Iran keeps humiliating the West

Pardalis said:
No, of course not, but we got to show them our resolve and very vocally denounce what they are doing.

* * *

I somewhat agree with the first part of your post. What the UN is doing is good, and they are showing great solidarity, and we should be very careful about the words that are used so that we don't infuriate the more moderates Iranians.
Click to expand...


I almost forgot to address this: the great solidarity of the UN -- regarding soldiers carryiong out a UN sanctioned exercize, btw -- was a proclamation expressing "grave concern." This was the result of Russia blocking one "deploring" the actions of the Iranian government.

So I see them being very careful, but I don't see so much vocal denaouncement or resolve, especially when combined with the EU's refusal to apply economic pressure.
 
WildCat said:
Mark Steyn summed it up well (thanks to Abdul for the tip).
Click to expand...

Shocking! A neo-con presents a nice emotional argument for those who want to nuke/invade Iran no matter what.

Hasn't the Project for the New American Century proved to be an utter fiasco for you guys yet?

Iran is the natural ally of the U.S. in a region filled with "allies" where the vast majority of the population hate us. Why stick by an "axis of evil" State of the Union abortion of when the obvious solution was to engage the 1,000,000+ Iranians in the U.S. and Britain who would love to see regime change and the chance for their women to wear tight jeans with a head scarf instead of antagonizing the small percent who support the more radical elements in the government and it's semi-autonomous underlings.

Here's some news for you neo-cons, guess what happens to Hamas, Hezbollah and the Republican Guards when there is legitimate, internal regime change in Iran... they go away. Bombing Iran will only make a highly nationalistic people rally around a government they aren't satisfied with -- remember the number of Democrats who voted to initiate the Iraq war?
 
Is it at all possible that the British hostages were indeed in Iranian waters? And if that is the case, would it be out of line for Iran to take them into custody. Imagine how the US (or Britain) would react if they found a boatload of soldiers in their territorial waters. What would they do? I'm betting it would be a bit more than a stern lecture.

I'm not a fan of Iran, in fact I feel like they're a much greater danger that Iraq ever was, but I think we need to try to be objective and view this incident just as we would if it were one of our allies taking this action.
 
Megalodon said:
Outside of the ad-hominems, insults, misrepresentations and lies, what exactly do you think was Steyn's argument?
Click to expand...

What did Steyn lie about?

The UK has subverted its ability to act independently in order to become part of the EU. This should create an obligation on the part of the EU to protect the interests of the UK. But the EU does not act upon any such obligation. In the current situation, the UK is at a distinct disadvantage because of its EU membership. And that's shameful. Similarly with the UN: it sanctions a mission, but will not sanction any actions to actually protect those doing the mission. Iran has committed an act of war against the UK. The UK is essentially forced to pretend that it is something less than that, because it cannot respond to it for what it really is.
 
Megalodon said:
Outside of the ad-hominems, insults, misrepresentations and lies, what exactly do you think was Steyn's argument?
Click to expand...
  1. They're not just British, they're UN soldiers.
  2. Sombody, probably the UN should do something.
  3. The UN stinks.
  4. Pat Buchannan is very wise
  5. Steyn won't say exactly what should be done.
  6. But something.
 
Tricky said:
Is it at all possible that the British hostages were indeed in Iranian waters?
Click to expand...

I don't think so.

The commander of the British vessel acted pretty quickly to take the photographs being shown around of the GPS, and the crew of the boarded ship is presumably neutral, and could easily dispute it if they were seized inside Iranian waters. Add to that the Iranians' botched claim regarding their own position (giving one outside their territorial waters), as well as the fact that Iran is a closed state vs. Britain's free press, and I'll give 1000 to 1 odds and still be cheating you.
 
Tricky said:
Is it at all possible that the British hostages were indeed in Iranian waters? And if that is the case, would it be out of line for Iran to take them into custody. Imagine how the US (or Britain) would react if they found a boatload of soldiers in their territorial waters. What would they do? I'm betting it would be a bit more than a stern lecture.

I'm not a fan of Iran, in fact I feel like they're a much greater danger that Iraq ever was, but I think we need to try to be objective and view this incident just as we would if it were one of our allies taking this action.
Click to expand...

I doubt it seriously since the British GS data matched the first released Iranian same - and both put the ship over a mile into IRAQUI waters. The Iranians shortly made up- oops, I mean changed, theirs.
 
Pardalis said:
Since the Liberals of this boards are too busy bashing their own countrymen of the Conservatives party for having conservative ideas, meanwhile in the rest of the world Iran keeps humiliating the West in all impunity:
Click to expand...

OMG!!!! HUMILITY!!!

It's about time the West started to unite to face the real problem which is this irrational regime in Iran.
Click to expand...
OH NOES!! IRRATIONALITY!!!
 
NoZed Avenger said:
How hard did you look?

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070328-071438-3482r



This was supported by photos taken on the ship where the boats were picked up by the Iranians -- showing the GPS screen.

Meanwhile, Iran released coordinates that they said were correct, but when those proved to be outside Iranian waters, they moved the spot. Their say-so only, no other support.


Of course, the Middle East Times is not regular reading.

But there's PBS

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/iran_03-29.html

Newsbreak for Aussies

http://newsbreak.com.au/search.ac?relkey=a825718

the Daily News

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2007/04/02/ap/headlines/d8o8flg00.txt

And from personal knowledge, it ran on either a major network news program or CNN, since I learned of it on television first.





Of course, the British sailors have "confessed," for Iranian TV [ http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=4693&sectionid=3510101 "All British Sailors Confess to Illegal Trespassing" ] so feel free to ignore the above.
Click to expand...

I'll readily admit that I haven't looked as closely as I should have at the proof, but I'm STILL surprised that the possibility of this whole thing hapening wasn't a consideration by either the British OR the Americans. You would think there would have been some sort of contingency plan for the event, something like maybe - an immediate and aggressive show of force. It would have thrown the responsibility of aggression right back into the laps of the Iranians and would have kept the British sailors from captivity.

BTW, thanks for the links. :)
 
Mephisto said:
I'll readily admit that I haven't looked as closely as I should have at the proof, but I'm STILL surprised that the possibility of this whole thing hapening wasn't a consideration by either the British OR the Americans. You would think there would have been some sort of contingency plan for the event, something like maybe - an immediate and aggressive show of force. It would have thrown the responsibility of aggression right back into the laps of the Iranians and would have kept the British sailors from captivity.
Click to expand...

Well, I am not sure that both countries didn't have such plans -- it is possible that the sailors or commander at the scene simply goofed in that regard, and the American rules of engagement are somewhat more . . . robust, as I understand it.

But as to the responsibility of the aggression, I can see it now: British Ship Fires on Iranian Vessel. Iranians claim British ship came into Iranian waters and upon the Iranian vessel moving to question the intrusion, were fired upon without provocation. Critics immediately point out that several years back in a similar situation, Britain was able to get its people back from Iran peacefully.

Iran then releases supposed data showing that the attack was inside Iranian waters and we have a similar situation politically, but with a big fact shift in the small scale: the sailors presumably have not been captured and are not hostages; a British vessel has fired upon an Iranian one, supposedly in Iran's territory; and possibly several Iranians (and/or British) were killed in the exchange.

While the above would have the advantage of keeping the sailors from being captured, I don't see that this reduces any criticism of Britain or the West in general -- probably quite the reverse, as Britain is said to have "jumped the gun," avoided diplomatic solutions, is called hot-headed, war-seeking, etc. etc.

BTW, thanks for the links. :)
Click to expand...


NP -- I was looking for a CNN one, but didn't see it. I know *some* television news program covered it, I just cannot remember where.
 
davefoc said:
You mean are they being treated like the Abu Graib prisoners were? No. I suspect the Iranians are treating the British soldiers a lot better than the Americans have treated a lot of prisoners in their custody.
Click to expand...

The US government denounced Abu Graib if I recall.

If this incident can be diffused by conceding to the Iranians that the Iraq Iran border is ambiguous in the area the British soldiers were captured and by returning some of the disputed diplomats then that sounds like a good idea to me.
Click to expand...

Conceding to Iran's blackmail should be the last thing anyone should do.

Mephisto said:
Perhaps because the President of Iran is trying to force our hand. Do you think we should be so easily manipulated? It's obvious that any military actions on our part (or the UK's) would garner more support for him from moderate Iranians, or even those who oppose Ahmadinejad.
Click to expand...

This regime is being increasingly irrational, what do you do?

As for paying more attention to our politicans who are f**king up, it makes perfect sense to take care of the problems at home before pointing at other countries. Besides, it is precisely the thinking of those politicians that got us into the trouble we're in now.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. Granted the Bush administration screwed up big time in Iraq, but the problems we are in today are not solely the result of US policies. Islamic terrorism and Iran's Holocaust-denial-anti-Israeli rethoric has nothing to do with the US.

shecky said:
The West decides to police the waters without sufficient means of enforcing the rules, or even defending themselves. Indeed, what kind of topsy-turvy thinking is that?
Click to expand...

It's me you quoted by the way, not Ziggurat.

So you want to have an armada of coalition forces to patroll the border? How many troops would that require do you think? What message would that send to Tehran do you think?
 
Pardalis said:
Since the Liberals of this boards are too busy bashing their own countrymen of the Conservatives party for having conservative ideas, meanwhile in the rest of the world Iran keeps humiliating the West in all impunity:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/01/iran.sailors/index.html

Thought I'd let you know.

It's about time the West started to unite to face the real problem which is this irrational regime in Iran.
Click to expand...

The title of this thread should be "Pardalis keeps moving the goalposts". Osama is the problem. No, Saddam is the problem. No, insurgents are the problem. No, foreigners in Iraq are the problem. No, not enough troops in the green zone is the problem. No, Iran is the problem.

Let us know when you've gotten to the really realest of the really real no kidding problem.
 
Megalodon said:
Hmmm... Ad-hominems, insults, lies and even an appeal to 9/11.
Click to expand...
Wow, way to miss the point. What lies? What ad-homs? What insults? And using 9/11 as an example of pan-Islamic unity to contrast with European powers acting in their own individual self-interest while pretending to be a unified force is hardly an "appeal to 9/11".

That is supposed to be a good summary of what?
Click to expand...
To use a poker analogy, the Iranians are playing to win while the West thinks they're playing a friendly game to pass the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom