We aren't the Americans though Nexxo, and that's a crucial fact. We may have not declared war on the US to get Guantanamo closed, but various ministers in this country have been trying fairly hard to at least get Guantanamo to release the UK citizens and mostly just to get it closed down completely. Of course Iran is probably playing into the tension etc. between us and the US. I actually reckon the UK government will probably handle this the smartest way, I just can't see what that is. Gotta say though, this has really changed my position of support for a war on Iran.
We may not be the Americans, but we are its annoying weedy "me too" friend that sticks out his tongue and shakes his fist at its bullied victims from behind the safety of its broad back. We have not been too vocal in objecting to Gitmo: the US is holding Brits hostage too. Are we going to declare war on them? And UK service personnel were there to be captured, because we followed the US into an illegal occupation of Iraq. To Iran, we all look alike. You know, like we think all Muslims are terrorists. If you suddenly think war with Iran is a good idea, then you have been masterfully played --and not by Iran's aggressive politics. It has been poked with a pointy stick for years now, so it's not surprising that it has turned into a bit of a mean dog. As for the UK government's statement that "we were really in Iraqi waters, guv, honest", I would possibly lend more credence to their words if they had not so blatantly distorted facts in the past in the interest of justifying a war on Iraq.
In a touch more cynicism, the commentators seem to have dropped all political correctness with the perils of a young girl, and a mother to boot, in the hands of these savages. I'm surprised they didn't photochop out the cigarette, but maybe that was left in to emphasise the desperate straits she's been driven too. Blair should play the sexist card; "Look, lads, OK, we were in your stretch, but be fair, bloody women drivers!"
I say keep working the diplomatic route to ensure the release of these forces, mainly through the UN. If another week goes by and nothing much has happened, I'd start playing hardball a bit more - ban flights from Iranian airlines, freeze Iranian assets etc, our own economic sanctions on Iran and try to get the EU/UN to do similar. Don't do owt daft like expelling their diplomats or anything, because we need to keep talking to try and get the soldiers back peacefully, but it also needs to be made clear that this cannot continue and that we and others will punish Iran for its actions. All this debate over the border and who's territory our forces were in is largely irrelavent to my mind - even if we did violate their waters, international law and a modicum of common sense in seeking to avoid escalation in the light of existing tensions would suggest that the iranians should simply just have escorted our forces out of their waters rather than capture and imprison them, then lodge a protest through the 'normal' diplomatic channels.
Yahoo just told me that they aired a sailor publicly apologizing to the Iranian people. Will - that's Beetlejuice in your avatar, right?
No its the judderman from the freaky metz adverts aired ages ago (and subsequently banned for scaring kids!) http://youtube.com/watch?v=1TUOPeNJCK
It is more complicated than that. Iran basically has three more or less competing powerhouses: the unelected religious Leadership Council, inc. Supreme Leader who has more power than the President, and in fact is the only one with the power to declare war; the elected President and parliament, and the military Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) which is pretty much a law onto itself, regardless what the Leader or President decree (it gets more complicated than that, but you get the idea). So you see the problem: the IRGC captured these soldiers, and pretty much can decide what to do with them regardless of what the President or Leader say about the matter. All that posturing by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a face-saving exercise to hide that he has little political power in this matter. The Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's opinion may have more weight, but he is currently known to have personal worries of his own: he is suffering from cancer, and taking considerable quantities of an opium-based pain killer. He has lost more than 17 pounds in the past ten months, and was told last spring that he was unlikely to see another New Year (In the Iranian calendar, the New Year begins at the end of March). This may put a considerable kink in the situation, depending on who succeeds Khamenei. The leading candidates include Mahdi's archrival, Rafsanjani, and his "spiritual mentor," Mesbah-Yazdi, a hardcore jihadist nut who's bestowed Koranic sanction on slavery and the use of nuclear weapons, among other things. Nice (and to think, that Iran had a democratic moderate government before we decided to make some alterations). The diplomatic option has only a very small launch window. If we treat Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a certain amount of political credibility and respect (I know, I know, but go with it for a second), chances are that his power and status in Iran will become more galvanised and that the next Supreme Leader will be more moderate also. If we continue marginalising him and Iran, we will play into the hands of the fundamentalists. And those guys not only play for keeps, but will find more sympathy and support amongst the other Middle Eastern countries than we ever will. It is time to stop posturing, and start having some quiet talks with the guy to see how this dilemma can be resolved to the political benefit of both sides.
The link is broke, but I found what you were talking about anyways. lol, now that's a decent booze commercial! This is what I thought it was.
Good news that they are on their way home, but the whole charade of the release was a major publicity stunt filmed for the benefit of the Iranian people. I suppose the real story of their confessions will come out soon.
Really?? or will it be yet another round of spin. One thing does confuse me, I thought when our military personel were captured they were not ment to engage in conversations other than rank and name type things? has this policey changed or even ever existed?
When they arrive home, no doubt we will add or own bit of spin to it,but any sane person can tell that the servicemen and woman were working from a script whilst in captivity.
Under the Geneva convention all that a military person is required to give to the enemy is name, rank and number. But when you're in the middle of Tehran not knowing whats going on, not having been given any counter-interrogation training, and not knowing if anyone even knows you've been captured for sure - you'd probably just go along with the script.
Well, it looks as if some diplomats realised that: A week after the vocal condemnations have died down, and everything has gone quiet, surprise surprise, the sailors are coming home. Nice to see some diplomats earning their fat paychecks --once the politicians stop running interference. And did you expect anything else? If we are wise enough (which I sincerely doubt), then we let President Ahmadinejad have his moment. At least we can work something out with the guy. But if we undermine his political power and credibility at home, he will be replaced by a fundamentalist who will make Ahmadinejad look like Bill Clinton by comparison, and who will have the next batch of sailors publicly beheaded just to make a point. And we really don't want that now, do we? That policy probably changed at the first mention of interrogation. Even just the unmentioned threat of torture is as effective as torture itself, because your imagination gets to really fill in all the details. It works particularly well if they are being friendly and you are made comfortable first, because now you have something to lose. No-one has ever been to room 101, but everybody knows what lies behind that door... If I were in those sailors' shoes, I'd dress up like Julie Andrews and sing "The Sound of Music" if the Iranians wanted me to.
We may not, but a great many people do. I've been keeping an eye on various forums' threads, and one predominatenly american forum was at discussions of the US carrier group vs. the Iranian armed forces by the second page of the thread. Many people are spoiling for a fight on both sides, and I can't help but feel that if the public of the US and Iran want a fight to happen that badly, then the politicians are going to have a very easy time starting yet another stupid middle eastern war.
It is good to know that people have been paying attention to history (Korea, Vietnam, Iran 1953, Iraq 2003...) and have learned something from that. We're so ****ed...
I understand that the sailors would talk with the threat of torture, what I meant to ask and didn't is, is there a standing order in the armed forces for personnel to not engage in conversation and if so, to add insult to injury, would the service personnel be charged when they got back home? I really hope there isn't and they won't be I’m just curious.
Of course they won't be charged dude...even if there were rules about that sort of thing they'd be ignored after what this lot have been through. Pretty much what governs these things is the geneva convention, but that goes for prisoners of war, and there is no war. These people were hostages in a time of peace and so probably didn't really have to follow any specific rules.
