Ooh, they are freezing relations

[CAnnoneer]

The Brits are "freezing relations" with Iran over the kidnapped soldiers. Yeah, that should surely scare a bandit regime... I am sure they are shaking in their turbans... Note that the Brit woman was out of uniform and with a black haircloth for the TV appearance.

The West is continually being tested and is mostly failing miserably. The bandits in Tehran are scoring political victories by blackmail and abuse of western values.

Britain seeks U.N. condemnation of Iran 31 minutes ago
 
TEHRAN, Iran -        Iran may delay the release of the female British sailor if Britain takes the issue to the        U.N. Security Council or freezes relations, the country's top negotiator Ali Larijani said Thursday. The Foreign Office in London, meanwhile, said Britain is seeking condemnation of Iran at the        United Nations.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
The seizure of 15 British sailors and marines, including Faye Turney, the only woman among them, took place during operations in Iraqi waters under a U.N. Security Council mandate, said the Foreign Office official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the subject.

"There are some plans to say something on behalf of the United Nations (about the seized troops) but they have not been finalized," said the official.

Speaking on Iranian state radio, Larijani said: "British leaders have miscalculated this issue." If Britain follows through with its policies on the British sailors and marines detained by Iran last week, Larijani said "this case may face a legal path"  a clear reference to Iran's prosecuting the sailors in court.

Britain asked the Security Council to support a call for the immediate release of the detainees, saying in a statement Wednesday they were operating in Iraqi waters under a mandate from the Security Council and at the request of        Iraq, according to council diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because the text was not released.

Earlier Thursday, Prime Minister        Tony Blair's official spokesman said Britain wanted to resolve the crisis quickly and without having a "confrontation over this."

In a briefing to reporters, the spokesman said British officials had been angered by Tehran's decision to show captured the British sailors and marines on Iranian television.

"Nobody should be put in that position. It is an impossible position to be put in," he said. "It is wrong. It is wrong in terms of the usual conventions that cover this. It is wrong in terms of basic humanity."

"We are not seeking to put Iran in a corner," said the spokesman. "We are simply saying, 'Please release the personnel who should not have been seized in the first place.'"

On Wednesday, Britain announced it was freezing relations with Iran.

[mfree]

I perhaps wonder if it comes out after all this that Turney (the woman) doesn't smoke, was talking about children that didn't exist, or otherwise gave some other sign of duress that nobody's catching...

[Perd Hapley]

Ooh, they are freezing relations

I HATE when that happens!   

[Sergeant Bob]

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!
How ever will the British people get Persian rugs?

[De Selby]

Maybe Britain is more interested in getting its captives back than in fighting a war with Iran. 

If Britain wanted a war more than it wanted to get the 15 back, then attacks would make sense.  But if you want captives back, attacking virtually guarantees that they'll either never come home or will do so only at an exhorbitant cost. 

So yeah, I don't fault britain for being more loyal to those 15 than to a geopolitical agenda.

[Perd Hapley]

shootinstudent, your perspective is sad.  I pity your cowardice.      You're willing to bargain with terrorists.  They would bleed you dry.   

[HankB]

Maybe Britain is more interested in getting its captives back than in losing a war with Iran. 

Fixed it for ya.

Brit soldiers, sailors, and airmen, on an individual basis, are as good as any and better than most. But there are too few of them to function as more than an adjunct to a larger military force . . . the once-proud British Navy is a shadow of its former self, the RAF is shrinking, they hardly have any heavy transport . . . it's doubtful that the Brits, unaided, could even sustain another Falkland Islands war against Argentina today.

(And anyway, Rosie O'Donnell announced that it was George Bush who engineered the hostage taking by the Iranians . . . I guess old Dubya is now pulling the mullah's strings . . .)

[De Selby]

fistful,

If this is an act of terrorism, what do you call the seizing of Iranians in Iraq by US forces?  They were there with the permission of the Iraqis too...

But yeah, the issue isn't cowardice.  The issue here is priority: is showing muscle to Iran more important, or is bringing those 15 home more important?

Maybe you think the UK should sacrifice its people for someone else's geopolitical agenda. I don't.

HankB,  I see what you're saying...but even a winning war would not bring the hostages home.  Just look at the Lebanon-Israel war this summer.  Where are those Israelis who were captured now? Home safe? Or even further from home safe as a result of the war?

[CAnnoneer]

You cannot expect of a spinner to do anything, but, well, spin... Hehehehe. Sure, we are indeed expected to equate Iranian terrorist-aiders-and-abetters in Iraq with British inspection teams in Iraqi territorial waters. Yeah, on another Al'Bizarro news, the sun rotates around the earth.

Fistful, I think the word you were looking for is "pathetic". Hehehe.

[Antibubba]

No, Fistful, shootinstudent has a legitimate point.  The only ones who are beating their spears against shields at Iran is the USA.  If that works for us, great.  But the Brits don't want another war; their capacity for it is even less than ours, as HankB pointed out.  Now, you can rail against the Brits for their lack of intestinal fortitude, or for their growing Orwellian socialism, but you cannot fault them for going through the diplomatic channels first.

[Perd Hapley]

The issue here is priority: is showing muscle to Iran more important, or is bringing those 15 home more important?

Maybe you think the UK should sacrifice its people for someone else's geopolitical agenda. I don't.

Showing the world that kidnapping Brit sailors is a losing proposition is what is important.  The UK IS sacrificing its people for this agenda, whoever it belongs to or whatever you deem that agenda to be.  They decided to do that when they deployed troops in theater.  What do you think soldiers do, if they don't give their lives for foreign policy?  I know, I was one. 

If this is an act of terrorism, what do you call the seizing of Iranians in Iraq by US forces?  They were there with the permission of the Iraqis too...

Iran is not the US.  Our actions cannot be compared to theirs.  We are not led by an evil, terrorist regime bent on killing Jews.  This is why we should have nukes and they should not.  You may now feel free to whine about the "double standard."    

[De Selby]

antibubba,

Exactly.

fistful,

Acts of this sort are not good because we do them and bad because they do them.  Unless you're a radical moral relativist, for whom rules do not apply universally, of course.  In that case though, there's not much point in a discussion.

[Perd Hapley]

Acts of this sort are not good because we do them and bad because they do them.

Acts of what sort?  The two incidents are not remotely similar. 

We were hunting terrorists and other elements of chaos in Iraq. 

The Iranians kidnapped Brit sailors that were not a threat, on the thin and controversial claim that they were in Irani waters. 

Besides that, there is nothing relativist about tolerating behavior from one group (law-abiding citizens, peaceful nations) that one wouldn't tolerate from others (rogue states, criminals, etc.).

[K Frame]

Why don't you offer yourself in exchange, Fistful?

I'm sure the Iranians would rather have you than 15 jack tars.

[Perd Hapley]

Mike, I'm glad to see you can also make fluff posts that clutter up the board.  And engage in petty personal attacks at the same time!  Awesome!!!111

[K Frame]

Just doing my job to keep you down and following the HIGH standards you've set for slinging those personal attacks. 

"shootinstudent, your perspective is sad.  I pity your cowardice."


And you know, there's nothing quite so "fluffy" as sabre rattling to the degree of writing off the lives of 15 people PREMATURELY and then claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a coward and lacks perspective. That certainly shows the world a certain... something.

[personal attack]

You, sir, are a (insert your favorite pejorative here).

[/personal attack]

[CAnnoneer]

I do not see a diplomatic solution that does not involve strong-arming the bandits or inexcusable concessions by the West camp. The Tehran kidnappers expect to get territorial expansion or perhaps even a green light for nuke development in exchange for 15 soldiers. They already stated they want an admission of guilt, which will not only embarrass the UK but, more importantly, essentially bargain away Iraqi territory for 15 British lives. None of the above is acceptable at all. The only bargaining chip the bandits-in-charge in Tehran understand is their own miserable pathetic shameful lives.

I would not be surprised if Bush is criticized 50 years from now for not going far enough just as he is criticized now for going too far. Instead of sinking into nation-building in Iraq, it seems it would have been better to run amok and topple all terrorist regimes once and for all.

[HankB]

. . . even a winning war would not bring the hostages home.  Just look at the Lebanon-Israel war this summer.  Where are those Israelis who were captured now? Home safe? Or even further from home safe as a result of the war?

One may legitimately question whether the Israeli Army "won" their war - in fact, many in Israel are doing just that.

This supports the wisdom of Ike's advice to LBJ regarding Vietnam . . . I don't have the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of "Don't go to war unless you're prepared to do everything it takes to win."

[El Tejon]

Irwin may have lost his faith in the dollar but some others here have lost faith in diplomacy.

[Perd Hapley]

Mike.

My remark about cowardice was not an attack, or if it was it was not petty and pointless as was yours.  I am truly at wits end to explain to shootinstudent why his POV is absolutely craven and an invitation to be slowly and thoroughly extorted by terrorists.  Do you not understand that he is suggesting Britain meet Iran's demands to redeem fifteen sailors?  Did negotiating with terrorists suddenly become acceptable?  Did you miss the part where he said Britain should put the lives of a group of sailors above foreign policy?  Is that not the essence of national cowardice, were Britain to allow itself to be so manipulated? 

Or perhaps I am simply expressing my own dismay at shootinstudent's desperate need to take the side of Middle-Eastern malefactors in every case that is discussed here on the board. 

And you know, there's nothing quite so "fluffy" as sabre rattling to the degree of writing off the lives of 15 people PREMATURELY and then claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a coward and lacks perspective.

I never did any of that.  What's your problem?  I never said that Britain should immediately commence hostilities.  I never said they shouldn't go through diplomatic channels first.  I'm only saying that, when we cannot stand to see fifteen military personnel detained or killed, we have lost. 

[De Selby]

fistful,

Do you think Ronald Reagan was a "pitiful coward", because he and all his top staff (including a number of people who are running the "war on terror" today) decided to not just negotiate with, but to actually provide weapons to Iran in order to defuse hostage situations and terrorist threats?

Language about cowardice does not serve the interests of getting these people home.  Right now, it only serves the interests of people who think that bombing Iran will "teach them 'ranians a thing er too".  It will certainly not bring home those people safely.

So like I said, this depends on your priorites.  I'm not condemning Britain for showing that its commitment is to getting its people home, instead of treating them like expendables in a geopolitical game that doesn't serve British interests anyway.

[K Frame]

It's funny that you don't consider flat-out calling someone a coward to be an attack, yet you get all wet and bothered at my comments.

It shows a certain lack of... perspective.

Most people would probably view my statement as a COMPLIMENT to you.

Saying that you, personally, are worth as much as, if not more than, 15 Royal Navy ratings and officers?

After all, your insight, which you freely share with us, is certainly legendary, and the Iranians would do well to obtain that.

Neh?


I see a surprising LACK of shootinstudent "taking the side of Middle-Eastern malefactors."

I'm truly surprised that you're seeing that. Nowhere in his messages does he espouse that viewpoint.

It certainly looks to me as if you're transposing your own... bloodthirstyness... onto Shootinstudent's messages to come up with a warped and contrary viewpoint.

[MillCreek]

As HankB above perceptively points out, the ability of the UK to project definitive military force, especially naval, far from their home shores is limited.  They have no big deck carriers, or large-scale amphibious forces, and the frigates and destroyers currently in the Gulf don't have much in the way of land-attack capability other than a finite number of Tomahawks.  We would probably all agree that this situation does not call for the Royal Navy to launch a nuclear Trident at Tehran.

With this limiting factor, are not the choices for the UK to either negotiate or essentially abandon their personnel?  Of the two, I would also opt for negotiation.  I certainly hope this does not turn into a USS Pueblo or the freighter Mayaguez situation.   

[CAnnoneer]

I see a surprising LACK of shootinstudent "taking the side of Middle-Eastern malefactors."

Come on, dude, don't be naive. Look at all positions taken on multiple threads. He does not give a crap about our soldiers in Iraq and considers terrorists "freedom-fighters". Why would he give a crap about the 15 Brits? His entire position here is a badly veiled blackmail attempt, in COMPLETE alignment with the Iranian position. Fistful is completely right in the above analysis. In fact, he has shown much more restraint than I expected.

[De Selby]

CAnnoneer,

Well, you and fistful are the ones saying that the British are expendable, quite openly here.  It's more important to kill some Iranians than to get them home on your analysis.

For a guy who values science so highly, your opinions certainly seem to rest in unusually large measure on mind reading and laughably on psychoanalysis (you acutally used the word, remember?).