|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| discredit America and now Britian -- therefore, lacking in all credibility yourself. |
Please copy and paste where I stated any such thing. I have stated no opinion as to who is right or wrong at any time.
| Quote: |
| The British were not engaged in an act of war against Iran. |
And I said they were? I said the Brits were engaged in a military action. I said nothing of them taking military action vs. Iran.
| Quote: |
| Hard to believe that fifteen sailors and marines in a boarding party constitute "an invasion." But that is exactly what you appear to be championing. |
Did I say they were invading Iran? I said they were engaged in military actions in Iranian waters. You know this. Lying is bad. Bad gopher.
| Quote: |
Moreover, neither Britain nor Iran had declared war against the other. That makes this a peacetime seizure of another state's vessel and illegal. If these servicemen and women were indeed in Iranian waters (and I do not believe they were), Tehran's proper course of action would have been to escort them out.
Again, peacetime and not wartime rules apply. |
You may have your interpretation, but if you disagree with the position stated above, you will have to take it up with the former Brit ambassador and the bloggers who posted. None of the info is mine. I simply posted it. You know this. Lying is bad. Bad gopher.
However, according to them, you are incorrect. Maritime law, again, their opinion, not mine, states that nations may detain those engaging in military acts within their borders. So, IF (<-- Can anyone explain to me why goopher doesn't understand conditionals?) the Brits were in disputed or Iraqi waters, the Iranians have an argument.
| Quote: |
| Furthermore, the British claim they operated in Iraqi waters. |
And? Exactly when did I state they were lying? I could give a *beep* who is right or wrong. You are too stupid to understand the posting of information vs. the posting of opinion. Actually, that is incorrect. You are deliberately lying. Lying is bad. Bad gopher.
| Quote: |
| Rather than acknowledging, at the very least, that Tehran simply is out of its depth and does not know what it is talking about, you choose to believe that Britain is the aggressor and is lying. |
You're lying. You know this. Lying is bad. Bad gopher. Again, copy and paste. I have posted the Iranians are stupid for their actions. More than once. You know this. Lying is bad. Bad gopher. I have made no comment whatsoever about EITHER party lying. In fact, the only liar I have pointed out thus far is you. I have repeatedly posted in the conditional. You know this. Lying is bad. Bad gopher.
| Quote: |
| On top of all of this, most of us see a pattern of Iranian brinksmanship here (from the Israeli-Hezbollah War to this seizure). You, however, still see them as victims of imperialism -- which is, again, defending their perspective. |
Another lie. I have stated no comment whatsoever on this point. You know this. Lying is bad. Bad gopher. And this is what you ignore: Britain has repeatedly violated Iranian waters, as well. So, who cares either way? Where is the blameless actor in the whole charade? It comes down to one thing and one thing only: where were they? Only when that is independently confirmed in some way can any real discussion be had. Beyond that, it is all bullshit politics.
If you're going to post, cite your sources or shut the hell up.
| Quote: |
| Bitter, angry little man. Unable to see clearly. I pity you the more. |
Bitter and angry is what one would call consistently lying, even when the proof of your lies lie within plain sight.
You're a godamned child. From the time I first responded to a post of your's a year-and-a-half ago pointing out how irrelevant about 90 percent of your dribble was, your ego has not been able to handle it. Here, with zero support for your characterizations of my posts, you lie anyways. You're an emotional raisin. Get back to your pocket-protector life and leave real talk to adults.
Lying is bad. Bad gopher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: Maritime Coastal Boundries are not clearly delineated |
|
|
The boundries in these cases are not clearly delineated, especially in cases between formerly and recently belligerent nations like Iran and Iraq.
Here's a blog entry that sheds some light on how boundries do become defined.
The blog above links to a timesonline article in which the sailors' superior expresses a similar view.
| Quote: |
The commanding officer of the ship - which arrived in the Gulf ten days ago to defend Iraq�s oil industry in the area � said that contact had been lost with the group after they had carried out the search of the cargo boat.
Commodore Nick Lambert said his staff were all believed to be safe and he hoped the incident was the result of a �misunderstanding� that had occurred in waters whose ownership was a highly contentious matter.
�There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in Iranian territorial waters,� he said.
�The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated. We may find, and I hope we will find, that this is a simple misunderstanding at a tactical level,� he added, saying that every effort was being made to secure the release of the boarding party. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| freshking wrote: |
| Is that Richard Marcinko? |
That is right. Demo Dick. Sharkman of the Delta. The one and only.
In the meantime, W. Bush weighs in...
| NPR wrote: |
CAMP DAVID, Md. March 31, 2007, 7:41 p.m. ET � President Bush on Saturday said Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines was "inexcusable" and called for Iran to "give back the hostages" immediately and unconditionally.
Bush said Iran plucked the sailors out of Iraqi waters. Iran's president said Saturday they were in Iranian waters and called Britain and its allies "arrogant and selfish" for not apologizing for trespassing.
"It's inexcusable behavior," Bush said at the Camp David presidential retreat, where he was meeting with the president of Brazil. "Iran must give back the hostages. They're innocent. They did nothing wrong..." |
AP Story via NPR
CNN Reports |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="EFLtrainer"]
Did I say they were invading Iran? I said they were engaged in military actions in Iranian waters. You know this. Lying is bad. Bad gopher.
| Quote: |
Moreover, neither Britain nor Iran had declared war against the other. That makes this a peacetime seizure of another state's vessel and illegal. If these servicemen and women were indeed in Iranian waters (and I do not believe they were), Tehran's proper course of action would have been to escort them out.
Again, peacetime and not wartime rules apply. |
EFL trainer, according to international maps and British maps, the ship was in Iraqi waters. The only military action it was involved in was patrolling the seas. It was not firing on anyone, or engaging in any hostile act. The hostile party in this cases is clearly Iran. Even if the British were theoretically in Iranian waters, the Iranians should have first told them "You are in Iranian waters, go back into Iraqi waters". They could have protested the British going into Iranian territories. They, instead, chose a provocative measure i.e. seizing the British ship. They took a military action against the British who were not attacking Iraq. I can't understand why you don't see that Iran is clearly the guilty party no matter how you slice it; not Britian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a professor of politics in Tehran's Allameh University, said he's convinced that Iran is prepared to stand its ground and insist that the British violated Iranian territory.
"Iran will seriously continue the case and will put them on trial," Bakhshayesh said. "Only an apology by Britain can stop it. Iran thinks that Britons trespassed to test Iran's reaction, and now London is trying to isolate Tehran instead of apologizing." |
If I were Tony Blair, I would apologize and get the boys and a girl out first. Then say I was just joking and drop a big bomb on Iranian naval base that was responsible for taking Britons hostage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I can't understand why you don't see that Iran is clearly the guilty party no matter how you slice it; not Britian. |
You've been around enough to know that BLT is rabidly anti-Bush and, therefore, rabidly anti-anything that even remotely extends a helping hand or hand of friendship to the eeeeevil Bushie. Britain, being the U.S.' closest ally almost puts them in the same camp as the eeeevil Bushie and god-awful U.S. Feelings trump truth in this case and in virtually every case with the lefties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| BLT is rabidly anti-Bush and, therefore, rabidly anti-anything that even remotely extends a helping hand or hand of friendship to the eeeeevil Bushie... |
Bingo. This also explains why, in BLT's worldview, the 9/11 Commission's report must be a lie and a coverup for something truly sinister. And it explains how he sees Katrina as something that W. Bush must have caused. Other examples too numerous to list. In any case, read his own signature line for my theory on why and how this came to occupy him so.
However this may be, I truly wish W. Bush would announce that the Sun rises in the East. Then we would see BLT go apoplectic and pounce: "That is a lie! It does not rise in the East! Rome is burning! All fall down go boom! Impeach! Cowards! My logic is better than yours! My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard! Irrelevant! Child!"
Manner of Speaking asked us to make predictions a while back: I hereby predict that no matter where this story goes, BLT will continue believing and telling us "We will never know the real coordinates and therefore Tehran has a valid point here." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I see the usual members of the Leftist Scum Brigade are right there in defense of Iran. Way to go guys, you never let me down |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Adventurer"]
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Did I say they were invading Iran? I said they were engaged in military actions in Iranian waters. You know this. Lying is bad. Bad gopher.
| Quote: |
Moreover, neither Britain nor Iran had declared war against the other. That makes this a peacetime seizure of another state's vessel and illegal. If these servicemen and women were indeed in Iranian waters (and I do not believe they were), Tehran's proper course of action would have been to escort them out.
Again, peacetime and not wartime rules apply. |
EFL trainer, according to international maps and British maps, the ship was in Iraqi waters. The only military action it was involved in was patrolling the seas. It was not firing on anyone, or engaging in any hostile act. The hostile party in this cases is clearly Iran. Even if the British were theoretically in Iranian waters, the Iranians should have first told them "You are in Iranian waters, go back into Iraqi waters". They could have protested the British going into Iranian territories. They, instead, chose a provocative measure i.e. seizing the British ship. They took a military action against the British who were not attacking Iraq. I can't understand why you don't see that Iran is clearly the guilty party no matter how you slice it; not Britian. |
If you're going to discuss this, you will need to acknowledge 1. your opinion is your's; it is not fact.
2. Where they were is disputed. Nobody has presented any factual evidence to the contrary. Both sides have simply stated numbers, neither has shown proof.
3. If the area they were is in dispute, how can you make definitive statements about what they "should" have done? You are making qualitative comments, I am asking questions based purely in law. Did you read the links I posted? A former BRIT ambassador stated the map the Brits used is a false representation of the facts. *I* didn't say it. He did.
4. The rule of law on the seas, according to the info I posted above - which quotes from said laws - appears to state that any vessel entering a nation's territorial waters should be asked to leave and escorted out. Fine. It also states any vessel engaged in illegal or belligerent activities (the Brits were engaged in a military action) in said nation's waters may be detained. For example, if Mexico was repeatedly sending its navy into US waters in a dispute with Canada (as Iran *claims* the Brits have done), would the US not have the right to detain a boat involved in such an incursion?
Now, if you have something to say on the law, please feel free. Discuss the politics with others. I am not interested in that aspect until locations have been definitively proven. Frankly, even then I am not really interested. (As this is a political, i.e. stupid B.S., row the truth will be given scant attention. he discussions here reflect this reality.) The Brits have no business in Iraq and the Iranians are obviously posturing. However, do they technically have the right to act as they have? We don't know. Saying they don't doesn't appear to be supported by the statutes. If you have links to different interpretations of the law of the seas - not just opinions - please post. The source I found - from an ambassador - says they do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Three straight bullshit pieces. Good job boys. Lying is the Right's way, is it not? At least you are consistent.
Again, post where I have stated any support for Iran or that England was definitely in Iranian waters.
Bullshit knows no bounds. Lying is the new norm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Worth repeating this to anyone who may have missed it the first time...
| Gopher wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking asked us to make predictions a while back: I hereby predict that no matter where this story goes, BLT will continue believing and telling us "We will never know the real coordinates and therefore Tehran has a valid point here." |
This is because he will never accept that Washington or its allies were not in the wrong and, indeed, were not egregiously wrong.
Fact of life.
He will repeat this position until the cows come home...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to take a moment to commend you, Gopher, on your most recent avatar. Jack Lord and the Mod Squad would have approved. So I do believe this one's a keeper.
When this all washes out, we'll see the Iranians were not only lying but planned this whole escapade. Dictatorships thrive on propaganda; just ask Fidel, Jong il, Hugo, Bobby Mugabe, and their ilk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="EFLtrainer"]
| Adventurer wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Did I say they were invading Iran? I said they were engaged in military actions in Iranian waters. You know this. Lying is bad. Bad gopher.
| Quote: |
Moreover, neither Britain nor Iran had declared war against the other. That makes this a peacetime seizure of another state's vessel and illegal. If these servicemen and women were indeed in Iranian waters (and I do not believe they were), Tehran's proper course of action would have been to escort them out.
Again, peacetime and not wartime rules apply. |
EFL trainer, according to international maps and British maps, the ship was in Iraqi waters. The only military action it was involved in was patrolling the seas. It was not firing on anyone, or engaging in any hostile act. The hostile party in this cases is clearly Iran. Even if the British were theoretically in Iranian waters, the Iranians should have first told them "You are in Iranian waters, go back into Iraqi waters". They could have protested the British going into Iranian territories. They, instead, chose a provocative measure i.e. seizing the British ship. They took a military action against the British who were not attacking Iraq. I can't understand why you don't see that Iran is clearly the guilty party no matter how you slice it; not Britian. |
If you're going to discuss this, you will need to acknowledge 1. your opinion is your's; it is not fact.
2. Where they were is disputed. Nobody has presented any factual evidence to the contrary. Both sides have simply stated numbers, neither has shown proof.
3. If the area they were is in dispute, how can you make definitive statements about what they "should" have done? You are making qualitative comments, I am asking questions based purely in law. Did you read the links I posted? A former BRIT ambassador stated the map the Brits used is a false representation of the facts. *I* didn't say it. He did.
4. The rule of law on the seas, according to the info I posted above - which quotes from said laws - appears to state that any vessel entering a nation's territorial waters should be asked to leave and escorted out. Fine. It also states any vessel engaged in illegal or belligerent activities (the Brits were engaged in a military action) in said nation's waters may be detained. For example, if Mexico was repeatedly sending its navy into US waters in a dispute with Canada (as Iran *claims* the Brits have done), would the US not have the right to detain a boat involved in such an incursion?
Now, if you have something to say on the law, please feel free. Discuss the politics with others. I am not interested in that aspect until locations have been definitively proven. Frankly, even then I am not really interested. (As this is a political, i.e. stupid B.S., row the truth will be given scant attention. he discussions here reflect this reality.) The Brits have no business in Iraq and the Iranians are obviously posturing. However, do they technically have the right to act as they have? We don't know. Saying they don't doesn't appear to be supported by the statutes. If you have links to different interpretations of the law of the seas - not just opinions - please post. The source I found - from an ambassador - says they do. |
I did have something to say about the laws, but you didn't read what I wrote. I said Iran should have reported alleged violations rather than detain the British. By doing so, they are the ones who have clearly, without a dispute, engaged in a military action justified or not. It cannot be proved that the British engaged in a military action on Iranian waters. It can only be proved that Iran chose to detain British military personnel rather than telling them to go to British waters. Iran has not voiced complaints with the U.N. The Iranians went a bit too far.
For the record, people on the Right and the Left don't support Iran. Even if the British were in Iranian waters, they were barely in it. Let the Iranians show their evidence to outsiders to judge. The overwhelming majority of Americans, Canadians, and British citizens of all stripes deplore what the Iranians have done whether they vote Labour, Liberal Democrat, Republican, Democrat etc....This is about common sense and having solidarity with British sailors who were wronged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
I'd like to take a moment to commend you, Gopher, on your most recent avatar. Jack Lord and the Mod Squad would have approved. So I do believe this one's a keeper.
When this all washes out, we'll see the Iranians were not only lying but planned this whole escapade. Dictatorships thrive on propaganda; just ask Fidel, Jong il, Hugo, Bobby Mugabe, and their ilk. |
Agree with you that this wouldn't have been done unless it was planned. They were close to Iranian waters, so it is very possible that they knew they would have somewhat of an excuse. They are under pressure due to sanctions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Snatch-and-grabs do not randomly occur. Coastal patrol units do not cut it. Takes special training, advance planning, recon.
Iran likely observed British patrol patterns, and carefully avoided American patrol patterns, and moved.
No evidence to back that up. But that is how military ops work. Ops of this nature do not spontaneously unfold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
