15 captured British soldiers -- Iranian or Iraqi territory?

[Eleusis]

The news coverage on the BBC presents this as they were in Iraqi water and the Iranians captured them at gun point. But, a colleague of mine has just told me that the borders are actually in dispute. Is this so? Does anyone know the story on the dispute?

BBC coverage

However, I must say though even if they did stray into Iranian waters, is that justification to capture them at gun point? I wouldn't think so!

I am talking about countries who support them today: Russia, China, France, and even the Uk to some exend. The United States is most definately not a supporter. The US does not do business with Iran.

The big players to be afraid of in this tangled and powerful workld of oil and politics are: Russia, France, Iran, Venezuela, and China. Oh and some scary stuff goes on in West Africa (like the tanker that blew up yesterday and lots of people were blown up with it because they were trying to collect fuel which then ignited and burned them -- alive)

Ah well, your brother is right then of course, no offence, but we were told by the world experts (Blair & Bush) that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (or Distraction as I like to call it !! ). Rememeber that old chestnut ?

One of the few people who disputed it (Kelly), quite correctly as it turns out, conveniently topped himself, the poor man.

my ex teaches international aspects of war for the Red Cross (ie teaches the Geneva convention). The UK is not high on their list of worst offenders when it comes to breaches, no we are not squeaky clean but are not even at the foothills of the countries he goes to.

I really don't care if you strongly object, and no, I will not shut up about it.

From Article 13: "...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

From Article 17: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Iran are attempting to take the moral high ground, so their actions should not be based on why we may or may not have done. This is not a playground.

You're confusing issues again.

Eleusis - your phrase "The US would like to to prove this" is quite telling. The US would like to PROVE it so that it has an excuse to attack Iran and topple yet another unfavourable anti-US regime. It is as simple as that I am afraid. Pessimistic but a view held by many many serious analysts of that region.

those poor soldiers

GPS doesn't lie (although, I agree, they could present the wrong information but in this day and age, most countries will have access to their own data) - and no doubt, there will be satellite images from the time the capture took place which could/would prove exactly where the ships were.

little - I didn't say YOU should shut up about it I was talking about Blair, et al. We are the biggest international law violators in that region.

exactly fox - my point a way down before it got swamped by the "well who trusts GEarge BUsh and the West" argument. Possibly true but not relevant in deciding whether these sailors were in Iraqi waters or not.

I refer you to suejonez' point below, and mine about tit fot tat behaviour.

And as the wife of a serving Royal Navy officer, I don't see that anything on this thread merits a "", quite frankly.

"This is not a playground".

It looks like it though if you follow our actions in that region, big bully boys Tony and George beating up the weak.

what have the UK done to violate the geneva convention in the region? (genuine question by the way)

Yellowrose, you are putting words in my mouth. I don't think the US does want to go to war with Iran. But I do believe there are a lot of people (like you) who will happily run wild with such accusations.

You do know that we are not at war with Iran, don't you?

Little - I don't have a vested interest either way. I don't support our Govt. and was opposed to the Iraq War even before it began. I also oppose any bullying of Iran which may lead to an attack on that country. I have a right to air my objections here as much as you do, although I have no relatives in the armed forces.

I'm leaving now because this conversation is no longer about the 15 British soldiers and whose water they were in. (and because it's lunch time )

The more I think about it the more I think Iran is the one lying.

littlelapin - I think that was the Uk govt point - thats it is clearly not acceptable to capture foreign service personal not on your territory when you are not at war with them.

lunch beckons then, not because you have work to do Eleusis?

work?

Priorities my friend. Lunch, then MN.

I did not say that my views or right to post are any greater than yours. I merely stated my position as the "original" point of this thread was concern about the naval personnel and I see nothing amusing at all in that.

Eleusis - I copied and pasted YOUR own words: "Iran (as we all know is suspected of enriching uranium to weapons grade). The US would like to to prove this".

Your words, not mine.

And then you went on to say a extrapolate a few more things that in my view did not logically and necessarily follow.

On the BBC now:

Iran insists they were picked up in its waters and an official said Ms Turney's planned release may be delayed because of the UK's "incorrect attitude."

Lookslike she's not coming home then.

Okay, I'm going now...

"it is clearly not acceptable to capture foreign service personal not on your territory when you are not at war with them". Quite.

That is what the US has done with Iranian officials as well as those held in Guantanamo (e.g. Pakistanis held against international law and the Geneva Convention, the US was never at war with Pakistan, was it ?), who where not on American soil, or does Bush think of Iraq and Afghanistan as American soil now ?

I said: "The US would like to PROVE it so that it has an excuse to attack Iran and topple yet another unfavourable anti-US regime. It is as simple as that I am afraid. Pessimistic but a view held by many many serious analysts of that region".

The above wasn't an extrapolaton of your words Eleusis. It was MY analysis of the situation. I thought it was obvious !