The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Dealing With Terrorist States (Iran Hostage Thread)
Posts
I don't want to derail this, but seriously, try telling that to Latin America.
The only responses I've seen are saying that the coodinates are absolute or that the Iranians changed their story, I may well have missed some. The UK has released inaccurate figures before and then changed them. When they do it, they expect me to believe it was accidental rather than malicious. I don't see why the Iranians shouldn't get the same benefit of the doubt.
I'm not having some Ahmedinejad love-fest here, I just don't see that they're doing anything particularly worse than the UK has.
Personally, I think the whole thing is just diplomatic pissing contest.
Well of course it is. Point is though that we weren't the ones to unzip our flies and start waving it around. The fact that we believe that the Iranian's must have violated Iraqi waters is something that's being convieniently ignored by the press I notice.
Depends on where you want to draw the start line. All governments (and people) view others' actions as pro-active and their own as reactive. Given the captured embassy staff and the general sabre rattling, Iran probably sees this as justified retaliation. They've also complained previously about intrusions into their territorail waters.
Basically, some warning shots and a "gtfo we will shoot you if you cross this line again" would probably have gone a long ways here.
This is a classic example of the Dicks, Assholes, and Pussies in the world.
On a serious note... I really really hope the news doesn't let this fall to the wayside. I'd hate to see these Brits forgotten.
It's weird that you think this is a plausible scenario.
Ugh, shouldn't this be the other way round. Of course not, protesting isn't British. Unless it has to do with poor, widdle animals.
I don't deny that the Iraq War is a clusterfuck of lies and deceit, but "we're liars so therefore Iran isn't full of shit" is the worst logic ever heard.
Iran is ruled by hard-line Shiite Muslims, both in the persons of Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah. Shia accept the doctrine of taqiyya, which essentially states that Muslims are free to lie to unbelievers if it is in defense of Islam. This alone should put a damper on any trust we have towards Iran. A government that lies about the initial coordinates, parades around the captives, dresses up the woman in a Muslim headscarf and then forces her to write letters home to her parents saying "I wish I was home safe with you instead of in the dangerous Persian gulf" and "Obviously we were in Iranian waters, I hope the UK realizes the error of their ways and takes their forces out of Iraq" is as full of shit as it gets.
And do we even know whether Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah would view a destructive war as a bad thing? Like crazy Christian evangelicals, they believe that the Mahdi (the 12th imam, a Messiah-like figure) will reappear and make things better when the world is on the brink of destruction. I am reminded of crazy Christians' support of Israel, not out of concern but rather because they think supporting Israel will bring the world closer to apocalypse and they are looking forward to that. Judging simply from their actions and their expressed religious beliefs, it seems likely that Iran is possessed by the same mentality.
"Rational reasons" my ass.
Iran's Army isn't that great by the way. Sure they have lots of TOW missile launchers but they don't even work half the time when used properly according to a buddy of mine who's a veteran of the First Gulf War and Somalia. Half the time they just fly up into the air and over the target when you snap the line instead of down into the target like they're supposed to. The Iranian army also uses extensive human wave attacks and though they can be effective, they are obsolete when fighting a modern army as was proved in the Sino-Vietnamese War and though they saved Iran in the Iran-Iraq War they only allowed for a stalemate against a much smaller force. They don't have a strong navy either which will lead to English dominance of the sea like they did during the Falklands and from there they can strike at Iran. Iran's air force would probably be destroyed on the ground before it gets the chance to do anything as well. Iran has a large deal of missiles but I doubt their effectiveness. A friend of mine was also telling me about how Iran has only one major oil refinery and that they import most of their processed oil. If you took out this refinery with an air strike and made a naval blockade you could choke Iran out because none of the nations bordering them will offer them support, this is all hearsay but it sounds reliable from what I've read about Iran. It would be a war of attrition but the European powers would win out in the end.
I think they need to do to Iran what was done to Japan by reforming the system that was already in place. Take the Ayatollah down to a figurehead and just reform the existing political system since it is essentially a democracy similar to the American system. Iran has a large growing minority of young adults who want to reform Iran and love American and European culture as well so all they would have to do is turn it over to them since a good deal of the Iranian population seems to be apathetic and just want to live out their lives.
Tqiyya means you can lie if you're in danger, and would face harm if you didn't. Not really an original concept, and I don't know why it'd raise much concern for a non-Kantian. But hey, let's write foreign words, italicize them, and pretend we know what we're talking about.
Did you know the Iranians are cranky because of all the time they had to spend in kus'omak? True story.
April fools?
I haven't heard anyone of significance in Europe even hinting at war.
Yep. Iran totally a rational actor. 100%.
Oh please, Medieval Europe tried to screw over the Medieval Muslim Empire so much worse than anything the Muslims did.
Cite to me the medieval rulers who didn't have dishonest and backstabbing dealings with their neighbors.
My point was that taqiyya is not needed for el ilka'lam ili mi'andoosh ma'na. On the other hand, kharak is definitely needed.
Are you denying that taqiyya has been, and most likely still is in Iran, a religious justification for diplomatic/foreign policy deceit? If you are I would go dig up my old sources, but it just seems like you're saying "so what? The medieval Christians did it too."
If your forum's a href worked I would have linked the word to its wikipedia page. I hope you don't seriously think I was trying to be deliberately obtuse by using Arabic terms.
Maybe you could explain to me how the different name makes it a different concept, and I'll accept your bowl fi kkash'me.
I've seen this argument before, even from well informed or otherwise intelligent men, but I haven't seen as much evidence to back it up. The fundamental reason I'm hesitant is because the argument "our opponents are irrational" is a natural coup-out to ignore their reasons for action. Ignore the fact that Iran has much to gain in the Oil markets by creating controversy, or the fact that standing up to weak and crumbling foreign empires gives them increased strength at home or regionally. No, no , Iran wants war because they want to bring about Armageddon.
Now we know such people and such groups exist, such as the Aum Shinrikyo who did the sarin gas attacks on Japan in 95. But is there convincing argument to be made that such a group exists and is in power in Iran? If so that's a terribly frightening possibility.
But there's another look at this. There is a current trend towards anti-realist foreign policy. The realists would argue that Iran is pushing as far as they will go, but that their having nuclear weapons will stablize the country and bring about greater chance of peace. However, realists are incapable of predicting the actions of suicidal or irrational doomsday cults. (They try to explain that such groups are unlikely to get power or to hold it, but I'm really unconvinced by the authors who have done work on this.) By claiming Iran is insane, it's easier to dismiss them along more anti-realist policies similar to the Bush Doctrine, and make a convincing argument for war. Such claims are further backed up because we have limited news and information from these sealed regimes, as well as the general hazyness with which Westerners have towards Islam. It's not like you can just go into wikipedia and find out about this kind of thing.
Can someone post some more info on these "Partisans of the Mahdi"? Is Iran lead by a doomsday cult?
Maybe Ahmadinejad and some of his buddies are nuts enough to want to blow stuff up for those ends, but I seriously doubt the Ayatollah and a lot of the other power bases in Iran are. I'm much more inclined to believe that the Ayatollah has a very strong sense of self preservation, with the evidence being that he has been in power for so long. Remember these were the same guys that made the 'deal' with Reagan to end the hostage crisis so long ago.
I don't doubt that there are a number of lower downs over there which aren't crazy like foxes but are just crazy. Those crazies want to put an end to Israel and damn the consequences. However I don't think the seat of Iran's power is by any means in that group, just acquanted with them as that group can be useful to their ends.
However, I'm not sure that "total war/terrible destruction" is much of a detterant to someone like Ahmadinejad or the Ayatollah because their religion has this fucked up eschatology.
It's not that hard to find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi
It's interesting that you are contrasting the idea of the Mahdi as "insane" compared to some "sane" interpretation of Islam. Most Christians in America are also eagerly awaiting the end of the world. It's not so different.
"Doomsday cult" is a little strong. I was just saying that Muslims (Shia Muslims in particular, it seems) would not view the apocalypse as a bad thing, since it would herald the return of the Mahdi and the day of judgment. Evangelical Christians are the same way in America.
Edit: just did a google search, here are some more articles:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1221/p01s04-wome.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070402/ap_on_re_mi_ea/british_seized_iran
edit:
I mean seriously
But by making these statements they are effectively giving credibility to the Iranian Gov'ments claims so the question would then be if you are willing to lie about something that will aid a nations cause against your own country. Coerced political statements from POWs have never been about state secrets, the idea is to get political leverage over the other nation.
Facing this situation, including the risk of bodily harm, is part of the deal when you join the military.
It takes a great deal of indoctrination to convince someone, -truly-, that losing their nose, ears, tongue, eyes, arms, legs, reproductive organs, and large swaths of skin, is worth that oath they made a few years ago.
the soldier then has to decide that his limbs (or life) are worth more than any additional lives that may be lost as a result of statements made. Here of course the risk is somewhat nebulous but it is still giving political leverage to what is currently a hostile state.
I'll restate though that I I see it as unlikly that Iran would use such extreme measures because as soon as the prisoners get released and tell how they were threatened with torture (or whatever) then what little international sympathy Iran had goes down the toilet
and yet a ton of US sevicement did it in 'Nam, not that I am particulary a McCain fan but as an easy reference he held out for five years of regular beatings
Not everyone really wants to be like the soldiers in Nam. As lovely as their lives have been upon their return.
People have a higher and higher regard for their lives as quality of life improves.
And, again. If the government actually takes these notes seriously, they are grossly incompetent.
I imagine the soldiers may even EXPECT their leaders to not be complete idiots who are fooled by a signature obtained under duress.
True but it's not about what the governments take seriously, even in 'nam it was all about political leverage, generating support for your side and fueling opposition to the other amongst the civilian population. Which is totally what these statements are about. They are being used as leverage against Britian and I'm sure will be used again in the future to legitimize the Iranian position vs. the "Zionist Agressors" Show the vids to the kids, "see kids, the Brits really agree with OUR government, it's their evil rulers who make them wage an unjust war" These statements will have, are having, a huge impact on the political landscape.
As for the qualitiy of life statement, are you implying that had I been captured during my deployment I would not have been able to hold myself to the same standards as the soldiers who fought in my dads war, or my grandads, because, what, I had a microwave and an atari growing up? Seriously what are you trying to say there?
The code of conduct for "Name, rank, serial number" is for giving away intelligence information- that is all you are required to tell them. Making public statements doesn't fall under that category- American soldiers are also told to just say whatever they're asked to say, since it keeps them intact longer until they can be rescued or released. It's the same with the British.
There'd be no value towards refusing. The statements are obviously propaganda anyway.
since when did the US disregard the Code of Conduct? either it happened after '02 or I missed a briefing.
note article five which I quoted earlier.
edit: and I'm saying there is a value to refusing, granting political leverage to to a hostile nation
Article Five only applies to interrogations. Captured US soldiers are not penalized or punished for statements under duress, nor are they obligated to resist if they are faced with punishment for refusal.
Article V:When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
EDIT: Wait, nevermind, I am totally wrong. For some reason I didn't think reading the third sentence was important.
Really?
Iran currently have hostages/puppets to parade around on TV; certainly the media here seems to think that it's only Britain currently losing face.
I mean, even from the article that Coldred posted earlier:
Iran are getting what they need to drum up support in the Middle East, British military personnel look weak, the government looks incapable of doing anything.
It seems to me that if you are going to seize soldiers of another sovreign nation that you should be absolutely sure that they are in your waters before making such a provacative action. To sort of eyeball the coast and start grabbing people you "think" may be in your territorial waters is probably a bad idea. Disputed maritime areas exist all over the world (look at the massive clusterfuck in the South China Sea) but you rarely see governments grabbing citizens of foreign nations when they cross disputed boundries. For example, China lays claim to the entire South China Sea. Since other nations travel without "permission" in this area, would you be okay with them randomly seizing boats and holding the passengers captive for "violating" what they believe the correct borders to be?