I don't support the British troops.

[JackRiddler]

They have no business invading and conducting an occupation of Iraq, in a region the UK has been screwing for a century, and no business poking around searching ships at the Iranian frontier, whether they crossed into it or not. Do I have to support the British troops? Why are these foreign forces more of concern to me than Iranians, or Thais?

[Kelly Rupert]

1. I don't have anything against the British soldiers.

They didn't vote for war. And by the way, it is their business to search ships. Inspection of vessels is routine all around the world.

[Dhalgren]

5. So Iranian naval ships could stop and search US vessels at the edge of our

territorial waters and the US would be just fine with that? This is the very essence of entitled behavior. This is bullyism and nothing more. The US (and their lapdog Brits) can just do goddamned what they please and everyone can just STFU! This is a terrible situation and the Brits are not in the right...

[Kelly Rupert]

12. No, because that would be in international waters.

The British were operating in Iraqi waters, by the authority of the Iraqi government. It was legal. And these inspections are ubiquitous.

A more appropriate question would be, "Would the United States have a problem with the Iranian navy inspecting US-marked merchant ships entering Iranian waters?" And the answer to that question is an obvious "no."

A.Q. Khan's nuclear smuggling ring was broken up when an Italian naval vessel (routinely) inspected a German vessel off Italian waters. These inspections are extremely commonplace. Iran is really the only nation that keeps clashing with the rest of the world regarding them.

[Dhalgren]

25. It is not that simple. The area is in dispute and the Brits know it.

What the Brits did was go into Iranian waters and search a ship, at least that is how the Iranians see it. The Brits knew that this patch of water was, and has been, in dispute and this is no time to be muscling around and then act all surprised and wronged when someone calls them on it. I want the Iranians to immediately release all of the British sailors, right now, but that doesn't mean I think Britain is in the right, here.

[Solo_in_MD]

29. As others have pointed out these have been ongoing for some time without protest

also note that it was the Pasdaran who siezed the Brits, not regular forces. Another key item.

There are those who think this was done for internal Iranian consumption as much as anything else. They may have a point.

[Iwasthere]

14. That's right

[bryant69]

2. I don't know what you mean by support

I certainly have sympathy for them and I wish them well; I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[JackRiddler]

4. What does everyone else mean by "support"?

It's a form of mental solidarity. The UK troops do not have mine. They need to pack up and go home.

[LeftishBrit]

6. I think they would like very much to 'pack up and go home'!

The troops didn't bring Britain into the war; the government did.

[bryant69]

7. Why should I make sense?

I guess it should be pretty obvious that they are being held prisoner last I heard and presumably are unable to go home at this time.

Bryant

[JackRiddler]

8. Well, obviously I mean the rest of the British troops.

Those guys should be released so they can go home to Britain, too.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. It's not like they chose to go there n/t

[JackRiddler]

16. I think Iran has a draft army so they have even less choice... n/t

though I guess Revolutionary Guards are a volunteer force.

[Kelly Rupert]

17. Right. And I wouldn't blame the Iranian troops either. n/t

[JackRiddler]

18. Do you support either? n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

21. Yes.

I'm sure that they're mostly good people, and that many of them have families. Doesn't mean I support the actions of either government.

[stirlingsliver]

3. Nor Do I

Britain is in the Gulf region for two reasons:

1. Tony Blair is *'s little lap dog.

2. Britain still has not shaken off its pretense to empire.

I do not support lap dogs for *, and I do not support imperialist efforts to assert hegemony in the Gulf.

I do not support British troops in the Gulf region.

[cali]

9. Well, bully for you.

No, of course you don't have to support the brits, but I'm sure you wish them well, and hope no harm befalls them and that they are returned shortly. And surely you'd be just as outraged if they were mistreated as you are about U.S. prisoners in Gitmo, and Abu Ghraib, right?

[JackRiddler]

11. Yes, I would be outraged at mistreatment.

Are they being held in conditions that violate the Geneva Conventions or are otherwise inhumane (notwithstanding being imprisoned)?

[cali]

19. No. The Brits aren't allowed contact

of any kind with them. Also, last time this happened the captives claimed they were put through mock executions. I doubt they're being physically abused, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were being psychologically mistreated

[JackRiddler]

22. This would be wrong.

How often does the Geneva Convention require such visits? I presume the Iranian justification is that these are spies and might communicate intel? Well, that would be bullshit, too. I am certain they're just obedient foot-soldiers of an illegal occupation.

[Kelly Rupert]

23. I'm afraid the Iraq occupation is legal.

While the invasion was certainly not, the Iraqi government is recognized by the world community.

[Solo_in_MD]

10. The inspections are being done under UN mandate

[JackRiddler]

13. The Iran mandate or something relating to Iraq?

Can you cite it? A serious question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. UNSC resolution 1723

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8879.doc.htm

extends, until the end of 2007, resolutions 1546 and 1637, which authorised the Multi-National Force in Iraq, at the request of the Iraqi government.

[JackRiddler]

26. An unfortunate post-facto legitimation of a crime the UN had not initially approved.

Nevertheless: Does it authorize searches of merchant ships in Iranian waters?

[Dhalgren]

27. But the point is that they were in waters that Iran claims as theirs,

and the Brits knew this. This was simple provocation and the Iranians fell right into it...

[Solo_in_MD]

28. Its not clear that they were in recognized waters, its been in dispute for decades

and similar inspections have been done there without incident.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. That is what is disputed.

Whether they were in clearly Iraqi waters, clearly Iranian waters, or waters that both have a credible claim to has always been the key to the whole thing.

Only if it was clearly Iranian waters would Iran's action be justified.

[melody]

20. I do support the British troops

Those people have no more responsibility for the insanity of our leaders than we do. NONE
of them would rather be there -- they'd rather be anywhere but there. It's the decisions
of the warlords that run our nations that move the pawns into place.

[CJCRANE]

30. Tony Blair

just like B*sh has implemented a kind of semi-constitutional dictatorship. So in that sense I feel sorry for the troops who are just following orders.