The Captured British Soldiers and Fake Maritime Boundaries

[Jcrowley]

March 29, 2007

There is no agreed maritime boundary between Iraq and Iran in the Persian Gulf. Until the current mad propaganda exercise of the last week, nobody would have found that in the least a controversial statement.

Let me quote, for example, from that well known far left source Stars and Stripes magazine, October 24 2006. 'Bumping into the Iranians can’t be helped in the northern Persian Gulf, where the lines between Iraqi and Iranian territorial water are blurred, officials said.

"No maritime border has been agreed upon by the two countries," Lockwood said.' That is Royal Australian Navy Commodore Peter Lockwood. He is the Commander of the Combined Task Force in the Northern Persian Gulf.

<snip>

The British people must break out of the jingoism created by their laudable concern for their servicemen and woman, and realise that this is just a small part of the madness of our policy of continual war in the Middle East. That is what we have to stop.

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/both_sides_must.html

March 28, 2007

Fake Maritime Boundaries


The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.

But there are two colossal problems.

A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

<snip>

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/fake_maritime_b.html

[Prophet 451]

1. And?

If we (the Brits) were in the wrong, fine, apologies all around but right now, isn't that kind of a moot point?

Thankfully (and possibly for the first time ever), Blair isn't listening to the armchair generals baying for blood and is trying to get the 15 out of there in one piece without starting another war.

[Lint Head]

2. Not yet convinced.

This smells like a setup by Black Operations.

With all of the other things that have come out don't put it passed the realm of possibility. Even more grievous things have been done in the past and throughout history. These poor British soldiers are nothing more than cannon fodder and pawns in a struggle for corporate greed and power. War is profitable and corporations are cynical entities. 12 miles is all it takes to start a war. Of course some will say GWB is too dumb. The powerful that selected him and caused the US Supreme Cowards to install him and now control him are not that dumb. They think we are dumb.
:dem:

[Prophet 451]

6. Perhaps

You might be right but if that's the case, war is inevitible. I hope you understand that I need to have a little hope here that this is something that can be worked out peacefully.

[Jcrowley]

4. Here's an interesting thought

What right does any Brit have to be anywhere near the middle east except as a traveler or in an exchange of ideas or... meaning not as an agent of empire.

Lost in all of this is how the very possibility of such confrontations is inevitable by the very nature of colonialism and to even hint that somehow Iran, even with it's government at present (which is attributable to colonial overthrow in 1953), is to be held to account is insane and framed by the illegal aggressions and occupation of this region which has been going on for decades.

Let's say it was in "Iraq waters", again the determinants are fungible, what right does any UK ship=soldier-plane have to be THERE? Either?

None.

[Prophet 451]

5. That's hardly the point

No, the British Navy shouldn't be anywhere near Iraq or Iran, that goes without saying but the fact is, they are there and while I'd like to see them withdrawn as soon as possible, that doesn't seem to be happening in the near future.

You seem to be under the impression that I think we have a right to be there. I don't. We shouldn't be in Iraq or Iran and I've written letters and protested to say so. I just want the UK to get our sailors back safe and sound and without another war with the thousands of civilian casualties (who always suffer worst in any war) that would cause. I have visited parts of the Mid-East (as a tourist/amateur historian) and met many people in the process. The vast majority were decent people and friendly enough (the occasional nutter is no reflection on the society as a whole, every society has them sadly), I don't want to see them die anymore than I want to see those 15 of my countrymen die. I don't care much about where the ships were, I just want to avoid anyone else needlessly dying because of Blair's idiocy.

[Jcrowley]

8. It's exactly the point

Get those who have no right to be there in the first place out of there and none of this happens. Otherwise it will definitely and repeatedly occcur and be used by various political state apparatus.

At present the burden of history screams at the US/UK criminality in the Middle East and they have zero credence by any standards.

[cali]

7. They were operating under a U.N. mandate.

but continue on with your stock defense of Iran's holding the brits. Even if every word you said were true- and I don't think it is, Iran is still ratcheting things up by holding the Brits and defying the Geneva Convention. I don't see it as an improvement upon our own actions.

[BlooInBloo]

11. More WAR! More WAR! More WAR!

:rofl:

[cali]

15. *rolls eyes*

yeah, because that's really what I'm arguing for. What body cavity do you pull that shit from?

[BlooInBloo]

19. Just thought I'd help ya cut to the chase instead of verbally tapdancing.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Truthiness Inspector]

26. LOL

I agree with you totally. How "UN Mandate" goes over some people's heads is baffling.

As in: This waterway is in dispute according to the UN...not the UK.

[Jcrowley]

13. The UN?

Who controls the UN?

The UN is thoroughly corrupted.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article146495.html

They (US/UK) have zero right to be there and this dates back to a time before there was a UN.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0425byzantine.htm

[Truthiness Inspector]

27. You have got to be kidding!

If the US and UK "control" the UN, pray tell why there was no authorization to go to war in Iraq?

Shouldn't the UN have been right in the pockets of both nations, if what you say is true?

[Jcrowley]

28. A good place to start

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm

http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2003/26040.htm

"It is a little misleading to speak of the role of the UN. The UN is nearly powerless as an abstract entity or even as a representative of the world's nations. It can act, instead, only insofar as it is given authorization by the great powers, which means primarily the United States.

The UN has no standing peacekeeping force and thus is dependent on finding countries willing to contribute troops for any particular mission. The organization suffers as well from an extreme shortage of funds because of the continual U.S. refusal to pay its dues. Any peacekeepers sent to East Timor will probably not be a UN force because the U.S. Congress has required that there be a 15-day delay before the U.S. government can approve any UN peacekeeping operation and has forbidden Washington from paying its authorized share of the costs of any such operation.

U.S. influence is greatest in the Security Council, but some organs of the UN, such as the General Assembly or bodies dealing with economic and social issues have had a Third World majority ever since the era of decolonization. Accordingly, U.S. policy has been to undermine and marginalize the UN. The United Nations should have an important role in world affairs, but U.S. policy and the policies of other leading states, severely limit the international organization. From the point of view of U.S. policymakers, however, there is one crucial role played by the UN: it serves as a convenient scapegoat when something goes wrong. For example, the current catastrophe in East Timor is directly attributable to the refusal of the United States and other Western powers to deter the atrocities there over a period of a quarter century, yet the UN will probably take the blame." -- Stephen R. Shalom, Noam Chomsky, and Michael Albert from this link:
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Timor/qanda.htm

[Truthiness Inspector]

30. I don't see how that addressed

the point you made and I countered. You suggested the US controls the UN, and I asked if that was so, how come the UN Security Council never authorized the war in Iraq.

I'm interested in hearing a logical explanation for how the US could simultaneously control and be stymied by the UN---preferably in your own words, with supportive links of course.

[Jcrowley]

32. Stymied?

So the UN stopped the US from invading Iraq?

[Truthiness Inspector]

33. Yes, stymied.

There was no authorization.

stymie
One entry found for stymie.


Main Entry: sty·mie
Pronunciation: 'stI-mE
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): sty·mied; sty·mie·ing
Etymology: Scots stimie, stymie to obstruct a golf shot by interposition of the opponent's ball
: to present an obstacle to : stand in the way of <stymied by red tape>

I didn't say "stopped." I said stymied, which is entirely the right word.
So, now that we've covered that, address my question in the post above, if you would.

[Jcrowley]

36. No, feckless

feck·less (f?k'l?s) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Lacking purpose or vitality; feeble or ineffective.
Careless and irresponsible.

Please see post #34

and read and understand Resolution 1511:
ACTING UNDER CHAPTER VII OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS,

1. Reaffirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, and UNDERSCORES, in that context, the temporary nature of the exercise by the Coalition Provisional Authority (Authority) of the specific responsibilities, authorities, and obligations under applicable international law recognized and set forth in resolution 1483 (2003), which will cease when an internationally recognized, representative government established by the people of Iraq Is sworn in and assumes the responsibilities of the Authority, inter alia through steps envisaged in paragraphs four through seven and ten below;

2. Welcomes the positive response of the international community, in fora such as the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations General Assembly, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, to the establishment of the broadly representative Governing Council as an important step towards an internationally recognized, representative government;

3. Supports the Governing Council's efforts to mobilize the people of Iraq, including by the appointment of a cabinet of ministers and a preparatory constitutional committee to lead a process in which the Iraqi people will progressively take;

4. Determines that the Governing Council and its ministers are the principal bodies of the Iraqi interim administration, which, without prejudice to its further evolution, embodies the sovereignty of the State of Iraq during the transitional period until an internationally recognized, representative government is established and assumes the responsibilities of the Authority;

More:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/1016resolution.htm

It's laughable except milions have died and the UN has done what other than sanctify the whole process since the 90's?

[Jcrowley]

34. Recommended reading

Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN (Rev. & Updated ed.)
Bennis, Phyllis
Olive Branch Press, Paperback, 2000, 341 pp.

Challenges the conventional wisdom concerning the U.N. and documents how U.S. domination is threatening the oncedemocratic character of the world body. Filled with behind-the-scenes stories, the book gives the reader a deeper understanding of the problems facing today's U.N.

Filled with tales of UN intrigue and diplomatic carrots and sticks, Calling the Shots exposes how U.S. financial and political bribes are backed by threats and punishments for recalcitrant nations who refuse to toe the U.S. line.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n4_v48/ai_18681570

Yet, after the Cold War, as the book shows, Washington has exercised naked power against weak opponents and then turned to the U.N. as a convenient fig leaf or perhaps underwear provider. "With U.S.-Soviet rivalry nearly at an end, Washington needed a new global framework to articulate its role - that of a superpower without a sparring partner. Its message was that despite the collapse of its strategic competitor, the United States remained very much a player in the superpower game." Senior U.S. policy makers, Bennis relates, conveniently deploy the U.N. to manipulate U.S. public opinion. After U.S. delegates coerced, bribed, or threatened U.N. members into agreeing with Washington's line - ire sanctions on Libya and Iraq for example - U.S. spin doctors attribute those very Draconian measures to the international community.

In the case of Cuba, the U.S. "imposes and attempts to internationalize its blockade without regard for overwhelming U.N. opposition. But in each case, the choice of crippling sanctions is rooted in the U.S. effort to go head-to-head, but not quite to war, with governments Washington would like nothing more than to see overthrown." (p. 172) However, when the General Assembly declares itself resolutely opposed to U.S. policy, as in the case of the three decade plus U.S. embargo and travel ban on the island, "the U.S. simply ignored the result. And being the General Assembly, rather than Security Council decisions, the resolutions had no enforcement power." (p.188)

While the United States pressed during the 1980's for U.N. action against Cuban human rights violations, the incomparably worse record in U.S. client states like El Salvador and Guatemala were studiously kept from U.N. attention. Bennis points out that newly declassified documents prove what had long been denied, that the Reagan Administration had supported right wing backers of the Salvadoran death squads responsible for numerous murders of priests, nuns, opposition political figures and other civilians." (p. 189).

As the U.N. has failed to take - or was prevented from taking - decisive action, on key human rights, environmental and disarmament issues, NGOs emerged throughout the world. The U.N. responded to citizen pressure by holding a series of international forums, "traveling road shows" as the press sarcastically labeled it, to deal with these growing concerns. Bennis analyses how the United States then systematically attempted to co-opt and thwart the militant NGOs from the 1992 Earth Summit on, and then to replace legitimate political demands with its own corporate and imperial line.

[Truthiness Inspector]

37. In your own words

if you would, please explain how the UN could both be controlled by the US and stymie the US.

[hogwyld]

35. If it's UN dictate

It should be carried out by a neutral country, and NOT the RN, which has a stake in the oil profits in Iraq. There are a lot of Muslim nations with a navy that would be a lot less partisan in it's implementation of your so called "mandate" Why are you so anxious for war with Iran? If the Iranian navy was with U.S. waters, you know we would have done the same thing.

[Richard Steele]

9. I asked the same question recently. The answer is...

...that the British are enforcing a U.N. resolution
there, and the job involves inspecting vessels for contraband.
It's not a British operation, it's a United Nations operation
being performed by the Royal Navy.

Give me a few minutes and I'll see if I can dig up the actual
UN resolution number.

[Richard Steele]

12. Found it: United Nations Security Resolution number 1723

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

And credit to DUer "Muriel_Volestrangler" for providing the link
to me the other day.

[Jcrowley]

16. So you're

citing an infamous document for colonial occupation?

The UN is as corrupted as it gets.

OIL.

[Richard Steele]

22. No, I am answering a question that you asked. You're welcome, BTW. nm

[Pro2nd]

14. British Navy

I can recall, in my short lifetime, when boarding a ship and taking sailors of the Royal Navy as hostages would have been unthinkable! Why has the once-great Great Britain so emasculated itself? Such nonsense would have never been contemplated under the rule of Churchill or Thatcher. Iran has clearly committed an Act of War against Great Britain. I'm not saying that Britain should go throwing bombs, but, if I were King, I would ensure that not a single drop of Iranian oil left port until my sailors were returned.

International military geopolitics is really no different than a schoolyard.....the fastest way to get your ass kicked is to show weakness. The only reason that Ahmadinejad continues to call for the destruction of Israel, build nukes, send personnel and explosives to Iraq, and kidnap British sailors is because he hasn't been rapped across the beak for it yet.

What those in the Middle East forget is that they EXIST at our leisure. We, as Americans, Britons, or Israelis, have the capability to completely destroy the entire region. We choose not to because we are decent people with compassion for our fellow man; however, this assclown is pushing it.

[Mandate My Ass]

18. I think you meant "they exist at our PLEASURE"

If you're going to sound like an imperious fop, you should at least employ the correct phrasing.

However, you get bonus points for "rapped across the beak." :rofl:

[eridani]

20. You might be a decent person--

--but the PNAC thugs running the country are interested in dominating the world by military force. An ignoble and evil objective, IMO. Name the countries Iran has invaded over the last 200 years.

[Prophet 451]

21. You got me

It took until the third paragraph before I realised you were being sarcastic.

That said, to me eternal horror, half the comments on the Beeb's website read like that.

[Pro2nd]

23. Actually..........

You still didn't get it. I am absolutely serious that the Iranian coast should be blockaded until all 15 sailors are returned safely. I'm not saying bomb Iran and I'm not saying invade Iran, but if this goes unchallenged, things will only get worse.

[Gabi Hayes]

24. hey, "firearm enthusiast"

how old are you?

[Pro2nd]

39. Age

33

[devilgrrl]

44. How's that Patriot Act doing protecting your "firearm enthusiasm"?

Yeah, it's all the libtards that want the guns out of the hands of the White Christian Male! Right?

:sarcasm:

[Pro2nd]

46. Firearm Enthusiasm

Actually, my enthusiasm for firearms is doing quite well. At the last gun show I walked away with a new Israeli M1 Carbine and a Finnish Valmet ( the Grand Pimp-Daddy of all AK-47s) chambered in 5.56 NATO. I'm not defending the Patriot Act, but I've bought about a dozen guns, mostly AKs and AR-15s, since it was passed and haven't been slowed down a bit. I complete the ATF Form 4473, show ID, get my background check done through NICS, then leave with my new toys. Like I said, I'm not defending the Patriot Act, but what exactly does it have to do with me owning firearms?

[Jcrowley]

25. Remember this?

A little bit of historical context, the USS Vincennes was in Iranian waters when it fired its missile that shot down an Iranian airliner. The US denied that for years before finally admitting it.

[uppityperson]

38. I think this poster is series!

I thought serious, then very good sarcastic writing, but says below that is series. Wild.

[Mandate My Ass]

3. K & R

Thanks for uncatapulting the propaganda.

[cali]

10. LOL!

Propaganda doesn't belong to any particular political persuasion. It's not exactly unknown from the left either.

[scarletwoman]

17. Differing viewpoints are not necessarily "propaganda", they may simply be a matter of examining a

particular phenomenon from a different angle.

This seems to me to be a useful way of approaching a difficult problem -- to figuratively walk around it, developing a more 3-D perception, so to speak.

sw

[stillcool]

29. ah...memories...

misty water colored memories of the way we were...could it be that it was all so simple then?
Fool me twice...shame on..fool me three times..Sometimes I wish I could get all hopped up, and feign self-righteous indignation over the audacious actions of those Iranians.... Ah well...maybe next time.

[Kelly Rupert]

31. So the basic argument is:

1. The British were in areas that Iraq has claimed for itself, as part of their ongoing operations in Iraq.
2. The boundary is disputed.
3. Therefore we accept Iran's boundary, and the British were wrong.

Sorry, bullshit.

[BoneDaddy]

41. Doesn't matter

Iran has much more to lose in this than anybody and this sad attempt at playing hardball with the West will cause much suffering for his people if Amidinijad continues. He is doing the politcally stupid thing to do in this situation. Doesn't he realize he is doing exactly what Bush and the hawks want him to do.
Absolutely stupid as he is blowing an incredible opportunity. If he was to have immediately given back the hostages, he would have earned the respect of most of the world, would have snubbed Bush, and would have created a aura of goodwill that would have provided more cushion if Bush wants to push his war further.

[Jcrowley]

42. Any thoughts?

Is it just me but why if the UK was on the “right” side the border did they let a boat come 2 miles into Iraq waters without being challenged and then let them cart off their sailors.

I think the UK knew they were in a grey area and they just did not believe the Iranians would challenge them. Iran and Iraq have fought wars over this border and it is still not settled to this day. For the UK navy to trot out a map and say it is the absolute placement of the border, is a lie. The Iranians can not just let the Uk Navy decide where the border is, otherwise Iraq could try and us this as a way of saying that area is theirs.

[BoneDaddy]

43. Let's assume

that the Brits were entirely in the wrong on ALL accounts. It still doesn't matter to me. Amidinijad is squandering a political opportunity that would ultimately work in regards to world approval and would have made a war with the US that much more difficult.

You and I are talking about 2 seperate issues. You are debating the right and wrong of the issue and I am talking about what is practical and what will work for Iran. I will concede that the Brits may have been totally wrong, but for me that is not the issue.

Hope that clears up my stance on it. Have a good weekend

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. Because the area is shallow; the frigate was some distance away

and had sent the RIBs because they could go into the shallower water. There are questions about why a better lookout wasn't kept, and why the helicopter wasn't sent in time (though a helicopter can only shoot at people, not physically block their way, so it would have had to escalate the incident).

[BoneDaddy]

47. The particulars do not matter

because both sides will debate ad nauseum who is right and it will really go no where. The point is where do we go from here and Iran is squandering a beautiful opportunity. But because their administration is equally if not more insane and fundamentalist as the Bush admin, they will play hardball. What a shame...They will lose ultimately if they do not relent.

[Forkboy]

48. There wont be any winners in this one.

[BoneDaddy]

49. So true

It is such a shame

[countryjake]

50. kick

[TahitiNut]

51. But, but, but ... the British have been drawing boundaries in the Middle East for over a century!

That's a habit that's hard to break. :eyes: