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!

the sealord was right fox, no disrespect at all to the Navy, but in most cases it is Army or RAF personnel who are more at risk from being taken hostage. If i was in a small boat i wouldn't charge the might of the naval ships, I've seen those things close up, they are BIG!

In reply to Sue- The invasion of a sovereign nation which had not attacked the UK (i.e. Iraq) is in breach of international law. It is not good enough to say, well we suspect they have WMD (which it turns out they didn't) and then invade. It is not I who says so, although I have studied international law, but many many respected international as well as UK, European and US lawyers and judges.

There are several well-known cases of Iraqis, other Arabs, Afghans and Pakistanis, being captured and held, often beaten and abused, several have died, due to direct British (or US army) actions in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Yes, the UK has colluded in Guantanamo. Some were handed over by the British, some were allowed to be flown from the UK or over UK airspace, etc. Sorry, I am just too bored with this thread to go and dig out every single case study. They have been reported in all the major papers.

Sue - this thread is a political debate, I hope it is any way, what eaxctly is the point of this comment: "Theres somehting about Yelloroses [sic] arguments that irritate me" ??

was just musing to myself yellowroses not trying to make a political point. I was interested that despite being anti-war/bush blah blah I find myself trying to defend the situation.

Many apolgies at missing the "w"

"The Navy were not in Iranian waters, as Iran are claiming. They were in IRAQI waters, patrolling IRAQI territory, as requested by IRAQ".

Eh, you seem very certain that the UK or US have been asked or invited by the current Iraqi Govt to patrol the Persian Gulf or Iraqi waters ?

no worries - I like "yello" it's quite cute ! I use it sometimes too !

yellowrose - the patrol was in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1723, and the Iraqi government have approved coalition patrols of the area as well.

whoops, forgot to namechange back there

A senior Navy commander said he hoped the capture involving sailors from HMS Cornwall was a "misunderstanding," while admitting that the area where they were detained, in the Shatt al-Arab waterway, was disputed.

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in Iranian territorial waters," Commodore Nick Lambert, commander of a coalition taskforce operating in the area, told the BBC."

First an admission then that the waters are DISPUTED. Then an assertion that they were defo. in Iraqi waters, then an admission that the Iranians could easily claim it was on their side of the water (as the waters are DISPUTED).

Ok, so clear as mud then !

UN Resolution to do with Iraq mean monkeys to the Iranians. If you think the occupation of Iraq is illegal, passing resolutions to allow you to stay there and patrol waters don't mean much do they ?

"Eh, you seem very certain that the UK or US have been asked or invited by the current Iraqi Govt to patrol the Persian Gulf or Iraqi waters"

Thbat was your post; mine was in response. Nothing to do with the Iranians and the UN.

Nick Lambert's comments have probably precis'd. If you want to read the full briefing by Admiral Style, it is here . Not only do the RN have GPS coords confirming that the patrol was in Iraqi waters, the master of the boarded merchant vessel also confirms them. He is at anchor, has been since the incident, and is in Iraqi waters.

Now, you obviously believe that every word from our forces is a lie, and the Iranians smell of roses, so I am sure you will find a way to explain this.

I thought they were out in the gulf, not in the Shatt Al-Arab waterway.

It's the bit of the Gulf that the Shatt Al-Arab empties into, I think, the media are using them interchangeably.

It is VERY important. The Shatt al-Arab is disputed waters and remains so under international law.

Are you saying the BBC changed his words to fit the media image ? Or was it a Freudian slip ?

I will copy and paste again:
"A senior Navy commander said he hoped the capture involving sailors from HMS Cornwall was a "misunderstanding," while admitting that the area where they were detained, in the Shatt al-Arab waterway, was disputed".

Yellowrose, you have said before, as have I, that this area has been disputed for YEARS, wars have been fought.

What I am saying is that your (repeated) cut and paste includes only one "quoted" word and the rest is paraphrased. Did he actually use the word "admitted", for example?

You are determined to paint the Navy in the wrong here, as your whipping boy for Bush and Blair, and are clearly not interested in any other argument, so I will leave you to your own devices.

I don't know the facts about where the boat was either, I am just posing possiblities.

Why are you so sure that the navy only gives the absolute truth and nothing but the truth ?

The Shatt al-Arab is disputed. IF (I say if, because I don't know, the Navy Commander seems to know more than I do) the boat was found there, it makes a huge difference to what the navy says.

The word "admitted" doesn't really change that sentence does it ? If you changed it to a less loaded word like "saying" it was in the Shatt al-Arab it would have the same result, wouldn't it ?

YellowRose do you really believe that the Iranians are taking a sensible course of action?

Quite aside from who was in violation of water borders (I am not sure whether the British navy and our Govt. is right or telling the truth, etc.), No paula. I don't.

I think it is a diplomatic disaster for the Iranians. Even if the British navy HAD violated their waters (they may have we don't know) they should have allowed them to pass by, or given them a warning and then let them go immediatley. I think it is a desparate measure to get their officials released plus show some muscle in the nuclear dispute.

I just came on the thread to dispute the very often absolutely certain assertions (I say assertions because we don't actually know the facts, do we ?) that the UK (army, navy, Govt.) always tell the truth and do what is honourable in all circumstances, but that certain countries in that region are incapable of telling the truth. It just isn't supported by history or modern politics.

If anyone is interested in why Iran is so paranoid re. Britain in particular, read the history of Iran, circa WW II up to early 1950's. Iran declared its neutrality in WW II, but was occupied by Britain and Russia due to it's vast oil resources (we didn't want it to fall in the hands of Hitler).

Iranian oil fuelled the British navy and filled BP's bags (used to be called the Anglo Iranian Oil Company) throughout the War. Ironic now isn't it ?

Then in 1951 a very popular, very first democratically elected President was toppled by Britain with the support of the CIA, because he nationalised the Iranian oil industry (totally supported by the UN, the Iranian President was a lawyer and argued it out famously in the UN). It may be ancient history to some, but explains Iran's persistent paranoia re. the violation of its borders.

We tried to do the same with Nasser when he copied Iran and nationalised the Suez Canal in 1955, but we failed quite miserably with that one. Nasser went on to control Egypt until I think 1970, to our dismay.

I studied all this for research that I did around 15 years ago as part of my work on the ME oil/gas industry. Fascinating history.