D
Deleted member 675
Guest
So then why ask whether the Iranians could have falsified the data if you believe them?
UNCLOS has no such caveats - maybe if you'd bothered to read it yourself you would know that.
His legacy is already "screwed". If anything the Iranians trying to hold the UK to ransom could only improve his reputation if he refuses to back down.
Where did Popeye say we cannot discuss UNCLOS? He was talking about discussing the rights and wrongs of being in Iraq, etc. Popeye, can we talk about UNCLOS or not?
Yeah, except that the Iranians originally said the merchantman was in Iraqi waters and only changed their story after the RN GPS data had been published.
Gents..this is what I posted
Fu wants to know:
I prefere you would just discuss the UK military. The UN law of the seas is NOT something I want you fellows to get into. OK??!
Try to be more civil in your discussion..
Go have a "pint" or two...calm down please.
Fu wants to know:
I prefere you would just discuss the UK military. The UN law of the seas is NOT something I want you fellows to get into. OK??!
Try to be more civil in your discussion..
Go have a "pint" or two...calm down please.
BLUEJACKET
Banned Idiot
The hyperlinks are only to give better understanding of the evolving crisis.
Well no matter where you stand on this matter, there seems a broad consensus today, that the early situation deterorated dramatically as soon as the Prime Minister and his office took hold of the issue and started making loud denunciations and producing dodgy sea charts.
Cooler heads are apparently talking behind the scenes and what sounds like a proposal to agree a working line of demarcation, appears likely.
The question here though is why did No 10 handle this matter so clumsily? Blair has a reputation for smoothness and so such ineptitude is eye raising. Some are speculating if he and others were deliberatly trying to deepen the incident to real crisis in order to precipiate military action. If so, it seems to have backfired dramatically.
Cooler heads are apparently talking behind the scenes and what sounds like a proposal to agree a working line of demarcation, appears likely.
The question here though is why did No 10 handle this matter so clumsily? Blair has a reputation for smoothness and so such ineptitude is eye raising. Some are speculating if he and others were deliberatly trying to deepen the incident to real crisis in order to precipiate military action. If so, it seems to have backfired dramatically.
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
I disagree that there is such a consensus - I would say the situation began to deteriorate when the Iranians started parading the personnel on TV, coerced them into making "apologies", forced them to write obviously drafted "letters home" and the threats about putting them on trial appeared.
The demonstration of their location at the time the incident took place was a reaction to the disgraceful behaviour of the Iranians. As to the denunciations, I am surprised you see something like that as provocation. It is natural comments like that would be made after a country's military personnnel, out on UN-sanctioned operations, are illegally snatched by another country. To not do so would be unquestionably a sign of weakness that would make it much more difficult to get them home, whilst also encouraging others to do the same thing.
We're miles away from the release of the 15, let alone any such agreement.
I would say it's Tehran that has handled the matter clumsily - or don't you think the outrageous behaviour of the Iranians as I have outlined was pouring petrol onto the fire?
Some people also believe Elvis is still alive - that doesn't mean they should be taken seriously.
Those with actual understanding of politics would know this is not what Blair wants. He was rather looking forward, by all accounts, to announcing the CVF contract in order to boost the Party's chances in Scotland. This crisis means any such announcement would be overshadowed or seen as a cynical ploy to go after votes when British personnel are being held captive overseas. There is nothing more Blair, the government and the Labour Party wants than for this situation to be resolved as fast as possible.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I have heard this from Channel 4 News, BBC News and Newsnight, the Daily Mail, The Indi, The Guardian and I am told the Telegraph, so that leaves the Mirror, the Sun, the News of the World and the Express, so if you are happy in that company, I respect your decision.
All the things you mentioned happened after Mr Blair made his early statements, which blew a hole right through the quiet diplomacy that had already started. Then we had all the theatrics on both sides.
All the more reason to start heading in the right direction and to abandon grandstanding.
I think most people would sooner bet on Elvis being alive than Blair telling the truth:roll:
Well, we are getting precious these days!
I must offer my apologies, I had no idea you spoke for the Labour Party or the Prime Minister
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
Are they saying he should have shut up and let the seizure pass without much comment? Because from what I've read a lot of Blair's criticism is that he has not been doing enough, rather than saying too much.
I didn't realise you chose your views based on what was supported by certain media groups. I suppose one could call it the 21st century version of peer pressure.....
Right, so if he'd stayed quiet it would have all gone away? The TV propaganda happened in 2004 and that was resolved in days - there's no reason to believe the Iranians would not have done what they did this time if Blair had stayed quiet. The entire reason they snatched these people was for propaganda and leverage.
I don't see why we should do anything whilst the Iranians continue using our people like puppets to whip up a bit of xenophobia.
Some very sad, jaded people quite possibly.
I didn't realise making logical points was "precious".
So you believe that the Labour Party and Prime Minister would pass up the opportunity to make an announcement that could safeguard numerous seats in an election in which the polls say they are going to face a drubbing, to start an unpopular conflict (in comparison to the Iraq war which had a lot of support at the start)?
Last edited by a moderator:
Well the Labour Party might agree with you, but I doubt if the Prime Minister gives a proverbial Tinkers Cuss!. He is leaving office very shortly, he has a huge mortgage and an acquired taste for the high life which a Prime Ministers pension is not going to come close to satisfying.
On the other hand, he knows a group of powerful US Oil Billionaires, who currently run that country and who in conjuction with certain "friends" would love an excuse to take a crack at a country that they accuse of being a "state sponsor of terrorism", a member of an "Axis of Evil" and of running a clandestine Nuclear Weapons Program, with which it intends to threaten its neighbours in the region (all of which are their words not mine).
Some people might then be forgiven for speculating that Mr Blairs ungainly repsonse to the Hostage crisis, the drawing of non-existent border lines etc and the general whipping up of feelings on all sides (including today where his "next 48 hours" remark has been taken as an ultimatum by some Iranians) might actually be in response to a very generous cash enducement from the aforementioned very rich people, to precipitate a convenient crisis in which the very rich people could launch ,military action against a country that they do not like very much. I am sure that there a plenty of American members here, who believe that the events which have already happened are sufficient for such action to be taken.
Other members I am sure will dismiss this as just more conspiracy theorising.
Take your pick.