the age of 18 at the time of their execution. The USA banned the execution of juvenile offenders in March 2005 having previously been a "world leader" in the practice.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engACT500092006

In Iran, the death penalty is imposed for homicide, armed robbery, rape, blasphemy, apostasy, conspiring against the government, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, and drug-related crimes, for example, the possession of 30 grammes of heroin or 5 kilos of opium.

http://ipsnews.net/new_focus/deathpenal ... death2.asp
Teenaged women are on death row for stabbing rapists. Homosexuality a capital crime? Converting to another faith? Well, there you go.

[Little Green Man]

Blasphemy (God damn it!), apostasy (maybe I'll become a Buddhist or an atheist), adultery (been there, done that), etc. and tell me you would not be a little cautious about pissing off the authorities. Me - I'd have got the chop long since if I hadn't modified my behaviour there.

As a gift to the TW people, you're let off.

[The Bullett]

I can't wait for Andranik to be caught offside on Saturday

Just remember he's an Armenian Christian and not a member of the Imperial guard. While I agree it would be nice to hear from one of our Iranian posters, they do have to be a little circumspect in offering political views.

Is this a side swipe at muslims? "they do have to be a little circumspect in offering political views"..why?

No, it has nothing to do with Muslims. It has to do with the need for dissidents to be circumspect in countries where the penalties for disagreeing with governments can be harsh and there is little respect for privacy of communications. People who post here can possibly be traced and could be penalized for the 'disloyal' or 'treasonous' views uttered. It would be true under white Christian fascists and or atheistic communist regimes, as well as Islamic theocracies. You are fortunate to have been brought up in a liberal democracy where you can express disagreement with official policies - so was I. Yet it is a privilege we enjoy because, inter alia, our servicemen have protected it regardless of how new or shiny their suits are. If you don't understand that others are not in the same fortunate position of being able to express their opinions freely, then you are very naive. I was merely suggesting that people do not take out their anger at the Iranian government's action on any Iranian they happen to know - such as Ando - regardless of religion.

Edit: I've just looked up some stats. According to Amnesty International most executions takes place in China. Second highest in the world is Iran, where stoning and hanging are employed, third is Saudi Arabia and fourth is the good old US of A. These account for 94% of all known executions in the world. In 2006 Iran executed 4 children and, since 1990, is the world leader in this regard. Frankly I'd be circumspect.

Iran was the only country known to Amnesty International to have executed juvenile offenders in 2005. Iran executed at least eight people in 2005 for crimes committed when they were children, including two who were still under the age of 18 at the time of their execution. The USA banned the execution of juvenile offenders in March 2005 having previously been a "world leader" in the practice.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engACT500092006

In Iran, the death penalty is imposed for homicide, armed robbery, rape, blasphemy, apostasy, conspiring against the government, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, and drug-related crimes, for example, the possession of 30 grammes of heroin or 5 kilos of opium.

http://ipsnews.net/new_focus/deathpenal ... death2.asp
Teenaged women are on death row for stabbing rapists. Homosexuality a capital crime? Converting to another faith? Well, there you go.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

"People who post here can possibly be traced and could be penalized for the 'disloyal' or 'treasonous' views uttered"....which government are you refferring to?

[Harry Genshaw]

I think both Govts have behaved appallingly. The UK, because I'm inclined to believe our Forces have been nipping in and out of Iranian waters and Iran for shwoing the 'hostages' on TV.

What I cant get away from is my disappointment at the way the hostages behaved. Talk about singing like canaries. What happened to 'Name, Rank & No' and naff all else? I realise I'm not privvy to what they have possibly had to go through, but surely a Lieutenant should be aware of the drill, in how to behave when captured by hostile forces?

[The Bullett]

I think both Govts have behaved appallingly. The UK, because I'm inclined to believe our Forces have been nipping in and out of Iranian waters and Iran for shwoing the 'hostages' on TV.

What I cant get away from is my disappointment at the way the hostages behaved. Talk about singing like canaries. What happened to 'Name, Rank & No' and naff all else? I realise I'm not privvy to what they have possibly had to go through, but surely a Lieutenant should be aware of the drill, in how to behave when captured by hostile forces?

I think thats a little naive considering that you dont know what they have been told.

Also 'hostages'?, i dont believe that for a second.

[Harry Genshaw]

I think both Govts have behaved appallingly. The UK, because I'm inclined to believe our Forces have been nipping in and out of Iranian waters and Iran for shwoing the 'hostages' on TV.

What I cant get away from is my disappointment at the way the hostages behaved. Talk about singing like canaries. What happened to 'Name, Rank & No' and naff all else? I realise I'm not privvy to what they have possibly had to go through, but surely a Lieutenant should be aware of the drill, in how to behave when captured by hostile forces?

I think thats a little naive considering that you dont know what they have been told.

Also 'hostages'?, i dont believe that for a second.

How is it naive? Standard procedure, as far as I'm aware, is that as a captured combatant you are only required to give your name, rank and number. What they have been told is irrelevant. They are being held against their will and are therefore Prsioners until such time as they're released. I expected them to behave as such.

[The Bullett]

I think both Govts have behaved appallingly. The UK, because I'm inclined to believe our Forces have been nipping in and out of Iranian waters and Iran for shwoing the 'hostages' on TV.

What I cant get away from is my disappointment at the way the hostages behaved. Talk about singing like canaries. What happened to 'Name, Rank & No' and naff all else? I realise I'm not privvy to what they have possibly had to go through, but surely a Lieutenant should be aware of the drill, in how to behave when captured by hostile forces?

I think thats a little naive considering that you dont know what they have been told.

Also 'hostages'?, i dont believe that for a second.

How is it naive? Standard procedure, as far as I'm aware, is that as a captured combatant you are only required to give your name, rank and number. What they have been told is irrelevant. They are being held against their will and are therefore Prsioners until such time as they're released. I expected them to behave as such.

You called them 'hostages' earlier, now its 'prisoners'.

Are you proposing they be diciplined for not following procedure? I can see that going down well.

[Faran]

Congratulations on confusing several issues.

Thank you

The fundamental point re the capture of these sailors is where they were. Now which government changed its story having first said they weren't in Iranian waters?

According to the media, Iran. Now which country's waters did eye-witness fishermen claim your boys were in

And the treatment of Iraqis captured during a conflict is hardly the concern of a country that spent 10 years killing as many of them as it could.

It was 8 years and in defence of an invasion of our country sponsored by the west. also, deliberate attempts on civilian lives, including orphanages and hospitals, were only made by one side: The Iraqi state of America

This is about entering the territorial waters of another counrty, the facts of which are disputed. The crew of a UK vessel was acting legally under a mandate from Iraq's government, if it had strayed in to Iranian waters, and that's avery big IF, then the Captain of the Iraqi vessel could have warned the much smaller boat and escorted it out the area. A lightweight craft with 15 lightly armed crew is not an aggressive invasion force. Whether or not there was an incursion the reaction of Iran was far in excess of anything needed.

The Iranian border needs to be respected. It is to the advantage of England to know she can't send a cruiser in and be hit by missiles before she does

[/quote]

[Faran]

I think both Govts have behaved appallingly. The UK, because I'm inclined to believe our Forces have been nipping in and out of Iranian waters and Iran for shwoing the 'hostages' on TV.

Yes but what would have been assumed if Iran did not show the hostages in good condition?

[Faran]

Discussion of Iran's regime's human rights violations is irrelevant and disrespects that very important issue. Our regime is an atrocity; however what it does to its own civilians is a scaled-down version of what countries like Britain and the USA do to others' civilians, so the discussion is not relevant to the capture of 15 British naval personnel.

Also, I humbly hope it's okay to mention in the streets of Tehran you don't need 5 minutes to hear somebody blaspheme or do something else that should get them in trouble without anybody paying attention. People always deserve to be noted for their differences with their government, especially in a fake democracy, so I'm just noting this.

[Faran]

it is a terrible world where people would advocate sacrificing tens of thousands of lives to retrieve 15 soldiers because of jingoism and nationalism

I don't think any one is advocated that too seriously - certainly not the government. Clearly the approach is diplomacy, followed by sanctions. Your view that this took place in Iranian waters ("Seriously guys, these patrols are so routine, and the British government wouldn't be acting so benignly unless trespassing ocurred.") is, forgive me, extremely simplistic. Your are saying that if Britain was right they would have reacted more aggressively - basically in an excess of jingoism and nationalism. See the contradiction in your views?

As a resident of a peace loving country (the last time we declared war was in 1939 against Germany and since then our forces have only served under UN mandates, usually peace-keeping) I can view this matter more dispassionately. Iran lost a great deal of credibility by changing its mind about where the incident took place after their first position turned out to be in Iraqi waters. The fact that the captured soldiers apologized for trespass is absolutely meaningless since they would not know precisely where they were. The balance of probability in the view of the world is that they were in Iraqi waters. However, even if they crossed the line the Iranian forces should have warned them off not captured them and put them on TV. I think this whole matter has more to do with the UN concern about the Iranian nuclear program than it does about a border.

I see it as also simplistic to trust media...

[sluffy]

it is a terrible world where people would advocate sacrificing tens of thousands of lives to retrieve 15 soldiers because of jingoism and nationalism

I don't think any one is advocated that too seriously - certainly not the government. Clearly the approach is diplomacy, followed by sanctions. Your view that this took place in Iranian waters ("Seriously guys, these patrols are so routine, and the British government wouldn't be acting so benignly unless trespassing ocurred.") is, forgive me, extremely simplistic. Your are saying that if Britain was right they would have reacted more aggressively - basically in an excess of jingoism and nationalism. See the contradiction in your views?

As a resident of a peace loving country (the last time we declared war was in 1939 against Germany and since then our forces have only served under UN mandates, usually peace-keeping) I can view this matter more dispassionately. Iran lost a great deal of credibility by changing its mind about where the incident took place after their first position turned out to be in Iraqi waters. The fact that the captured soldiers apologized for trespass is absolutely meaningless since they would not know precisely where they were. The balance of probability in the view of the world is that they were in Iraqi waters. However, even if they crossed the line the Iranian forces should have warned them off not captured them and put them on TV. I think this whole matter has more to do with the UN concern about the Iranian nuclear program than it does about a border.

I see it as also simplistic to trust media...

I think the whole point of the matter is that even if we suppose that our men and woman were in Iranian waters, Iran's forces should simply have escorted them back over the boarder.

Why the need for 'capture' and 'confessions'?

It is obvious that they were taken for media purposes.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I see it as also simplistic to trust media...

I agree absolutely - one cannot trust the media or governments, although some have the appearance of being more reliable than others. It would be wrong to assert where exactly the incident took place based on the contradictory information we have received. I spoke only of the balance of probability which is at best only an indicator.

[Faran]

I can agree that under simple circumstances, the British sailors should have been warned off. It shows a disrespect for humanity to use human life to make a point, whether that is 1 life, 15, or thousands. However, as much as I abhor the regime in my country, I would be all for its taking steps to prevent harmful action against the lang by Britain and the United States, nations whose agendas I simply cannot support or tolerate. I can't know what kind of leverage Iran would have gained by taking trespassing soldiers into custody so judgement stops here...

Now as for whether or not they were trespassing: as you said you can view the matter more impartially than somebody like me and that's right. But I remain convinced that the circumstantial evidence here is stronger than the credibility of the hard evidence (whatever was presented in the lines of GPS, coordinates, etc). Knowing the common Iranian mentality, and also considering that it would be extremely random to go out and suddenly seize a random patrol especially risking a ship and men to do so, I tend to believe that the British sailors did enter Iranian territory.

It also comes down to this, that Iran is being demonized, but who are the real tresspassers in that whole region? Nothing against your very vast history and culture, and your people, of course, and as far as I am aware this war is very unpopular in England

At anyrate I am glad your soldiers are back and safe, that they were treated well, I am disappointed that the Iranians did not make an exception to the headscarf rule knowing that it would be a point of interest in the west, and especially glad that no bombs fell over this incident.

[Montreal Wanderer]

It also comes down to this, that Iran is being demonized, but who are the real tresspassers in that whole region? Nothing against your very vast history and culture, and your people, of course, and as far as I am aware this war is very unpopular in England

At anyrate I am glad your soldiers are back and safe, that they were treated well, I am disappointed that the Iranians did not make an exception to the headscarf rule knowing that it would be a point of interest in the west, and especially glad that no bombs fell over this incident.

The war is unpopular not only in England, but also in much of the US. My country, Canada, refused to join the coalition as there was no UN mandate. As a result we have suffered certain economic consequences from the Bush regime and we too have been demonized as a haven for terrorists. Border controls have been tightened against us. Still, I think it was the correct decision at the time. Of course we are in Afghanistan because there was a UN mandate, handed to NATO to carry out. I don't think anyone should demonize the Iranian people regardless of what their government does and says and the same should be true for Americans.

I am glad the situation was resolved in a win-win fashion.

[TANGODANCER]

I am glad the situation was resolved in a win-win fashion.

Rights or wrongs of it irregardles, I can't see much won by anyone here Monty. Surely a satelite camera could have proven where the boundaries lie and whether the patrol had crossed them? If it did a warning from the Iranian navy would have been sufficient to send them packing. The whole thing has been overblown and overplayed in my view. "A present to the British people", letting our own service personell go free for allegedly sailing into disputed waters. Government power-play in full-blown action here.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I am glad the situation was resolved in a win-win fashion.

Rights or wrongs of it irregardles, I can't see much won by anyone here Monty. Surely a satelite camera could have proven where the boundaries lie and whether the patrol had crossed them? If it did a warning from the Iranian navy would have been sufficient to send them packing. The whole thing has been overblown and overplayed in my view. "A present to the British people", letting our own service personell go free for allegedly sailing into disputed waters. Government power-play in full-blown action here.

It's a win-win because the troops are home unharmed, the crisis did not escalate, no one acknowledged fault and, most importantly, both sides say it may have opened up further diplomatic channels between the governments. Most other scenarios would have had one or two losers IMHO. Sure it has been a propaganda extravanganza, but even the Iranian press reaction is mixed according to the Beeb.

[communistworkethic]

I am glad the situation was resolved in a win-win fashion.

Rights or wrongs of it irregardles, I can't see much won by anyone here Monty. Surely a satelite camera could have proven where the boundaries lie and whether the patrol had crossed them? If it did a warning from the Iranian navy would have been sufficient to send them packing. The whole thing has been overblown and overplayed in my view. "A present to the British people", letting our own service personell go free for allegedly sailing into disputed waters. Government power-play in full-blown action here.

It's a win-win because the troops are home unharmed, the crisis did not escalate, no one acknowledged fault and, most importantly, both sides say it may have opened up further diplomatic channels between the governments. Most other scenarios would have had one or two losers IMHO. Sure it has been a propaganda extravanganza, but even the Iranian press reaction is mixed according to the Beeb.

I would't have thought so given Mr Blair's very clear statement about Iranian elements funding terrorism.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 59,00.html

[Montreal Wanderer]

I am glad the situation was resolved in a win-win fashion.

Rights or wrongs of it irregardles, I can't see much won by anyone here Monty. Surely a satelite camera could have proven where the boundaries lie and whether the patrol had crossed them? If it did a warning from the Iranian navy would have been sufficient to send them packing. The whole thing has been overblown and overplayed in my view. "A present to the British people", letting our own service personell go free for allegedly sailing into disputed waters. Government power-play in full-blown action here.

It's a win-win because the troops are home unharmed, the crisis did not escalate, no one acknowledged fault and, most importantly, both sides say it may have opened up further diplomatic channels between the governments. Most other scenarios would have had one or two losers IMHO. Sure it has been a propaganda extravanganza, but even the Iranian press reaction is mixed according to the Beeb.

I would't have thought so given Mr Blair's very clear statement about Iranian elements funding terrorism.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 59,00.html

I based it on my interpretation of Blair's remarks:

Mr Blair said new lines of communication had opened with Iran that it would be "sensible to pursue".
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6529431.stm)