Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - HAS THE IRANIAN NAVY JUST IGNITED THE NEXT 'FALKLANDS WAR?'

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

HAS THE IRANIAN NAVY JUST IGNITED THE NEXT 'FALKLANDS WAR?'
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:23 am Post subject:

It's was totally planned by the Iranians and knew that Rosie and her followers (OH and kind) would jump on board and give them the benefit of the doubt. By distracting America's most powerful ally on this front, they continue to move forward on with nuclear weapons. A real no-brainer. However, it still surprises me that Rosie, OH and SU continue to defend this countries antics when they would be one of the first to be offered up to the chopping block.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:08 am Post subject:

Adventurer wrote:

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 is not I who is not listening. I asked you for something to back up what you stated. Again, the law delineates between wandering into sovereign areas and engaging in illegal/militaristic acts in other's territory. You have ignored this or not understood it. If you have some proof this is not the case, please post it.

Also, you keep implying that because it is disputed, the Iranians can't act in their own interests. This is not logical. If it is disputed, then their view that it is their territory is equally valid to any claim it is not. Thus, that point is moot. The only way the Brits can say they are definitively in the right is if they were absolutely within undisputed Iraqi territory.

Again, these are technical points, not political. Discuss that with the stupid idiots above who try to, out personal animosity, claim I have supported the Iranian side. Don't fall to their level of idiocy here. It is foolish to attempt to decide who is right or wrong without knowing beyond a doubt where they were.

We are going in circles. It is simple: if the Brits were in either disputed or Iranian waters, they were subject to detention as they were boarding and inspecting vessels in a military action. If they were in indisputably Iraqi waters, the Iranians are wrong on all counts.

What is so hard for you people to understand here? Ah, that's right: you accept the Brit's "line" without reservation. Fine. I don't. There are dissenting views. In fact, the map the Brits offered uses the high tide water lines to draw their line, but maritime law uses the low water line to establish boundaries. On that point alone the Brit line cannot be accurate given the large variance in coastlines at high and low tide in that area.

When I see something definitive and indisputable, fine. And, again, I don't give a damn who is right or wrong. I am making a point about how the conversation is being handled: partisan, emotionally, illogically.

Quote:

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.

Again, this is a judgment call, not a LEGAL point. Make a legal point. Argue the rest with the fools.

Quote:

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.

Irrelevant in terms of law.

Quote:

Let the Iranians show their evidence to outsiders to judge.

That's what I've been saying, no?

Quote:

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 irrelevant to the legal issues. Why even bring it up? Save that for the fools.

Quote:

This is about common sense and having solidarity with British sailors who were wronged.

Again, irrelevant to the legal issues. How do you resolve disputes with emotion while ignoring law? My country wrong or right?? Wronged? I'm sorry, but you've offered no proof anyone was wronged. Some flawed evidence, no proof.

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:45 am Post subject:

Gopher:

That's precisely it. Military ops do not just happen spontaneously, although the Revolutionary Guard element assigned to this duty could have acted on separate orders. The very fact that the Foreign Ministry in Tehran did nothing to distance itself from the seizure makes it very clear what transpired.

At least we can take consolation in knowing that the Iranians cannot be trusted to develop nuclear technology. They have shot themselves in the proverbial foot because of their zeal. It's ironic that they accuse the Brits of arrogance since clearly they are motivated by arrogance.

Adventurer:

Quote:

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.

Now carry your observation to its logical extension. They face sanctions because they haven't abided by the UN mandate. They've brought this on themselves and willfully so, hoping to whip up nationalist fervor at home in order to justify their continued refusal to abide by UN demands.

Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:04 am Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Adventurer wrote:

Quote:

Again, this is a judgment call, not a LEGAL point. Make a legal point. Argue the rest with the fools.

Quote:

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.

Irrelevant in terms of law.

Quote:

Let the Iranians show their evidence to outsiders to judge.

That's what I've been saying, no?

Quote:

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 irrelevant to the legal issues. Why even bring it up? Save that for the fools.

Quote:

This is about common sense and having solidarity with British sailors who were wronged.

EFL Trainer, you do have a point in that there is a dispute over what constitutes Iranian waters. The Iraqis and Iranians have disputed that, so from an Iranian point of view they could have been in Iranian waters. It is clear, though, that they intended to seize this vessel. It was a lone vessel and accessible to be seized. It is only logical. Even if the Iranians thought the British were in their waters, they should have told them to back out of their waters. It is that simple. So even if you want to against the British argument that they were in Iraqi waters, there is no proof that these British sailors were intentionally looking to cross into Iranian waters only to be seized by the British, so even if the British government is not completely correct regarding maps and the like, Iran's detention of these sailors rather than telling them to return to Iraqi waters is a hostile action.

Iran needs to return those sailors. If not, I don't believe in attacking Iran militarily should be approached. First, as I said, and people criticized this the Russians should be approached. The British did just as I said. They approached the Russians. If things don't work, then the Europeans and Americans can buy their oil from non-Iranian sources and ask the Arab gulf countries to pump more oil. Yes, oil prices would go up, but it would devastate Iran's economy. A devastated Iran would have a hard time fighting in war if it came down to it. There is a price to pay for Iran's obstinance. I hope they will be prudent and release them as soon as possible for Iran's sake.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:49 am Post subject:

Adventurer wrote:

EFL Trainer, you do have a point in that there is a dispute over what constitutes Iranian waters.

I do not have "a" point, I have *the* point. Rule of law is all. Without it, there is no hope of peaceful coexistence. Have you been so utterly desensitized to logic and ethics in the last six years?

Quote:

The Iraqis and Iranians have disputed that, so from an Iranian point of view they could have been in Iranian waters. It is clear, though, that they intended to seize this vessel.

Do you have *proof* of this? And even so, if they were in Iranian or disputed waters, it is their right to do so, regardless of their intention.

Further, if you are going to play the intent game, then you have to go back to why the Brits were there at all: illegal war, immoral war, unethical war. Thus, the Brits were breaking the law boarding a sovereign nation's vessel without cause.

Do you not see how your logic leads us to that conclusion? Where do you legitimately place the point in the past that can be considered to support either side's view? It is a fool's errand. Thus we return to the rule of law as it stands. IF the Brits were in Iranian or disputed territory, they ahve no case and should apologize. If they were in Iraqi waters, the Iranians are in the wrong and should release and apologize.

This is utterly simple. Now... about those coords....

Quote:

It was a lone vessel and accessible to be seized. It is only logical. Even if the Iranians thought the British were in their waters, they should have told them to back out of their waters. It is that simple.

Should have? Says who? Under what law?

Quote:

So even if you want to against the British argument that they were in Iraqi waters, there is no proof that these British sailors were intentionally looking to cross into Iranian waters

Legally irrelevant. The problem you have here is trying to argue emotion when you should be arguing law. For the umpteenth time: save your emotional platitudes for the idiots of the board. I am not interested. Chicken? Egg? Why should I care?

Quote:

Iran's detention of these sailors rather than telling them to return to Iraqi waters is a hostile action.

So? It matters not what was in the hearts of the Iranians. It only matters what the law states.

Quote:

Iran needs to return those sailors.

Agreed. But until you can prove where those Brits were, they do not *have* to.

Quote:

If not, I don't believe in attacking Iran militarily should be approached. First, as I said, and people criticized this the Russians should be approached. The British did just as I said. They approached the Russians. If things don't work, then the Europeans and Americans can buy their oil from non-Iranian sources and ask the Arab gulf countries to pump more oil. Yes, oil prices would go up, but it would devastate Iran's economy. A devastated Iran would have a hard time fighting in war if it came down to it. There is a price to pay for Iran's obstinance. I hope they will be prudent and release them as soon as possible for Iran's sake.

These are issues beyond the scope of my involvement in this thread. I believe the war in Iraq to be illegal and immoral. Thus, any act arising from it is also illegal and immoral. Thus, if they were in Iranian or disputed waters and were engaged in military actions (which we know they were), then they are subject to Iranian law. If they were not, the Brits should be released post haste.

Both are acting stupidly. I have already stated this. But I am only concerned *at this point* with the rule of law.

Show me where I am off the mark on the legal issues.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:34 am Post subject:

Quote:

Taking of hostages by Iran is not Britain's finest hour

April 1, 2007
BY MARK STEYN Sun-Times Columnist
Twenty-seven years ago, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a student in Tehran and is said (by a former Iranian president, for one) to be among those in the U.S. embassy who seized and held American citizens hostage for more than a year.

Today, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is president of Iran and bears less ambiguous responsibility for Western hostages. This time round, they're British subjects: 15 sailors and Royal Marines. There are a few differences between this kidnapping and the last: Back in 1979, the Iranians seized their hostages by invading a diplomatic mission -- the sovereign territory of the United States. In 2007, they seized them in international waters. In 1979, two weeks after the embassy crisis began, 13 American hostages who happened to be black were released; the remainder were held for another 14 months. In 2007, the one woman among the hostages is being offered by the regime for early release, invitingly dangled in front of the TV cameras, though with her Royal Navy uniform replaced by Islamic dress; it remains to be seen what will become of the others. On Thursday, a new generation of "student demonstrators" called for the "British aggressors" to be executed.

On this 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, Tony Blair is looking less like Margaret Thatcher and alarmingly like Jimmy Carter, the embodiment of the soi-disant "superpower" as a smiling eunuch.

But this is a season of anniversaries. A few days ago, the European Union was celebrating its 50th birthday with the usual lame-o Euro-boosterism. I said up above that the 15 hostages are "British subjects." But, as a point of law, they are also "citizens of the European Union." Even Oxford and Hoover's Timothy Garton Ash, one of the most indefatigable of those Euro-boosters, seemed to recognize the Iranian action was a challenge to Europe's pretensions. "Fifteen Europeans were kidnapped from Iraqi territorial waters by Iranian Revolutionary Guards," he wrote. "Those 14 European men and one European woman have been held at an undisclosed location for nearly a week, interrogated, denied consular access, but shown on Iranian television, with one of them making a staged 'confession,' clearly under duress. So if Europe is as it claims to be, what's it going to do about it?''

Short answer: Nothing.

Slightly longer answer: The 15 "European" hostages aren't making that much news in "Europe." And, insofar as they have, other "Europeans" -- i.e., Belgians, Germans and whatnot -- don't look on the 15 hostages as "Europeans" but as Brits. Europe has more economic leverage on Iran than America has. The European Union is the Islamic Republic's biggest trading partner, accounting for 40 percent of Iranian exports. They are in a position to inflict serious pain on Tehran. But not for 15 British servicemen. There may be "European citizens," but there is no European polity.

OK, well, how about the United Nations? Those student demonstrators want the execution of "British aggressors." In fact, they're U.N. aggressors. HMS Cornwall is the base for multinational marine security patrols in the Gulf: a mission authorized by the United Nations. So what's the U.N. doing about this affront to its authority and (in the public humiliation of the captives) of the Geneva Conventions?

Short answer: Nothing.

Slightly longer answer: The British ambassador to the U.N. had wanted the Security Council to pass a resolution ''deploring'' Iran's conduct. But the Russians objected to all this hotheaded inflammatory lingo about ''deploring,'' and so the Security Council instead expressed its ''grave concern'' about the situation. That and $4.95 will get you a decaf latte. Ask the folks in Darfur what they've got to show for years of the U.N.'s "grave concerns" -- heavy on the graves, less so on the concern.

Yet, like the Americans, the British persist in trying to resolve real crises through pseudo-institutions. A bunch of unelected multinational technocrats can designate an entire continent as "citizens of Europe" but, as Pat Buchanan wrote the other day, "dry documents, no matter how eloquent, abstract ideas, no matter how beautiful, do not a nation make." Similarly, the West's transnational romantics can fantasize about "one-world government," but, given the constituent parts, it's likely to be a lot more like Syria writ large than Sweden. In fact, it already is.

And, at one level, the obstructionists have a point. Russia's interests in Iran are not the same as the United Kingdom's: Why should it subordinate its national policy for a few British sailors? Conversely, why should we subordinate ours to transnational process? If saving Darfur is the right thing to do, it doesn't become the wrong thing to do because the Chinese guy refuses to raise his hand. And Darfur is an internal region of a sovereign state. If the Security Council cannot even "deplore" an act of piracy on the high seas, then what is it for?

The U.N. will do nothing for men seized on a U.N.-sanctioned mission. The European Union will do nothing for its "European citizens." But if liberal transnationalism is a post-modern joke, it's not the only school of transnationalism out there. Iran's Islamic Revolution has been explicitly extraterritorial since the beginning: It has created and funded murderous proxies in Hezbollah, Hamas and both Shia and Sunni factions of the Iraq "insurgency." It has spent a fortune in the stans of Central Asia radicalizing previously somnolent Muslim populations. When Ayatollah Khomeini announced the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, it was not Iranians but British, Indian, Turkish, European, Asian and American Muslims who called for his death, firebombed bookstores, shot his publisher, fatally stabbed his translator and murdered anybody who got in their way.

So we live today in a world of one-way sovereignty: American, British and Iraqi forces in Iraq respect the Syrian and Iranian borders; the Syrians and Iranians do not respect the Iraqi border. Patrolling the Shatt al-Arab at a time of war, the Royal Navy operates under rules of engagement designed by distant fainthearts with an eye to the polite fictions of "international law": If you're in a ''warship,'' you can't wage war. If you're in a ''destroyer,'' don't destroy anything. If you're in a "frigate," you're frigging done for.

On Sept. 11, a New York skyscraper was brought down by the Egyptian leader of a German cell of an Afghan terror group led by a Saudi. Islamism is only the first of many globalized ideological viruses that will seep undetected across national frontiers in the years ahead. Meanwhile, we put our faith in meetings of foreign ministers.

"It is better to be making the news than taking it," wrote Winston Churchill in 1898. But his successors have gotten used to taking it, and the men who make the news well understand that.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/321825,CST-EDT-steyn01.article

It is a very fair assessment of our world today. Disorder passing as order. Steyn's characterization of this as a "postmodern joke" simply couldn't be more bang-on.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:47 am Post subject:

Adventurer: you ignored my warning, which I posted twice, on what will happen when attempting to exchange views with the sandwhich-trainer on this incident...

stevemcgarrett wrote:

...the Iranians cannot be trusted to develop nuclear technology. They have shot themselves in the proverbial foot because of their zeal.

And they have done this, again and again, starting with their theocracy's birth:

Seizing the American embassy in Tehran and holding its personnel hostage in 1979;

Supporting Hezbollah in the attack against the American Marines and embassy in 1983;

Their role in the Iran-Contra Scandal: supporting those who seized American hostages to trade for TOWs between 1981 and 1986ish;

Their role in supporting Hezbollah's seizing LtCol. William R. Higgins, torturting him at length and over time until hanging him "in retaliation" for something Israel supposedly did against Hezbollah, filming his death, and then dumping his body in a Beirut gutter 1988 through 1989;

Repeatedly defying the United Nations by continuing to covertly arm Hezbollah, and probably provide training, technical advice if not guidance, and intelligence information, thus illegally interfering in Lebanese internal affairs not to mention threatening Israeli security;

Instigating the Israeli-Hezbollah War by supporting Hezbollah's seizing Israeli soldiers, and then indiscriminately but deliberately firing missiles into civilian areas during the conflict in summer 2006;

And now this, seizing British sailors and marines and threatening "to try" them for Britain's alleged arrogance.

These people want nuclear weapons and some here defend that choice...?

Last edited by Gopher on Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:32 pm; edited 3 times in total

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject:

Yawn. Don't attach my name to your lies, boy. Show me the law. You, the great poster of reams of crap, can't find a single sentence in the great vast maritime laws to support your side? Funny that... Solve the technical issue, the rest is simple. Intentionally lie to further your aims? Start a war. How Bushie of you.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Show me the law...

No. Will not waste time researching legal encyclopedias on maritime law and then post the information here where you will inevitably reject it as a lie.

Maritime law does not support seizing foreign-flagged vessels and their crews in times of peace (the name for that, incidentally, BLT, is "piracy"). Neither Britain nor Iran have declared war with each other; and this British-flagged ship and crew were not invading or conducting hostile, less-than-war operations against Iran. Rather, they were patrolling/policing the Iraqi border.

I will not waste time reinventing the wheel when your stubborn ignorance not to mention churlish oppositionism on such matters as this is so manifest.

You are the child and the fool that you so often call others here. Like a two-year-old, "Tell me why!" is your most common theme/complaint. It betrays, among other things, that you know little about such matters as this...

Last edited by Gopher on Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:46 pm; edited 3 times in total

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:25 pm Post subject:

Guess what is coming next...? The British might get to experience 1979, that is what.

Quote:

Also on Sunday, hundreds of Iranian students crowded outside the British Embassy in Tehran, setting off firecrackers and hurling projectiles toward the compound, an embassy spokesman said.

No one was injured and there was no damage in the protest, which continued into the late afternoon, the spokesman said.

Video from earlier in the day showed Iranians of all ages crowded around the embassy while Iranian forces maintained a cordon around the peaceful crowd, which chanted and waved flags...

CNN Reports...

Is the British embassy illegally conducting diplomatic operations in Iranian territory, BLT...?

wannago

Joined: 16 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

How Bushie of you.

Hey, boy, that's eeeeevil Bushie to you.

Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Show me the law...

I have to agree with you on this one, Gopher. I can't find myself in agreement with EFL Trainer on Iran. Iran did not have to seize a British ship. They could have simply told them to get out of "Iranian waters".
In a sense, this is a seizure of hostages who happen to work for the British Royal Navy. It is grounds for war. I am not in a hurry for some trigger to be pulled. Diplomacy should be given its chance. If Iran does not release them, then it doesn't want to export its oil to Europe. Perhaps, China will import Iranian oil, but it won't be enough for Iran.

jinju

Joined: 22 Jan 2006

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject:

Adventurer wrote:

If Iran does not release them, then it doesn't want to export its oil to Europe. Perhaps, China will import Iranian oil, but it won't be enough for Iran.

Dont count on it. Europe stop importing oil? That would require solidarity wouldnt it? Just look at the issue of Russian gas. Its painfully clear that some in the EU, lead by the Germans will sell out their EU and NATO partners just to get some cheap gas from Moscow. When Russia makes threats agains NATO and EU members, Germany continues kissing German ass. It will happen again here. There is no Europe. The EU is an illusion. Hence talking about Europe as if it was a unified entity is quite funny.

Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject:

jinju wrote:

Adventurer wrote:

If Iran does not release them, then it doesn't want to export its oil to Europe. Perhaps, China will import Iranian oil, but it won't be enough for Iran.

You forget that Iran is not the only oil producer. There are a lot of producers in the gulf. Couldn't they go over their quota? Of course, that would lead to internal problems for OPEC which both Iran and Venezuela are members of. Saudi Arabia has increased its output in the past.
I suppose Kuwait could do so as well, but they would invoke the wrath of Iran. The Sunni Arabian Gulf Arabs are weary of Iran's influence and its influence in Lebanon.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject:

NPR's analysis on the Iranians' mobbing the British embassy in Tehran today...

Quote:

Iranian protesters mob Britain's embassy in Tehran, urging the government to try the 15 British sailors and marines Iran holds. Britain's defense secretary says the nations are in communication on the matter of the sailors. Ken Pollack, an analyst with the Brookings Institution, offers his insights in a conversation with Debbie Elliott...

All Things Considered

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15 Next
Page 14 of 15

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe