Iran detains and televises UK sailors, tensions escalating...

[Carol]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/w...bl&ex=1175227200&en=a28cefc5ede33ce4&ei=5087

LONDON, March 28 — The dispute with Iran over Britain's captured sailors and marines escalated sharply on Wednesday when Britain froze all “bilateral business” with Iran and the Iranians displayed some British prisoners on state television — an act condemned by the Foreign Office here as “completely unacceptable.”

Britain and Iran also argued over whether the 15 Britons were in Iraqi or Iranian waters when they were seized. One of the captured sailors, Faye Turney, 26 — the only woman among the 15 Britons — was shown on Iranian television wearing a black head scarf and saying, “Obviously we trespassed into their waters” and praising her captors as “very friendly, very hospitable and very thoughtful, nice people.”

 

[BrandiJo]

dunno if its 100% truth the pic wiht the artical isnt of a black headscarf
​

 

[Carol]

If you scroll down about midway you will see a close-up TV shot of Ms. Turney wearing a black headscarf.

 

[TimoS]

As I'm not familiar with how the US government works, I hope someone can answer a question that's been on my mind As the tension over Iran seems to be growing stronger (and apparently at least the russians are predicting that USA will attack), my question is that what would happen if your president says that USA attacks but cannot convince the congress? Can he declare war all on his own? What confuses it for me is that the according to the news here congress isn't supporting the war in Iraq anymore, but the president can basically ignore them. Ok, I admit, that is very likely oversimplifying a very complex issue, but to someone not very familiar how a foreign government works that's the way it looks

 

[Blindside]

As I'm not familiar with how the US government works, I hope someone can answer a question that's been on my mind As the tension over Iran seems to be growing stronger (and apparently at least the russians are predicting that USA will attack), my question is that what would happen if your president says that USA attacks but cannot convince the congress? Can he declare war all on his own? What confuses it for me is that the according to the news here congress isn't supporting the war in Iraq anymore, but the president can basically ignore them. Ok, I admit, that is very likely oversimplifying a very complex issue, but to someone not very familiar how a foreign government works that's the way it looks

The use of force was already authorized (2002) so the the President can continue being in a state of war. Theoretically this Congress could "undeclare" the war but that won't happen. With regard to Iran, US Presidents are authorized wage war in a limited capacity without the authorization of Congress under the War Powers Act.

 

[Carol]

As I'm not familiar with how the US government works, I hope someone can answer a question that's been on my mind As the tension over Iran seems to be growing stronger (and apparently at least the russians are predicting that USA will attack), my question is that what would happen if your president says that USA attacks but cannot convince the congress? Can he declare war all on his own? What confuses it for me is that the according to the news here congress isn't supporting the war in Iraq anymore, but the president can basically ignore them. Ok, I admit, that is very likely oversimplifying a very complex issue, but to someone not very familiar how a foreign government works that's the way it looks

Well...to give an oversimplified answer...there is a difference between "war" and "troop involvment". Despite the President saying we are "at war" and using terms like "War on terror", this is not a declared war that we're in.

The president being the commander-in-chief can sign an executive order to deploy troops but....they need money, just like you, me and everyone else. The president can't control spending, only Congress can.

So....

Congress is there to reperesent the voters. The voters have expressed a sentiment against the war and elected in new people that represent these views. If the president and Congress can't agree on principles, then the main weapon that Congress has is to cut spending in order to force the hand of the president to scale back the deployment. Who is caught in the middle? Our hardworking troops trying to do their job.

 

[TimoS]

Who is caught in the middle? Our hardworking troops trying to do their job.

As usual. Thanks for the answer

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Well...to give an oversimplified answer...there is a difference between "war" and "troop involvment". Despite the President saying we are "at war" and using terms like "War on terror", this is not a declared war that we're in.

The president being the commander-in-chief can sign an executive order to deploy troops but....they need money, just like you, me and everyone else. The president can't control spending, only Congress can.

So....

Congress is there to reperesent the voters. The voters have expressed a sentiment against the war and elected in new people that represent these views. If the president and Congress can't agree on principles, then the main weapon that Congress has is to cut spending in order to force the hand of the president to scale back the deployment. Who is caught in the middle? Our hardworking troops trying to do their job.

So sadly true. Both parties pay lip service to "Support the Troops!" but neither does in reality. They are a political football. Many Democrats, IMO, hoped desperately that the war would turn out badly so that Bush and the Republicans would be blamed and lose power, and so many Republicans, IMO, considered party loyalty more important than asking hard questions and demanding accountability. I, at different points in my life, have been a member of both - now I am an Independent who will NOT join either.

ON TOPIC:

This was damn stupid on Iran's part. What were/are they thinking? Apparently even they, the Iranians, first gave the GPS coordinates where these sailors were "arrested" as IRAQI waters! They can't even be incompetent competently.

 

[exile]

This was damn stupid on Iran's part. What were/are they thinking? Apparently even they, the Iranians, first gave the GPS coordinates where these sailors were "arrested" as IRAQI waters! They can't even be incompetent competently.

Bad, bad idea to mess with the Brits if you're a jumped-up third rate military power. Ask the Argentinians.

I think there are two alignments of forces in Iran, fighting hard for control behind the (fairly flimsy) facade of unity there, and the confrontational crazies are currently in the driver's seat. As was the case in Argentina on the eve of the Falklands War. Note what happened to the Argentinian military dictatorship shortly after the loss of that war, however! (A similar set of circumstances brought an end to the military/facist reign of the `colonels' in Greece in the 1970s and the collapse of the Papadoupolous dictatorship. Military dictatorships that lose wars don't fare well. Iran is a somewhat different case but there's enough in common...)

Things could well play out along the same lines here, if the situation continues to go seriously sideways, as it's showing every sign of doing...

 

[michaeledward]

So sadly true. Both parties pay lip service to "Support the Troops!" but neither does in reality. They are a political football. Many Democrats, IMO, hoped desperately that the war would turn out badly so that Bush and the Republicans would be blamed and lose power, and so many Republicans, IMO, considered party loyalty more important than asking hard questions and demanding accountability. I, at different points in my life, have been a member of both - now I am an Independent who will NOT join either.

Jonathan Randall ... as a member of the Democratic Party, I find your interpretation insulting and disgusting. While you claim you are an independent, you have bought into the hyperbole of the Republican ideologs of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly when you claim what the Democrats 'hoped' for.

Because the members of the Democratic Party listened to the Administrations answers provided to some hard questions, and expected accountability (how long will the war last? how much will the war cost?) you step up to the line of calling them treasonous.

Very Unpleasant.


TimoS ... As US law currently stands, Congress has the power to declare war - which it has not done since WWII. Congress also has the authority to raise money to fund the military, and actually raise the military. Once a military is engaged, the President has authority over the military commanders.

In 2001, the Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force against the entities invovled in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks (broadly defined as al Qaeda and the Taliban).

In 2002, the Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq, to bring Saddam Hussein into compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions and General Assembly Resolutions.

The President would have no legal authority, at this time, to perform military action against Iran, unless he tied it to one of those two actions. The Administrations argument would be that Iran supports Hezbollah, a terrorist organization (also a humanitarian organization), and therefore could be attacked under the 2001 authorization. Or, the President may argue that Iran is backing the insurgents in Iraq ... (building Improvised Explosive Devices) ... and therefore could be attacked to defend our military forces in Iraq. Both arguments have been floating around for quite some time in our newspapers.

A United States plan to attack Iran has been discussed on this message board many times ... (as well as elsewhere) ... search for PNAC ... the Project for a New American Century. What is happening in the news, today, convienently follows an outline defined a decade ago.

 

[CoryKS]

This was damn stupid on Iran's part. What were/are they thinking? Apparently even they, the Iranians, first gave the GPS coordinates where these sailors were "arrested" as IRAQI waters! They can't even be incompetent competently.

What they were thinking is that they've been poking the bears with a stick since 1979 and nobody has done a goddamn thing about it. Why would they stop now? Nobody will do anything about it this time either.

 

[CoryKS]

Found this article - Iran's Latest Hostage Gamble - which seems to agree with exile's analysis of the situation, and suggests that the attack was a desperate response to the targeting of these factions by UN sanctions.

I still don't think the US or Britain will do anything, though.

 

[Shuto]

Interesting link CoreyKS. Thanks

 

[CoryKS]

Wow, lots of good material today. Misunderstanding and Iran


Update: And another - Houses of Straw by VDH

 

[Cryozombie]

you step up to the line of calling them treasonous.

Very Unpleasant.

I'm sorry... where did he do this? I saw him state that IN HIS OPINION he thought many democrats hoped the war would turn out badly to make the republicans look bad...

In his opinion... not "Its a fact" and "many" not the whole party, and "hoped" not worked to make... Worked to make would make them treasonous...

 

[Tames D]

Well...to give an oversimplified answer...there is a difference between "war" and "troop involvment". Despite the President saying we are "at war" and using terms like "War on terror", this is not a declared war that we're in.

The president being the commander-in-chief can sign an executive order to deploy troops but....they need money, just like you, me and everyone else. The president can't control spending, only Congress can.

So....

Congress is there to reperesent the voters. The voters have expressed a sentiment against the war and elected in new people that represent these views. If the president and Congress can't agree on principles, then the main weapon that Congress has is to cut spending in order to force the hand of the president to scale back the deployment. Who is caught in the middle? Our hardworking troops trying to do their job.

Good answer Carol.

 

[Tez3]

We will get our sailors and marines back by diplomatic means then we'll send the SBS (Special Boat Squadron,like the SAS only better, they are Royal Marine Commandos) in to blow something up that the Iranians are rather fond of, like their government perhaps. Seriously though, reprisals will be taken but only after Leading Seaman Turney and the rest are back safe. LS Turney is married to a fellow sailor and has a young child. They and their families have our thoughts over here and prayers for a safe return.

 

[michaeledward]

I'm sorry... where did he do this? I saw him state that IN HIS OPINION he thought many democrats hoped the war would turn out badly to make the republicans look bad...

In his opinion... not "Its a fact" and "many" not the whole party, and "hoped" not worked to make... Worked to make would make them treasonous...

Google "weasel words"

I don't care what is opinion is ... he stated that "many Democrats hoped desperately that the war would turn out badly".

Name Two, and provide validation.

 

[Carol]

We will get our sailors and marines back by diplomatic means then we'll send the SBS (Special Boat Squadron,like the SAS only better, they are Royal Marine Commandos) in to blow something up that the Iranians are rather fond of, like their government perhaps. Seriously though, reprisals will be taken but only after Leading Seaman Turney and the rest are back safe. LS Turney is married to a fellow sailor and has a young child. They and their families have our thoughts over here and prayers for a safe return.

Good thoughts and prayers your countrymen, Tez. :asian:

 

[Grenadier]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, return to the original topic.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-