Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Apr 5, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Personally I think it was at least not bad.
Need you ask?
I deliberately excluded an option: Blair is a c**t anyway.
Really the question is not so sensless as you suggest. There are also other questions:
- What would be right approach to resolve the crisis?
- What other British politicians (potential PM's) would do?
- What should be done to prevent similar cases in the future?
you should add, "lets wait till the facts are in."
USA doesn't look too impressed with how we handled it. From the beeb:
However, former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said President Ahmadinejad was the clear winner and had been strengthened in his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
"President Ahmadinejad comes out of this as a winner on two counts," he said.
"He won by seizing British hostages and he won by unilaterally deciding to release them, having found out the answer to the question I think he was posing, which is - how strong a response will Britain make to this act of taking captive these 15 service members?
"The reaction was - not much at all. I think Ahmadinejad is actually emboldened in his pursuit of nuclear weapons, and I think that means more trouble ahead for all of us."
Very worrying to think we may have confirmed how weak we are.
The thing to remeber here is that the Iranians would only release the captives if they didn't appear to lose face.
Tony and his advisors have managed to give the Iranians an 'out' from this situation.
The result is the important factor here. The 15 are free, no one is dead. The rest is irrelevant.
I think you are just being rather cynical. If that was the case, every time the Iranians wanted to get something, they'd grab some hostages, do a deal and the 'magnanimously' release them.
I think it's just coincidental that just before the prisoners are released, various communiques (the contents of which are kept secret) are sent back and forth, whilst at the same time, bilateral talks are agreed AND the Iranians get to see their terrorists in American hands.
From my point of view few (maybe insignificant) mistakes have been done.
The declaration that the Brits were captured in Iraqi waters was rather a mistake. So mr.Blair in fact suggested that if it would be established that the Brits were captured in Iranian waters then it would be right to arrest then, detain for a long period.
If I were mr.Blair then I would propose this explanation.
HMS Cornwall was not in Iranian waters, the merchant ship searched by British crew was not in Iranian waters too. On their way to HMS Cornwall, British boats could indeliberately and insignificantly enter Iranian waters due navigational mistake, weather conditions, turbulent waters and so on. According to our data it hasn't happened but anyway there exist a right for innocent passage through territorial waters. So anyway British servicemen and woman must be released.
Map presented by the MoD is also a mistake. The water border between Iran and Iraq in Persian Gulf simply doesn't exist. There is no agreement about it. So in fact the UK officially supported Iraq in the dispute around the border. At least on this stage it is a wrong decision.
I'd like to know what Blair's policy actually was. Seemed to me that he and the ghastly Beckett were being entirely driven by events. It was the Iranian's decision to release, and it could have gone on until they tired of the situation.
What is clear is that we have very few allies in Europe, or anywhere else, for that matter.
I wonder why that might be. Maybe it's an indicator of British Diplomatic abilities...
Of course now everyone will be claiming kudos for the release. However, I'd like to see a proper investigation into the exact circumstances of both the Naval and Political actions.
Or maybe it's the fact that we've handed over control of our foreign policy to a shaved chimp in a suit?
Unsworth I agree, BLiar did not appear to be driving events, rather they were passengers. As for Europe we have few allies and given that periodicaly we hear whispers of a euro army I find that odd.
On the whole I think he was lucky that Iran did not keep them. I was glad to see the TLAMS were not flying around as many Americans suggested was best.
Or maybe its the fact that none of us has any idea which parties were lobbying who in the background to this whole sorry affair.
I suspect quite a few "influences" were brought to bear in the last few weeks.....
Far too early to give a considered answer.
HMG, on Blair's watch, got the result we all wanted, and thank God for that.
What the wider effects of his government's stance will be remains to be seen.
So, in light of current info., a plaudit for Blair's govt. And his remarks today, as the 15 landed at LHR just hours after 4 soldiers and an interpreter lost their lives in Basra, were entirely appropriate.
Some very entertaining stuff in this thread and some of the others - there is a good link on the other thread to some international press (Indian) who have zero sympathy for our position and TB's handling.
Policy outcomes ? The strengthening of Ahmadinejad internationally and domestically (his perception at any rate), and a visibly, weakened UK, are just two of the outcomes of this fiasco. And that is before the tornado of recrimination and blame erupts all over our screens in the coming days/weeks. As a 2nd order effect, domestic turmoil and disharmony, this on its own was was well worth the Iranian outlay.
Boy have we underestimated Ahmadinejad, which again is something a couple of the posts reflect on. His timing and sense of theatre are outstanding - on the 25th anniversary of the Falklands (cue much soul searching), he hijacks British sailors, releases them as an Easter present, and has the neck to tell the Iranian people he will be asking TB not to try the crew for their "crime" when they return to the UK !!?!!?!? Inspired is not the world, but it certainly suggests an understanding of how we work many orders of magnitude better than we understand them.
Firstly the USA may have some comentators who say we handled it badly, but they are home and well, from a country that thinks justice is hanging raped women for having sex outside marriage is OK.
Now why did Imadinnerjacket (who seems perhaps to have been on of the leaders in the US Embassy hostage fiasco) let our guys go, with no appology from Tone. He may be a master of the stage managed show, but he depnds very much on countries like France and Russia who were not that happy about the capture and may well have done some private leaning on the Iranians. It is clear a lot happened behind closed doors over the past few days to make Dinnerjacket suddenly cave in how ever he dressed it up, he caved in.
Separate names with a comma.