UK forces say incident in Gulf waterway near Iran

[maddezmom]

Source: Reuters

BASRA, Iraq, March 23 (Reuters) - British forces said on Friday there had been "an incident" in the northern Arabian Gulf after an Iraqi sailor reported seeing up to seven British or American military personnel being seized by an Iranian ship.

"There has been an incident somewhere in the north of the Persian Gulf," British military spokesman Major David Gell said in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, without elaborating.

He said he did not know whether any British or American servicemen were involved.

The sailor, who works on a merchant vessel, said the incident took place on Thursday in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran. His account could not be immediately confirmed.



Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/COL331821.htm

---

article from yesterday:

Iranian navy starts war games in the Gulf: TV Thu Mar 22, 7:08 AM ET



TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's navy started more than a week of war games in the Gulf on Thursday using small vessels carrying missile launchers and tactical submarines, state television reported.

The exercises are the latest in a series of maneuvers staged by Iran's military in the Gulf region, where the United States has deployed a second aircraft carrier, a move widely seen as a warning to Tehran over its nuclear ambitions.

State television said the war games staged by Iran's regular naval forces "showed their defensive power for protecting the Persian Gulf." It said the maneuvers would last until March 30.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070322/ts_nm/iran_wargames_dc_1

[demnan]

1. Here we go, folks

n/t

[Kolesar]

27. An Iraqi sailor said the Brits stopped two Iraqi vessels &the Brits were seized

Per the o/p alertnet story:

British forces said on Friday there had been "an incident" in the northern Arabian Gulf after an Iraqi sailor reported seeing up to seven British or American military personnel being seized by an Iranian ship.

"There has been an incident somewhere in the north of the Persian Gulf," British military spokesman Major David Gell said in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, without elaborating.

He said he did not know whether any British or American servicemen were involved.

The sailor, who works on a merchant vessel, said the incident took place on Thursday in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran. His account could not be immediately confirmed.

The sailor said six or seven foreign military personnel were on two small boats that stopped to check two Iranian ships in the Siban area of the waterway, near the al-Faw peninsula that leads into the northern Arabian Gulf.

[shanti]

77. sure would take our eyes off of the current situation

in the WH, now wouldn't it?:(

[Greeby]

2. Now boys and girls, can you say "Gulf of Tonkin"

:yoiks:

[WiseButAngrySara]

5. Gulf of Tonkin ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress passed in August 1964 in direct response to a minor naval engagement known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. It is of historical significance because it gave U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of military force in Southeast Asia. The Johnson administration subsequently cited the resolution as legal authority for its rapid escalation of U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam conflict.<1>

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident began with an attack by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats on the Maddox, a U.S. destroyer, in the Gulf of Tonkin on 2 August 1964. Two days later, that vessel and another U.S. destroyer in the area both reported themselves under renewed attack, although North Vietnam subsequently insisted that it hadn't attacked — and no attack is now believed to have occurred on the 4th of August.

Within hours, Johnson ordered retaliatory air strikes on the bases of the North Vietnamese boats and announced, in a television address to the American public the same evening, that U.S. naval forces had been attacked. In a message he sent to Congress the following day, the President affirmed that "the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters."

Johnson requested approval of a resolution "expressing the unity and determination of the United States in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia". He said that the resolution should express support "for all necessary action to protect our Armed Forces" — but repeated previous assurances that "the United States... seeks no wider war". As the nation entered the final three months of political campaigning for the 1964 elections (in which Johnson was standing for election), the president contended that the resolution would help "hostile nations... understand" that the United States was unified in its determination "to continue to protect its national interests."<2>

After fewer than nine hours of committee consideration and floor debate, Congress voted, on August 7, 1964, on a joint resolution which authorized the president "to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom."<5> The unanimous affirmative vote in the House of Representatives was 416-0. (However, Congressman Eugene Siler of Kentucky, who was not present but opposed the measure, was "paired" with another member who favored the resolution — i.e., his opposition was not counted, but the vote in favor was one less than it would have been.) The Senate conferred its approval by a vote of 88-2. Some members expressed misgivings about the measure, but in the end, Senators Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska cast the only nay votes.<6> "I believe this resolution to be a historic mistake," warned Senator Morse.<7>

[Monkeyman]

61. We are doomed to repeat the lies in history

[peacebird]

3. like America and Great Britain wouldn't KNOW if their people were taken?

This whole story sounds utterly preposterous.

Of course "utterly preposterous" is as good a reason as any for bush to start wars.... :eyes:

[annabanana]

4. (an "Iraqi sailor" reported seeing ...) Chalabi? Screwball?

What Iraqi sailor, hmmm?

[maddezmom]

6. that person has recanted and now it's an Iraqi fisherman

~snip~

The fisherman said the incident took place early on Friday in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran. His account could not be immediately confirmed.

The fisherman, who asked not be named, said six or seven foreign military personnel were on two small boats that stopped to check Iranian ships in the Siban area of the waterway, near the al-Faw peninsula that leads into the northern Arabian Gulf.

~snip~

Earlier, an Iraqi sailor on a merchant ship told Reuters he had witnessed the incident but later said he had only heard about it.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23623279.htm

[EFerrari]

7. At our meeting with Pelosi's office on Weds, someone asked

how many personnel we already had in Iran. :(

[acmavm]

8. What did she say? Did she give any answer at all?

[EFerrari]

9. Oh, this was only with a staffer here in San Francisco and he

had no comment.

It might not be a bad question for us to call in with, though.

[annabanana]

10. He RECANTED... but NBC just reported the incident... They

didn't offer any caveats. Here we go!

(keep this kicked and rec'd)

[Roland99]

24. Conditioning the masses.

:scared:

[Roland99]

22. That's *Admiral* Curveball to you!

:)

[youngdem]

11. Kick Awareness of this Gulf of Tonkin knockoff....Amateurs

This is just more agit prop.

[HuffleClaw]

12. by the time FOX news gets their paws on this...

...i expect words like 'hostages' and 'unprovoked attack' to appear.

[maddezmom]

26. Bill Hemmer is panting going to the Breaking Story

[HuffleClaw]

31. i bet

have they used the words 'hostage crisis' yet?

[maddezmom]

32. already switched back to CNNI

I only watch the top of the hour to see what they are leading with :)

[KiraBS]

78. As they are British Navy Personnel...This is the BBC's report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm

[leftchick]

13. I am So Glad Pelosi took out the Iran Attack provision

:sarcasm:

another green light for another war.

[CGowen]

14. Birth of a myth?

Johnson is said to have told Undersecretary of State George Ball, “Hell, those dumb, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish







Brzezinski:"...then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

[maddezmom]

15. IRANIAN AMBASSADOR HAS BEEN SUMMONED TO BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE O

IRANIAN AMBASSADOR HAS BEEN SUMMONED TO BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE OVER GULF INCIDENT - MINISTRY
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LAL001850.htm

[Kolesar]

33. "Can I cadge a tanker of oil, mate?"

[Wiley50]

16. Bloomberg Reporting This Story Now. Says British Confirm

15 British marines being held by Iranians.

Urgent meetings underway in London

[maddezmom]

17. this isn't sounding good

:scared:

[maddezmom]

19. AP: Pentagon: Iran Detains 15 British Troops

By PAULINE JELINEK
Associated Press Writer



The Iranian navy detained up to 15 British troops Friday in the Persian Gulf, a Pentagon official said.

The Britons were in two inflatable boats from the frigate H.M.S. Cornwall during a routine smuggling investigation, said the official, who spoke on condition on anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the incident.

http://www.dailycomet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070323/API/703232777

[RebelOne]

18. UK sailors captured at gunpoint

UK sailors captured at gunpoint

Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.
The men were seized when they boarded a boat in the north Arabian Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.

The Royal Navy said it was doing everything it could to secure their release and they were understood to be safe and well.

They were said to be carrying out a routine patrol.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

[UpInArms]

20. from CBSMarketwatch

http://www.marketwatch.com/Search/?doctype=90

02. U.K. sailors captured off of Iraq's coast: report
8:19 AM ET, Mar 23, 2007 - 3 minutes ago

04. 15 British sailors captured by Iran: report
8:18 AM ET, Mar 23, 2007 - 4 minutes ago

[neweurope]

21. k & r

-------------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Eugene]

23. Iran seizes British navy personnel in Iraqi waters

Source: Reuters

Iran seizes British navy personnel in Iraqi waters
23 Mar 2007 12:22:32 GMT

LONDON, March 23 (Reuters) - Iran captured fifteen British Royal Navy
personnel during a "routine boarding operation" in Iraqi waters on Friday,
Britain's Ministry of Defence said.

Iran's ambassador in London has been summoned and Britain is demanding
the immediate safe release of the sailors.

"At approximately 1030 Iraqi time this morning, 15 British naval personnel,
engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi
territorial waters ... were seized by Iranian naval vessels," the ministry
said in a statement.

"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the
highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian
ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office. The British
government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and
equipment."

Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23679879.htm

[KeepItReal]

29. CNN says Iranians claimed Brits were in *Iranian* waters

Doesn't make sense to capture them in "Iraqi" waters.

[maddezmom]

30. no it doesn't, but will we ever know where the merchant ship was they boarded

either way, I'll bet they will be released in a few days.

[KeepItReal]

34. The Reuters article says "Iraqi waters". CNN news said "Iranian" waters.

<eom>

[PassingFair]

25. I hope Britain and Iran get this settled before WE step in...

I can FEEL the saliva FLOWING in the veep's office!

[Paula Sims]

28. How convenient. . .

We just HAPPEN to have an ADMIRAL now "in charge" of the mission in Iraq. Hmmm, someone who knows about water missions must be really bored in the middle of the desert. If he only had something to do on the water. . . Oh yea, don't we have a couple of ships in the are also -- geez, timing is everything, isn't it!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Roland99]

35. Brits were looking for smuggled cars???

CNN Article (no link for this)

An Iraqi fisherman told Reuters the incident took place in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran. His account could not be immediately confirmed.

The British ministry's statement said the Marines "completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters."

The statement added: "We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office. The British Government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

The British Foreign Office said Iran's ambassador in London had been summoned and Britain was demanding their immediate safe release, Reuters reported.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Report_Iran_seizes_15_British_Marines_0323.html

"Britain's Ministry of Defense confirms to CNN that Iranian naval vessels have seized 15 British Navy personnel on patrol in the Persian Gulf," says CNN.

The Marines were reportedly "engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters," CNN quotes the UK ministry.

According to a American military official, "the Marines stopped an Iranian ship suspected of smuggling automobiles, and boarded it for an inspection," reports CNN. "While the Marines were on board, six Navy ships from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard showed up and claimed the British had entered Iranian waters."

The seizure occurred after a dispute about whose "waters" the British forces were in. They were taken, CNN quotes the U.S. official, to Iran.

[WePurrsevere]

36. Iran seizes British navy personnel in Iraqi waters

Source: Reuters

LONDON (Reuters) - Iran captured fifteen British Royal Navy personnel during a "routine boarding operation" in Iraqi waters on Friday, Britain's Ministry of Defense said.

Iran's ambassador in London has been summoned and Britain is demanding the immediate safe release of the sailors.

"At approximately 1030 Iraqi time this morning, 15 British naval personnel, engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters ... were seized by Iranian naval vessels," the ministry said in a statement.

"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office. The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL33182120070323

---

There's a map at the link that shows how close this may have been to the border. Hopefully this will be rectified quickly and peacefully.

[Canuckistanian]

37. This could end peacefully

Or it could be a major international incident.

All depends on the next move.

[Roland99]

38. How do we know the Brits were in Iraqi waters? From their word?

:eyes:

[Henny Penny]

41. Now Now Roland!...

Its not like they've been looking for an excuse... is it?

:crazy:

*********

Lets hope that the Iranians don't fall into any traps here.

[Mojorabbit]

42. In a fair and sane world

someone would release satellite photos and everyone would know for sure one way or another.

[Roland99]

43. Like the satellite photos the US faked in 1990 showing Iraqi troops on the Saudi border?

The first casualty in war is the truth.

[Mojorabbit]

47. As I said...

"in a fair and sane world", which ain't what we got.

[Roland99]

48. True. So true.

:(

[Henny Penny]

123. Might not need satellite pics...

The bbc 10.00 news report showed that the beeb have by shear coincidence a reporter and tv crew on board the very ship these guys were from.

The reporter included in his report footage of the ship that that the British guys were checking out. It was a cargo ship with a lot of cars on the deck. The footage showed quite a close up shot but the shot carefully neglected to show any identifiable piece of coast so of course we could not tell whether or not the British are telling the truth re location.


The tv people have been on board for the last two days and the reporter says that they were talking to some members of the crew including some who have been captured. I guess if "talking to" means interviewing on camera that that footage might come into play at some stage if Margaret Beckett's diplomacy doesn't seriously improve.

It could just have been the heat of course, but the reporter looked very uncomfortable...

[Gman]

50. How do we know we can believe a word the British government says?

I don't know that we cannot believe Iran. We know we can't trust the British government and Tony Blair.

[Roland99]

51. Refs should call off-setting penalties and play the down over.

[KiraBS]

102. Look up the BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm

And watch Commodore Nick Lambert, it is his personnel that have been captured. It seems to be dispute about the exact line between Iraqi and Iranian waters. It seems all the other news stations are using guess work and not reliable witnesses.

[Roland99]

104. So, both sides could be right and both sides could be wrong.

One day, we'll look back and look at this new war instigating instant and laugh our fat American asses off!
















:(

[donkeyotay]

125. Welcome, KiraBS

:hi:

I appreciate the BBC.

[HuffleClaw]

39. how very damned convenient

on the SAME day as the un security council is to vote on iranian sanctions...

and the headline is pretty provocative, for something in which the details are not remotely clear. 'in iraqi waters' ???

[Halliburton]

40. this has happened before

iran released them after a few days

[Kolesar]

44. The British seamen boarded "somebody's ship" and were taken "into custody"

...or "hostage", or whatever. Nobody says whose ship the British boarded. I would say they got themselves into a sticky wicket.

[Kolesar]

46. An Iraqi sailor said the Brits stopped two Iraqi vessels &the Brits were seized

British forces said on Friday there had been "an incident" in the northern Arabian Gulf after an Iraqi sailor reported seeing up to seven British or American military personnel being seized by an Iranian ship.

"There has been an incident somewhere in the north of the Persian Gulf," British military spokesman Major David Gell said in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, without elaborating.

He said he did not know whether any British or American servicemen were involved.

The sailor, who works on a merchant vessel, said the incident took place on Thursday in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran. His account could not be immediately confirmed.

The sailor said six or seven foreign military personnel were on two small boats that stopped to check two Iranian ships in the Siban area of the waterway, near the al-Faw peninsula that leads into the northern Arabian Gulf.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2778064&mesg_id=2778200

[MaineDem]

45. Is the Maddox anywhere around there?

Sorry but I can't help feeling we've been through this before.

I hope the sailors are back safely and soon.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3810724

[saigon68]

52. The Turner Joy cranking up engines

This very minute

[MGD]

57. Or the Maine for that matter, eh Maine?

This will be interesting. Hopefully it is resolved faster than our Iranian kidnapping incident. I doubt it though.

[MaineDem]

65. Very true

I'm hoping this was a misunderstanding and they'll be released shortly. I share your doubts, sadly.

[Phrogman]

49. So, while everyone was waiting for Israel or the US to kick off the Iran attack.....

the British shall now make the opening move..

[leftynyc]

136. Looks to me like the Iranians

are doing their fair share of provoking.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

53. here we go. n/t

[MetaTrope]

54. Interesting wrinkle, the BBC says the Royal Navy was looking for smuggled cars

per http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

Does anyone else remember that little story awhile back about the cars used in Iraq suicide bombings being smuggled out of the U.S.?

[Roland99]

56. I remember that well and thought of that when I read the latest update

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Report_Iran_seizes_15_British_Marines_0323.html

"Britain's Ministry of Defense confirms to CNN that Iranian naval vessels have seized 15 British Navy personnel on patrol in the Persian Gulf," says CNN.

The Marines were reportedly "engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters," CNN quotes the UK ministry.

According to a American military official, "the Marines stopped an Iranian ship suspected of smuggling automobiles, and boarded it for an inspection," reports CNN. "While the Marines were on board, six Navy ships from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard showed up and claimed the British had entered Iranian waters."

The seizure occurred after a dispute about whose "waters" the British forces were in. They were taken, CNN quotes the U.S. official, to Iran.

From CNN (no link available)

An Iraqi fisherman told Reuters the incident took place in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran. His account could not be immediately confirmed.

The British ministry's statement said the Marines "completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters."

The statement added: "We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office. The British Government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

The British Foreign Office said Iran's ambassador in London had been summoned and Britain was demanding their immediate safe release, Reuters reported.

[Marie26]

63. So now they boarded an Iranian ship? nt

[Marie26]

64. dupe nt

[yellowcanine]

55. It's a damn good thing U.S. and British forces are there. Otherwise, the turmoil in Iraq might

destabilise the whole region. Just sayin'. :sarcasm:

[AzDar]

58. Quick! Subpoenas are coming...WAG THE DOG!!

:puke:

[BluePatriot]

59. Indeed. (n/t)

[Bonobo]

60. Headline should be: "UK FORCES incident in Gulf waterway near Iran"

[KitSileya]

62. According to a Norwegian news article

something similar happened in 2004, when 8 British sailors were caught while patrolling the sea border to Iran - they were kept for 3 days before they were released.

The article also quotes Nick Lambert, HMS Cornwall's captain(?), who says that wile they are reasonably certain the sailors were in Iraqi waters, the sea borders in the innermost part of the Perisan Gulf is very complicated.

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article1704785.ece

[peaches2003]

66. RW sites

They are positively salivating that their next war is about to start! These people are sickos.

[Roland99]

68. Well, the 101st Keyboardists don't have to make any sacrifices. In fact...

we'll probably get more tax cuts for the rich and the Federal Reserve will just buy up more government debt since "deficits don't matter".

[progressivebydesign]

67. Wondered what they'd do to incite it...

Guess I'd be a bit jumpy if scores of warships amassed on the coast of my country. Not saying Iran is blameless, but god.. how many times do we have to play this fucking game?

A quote from an article about this really caught my eye: <<In February, President Bush said: "The Iranian people are good, honest, decent people and they've got a government that is belligerent, loud, noisy, threatening — a government which is in defiance of the rest of the world and says, 'We want a nuclear weapon.'">> How about we swap the words "Iranian people"? It would be something like this: <<In February, President Bush said: "The AMERICAN people are good, honest, decent people and they've got a government that is belligerent, loud, noisy, threatening — a government which is in defiance of the rest of the world and says, 'We HAVE a nuclear weapon.'">>

says it all.. doesn't it?

[Poll_Blind]

69. You got hat right- it sure does. It sure does. (sigh) n/t

PB

[DuaneBidoux]

70. Nobody in this thread has even considered the possibility that Bush has finally run into someone....

as crazy as he is. Ahmadinejad has shown himself so far to be a little light in the head (don''t forget he denies the holocaust).

But the fact that nobody is even considering the possibility that this incident was unprovoked by the Brits illustrates the incredible danger that comes from having a serial lier and madman as president.

IF it is true that Iranians entered Iraqi waters and seized British inspectors this is grave. I guarantee you there is not a potential Democratic president that wouldn't take this very seriously (and Clinton would have responded).

Even if we get out of this without another military engagement (i.e., war) then I also promise you that this will change the stance of any Democratic president toward Iran. In fact, this is enough, if proven correct, to change our direction and priorities in foreign policy for years to come regardless of who is elected.

Ultimately the real problem here is that the US and its leaders have absolutely no credibility left to deal with any real dangers. Who believes them now?

And this argument of "but we probably have spies in Iran" is not relevant. I'm sure we do. But I have no doubt that Iran has spies in Iraq (as we would in Mexico if Mexico had been invaded by a third party). That is just the way the "game" is played.

What do you do? There ARE many bad guys in the world--the real problem becomes what to do when you are being led by one of them.

[redqueen]

71. What do you do? You let the UK handle it...

since it's the UK that's involved.

[Poll_Blind]

72. Exactly. Iran antagonizes Israel and the U.S. rattles the sabre, Iran...

...antagonizes the UK and the U.S. rattles the sabre.

  Fuck it, let them deal with their own problems. When every American belly and savings account is full then we can start fixing other nations' problems.

PB

[redqueen]

73. Well... you ignore that it's the US that wants the unending wars.

So... it could well be that Israel and the UK are just cooperating with us... giving the neo-cons the impetus they've been waiting for.

:shrug:

[DuaneBidoux]

132. It is not the US that wants unending war, it is Bush and the Neocons.

They will pass. But don't ignore the history, not to mention widespread fanaticism of this part of the world. They have been fighting with each other ten times longer than it is even historically possible for the US to wish unending war.

The single biggest reason it was ever a mistake to get involved so deeply in the Middle East is because there never has been and never will be a political solution for hate--and they have a barrel of hate over there for every barrel of oil.

[maddezmom]

74. rather broadbush you're painting with isn't it?

:eyes:

[Stella_Artois]

75. You can talk about the Iranians being in the wrong place alright

and maybe that is true.

One thing is CERTAIN though. Those Marines were in the wrong place, regardless of what side of the invisible line there were on.

They have as much right to be on the Iraqi side as the Iranian side, which is none whatsoever.

I'm sure they will be treated well enough, and will be handed back in good health. Disarmed of course.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

76. *Achooo!* I'm allergic to bullshit

[TomInTib]

79. Britain: Iran seizes 15 sailors, marines

Source: AP

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago


DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Iranian naval vessels on Friday seized 15 British sailors and marines who had boarded a merchant ship in Iraqi waters of the Persian Gulf, British and U.S. officials said. Britain immediately protested the detentions, which come at a time of high tension between the West and Iran.

In London, the British government summoned the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Office and demanded "the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment." Iran had no immediate comment.

The U.S. Navy, which operates off the Iraqi coast along with British forces, said the British sailors appeared unharmed and that Iran's Revolutionary Guard naval forces were responsible.

Britain's Defense Ministry said the British Navy personnel were "engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters," and had completed a ship inspection when they were accosted by the Iranian vessels.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070323/ap_on_re_eu/british_seized_iran

[no_hypocrisy]

80. "To war! To war! Freedonia's going to war!"

MRS. TEASDALE, THIS IS THE LAST STRAW ! THERE'S NO TURNING BACK NOW !
THIS MEANS WAR !
THEN IT'S WAR !
THEN IT'S WAR ! GATHER THE FORCES !
HARNESS THE HORSES ! THEN IT'S WAR !
- FREEDONIA'S GOING TO WAR - EACH SON WILL GRAB A GUN
- AND RUN AWAY TO WAR - AT LAST WE'RE GOING TO
FEET WILL BEAT ALONG THE STREET TO WAR
- WE'RE GOING TO WAR - OUR COUNTRY'S GOING TO WAR
- OUR COUNTRY'S GOING TO WAR - THE COUNTRY'S GOING TO WAR
WE'RE GOING TO WAR THIS IS A FACT WE CAN'T IGNORE
WE'RE GOING TO WAR, THIS IS A FACT WE CAN'T IGNORE WE'RE GOING TO WAR
IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THEY THINK WE'RE GOING TO WAR
WE'RE GOING TO WAR I THINK THEY THINK WE'RE GOING TO WAR
WE'RE GOING TO WAR GOING TO WAR
- WE'RE GOING TO WAR - WE'RE GOING TO WAR
< Drums >

TO WAR, TO WAR WE'RE FINALLY GOING TO WAR
HI-DE, HI-DE HI-DE, HI-DE HO
TO WAR, TO WAR TO WAR WE'RE GONNA GO
HI-DE, HI-DE HI-DE, HI-DE HO
HI-DE, HI-DE HI-DE, HI-DE HO
HI-DE, HI-DE HI-DE, HI-DE HO
HI-DE, HI-DE HI-DE, HI-DE HO
OH, OH OH, OH, OH
OH, OH OH, OH, OH
OH, OH
OH, OH
THEY GOT GUNS WE GOT GUNS
ALL GOD'S CHILDREN GOT GUNS
WE'RE GONNA WALK ALL OVER THE BATTLEFIELD
'CAUSE ALL GOD'S CHILDREN GOT GUNS
OH FREEDONIA OH DON'T YOU CRY FOR ME
'CAUSE I'M COMING 'ROUND THE MOUNTAIN WITH A BANJO ON MY KNEE
OH FREEDONIA OH DON'T YOU CRY FOR ME
'CAUSE I'M COMING 'ROUND THE MOUNTAIN
WITH A BANJO
ON MY
< Cheering >
< Fanfare >
TO WAR, TO WAR TO WAR WE'RE GONNA GO
TO WAR, TO WAR TO WAR
TO WAR, TO WAR WE SOON WILL SAY GOOD-BYE
HOW WE'LL CRY FOR FIREFLY IF FIREFLY SHOULD DIE
A MIGHTY MAN IS HE
A MAN OF BRAWN WHO'LL CARRY ON 'TIL DAWN OF VICTORY
WITH HIM TO LEAD THE WAY OUR SPIRITS WILL NOT LAG
UNTIL THE JUDGMENT DAY WE'LL RALLY 'ROUND THE FLAG
THE FLAG, THE FLAG THE FLAG
THERE'LL BE TWO LAMPS IN THE STEEPLE IF BY LAND AND ONE IF BY SEA.
THEY DOUBLE-CROSSED ME. THEY'RE COMING BY LAND AND SEA !
RIDE THROUGH EVERY VILLAGE. WAKE EVERY CITIZEN UP.
TELL 'EM THE ENEMY COMES FROM AFAR WITH A HEY NONNY-NONNY AND A HA-CHA-CHA !
BE OFF, MY LAD !
< Bugle >
MY HUSBAND ! HIDE IN THERE !
OH, DON'T.
FREEDONIA'S GOING TO WAR ! I'M GONNA TAKE A BATH.
< Honk >
< Honk >
- < Honk > - < Bugle >

[chelsea0011]

92. ahaahaaaaaaa

[Dhalgren]

81. Jesus! This is just the kind of thing that will be used as a pretext to war.

I just hope everyone can control themselves...

[Forkboy]

83. Well it would sure as hell get that pesky attorney story of the front pages.

Not that Bush and Cheney would be motivated by such a thing,naturally.

[RL3AO]

82. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2778064&mesg_id=2778064

[Turbineguy]

84. Oil currency shift

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=3538§ionid=351020103

[Karenina]

127. BINGO!!!

ALWAYS follow the money... The goal is to destroy Iran's economic development by flattening its infrastructure.

[bemildred]

85. You gotta wonder who is provoking who here?

Is Iran jerking Tony's chain, or the other way around?

[lovuian]

86. They are stopping and searching Vessels in Iranian seas

there is a game being played here a very very dangerous game
I don't think Britain expected this

[DanWithAngel]

87. They were in Iraq waters by every report I have seen

Where did you get the idea the British troops were in Iranian waters?

[Igel]

89. The Iranians say it was in Iranian waters.

And given the choice between Britain and the US, as well as some anonymous Iraqi, on the one hand, and the Iranians on the other, well, it's obvious.

Iranians never lie, Americans and British never tell the truth.

But wait. I'm American. So maybe it *wasn't* the Iranians who said that the British were caught in Iranian waters. Maybe it was the Maltese. Or the Vanuatans. And it was actually the Czech navy caught in Lesotho or Uzbek territorial waters.

[Xithras]

99. It's the Shatt-Al-Arab. It belongs to whoever has the biggest guns.

FYI, the Shatt-Al-Arab is one of the longest running territorial battles in history. Clear back to the 1600's, the Persians and Ottomans were fighting over it. More recently, the Iran-Iraq war was launched and fought because of the dispute over the Shatt-Al-Arab. The river is the border between the two countries, and while it's extremely valuable to the Iraqi's for trade, it's a territorial issue for Iran. Iran claims that the river should be split down the middle, while Iraq claims that the whole river is theirs. Prior to our invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi's controlled the Iraqi side and the entire center of the river, leaving the Iranians only a narrow stretch along their coast. The Iranians, still claiming that half the river is theirs, have never accepted this border. This means that roughly half of the river is disputed territory, claimed by both nations.

And while it's easy to claim that Iran has the "fair" position, keep this in mind: The vast majority of shipments in an out of Iraq, including everything from oil to food, come through the nations main port at Basra. Basra is located on the Shatt-Al-Arab. In some sections of the river, the shipping lanes are almost completely on the Iranian side of the river. If you split the river down the middle, you essentially cut Basra off from the sea. If you do THAT, you shut down the only port in Iraq, one that the country depends on heavily for its survival. The Iraqi's don't claim the whole river because they're jerks, they claim the whole river because they NEED the river. The Iranians, on the other hand, have no installations on their side of the river whatsoever. It's simply a territorial thing for them.

[John Q. Citizen]

103. Thanks for the info. Perhaps this is part of the reason that Iraq tried to regain

Kuwait, which is both a territorial and a shipping issue for Iraq. (Along with the claims of sideways oil extraction.)

[Xithras]

106. Yes, that is part of the reason.

One of the more minor ones, but still a valid reason from the Iraqi perspective. There is a second outlet for the Euphrates River delta inside of Kuwait, and an already existing large canal linking that river outlet to Basra. Control of Kuwait would have permitted the Iraqi's to reach the gulf without conflicting with the Iranians. It would have also opened up Kuwait City for development as a possible port.

The history of Kuwait is long and complex, but it mostly boils down to this: Kuwait was a city/state that controlled almost no land beyond their city prior to the British takeover. The British didn't want Iraq to become a naval power, so they drew up borders between the countries specifically designed to limit Iraq's access to the gulf. Iraq has no legitimate claim to Kuwait, but they DO have a legitimate claim to some of the waterways in the norther portion of the country. The Iraqi's have never accepted the borders as drawn, except at the barrel of a British rifle.

[conning]

105. Thanks Xithras

I got out my Atlas to see what you are pointing out. Where the Tigris and Euphrates conjoin is where the Shatt-al-Arab begins. Such a strategic stretch of river to the Persian Gulf. So often it helps to know the lay of the land (and the water).

[katsy]

90. Reports...

Worthless. Who can believe the media or government?

Remember the reports that Iraq had WMDs?

I wouldn't believe this government or the media even if they had lie detectors hooked up to their dicks.

[John Q. Citizen]

94. That made me laugh. Thanks!

[katsy]

95. Cheers!

Maybe we should make lie detector hookups mandatory.

:toast:

[DanWithAngel]

97. but what to use?

on the bubble headed bleach-blond newscasters?

[katsy]

98. Unisex lie detectors.

No sexism here.

Welcome to DU :hi:

[HEyHEY]

128. Uh, I recall widespread media attention saying Iraq DID NOT have WMD's

But, your government didn't care. Don't blame the media on that one.

[katsy]

130. Official reports from *bushco...

"mushroom clouds" and all that.

News readers read reports and white house propaganda. The war monger's talking points were parroted incessantly and far outweighed meaningful analysis. Only progressive/liberal bloggers and a handful of progressive radio shows dared to question "official reports". No one in the mainstream media questioned the existence of WMDs until the evidence was overwhelming and irrefutable. Up until then - newsreaders just read propaganda reports. Why do you think so many americans believed that Iraq caused 911? They were inundated with rw bullshit in the media.

Show me any balanced reporting from the mainstream media (not progressive talk) back when the war drums were beating. I want to be wrong... it would be in america's interest if I were.

[John Q. Citizen]

93. There is no reason Iran would ask to be attacked by Britain and the US

so I assume this is just another attempt by Britain and the US to create justification for attacking Iran.

My assumption at this point is that Britain was operating in Iranian waters and the Iranians defended their sovereignty.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but every report blamed the N. Vietnamese for attacking US ships in international waters. The truth came out years later: The US lied, the reports were false, and millions of deaths later we found out.

More recently, bush lied, the NY Times lied, and we went into Iraq based on false reports, cooked intelligence, and cynical manipulation of information.

The pattern is crystal clear. I'm not falling for the BS.

[Xithras]

100. Read #99

It's a little more complex than that.

Edited: Number changed when threads merged

[Dhalgren]

135. The complexity of the matter makes lying all the easier. Simply because an issue is complex

does not negate the propensity of these particular players to lie. The fact that this area is such a tender spot for both Iran and Iraq is the very thing that makes dissimulation so easy and so difficult to refute...

[redirish28]

88. Perhaps the timing is a little too perfect and My wife sees Karl Rove's hands all over this.

Maybe my wife is insane but she looked at me and said the timing is too perfect. She says within 36 hours something major will happen so that the Sunday talk shows would have dumped the Rove/Constitutional showdown pieces that are no doubt being prepared now and we will see Condi and others on the shows talking war.


Who knows this could be a way to keep the UK in this war?

[krispos42]

91. Well, I was right, I guess

I didn't think of the British being the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but there ya go.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/krispos42/11

I guess the Ides of March were too soon. Ides of April, anyone?

Well, there are still 3 days to go before my birthday. Maybe I'll still get fireworks...

<sigh>

[Bigmack]

96. How about this idea?

Maybe the Iranians are just getting a little uppity. Maybe they just wanted to show the Great Powers that they don't have to put up with being pushed around.

What scares me is that maybe the Iranians didn't know for sure that they were Brits.

Gently fucking over the Brits is one thing... no real teeth. But if they were to do anything that might set off our Psychopath-in-Chief......

I don't think the Iranians are crazy, but they can fuck up and misread a situation, too.

War by design is horrible, but war by accident is a real possibility.

[John Q. Citizen]

101. Not too probable. When did the Brits ever give a

damn about anyone else's sovereignty, except their own?

[hayu_lol]

107. The earliest releases of this episode on KGO, San Francisco...

used the remark that this was a long-disputed waterway. That has been pointed out above. Sometime since the earliest releases, the phrase long-disputed has been dropped. The Arabs from many countries have said that there are no real agreements over which country or countries actually own/control this section of the Gulf.

Many countries are very antsy over their offshore territorial waters...in the past 30 years or so, Japan/Russia/China/and even the US have had such squabbles over who owns what--balanced against 'peaceful transit' of international waterways/territorial waters.

I don't believe the Iranians used 'ships' to surround the Brits...my hunch is that they were missle boats and not 'ships.'

[sabra]

108. Iran: detained Britons 'illegally' entered Iranian waters

Source: Iran PRESS TV

Iran has summoned the British envoy to its foreign ministry over illegal entry into Iranian waters of the Royal Navy marines.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry issued a statement aired on Friday on the state-run television, saying "British charge d'affaires Kate Smith was summoned to the foreign ministry to receive a firm protest from Iran against the illegal entry of British sailors into Iranian territorial waters."

"This makes a number of times that British sailors have illegally entered Iranian territorial waters at Arvand Rud," the statement read, adding, "They were arrested by border guards for investigation and questioning."

...

A U.S. Navy spokesman said Friday that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards had radioed a British warship explaining that no harm had come to the 15 British sailors and marines and that they were seized because they were in Iranian waters.

Read more: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=3588§ionid=3510101

[Iwasthere]

109. GOOD!

Get us the Fuck outa there. Leave them alone. Their nuclear ambitions will most certainly become greater if we keep pokin em.

[Prophet 451]

110. BBC: UK sailors captured at gunpoint

Source: BBC News

Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.
The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.

The Royal Navy said the group was on a routine patrol in Iraqi waters and were understood to be unharmed.

But Iranian state television quoted the Iran foreign ministry as saying they had illegally entered Iranian waters.

The Associated Press news agency is quoting US Navy official, Commander Kevin Aandahl, as saying that Iran's Revolutionary Guard were responsible.

Mr Aandahl is also reported as saying the naval force had told them in a radio message that the British were not harmed.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has demanded the immediate and safe return of the HMS Cornwall servicemen.

She added that she had called for a "full explanation" from Iran and had left them in no doubt that she wanted the group and their equipment back immediately.

The task force's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said he was hoping there had been a "simple mistake" over territorial waters.

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may claim they were in Iranian territorial waters.

Continued at the link...

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm

---

We all know that Bush has been gearing up for a war with Iran. Likewise, we all know that the current standoff was just going to take a small spark to blow the whole situation apart. Is this that spark?

[DanWithAngel]

111. it is a spark that is a fact

the real question is who is telling the truth?

[Prophet 451]

113. Does it matter?

I mean, morally, ethically, sure, it matters but in practical terms, if both sides stick to their version of events, isn't it kind of a moot point?

[DanWithAngel]

116. moot with respect to solving the problem

resolution to a standoff is key to survival of an idea or life itself.

[anotherdrew]

112. pathetic that they let themselves be captured.

they should have stalled for time and called in backup. This is really fucked up if you ask me that they just surrender themselves like this.

[Prophet 451]

114. That's as maybe but hardly the point

Firstly, we weren't there, we don't know the situation and news reports can and often are wrong (remember Jessica Lynch?). Secondly, that's kind of irrelevant given that this could well be the spark that ignites the war with Iran for us and the USA will follow us in because Bush is hellbent on invading Iran. I've already emailed my MP and I'll be writing to him tonight, hoping it doesn't come to that.

[anotherdrew]

131. with any luck Iran will play it cool and let them go quickly

it's the best thing they could do. really, I've no doubt the captured did the best thing they could at the time, after all it's hard to believe they were out there in small boats with so many allied warships in the area, and not 2 not 4 but SIX Iran warships creep up on them and no support from their side? no one told them that six targets were converging on them? hard to believe. so hard in fact that it almost makes me think they were setup.

[knight_of_the_star]

115. I doubt this will be enough of a spark

Although I wouldn't put it past them to make up one.

[Prophet 451]

117. I hope and pray

and yes, I am literally praying, that you're right.

[ohio2007]

118. The Iranians have done this before in the past

"Catch and release program"

Iranians have taken the Brits hostage in the past.

[intaglio]

119. This is like a similar event in 2004

The Marines and Sailors were detained in Iranian national waters; this is admitted by the Admiralty and Foreign office. There are negotiations under way with the likelyhood that the personnel will be released by next Friday.

[Prophet 451]

120. I do hope so

But the cynic in me has to remember that Blair is on his way out and has Bush in his ear all the time and Bush is intent on invading Iran. Also, teh Iranian president has just cancelled his visit to teh UN.

I really hope you're right.

[ohio2007]

121. ...just pawns in the

<snip>
In 2004, Iran detained eight British servicemen for three days after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border.

The UK claimed the men were "forcibly escorted" into Iranian territorial waters.

While they were being held,
the men were paraded blindfold and made to apologise on Iranian TV before their release was agreed.

...
<snip>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

(a breach of the Geneva Convention)

[Shoes For Industry]

122. Gulf of Tonkin

Redux?

[ohio2007]

124. This is all about oil

old article that talks about events in Iran today


Gasoline rationing in Iran by March

LONDON, October 19 (IranMania) - Deputy Oil Minister Mohammad Reza Nematzadeh disclosed that with the distribution of smart fuel cards, gasoline-rationing project would begin by March 2007.

According to ILNA, Nematzadeh, who is also the managing director of the National Iranian Oil Derivatives Production and Distribution Company, told reporters that the public would shortly be notified about going to post offices to apply for smart fuel cards at low prices, adding that a project to personalize the cards in Shiraz, Fars province will begin soon.

He described the pilot smart card projects in Shiraz and Karaj, Tehran province and some border provinces as successful, clarifying that pilot projects, technically and functionally, are in final stages.

<snip>
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=46548&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs


Something to distract the Iranian citizens ,untied against foreign invasion....entrapment...whatever with failed domestic policy?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5399200.stm


or,
Maybe the Iranians want to "entice" the Brits to soften their anti nuke stance ?
Guess it's time to troll the official Iranian news sites.....

[ohio2007]

126. Russia Gives Iran Ultimatum on Enrichment

PARIS, March 19 — Russia has informed Iran that it will withhold nuclear fuel for Iran’s nearly completed Bushehr power plant unless Iran suspends its uranium enrichment as demanded by the United Nations Security Council, European, American and Iranian officials say.

<snip>

Russia has been deeply reluctant to ratchet up sanctions against Iran in the Security Council, which is expected to vote on a new set of penalties against the country within the next week.

But American officials have been trying to create a commercial incentive for Russia to put pressure on Iran. One proposal the Bush administration has endorsed since late 2005 envisions having the Russians enrich Iran’s uranium in Russia. That creates the prospect of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in business for Russia, and a way to ensure that Iran receives only uranium enriched for use in power reactors, instead of for use in weapons.

Iran has rejected those proposals, saying it has the right to enrich uranium on its own territory.

<snip>

http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/022182.html

[HEyHEY]

129. Well, this is tricky

I don't know what to think.
On one hand I can't see Iran arresting them if they WEREN'T in Iranian waters, unless Iran is itching for a war. But on the other hand, they may just be looking to kick some dirt. My understanding is that the Royal Navy was very close to the boundry line and could have gone over.
Who knows, we'll find out eventually.

[Eugene]

133. Detained British servicemen moved to Tehran-report

Source: Reuters

Detained British servicemen moved to Tehran-report
24 Mar 2007 09:25:47 GMT
Source: Reuters

TEHRAN, March 24 (Reuters) - The 15 British navy personnel
detained in the Gulf on Friday have been transferred to Tehran
to explain their "aggressive action", the semi-official Fars
news agency reported on Saturday.

Iranian officials were not immediately available to comment
on the report, which did not give a source for the information.

Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/DAH433286.htm

[ohio2007]

134. British sailors to be used as bargaining chips

saw this comming


Iran: Sailors "confessed" to illegally entering Iran's waters

snip
The sailors, taken at gunpoint Friday by Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Al Quds soldiers were captured intentionally and are to be used as bargaining chips to be used for the release of five Iranians who were arrested at the Iranian consul in Irbil, Iraq by US troops, an Iranian official told the daily paper Asharq al-Awsat on Saturday.

In addition, a senior Iranian military official said Saturday that the decision to capture the soldiers was made during a March 18 emergency meeting

snip
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879158891&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

They were 'trolling' for limey's since March 18th