15 British sailors being held by Iran

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Actium' post='461265' date='Mar 23 2007, 04:38 PM']But what if Iran wants to provoke the war in such a way that it looks like a Gulf of Tonkin incident? They know their history and could easily manipulate it to their ends. They can take advantage of the president's lack of credibility fairly easily here, in acting the way they currently are.[/quote]
From where I sit, it's like this. If US forces were to be attacked in an act of aggression, the case for war is made back home, period. The propaganda machine would be spinning its ass off (and if we were actually attacked unprovoked, it would be right to do so.) But b/c Iran has no voice in the US, whatever happens will be sold to the US population however the administration would want it sold. If it is unacceptable to many to speak out against the current war for fear of harming troops' morale, or aiding the terrorists, or whatever the daily spin is, you can damn well be certain that there will be no peep of an anti-war rebuttal if we were on the defensive. Even those of us who don't like the current war don't wish any harm done to the troops (it why I for one, want them back home). If our troops do come under attack in an unprovoked fashion, it's pretty easy to understand that the gut reaction would be to want to hit back.

I don't fear Iran's spin capabilities for an instant, as Iran has no voice to the American people.

[Actium]

[quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='461278' date='Mar 23 2007, 11:52 AM']From where I sit, it's like this. If US forces were to be attacked in an act of aggression, the case for war is made back home, period. The propaganda machine would be spinning its ass off (and if we were actually attacked unprovoked, it would be right to do so.) But b/c Iran has no voice in the US, whatever happens will be sold to the US population however the administration would want it sold. If it is unacceptable to many to speak out against the current war for fear of harming troops' morale, or aiding the terrorists, or whatever the daily spin is, you can damn well be certain that there will be no peep of an anti-war rebuttal if we were on the defensive. Even those of us who don't like the current war don't wish any harm done to the troops (it why I for one, want them back home). If our troops do come under attack in an unprovoked fashion, it's pretty easy to understand that the gut reaction would be to want to hit back.

I don't fear Iran's spin capabilities for an instant, as Iran has no voice to the American people.[/quote]

I don't agree with your take on Iran's lack of access to a mouthpiece here. I think our free press would be more than obliging in that respect. I do think Iran is trying to provoke the US (or the US through Britain) by actions such as these, and with infiltrating Iraq, and supplying weaponry to insurgent forces--I think they want to get caught, and want us to make the first real move. But the US isn't biting. At least not yet.

Naturally, all this is idle spectulation.

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Actium' post='461281' date='Mar 23 2007, 05:03 PM']I don't agree with your take on Iran's lack of access to a mouthpiece here. I think our free press would be more than obliging in that respect. I do think Iran is trying to provoke the US (or the US through Britain) by actions such as these, and with infiltrating Iraq, and supplying weaponry to insurgent forces--I think they want to get caught, and want us to make the first real move. But the US isn't biting. At least not yet.
[b]
Naturally, all this is idle spectulation.[/b][/quote]
Let's just hope that's as far as any of this will go.

[Rumble In the Jungle]

i hope this doesn't get outta hand here! please just return the sailors back!

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b][size=4]IF[/size] ----> They were in IRANIAN waters and they were armed ... then Iranians have EVERY right to seize them and if they wish to put them on trial. There is a name for boarding the vessel of a sovereign nation in the waters of a third nation = It's called piracy.



[color="#4B0082"]An interesting thing to consider as well is that I believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled to be in NY later today. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img]

MAYBE he wants a little insurance that he will not be black bagged at the Embassy --- or maybe the U.S. wants to instigate a situation with him on U.S. soil. In the former... the Brits would be released as soon as he is safely back in Iran. [/b][/color]

[Actium]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='461284' date='Mar 23 2007, 12:14 PM'][b][size=4]IF[/size] ----> They were in IRANIAN waters and they were armed ... then Iranians have EVERY right to seize them and if they wish to put them on trial. There is a name for boarding the vessel of a sovereign nation in the waters of a third nation = It's called piracy.
[color="#4B0082"]An interesting thing to consider as well is that I believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled to be in NY later today. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img]

MAYBE he wants a little insurance that he will not be black bagged at the Embassy --- or maybe the U.S. wants to instigate a situation with him on U.S. soil. In the former... the Brits would be released as soon as he is safely back in Iran. [/b][/color][/quote]

I agree Iran had the right to take them (although they could also have demanded they leave territorial waters). I also think Britain has the right to get them back by whatever means it deems necessary--but I am almost positive this will go nowhere.

Speaking of Ahmadinejad (I think that's spelled right), this site says he is having trouble getting his visa. I don't know if it is accurate, but here's the link:

[url="http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0703230082134618.htm"]http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0...30082134618.htm[/url]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='461284' date='Mar 23 2007, 01:14 PM'][b][size=4]IF[/size] ----> They were in IRANIAN waters and they were armed ... then Iranians have EVERY right to seize them and if they wish to put them on trial. There is a name for boarding the vessel of a sovereign nation in the waters of a third nation = It's called piracy. [/b][/color][/quote]

i agree... however, what [b]IF[/b] they were in iraqi waters? are you willing to address that possiblity also?

[Actium]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='461288' date='Mar 23 2007, 12:27 PM']i agree... however, what [b]IF[/b] they were in iraqi waters? are you willing to address that possiblity also?[/quote]

I could have sworn when I first saw this story on yahoo, it said "seized in Iranian waters." Now it says Iraqi. Was it changed, or did I just misread it? The plot thickens. Maybe.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Actium' post='461290' date='Mar 23 2007, 01:30 PM']I could have sworn when I first saw this story on yahoo, it said "seized in Iranian waters." Now it says Iraqi. Was it changed, or did I just misread it? The plot thickens. Maybe.[/quote]

i first saw it when i first posted this thread on drudge report, and it said iraqi waters then... not sure what it said when first reported... the bbc says iraqi waters... so does sky news... i haven't seen any reports that they were in iranian waters yet, but iran isn't commenting yet...

[Actium]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='461292' date='Mar 23 2007, 12:34 PM']i first saw it when i first posted this thread on drudge report, and it said iraqi waters then... not sure what it said when first reported... the bbc says iraqi waters... so does sky news... i haven't seen any reports that they were in iranian waters yet, but iran isn't commenting yet...[/quote]

I probably just misread it. Per Drudge, FLASH: IRANIAN PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD HAS FILED FLIGHT PLAN TO NYC...EXPECTED TO ARRIVE 1AM SAT., WILL REMAIN THROUGH WEEKEND..

Should be a wild and wacky time.

[Guest bengalrick]

here is a scenario... anyone w/ sense knows that iran is at least supplying parts of iraq w/ weapons and training... lately, there has been a big push to get the iranians to stop smuggling in these supplies and soldiers... one thing that is sure to be said w/ this episode is (assuming they were in iraqi waters) "why is the UK working so close to iranian waters knowing something like this could happen and could spark a major war?" there will be a push to stop checking these vessels, which in turn will help iran continue to give their support to the civil war in iran...

whodeyUK is right, iran doesn't want a war w/ us... they would get crushed heads up, but their goal is to take over the region, and step one is to control iraq... they are simply trying to get us to stop the policy of checking boats for smuggling...

just a theory that uses all of our sides, and makes at least some sense...

[Actium]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='461300' date='Mar 23 2007, 12:44 PM']here is a scenario... anyone w/ sense knows that iran is at least supplying parts of iraq w/ weapons and training... lately, there has been a big push to get the iranians to stop smuggling in these supplies and soldiers... one thing that is sure to be said w/ this episode is (assuming they were in iraqi waters) "why is the UK working so close to iranian waters knowing something like this could happen and could spark a major war?" there will be a push to stop checking these vessels, which in turn will help iran continue to give their support to the civil war in iran...

whodeyUK is right, iran doesn't want a war w/ us... they would get crushed heads up, but their goal is to take over the region, and step one is to control iraq... they are simply trying to get us to stop the policy of checking boats for smuggling...

just a theory that uses all of our sides, and makes at least some sense...[/quote]

Certainly a credible theory.

[Lawman]

[quote]Blackjesus
Subsequent investigation demonstrated that the Iranian airliner had done everything according to the books, was in a regular civilian air corridor, was emitting the right identifying electronic signature, and was in a normal ascent (not threatening descent) path. The fault in this case was a "group think" blunder by the crew and Captain (Will Rogers, III) of the Vincennes.[/quote]

[i]Agree, with some clarity in regards to the "group think" mentality and the signal.[/i]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655[/url]

[color="#000080"]When questioned by BBC journalists in a 2002 documentary, the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment' which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. [b]In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality whilst ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario[/b] - in the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft. This hypothesis, if true, could explain why [b]the records of the Vincennes' instruments never indicated a craft resembling an F-14 being detected, whilst a civilian IFF signal was detected[/b].[/color]

[color="#000080"]Captain David Carlson, commander of the USS Sides, the warship stationed near to the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago". His comment referred to incidents on June 2, when Rogers had sailed the Vincennes too close to an Iranian frigate undertaking a lawful search of a bulk carrier, launched a helicopter within 2-3 miles (3.2-4.8 km) of an Iranian small craft despite rules of engagement requiring a four-mile (6.4 km) separation, and opened fire on a number of small Iranian military boats. Of those incidents, Carlson commented, "Why do you want an Aegis cruiser out there shooting up boats? It wasn't a smart thing to do." At the time of Rogers' announcement to higher command that he was going to shoot down the plane, Carlson is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have been thunderstruck: "I said to folks around me, 'Why, what the hell is he doing?' I went through the drill again. F-14. He's climbing. By now this damn thing is at 7,000 feet." However, Carlson thought the Vincennes might have more information, and was unaware that Rogers had been wrongly informed that the plane was diving.[/color]

[color="#000080"]According to the BBC documentary of 2002, Carlson identified IR655 as a civilian craft based on its radar signature, its 'squawk' (IFF) code, and the fact that it was ascending at low speed - an attacking military aircraft would be descending towards the Vincennes at high speed. At first Carlson thought that the 'Iranian Tomcat' identified by the Vincennes was actually another craft that he could not identify, as it was surprising to Carlson that the Vincennes crew would mistake a Tomcat (with which one would expect the US Navy to be familiar) with a civilian aircraft. [b]The Vincennes' warnings were on a military channel, addressed to 'Iranian Tomcat'.[/b] When Carlson concluded that the Vincennes was referring to IR655 in its warning to turn away or receive fire, [u]he urgently warned IR655 on a civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away from the Vincennes. [/u]The Vincennes fired regardless. Carlson expressed the view that the incident was a mistake brought about by an overly aggressive approach by the captain of the Vincennes.[/color]

[i]Before you cream your pants BJ[/i].

[b]Radio Communication[/b]

[color="#000080"]Throughout its final flight IR655 was in radio contact with various air traffic control services using standard civil aviation frequencies, and had spoken in English to Bandar Abbas Approach Control seconds before the Vincennes launched its missiles. [u]According to the U.S. Navy investigation the Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than the International Air Distress frequency.[/u] [b]Subsequently U.S. Navy warships in the area were equipped with dialable VHF radios, and access to flight plan information was sought, to better track commercial airliners[/b].[/color]

[color="#000080"]The official ICAO report stated that 10 attempts were made to contact Iran Air flight 655: seven on military frequencies and three on commercial frequencies, addressed to the supposed "unidentified Iranian aircraft" and giving its speed as 350 knots.

However IR655 was arguably not "unidentified" as its commercial 'squawk' code was active and it was travelling at an airspeed of 300 knots. The reference to "350 knots" was its speed over ground, as observed by radar. IR655's flight instruments would have recorded the airspeed.

International investigations concluded that the crew of IR655 assumed that the three calls that they received before the missiles struck must have been directed at an Iranian P3[/color]

[i]Additionall info on this Rogers fella.[/i]


[color="#000080"]Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles. This contradicted earlier Navy claims.[/color]

Craig, Morales & Oliver, in a slide presentation published in M.I.T.'s Spring 2004 Aeronautics & Astronautics, as the "USS Vincennes Incident," commented that Captain Rogers had "an undeniable and unequivocal tendency towards what I call 'picking a fight.'" On his own initiative, Rogers moved the Vincennes 50 miles northeast to join the USS Montgomery. An angry Captain McKenna ordered Rogers back to Abu Musa, but the Vincennes helicopter pilot, Lt Mark Collier, followed the Iranian speedboats as they retreated north, eventually taking some fire:

[color="#000080"]"...the Vincennes jumps back into the fray. Heading towards the majority of the speedboats, he is unable to get a clear target. Also, the speedboats are now just slowly milling about in their own territorial waters. Despite clear information to the contrary, Rogers informs command that the gunboats are gathering speed and showing hostile intent and gains approval to fire upon them at 0939. Finally, in another fateful decision, he crosses the 12-mile limit off the coast and enters illegally into Iranian waters."[/color]

[color="#000080"]The US fighter base in Bahrain had refused to provide supporting aircraft to cover the Vincennes — the commander of the base stated that his decision was based on a fear that the Vincennes would accidentally shoot down one of his aircraft.[/color]

[i]OK BJ, you may leave the room and change your drawers now[/i]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='461239' date='Mar 23 2007, 11:11 AM']When did this supposedly happen?[/quote]



[color="#800080"][b][size=3]George Bush and Tony Blair's pre-war meeting in January 2003 [/size][/b][/color]

[quote]President Bush said: "[b]The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours.[/b] [b]If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach[/b]."[/quote]

[url="http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661"]http://www.channel4.com/news/special-repor...age.jsp?id=1661[/url]





[color="#800080"][b]British soldiers dressed as arabs found with car full of explosives[/color] [color="#FF0000"]--->[/color] [url="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gbv=2&safe=active&q=British+soldiers+dressed+as+arabs+explosives"]Take your pick[/url][/b]

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='461261' date='Mar 23 2007, 12:33 PM']We both know that an act of aggression by Iran v the US would drum up support back home in a heartbeat. Folks are sick and tired of the Iraq war, and for good reason. But if our troops were attacked (if we as a nation were on the defensive, and not the offensive) their would be support for a war. Everyone wants to defend the flag. The problem with the current war is that it has become apparent that we are not fighting to defend the flag at all. But imo, if we were on the defensive, folks would feel MUCH differently.

Now whether or not the administration has enough credibility left with the American people to sell a skirmish as an act of agression by Iran, that is another question.[/quote]

It would'nt be the first time a middle east nation underestimated the United States. Iran wants control of Iraq and it's resources......nothing more..nothing less. They want control of it so they can become the next world power.

[Lawman]

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17752685/page/2/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17752685/page/2/[/url]

[b]Fisherman witnessed scene[/b]

[color="#000080"]A fisherman who said he was with a group of Iraqis from the southern city of Basra fishing in Iraqi waters in the northern area of the Gulf said he saw the Iranian seizure. The fisherman, who was contacted by telephone by an AP reporter in Basra, declined to be identified because of security concerns.

“Two boats, each with a crew of six to eight multinational forces, were searching Iraqi and Iranian boats Friday morning [u]in Ras al-Beesha area in the northern entrance of the Arab Gulf, but big Iranian boats came and took the two boats with their crews to the Iranian waters[/u].”[/color]

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='461328' date='Mar 23 2007, 06:05 PM']It would'nt be the first time a middle east nation underestimated the United States. Iran wants control of Iraq and it's resources......nothing more..nothing less. [b]They want control of it so they can become the next world power.[/b][/quote]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='461336' date='Mar 23 2007, 02:10 PM'][/quote]


x2

[Lawman]

[quote]President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."[/quote]

[img]http://www.kdbm-kbev.com/PROGRAMS/PAUL_HARVEY.jpg[/img]

[i]" ... and now the rest of the story"[/i]

[i]Later in the Bush's conversation with Mr. Sands[/i]:

"I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. [b]Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law."[/b]

[Khatmandude]

This is an interesting development because I've heard from many Iranians who say that Ahmadenijad was not supposed to be President and "came out of nowhere"....many believe he is a puppet also........whose puppet, well that is yet to be determined. Also, the below is interesting, from CARM...............just kidding.....

[url="http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html"]http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-h...d-hitchens.html[/url]

[quote]… Ahmadinejad is a non-entity. The Iranian "president" is mostly powerless. The commander of the armed forces is the Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khamenei. Worrying about Ahmadinejad's antics is like worrying that the US military will act on the orders of the secretary of the interior. Ahmadinejad cannot declare war on anyone, or mobilize a military. So it doesn't matter what speeches he gives ...

What is really going on here is an old trick of the warmongers. Which is that you equate hurtful statements of your enemy with an actual military threat, and make a weak and vulnerable enemy look like a strong, menacing foe. Then no one can complain when you pounce on the enemy and reduce his country to flames and rubble.

It is obvious that powerful forces in Washington are fishing for a pretext to launch a war on Iran, and that they are just delighted to have Ahmadinejad as cartoon villain and pretext. But they had a moderate, reforming president in Mohammad Khatami for 8 years, and just blew off all his overtures to the West ...”[/quote]

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote name='IKOTA' post='461360' date='Mar 23 2007, 02:43 PM']This is an interesting development because I've heard from many Iranians who say that Ahmadenijad was not supposed to be President and "came out of nowhere"....many believe he is a puppet also........whose puppet, well that is yet to be determined. Also, the below is interesting, from CARM...............just kidding.....

[url="http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html"]http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-h...d-hitchens.html[/url][/quote]


It's a pretty widely held theory. In the election there, his main opponent was Hashemi Rafsanjani. Who was the former right hand man of Khomeini and was previously President of Iran from '89 to '97.

Anway, in the past twenty years, Rafsanjani and family have become very powerful and very rich. (they are billionaires) His son's control a lot of private refinery facilities in Iran, banks, car dealerships, you name it. They even invest worldwide. (For example, Highway 407, a large Canadian toll highway is owned through a Rafsanjani holding company based in Spain.)

Anyhoo, as a result of his business interests and also maybe just aging, Rafsanjani became far more moderate. He was closer to Khatami, his successor in terms of reforms.

A lot of observers felt that Ahmadinajad's candidacy was pushed by the old Mullah's in the Council of Experts. In part because of jealousy of their fortune and also fear that they were getting too powerful. And that they would pursue reforms or become more moderate to further their wealth.

So then Ahmadinajad, at the time a complete political novice really (only mayor of Teheran) comes into the picture.

Rafsanajani seems to to really split people's opinions. He's considered corrupt by many Iranians, but at the same time, he's popular with reformist elements and was easily voted into the Council of Experts.

[Khatmandude]

[quote name='Chris Henrys Dealer' post='461404' date='Mar 23 2007, 04:53 PM']It's a pretty widely held theory. In the election there, his main opponent was Hashemi Rafsanjani. Who was the former right hand man of Khomeini and was previously President of Iran from '89 to '97.

Anway, in the past twenty years, Rafsanjani and family have become very powerful and very rich. (they are billionaires) His son's control a lot of private refinery facilities in Iran, banks, car dealerships, you name it. They even invest worldwide. (For example, Highway 407, a large Canadian toll highway is owned through a Rafsanjani holding company based in Spain.)

Anyhoo, as a result of his business interests and also maybe just aging, Rafsanjani became far more moderate. He was closer to Khatami, his successor in terms of reforms.

A lot of observers felt that Ahmadinajad's candidacy was pushed by the old Mullah's in the Council of Experts. In part because of jealousy of their fortune and also fear that they were getting too powerful. And that they would pursue reforms or become more moderate to further their wealth.

So then Ahmadinajad, at the time a complete political novice really (only mayor of Teheran) comes into the picture.

Rafsanajani seems to to really split people's opinions. [b]He's considered corrupt by many Iranians,[/b] but at the same time, he's popular with reformist elements and was easily voted into the Council of Experts.[/quote]

All politicians are corrupt, that's how they get into that position in the first place.

[|Bunghole|]

[url="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1602389,00.html?cnn=yes"]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...00.html?cnn=yes[/url]

Interesting.

[Lawman]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='461447' date='Mar 23 2007, 04:09 PM'][url="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1602389,00.html?cnn=yes"]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...00.html?cnn=yes[/url]

Interesting.[/quote]

[quote]But an Arab source in the gulf believes that the incident may have been an Iranian political message to the U.S. and the world — a reminder [u]that Iran has assets in the gulf [/u]to threaten American and its allies there.[/quote]

.. and like we don't

[img]http://www.sealchallenge.navy.mil/seal/gallery/seal13.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.sealchallenge.navy.mil/seal/gallery/seal11.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.sealchallenge.navy.mil/seal/gallery/seal14.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.sealchallenge.navy.mil/seal/gallery/seal08.jpg[/img]

[i]Very interesting, how the story describes The IRGC as a powerful, separate branch of the Iranian armed forces. Soaked with nationalist ideology, it has grown into a state within a state in Iran, with its own naval, air and ground forces, parallel to official government institutions. [/i]

[Actium]

Now it appears Ahmadinejad and his team have been denied visas, and he won't come?