U.K. rejects demand to admit trespassing

[maddezmom]

Source: Associated Press

U.K. rejects demand to admit trespassing By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer
7 minutes ago



RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Britain on Thursday rejected a demand by Iran's foreign minister that it admit its 15 sailors and marines entered Iranian waters in order to resolve a standoff over their capture.

U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon held talks with Iran's foreign minister in the Saudi capital, and Ban's spokeswoman said the detention of the Britons was among the topics they were discussing.

Ban's spokeswoman, Soung-Ah Choi, said the U.N. secretary-general was addressing a number of issues in the talks and that the detention of the Britons was among them. She would not give immediate details on the talks, which were still ongoing.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_re_mi_ea/british_seized_iran

[Hieronymus]

1. Blair called for adherence to Geneva Conventions....

"Before the video was broadcast, a spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned that any attempt to humiliate the captives by putting them on display would be a breach of the Geneva Conventions."

This coming from Blair who, along with Bush, thinks that the Geneva Conventions are quaint, and that torture is allowed.

[winter999]

2. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

You can take that so many different ways :)

[ShortnFiery]

7. What about all those torture PICs that the Brits circulated and ended up

being aired on TV?

Oh, that's right - Blair's a bloody hypocrite! :grr:

[Amused Musings]

3. While it is unlikely that

these British troops did indeed go into Iranian waters, I wonder if the UK should just bite the bullet and say, yes, we accidently might have gone into your waters and we accept symbolic responsibility for this matter- no release the soldiers.

Lets say there is absolutely no argument about whether or not the troops were in Iranian waters or not. For the sake of de-escalation, should the brits take responsibility?

[winter999]

4. Isn't that exactly what the Iranians want?

I slap you in the face and then demand you apologize. Not only is it bully-tactics, but it doesn't end there. It will be reparations next, then something worse.

To make someone admit a falsehood publicly simply evil and wrong. To admit a falsehood because of threats is cowardice which Iran is trying to show.

It's better to stand for truth and be bloodied than to back down defeated by admitting a lie and letting the bully crush your windpipe under his boot.

[ShortnFiery]

6. Do we honestly KNOW for a fact that The British are right.

I know it sounds absurd, but our beloved leaders could be lying to us again?

What true, independent confirmation do we have that these Sailors were NOT in Iranian waters other than "The British Authorities" say so ... with THEIR GPS systems?

FACT THIS FACT: We don't know who is lying.

What is wrong with diplomacy?

I'm sickened by the thought of perpetual war for perpetual peace just to feed our Military Industrial Complex beastie. :(

Don't forget, NONE of the 1979 Iranian Hostages were killed under President Carter. Further, one must wonder if some favors/cash was slipped under the table for Iran to return them AFTER Carter's Presidency. Therefore, diplomacy was slow, but diplomacy WORKED.

[jayfish]

8. That Take Smacks Of Childishness -NT-

Jay

[jayfish]

5. Why Is It "Unlikely That...

these British troops did indeed go into Iranian waters'?

Jay

[frylock]

9. because they said so..

why isn't that good enough for you? So what if everything else we're told turns out to be 100% USDA grade bullshit. There's a very slight chance that the Brit's are telling the truth this time.

[Taxloss]

11. The best evidence is that Iran screwed up its lie, and gave the wrong coordinates.

So we know Iran is lying.

[jayfish]

13. I Don't Think That Proves Anything Other Than They Gave...

the wrong coordinates. It is a bit on the convenient side but being incorrect about a thing does not make one a liar.

Jay

[Taxloss]

16. Considering the delicacy of the situation, it's an astonishing thing to get wrong.

Either Iran is lying, or they're so hopeless at navigation that their data can't be trusted.

[jayfish]

19. It It Any More Astonishing Than:

"It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."?

Jay

[Taxloss]

20. How is that relevant?

The deceits and distortions of our own governments do not make Iran's fabrications any more credible.

Only one side of this argument needs to lie - and so far Iran's fuck-up means its position is a lot weaker.

[jayfish]

22. The Relevancy Is That...

people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones (See also "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"). I'm not saying Iran isn't lying. I'm just not going to take Blair or Bush's word for it.

Jay

[Taxloss]

10. Why should they admit to something they did not do?

That's madness - total surrender. Iran would be emboldened no end.

[jayfish]

12. They Shouldn't

Problem is, with the border being disputed as it is and access to non-propagandized information from both sides nearly impossible, we will never really know. I think the best way to handle this would be to issue a non-apology, apology. Something along the lines of "we're sorry if you took offense to our positioning".

Jay

[pampango]

14. I like that idea. There is finally a good use for the non-apology

apology. I am always frustrated when our politicians do this, but the Iranians might not realize that it is not a "real" apology.

[jayfish]

15. Oh, I'm Sure They'll Catch On But...

they might take it in order to diffuse the current tensions.

Jay

[Taxloss]

17. So far they have done almost nothing that indicates a willingness to defuse the situation.

In fact, "deliberate provocation" is more like it.

[jayfish]

18. So You Think They Want To Be Totally Destroyed?

To what end? I think Iran could inflict heavy losses on the UK and US in the event of a conflict. Make no mistake however that the end result would be destruction in Iran on par with Iraq. So whats the prize here? What's Iran doing? Do you think they are just straight up idiots or what?

Jay

[Taxloss]

21. Iran knows that Britain cannot and will not start a war.

Britain is in no position to fight Iran, and neither is the USA. Iran also knows that Britain is pulling out of Iraq. Iran appears to want to play this out as long as possible, enjoying the strength of its position, to make Britain look weak and humiliate the British government. They're acquiring more kudos in the Muslim world every minute. Pro-Iranian Shia Iraqis must be enjoying this enormously.

[jayfish]

25. Who Said Anything About A Fight.

The UK or The US doesn't need to fight Iran in order to destroy it. More kudos? If it came down to it, you think Iran has to build up Kudos for the Muslim world to rally behind it in the event of war?

Jay

[Taxloss]

26. What, you mean nuking?

Slaughter millions of people, irradiate a huge amount of the Earth's surface (and oil), unleash global warfare and economic collapse ... you think that is a credible possibility? Really? In all seriousness?

On edit: Not to mention killing the 15 sailors ...

[jayfish]

27. No, I'm Talking About...

sortie after sortie of B-52 runs against infrastructure.

Jay

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. That doesn't work either.

That assumes that Iran won't retaliate in some way - either by attacking the US / UK in Iraq or in the Gulf, not to mention any number of other actions they could take.

They won't just sit there and submit to being bombed.

[twiceshy]

34. I think this has more to do with Iran's internal politics....

I get sense form some articles Ive read that the position of the ruling faction in Iran is weakening. This action makes them look good and puts them back in the driver's seat.

[pampango]

23. My guess is that there is a faction in Iran (like most other countries)

that likes to play the "brinkmanship" game, while most of the country just wants peace and to go about their lives like people all over the world. I don't know the secret to resolving this, but it would a good long term strategy to do it in a way that does not enhance the power of the faction that conducted the operation.

The "brinkmanship" faction in Iran probably thought that Britain would admit to making a mistake like they did in 2004. It would cast the British in a bad light which would be useful in ongoing negotiations regarding nuclear energy and the Iranians still held in Iraq.

[coalition_unwilling]

24. Yeah, how dare those Iranians invade British waters? :Sarcasm:

[Stella_Artois]

28. Sure.....

How dare they kidnap people carrying out a UN mandated mission ?

Even IF they were in Iranian waters, why didn't they they just tell them to get the hell out ? Any real need to take them and parade them on TV making confessions ?

How does that do anything other than escalate the situation ? It seems like this was the aim.

[coalition_unwilling]

29. After its "Iraq able to launch WMD on 45 minutes' notice" claims, Britain

has zero credibility left. Get it? ZERO. The UN also has a major credibility problem, since it refused to act against the U.S. and Britain when they blatantly violated the U.N. Charter by invading Iraq.

You should read up on your Vietnam history, specifically the Gulf of Tonkin episode, to see how the Brits, acting under cover of a supposed U.N. mandate, could have been trying to provoke Iranians, much like forces of the Vietnamese puppet government were carrying out attacks against DRV coastal possessions, while the U.S. destroyer Maddox hung close by, just outside DRV waters, but actively montitoring activities of the puppet regime's commandos and probably directing those activities also.

[Stella_Artois]

38. Fair enough

But why does that give the Iranians the moral right to do what they are doing ?

If someone in my area beats on his wife it sure doesn't give me the moral right for me to beat on mine.

[ronnie624]

35. A UN mandate does not make it right.

This is not an isolated incident. It did not occur in a vacuum.

Every legal scholar on earth, worth their salt agrees, that the Iraqi invasion was illegal. Therefore, by extension, every action taken by the US and the UK in the region, resulting from that invasion, is itself illegal.

Iran did not invade another country. Iran is not conducting naval exercises and "patrols" off the coasts of the US and the UK.

In fact it is well established, that many within the governments of both the UK and the US, wish to bomb the hell out of Iran, for reasons that have nothing to do with this incident.

How is it, that such simple logic, can escape so many obviously intelligent and well informed people?

[Stella_Artois]

37. There was an incident 2 years ago

Some UK marines were taking part in an exercise of Gibraltar, an area in dispute between Britain and Spain. They got lost, and "invaded" the wrong beach. The beach was in Spain.

The Spanish protested, and quietly deported the Marines. They didn't hold them hostage, threaten to put them on trial, or parade them on TV.

Why are the Iranians doing this ? What are they trying to provoke ?

[ronnie624]

42. The UK has not invaded a neighboring country of Spain,

bringing chaos and violence into the region. Neither is the UK involved in an attempted regime change of the Spanish government. And of course, Spain and the UK are Western allies, so your analogy is quite illogical.

[ronnie624]

30. Iran would be emboldened to do what? n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. Well, for one thing, they'd be emboldened to do *this* again. n/t

[ronnie624]

36. *This* would have never happened,

if *we* were not there in the first place.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

32. No.

Because if they did that, there'd be nothing to stop the Iranians from doing the same damn thing again next week. There needs to be a diplomatic solution to this that gives both sides something to walk away with.

[OKthatsIT]

39. WHY NOT? Olmert admitted he staged Israeli soldier kidnapping

and started the assault on Lebanon...PM Olmert admitted it.

So why wouldn't the Iranians expect the truth as well?

[cali]

41. Link please.

Boy are you fucking confused. What Olmert admitted was that they had contingency plans to invade Iraq. He never admitted that the Israeli staged the capture of their own soldiers. Was he itching to go after H'zbollah? Most likely. Was the attack on Lebanon the very definition of over reaction? Indubitably. Did Israle stage the kidnapping of their own soldiers? The very definition of bullshit.

Have fun looking for that link.

[stormymonday]

40. Whose winning so far ?

My guess is these events are making Dick Cheney a very happy man.