and people blame the US for escaltions with Iran - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 03-23-2007, 06:29 AM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
havocjohn is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 03-23-2007, 10:18 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:



IF the Brits were in Iran's terrortorial waters, then isn't their action within their rights? do you think that if an Iranian military vessle ventured into US or British terrortorial waters that it wouldn't be seized?
Savannah is offline  
#3 Old 03-23-2007, 11:58 AM
Veggie Regular
 
BlindLemonPep'r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 318
Strange, the report I read said that the vessel was in Iraqi waters. Impossible to distinguish who is telling the truth without satellite photos.
BlindLemonPep'r is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 03-23-2007, 11:59 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlindLemonPep'r View Post

Strange, the report I read said that the vessel was in Iraqi waters. Impossible to distinguish who is telling the truth without satellite photos.



actually, i think the reports say that the Brits claim that they were in Iraqi waters. i haven't seen any comment from the Iranians, but i bet they will claim that the vessle was in their waters.
Savannah is offline  
#5 Old 03-23-2007, 04:47 PM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

IF the Brits were in Iran's terrortorial waters, then isn't their action within their rights? do you think that if an Iranian military vessle ventured into US or British terrortorial waters that it wouldn't be seized?



if that was the case sure, highly improbable that zodiac boats were conducting operations in Iranian waters, and have yet to see any news report that supports that.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm
havocjohn is offline  
#6 Old 03-24-2007, 01:50 AM
Ex-*****
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
This isn't the first time there have been incidents like this, and I believe there is also some disagreement as to where the actual border is in the area. It is unlikely that the Iranian government has planned for this, because so far it looks like it's a decision made on a low level in order to defend the integrity of Iranian territorial waters. In which case the Brits will hopefully be returned pretty soon, and this whole thing won't escalate into a major conflict.

I no longer post here after VB was sold in 2012. (See my profile page for details.)
Indian Summer is offline  
#7 Old 03-24-2007, 05:21 AM
Veggie Regular
 
otomik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: columbus, ohio
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

This isn't the first time there have been incidents like this, and I believe there is also some disagreement as to where the actual border is in the area. It is unlikely that the Iranian government has planned for this, because so far it looks like it's a decision made on a low level in order to defend the integrity of Iranian territorial waters. In which case the Brits will hopefully be returned pretty soon, and this whole thing won't escalate into a major conflict.

On one hand USS Pueblo or Gulf of Tonkin-type shennanigins is possible but I'm more inclined to believe it's sabre ratling on the part of Iran. Sabre ratling it's unconventional capabilities in terms of Iran's vast terrorist network.



http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/15_Briti...Iranian_guards

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reza Faker View Post

weve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting *****. Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.

ah, practically dr. evil there. Blondes, *****, the jokes are too easy...

* This post may contain pork, beef and fingers of undocumented workers. This post was manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts.
otomik is offline  
#8 Old 03-24-2007, 05:26 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Lord Hillyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 281
How low the once-mightly British empire has fallen. Sad.
Lord Hillyer is offline  
#9 Old 03-24-2007, 02:11 PM
Ex-*****
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by otomik View Post

On one hand USS Pueblo or Gulf of Tonkin-type shennanigins is possible but I'm more inclined to believe it's sabre ratling on the part of Iran. Sabre ratling it's unconventional capabilities in terms of Iran's vast terrorist network.



http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/15_Briti...Iranian_guards

ah, practically dr. evil there. Blondes, *****, the jokes are too easy...



Well. On second thought, this might have the potential to drag out for quite some time:

Quote:
According to Iranian sources, several officers have been abducted in the past three months and the United States has drawn up a list of other targets to be seized with the aim of destabilising Tehrans military command.

[...]

The first sign of a possible campaign against high-ranking Iranian officers emerged earlier this month with the discovery that Ali Reza Asgari, former commander of the Revolutionary Guards elite Quds Force in Lebanon and deputy defence minister, had vanished, apparently during a trip to Istanbul.



Asgaris disappearance shocked the Iranian regime as he is believed to possess some of its most closely guarded secrets. The Quds Force is responsible for operations outside Iran.



Last week it was revealed that Colonel Amir Muhammed Shirazi, another high-ranking Revolutionary Guard officer, had disappeared, probably in Iraq.



A third Iranian general is also understood to be missing the head of the Revolutionary Guard in the Persian Gulf. Sources named him as Brigadier General Muhammed Soltani, but his identity could not be confirmed.



Iran to hit back at US kidnaps

I no longer post here after VB was sold in 2012. (See my profile page for details.)
Indian Summer is offline  
#10 Old 03-24-2007, 05:00 PM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

Well. On second thought, this might have the potential to drag out for quite some time:





Iran to hit back at US kidnaps



kinda odd how Iranian generals are disappearing in Iraq, when they supposedly don't have anyone in Iraq...... really odd.



Wonder if they are deserting the sinking ship?
havocjohn is offline  
#11 Old 03-25-2007, 03:20 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post

kinda odd how Iranian generals are disappearing in Iraq, when they supposedly don't have anyone in Iraq...... really odd.



Wonder if they are deserting the sinking ship?





'Sinking ship'? Iran is doing very well for itself economicaly and politically compared to other regimes in the region.



And the article states Iran generals are being kidnapped by western forces in Istanbul and 'maybe' Iraq. Hardly desertion, is it?
MrFalafel is offline  
#12 Old 03-25-2007, 05:37 AM
Veggie Regular
 
otomik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: columbus, ohio
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

'Sinking ship'? Iran is doing very well for itself economicaly and politically compared to other regimes in the region.

The man said "sinking ship", now think about that image and what it may symbolize. What are Iran's prospects for the future? there are major signs of weakness, the people are pissed at the lack of employment and it's not going to get better with sanctions. It's not about Iran's current status vis a vis it's neighbors.



What you basically said is, "hey I don't think those rats are fleeing off the titanic, it's a pretty boat after all and it's still farther above the waterline than the lifeboats around it."



Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

And the article states Iran generals are being kidnapped by western forces in Istanbul and 'maybe' Iraq. Hardly desertion, is it?

It's hardly anything, it's totally inconclusive and Iran has been known to do some bizarre cloak and dagger stuff.

* This post may contain pork, beef and fingers of undocumented workers. This post was manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts.
otomik is offline  
#13 Old 03-25-2007, 05:57 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,981
The US has already admitted it kidnaps foriegn suspects and tortures them for intelligence. No doubt a senior Iranian general would be an excellent target for this kind of treatment?



Iran is getting huge amounts of money from selling oil to China and the rest of the world. Russia more more or less supports them as well. The people their support the ultimate leadership in the government but are happy to vote out the politicians. Iran has been thumbing its nose at the USA since Regan made a deal with them over the hostages. There is no reason to think they will suddenly stop.



Look at the havoc wrought by the US in the middle east right now. US military command has proved themselves to be completely inept. Why fear the US military? They may be really good at bombing women and children in Iraq but they still can't control Afghanistan or Iraq after years of effort. Iran has nothing to fear from the US beyond a few airstrikes (which will actually drive the populace into a more radical leadership thereby defeating the purpose of the airstrikes in the first place.
MrFalafel is offline  
#14 Old 03-25-2007, 06:43 AM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

The US has already admitted it kidnaps foriegn suspects and tortures them for intelligence. No doubt a senior Iranian general would be an excellent target for this kind of treatment?



Iran is getting huge amounts of money from selling oil to China and the rest of the world. Russia more more or less supports them as well. The people their support the ultimate leadership in the government but are happy to vote out the politicians. Iran has been thumbing its nose at the USA since Regan made a deal with them over the hostages. There is no reason to think they will suddenly stop.



Look at the havoc wrought by the US in the middle east right now. US military command has proved themselves to be completely inept. Why fear the US military? They may be really good at bombing women and children in Iraq but they still can't control Afghanistan or Iraq after years of effort. Iran has nothing to fear from the US beyond a few airstrikes (which will actually drive the populace into a more radical leadership thereby defeating the purpose of the airstrikes in the first place.



your right, the US is really bad at police actions like what is going on now in Iraq, we are however, very good at a rapid and decisive invasion such as what happened in Kuwait and in the early days of the Iraq invasion.



As Osma pointed out way back in 01, western societies the US in particular doesn't have the stomach for the long haul. Westerners are about instant gratification and if things don't go exactly as planned they want it changed and don't think about the long term ramifications of what may or may not happen.



With that said, I am starting to think we ought to just leave the middle east, no matter what happens it will be blamed on the US. Eventually Iran will set off a nuke either in Israel or in Europe. The US will be blamed for that as well since we did nothing to stop them.



However, it will give people the backbone to go in and do the job right the next time. IMO
havocjohn is offline  
#15 Old 03-25-2007, 06:45 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
actually the far smarter thing to do would be to try to actually communicate with Iran. instead of assisting in their oppression (Shah) instead of arming their enemies (Saddam) instead of blowing their commercial airliners out of the sky. maybe it just might be time for the USA to try to actually talk to Iran as if it is a co-equal in the world? it might be, i think, be as simple as respect and honesty that the relationship needs. that is just my impression from listening to what I hear Iranians say about the USA to people that go there trying to figure out how they tick.
Savannah is offline  
#16 Old 03-25-2007, 08:09 PM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

actually the far smarter thing to do would be to try to actually communicate with Iran. instead of assisting in their oppression (Shah) instead of arming their enemies (Saddam) instead of blowing commercial airliners out of the sky. maybe it just might be time for the USA to try to actually talk to Iran as if it is a co-equal in the world? it might be, i think, be as simple as respect and honesty that the relationship needs. that is just my impression from listening to what I hear Iranians say about the USA to people that go there trying to figure out how they tick.



before we convientially forget history can you please tell me first what country borders Iran to the north east and what was going on when the US backed the Shah?



Also can you please tell me why we would have supported a leader that at the time was doing what his other neighbors were asking him to do and was willing to protect oil carrying super tankers from being attacked and sunk from his neighbor he was at war with.



Also why should we negotiate with a country that has attacked our embassy and held and tortured our diplomates, as well as killed our soldiers acting as UN Peacekeepers in another country?



After all based on how they treat British sailors a nation that does have diplomatic ties with Iran, it makes one wonder why they should be treated as anything but the enemy they have continued to show themselves as...... or do you think proclaiming death to America is an act of friendship?
havocjohn is offline  
#17 Old 03-25-2007, 08:13 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post

before we convientially forget history can you please tell me first what country borders Iran to the north east and what was going on when the US backed the Shah?



Also can you please tell me why we would have supported a leader that at the time was doing what his other neighbors were asking him to do and was willing to protect oil carrying super tankers from being attacked and sunk from his neighbor he was at war with.



Also why should we negotiate with a country that has attacked our embassy and held and tortured our diplomates, as well as killed our soldiers acting as UN Peacekeepers in another country?



After all based on how they treat British sailors a nation that does have diplomatic ties with Iran, it makes one wonder why they should be treated as anything but the enemy they have continued to show themselves as...... or do you think proclaiming death to America is an act of friendship?



because the US and Iran haven't talked on almost any level since the Carter Administration and maybe it is about time for people to stop threatening and talking past one another and start trying to come to some understandings? the way in which we are dealing with Iran presently is not gonna bring about any real peace in the region.
Savannah is offline  
#18 Old 03-25-2007, 08:15 PM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

because the US and Iran haven't talked on almost any level since the Carter Administration and maybe it is about time for people to stop threatening and talking past one another and start trying to come to some understandings? the way in which we are dealing with Iran presently is not gonna bring about any real peace in the region.



since you are avoiding answering any of the other questions, lets try another one:



When your neighbor threatens your life repeatedly why would you be nice?



actually the way this should be worded is:



Your neighbor burns down your dog house, kills your dog and cat and repeatly threatens your life and your families life; why be nice?
havocjohn is offline  
#19 Old 03-26-2007, 07:13 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post

since you are avoiding answering any of the other questions, lets try another one:



When your neighbor threatens your life repeatedly why would you be nice?



actually the way this should be worded is:



Your neighbor burns down your dog house, kills your dog and cat and repeatly threatens your life and your families life; why be nice?



ok, you want me to talk about the Shah? whatever 'good' the Shah did in the geopolitical game with the USSR came at the expense of the people of Iran. the USA is associated with the Shah in the minds of many in Iran. it was a function of the common US policy in that era of propping up dictators that were friendly and useful to us. so, what is your point? that we are blameless for the situation that the Shah eventually came to represent in Iran (political oppression)? i think we could have done better.



simplistic analogies don't cut it so i will ignore that too



there are moderates in Iran that might have benefitted from a different approach by the US, but in my opinion Bush's administation has had a tin ear regarding that. in many respects the everyday Iranian wants better relations with the USA. i think the present leader in Iran isn't going to last that long. i think we would do much better by attempting to communicate with that nation instead of threatening it constantly. the threats seem to just make the hardliners stronger.
Savannah is offline  
#20 Old 03-26-2007, 10:33 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,003
Global Research.ca, August 5, 2005



Title: Halliburton Secretly Doing Business With Key Member of Irans Nuclear Team

Author: Jason Leopold



Faculty Evaluator: Catherine Nelson

Student Researchers: Kristine Medeiros and Pla Herr



According to journalist Jason Leopold, sources at former Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company.



Halliburton has a long history of doing business in Iran, starting as early as 1995.



It was Cheney who directed Halliburton toward aggressive business dealings with Iranin violation of U.S. lawin the mid-1990s, which continued through 2005 and is the reason Iran has the capability to enrich weapons-grade uranium.



It was Halliburtons secret sale of centrifuges to Iran that helped get the uranium enrichment program off the ground, according to a three-year investigation that includes interviews conducted with more than a dozen current and former Halliburton employees.



If the U.S. ends up engaged in a war with Iran in the future, Cheney and Halliburton will bear the brunt of the blame. The company has a long, documented history of violating U.S. sanctions and conducting business with so-called rogue nations.



Halliburtons business dealings in Iran helped fund terrorist activities thereincluding the countrys nuclear enrichment program.



Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company and in possible violation of U.S. sanctions.
Silver is offline  
#21 Old 03-27-2007, 01:17 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
hey John, check out this article about the area where the seizure most likely took place. seems that it is not so clear where borders are in the area:





http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT



Iran's Border Muddles Captivity Issue

Published: 3/27/07, 3:25 PM EDT

By ROBERT H. REID



(AP) - Shifting river channels, national rivalries and decades-old grudges all

complicate what should be a simple question: Whether British sailors were in Iraqi or Iranian waters when they were seized by Iranian forces.



The British insist the 15 sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters of the Shatt al-Arab waterway when they were captured Friday by naval units of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. At the time, the British were inspecting an Indian-flagged ship suspected of smuggling cars.



Iran is equally insistent that the incident occurred in its territorial waters. Officials in Tehran say they are investigating whether the British strayed into Iranian waters intentionally.



Neither side has released map coordinates to prove its case. Even if one side did, it is unclear that would be enough to convince the other.



"If this happened south of where the river boundary ends, knowing the coordinates wouldn't necessarily help us," said Richard Schofield of King's College in London, who is an expert on the waterway. "We have to accept the British claim with as much salt as the Iranian claim."



And, even if the incident occurred well before the spot where the river empties into the Gulf, the issue could be equally unclear - because the question of where the river border actually runs is as murky as the brown silt waters of the Shatt al-Arab.



The waterway is formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers at the southern Iraqi town of Qurnah. From there, the Shatt al-Arab, which the Iranians call the Arvand River, meanders south between Iran and Iraq until it spills into the northern Persian Gulf.



The waterway provides Iraq with its only outlet to the sea. Major port cities of both countries - Basra in Iraq and Khorramshahr and Abadan in Iran - lie on its banks.



Because the waterway is so important, both Iraq and Iran have long sought to promote their own interests in determining who has the right to use it - and under what conditions.



A 1937 treaty gave Iraq full rights to most of the Shatt al-Arab and fixed the border on the Iranian shore. Iran resented the terms, maintaining it accepted them only under pressure from the British. Lingering bitterness over the treaty may have influenced last week's Iranian action.



"The fact that British forces were involved made the (latest) incident especially sensitive for Iran," says Simon Henderson of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Iran resented this display of British dominance."



Iran scrapped the border pact in 1969. Four years later, Algeria mediated another deal setting the border in the middle of the river's most navigable channel. The river splits into a multi-channel delta as it nears the Gulf.



But Saddam Hussein tore up that treaty in 1980 and invaded Iran, setting off a bloody eight-year war.



Although the war ended without a formal peace treaty, both Iraq and Iran have generally accepted that the border runs down the middle of the main channel.



But the channel shifts due to silting. Because the two countries have not agreed on updated charts, that means there is no universal agreement on exactly where the border line runs.



If the seizure occurred near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab - which is likely - the issue becomes even more complicated because Iraq and Iran have never agreed on each others' claim to Gulf waters near the mouth of the waterway.



Without such an agreement, international law requires countries not to extend their territorial waters "beyond the median line with neighboring states," said Martin Pratt of the University of Durham in Britain.



But defining that line is difficult because of conflicting claims to rock formations, sandbars and barrier islands in the shallow waters of the northern Gulf, Pratt said.



As a result, there may be "legitimate grounds for arguing for a different definition" of those median lines, Pratt said....."
Savannah is offline  
#22 Old 03-27-2007, 04:42 PM
Veggie Regular
 
berrykat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,203
I hate getting into the heap but we kept up talks with the soviet union even when what's his name? ....the dude who would bang on the table with his shoe, said he would bury us. We can open talks with Iran and still be strong.
berrykat is offline  
#23 Old 03-27-2007, 05:51 PM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by berrykat View Post

I hate getting into the heap but we kept up talks with the soviet union even when what's his name? ....the dude who would bang on the table with his shoe, said he would bury us. We can open talks with Iran and still be strong.



yeah and at one time we supplied money and weapons to the Soviet Union, and we were allies, not really following you.



Khruschev (sp) never attacked a US Embassy and held our diplomats as hostages, an act of war, nor did the Soviet Union ever attack UN Peace Keepers with a car bomb killing a couple a hundred of them; which so happened to be US Marines, and there are other comparisons that could be made.



We have techincally been at war with Iran since 1979, nothing Iran has ever done or said towards the US since the fall of the Shah as given the US any reason to talk with them.
havocjohn is offline  
#24 Old 03-27-2007, 05:52 PM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

hey John, check out this article about the area where the seizure most likely took place. seems that it is not so clear where borders are in the area:





http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT



Iran's Border Muddles Captivity Issue

Published: 3/27/07, 3:25 PM EDT

By ROBERT H. REID



(AP) - Shifting river channels, national rivalries and decades-old grudges all

complicate what should be a simple question: Whether British sailors were in Iraqi or Iranian waters when they were seized by Iranian forces.



The British insist the 15 sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters of the Shatt al-Arab waterway when they were captured Friday by naval units of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. At the time, the British were inspecting an Indian-flagged ship suspected of smuggling cars.



Iran is equally insistent that the incident occurred in its territorial waters. Officials in Tehran say they are investigating whether the British strayed into Iranian waters intentionally.



Neither side has released map coordinates to prove its case. Even if one side did, it is unclear that would be enough to convince the other.



"If this happened south of where the river boundary ends, knowing the coordinates wouldn't necessarily help us," said Richard Schofield of King's College in London, who is an expert on the waterway. "We have to accept the British claim with as much salt as the Iranian claim."



And, even if the incident occurred well before the spot where the river empties into the Gulf, the issue could be equally unclear - because the question of where the river border actually runs is as murky as the brown silt waters of the Shatt al-Arab.



The waterway is formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers at the southern Iraqi town of Qurnah. From there, the Shatt al-Arab, which the Iranians call the Arvand River, meanders south between Iran and Iraq until it spills into the northern Persian Gulf.



The waterway provides Iraq with its only outlet to the sea. Major port cities of both countries - Basra in Iraq and Khorramshahr and Abadan in Iran - lie on its banks.



Because the waterway is so important, both Iraq and Iran have long sought to promote their own interests in determining who has the right to use it - and under what conditions.



A 1937 treaty gave Iraq full rights to most of the Shatt al-Arab and fixed the border on the Iranian shore. Iran resented the terms, maintaining it accepted them only under pressure from the British. Lingering bitterness over the treaty may have influenced last week's Iranian action.



"The fact that British forces were involved made the (latest) incident especially sensitive for Iran," says Simon Henderson of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Iran resented this display of British dominance."



Iran scrapped the border pact in 1969. Four years later, Algeria mediated another deal setting the border in the middle of the river's most navigable channel. The river splits into a multi-channel delta as it nears the Gulf.



But Saddam Hussein tore up that treaty in 1980 and invaded Iran, setting off a bloody eight-year war.



Although the war ended without a formal peace treaty, both Iraq and Iran have generally accepted that the border runs down the middle of the main channel.



But the channel shifts due to silting. Because the two countries have not agreed on updated charts, that means there is no universal agreement on exactly where the border line runs.



If the seizure occurred near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab - which is likely - the issue becomes even more complicated because Iraq and Iran have never agreed on each others' claim to Gulf waters near the mouth of the waterway.



Without such an agreement, international law requires countries not to extend their territorial waters "beyond the median line with neighboring states," said Martin Pratt of the University of Durham in Britain.



But defining that line is difficult because of conflicting claims to rock formations, sandbars and barrier islands in the shallow waters of the northern Gulf, Pratt said.



As a result, there may be "legitimate grounds for arguing for a different definition" of those median lines, Pratt said....."



Don't dispute it is a murky border, but if this is how Iran treats countries it has diplomatic ties with, why exactly should we talk with them?
havocjohn is offline  
#25 Old 03-27-2007, 06:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

ok, you want me to talk about the Shah? whatever 'good' the Shah did in the geopolitical game with the USSR came at the expense of the people of Iran. the USA is associated with the Shah in the minds of many in Iran. it was a function of the common US policy in that era of propping up dictators that were friendly and useful to us. so, what is your point? that we are blameless for the situation that the Shah eventually came to represent in Iran (political oppression)? i think we could have done better.



simplistic analogies don't cut it so i will ignore that too



there are moderates in Iran that might have benefitted from a different approach by the US, but in my opinion Bush's administation has had a tin ear regarding that. in many respects the everyday Iranian wants better relations with the USA. i think the present leader in Iran isn't going to last that long. i think we would do much better by attempting to communicate with that nation instead of threatening it constantly. the threats seem to just make the hardliners stronger.



Sure it's real easy to look back on history and point fingers, after all it's not like there are not numerous examples of leaders in countries coming to power and then becoming a lousy leader.



The Shah himself didn't have a lot of influence on what was going on between the Western Nations and the Eastern Block, however, the listening posts along the Soviet, Iran border did. I find it rather amusing that since the Soviet Bear is not the threat it was before the wall came down so many find it so easy to point fingers and complain about the things that were necassary to ensure other nations did not end up like Poland, East Germany, and the countless others that suffered close to 60 yrs of Soviet domination.



What does Bush have to do with a common policy of every administration since Carter? The Atoylahha Komeniha (sp) declared war on the US when he allowed those students to invade our embassy, and then hold and torture our diplomats. He also paid and supported the terrorists that attacked the UN Peacekeepers in Lebannon with a truck bomb, and those Peacekeepers were US Marines and close to 300 were killed, another act of war.



That simplistic analogy is exatly what Iran has done and continues to do in it's relationship with the US.



As to the present leader in Iran; you mean the president? LOL, he is a figurehead and is not the real leader.
havocjohn is offline  
#26 Old 03-27-2007, 06:05 PM
Veggie Regular
 
berrykat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,203
well the cold war was more covert wasn't it? mostly fought through proxies...The Beriut bombing in early 80's that was Libya wasn't it? But if we don't talk what next war? We can ill afford another war right now the military is overextended. Maybe we could just bomb the hell out of them but I don't want it to come to that. I still hope it can be resolved peacefully.
berrykat is offline  
#27 Old 03-27-2007, 06:08 PM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by berrykat View Post

well the cold war was more covert wasn't it? mostly fought through proxies...The Beriut bombing in early 80's that was Libya wasn't it? But if we don't talk what next war? We can ill afford another war right now the military is overextended. Maybe we could just bomb the hell out of them but I don't want it to come to that. I still hope it can be resolved peacefully.



I guess you would need to talk to England about that.



As to the military being overextended, that would depend on how one means that, there are a lot of military units in Europe right now, and to be honest, re instating the draft and taking out Iran before they do develop a nuke is a lot less painless than if they get one.
havocjohn is offline  
#28 Old 03-27-2007, 07:03 PM
Veggie Regular
 
berrykat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,203
True I don't want Iran to have nukes but I can still hope this can be resolved peacefully.....I can still pray for peace.
berrykat is offline  
#29 Old 03-27-2007, 07:52 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
taking out Iraq before they develop a nuke? yeah John, more war is what the middle east needs! let's take out Syria too! while we're at it, lets just clear out Palestine of all those pesky Palestinians. more war will bring peace! it is all these restrictions on war that is causing war!!!!
Savannah is offline  
#30 Old 03-27-2007, 08:10 PM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

taking out Iraq before they develop a nuke? yeah John, more war is what the middle east needs! let's take out Syria too! while we're at it, lets just clear out Palestine of all those pesky Palestinians. more war will bring peace! it is all these restrictions on war that is causing war!!!!



actually we did take out Iraq before they developed a nuke, I thought we were talking about Iran now.



Savannah, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but if you read history you will see that war has been around since man started writing if not longer. The only way man will ever live in peace is when we are all dead.



If the Palestines can't get along with each other when they are not attacking Israel how do you expect the rest of the world too?



I am sorry your ivory tower keeps you so high in the clouds that you have such a hard time seeing the world as it really is.
havocjohn is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off