Standoff In The Persian Gulf

15 Soldiers Seized As Britons Inspected A Merchant Ship, Officials Say

(CBS/AP)  This week, two Iraqi Shiite militia commanders told The Associated Press in Baghdad that hundreds of Iraqi Shiites have crossed into Iran for training by the elite Quds force, a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard thought to have trained Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

With tensions running high, the United States has bolstered its naval forces in the Gulf in a show of strength directed at Iran. Two American carriers, including the USS John C. Stennis — backed by a strike group with more than 6,500 sailors and Marines — arrived in the region in recent months.

U.S. officials had expressed concern that with so much military hardware concentrated in the Persian Gulf, just such a small incident could spiral out of control and trigger a major armed confrontation.

Earlier this week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, warned that if Western countries want to "treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack."

The Britons were in two boats from the Cornwall during a routine smuggling investigation, said the British Defense Ministry.

According to a statement from the U.S. Fifth Fleet, the British sailors had just finished inspecting the merchant ship "when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters."

"This was a normal, routine boarding," Lambert told CNN. "So we were boarding, it was a vessel that was trading in the area, which had passed one or two `trip wires' that we were concerned about, for example its flag and its call sign and so on. So the boarding party went in to carry out a routine boarding operation."

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, reached 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 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."

The seizure of the British vessels, a pair of rigid inflatable boats known as RIBs, took place in long-disputed waters just outside of the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway that divides Iraq from Iran.

A 1975 treaty recognized the middle of the waterway as the border. Saddam Hussein canceled the treaty five years later and invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war. Iran disputes Iraq's jurisdiction over the waters near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab.

"It's been in dispute for some time," Aandahl said. "We've been operating there for a couple of years and we know the lines very well. This was a compliant boarding, this happens routinely. What's out of the ordinary is the Iranian response."

In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days.

Vali Nasr, a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, suggested that the latest detentions may be Iranian retaliation for the arrest of five Iranians in a U.S.-led raid in northern Iraq in January. The U.S. said the five included a Revolutionary Guards general.

"I think Iran sees this as retaliation for the arrest of their own personnel. They have repeatedly said that they want their personnel released," Nasr said. "So they are either signaling that they can do the same thing or they are trying to bring attention to it."

[radiob-2009]

Is this not what the Iranians said they would do in response to our detaining Iranians in Iraq? This is going back to the issue of Iran's nuclear development and the sanctions over their failure to comply with the UN. A good read on the Iranian nuclear program and proposals to resolve it are at: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/BPisraeliran.pdf

[ripplebecker]

Iran is just yanking everyone's chains to get attention. I believe the Iranian's higher ups need to start acting like civilized educated people and help solve the problems at hand, instead of adding to them.

[waqahi]

"The British government is demanding". The British government can dictate to Dubai or Qatar or Riyadh or even Cairo. Not Tahran!!!
%u062C%u0627%u0643 %u0627%u0644%u0633%u064A%u0644 %u064A%u0627 %u0639%u0627%u0635%u064A %u0648%u0627%u0644%u062F%u064A%u0643
'Caught by the wash for mistreating your parents'

[micma-2009]

Can you say Gulf of Tonkin Incident? Bush and Co. are absolutely salivating to attack Iran.

[theusa1st]

The Royal Navy sailors were assigned to a naval task force whose mission is to protect the Iraqi oil terminals and maintain security in Iraqi waters under the U.N. mandate of the Security Council resolutions on Iraq, the fleet said in a statement issued by its headquarters in Bahrain.
The British were in Iraqi waters. The Iranians are idiots...anybody that defends what they do
are in the same class.
The Iranians captured by the U.S. where operating in Iraq to help kill innocent Iraq's and U.S. military personnel.

[radiob-2009]

theUSA1st I am not defending their actions.

[wayjan107]

Can you spell G-U-L-F of T-O-N-K-I-N?

[tuckerndfw]

By invading and occupying Iraq, the US & UK established the principle that any nation has the right to do whatever they want, anytime they want.

Ironic that the two nations that invaded and are occupying a non-theatening nation are complaining about "illegal acts."

Perhaps these British criminals will be tried by a kangaroo court so they can receive justice.

[shingles1]

"theUSA1st I am not defending their actions.
Posted by radiob"

Any comment that deviates from the Hugh Hewitt party line is anti-American, supports terrorism, and shall not be tolerated!

Even if you're just making an observation.

[us_infidel]

If they were captured in Iraqi or international waters, it's an act of war! They should be given 6 hours to have them back where they were along with a profound apology, or the bombs should start pouring down on them.

[tuckerndfw]

The US & UK illegally invaded a sovereign nation and are complaining of others acting illegally against the occupation forces?

According to international law and the rules established by the US & UK after WWII to try Nazi war criminals, all "coalition forces" are subject to being lawfully captured and detained pending their trials for war crimes. Or, killed in the process of attempting to detain them.

And, according to the "Bush doctrine," "enemy combatants" have no legal rights. Which would include US & UK forces.

So, which "law" is being broken by killing or detaining US or UK enemy combatants?

[gramto7]

or the bombs should start pouring down on them.
Posted by US_Infidel

Please don't give Duhhbya the idea that it is okay to go ahead and start it with yet another country!! Don't you think out troops are pushed hard enough as it is?

[karlimhof]

The British were in Iraqi waters. The Iranians are idiots...anybody that defends what they do
are in the same class.
The Iranians captured by the U.S. where operating in Iraq to help kill innocent Iraq's and U.S. military personnel.
Posted by theUSA1st

thanks for the "eye-witness" report sport! any other proven facts you want to share with us?

[notblue]

tuckerndfw, When you catagorize US and UK troops as "enemy combatants" it makes it crystal clear were your loyalties lie. Please go back to Aghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq and help the side your on, they need all the help they can get and it could be perfect end and your compatriates just think of all the virgins waiting for you in the afterlife.

[shingles1]

The Iranians must have been acting pre-emptively to deal with this "grave and gathering threat", after all, they wouldn't want "the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".

Snark.

"or the bombs should start pouring down on them.
Posted by US_Infidel"

And then what, US_Infidel. What happens next? Pray tell.

[tuckerndfw]

tuckerndfw, When you catagorize US and UK troops as "enemy combatants" it makes it crystal clear were your loyalties lie.

Posted by notblue at 10:41 AM : Mar 23, 2007

I am not the one who invented the term, nor am I the one who supports the war criminals who use it to justify murdering, torturing or detaining "suspects."

My loyalties are to the US Constitution and rule of law. A concept unfamiliar to those supportive of murdering, torturing or detaining "suspects" without charges or trials.

The fact remains that under the "Bush doctrine," there are no legal principles upon which to claim anyone is violating the law.

[us_infidel]

Please don't give Duhhbya the idea that it is okay to go ahead and start it with yet another country!! Don't you think out troops are pushed hard enough as it is?
Posted by gramto11 at 10:37 AM : Mar 23, 2007

Nah....this one's on the Brits. We'll be the back up band! :)

[karlimhof]

Bushit announces:


Today, at 1500hrs the Islamic Republic of Iran, launched a sneak attack on coalition forces and so as Commander and Chief I have ordered Condi Rice to Tehran to mud wrestle Ahmadinejad.

[us_infidel]

And then what, US_Infidel. What happens next? Pray tell.
Posted by shingles1 at 10:43 AM : Mar 23, 2007

We use the opportunity to off Achmednadinijad (sic) and over throw the Ayatollah. Put the country in the hands of a moderate and BOM! We've got a new friend in the region. :)

The Iranian people like us (for the most part) and they dislike their leadership. Now's as good a time as any.

[neoconrcrazy]

think of all the virgins waiting for you in the afterlife.
Posted by notblue


i like your fantasies - can we meet for a drink?

[shingles1]

"The fact remains that under the "Bush doctrine," there are no legal principles upon which to claim anyone is violating the law.
Posted by tuckerndfw"

And, according to the logic of international relations (or "monkey see monkey do") - when the strongest nation in the world acts in a specific way it gives the green light for others to do the same. We can expect Russia, China, India, and other less savory characters to all use the pre-emptive justification at some point in the future.

Monkey see...

[theusa1st]

karlimhof,
In regards to Senator Patrick Leahy check out this site instead of your "wiki" site.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/default.asp

you may not like it though because it only deals in the facts. Leahy is my senator from Vermont so I have known and read about him for years...many years.
As for your comments on my previous post this is what I have read from more than one news outlet. I do not just read from the Lefty news as it appears that you do. As usual you have your negative slant against anybody that doesn't agree with your thoughts or ideas. So hurry up and start calling names...

[grazinggoat]

Please go back to Aghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq and help the side your on, they need all the help they can get and it could be perfect end and your compatriates just think of all the virgins waiting for you in the afterlife.
Posted by notblue

-noclue
you're just an ignorant a$$hole. We're in an open discussion forum. Every idea is welcome and must be listen to. Please don't position the loyalty of posters according to what they say. All expressions are permitted provided they don't contravene to the rules of engagement of the site.

[huskerarmy]

"Nah....this one's on the Brits. We'll be the back up band!"
It shouldn't surprise anyone to hear the obedient right cast war in the context of intertainment.

[karlimhof]

The Iranian people like us (for the most part)

Posted by US_Infidel


And why would the Iranians like us?

Because of our respect of Islamic countries?

Or our respect for international law?

Maybe because of the fairness we show to the suffering Palestinians?

Or how we defended Lebanon from destruction?

[shingles1]

"The Iranian people like us (for the most part) and they dislike their leadership. Now's as good a time as any.
Posted by US_Infidel"

I agree that the Iranian population are one of the most pro-American populations in that whole region. But what better way to make them LESS pro-American then to bomb them.

[pishdead1]

The US & UK illegally invaded a sovereign nation and are complaining of others acting illegally against the occupation forces?
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:35 AM : Mar 23, 2007

have you lost your mind? how can you say that they illegally invaded iraq? there are many reasons why we could have legally invaded them. they did not listen to UN resolutions, they would violate the no fly zones and fire on our airforce. are these not legal reasons to go to war? and a tip for tucker.... you may want to study the history of the situation rather then spiting out talking points that you have no idea about.

[karlimhof]

theUSA1st

Sen. Leahy? Refresh my memory?

[us_infidel]

The US & UK illegally invaded a sovereign nation and are complaining of others acting illegally against the occupation forces?
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:35 AM : Mar 23, 2007

Dude, I sure hope you're not a lawyer for a living. You sound EXACTLY like one of the 8 that got fired. You obviously have no concept of the '91 surrender terms, 18 UN resolutions authorizing the use of force, or the president s duty to defend America in accordence with the Constitution.

If you're a lawyer, please go get your money back!

[skyhawk761]

God, I hate to agree with US_Infidel, but he is correct that the majority of the Iranians do like us and want an American style economic there. On the down side, we are stretched to thin in Iraq already that there is no way we could carry on another military activity in Iran. Of course that won't stop W though.

[karlimhof]

pisshead says
how can you say that they illegally invaded iraq? there are many reasons why we could have legally invaded them.

"could have legally" invaded ? Maybe - but we didn't. We were lied into the Bush War and therefore it's illegal to about 70% of Americans, probably the same or more Iraqis.

[theusa1st]

theUSA1st

Sen. Leahy? Refresh my memory?


Posted by karlimhof at 11:05 AM : Mar 23, 2007

Yesterday I posted about that if the Dem's wanted to investigate the firings of the prosecutor's go ahead but have someone else lead the charge instead of "Leaky Leahy". You responded by posting something out of wikipedia and said that he didn't expose any secrets. The site I mentioned will show otherwise. I can tell by the site it is from the right but what is says about Leahy is true. The Dem's must somewhere have a person better able to lead an investigation than Leahy...Leahy has always been a political hack...even members of his own party don't particularly like working with him. Give him a few more years and he could be another Rove.

[tuckerndfw]

We can expect Russia, China, India, and other less savory characters to all use the pre-emptive justification at some point in the future.

Monkey see...

Posted by shingles1 at 10:55 AM : Mar 23, 2007

That is one of the primary reasons I oppose the US inititated "war on terror" as is being carried out, including the invasion & ooccupation of Iraq.

The US & UK have done nothing to eliminate or lessen global "terrorism" while demonstrating their total disdain for the law.

The only time the US & UK cite the law is when it can be used (or twisted) to further justify their illegal acts. Much like corrupt cops (such as Mueller, FBI director) who use their badges to violate the law.

But, the fact remains that under the "Bush doctrine," there is no legal basis for claiming anyone violates any law. The "Bush doctrine" relies on "because we can and want to" as a justification.

That same concept has been and will be used by all dictators and dictator wannabes, including Bush & Blair, throughout history.

[radiob-2009]

Read this the Chatham house is a well respected org.
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/resea
rch/mep/BPisraeliran.pdf

[pishdead1]

could have legally" invaded ? Maybe - but we didn't. We were lied into the Bush War and therefore it's illegal to about 70% of Americans, probably the same or more Iraqis.
Posted by karlimhof at 11:10 AM : Mar 23, 2007

First take another drink of Koolaid.
and if this is your defense then i guess both Bill and Hillory lied to us to along with most of the others in the gov. becase they had been saying the same things long befor bush was in office. and you need to check your facts because the american people where overwhelminly for this war when it was started. to bad that alot of americans have ADD when it comes to politics on a world scale. why dont you just say that bush did it becase saddam tried to kill his father that makes about as much sense.

[rsoxfan1123]

In any case it was Britain's loyalty to us and Bush's exploitation of that that got them into this mess and now we need to stand behind Britain whatever they intend to do.

[tuckerndfw]

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

"The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

George Bush says US Constitution is just a "godd**ned piece of paper."

Source: http://infowars.net/articles/december2005/121205neocons.htm

It appears Bush does not concern himself with legalities.

The invasion was illegal.

[pishdead1]

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

"The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter."

Wow i really got a laugh out of that one tucker keep them coming. if your basing what u belive off what the UN says let along Annan i feel for you and your family. really

[zertrat]

The US occupied Iraq (whether "legal" or not is completely irrelevant), effectively converting it to a Shiite state. The US likes to antagonize the Iranians, also a Shiite state. We have recently seen the fighting power of Hezb-allah, a Shiite force supported by a growing Shiite empire. American butt is being kicked by the Shiites in Iraq. The US-UK may be a big dog but we all know the Shiite dog is a tougher, fiercer, more determined fighter, driven by values and ideology (whether you agree with them or not is also irrelevant), while Bush is undermining and ignoring traditional American values and ideology. Only a bully big dog looks for an unnecessary fight. Get the US-UK military out of the Middle East.

[tuckerndfw]

if your basing what u belive off what the UN says let along Annan i feel for you and your family. really

Posted by Pishdead1 at 11:34 AM : Mar 23, 2007

You see no contradiction in claiming a violation of UN regulations justifies action while denouncing the UN (and its regulations)?

It must be difficult to reconcile two opposing thoughts as being equally valid. And, it appears to lead to insanity.

[thgdriver]

Iranian naval vessels seized 15 British sailors and marines Friday in Iraqi waters, the Ministry of Defense said.

OK you liberals out there, remember who started it.

I think Iran needs to be taught a lesson to stop fuing with us.

[rsoxfan1123]

Pishdead1-If you think totally ignoring the UN and consqequently violating the Geneva Convention (which goes right along with that) is a good idea then your philosphy would fit right in with the unilateral decision making that has destroyed the republican party, ruined our economy and, whether you like it or not, is totally illegal based on agreements we made with the UN. Your opinon of annan does not change international law.

[pishdead1]

The US occupied Iraq (whether "legal" or not is completely irrelevant), effectively converting it to a Shiite state. The US likes to antagonize the Iranians, also a Shiite state. We have recently seen the fighting power of Hezb-allah, a Shiite force supported by a growing Shiite empire. American butt is being kicked by the Shiites in Iraq. The US-UK may be a big dog but we all know the Shiite dog is a tougher, fiercer, more determined fighter, driven by values and ideology (whether you agree with them or not is also irrelevant), while Bush is undermining and ignoring traditional American values and ideology. Only a bully big dog looks for an unnecessary fight. Get the US-UK military out of the Middle East.
Posted by zertrat at 11:38 AM : Mar 23, 2007

Thats nice zertrat. again you fail to see the history behind this whole situation. and for you to say that we should tuck our tails and run becase oh noooo "we all know the Shiite dog is a tougher, fiercer, more determined fighter, driven by values and ideology" what you forget or have lost forever in your mind is that our troops are tough, fierce, and determined, and are driven by values of our forfathers and the ideology that all men should be free. And we can win this fight as long as we give the troops the time to do it. We will never run from a fight while bush is in office thank god.

[radiob-2009]

thgdriver read the report http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf
/resea
rch/mep/BPisraeliran.pdf

[zertrat]

Win? Pishdead, what is the US going to win?

[thgdriver]

The UN is corrupt, we should turn that building in New York into an apartment building.

We should have dropped our membership long ago. The taxpaying middle class of the USA has supported those criminals for far too long.

[pishdead1]

tucker last time i checked there was no UN resolution that said we could not go to war with iraq. just Annon playing politics

[j-whitman]

I'm listening to John Boehner in Congress,,, yelling genocide is happening in Lebanon ???? - Another Lying Off The Hook Idiot -- They should lynch these people on the spot for thier lies.

[ammermantm]

Hey everyone look over here nevermid that lawyer thing get riled up about something else just long enough to forget about it. wierd

[pishdead1]

winning would be setting up a sustanable democracy in iraq. Mr. Z