1. SPS Accounts:
    Do you find yourself coming back time after time? Do you appreciate the ongoing hard work to keep this community focused and successful in its mission? Please consider supporting us by upgrading to an SPS Account. Besides the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting a good cause, you'll also get a significant number of ever-expanding perks and benefits on the site and the forums. Click here to find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You are currently viewing Boards o' Magick as a guest, but you can register an account here. Registration is fast, easy and free. Once registered you will have access to search the forums, create and respond to threads, PM other members, upload screenshots and access many other features unavailable to guests.

BoM cultivates a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. We have been aiming for quality over quantity with our forums from their inception, and believe that this distinction is truly tangible and valued by our members. We'd love to have you join us today!

(If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your username or password, click here.)

British Sailors Captured By Iran

Discussion in 'Alley of Dangerous Angles' started by Barmy Army, Mar 24, 2007.

  1. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    The F-18 E/F is the Super Hornet, and yes, they are brand new. The initial F-18s were introduced in 1983, however, and my point was that there are probably more of them in current service than any other US fighter plane. The Super Hornet, on the other hand, didn't enter service until 1999, and it's not like they took existing Hornets and upgraded them into Super Hornets. The Super Hornet is a completely new design. In fact, I'm not even sure it should still be considered an F-18, as it is considerably bigger than the original F-18.
     
  2. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    I know the aircraft :D It's the same design, scaled up, and with more modern manufacturing techniques and materials. Aerodynamically it's nothing new, internal arrangement and general concept remained unchanged, thus the very little problems encounted in the development - it was known terrain
    It's an evolutionary improvement. I think the USN wanted to play it safe and opted, after the A-12 was cancelled, for a low-risk candidate in case the JSF encountered technical problems or program obstacles. As a result they have the most advanced swing-rôle fighter in the US inventory.

    The F-18 E/F is as much an F-18, as the F-2 is an F-16 ... :shake:

    PS: But of course they all suck and cannot beat my favourite, the ingenious (if lamentably unbuilt) Northrop-Dornier ND-102. All supercruise, in 1982 already. A design ahead of its time.
    PPS: Is it just me or are we heading :yot: :holy: ?
     
  3. Midwinter Gems: 9/31
    Latest gem: Iol


    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    So... what do you guys think of the latest pics and interview that have been aired?

    To me, the sailor interviewed (Faye Turney) seems to be using terms that sound a little too generous to the Iranians to be natural, so I wonder if she was forced to say them.

    I hope they all get returned safe and well (and soon), without anything escalating.
     
  4. Shoshino

    Shoshino Irritant Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Media:
    66
    Likes Received:
    79
    Gender:
    Male
    yes, i thought her interview sounded very coerced to me, britain has stepped up the pressure now by freezing all bilateral contracts between Iran and the UK, they have also released evidence placing the team 1.7 nauticle miles inside Iraqi waters.

    you guys seem to have an affinity with aircraft should start another thread, sounds like you could fill a few pages
     
  5. Darkwolf Gems: 18/31
    Latest gem: Horn Coral


    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    0
    One thing that I have been waiting for and so far no one has even mentioned...Geneva Conventions...seems to me that the Iranians have broken at least a couple here :rolleyes: , and yet not one bit of outrage displayed anywhere about it?

    HMMMM, could give one something to ponder.
     
  6. Rallymama Gems: 31/31
    Latest gem: Rogue Stone


    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    Messages:
    4,329
    Media:
    2
    Likes Received:
    11
    What, spare an afterthought for a quaint remnant of the last millenium? Darky, I didn't know you were such a softy, to be concerned over the human rights of terrorists... ;)
     
  7. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, that's why I said I wasn't even sure it should still be called an F-18.

    Forget the Geneva Convention, because if this is true:

    then Iran has committed an act of war.
     
  8. Barmy Army

    Barmy Army Simple mind, simple pleasures... Adored Veteran

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    6,586
    Media:
    2
    Likes Received:
    162
    The UN and EU are being FAR too quiet about this. A bit of loud backup would be nice, even from GW Bush. As usual we are left to hang out to dry.
     
  9. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    I would presume the Brits have asked them to be quiet in order to not undermine their diplomatic efforts.
     
  10. Shoshino

    Shoshino Irritant Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Media:
    66
    Likes Received:
    79
    Gender:
    Male
    latest quotes from reuters:

    charts = proof?

    is iran pushing britain too far on this one?
     
  11. Celesialraven Gems: 11/31
    Latest gem: Bloodstone


    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    0
  12. AMaster Gems: 26/31
    Latest gem: Diamond


    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,495
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    50
    Ah, proof at last that SPers hate America, and don't really care about any of the things they post about.

    Yes, Iran has broken the Geneva conventions. This is a Bad Thing. No ifs, ands, or buts.

    So what? Iran is not my country, and I'm not about to advocate going to war over it (especially since, as far as we know, the violation has been parading people around on television. Inexcusable, yes. Casus belli, no).
     
  13. jaded empath Gems: 20/31
    Latest gem: Garnet


    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    9
    Well, it's all coming down to something that people are forgetting - the whole issue of "they were in Iraqi waters" means a little less than a lie to an Iranian who sincerely believes the charts and maps include the BULK of the waterway as their territorial waters.

    (from the Wikipedia page about this event)

    Basically the point of the this is that I'd guess neither party disagrees on the absolute position(latitude/longitude) of the inspection boats, but it's the territoriality of that position - Iran says that it's inside their waters, whilst the UK (and likely Iraq) disagree that it's within Iraq's territory.

    In essence, it's a property dispute that needs to be settled in some 'international court'. This is a much more thorny and convoluted issue than it seems, due to the fact that the waterway is an alluvial basin and constant build-up of silt CHANGES the locations of sand bars and shallows constantly - the Shatt al-Arab needs continuous dredging to keep it navigable, so any discussion of "each owns waters up to n km from their shores" will have to take into account that those shores WILL change fairly quickly as silt builds up. :bad:


    Oh, and if the Iranian government does fulfill one rumor and indict these folks with espionage, would the Geneva Conventions become moot? :hmm:
     
  14. Chandos the Red

    Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Messages:
    8,252
    Media:
    82
    Likes Received:
    238
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, if that happens there will be a war. So the conventions, I'm sure, will be important to all those Iranian prisoners-of-war that will be filling allied camps.
     
  15. Shoshino

    Shoshino Irritant Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Media:
    66
    Likes Received:
    79
    Gender:
    Male
    to be blunt, im convinced that there will be war, two months ago i would have said thats never going to happen, but this is the best thing that could have ever happened to george bush, the support is now there, the british public is outraged by the clear agressive stance shown by the iranian government, which is adding to the concern about their nuclear goals, and claims that they support terrorism inside iraq. the international community is likewise supporting in the release of the 15 despite those who have strong arms deals (russia and china) with iran keeping their mouths shut over the location dispute.

    a millitary buildup is already underway, and i have it on reliable rumor that several royal navy warships are on standby from the med to move to the gulf.

    [ March 30, 2007, 10:40: Message edited by: Shoshino ]
     
  16. Aikanaro Gems: 31/31
    Latest gem: Rogue Stone


    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    5,521
    Likes Received:
    20
    The longer this ridiculous bull**** goes on, the more chance there is of fasttracking the war (I'm thinking that it probably would've happened anyway). At first I thought this would be resolved really quickly seeing how reasonable Britain have been, but it looks like that's not going to happen. Looks like America's secured an ally for their next bit of rampant stupidity.

    As for the Geneva Convention - I don't think it's relevant anymore. When the world's superpower happily ignores it, it doesn't really matter when other less influential nations do.
     
  17. Montresor

    Montresor Mostly Harmless Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,103
    Media:
    127
    Likes Received:
    183
    Gender:
    Male
    It looks to me like the Iranian government is looking for a confrontation - hoping the UK will either take the bait and attack, or back down and apologise. The latter will make the government look "strong" to the Iranian people, while a war will rally the people to the government's side. And the outcome of a war is far from certain.
     
  18. Nakia

    Nakia The night is mine Distinguished Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) BoM XenForo Migration Contributor [2015] (for helping support the migration to new forum software!)

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    5,575
    Media:
    102
    Likes Received:
    136
    Gender:
    Female
    I guess our government either went to Britain and made arrangements to place their sailors where they would be captured or our government went to Iran and made arrangements to have them capture the British Sailors. Naturally it is all the USA's fault. [sarcasm intended]
     
  19. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    OK, I understand that the shorelines can change, but I was under the impression that international maritime law dictates that international waters start 10 km (about 6 miles) from the coast. I certainly am not familiar enough with the geography of the region, but the only way I can see where the waters could be disputed is if the area they were in was less than 20 km across, or in other words, that they could be within 10 km of both Iran and Iraq.

    That having been said, do not all ships nowadays have GPS on them? Shouldn't you be able to tell (not even going by the satellites) exactly where the ships were located? Granted the small boats the Brits used to board the other ship probably do not have GPS systems, but if we know where the British ship was, and we know where the boarded ship was, is it not fair to assume that the small boats were located at one of the two ships or some point in between when they were captured? Like I said before, unless we are in a situation where you are within 10 km of both nations, I don't see how the waters can be disputed. And even if they are disputed, shouldn't GPS settle the debate about where they were?
     
  20. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    I scratched together some history from the web:

    The Shatt al Arab is a vital strategic waterway, as it constitutes Iraq's only access to the sea and provides a transportation corridor for oil exports and commodity imports for both Iran and Iraq. Due to its economic and strategic significance, control of the river has long been contested. The earliest documented dispute dates to the Treaty of Zohab of 1639. This treaty was intended to establish a boundary-partly at the river-between Persia (now Iran) and the Ottoman Empire (including what is now Iraq). The language of the treaty was vague, however, and conflict over the Shatt al Arab persisted through a number of subsequent agreements.

    Outside powers became involved in the issue during the 19th century, with Russia backing Persian claims to the eastern bank of the river, and Britain supporting Ottoman claims to control of both banks. The Second Treaty of Erzurum, signed in 1847, generally confirmed the Russo-Persian position, but again the language was so vague that the Ottomans claimed ownership of the entire Shatt al Arab, while ceding navigation rights to the Persians. Under agreements signed just prior to World War I the boundary remained on the river's eastern bank except around Khorramshahr and Âbâdân, where it shifted to the middle point of the river.

    In 1937 a commission sought to determine the border around Shat al Arab region, and in 1938 a fresh treaty between Iraq and Iran was signed, leaving Iran with control only of the approaches to Abadan and Khorramshahr, its chief ports, and unable to develop new port facilities in the delta. In 1950, Iraqi monarchy was dethroned by a bloody military revolution. The pact was shelved. Disputes persisted. To preclude Iraqi political pressure and interference with its oil and freight shipments on the Shatt al Arab, Iran built ports on the Persian Gulf to handle foreign trade.

    So prior to 1975 Iraq claimed full sovereignty over the waterway and charged Iranian ship for services such as providing pilots and also other equipment required for safe navigation in the area. The Iranian government bitterly complained that none of the money paid to the Iraqis was used on improvements. It was just a cash cow, waylaying so to say.

    Generally, while Iraq wanted access, in regards to navigation rights, to full width of the river as it is crucial to its sea trade & exports, the Iranians preferred a delineation along the thalweg (mid-river) principle. After years of tension, Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran shook hands, with Iraq agreeing to the middle of Shat al Arab as the boundary between their countries at the Arab summit in Algiers in 1975.

    Five years later and one year after the Iranian revolution Saddam tore up the agreement and called it null and void. Subsequently in September 1980 the Iraqi army invaded Iran with the goal of, among other things, establishing full sovereignty over the shat al Arab. To sum up a long blody war: Saddam Hussein didn't succeed, and eventually Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to an armistice, and to UN resolution 598, that called on them to withdraw all forces to the internationally recognized boundaries without delay.

    Which is amusing, because the very question of where the borders are in respect to the Shat al Arab is again an open question. While Saddam thought he killed the agreement of Algiers by invading, the Iranians (prudently IMO) insist in its validity. So today the Iraqi position is that of Saddam Hussein, that evil agressor. Iraq's continued rejection of the Algiers Treaty, even after the armistice, reveals its commitment to control the entire border waterway. To say it blunt: There is no agreement. Iran and Iraq still have conflicting ideas about their respective shorelines. They never really sorted that out :2c: Sharing the river in the middle doesn't sound excessive or crazy to me. It's outright salomonic :2c:

    Pinpointing your position doesn't really help when the quarreling is about on whose side that point is. I find the point that's being made that clearly the Brits cannot have been in Iranian waters daring, even in the age of GPS. I feel sorry for the British soldiers, but I find it downright hilarious that the liberators of Iraq from Saddam's agression and tyranny find themselves supporting his old casus belli against Iran.

    [ March 30, 2007, 19:20: Message edited by: Ragusa ]
     
Sorcerer's Place is a project run entirely by fans and for fans. Maintaining Sorcerer's Place and a stable environment for all our hosted sites requires a substantial amount of our time and funds on a regular basis, so please consider supporting us to keep the site up & running smoothly. Thank you!

Sorcerers.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.