What the British Have Wrought

[Dakota435]

Here are the fruits of Blair's policy re the kidnappings:



Buoyant Teheran warns of further kidnappings

By Gethin Chamberlain, Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:56pm BST 07/04/2007

Hardliners in the Iranian regime have warned that the seizure of British naval personnel demonstrates that they can make trouble for the West whenever they want to and do so with impunity.

The bullish reaction from Teheran will reinforce the fears of western diplomats and military officials that more kidnap attempts may be planned.

The British handling of the crisis has been regarded with some concern in Washington, and a Pentagon defence official told The Sunday Telegraph: "The fear now is that this could be the first of many. If the Brits don't change their rules of engagement, the Iranians could take more hostages almost at will.

"Iran has come out of this looking reasonable. If I were the Iranians, I would keep playing the same game. They have very successfully muddied the waters and bought themselves some more time. And in parts of the Middle East they will be seen as the good guys. They could do it time and again if they wanted to."

Americans also expressed dismay that the British had suspended boarding operations in the Gulf while its tactics are reassessed.

"Iran has got what it wants. They have secured free passage for smuggling weapons into Iraq without a fight," one US defence department official said.

It is also clear that the Iranian government believes that the outcome has strengthened its position over such contentious issues as its nuclear programme. Hardliners within the regime have been lining up to crow about Britain's humiliation, and indicated that the operation was planned.

Conservative parliamentarian Amir Hassankhani, a former member of the country's Revolutionary Guard and supporter of the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told the country's semi-official Fars news agency: "The arrest and release of the British sailors proved that if Iran's issues and demands are overlooked at the international level, the Islamic republic can create different challenges for the other side."

However, a British Government official familiar with the negotiations said that while the abductions had provided Ahmadinejad with a platform from which to humiliate the West, such behaviour would have undermined Iran's ambitions for its nuclear programme. Countries which might otherwise have supported Iran would now be questioning whether a regime that took hostages could be trusted with sensitive nuclear technology.

"Ahmadinejad may have got some short-term PR bounce out of this, but the more cerebral members of the regime may be quite alarmed that they have squandered their perceived right to be treated as a country that should be trusted with a nuclear enrichment programme," he said. "In the long term, they may have lost out."

[PPSH41]

This is one thing that worries me. They have no reason not to keep on doing the same thing. Look how much PR they get...and how much US-bashing goes on surrounding it.

[Dakota435]

More signs of the very depressing decline of Britain:


Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC

By Chris Hastings, Arts and Media Editor, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:56pm BST 07/04/2007

Amid the deaths and the grim daily struggle bravely borne by Britain's forces in southern Iraq, one tale of heroism stands out.

Private Johnson Beharry with his Victoria Cross
Private Johnson Beharry with his Victoria Cross

Private Johnson Beharry's courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol then, in a second act, saving his vehicle's crew despite his own terrible injuries earned him a Victoria Cross.

For the BBC, however, his story is "too positive" about the conflict.

The corporation has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.

The BBC's retreat from the project, which had the working title Victoria Cross, has sparked accusations of cowardice and will reignite the debate about the broadcaster's alleged lack of patriotism.

"The BBC has behaved in a cowardly fashion by pulling the plug on the project altogether," said a source close to the project. "It began to have second thoughts last year as the war in Iraq deteriorated. It felt it couldn't show anything with a degree of positivity about the conflict.

"It needed to tell stories about Iraq which reflected the fact that some members of the audience didn't approve of what was going on. Obviously a story about Johnson Beharry could never do that. You couldn't have a scene where he suddenly turned around and denounced the war because he just wouldn't do that.

"The film is now on hold and it will only make it to the screen if another broadcaster picks it up."

The independent production company which was developing the project for a prime-time slot on BBC1 is now believed to have taken the script to ITV.

Pte Beharry, 27, who was awarded the VC in March 2005, was the first person to receive the country's highest award for valour since 1982 and the first living recipient since 1965. He was honoured for two acts of outstanding gallantry which occurred just over a month apart while he was serving with the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, in the Iraqi town of al-Amarah, in 2004.

He was cited for "valour of the highest order" after he drove a Warrior tracked armoured vehicle through heavy enemy fire in May 2004 to come to the rescue of a foot patrol that had been caught in a series of ambushes. The 30-ton Warrior was hit by multiple rocket-propelled grenades, causing damage and resulting in the loss of radio communications. Pte Beharry drove through the ambush, taking his own injured crew and leading five other Warriors to safety. He then extracted his wounded colleagues from the vehicle, all the time exposed to further enemy fire.

The following month, Pte Beharry was again driving the lead Warrior vehicle of his platoon through al-Amarah when his vehicle was ambushed. A rocket-propelled grenade hit the vehicle and Pte Beharry received serious head injuries. Other rockets hit the vehicle incapacitating his commander and injuring several of the crew.Despite his very serious injuries, Pte Beharry then took control of his vehicle and drove it out of the ambush area before losing consciousness. He required brain surgery for his head injuries and he was still recovering when he received the VC from the Queen in June last year.

The script of the film about his heroics was being developed by Darlow Smithson, the production company responsible for the Bafta-winning Touching The Void and the docu-drama Tsunami, which was recently aired by the BBC. The Ministry of Defence is believed to have been supportive of the project and was offering the film-makers technical advice.

The BBC's decision to pull out will only confirm the fears of critics that television drama is only interested in telling bad news stories about the war.

The Ministry of Defence recently expressed concern about Channel 4's The Mark of Cain which showed British troops brutalising Iraqi detainees. That programme was temporarily pulled from the schedules after Iran detained 15 British troops.

A spokesman for the BBC admitted that it had abandoned the VC project but refused to elaborate.

[dangerclose]

It was once boasted that the sun never set on the British Empire. Sadly, the sun is setting on Britain herself.

[sinophile]

There were a number of articles that suggested the threat of immenent military action forced the release of the hostages. 4 carriers off the Iranian coast, incursion of 2 us jets into Iranian airspace and the visit of military personnel to negotiate the release. There was no British apology or concession on the location of the soldiers.

It makes sense anti-labor/Blair folks want to paint this as a defeat, but it may have been a very deft use of the threat of force.

[Dakota435]

There were a number of articles that suggested the threat of immenent military action forced the release of the hostages. 4 carriers off the Iranian coast, incursion of 2 us jets into Iranian airspace and the visit of military personnel to negotiate the release. There was no British apology or concession on the location of the soldiers.

It makes sense anti-labor/Blair folks want to paint this as a defeat, but it may have been a very deft use of the threat of force.

Reports say that they traded a senior al quds terror master for them.

[sinophile]

senior al quds terror master

Ask yourself this question... you've got 15 royal marines, valuable folks but trained to be cannon fodder; and you've got a "senior al quds terror master" whatever that is... if the "al qud" had any real intelligence value (not already exploited) would they have traded?

Lets not confuse a face save sacrifcial lamb for a loss of any real currency.

[Dakota435]

Ask yourself this question... you've got 15 royal marines, valuable folks but trained to be cannon fodder; and you've got a "senior al quds terror master" whatever that is... if the "al qud" had any real intelligence value (not already exploited) would they have traded?

Lets not confuse a face save sacrifcial lamb for a loss of any real currency.

Perhaps, but just once I'd like to see a western leader issue an ultimatum following that kind of event (Britain could easily destroy Iran's gasoline infrastructure in a couple of days, bringing the regime to its knees). The Iranians would have backed down faster than a jihadi blows up. Then THEY would be the humiliated ones. As we can see, they are even bolder now.

[Ed the bumbling fool]

Perhaps, but just once I'd like to see a western leader issue an ultimatum following that kind of event (Britain could easily destroy Iran's gasoline infrastructure in a couple of days, bringing the regime to its knees). The Iranians would have backed down faster than a jihadi blows up. Then THEY would be the humiliated ones. As we can see, they are even bolder now.

Some of you people just don't seam to understand that a bomber is a military not a political asset. The more people you bomb the more suicide bombers join the cause. It didn't work for Hitler it didn't work for Harris and it certainly wont work for Bush or Blair.By the way destroying a countries infrastructure is actually against the Law. It is also a bit rich talking of the decline in Britain when the US paid of north Korea what could be described as the biggest bribe in the world.

[Dakota435]

Some of you people just don't seam to understand that a bomber is a military not a political asset. The more people you bomb the more suicide bombers join the cause. It didn't work for Hitler it didn't work for Harris and it certainly wont work for Bush or Blair.By the way destroying a countries infrastructure is actually against the Law. It is also a bit rich talking of the decline in Britain when the US paid of north Korea what could be described as the biggest bribe in the world.

But warfare is an extension of politics, and if the UN won't enforce the "law", then what are ya gonna do? The only other option is nothing, which is the same as surrender.

Not sure what No Ko has to do with this.

[JKD]

Perhaps, but just once I'd like to see a western leader issue an ultimatum following that kind of event (Britain could easily destroy Iran's gasoline infrastructure in a couple of days, bringing the regime to its knees). The Iranians would have backed down faster than a jihadi blows up. Then THEY would be the humiliated ones. As we can see, they are even bolder now.

What does that accomplish? War should be the last resort not the first. They got their people back. Not that there wouldn't be a point where force might be neccessary but they obviously didn't reach it. Should the US have nuked Beijing to get our EP-3 crew back in 2001?

I think when hardline conservatives abandoned pragmatism is when I jumped ship from the Republican party.

[Dakota435]

What does that accomplish? War should be the last resort not the first. They got their people back. Not that there wouldn't be a point where force might be neccessary but they obviously didn't reach it. Should the US have nuked Beijing to get our EP-3 crew back in 2001?

I think when hardline conservatives abandoned pragmatism is when I jumped ship from the Republican party.

Different circumstances call for different responses.

Pragmatism is what got us into this mess in the first place. The Iranians have not been challenged once in almost 30 years. They know that they can get away with a LOT because nobody will call them on it.

[JKD]

Pragmatism is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Neoconservative ideologically driven foreign policy is what got us into this mess in the first place. Let's send our armies to Iraq, the regional counterbalance to Iran, with it's Shiia majority, ethnic and tribal divisions to sprinkle magic democracy dust. It'll be glorious.

[deagle]

i do have to agree for the most part ... seems like they're just probing to see our reaction, hardline or appeasement. Kinda like NK .. they were told to stop, yet last year they conducted nuclear test or something.

i think it can be expected that Iran will be a bit more brazen.

[Ed the bumbling fool]

Not sure what No Ko has to do with this.[/QUOTE]

On one hand your cursing the UK for coming to an agreement with Iran (All speculation at this point) yet N. Korea was handsomely paid to comply with the US's wishes in terminating there Nuclear program. Both are effectively Bribes or payments for an end result.:bash:

[sinophile]

Some of you people just don't seam to understand that a bomber is a military not a political asset. The more people you bomb the more suicide bombers join the cause. It didn't work for Hitler it didn't work for Harris and it certainly wont work for Bush or Blair.By the way destroying a countries infrastructure is actually against the Law. It is also a bit rich talking of the decline in Britain when the US paid of north Korea what could be described as the biggest bribe in the world.

Well... you're not right, but I have compassion for your point-of-view. Its painful to need to cite international law as a reason for not defending yourself, or asserting your legitimate rights.

A declining democracy like, say, the UK must answer to its people through elections. For Iran and North Korea more torque is required to obtain movement by its leadership, or better their removal.

A declining democracy like the US can apply that force by bombing the **** out the country's infrastructure, or through sanctions Europe won't back them on, or by way of an insurgency or proxy war (think Iraq).

The UK cannot do any of this because it lacks certain requirements, and because - as you pointed out - its against international law.

I do believe the UK put the force card on the table (with US help). I believe the Iranians blinked in the face of that pressure. I believe the West in general is being made to bleed while China, Russia and certain Middle Eastern countries bulk up economically and militarily.

Those who choose to act virtously in every way must necessarily come to grief by those less virtous. -- Machiavelli, my international lawyer.

[Dakota435]

Not sure what No Ko has to do with this.

On one hand your cursing the UK for coming to an agreement with Iran (All speculation at this point) yet N. Korea was handsomely paid to comply with the US's wishes in terminating there Nuclear program. Both are effectively Bribes or payments for an end result.:bash:[/QUOTE]

Iran wasn't "bribed" by Britain. Britain just did... nothing.

I'm not happy about the US bribing No Ko either. I think it was a bad move.

[JKD]

Iran wasn't "bribed" by Britain. Britain just did... nothing.

They didn't do nothing. I realize that to a particular breed of conservatives foreign relations is a transmission that has two gears, 'nothing' and 'war' but there really is more to it that that.

[Belrick]

Some of you people just don't seam to understand that a bomber is a military not a political asset. The more people you bomb the more suicide bombers join the cause. It didn't work for Hitler it didn't work for Harris and it certainly wont work for Bush or Blair.By the way destroying a countries infrastructure is actually against the Law. It is also a bit rich talking of the decline in Britain when the US paid of north Korea what could be described as the biggest bribe in the world.

While i can assure you that i'm anti-terror bombing of WW2 i can also assure you that the dead woman, elderly and children as a result of such raids we're no longer contributing to Hitlers and Tojo's military conquests.

Problem is that our grandfathers fought WW2 with everything they had. The liberalists and socialists of today are trying to fight wars like there romantic or something.

The unfortunate fact of life is sometimes good people get in the way of removing tyranny.

[SBL]

Spare me. I'll worry about it if/when it happens again.

[seraosha]

A declining democracy like, say, the UK...

A declining democracy like the US...



This is an opinion held by some...do you have any links supporting this viewpoint? Something that could be a topic for another thread, so to avoid a derailment, a pm would be appreciated, prustin.

[Mastermind]

From above;"..By the way destroying a countries infrastructure is actually against the Law." Bumbling Fool


I actually did laugh over that one. So....who's going to arrest them and bring on the charges...the UN? OMG..that's hilarious. Taking over airliners, smashing them into buildings filled with innocent people...now THAT'S against the law...and it did very little good to prevent it, now then, didn't it?

See, the mentality of the west has become so deteriorated that we now think in terms of "fair play" and "legal vs illegal"...You see, wolves and mad men don't think that way at all. It would do very little good to slap a writ on a mad dog about to rip the throat from your little dughter...and that really is the case now days. That may be the actual problem we are facing...the "wolves" now know we are such silly bastârds as to think we are living in a civilized world filled with other weak, pussified men who think just like us. We'll pay the price for that nonsenical thought process, I'm sure.

[Belrick]

I'm sure we will to MM. *hangs head in distress*

Its a curse of extreme arrogance to think that everyone on this planet wants to be fundamentaly western style 'civilised' and will therefor act predictably and honorably.

[sinophile]

This is an opinion held by some...do you have any links supporting this viewpoint? Something that could be a topic for another thread, so to avoid a derailment, a pm would be appreciated, prustin.

Ur right. Good topic for another thread. Actually, I was being sarcastic - not b/c I disagree both are in decline, but because I feel its open question.

[Ed the bumbling fool]

To quote mastermind back "wolves and mad men don't think that way at all."
I happily now accept that the west as a whole is I decline because we think like this.
I really don't want to get in a situation where I can say they are wolves or mad dogs to justify my lack of responsibility, hitler tried this with the Jews and although he himself cheated justice many of his co conspirators were tried and sentenced. If you have a code of law you must apply the same justice to your enemies otherwise you are no better than the machete wielding african or the jackbooted Nazi.
As a final though on this matter (rhetorical) who is the greater criminal The Uneducated man with the Axe machete or rifle, The University trained bomber pilot or target coordinator or the media Mogul or capitalist who is pushing for a war or conflict in a foreign land.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

All this 'Oh noes the sky is falling on Britain' hysteria over the release of 15 sailors by the Iranians is just weird.

All you septics who are whinging that some deal may have been made can feck off.

After all it is highly unlikely that the British Gov made a deal that involved shipping loads of high tech weaponry to Iran (funded by drug shipments from Central America) in order to get our hostages back.

Oops did I point out an uncomfortable truth about America's record there.:roll:

[Mastermind]

You make an excellent point, ex STAB. Our governments have danced with the devil on so many occassions, they have lost track of where we are supposed to be standing. I am personally amazed at the increasing output of Afghanistan poppy production and finished product openly exported right under the noses of the coalition forces. My God, what lines of crap are we being fed?

It is my belief that the massive law enforcement complex we have created in the "War on Drugs" has expanded greatly in conjunction with this absurd "Global War on Terror"...I think the two absurdities may have combined into a mega mass of "Champions of Justice and Control"...the only ones being controlled seem to be the law abiding citizens of the western civilizations!....I better calm down...already had too much coffee this morning. MM

[a_very_ex_STAB]

You make an excellent point, ex STAB. Our governments have danced with the devil on so many occassions, they have lost track of where we are supposed to be standing. I am personally amazed at the increasing output of Afghanistan poppy production and finished product openly exported right under the noses of the coalition forces. My God, what lines of crap are we being fed?

It is my belief that the massive law enforcement complex we have created in the "War on Drugs" has expanded greatly in conjunction with this absurd "Global War on Terror"...I think the two absurdities may have combined into a mega mass of "Champions of Justice and Control"...the only ones being controlled seem to be the law abiding citizens of the western civilizations!....I better calm down...already had too much coffee this morning. MM

Well bureaucracies never act in order to put themselves out of a job so I don't anticipate any kind of end to either the War on Drugs or the War of Terror. Too many otherwise unemployable people at the top with fat tax payer funded jobs would have too much to lose.

[Mastermind]

Sadly, yer right!

[Mailman]

By the way destroying a countries infrastructure is actually against the Law.

Which law are you refering to?

Mailman

[Dakota435]

All this 'Oh noes the sky is falling on Britain' hysteria over the release of 15 sailors by the Iranians is just weird.

All you septics who are whinging that some deal may have been made can feck off.

After all it is highly unlikely that the British Gov made a deal that involved shipping loads of high tech weaponry to Iran (funded by drug shipments from Central America) in order to get our hostages back.

Oops did I point out an uncomfortable truth about America's record there.:roll:

You seem to have the history a bit backwards. The hostages were given back because the Iranians were concerned that a crazy ass Rep President might hurt them. The weapons sales to Iran were several years later, to raise cash secretly for the Contras when congress wouldn't allow direct funding. Not saying it was a good for moral thing to do, just setting the record straight.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

You seem to have the history a bit backwards. The hostages were given back because the Iranians were concerned that a crazy ass Rep President might hurt them. The weapons sales to Iran were several years later, to raise cash secretly for the Contras when congress wouldn't allow direct funding. Not saying it was a good for moral thing to do, just setting the record straight.


Nice try. If the objective was to help the Contras I'm sure that better methods of doing it could have been found than helping your mortal enemies in Iran LOL.

I don't normally quote wikipedia but as I'm a busy man here you go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair


I'll be helpful and direct you to the following paragraph:

Hostage taking

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/DF-SC-82-06566.jpg/250px-DF-SC-82-06566.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DF-SC-82-06566.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DF-SC-82-06566.jpg)
Vice President George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush) and other VIPs wait to welcome the former hostages to Iran home


In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Middle East faced frequent hostage-taking incidents by organizations. In 1979, Iranian students took hostage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis) 63 employees of the United States embassy in Iran. On January 20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_20), 1981 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981), the day Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) became President, the hostages were freed following the Algiers Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Accords). Hostage taking in the Middle East did not end there, however.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair#_note-Tuck) In 1983, members of Al-Dawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Dawa) ("The Call"), an exiled Iraqi political party turned militant organization, were imprisoned for their part in a series of truck bombs in Kuwait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait). In response to the imprisonment, Hezbollah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah), an ally of Al-Dawa, took 30 Western hostages, [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair#_note-Iran_Tragedy) six of whom were American. Hezbollah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah) demanded the release of the prisoners for these hostages. Members of the Reagan Administration claim they believed that by selling arms to Iran, Iran would influence the Hezbollah kidnappers in Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon) to release their hostages. At the time, Iran was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War) and could find few western nations willing to supply it with weapons. [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair#_note-GSO) The sale of arms would also, according to National Security Adviser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Advisor_%28United_States%29) Robert McFarlane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McFarlane), improve strained relations with Iran.[1] (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_24.htm) For that reason, weapons were transferred to Iran.

I see amnesia is STRONG in the 1984 society that you live in:)

[artistoli]

The whole debate is a bit silly when you consider that Iran had the UK between a rock and a hard place. The coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are already at full stretch dealing with the insurgents and Iran borders both those countries. No matter what military action could have been taken to damage Iran's infrastructure they could still have inflicted very serious casualties on the British, American and other coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan in retaliation, wether through overt, covert or indirect military action. I think that it was an almost impossible situation and that, when it is all taken into account, the only solution would have been not to let our forces get captured in the first place.

The real question is what do we do about Iran now? Does the international community quit pussyfooting around and give them a final warning,of which the failure to heed will lead to a coherent, multi-national, unforgiving and very serious response, or does it continue to engage in these silly, complicated mind games that Iran, due to its lack of internal public accountability, will almost always gain from?