UK stand off with Iran

[Dark]

The Indie and the Guardian are both fine. Though personally I prefer the former.

[DeWinter]

DeWinter, what was wrong, in your view, about the BBC's coverage of the Israel/Lebanon conflict?

Terribly one-sided. Any scene , opinion piece,or interview that could pluck the heart-strings in favour of the Lebanese was used, and you could argue rightly so, considering what the poor bastards were suffering.
But little reporting of the Israeli dead, there has certainly been no attempt by the BBC to enquire into the fate of the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers too deeply, very little mention of Iran being a lot more closely involved than it should have been, no mention that the staff of the UN building that was hit reported via email that Hezbollah were firing rockets from right next to them long before they were hit by the Israeli's, little prominence given to Hezbollah effectively being part of the Lebanese government,or that Lebanon was meant to have disarmed them years ago.
Oh, and no mention of why the Golan Heights were taken by Israel in the first place.
And the strange thing is, I don't hold much of a brief for the Israeli's myself, quite frankly. If it's outside of Europe, I don't really give a damn. But I do care about the BBC, which is still trusted by the public a lot, giving a false impression.
For some reason the BBC treats all Arab nations like children who can't be held responsible for their actions, and when they do something stupid, like Hezbollah kidnap Israeli troops, or the Palestinians elect a terrorist group, and they face the consequences (Israeli retaliation, and the end of US/EU bankrolling) act like it's somehow unreasonable behaviour to hold them to account.

[markfiend]

With all due respect, I think you've been watching a different BBC to me.

[Norman Hunter]

I watch CBBC - sometimes it makes a whole lot more sense than the Big Wide World out there

[canon docre]

@DeWinter & Markfiend. Could that be a case of selective perception? Meaning, one extracts from the media only what reinforces the prefabricated opinions?

[Syberberg]

Terribly one-sided. Any scene , opinion piece,or interview that could pluck the heart-strings in favour of the Lebanese was used, and you could argue rightly so, considering what the poor bastards were suffering.
But little reporting of the Israeli dead, there has certainly been no attempt by the BBC to enquire into the fate of the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers too deeply, very little mention of Iran being a lot more closely involved than it should have been, no mention that the staff of the UN building that was hit reported via email that Hezbollah were firing rockets from right next to them long before they were hit by the Israeli's, little prominence given to Hezbollah effectively being part of the Lebanese government,or that Lebanon was meant to have disarmed them years ago.
Oh, and no mention of why the Golan Heights were taken by Israel in the first place.
And the strange thing is, I don't hold much of a brief for the Israeli's myself, quite frankly. If it's outside of Europe, I don't really give a damn. But I do care about the BBC, which is still trusted by the public a lot, giving a false impression.
For some reason the BBC treats all Arab nations like children who can't be held responsible for their actions, and when they do something stupid, like Hezbollah kidnap Israeli troops, or the Palestinians elect a terrorist group, and they face the consequences (Israeli retaliation, and the end of US/EU bankrolling) act like it's somehow unreasonable behaviour to hold them to account.

The reason why the BBC and every other news agency for that matter, had trouble reporting the Israeli casualties were that The IDF and the Olmert led Likud Party government kept a very tight control on the facts and figures. They only released information that supported their (ie Likund's) view. For example, the report from an Israeli general that some Israeli Arabs had been killed in a Katusha-rocket blast (omitting that Arab Israelis don't have ready access to the bomb shelters, unlike Jewish Israelis) or that one Jewish familiy had to conduct their wedding ceremony from inside a bunker. But at least the Israelis had bunkers in which to shelter, unlike all the Lebanese civilians that were straffed by the IDF as they fled north from the Litani River, for example. Oh, and the explosive power of a Katusha rocket is somewhere between that of a grenade and a mortor round, so any tour of damage by the BBC in Israel wouldn't have shown very much damage and would've vert effectively counteracted the Likud Party's propaganda.

As soon as the BBC showed footage of an IDF Merkava tank being hit by a Hezbollah anti-tank round (judging by where it hit, probably a MILAN), they removed all reporters from the frontline.

The BBC showed footage of an unidentified IDF airframe that was shot down by Hezbollah over Beruit. The IDF denied that that had lost any aircraft, UAV's or helicopters.

In a BBC interview with a member of the Lebanses governemnt (can't remember exactly who now) he stated that they hadn't actively disarmed Hezbollah due to the very real prospect that it would start a civil war and that it was deemed more important to get the Lebanese economy back on it's feet again.

Nor did the BBC report on any background to the Israeli-led, US-backed, invasion.

For your general enlightenment:

In 1992, a draft copy of a Defense Planning Guidance for that year was circulated around The Pentagon, before being scrapped after being leaked to The Washington Post. It called for the complete dominance of the USA after ther Cold War. Written by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Paul Wolfowitz and Zalmay Khalilzad.

Then, in 1996, the new PM of Israel, Benjamin Netanjahu of the Likud Party, commissioned a report from the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000". The six-page report they filed was entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm�. The authors were: Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser and Meyrav Wurmser. One of the ideals proposed was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Google the document title and you'll find out about it.

And then there's the PNAC.

Now, let's have a look at the BBC coverage of the Iranian stand off shall we? So far there has been very little mentioned about the International Law of the Sea and what it says about the waters of the Northern Persian Gulf and who owns what. In normal circumstances, a country's territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles from the shore and there is an aditional 12 miles called the Contigous Zone. However, due to the fact that the Shat al-Arab waterway moves, there are no designated territorial waters between Iran and Iraq, except where agreed by survey of the movement of the mouth of the Shat al-Arab waterway every 10 years.

I'll leave it there for now.

[markfiend]

@DeWinter & Markfiend. Could that be a case of selective perception? Meaning, one extracts from the media only what reinforces the prefabricated opinions?

Aye, possibly

[Arch Deviant]

So 15 sailers were captured for straying into Iranian waters. 14 men and 1 woman. Doesn't take a genius which one was reading the f**king map, does it!

[eotunun]

So 15 sailers were captured for straying into Iranian waters. 14 men and 1 woman. Doesn't take a genius which one was reading the f**king map, does it!

Yes!
It was: *B-dum-Tsh!* The Iranian comander!

[nowayjose]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 414760.ece

Interesting...

[GC]

@DeWinter & Markfiend. Could that be a case of selective perception? Meaning, one extracts from the media only what reinforces the prefabricated opinions?

Now that's just an annoyingly good comment.

[DeWinter]

@DeWinter & Markfiend. Could that be a case of selective perception? Meaning, one extracts from the media only what reinforces the prefabricated opinions?

Is prefabricated a word? I thought that had something to do with houses
I do understand what you mean though, and you might have a point, were it only me who though this.
The BBC are currently fighting to keep an internal report about biased reporting against Israel out of the public eye, according to the Independent.
The BBC's own Washington correspondant said that the organisation is hopelessly biased against America.
The BBC itself admitted it practises positive(huh?) discrimination.
You don't have to look too hard to find other examples as well,the funniest being when it had a debate on the license fee on it's website. All the panellists were in favour of it's retention, which was curious considering the public forum was 9-1 against it!

Now put those things together, and you have what you can only call bias, I think. And I would have the same problem if it did the exact opposite of all those things. The BBC's remit is to be impartial as a public service. If it can't do this, then it should become subscription only, so those who do agree with it's views are the ones who pay for it.


As for the long "Protocols of Zion"-esque post..
The notion that the Israeli's and the Americans didn't think Saddam paticularly good for regional stability doesn't make me draw in the breath with a startled gasp. It seems phenomenally sensible, since he had invaded a neighbour, after all. PNAC? I can't believe people are still banging on about this..I seem to remember the Soviets were quite keen on hegemony, too! As was Brittannia when it indeed did rule the waves.
Am I supposed to be shocked that a superpower sees itself as the dominant force in the world and wants to retain that?

Yes,lets look at the coverage of the Iranian stand off, shall we?!! (See,I can do condescending too!!)
Let's mention that those waters were actually being patrolled under a UN remit, that the crew of the British vessel were under orders not to engage in combat with other vessels and the Iranians were clearly well aware of this. Not much mention of that, I see, either. I had to find that out from newspapers rather than the BBC.

[Syberberg]

As for the long "Protocols of Zion"-esque post..
The notion that the Israeli's and the Americans didn't think Saddam paticularly good for regional stability doesn't make me draw in the breath with a startled gasp. It seems phenomenally sensible, since he had invaded a neighbour, after all. PNAC? I can't believe people are still banging on about this..I seem to remember the Soviets were quite keen on hegemony, too! As was Brittannia when it indeed did rule the waves.
Am I supposed to be shocked that a superpower sees itself as the dominant force in the world and wants to retain that?

So by quoting relevant documents I'm now an anti-Semite (which is, in and of itself, a wonderfull example of succesful propaganda, the Jews aren't the only Semetic People, Arabs are as well)? Get a life and do your bloody research rather than resorting to pathetic ad hominem-like attacks.

When a superpower is being lead by facists, yes it is relevant to refer back to their pre-power organisation, in this case the PNAC, expecially considering most of it's prominent members are now in positions of power in the US Administration and given what has happened in the years following Bush's stolen election and 9/11. (And before you start, no I don't believe that the attacks were an "inside job", nor do I subscrbe to the theories about the Towers and WTC-7 being brought down by controlled demolitions). Have you actually read any of the PNAC's documents and "Rebuliding America's Defences" in particular? I have.

Yes,lets look at the coverage of the Iranian stand off, shall we?!! (See,I can do condescending too!!)
Let's mention that those waters were actually being patrolled under a UN remit, that the crew of the British vessel were under orders not to engage in combat with other vessels and the Iranians were clearly well aware of this. Not much mention of that, I see, either. I had to find that out from newspapers rather than the BBC.

That still doesn't change the fact that, according to the International Law of the Sea (which both Britian and Iran have retified) , there is no exact deliniation of where Iraqi Territorial Waters end and Iran's start in the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The ROE for the RN is there to make sure no one starts an unwanted shooting war with Iran. In actual fact, in the first BBC online report and TV interview with the CO of HMS Cornwall, he mentioned the ROE and that the crews of the boats and acted in accordance with them. Might help if you got your facts straight by doing some research.

As for the issue about the BBC's anti-Isreali bias in their reporting, it actually doesn't go far enough in detailing the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and what the Isreali government actually puts the Palestinians through. In order to find out about that one generally has to refer to the work carried out by B'Tsalem, the Israeli Human Rights organisation that concerns itself with how the IDF behaves in the Occupied Territories and the various laws passed by the Knesset.

B'Tsalem website for those interested.

As for the rest about the BBC, can you please provide links to back up what you're saying, so I can make my own mind up about the validity of them or not.

[markfiend]

I'm reminded of a cartoon I once saw: (this was about 20 years ago)

Protestor 1:
. US Imperialism in Grenada!

Protestor 2:
. Out! Out! Out!

Protestor 1:
. Soviet Imperialism in Afghanistan!

Protestor 2:
. Out! Out! Out!

Protestor 1:
. Israeli Imperialism in Palestine!

Protestor 2:
. Hey! I took you for a good peacenik, turns out you're anti-Semitic!

[Dr. Moody]

Maybe a little off topic but interesting all the same.....

More servicemen and women have committed suicide over the past two decades than have died in military action, according to new figures.
The latest death toll for those in the armed forces who have taken their own lives has risen to 687 compared with 438 killed during active service in major conflicts such as the Gulf, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland.

Ministry of Defence (MoD) figures released this weekend also reveal that the number of suicides among servicemen and women has risen by at least 49 in a year. This is more than three times the number of soldiers killed since the start of war in Afghanistan in 2001 and has raised fresh concerns about the mental welfare of troops. Those most at risk of taking their own lives are soldiers in their early 20s and teenage army recruits.

The suicide figures are based on research by the Government’s Defence Analytical Services Agency (Dasa). Its latest report reveals that between 1984 and 2006, 687 armed-forces personnel killed themselves, a figure that includes 672 men and 15 women. This compares with 638 deaths between 1984 and 2005, and 624 up to 2004.

http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/13744/Armed ... bat_deaths

[markfiend]

Well, that's as maybe but I bet they're including the Deepcut Barracks deaths as suicide...

I'm sure there must be similar cases where murders in training barracks have been hushed up and made to look like suicide.

[eotunun]

@DeWinter & Markfiend. Could that be a case of selective perception? Meaning, one extracts from the media only what reinforces the prefabricated opinions?

Is prefabricated a word?

Now it is.

[lazarus corporation]

Anyway...

It's good to see that Iran has released the 15 British soldiers. And all by diplomacy and without any silly tit-for-tat arrests by the British that would only have escalated the situation (and which would probably resulted in the British soldiers not being released).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 525905.stm

(Obviously it could just be fiendish BBC propaganda )

[eotunun]

I just wonder if the tension that developes in the media and public when such chrises come up reminds anyone else than me a bit of the late twenties.
I don´t like what I see.

[DeWinter]

So by quoting relevant documents I'm now an anti-Semite (which is, in and of itself, a wonderfull example of succesful propaganda, the Jews aren't the only Semetic People, Arabs are as well)? Get a life and do your bloody research rather than resorting to pathetic ad hominem-like attacks.

When did I say anti-semite? Oh, and try not to use schoolboy put-downs. "Get a life"?? Sooo 1990's...

When a superpower is being lead by facists, yes it is relevant to refer back to their pre-power organisation, in this case the PNAC, expecially considering most of it's prominent members are now in positions of power in the US Administration and given what has happened in the years following Bush's stolen election and 9/11. (And before you start, no I don't believe that the attacks were an "inside job", nor do I subscrbe to the theories about the Towers and WTC-7 being brought down by controlled demolitions). Have you actually read any of the PNAC's documents and "Rebuliding America's Defences" in particular? I have.

No, the Americans are not facists. There has never been a facist government outside of Europe. Something Europe forgets, when it oh so frequently takes a sanctmonious moral high-tone. BFD if they wrote a paper with some dumb ideas on it. Unless you can show they're being acted on,it means nothing. As for Bush's stolen election, has it never occured to you that the reason Al Gore let it pass so tamely is because he was using the exact same tactics, or at least tactics that would not have stood up to much scrutiny following a tit for tat accusation?

Yes,lets look at the coverage of the Iranian stand off, shall we?!! (See,I can do condescending too!!)
Let's mention that those waters were actually being patrolled under a UN remit, that the crew of the British vessel were under orders not to engage in combat with other vessels and the Iranians were clearly well aware of this. Not much mention of that, I see, either. I had to find that out from newspapers rather than the BBC.

That still doesn't change the fact that, according to the International Law of the Sea (which both Britian and Iran have retified) , there is no exact deliniation of where Iraqi Territorial Waters end and Iran's start in the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The ROE for the RN is there to make sure no one starts an unwanted shooting war with Iran. In actual fact, in the first BBC online report and TV interview with the CO of HMS Cornwall, he mentioned the ROE and that the crews of the boats and acted in accordance with them. Might help if you got your facts straight by doing some research.
[/quote]
And that's HOW different from what I just said?

As for the issue about the BBC's anti-Isreali bias in their reporting, it actually doesn't go far enough in detailing the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and what the Isreali government actually puts the Palestinians through. In order to find out about that one generally has to refer to the work carried out by B'Tsalem, the Israeli Human Rights organisation that concerns itself with how the IDF behaves in the Occupied Territories and the various laws passed by the Knesset.

B'Tsalem website for those interested.

As for the rest about the BBC, can you please provide links to back up what you're saying, so I can make my own mind up about the validity of them or not.

I daresay the Israeli's would be delighted to give these areas back, were the Palestinians not so very fond of firing bombs at them. A buffer zone, plain and simple. At least there IS an Israeli human rights organisation that criticises. I'd be delighted if you could show me the Palestinian equivalent.
Links to BBC bias accusations..
Internal report, that they want surpressed.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/ ... 398870.ece

BBC reporter admitting bias against America
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

BBC reporter and positive discrimination(Which I myself hadn't noticed untill they actually bought it up)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... een_2.html

lazarus corporation:
Indeed. Iran managed to kidnap UK troops, expose the inability of our Navy to fight, the incompetence of the UN, and STILL come out of this smelling of roses. I begin to like Ahmenijihad as much as I like Putin for sheer cheek.

[Syberberg]

When did I say anti-semite?

You implied it when you used the phrase "Protocols of Zion"-esque". You do know what the Protocols of Zion is and who wrote it?

No, the Americans are not facists.

Quite true, but the neocons are fascists. At it's roots fascism happens when a government puts the interests of corporations above those of the people. A fascist governemtn also exhibits some or all of the following traits: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism. Pretty much all of those are behavioural traits of the Bush Administration. You obviously haven't been paying attention to the legislation the Republican Congress and the Bush White House have been passing since 2000. You might want to watch a documentary called "America: From Freedom to Fascism".

There has never been a facist government outside of Europe.

Erm, you're really wrong on that one. The majority of the military dictatorships that have existed since the end of WW2 have been fascist.

BFD if they wrote a paper with some dumb ideas on it. Unless you can show they're being acted on,it means nothing.

So which particular ideas within the paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" are "dumb"?
They are being and have been acted upon if you care to read what the PNAC were suggesting between 1997 and 2000. For example:

"November 13, 1998

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: MARK LAGON

SUBJECT: Iraq

Conservatives now agree that the only solution to the present Iraqi crisis is to remove Saddam from power. The sustained bombing campaign which the Clinton Administration has planned must be only the first step in a broad political-military strategy to accomplish that goal. As Senator Richard Lugar pointed out on Thursday, airstrikes alone “will not get the job done. And therefore, the planning really has to be for stages two, three, or four.�

Senator Lugar correctly argues, moreover, that a “credible program for the removal of Saddam Hussein [is] going to involve U.S. ground troops in due course.� “Ultimately, there’s likely to have to have to be some ground action, or at least a credible threat of that, for that regime to change.� In the end, Lugar observed, “the credibility of ground troops is very different than that of remote bombers or even more remote cruise missiles.�

As the present confrontation with Iraq unfolds, conservatives and congressional leaders will have to take Senator Lugar’s argument seriously. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration’s mishandling of U.S. policy toward Iraq has left the United States without any low-risk options for protecting American interest from a Saddam Hussein armed with weapons of mass destruction."

Pretty much every policy document put forward by the PNAC has been, or is being, enacted upon, since Bush/Cheney and the other members of the PNAC have come to power.

As for Bush's stolen election, has it never occured to you that the reason Al Gore let it pass so tamely is because he was using the exact same tactics, or at least tactics that would not have stood up to much scrutiny following a tit for tat accusation?

And your evidence is where?

And that's HOW different from what I just said?

You said:

Let's mention that those waters were actually being patrolled under a UN remit, that the crew of the British vessel were under orders not to engage in combat with other vessels and the Iranians were clearly well aware of this. Not much mention of that, I see, either. I had to find that out from newspapers rather than the BBC.

I proved you wrong. The BBC did indeed mention the ROE in an online report and in the intial intervierw with the CO of HMS Cornwall. You obviously weren't paying attention.

Here's the online report.

Whether HMS Cornwall and the RN in general are acting under a UN Charter or not, it still does not superceed the International Law of The Sea and the fact that neither the British nor the Iranians can categorically state whose territorial waters the Royal Marines and Royal Navy personnel where in when captured. The waters in and around the Shatt al-Arab waterway are under dispute and, according to the way the territorial boundaries are agreed upon (in that particular part of the Persian Gulf only), by survey every 10 years, and there have been no surveys since before the Iran/Iraq War, will remain so until such time as a survey is carried out, or an interim agreement is reached.

I daresay the Israeli's would be delighted to give these areas back, were the Palestinians not so very fond of firing bombs at them. A buffer zone, plain and simple.

What an amazing display of utter ignorance of what's going on and has been going on since the Israelis ethnically cleansed (and continue to do so) various parts of The Occupied Territories of Palestine and what the Palestinians have to put up with on a daily basis. If the Isrealis were willing to had back the land, why are they still building illegal settlements in the West Bank? The most recent one is currently being build in the center of Hebron. Why haven't the Israelis withdrawn back to their 1967 borders as per UN Resolution and the Oslo Accords? Why is there an IDF naval blockade of Gaza which prevents Palestinian fishermen from putting to sea and, therefore, contributing to the malnurishment of Palestinains living in Gaza? Why are members of the IDF using Palestinians as human shields when searching houses in Gaza and the West Bank? I could go on, but if you did the necessary research on the matter, you'd know all about it.

Certainly, there is a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians that want to live in peace with each other, afterall, they managed to do so prior to the British creation of Israel after attacks by Zionist terrorist organisation Irgun from 1945 to 1947. Unfortunately, the far-right, Zionist Likud Party have other ideas.

At least there IS an Israeli human rights organisation that criticises. I'd be delighted if you could show me the Palestinian equivalent.

Certainly:

Al Haq

PRHO

Palestinian Center for Human Rights

Links to BBC bias accusations..

Internal report, that they want surpressed.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/ ... 398870.ece

Ah, the Israeli government got upset about a BBC documentary about Mordecai Vananu, who blew the whistle on Israel's nuclear weapons and they get all upset when the world gets to see pictures of the IDF shooting Palestinian teenagers throwing rocks at tanks? Sorry, not buying that one. I'm getting just a bit sick and tried of the Israeli government, primarily the Likud Party, claiming to be the innocent victims and non agressors when all the evidence points at exactly the opposite being the case.

BBC reporter admitting bias against America
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

Rather typical of the Daily Mail. I mean, of course the BBC has gone downhill, with all those homosexuals and liberals running the place, what do you expect? Yeah, I'll take that report with the utmost seriousness.

BBC reporter and positive discrimination(Which I myself hadn't noticed untill they actually bought it up)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... een_2.html

I have no problem with what is explained there, unless you have a problem with seeing ethnic minorities on the BBC?

Iran managed to kidnap UK troops, expose the inability of our Navy to fight, the incompetence of the UN, and STILL come out of this smelling of roses.

And again you display a breathtaking amount of ignorance on the subject at hand. The ROE in this case, are there to prevent a shooting war with Iran from breaking out. Which is perfectly sensible. I take it from your comments on this that you have never served in the Armed Forces?

[markfiend]

I don't know if fascist is exactly the word I'd use but...

This is the course catalogue for Patrick Henry College.

Looking through the PDF for statements about politics is downright scary. A combination of submission to authority, overthrow of illegitimate authority, and, in a different part of the document, a description of what makes a government legitimate. Put the three together and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they do, in fact, want to see an authoritarian theocracy in this country.

As of the end of 2004, seven White House interns were from Patrick Henry, not including the one who worked for Karl Rove. Another intern worked for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, while another worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. 22 members of Congress had employed one or more Patrick Henry interns.

(This is out of approx 300 students.)

Welcome to the Republic of Gilead...

[mik]

Anyway...

It's good to see that Iran has released the 15 British soldiers. And all by diplomacy and without any silly tit-for-tat arrests by the British that would only have escalated the situation (and which would probably resulted in the British soldiers not being released).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 525905.stm

(Obviously it could just be fiendish BBC propaganda )

Personally I think any of the 15 who collaborated with their captors and gave statements thanking the Iranians for their kind treatment and hospitality should be reduced to the ranks and dishonourably discharged from the forces.

Name, Rank and Serial Number; and keep your eighties Top Man shiny suits for yourselves; I'll keep my uniform on thanks.

Disgraceful.

[DeWinter]

Personally I think any of the 15 who collaborated with their captors and gave statements thanking the Iranians for their kind treatment and hospitality should be reduced to the ranks and dishonourably discharged from the forces.

Name, Rank and Serial Number; and keep your eighties Top Man shiny suits for yourselves; I'll keep my uniform on thanks.

Disgraceful.

I don't know wether you're being sarcastic or not. If you are, it's probably a sad reflection on me that I agree. They are saying now that they were afraid of being executed or given a jail sentence. Which is curious, as you join the Navy expecting to get shot at, blown up, and possibly captured and slung in a jail, one would think..

[DeWinter]

You implied it when you used the phrase "Protocols of Zion"-esque". You do know what the Protocols of Zion is and who wrote it?

Yes, essentially a book describing how the jewry plot to rule the world, fabricated in Russia some time ago. Widely discredited, except in the Arab world, I believe you can buy it in the streets of Iran without having to look too hard. It's giving credence to paranoid conspiracy theories that I accuse you of, rather than anti-semitism. Besides, one can be anti-Israeli without being anti-semite, I suppose,

Quite true, but the neocons are fascists. At it's roots fascism happens when a government puts the interests of corporations above those of the people. A fascist governemtn also exhibits some or all of the following traits: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism. Pretty much all of those are behavioural traits of the Bush Administration. You obviously haven't been paying attention to the legislation the Republican Congress and the Bush White House have been passing since 2000. You might want to watch a documentary called "America: From Freedom to Fascism"..

Everything you've just said could be applied to any other country I can think of. All the above applies to our most esteemed European Union, yet I wouldn't call it fascist, and I dearly love to call it names. And I think I'll avoid a film that makes its agenda pretty blatantly in it's title. My ribs havent recovered from laughing at the mistakes in Micheal Moore's last magnum opus on that particular subject.

Erm, you're really wrong on that one. The majority of the military dictatorships that have existed since the end of WW2 have been fascist. .

No, they've been Marxist/Communist. Peron, Castro, Mao, Allende,Kim, Stalin, arguably even Mugabe. If you want fascism, you have to come to Europe, home of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar. I'm sorry to tell you this, as you'll doubtless dislike the idea, but the most repressive regimes the globe has ever known, have been of the political Left, not Right. Don't forget the most famous ones, the German National Socialists.

They are being and have been acted upon if you care to read what the PNAC were suggesting between 1997 and 2000. For example:

"November 13, 1998

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: MARK LAGON

SUBJECT: Iraq

Conservatives now agree that the only solution to the present Iraqi crisis is to remove Saddam from power. The sustained bombing campaign which the Clinton Administration has planned must be only the first step in a broad political-military strategy to accomplish that goal. As Senator Richard Lugar pointed out on Thursday, airstrikes alone “will not get the job done. And therefore, the planning really has to be for stages two, three, or four.�

Senator Lugar correctly argues, moreover, that a “credible program for the removal of Saddam Hussein [is] going to involve U.S. ground troops in due course.� “Ultimately, there’s likely to have to have to be some ground action, or at least a credible threat of that, for that regime to change.� In the end, Lugar observed, “the credibility of ground troops is very different than that of remote bombers or even more remote cruise missiles.�

As the present confrontation with Iraq unfolds, conservatives and congressional leaders will have to take Senator Lugar’s argument seriously. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration’s mishandling of U.S. policy toward Iraq has left the United States without any low-risk options for protecting American interest from a Saddam Hussein armed with weapons of mass destruction."

Pretty much every policy document put forward by the PNAC has been, or is being, enacted upon, since Bush/Cheney and the other members of the PNAC have come to power.

I remember after the first Gulf War, it was accepted wisdom that Hussein should have been ousted. And that we had led the Kurds to believe we would assist them in doing so, therefore some responsibility laid with us when their uprising was crushed. Again, nothing there that strikes me as particularly radical far-right thinking.

And your evidence is where?

Same place as yours for claiming Bush stole the election:The Realm of Speculation and Conjecture. .
Neither you or I are experts on the American electoral system, but I bet you Al Gore is, and his top-notch electoral team, and lawyers. I there was ANY proof of those allegations, you can bet Gore would have snapped it up. But he didn't, he accepted he'd lost with good grace and never made any kind of allegation. Now either he didnt believe any of these theories, he couldn't prove them, or he didnt want the methods used by both sides investigated.

I proved you wrong. The BBC did indeed mention the ROE in an online report and in the intial intervierw with the CO of HMS Cornwall. You obviously weren't paying attention.

Here's the online report.

Whether HMS Cornwall and the RN in general are acting under a UN Charter or not, it still does not superceed the International Law of The Sea and the fact that neither the British nor the Iranians can categorically state whose territorial waters the Royal Marines and Royal Navy personnel where in when captured. The waters in and around the Shatt al-Arab waterway are under dispute and, according to the way the territorial boundaries are agreed upon (in that particular part of the Persian Gulf only), by survey every 10 years, and there have been no surveys since before the Iran/Iraq War, will remain so until such time as a survey is carried out, or an interim agreement is reached.