Iran ?to try Britons for espionage?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: smashp
Its a Shame that The US doesnt have the moral authority to dictate to Iran that these troops should not be tortured and use established international treaties to force the Issue.

Our authority is simple. Tell Iran to hand them over or die.


:thumbsup: Might be the only way; still hoping this is a publicity stunt though. I don't relish the fact of deploying to Iran; but I would if needed.
 

k1pp3r

Senior member
Aug 30, 2004
277
0
0
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: conehead433
We won't be invading Iran, but we possibly could bomb them back to the stone ages.

And what would the aftermath of that be?

Glass parking lot?

Oh and less dependance on oil for the ME i'm sure.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: babylon5
Iran is giving Bush the excuse to invade them. Not too smart move.

Iran is executing their moves perfectly. Support for our war with Iraq is at its lowest point, we just committed even more troops and resources to the conflict, and we've clearly shown our incompetency in dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush knows he can't invade and Iran knows it too.

Look at you retards, thinking 15 soldiers who trespassed into Iranian waters is enough for our country to go to war. It's like we've got a forum of gradeschool children.

Yeah except they werent in Iranian waters, and Iran has been breaking international law left and right.

You appeasers are going to cause the downfall of the western world.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
Last I checked our Navy has nothing to do. We have shown we dont need to invade to cause major havock on a nation... We can bomb any country into the world into submission if we wanted too.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,007
136
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Last I checked our Navy has nothing to do. We have shown we dont need to invade to cause major havock on a nation... We can bomb any country into the world into submission if we wanted too.

If we wanted to. Perhaps that is why they are doing this, they believe we?ve already fallen from within and will appease their every whim prior to their nuclear program?s completion.

We have done it before, and some of us make it perfectly clear that we will sabotage our own interests. The Iranians are making a fairly safe bet in judging us if others have their way with our response or lack thereof.
 

gclg2000

Senior member
Jul 12, 2005
913
0
0
Originally posted by: Icepick
Originally posted by: gclg2000
Originally posted by: Icepick
Two US carrier battle groups were moved into the Persian Gulf today. I've heard it on the radio tonight but, strangely I can't find the story anywhere in print. :shocked:

Drop the hammer on Iran now...

...lets get on with it!

haha. Fortunately, I don't believe that GW is stupid enough to enter a war with Iran at this time.

I'm not talking about war.

I'm talking about wiping them off the face of planet earth.

Hard to have a war with a country that doesn't exist.

If we would just make ONE, just ONE example out of somebody in the middle east... We would be golden for the next 30-40 years...

No rebuilding, aid or help. Just bomb the living piss out of them. Hell it would cost anything but jet fuel... Lets unload a couple 100,000 bombs we have stocked up...the ones we have already spent the $$ on.
 

5150Joker

Diamond Member
Feb 6, 2002
5,549
0
71
www.techinferno.com
Originally posted by: gclg2000
Originally posted by: Icepick
Originally posted by: gclg2000
Originally posted by: Icepick
Two US carrier battle groups were moved into the Persian Gulf today. I've heard it on the radio tonight but, strangely I can't find the story anywhere in print. :shocked:

Drop the hammer on Iran now...

...lets get on with it!

haha. Fortunately, I don't believe that GW is stupid enough to enter a war with Iran at this time.

I'm not talking about war.

I'm talking about wiping them off the face of planet earth.

Hard to have a war with a country that doesn't exist.

If we would just make ONE, just ONE example out of somebody in the middle east... We would be golden for the next 30-40 years...

No rebuilding, aid or help. Just bomb the living piss out of them. Hell it would cost anything but jet fuel... Lets unload a couple 100,000 bombs we have stocked up...the ones we have already spent the $$ on.


Good lord what an imbecile.
 

gclg2000

Senior member
Jul 12, 2005
913
0
0
Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Good lord what an imbecile.

If that's what you think.

It would change the attitude of what people over there (and around the world) think of us. Good, Bad, Evil...whatever.

One big overhaul of Iran and that would be it. Unfortunately many, many of you don't see the big picture in the long run. That day is coming. We can have it today (only we have nukes) or in the future when they do as well.

Its either their women and children, or ours. Maybe even both at the same time.

Want to stop the (minimal) U.S. troop deaths? Stop spending all this money? "We will never get out of it?" Then America should grow a pair of balls and handle this like we should have about 2 years into Iraq... What we are doing now isn't working. Its time to get a lot more aggressive. The troop surge is nice, but its a joke... a "lets be nice and try again" maneuver..

Pony up and get it over with.

Then Michael Moore can make a movie about it afterwards and I'll buy you an opening night ticket with popcorn and a drink.
 

libs0n

Member
May 16, 2005
197
0
76
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: smashp
Its a Shame that The US doesnt have the moral authority to dictate to Iran that these troops should not be tortured and use established international treaties to force the Issue.

Except these captured soldiers are in uniform of a recognized gorvernment. Enemy combatants are not.

As Britain and Iran are not at war, the Geneva conventions regarding uniformed service members do not apply. Lets hope the Iranian version of you doesn't win the day when advocating the justification of torture based upon semantics like artificial categories whose criteria you determine where rules and ethics no longer apply, or that because a convention previously agreed upon does not fit the times to the exactitude that therefore gives them a free hand to do as they please.

It's bitterly ironic that the Iranians, supposed scum of the earth, are apparently treating their captives with more human dignity and respect than has been shown to have occurred under the jurisdiction of the American military and Intelligence Services. They're not being waterboarded after all, they're not being sent to unscrupulous countries where they'll be tortured continuously and often to death, you wont find them chained up in a frigid room in a pile of their own feces and urine pulling our their hair, and its most likely they'll spend a magnitude less amount of time in custody than the eternal limbo some men face at the hands of those who Corbett tacitly supports because, well, they're not in a Uniform, and like those British sailors are to the Iranians, they're obviously guilty in his eyes.
 

gclg2000

Senior member
Jul 12, 2005
913
0
0
Originally posted by: libs0n
They're not being waterboarded after all, they're not being sent to unscrupulous countries where they'll be tortured continuously and often to death, you wont find them chained up in a frigid room in a pile of their own feces and urine pulling our their hair, and its most likely they'll spend a magnitude less amount of time in custody than the eternal limbo some men face at the hands of those who Corbett tacitly supports because, well, they're not in a Uniform, and like those British sailors are to the Iranians, they're obviously guilty in his eyes.

Paragraph sentence (<--Incomplete sentence?).
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: piasabird
Just increase the size of the Military. We only spend about 3.5% of the the federal budget on Defense. We should be spending about 5.0% or more. We dont need a draft just increase the size of the standing military.

A retalitory strike is the one thing Iran thinks we will not do because we are such wimps that we think that care more about the price of oil than our security or the security of the free world. Iran is forcing our hand to see what we will do. Now is the moment of decison for Britian. They have the British Sailors and have done an act of piracy on the open seas. In fact they invaded the territorial waters of Iraq. So what will Britian do? What will we do? I doubt the president has the guts for even a single retalitory strike against Iran. I also doubt the UN has the guts to authorize any kind of military action. Isreal was attacked by the Hezbolah which are the thugs of Iran and there were even regular Iranian Guard troops with the terrrorists. Isreal did nothing about Iran and the UN did nothing about Iran. We are all cowards.

Over 50% of our budget is on defense. (since the wars)
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Another day...more crickets.

Chirp chirp.

Keep talking up a storm, armchair admirals. :laugh:

Iran isn't going to execute these sailors, but they aren't going to release them without a concession (probably an apology from the UK). Let's see which side has a bigger ego.
 

Vinnybcfc

Senior member
Nov 9, 2005
216
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Iran is executing their moves perfectly. Support for our war with Iraq is at its lowest point, we just committed even more troops and resources to the conflict, and we've clearly shown our incompetency in dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush knows he can't invade and Iran knows it too.

Look at you retards, thinking 15 soldiers who trespassed into Iranian waters is enough for our country to go to war. It's like we've got a forum of gradeschool children.

Lol I think your the retard, get your facts right British forces were in Iraqi waters
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,007
136
Originally posted by: Vinnybcfc
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Iran is executing their moves perfectly. Support for our war with Iraq is at its lowest point, we just committed even more troops and resources to the conflict, and we've clearly shown our incompetency in dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush knows he can't invade and Iran knows it too.

Look at you retards, thinking 15 soldiers who trespassed into Iranian waters is enough for our country to go to war. It's like we've got a forum of gradeschool children.

Lol I think your the retard, get your facts right British forces were in Iraqi waters

Perspective defines reality. Being anti-West and pro-Islam means he is devout in the belief that they were in Iranian waters. After all Iran said so!
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Over 50% of our budget is on defense. (since the wars)

You can't be talking about the United States. No one would be so stupid to make that claim without checking the numbers readily available.

Please tell me you were not talking about the United States.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: piasabird
Just increase the size of the Military. We only spend about 3.5% of the the federal budget on Defense. We should be spending about 5.0% or more. We dont need a draft just increase the size of the standing military.

A retalitory strike is the one thing Iran thinks we will not do because we are such wimps that we think that care more about the price of oil than our security or the security of the free world. Iran is forcing our hand to see what we will do. Now is the moment of decison for Britian. They have the British Sailors and have done an act of piracy on the open seas. In fact they invaded the territorial waters of Iraq. So what will Britian do? What will we do? I doubt the president has the guts for even a single retalitory strike against Iran. I also doubt the UN has the guts to authorize any kind of military action. Isreal was attacked by the Hezbolah which are the thugs of Iran and there were even regular Iranian Guard troops with the terrrorists. Isreal did nothing about Iran and the UN did nothing about Iran. We are all cowards.

Over 50% of our budget is on defense. (since the wars)

Sorry, the only person that can get away with making up crap here is Dave, and you are not Dave.

 

libs0n

Member
May 16, 2005
197
0
76
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Acanthus

Over 50% of our budget is on defense. (since the wars)

Sorry, the only person that can get away with making up crap here is Dave, and you are not Dave.

Dude was talking about the Federal Discretionary Budget.
 

beyoku

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2003
1,568
1
71
This just in.
Iran: British sailors crossed into Iranian waters six times
CNn
Earlier Thursday, Iran said the 15 UK military personnel detained last week entered its waters six times before they were arrested, and announced that the promised release of a woman sailor was suspended due to Britain's "behavior" in the matter.
 

amish

Diamond Member
Aug 20, 2004
4,295
6
81
Originally posted by: beyoku
This just in.
Iran: British sailors crossed into Iranian waters six times
CNn
Earlier Thursday, Iran said the 15 UK military personnel detained last week entered its waters six times before they were arrested, and announced that the promised release of a woman sailor was suspended due to Britain's "behavior" in the matter.

just because something is "said" doesn't make it true. i prefer facts such as, "global positioning system on the ship proves the vessel was "clearly" 3.1 kilometers (1.7 nautical miles) inside Iraqi waters." that was in your article too. too much he said she said right now. where are the boats?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: beyoku
This just in.
Iran: British sailors crossed into Iranian waters six times
CNn
Earlier Thursday, Iran said the 15 UK military personnel detained last week entered its waters six times before they were arrested, and announced that the promised release of a woman sailor was suspended due to Britain's "behavior" in the matter.


Well if the Iranians said it then it must be true.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
Originally posted by: amish
Originally posted by: beyoku
This just in.
Iran: British sailors crossed into Iranian waters six times
CNn
Earlier Thursday, Iran said the 15 UK military personnel detained last week entered its waters six times before they were arrested, and announced that the promised release of a woman sailor was suspended due to Britain's "behavior" in the matter.

just because something is "said" doesn't make it true. i prefer facts such as, "global positioning system on the ship proves the vessel was "clearly" 3.1 kilometers (1.7 nautical miles) inside Iraqi waters." that was in your article too. too much he said she said right now. where are the boats?


This was in the article was well:

"Iran insists the ship was inside its territorial waters and, according to Style, provided a map with coordinates on Saturday in an attempt to prove the point.

Style said those coordinates actually "turned out to confirm they were in Iraqi waters" and Iraq has supported that position.

Upon pointing that out Sunday through diplomatic contacts, Style said Iran then "provided a second set of coordinates" on Monday that were "in Iranian waters over two nautical miles" from the position shown by the HMS Cornwall and confirmed by the merchant vessel the British personnel boarded."


 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Originally posted by: amish
Originally posted by: beyoku
This just in.
Iran: British sailors crossed into Iranian waters six times
CNn
Earlier Thursday, Iran said the 15 UK military personnel detained last week entered its waters six times before they were arrested, and announced that the promised release of a woman sailor was suspended due to Britain's "behavior" in the matter.

just because something is "said" doesn't make it true. i prefer facts such as, "global positioning system on the ship proves the vessel was "clearly" 3.1 kilometers (1.7 nautical miles) inside Iraqi waters." that was in your article too. too much he said she said right now. where are the boats?


This was in the article was well:

"Iran insists the ship was inside its territorial waters and, according to Style, provided a map with coordinates on Saturday in an attempt to prove the point.

Style said those coordinates actually "turned out to confirm they were in Iraqi waters" and Iraq has supported that position.

Upon pointing that out Sunday through diplomatic contacts, Style said Iran then "provided a second set of coordinates" on Monday that were "in Iranian waters over two nautical miles" from the position shown by the HMS Cornwall and confirmed by the merchant vessel the British personnel boarded."

Wow, I'm shocked that Beyoku ignored that fact. Too bad all of the Iran groupies gloss right over this.

 

libs0n

Member
May 16, 2005
197
0
76
Originally posted by: amish
Originally posted by: beyoku
This just in.
Iran: British sailors crossed into Iranian waters six times
CNn
Earlier Thursday, Iran said the 15 UK military personnel detained last week entered its waters six times before they were arrested, and announced that the promised release of a woman sailor was suspended due to Britain's "behavior" in the matter.

just because something is "said" doesn't make it true. i prefer facts such as, "global positioning system on the ship proves the vessel was "clearly" 3.1 kilometers (1.7 nautical miles) inside Iraqi waters." that was in your article too. too much he said she said right now. where are the boats?

The problem being that the territorial waters between Iraq and Iran have never been fully defined between them and thus it is not as simple as checking coordinates against a marked map. The demarked line in the British map is of their own creation and has no basis in any treaty. So, the British, having declared what is and is not Iranian waters on their own, have provided a point of capture that is inside Iraqi waters as defined by them, but they made the definition. I have no doubt that the British are accurate on where their boys were, however that does not mean that they were not in Iranian waters, just that they were not in Iranian waters in how the British defined them. The key point of contention being that the British do not have the authority to arbitrarily determine such a delineation.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: libs0n
Originally posted by: amish
Originally posted by: beyoku
This just in.
Iran: British sailors crossed into Iranian waters six times
CNn
Earlier Thursday, Iran said the 15 UK military personnel detained last week entered its waters six times before they were arrested, and announced that the promised release of a woman sailor was suspended due to Britain's "behavior" in the matter.

just because something is "said" doesn't make it true. i prefer facts such as, "global positioning system on the ship proves the vessel was "clearly" 3.1 kilometers (1.7 nautical miles) inside Iraqi waters." that was in your article too. too much he said she said right now. where are the boats?

The problem being that the territorial waters between Iraq and Iran have never been fully defined between them and thus it is not as simple as checking coordinates against a marked map. The demarked line in the British map is of their own creation and has no basis in any treaty. So, the British, having declared what is and is not Iranian waters on their own, have provided a point of capture that is inside Iraqi waters as defined by them, but they made the definition. I have no doubt that the British are accurate on where their boys were, however that does not mean that they were not in Iranian waters, just that they were not in Iranian waters in how the British defined them. The key point of contention being that the British do not have the authority to arbitrarily determine such a delineation.


This was posted in the other thread about this...

British Vice Adm. Charles Style said the global positioning system on the ship proves the vessel was "clearly" 3.1 kilometers (1.7 nautical miles) inside Iraqi waters.

Iran insists the ship was inside its territorial waters and, according to Style, provided a map with coordinates on Saturday in an attempt to prove the point.

Style said those coordinates actually "turned out to confirm they were in Iraqi waters" and Iraq has supported that position.

Upon pointing that out Sunday through diplomatic contacts, Style said Iran then "provided a second set of coordinates" on Monday that were "in Iranian waters over two nautical miles" from the position shown by the HMS Cornwall and confirmed by the merchant vessel the British personnel boarded.

The "change of coordinates," Style said "is hard to legitimate."