digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Iran to try captured Britons for espionage

timesonline.co.uk — 15 British sailors and marines arrested by Iran ’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying. A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • guillermox, on 10/12/2007, -134/+21I blame British colonialism in the area.
    • swaggadocio, on 08/20/2008, -24/+53I blame you getting dug down on being ignorant the area.
    • asif5th, on 10/12/2007, -73/+19They were in Iranian waters
    • animalmuther76, on 07/30/2008, -59/+13the good ol US of A was a british colony once ;) perhaps thats why is so f'd up too lol
    • str3ama, on 10/12/2007, -78/+17First they said they were "sailors", now they're saying they were part of the "navy". There's a big difference between some British sailors and British Navy. The first case makes the civilians, in which case Iran would be acting indispicable. But ultimately I think that they were in fact out on a spy mission of some sort, it's just too odd for two navy soldiers to be sailing out near Iran for recreation.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -17/+93@str3ama:

      They weren't sailing out near Iran for recreation, they were inspecting a ship docked in Iraq waters according to eyewitnesses:

      http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=March2007&file=World_News2007032534322.xml

      Also, the Shatt al-Arab waterway is a very narrow waterway between Iran and Iraq. Iran says the men strayed onto the Iranian side of the waterway. The eyewitnesses mentioned in the above article said the men were arrested in Iraqi territory. If this is true, the tables are turned and Iran is *****. If it turns out a group of British soldiers accidentally shifted a few feet onto the Iran side of an unmarked waterway, it might be grounds for Iran to arrest them (on the Iranian side) but it's not a huge deal (and hard to prove). If it turns out Iran intentionally went into Iraqi territory in order to arrest innocent British soldiers (who were also in Iraq at the time) then god help Iran. All I have to say is I hope Iran has those soldiers in a luxury suite and is serving them caviar and champagne. If one of the soldiers has as much as a black eye, and it turns out Iran is wrong, Iran will no longer have to worry about being nuked by the USS ___________, they'll have to worry about being nuked by the HMS _________ .
    • Dreww40, on 10/12/2007, -7/+72@ str3ama
      you are an idiot. "Sailor" is a term used by many countries to signify a member of the Navy. You are also an Idiot for having read the article title and came to the conclusion that there must have been some British tourists out sailing in the Persian Gulf, one of the most dangerous (and most heavily patrolled) stretches of water in the entire world.
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -31/+9Iran's crazy (so I've heard), but not stupid (I'll safely assume). I hate to sound like I'm optimistic, but I foresee these Englishmen on a flight home in a month or two. Hell, in 2000, the US had a spyplane that got caught on what was indisputably a spy mission on China and its crew were given luxury accommodations while they were waiting for someone to unravel that political *****. They were sent home to the US a few weeks later. I'm sure Iran will do the same thing.
    • jono10, on 10/12/2007, -23/+40At least they will have a trial. I hear some countries, particularly dictatorships won't allow this, and keep people indefinately without charge.
    • spearce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@asianwaste
      true...but china wasn't trying to make some cosmic religious/political statement by holding the flight crew after it was forced to make an emergency landing. Iran is trying to prove a point.

      WWIII here we come.
    • proliance, on 10/12/2007, -11/+30Lets hope the Brits have better luck rescuing their hostages than the US did back in 1980.

      I'm still waiting for the Iranians to get their payback for that.
    • 1dog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25If Iran is smart they will just let these guys go. It would look good to the world. As it is the Brits are sick of the Middle East conflict. This could get the Brit Pop mad.
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19@"If Iran is smart they will just let these guys go."

      With all the current tensions, I would think Iran would try to not give the UK/US a pretext to attack.

      If the US attacked the nuclear facilities or invaded Iran a few days ago, the international community would be hopping mad and screaming bloody murder.

      However, if Iran doesn't return these soldiers and sentences them to jail time and then the US attacked then it would look more justified.

      It doesn't make sense... Unless of course Iran wants a war...
    • DAGONthehauge, on 10/12/2007, -26/+7No matter how big an ***** Ahmenijad is, or no matter just how psychotic a theocratic turdworld hellhole Iran is,

      ...could the british troops captured actually BE guilty?
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -22/+5Look at this bs....nixonrichard:
      "it might be grounds for Iran to arrest them (on the Iranian side) but it's not a huge deal (and hard to prove). If it turns out Iran intentionally went into Iraqi territory in order to arrest innocent British soldiers (who were also in Iraq at the time) then god help Iran"
      "it MIGHT be grounds...to arrest them, but it's NOT A HUGE DEAL (and HARD TO PROVE). If Iran intentionally went into Iraqi territory to arrest INNOCENT soldiers (who were in Iraq at the time.....[I thought it was hard to prove?????????????????], then GOD HELP THEM."

      So let me get this straight, nixonrichard, it's "no big deal" if British do it and hard to prove, but if Iranians do it, it "god help them"/How Dare They!?!?! and doesn't need any proving because they are automatically guilty.....can you get more blatantly lopsided an statement as that? Not much...
    • MahWah, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2@jono10

      Nice one. Methinks a little too subtle though.
    • dravidian, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3These sailors couldn't have been a "few feet" into Iranian waters. Do you think that if the Iranians were surrounding them, that they wouldn't move the few feet back into Iraqi waters and gave them the finger?

      They were also in a rubber boat. WTF do you think they were doing in a rubber boat all the way near Iranian waters? Routine search mission my ass - who goes around searching a waterway in a rubber dinghy? Even if thats true, they would have had backup in the form of a mother ship next to them, but where was that ship when these guys were getting surrounded by Iranians?

      Its obvious these guys were an SAS boat team trying to sneak into Iran. They've probably done it many times already, and this is the first time they actually got caught.
    • jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@dravidian

      They were near the coast, probably in a boat similar to the ones our coast guard and special forces use. No reason it couldn't have been a small boat, they were a boarding party.
    • asian1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The British sailors are there to perform duties for the UN, and not for the British govt.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5"Lets hope the Brits have better luck rescuing their hostages than the US did back in 1980."

      Well, as long as George H.W. Bush doesn't strike a deal with Iran, as he did back then, to keep the hostages until the next U.S. President is sworn in, they will have better luck.
    • brownb2, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Consider this conspiracy theory:

      Israel is getting twitchy over Iran's growing power in the region, especially nuclear capability.
      The US wants to get rid of rid of the Iranian government for a number of reasons, but doesn't have any resources left (Afganistan, Iraq etc). It would also look diplomatically bad if they "invaded" another country, or Israel attempted because of their size and history in the region.

      Now picture this - the US controls the GPS satellites, and realises a good excuse to start this war and bring in allies is to start a territorial incident involving their closest allies and the enemy, with the US offering support to the allies. It sends duff GPS data to the British, half to a full mile or so out. The British are adamant they are in Iraqi waters - their "GPS" gives them the proof as they don't know any better. The Iranians are tracking the actual British location and it IS in Iranian waters.

      They should be considering the other possibilities before shouting liar over the fence.
    • futureb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3The Iranian leadership is very smart. They are just trying to create as much tension as they can without actually provoking a war. More tension = Higher Oil Prices. Even a small spike in oil prices will add MILLIONS of dollars a day to the public treasury, and thereby increase Ahmadinejad's power. It's so obvious that oil prices have stabilized of late, so what happens? Iran starts to act aggressively.

      And when we react to their provocations we contribute to the rise in oil prices. Likewise, we solidify Ahmadinejad's support at home in Iran. I can really think of no benefit in reacting the way we do, unless of course we actually want to increase oil prices, too. Either we go in and overthrow the Islamists or we don't. But this policy of walking around with our chests out gets us nowhere.
    • Cleanlyness, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Go Iran! ***** britain!
    • GregoryPurcell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0To say the Brittish Sailors and Marines are guilty of anything is absurd, They are pawns POW's It's just a shame the Bush Administration has said the Geneva Convention is " quaint and archaic and no longer applies in the post 9/11 world." When Bush threw away the Geneva Convention he striped our troops of basic protection.

      Bush has been threatening Iran for months he has Capered and Interrogated Iranian Agents in Iraq We raided an Iranian Embassy. Bush wants a war to boost his poll numbers at home, and will start WW III shut up critics. Iran said a year ago America can not govern in Iraq without our consent if America or Israel bomb Iran we will turn Iraq into a sea of fire this time there will be 140,000 American hostages.

      I would feel much better about about war with Iran if we had say three million troops in Iraq. To start a war with Iran with less than one million troops in county is just insane. Through out history total War mean you mobilize your country's entire economy to fight the war Historical few countries can top conscription of 10% of its population into uniform but seeing how 75% of Iranians are under the age of 30. they just might be able to get up to 15% mind you 70 million people live in Iran There standing Army is half a million they could draft another 7 million real quick. they wont train em they will just throw them into the fray.

      We have one supply line to the green zone 300 miles two roads of ***** territory, when we fought the ***** militias back in 04 they shut down the supply line that's why we sued for peace with Al Sader. What do you think the Iraqi government and the Iraqi army we trained will do if we go to war with Iran do you really think they will fight on our side. Hello they are all *****

      Right now we are stretched to the limit fighting the Sunni Rebellion and the Sunnis are only 20% of the Iraq Population. To consider a war with Iran is Insane but we will do the bidding of Israel and Saudi Arabia,

      And when we do lose the greatest Army the world has ever seen that is when we nuke Iran. and the neo-cons will cheer.


      http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_12_18/article.html
  • GKang, on 10/12/2007, -19/+37I think the Iranian's are provoking the situation as just a political ploy, its like a chimpanzee throwing its scat. I think they might of miscalculated the political fallout of such an event. NATO might have to have a intervention. I hope this wont accidentally cause an exchange. since US and UK are so strained we don't have the man power to handle such acts of terrorism and breach of Internationale law. I do recall HALLI BURTON CAN DRILL THROUGH GLASS!
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -38/+7When did Bush start throwing his poo about??
    • Battleloser, on 10/12/2007, -22/+15If this does escalate, and war starts up, then there's really no reason for an invasion and occupation like Iraq. The US and Britain have all that airpower and heavy vehicles just sitting around over there, with really nothing to do. A short, intense bombing campaign followed by a small rescue op ought to be enough.

      Of course there's still the possibility that they'll screw that up, just like Israel did, by going too far to protect civilians.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -28/+11You have been there obviously, plus you are an expert on international law.

      So what about that illegal war going on there? What about killing tens of thousands civilians?

      If the US/UK army arrested Iranian soldiers, would it even make news in the West? Would we even know about that with secret illegal prisons operated by the US?
    • BSGAdama, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9@ICSU The US technically invaded Iran about 2 months ago and we didnt hear much about that. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D380D570-5115-464C-8429-6D019CCAD42D.htm

      Having said that, the Iranians are so asking for it with this latest act.
    • spearce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14coalition forces ARE holding 5 Iranian Republican Guard soldiers that were arrested in Iraq. old news.
    • d3c0yn4m3l355, on 10/12/2007, -23/+1Indeed the US/UK are just provoking Iran in order to find a reason to attack them. Sorry to say but if you actually going to sail for fun, seriously why you ever consider doing so in such area. It's like wondering why you get shot at if you try to pick nick in a shooting range. I hope this nitwits just get trialled for espionage, so they are a nice example towards the US/UK forces not to play with Iran. For sure Iran might have a poor army, heck the entire country is poor, but trying to provoke Iran in order to justify a new war is just plain wrong.
      side note, i hope that those morons of soldiers over there also will reconsider doing these actions in general. They got a boss telling them something todo, but they also have a pair of brains them self which somehow they managed to turn off in situations like this.
    • MahWah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19"breach of international law"

      Oh, the ***** irony.
    • sippindrank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Is that what they are calling Kangaroo Courts nowadays? Fair trial?
    • GregoryPurcell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Damm right our forces are strained do you think Iran is going to sit pacify by and be bombed, no they will attack out Troops in Iraq. They will tell the Iraqi ***** to start fighting. We are losing Iraq because we believed our own propaganda going in So to cover up the bad news coming out of the two Wars we are losing Bush will start a third. Bush is going to lose the Army and then he will nuke Iran how is this good.
  • GKang, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9Does this remind you of the pueblo incident with north Korea come on get original IRAN
  • MercedRocks, on 10/12/2007, -9/+44This will just give further resolve to those countries pressing for sanctions against Iran.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36If Iran keeps the men in prison, yes, it will increase pressure to levee harsh sanctions against Iran. If, however, Iran does something stupid like execute one or more of them, sanctions should be the least of Iran's worries. Amnesty International isn't exactly an unbiased source, but here is what they had to say about Iran's conduct in another espionage case:

      http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE130281997?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CIRAN

      Serious wars have started over much less . . . just ask Archduke Ferdinand.
  • ladymadonna, on 10/12/2007, -16/+63Where's the Iron Maiden when you need her? If Margaret Thatcher were the PM, she would have busted out a can of whoop ass Falkland's style on Iran.
    • ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28No kidding. Corrupt police in Iraq arrested some British soldiers and were planning on handing them over to insurgents, so we drove a tank through the wall of the prison to free them. I will be very disappointed if black bag operations aren't ready to go soon. I don't care what it takes, get our ***** soldiers out of imprisonment.
    • chrislewis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7to be honest, I'm surprised the British personell didn't defend themselves (with sidearms etc)
    • ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yeah. could have been many reason why they didn't though.

      Also, I meant to say that that happened in Iraq, the police arresting the soldiers to hand over to insurgent.
    • jdelsman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11They probably didn't defend themselves because they were [according to various news sources] surrounded by multiple Iranian vessels.
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Margaret Thatcher is in her crypt. We only break her out in times of war or rebellion.

      Seriously, we're in no position to invade another country. We don't have the troops or money to go it alone, and neither does the US. In short, we have to bide our time until their release, and then unleash hell...in the UN Security Council.

      Yeah, it sucks.
    • skwurl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1kronix2,

      Who said anything about invading?

      People have to get over the notion that a strike on Iran equals Iraqi style occupation.

      I can assure you this: If the United States and or Britain decide to attack Iran, it will NOT be for the rebuilding of 'democracy'. The only ground troops on Iranian soil will be allied special ops painting targets for aircraft.
    • GregoryPurcell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If we bomb Iran there will be Iranian troops on Iraqi soil, the Iranian government has already promised this. Why do you Pro War cheerleaders want to kill our troops. At least Thatcher was not Insane We have two Wars already and we are losing both of them If we bomb We will Fight Iran in Iraq we will fight Iran in Afghanistan.

      They have lots and lots of little boats with Mines, they have submariners they have harpoon missiles I have sailed threw the Straits of Hormuz it is very narrow the Mississippi river is wider in places than the mouth to the Persian Gulf two or three supertanker go down there and Shipping is turned off. Say hello to a thousand dollars a barrel for OIL
  • rheaume, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28This looks like bad news
    • MahWah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@nixonrichard

      I thought we didn't do trials?
  • kingygk, on 10/12/2007, -27/+62Iran is provoking the next World War.
    • Ruckgesicht, on 10/12/2007, -48/+18So surrounding Iran from all sides with the US and her Nuclear-capable allies doesn't count as provocation?
    • Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -16/+21No, that's called containment.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19If one of those nuclear subs moves out of international water into Iran and starts arresting Iranian citizens and putting them on trial for capital crimes, then yes . . . that would be provocation.
    • Ruckgesicht, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23http://jack.link-u.com/wp-content/usbases.jpeg
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -41/+24Iran is provoking the next WW?
      I thought it was pretty much the US doing that (and doing it well).
    • Kufr, on 10/12/2007, -37/+9Actually the Britons have bombed countries for less in the past. In 1999 they bombed their old allies from WW1 and WW2, Serbia. Serbia did absolutely NOTHING to provoke the Britons. But the Britons had short memory and forgot who was friend and who was enemy. So it happened they betrayed their old allies and sent bombmats over Serbia. Why? Because Serbia had sent in the police to deal with muslim terrorists INSIDE the territory of Serbia. Only a few years later the Britons sent soldiers, not inside their own territory, but around the whole world to fight "terrorism" [sic] in places like Iraq.

      If the British had a decent foreign policy they should send soldiers to clean up the dirty mess they created in Kosovo/Serbia instead of sending soldiers to far away places where they have absolutely no chance at all of accomplishing anyhing good.
    • DamnLogins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32@kufr

      Maybe it had something to do with Serbia being led by genocidal ***** and all the mass slaughters Serbian "troops" were committing. Just guessing here...

      Can you say Srebrenica?
    • noodless, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3"Can you say Srebrenica?"

      Yeh thats what you were told...but how many people in mass graves did the UN teams find....only 2000. There was no proof. It seems like western Make Love War propaganda. If you look into there were many many wierd things going on.
    • rasensio, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4Iranians are being provocative, sure, but what would the US coast guard do if he see a boat with some Iranian SOF in some California coast ? The arrest was legitimate.
      DON'T BE HYPOCRITE.
    • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12No spleh.

      It's like having that brother that keeps poking you and saying

      "Are you mad yet?"
      "No."
      *poke* "Are you mad yet?"
      "No."
      *poke* "Are you mad yet?"
      "Dammit, stop poking me."
      *poke* "Are you mad yet?"
      "QUIT IT!"*pokes back*
      "Moooooom-UN, USsy unfairly attacked me! He's trying to repress me and wants to kill me he says."
    • bluelu, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1And what is the US doing by building new nuke sites next to Russia? I hope if this is build, Russia will have the guts to move some of their nukes to Cuba again.
    • amightywind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Missile interceptors are not nuclear weapons. They are not a threat to Russia's nuclear deterent...yet (grin).
    • supermanred, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Uh, the US violated international law and invaded Iran's neighbour Iraq and started bombing the ***** out of it. The US has also frequently made incursions into Iran during this conflict. Iran captures a bunch of british soldiers who were in their waters, their territory and now all of a sudden IRAN is provoking the start of a world war?

      Now they cry like babies saying "you are breaking international law" like as if the world will EVER follow international law when it comes to Britain or the US ever again. They give a *****, really about international law after they blatantly violated it when blowing the ***** out of Iraq.
    • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Quote: Uh, the US violated international law and invaded Iran's neighbour Iraq and started bombing the ***** out of it.

      Let me fix this for you.
      UN Inspector: What's behind that door?
      Saddam: Nothing.
      UN Inspector: I need to look behind that door.
      Saddam: No.
      UN Inspector: According to the agreement you made with the UN, I am allowed to look behind that door.
      Saddam: No and if you don't leave now, I will kill all of you.
      UN Inspector: We'll be back.
      Saddam: No, you won't. France will protect me. We've got so many under the table illegal "food-for-oil" deals set up that they wouldn't want to lose all their lucrative profits and bribes. Besides, even by the time you came back, I'll have all of this burried in the desert or shipped out to other countries and make your leaders look like idiots.


  • kingygk, on 10/12/2007, -21/+38The UN sanctions are a joke. They will not stop Iran. The use of force is the only thing they will ever understand.
    • Darph.Bobo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25It won't be long now, the U.S needs to help the U.K. rescue the hostages and well if Iran gets bombed back to the Stone Age so be it.
    • noodless, on 10/12/2007, -27/+4Ignorant much?

      The US is attacking IRAN not the other way round.
    • amightywind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It doesn't get much press, but financial and banking sanctions are hugely damaging. They are the WMD of sanctions. Iran's economy is a wreck.
    • sspooner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yes, the sanctions are having a huge effect. Iran's economy is in tatters right now. Huge inflation, people can no longer afford rent etc.
      Ahmadinejhad is feeling the pressure, you can see by his little childish tantrums he throws every few days. The UN know that they cannot afford to mess this one up (as they did with Iraq) because the US and UK will just do the right thing irrespective of what the UN cluster--ck think.
    • GregoryPurcell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And sanctions are going to work any Day In Cuba we put them in place in the 1950 but if we give them just a little longer the longest serving head of stat in the world will die and we Will achieve that regime change in Cuba we have worked 50 years for.
  • duggitt, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10Is this the Gulf of Tonkin all over again?
    • proliance, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Not likely. If you recall, the Gulf of Tonkin incident involved the US claiming it was attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats during a storm. The only evidence were radar returns that are historically accepted to have been false. So it was either a bad mistake on the part of the US, or the US intentionally created a false event to allow the start of aggression in the area.

      In this case, its more like the Pueblo incident mention above by gkang.
  • sobriquet, on 10/12/2007, -38/+58So the US wants a war with Iran but can't instigate it
    They tell Britain to provoke an incident by moving into Iranian waters
    The Iranians say it was espionage and want to try the sailors
    The British, citing the 2004 incident, claim it was a mistake just like last time and press for leniency
    Iran's new hardliner government won't go for it for fear of looking weak and we see some sort of drastic punishment
    Britain declares war
    We join Britain

    Far fetched, but I could almost see it happening.
    • lishnetzy, on 10/12/2007, -20/+38I don't see it as far fetched at all. The US has two carrier groups sitting in the gulf, that's a lot of show...to have no show.
    • Sundownvf111, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16@lishnetzy

      that has been the standard for at least the past decade and a half.... with Operation N&S watch

      +you also sometimes have a LANT fleet strike group patrolling in the Mediterranean
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -24/+28The "We join Britain" part is the worrying bit.
      Do you mean 'Join Britain" just like the US did in WW2, after pretty much all of the fighting had been done and all that was really left was some mopping up and driving Britain into astronomical debt??
    • mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -41/+28"Do you mean 'Join Britain" just like the US did in WW2, after pretty much all of the fighting had been done and all that was really left was some mopping up and driving Britain into astronomical debt??"

      If the US hadnt stepped in, you would be speaking german right now.
    • boybunny, on 10/12/2007, -10/+35mike17032

      You are so ignorant you make yourself the butt of the joke.

      If England and dozens of other countries had not stepped in BEFORE USA joined the fight, Germany would have gained all the oil fields of the Middle East and Africa, all the iron mines of Russia, metal mines from all parts of Europe and Africa.

      Germany could not expend their fight because of a lack of raw materials and fuel. USA would have been speaking German today if the whole WORLD had not stepped up and given millions of soldiers lives long before USA ever joined in. Hitler would not have stopped because of the Atlantic.
    • mlaskus, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15No, we woludn't be speaking german... even if US hadn't joined the war.
      The war would take more time but germans were bound to lose, they had insufficent people and production potential to compete with USSR and Britain(both aided by Poles and other occupied nations)
    • boybunny, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33zybch

      Please remember that England did not fight WWII on their own. The whole commonwealth joined as well... as well as others. England did not declare war first. New Zealand did. Almost every commonwealth country declared war against Germany before the UK declared war. Russia gave the lives of more men than any other country in numbers. New Zealand gave the most mens lives in percentage of the population. The highest amount of kills in the Battle of Brittan goes to a Kiwi. Look at the recipients of the Victoria Cross... English recipients are a bit thin on the ground.
    • boybunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13mlaskus

      Germany had allies. Germany also found that there were sympathisers from many countries they "liberated" (the language of ALL aggressors). If things had gone well for them in Central Africa then the populations of many countries where Germany had colonies would have been enlisted. Please go do your history before joining in on the subject.
    • mlaskus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6boybunny

      I did my history... Germany didn't have the potential to wage long term war.
    • boybunny, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9mlaskus

      Based on what situations? If I can come up with compelling reasons why Germany would not have run out of men, not including the men they would not have lost at all if the British commonwealth had not sent every spare fighting man they had and immediately started the draft for more men. USA would have fought a full strength German force PLUS Italian force PLUS three countries from Africa. America being attacked by the most militarized country in the world at the time with all the resources of Europe, Africa, Middle East, and parts of Asia. Backed up by the troops of at least seven countries. USA would not have been able to make the weapons they did because they would have been BOMBED into rubble as soon as Germany had invaded. USA was only able to make the weapons they did because they were not being directly attacked (except shipping vessels).

      Please explain to me how Germany would have run out of "Puff" if the WORLD had not saved USAs arse?!
    • mlaskus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5boybunny

      Hold on a second, you missunderstood me. :)
      I didn't say anything about USA fighting Germany...

      I said that Allies and Komintern would be able to defeat Germans in the long term.
      Oh... and Italy is not a good example... they were the Frech of the Axis :P

      BTW. I'm digging you up :D
    • Darph.Bobo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Not so far-fetched.
    • boybunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3mlaskus

      Sorry my mistake. I was stating that if the rest of the allies had stepped aside and not declared war and either made treaties or were invaded one by one, USA would have been in the same boat as the european countries, treaty disadvantaging USA or invasion.
    • mlaskus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2boybunny

      No problem mate :)
      I agree with you completley in that matter.
    • boybunny, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18mlaskus

      I don't like playing the "What if" game. It just seems like a percentage of Americans like to and it gets insulting to many. Americas help and aid was absolutely necessary to win WWII, but it was a group effort, and it seems some in USA have never been taught that.

      It doesn't help Hollywood directors continue to insult the efforts of other countries. The movie U571 was the most galling. Not only was it the English who captured the Enigma Machine, they did it before USA joined the war.
    • mlaskus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10boybunny

      I'm not american. ;)
      I agree with you again, they are often arogant and they love to take other's merits as theirs.

      Ofcourse the victory was a group effort...
      We would surely lose the war if not the British determination.
      They also captured enigma and then Polish mathematics cracked it.
      Many soldiers from all over Europe regrouped in UK and then continiued to fight.
      French resistance sent a lot of valuable information to the allies and the Polish resistance (among other succeses) stole a prototype of one of the V series rocket and sent it to UK.
      Russian human resources were probapbly the winning card and American production and reinforcements saved a lot of lives.
    • boybunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4mlaskus

      I do not know who is digging you down :) I wish the person would stop. We have had a good debate and all is well.
    • mlaskus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4boybunny

      Heh, thank you. :)
      I love a good disscusion.
    • Cause_of_death, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11mike17032 said: "you would be speaking german right now"... I love how people say that, as if speaking German would have been the worst part of nazi occupation.
    • jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4You know what would fix the problem in Iran? Find the current locations of all ranking religious leaders in Iran (since they are the ones who actually control the govt) and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, then smart bomb em...sure, some of their friends will cry "Jihad", and we'll say, "we dare you!"...
    • scilec, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5boybunny, mlaskus;
      Great discussion. I enjoyed your thread.

      However, I do take exception with zybch's comment:

      Do you mean 'Join Britain" just like the US did in WW2, after pretty much all of the fighting had been done and all that was really left was some mopping up and driving Britain into astronomical debt??

      As an American, I grew up believing that the US pretty much won WWII. Of course, that isn't true at all. As you've both mentioned, it was a group effort and the Germans would have likely lost even if the US never got involved. But the US's involvement hardly preceded a mop-up operation. I wouldn't call 300,000 dead solders and hundreds of thousands wounded a "mop-up operations". My father fought in WWII and from what he's told me, it was a group effort among a tenuous alliance in which the US help accelerate the defeat of Germany but not cause it. I think he gives Russia and the UK most of the credit but stresses that it was certainly a group effort. Also, let's not forget Japan. They were busy themselves doing some horrific things in many parts of Asia.
    • Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4

      Not far-fetched, but I don't think Blair was setting up anything for pretext. I doubt his Labour party has any stomach for any more military adventures short of Prince Harry being abducted by Bin Laden supporters. If anything, war with Iran would push Blair into a vote of no confidence with Brown as his replacement and quite possibly a new election (correct me if I have that wrong, my British cousins) which would bring about the return of the Conservatives if Labour chose to do nothing after these British servicemen were (potentially) executed.

      One thing's for sure...I bet the Shah's son has his jet fueled and ready for his coronation once the US/UK/NATO topple the current Iranian regime.

      As for the present Iranian regime, I see no benefit to them in provoking this unless President Imadinnerjacket thinks that the war would bring about the Hidden Imam's appearance with Jesus at his side. Say what you will about Bush's alleged "end-time" beliefs, but they pale in comparison to that guy's beliefs.

    • burritoKing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@boybunny

      Before you start lecturing you should perhaps get your terms right. To make it easy I have sorted it for you.

      Please remember that Britain did not fight WWII on their own. The whole commonwealth joined as well... as well as others. Britain did not declare war first. New Zealand did. Almost every commonwealth country declared war against Germany before the UK declared war. Russia gave the lives of more men than any other country in numbers. New Zealand gave the most mens lives in percentage of the population. The highest amount of kills in the Battle of Britian goes to a Kiwi. Look at the recipients of the Victoria Cross... British recipients are a bit thin on the ground.

      There that's better

      I assume you may be a kiwi, would you like it if I was ignorant enough to start calling you Australian
    • mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Keep thinking that. All of the EU owes its freedom to the US. Glad to see it bothers you so much too. Dont worry, we will always be here to bail you out the next time you fight so poorly and surrender so quickly.
    • mlaskus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1scilec

      That's true, without the American involvement the war would take a lot more time and consume even more lives, no doubt about it. :)
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"They tell Britain to provoke an incident by moving into Iranian waters"

      They were not in Iranian waters. They were on the Iraqi side of a small strait. The strait is so small that the Iranian and Iraqi waters overlap. Iran is clearly wrong and appears to be instigating a war.
    • GregoryPurcell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmm I am an American and I agree with you all You would have won in the long run but the War would have gone on a long long time Japan would control the Pacific India and they would be getting ready to attack Iran. But with a real Army.

      When The UK occupied Iraq in the 1920 you all had 100,000 troops there of course the population was only two million. Our US Army Manuel agrees with your old policy have 1 soldier per 20 people to be Occupied Today there is under 200,000 troops in Iraq a County of 22 million That 1 per 110

      I read reports twelve British Marines fought off five hundred Taliban fighters last fall. Very brave Hoo Ra, medals for everyone but what does this say about the strategic situation does any one remember what happened to the British Empire when they last tried to Occupy Afghanistan or when the Soviet Empire Tried to Occupy Afghanistan.

      If we bomb Iran we will turn Iran into a Regional super power we might as well send them the deeds to Iraq and Afghanistan and save all the fuss.
  • mcsloy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12if that try and sentance to death, expect bad things to happen !
    • salinemist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Like what? Our pablum fed populace is more concerned about American Idol and Global Warming than Islamic terrorism and the imminent destruction of Israel.

      I guess one nice thing about the Democrats screaming "Hitler!" at GWB for the past 6 years is they have no where else to go if he does decide to do something about Iran, a country we've been at de facto war with for the past 19 years.
  • CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Here's hoping that Iran doesn't do something stupid to escalate all of this, the last thing this world needs is more conflict.
    • Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9I thought that was what america is wanting though?
    • carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13i'm american. i don't want it.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9@idioticBug

      Let's hope we will once get rid of prejudiced supremacists like you.
    • noodless, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"There won't be any more after this one. So I say, bring it on. We need to clean the world. Disinfection is the word."

      Are you aryan?
    • TheGuruStud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2he isn't aryan, but I am :P Too bad no one really is anymore. Just indoeuropeans :(
    • Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I said america, not americans
      what your country wants and what your people want are two very different things in the case of america
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@murdats

      Iran is doing everything in their power to provoke a war with the west, but it's America's fault? Get a clue.
  • mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22Why does Iran want to be bombed?
    • zombo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32Because they love death more than you love life.
    • spearce, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13the Iranian "president" - Ahmad-alphabet-jad - has already stated that he is willing to start the the next world war to give cause for Muslims all over the world to rise up against "the crusaders" in the jihad to end all jihads. many Muslims do not see country boundaries as much as they see a whole Muslim culture under attack. Iran is willing to take the brunt of the first blows and absorb those losses so long as the other Muslim countries rise up in their defense. Iran wants a world war.
    • oniq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@spearce -- Source?? I'd really like to read more about that..
    • PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3In addition to what spearce said, Ahmadinejad apparently is a believer of some Islamic or Iranian prophecy of Mohammed coming back on a white horse and ridding the land of infidels - or something to that effect. Some kind of apocolyptic tale with the end result of heaven on earth for the believers.

      It's another case of a leader of a country following some (IMO) ancient fairy tale.
  • keppj0nes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32somebody call james bond
    • JamesBond007, on 10/12/2007, -3/+61I'm here.
    • brownb2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Great I'll get to see the DBX in action before they sell it!
    • r2pro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Bond,
      I want you to infiltrate Tehran's Soltani Mosque and learn where the prisoners are being kept from the Imam's daughter. You have 72 hours to report their location before Her Majesty's Royal Navy escalates the confrontation. This assignment will be difficult but I am sure that you will be able to rise to the occasion.

      -M
    • brownb2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*sigh* it sort of ruins the joke if you have to explain it but to help those cluebies who dugg me down:

      http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/23/the-dbx-aston-martins-forthcoming-supercar/
  • Druidictus, on 10/12/2007, -24/+3* We need a campaign to stop the One World Government interfering in other's sovereignty! * Do people want to be salves-for-Israel? * America isn't at risk of Iran! *Wouldn't the Arab region be at balance if Iran has nukes as Israel would have to negotiate with others, not bring genocide on people that aren't Jewish! *British Soldiers fighting for Israel were spying in Iran, so they should be held for questioning, any proper Country would do this! *Why should Britain and American people pay for Israel's abuse and domination in the Arab region! *Why are our Governments infested with Israel/Zionist interest! *Is there a great religious zeal behind the attacks, study on Talmudists and Freemasons! *Don't DIE or become POOR for Israel!
  • blankoboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Don't be to hasty to say "nuke Iran". Amazing to think that 1 incident like this could lead to the bombing of many innocent civilians. Imagine for a moment, your countries government doing something equally foolish (not too difficult to fathom), and resultingly you sitting innocently in your home typing on your computer gets bombed to death from above.

    This is what it would be like for millions of completely innocent Iranians under the rule of a dictatorship. Don't kill so many because of the actions of the few. There's got to be a better way.
    • Darph.Bobo, on 10/12/2007, -18/+8These innocents don't have the courage to stand up and change or even overthrow their radical government, then they're as guilty as their government.
    • blankoboy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13at Darph.Bobo:

      "These innocents don't have the courage to stand up and change or even overthrow their radical government, then they're as guilty as their government."

      Well by that logic, assuming you are american, you are just as guilty as your joke of a government for the genocide it has rought the middle east. Hope you don't mind when satan comes a knockin' at your door for payback.
    • sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18I don't recall America bringing any genocide to the middle east. However, genocide has been one of the hallmarks of that region from time immemorial... it's only natural that our efforts to change the political structure of the region would be met with some resistance, and therefore casualties.
    • spearce, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13would they (Iran) nuke bomb us (America and other western cultures) if they could?

      discuss.
    • sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Hell yea, they would
    • spearce, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4well there you go.
    • supermanred, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Dark Bobo:
      These innocents don't have the courage to stand up and change or even overthrow their radical government, then they're as guilty as their government.

      LOL are you American? Do you not have the courage to stand up or change or even overthrow/impeach your radical government?

      Your government steals billions from you, sends troops to the wrong country (remember those saudi's that attacked new york on september 11?) and gets another 3000 americans killed in Iraq, and another 3000 or more wounded, kills about 40,000 iraqis men , women and yes children. Removes your rights, tears up your constitution, passes an ACT that takes away your freedom and liberty and then spits in your face by calling it the PATRIOIT ACT.

      By the time the nukes are falling in the states, Bush and Cheney will be snorting cocaine in Dubai or Saudi Arabia... I
    • PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@blankoboy

      I suspect that very few people in the world actually advocate the killing of innocent civilians, much less would like to see another war ever. Unfortunately, the innocent are casualties of war, but it's usually what finally makes the leader of the dead decide to maybe either stop or at least go to a negotiating table.

      If there was a way to solve conflicts without going to war, I'd say that about 98% of the people in the world would go for it. But at the end of the day we're all still animals, and even after how many millions of years, we still have a survival of the fittest instinct in us that hasn't evolved out. Sure we can talk and discuss - apparently unlike other animals - but the strong will still prey on the weak. Until that stops, we're going to be bombing the innocent to supress the guilty.
  • phillyjo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17You think the British Navy would refuse to let them being taken into custody by Iran in the first place.

    They should of sent some attack choppers or planes over to mind the sailors until navy vessels could arrive and refuse the being taken hostage
    • brownb2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah I wondered about this too - how could they not have been prepared for this scenario when they tour the gulf regularly? It's either poor planning (likely) or intentional.
    • sonycam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I don't think the main HMS ship knew they were being taken hostage until it had already happened. The 15 hostages were in smaller, speed boats, inspecting the Iraqi ship in Iraqi waters (supposedly), a large Iranian ship then moved in on the speedboats, held them at gunpoint and moved them into Iranian waters.

      If they were infact in Iranian waters illegally, then Iran have every right to do what they're doing. If they weren't in Iranian waters, then Iran should be punished somehow. I just wonder if we'll ever find out the truth of the matter. As a Briton, I think this situation shows how useless the European Union is though, it was founded to prevent wars but it has had no effect thus far, despite the EU presidents requests.
    • Dvara, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@sonycam:

      What the hell has this got to do with the EU? One of the reasons the EU was set up to prevent inter-Europe conflict - not to prevent Britain going to war with Iran.
    • galore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I don't think the main HMS ship knew they were being taken hostage until it had already happened."

      I am sorry, if this is the case, then we have horrible management down there. I mean, the area isn't exactly benign like the gulf of Mexico, is it?
    • r2pro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's called having your hands tied by orders of engagement.
  • anj747, on 10/12/2007, -15/+18"A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted."

    I agree Iran is probably provoking the situation, but well hey, at least the sailors will get their day in court - and this has been announced quite quickly. How long have captives from many territories been held at Guantanamo without any trial or legal representation?
    • Andeh, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30You actually think that they'll be given a fair trial?
    • anj747, on 10/12/2007, -21/+13..about as fair as the closed military tribunals in Guantamo where even the defence lawyers appointed work for the army.
    • graywolf323, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14they'll get about as fair of a day in court as those rape victims in Iran get when they are then sentenced to death for having been raped
    • anj747, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well ho hom, they've been released already. About 4 years 350 days quicker than other so called "enemy combatants".

      @GrayWolf323
      About as fair as the fact that only the canonfodder got put on trial for Abu Ghraib, and the high ranking officials that sanctioned those atrocities are still sipping bourbon in Haliburton back rooms?
  • Gerbil, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Ughhhh... Iran needs to strengthen ties with aussies asap. Otherwise, how will they procure enough kangaroos to man the court?
    • spearce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11that's the funniest ***** I've read all day...Aussies are good boys. they were some of the coolest guys i met in Kandahar. plus Aussie-land actually PAYS their soldiers. i was jealous.
  • mlaskus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17"There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others."
    Niccolo Machiavelli
    • sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4While I agree with the sentiment, your source might detract some from its credibility.
    • mlaskus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3What do you mean?
      I love Machiavelli :D
    • spearce, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6i miss tupac too. thug life.
    • sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3He's entertaining for sure, lol, but it could be argued that he was a bit of a sociopath.
    • mlaskus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Maybe a litlle... ;)
      But still genious :D
  • PhilH, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I just hope they return home safely.
    • proliance, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Simple and to the point.

      Well said.
  • Darph.Bobo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8 by mlaskus 52 minutes ago
    + 1 digg
    No, we woludn't be speaking german... even if US hadn't joined the war.
    The war would take more time but germans were bound to lose, they had insufficent people and production potential to compete with USSR and Britain(both aided by Poles and other occupied nations)
    ===================================================
    German or Japanese but one of them for sure. Your argument is fatally flawed, remember Japan? Without the U.S. to stop them, Japan could provide all the support Germany needed.
    See what happens when you smoke dope instead of attending history class?
    • mlaskus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Hahahaha, thanks for making me laugh...

      Japan had no interest in fighting in Europe.
      They had to fight US for dominance over Pacific sonner or later tough.

      Analyze geo-political situation of that time before you start flaming others again...
  • SLuM, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8They want to be nuked.
    • mlaskus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Nobody is going to nuke anyone...
      It would have too far-fetched consequences.
    • noodless, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6they just wanna scare the world enough the oil price goes up
    • noodless, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2the americans i mean, not the iranians. although that would help them, hmmm
  • Darph.Bobo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3 mlaskus 3 minutes ago
    + 0 diggs
    Japan had no interest in fighting in Europe. ( I didn't say anything about fighting, supply and support you know the difference don't you?)

    They had to fight US for dominance over Pacific sonner or later tough. (Your introducing new issues to your argument, you said if the U.S. never entered the war)
    Analyze geo-political situation of that time before you start flaming others again...( Facts aren't flames, what are 14?)
    • mlaskus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Firstly learn to 'reply' on digg...

      Secondly, Japan wouldn't support Germans because they didn't have any interest in it.
      You are the one who introduced this issue - USA propably would't join the war if not the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

      Thirdly, you are not argumenting, you are flaming... And I'm 'a litlle' older than 14.
  • brownb2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This should be fun. Our country isn't one to take these sort of things lightly (i.e. we're head strong/arrogant depending on perspective) like the Americans, just we don't have the same firepower to qualify that notion :)
    I expect diplomatic efforts will attempt to get this stopped, then war threatened if they are indited (i.e. possibly death penality). IMHO the odds of one on one, no foreign assistance (unlikely) of the UK vs Iran are in our favour but we'd likely have heavy casualities unless we struck first, and you just know Israel wants in on the action... uh oh.
    I see another multi country conflict starting.
  • Harrison88, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Send in the SAS and get our guys back!
  • Kufr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@DamnLogins, Srebrenica happened in a totally different war and it was very complicated. Actually muslim mercenarys led by Naser Oric had executed some 3000 Serb civilians before Ratko Mladic sent in the Bosnian army to Srebrenica to deal with Oric's paramilitary troops. How many that died and how many that were civilians is not clear yet. There is a lot of propaganda from both sides. But what is totally clear is that Britain together with Germany and US attacked Serbia 1999 whithout any good reason. My point was that Serbia has helped Britain many times in history. In WW2 we helped the Britains to defeat the Germans in the Balkan area. But in 1999 the Britons forgot about this and teamed up with Germany to attack Serbia. This was my point.
    • boybunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Its good to learn more about what actually happened. I have seen little snippets of information come out of places like BBC World before they gloss over them in a "BBC Doco" and only give the British Parliaments propaganda on the events. I knew enough to know that something stunk.
  • holzp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Send in the Spartans.
    • proliance, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3No, send in the Turtles. They're kicking the Spartan's butts at the box office this weekend.
    • sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Haha, if there's one way to insult Persians, its to cite their defeat at Thermopalye at the hands of "barbarians."
  • flink405, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Iran is rapidly imploding. The economy is going to hell, inflation is very high, gasoline is being rationed. Teachers striking. People not being paid.Top generals are defecting. Car bombings happening around the country.
    The Iranian govt. is spending what little money it has to support the terrorists Hamas in Palestine, the terrorist Hizzbollah in Lebanon, the terrorist insurgency in Iraq, trying to build nuclear weapons, not spending these hundreds of millions to build new schools, hospitals, powerplants and pay wages in Iran.
    More sanctions on Iran from the U.N. (Although they are basically worthless.)
    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad needs a distraction from his inept and corrupt running of the deteriorating Iran so he goes outside the country borders to point blame or distract the good people of Iran from his bad leadership. This kidnapping of the British is that distraction.
    Do not be surprised to suddenly see a new leader in Iran.
    -------------

    Or could Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be afraid of an imminent attack on his nuclear bomb making facilities and he captured the British navy personnel to position them in these buildings as human shields????
  • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20
    The Iranians cannot try the men for espionage if they captured the sailors in uniform. Article 46 of the Geneva Convention states this clearly:

    2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces.

    The indictment of British sailors in uniform as spies will violate the GC. Can we expect the same level of outrage by the media over this explicit violation as the supposed violations of the US government?



    You left wingers are such hypocrites.

    • ZbigyBrzez, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16Does America/Britain give a ***** about the Geneva convention??????
    • Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9@nixfu

      Wow, way to turn this into a left vs. right argument. You, sir, are a douche bag.
    • galore, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4"Article 46 of the Geneva Convention states this clearly:"

      This was declared irrelevant not so long ago.
    • ninti, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1"You left wingers are such hypocrites."

      Um, you got that backwards. The fact that this pisses you off, but when we break the Geneva convention you don't care; that is hypocrisy. The difference between right-wingers and left-wingers is that right wingers get pissed when there is injustice happening to their people, left-wingers get pissed off when injustice happens to anyone.
    • supermanred, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Neither US or Iran give a ***** about geneva convention or international law, so crying about international laws does not work since the Bush administration takes office. Come on, these are the guys that fearing war crimes passed the Hague Invasion Act.. So they could be rescued if arrested and taken to the Hague.

  • toiletduck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I hope the UK gets their people back sooner than we did.
  • imauser, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4What you have to understand is that the Iranian government is full of *****. They're like that kid in school who used to ***** about what he had, what is dad did, what he could do etc. They're lying, and they were obviously lying about the soldiers 'confession' since soldiers will not tell you anything more than their name and number unless they are tortured, and they certainly wouldn't have said anything without legal/diplomatic/military representation.

    The soldiers will be home in less than a month.
  • ZbigyBrzez, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2When are those dumb sand ***** going to realize that the OIL and GAS belong to the WHITE MAN.

    We can go and kill and bomb who the hell we want, when 16 white men are captured then it's WW III time. Iran is going to be a parking lot, those stupid Persian, Paki, A-Rab, Towel Head, Mullah *****.

    THIS IS THE WHITE MAN'S WORLD... WHITE MAN'S WORLD GET IT TOWEL HEADS!!!

    WE ARE THE LAW, WE MAKE THE LAW, WE ENFORCE THE LAW. JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION, WE ARE GOING TO BOMB YOU MUSLIM RAG PICKERS INTO THE STONE AGE.. YEEEEE HAAAAA BOY! YOU ARE ALL GOING TO MEET MUHAMMED REAL SOON.

    GOD SAVE THE QUEEN... RULE BRITANNIA.... WHITE MAN'S (AND WOMAN'S) WORLD. GET IT!!!!

    • supermanred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Oh my God, you are the biggest idiot on Digg I believe. Wow. Buried. Banned. Blocked.
    • wonkavsn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mommy?
  • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3He told his people to capture some Brits and then ran to the well and yelled "Are you there yet?"

    http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/9/15612
  • Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Some of the responses here are surprising to say the least. Mentions of terrorism, and provoking wars, etc.. Just who is in the right here? Who knows. I'm sure we don't know all of the facts. But some of you act as though those evil god-hating Iranians have no right to police their own borders. As though their sovereignty only exists at our whim or something. If an Iranian patrol boat were to saunter into US international waters, you can bet there would be a response. But you know, it's okay when we do it.
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree, but eyewitness reports have placed the sailors in Iraqi waters. The MOD has categorically stated that they were in Iraqi waters. They would NOT lie about this. The political fall-out would be devastating.

      It looks like Iran entered Iraqi waters so it could parade them on TV and get them to sign false confessions for a propaganda coup. The thing is, this move backfired spectacularly. They didn't expect the response to be this vociferous; a lot of people who were on the fence are now pushing for financial sanctions against Iran's ruling class. It will also make it harder for other nations to justify their support for Iran.

      They shot themselves in the face, Dick Cheney style.
  • lephermessiah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10From what I've heard, Iraqi fishermen are stating that the Iranians THEMSELVES were in Iraqi waters. If that's true, then Iran is guilty themselves for venturing into a neighboring country.

    http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=March2007&file=World_News2007032534322.xml
  • dynamitehacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9From the CIA World Factbook on Iran: "Iraq's lack of a maritime boundary with Iran prompts jurisdiction disputes beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab in the Persian Gulf".

    The British sailors may have gotten caught up in an ongoing dispute over Iran-Iraq territorial waters.
  • BeerRules, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It seems to me that WWIII is brewing in the Middle East, The problem is if the United States strikes the first blow, it will be marked as American imperialism, however if we wait it's going to be a Nuclear weapon detonating in Israel. If you've fallowed politics in Iran closely enough over the past several years you'll notice that their President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected by saying that he would bring the second coming of Jesus, also know as the apocalypse, from my reading it says that Christians and Jews will be given the chance to change their faith to Islam, and the rest will be killed. It will be the peace to end all wars, leaving Islam as the only religion. Now this is my understanding of how he was elected, I'm not saying that all Muslims believe this, or that they think the second coming of Jesus will come tomorrow, but this man President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seem to get elected by preaching he would bring around WWIII. So my question is do we as a Nation, as a Community as the world really want this guy to have nuclear power? Either way WWIII is coming its just a matter of who fires the first shot. In writing this I am reminded of a speech I've heard. War solves nothing, WWI left too much to be solved by WWII and WWII didn't solve anything either, the conflicts were just re-arranged, but they still existed. What war does teach is that short term change can be affected, but it never solves the problem. But the again maybe man is the problem in the end, and we as a species are too enamored with our own wants and needs to care about other.

    Only the dead have seen the end of war -Plato
    • bokchoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5your exactly right. everyone knows Israel is stuck between a bunch of crazies and a hard place. They have nukes, but can't use them first, due to the global prejudice against them - making their bombs useless. This is the common opinion among various experts that have published articles. Hence the reason they spend billions lobbying the U.S. government for protection. We are capitalist and cash ALWAYS trumps doing the right thing.
  • Josf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17393.htm
  • Druidictus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Why does Israel Lobby keep attacking posts that promote White People's autonomy from their problems! Whites don't want to die for Israel any longer.

    * We need a campaign to stop the One World Government interfering in other's sovereignty! * Do people want to be salves-for-Israel? * America isn't at risk of Iran! *Wouldn't the Arab region be at balance if Iran has nukes as Israel would have to negotiate with others, not bring genocide on people that aren't Jewish! *British Soldiers fighting for Israel were spying in Iran, so they should be held for questioning, any proper Country would do this! *Why should Britain and American people pay for Israel's abuse and domination in the Arab region! *Why are our Governments infested with Israel/Zionist interest! *Is there a great religious zeal behind the attacks, study on Talmudists and Freemasons! *Don't DIE or become POOR for Israel!
    • nihilite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4riiiiiight. i left my tinfoil hat in my other bunker.
  • patientXero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Another detail that I read last night was that these British sailors and marines were working as part of a UN lead operation. That makes it doubly bad for Iran to be ***** with them.
    • jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Why? It's not like the UN will ever actually do anything.
  • dudeinwales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Where's Lord Palmerston when you need him? If he was the PM and some insolent foreigners pulled something like this, gunboats would be shelling Tehran right about now.
    • dudeinwales, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2LOL Yeah, yeah, I know Tehran is a land-locked city and all. But you get the analogy...
    • jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Or maggie.
    • Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2
      Or Churchill. Or a king like Richard or even good ol' George III.

      Oh well, perhaps Bond, Captain Britain, Danger Man or The Doctor can diffuse the situation first...

      Hell, since they were doing the work of the UN, send in UNIT. :)
  • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7They didn't mention this in the "Join The Navy" commercials.
  • Druidictus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Israel lobby is attacking Digg again by mass voting down people who talk about Israeli and their use of Whites to fight their wars.
    • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Which do you think is really true?
      That dozens of people are hired by the "Israel Lobby" here at DIGG and get paid to Digg people like you down.
      Or that you are just an idiot.

    • MahWah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I vote idiot. That's what they pay me to say.
  • dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2USA/UK want war with Iran.
    They will use any event to justify an invasion.
    • KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Iran needs hostages to trade for their spys captured in Iraq.
    • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If true, if I were Iran I wouldn't capture British troops outside their borders then. Just who is begging for a fight?
  • Calann, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5At least Iran has said they will give these guys a trial. The US has been holding people who were taken from their own country over 4 years ago and they are being held indefinitely without trial.

    When it comes to violating international law, the US under the Bush administration leads the way.
    • jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Unfortunately though, a quick trial in Iran is not nearly as good a deal as indefinite detainment in the US. The soldiers in Iran will probably be found guilty of espionage and sentenced to death, while our detainees are often released when no information supporting detaining them or prosecuting them is found (albeit after a very long time).
  • captcadaver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"West, who was first sea lord when the previous arrests took place in June 2004, said satellite tracking systems had shown then that the Iranians were lying and the same was certain to be true now."

    tomorrow never dies anyone? :x
  • amightywind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Why do muslims like taking hostages so much? Don't they realize there is not honor in it? Great Briton should destroy one strategic target a day until the hostages are released. We in the US will be happy to help. Lets fry these fanatics, now!
    • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Churchill would agree but I think the Brits of today are more like Chamberlain who declared peace for all time just a few short years before the Nazi's attacked. Let's face it the Brits are gunna cave in and give the Iranians whatever they want and then some. Iran has nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking British hostages. Blair I hope you prove me wrong.
    • sonycam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3aceg1357, Blair won't be starting any more wars as he won't be the prime minister in a few weeks or months. Also, there's no point in starting a war with a country over 15 men, especially as Iran is much more powerful than Iraq - with over double the population (65mill+), a lot more money, and much much more government control and organisation.
      People keep saying we should invade/war/fight Iran as if they're going to be a pushover. Iraq are pushovers compared to Iran and look how stretched that operation has turned out. Iran has a real army with real motives and real organisation.

      For now, the best route to take is the peaceful diplomatic one, we don't even know if they were illegal in Iranian waters or not as each side is telling a different story.
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3We're not the US; we don't go to war unless it's absolutely necessary.
    • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Funny I said nothing about war yet two people asumed it.
    • skwurl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"We're not the US; we don't go to war unless it's absolutely necessary"

      You mean like Iraq - where you currently have forces?
  • JohnnyWrath, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4The link is to Timesonline which is owned by the owner of FOX news, Rupert Murdoch, so don't rely on Rupert Murdoch for your unbiased knowledge. Every media source he owns...which is a vast empire, is told what spin to put on stories, and what stories to report. Maybe the stories are accurate, and maybe not, but it is not a good source at all for news based in truth.

    "For better or for worse, our company (The News Corporation Ltd.) is a reflection of my thinking, my character, my values." Rupert Murdoch

  • Bluteau, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Iran believes in speedy trials.

    Unlike the US, which sends its prisoners to secret prisons for pre-trial torture.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.