>>[...]

>>> "We are now in a new phase of diplomatic activity," British Foreign
>Secretary
>>> Margaret Beckett told members of parliament.

>>> "We need to focus all our bilateral efforts during this phase to
>resolution of
>>> this issue," she added. "We will therefore be imposing a freeze on all
>other
>>> official bilateral business with Iran until this situation is resolved."

>>It's a pity, that it has never crossed Margaret Beckett's mind that the
>>British navy should stay in the English Channel, rather then harass the
>>locals at the Shat-El-Arab. But the British genes of imperial aggression
>>  take a long time to be eradicated after 500 years of nurturing them.

>Oh look! Moralizing from a racist hypocrite living in the Occupied First
>Nations.

>Done scalped any o' yo' slaves or injuns today, sport?

>>>> CNN as usual knows nothing. There is no internationally recognised
>>>> boarder
>>>> between Iraqi and Iranian waters. They went into a disputed area and
>>> started
>>>> boarding foreign vessels. The map produced by the UK claiming to show a
>>> boarder
>>>> is a work of pure fiction - I repeat there is NO recognised boarder;
>>>> that
>>> sea
>>>> area is disputed. This information emerged today from Craig Murray,
>>>> former
>>> Head
>>>> of Maritime Section, FCO, London - a man with great deal more
>>>> credibility
>>> than
>>>> the bunch of lying scum bags who took us to war in Iraq.
>>> The border, not boarder, might be expected to lie half way between the
>>> countries each side of the Gulf.  Which side of the mid line was the
>>> dhow
>>> stopped and searched?

>>> R

>> I have several maps of the mid-east which show the line.  
>> Traditionally, in the middle east every side has their own map showing
>> any line that they want.  And they are subject to change at any time,
>> especially if you are in the vicinity and they want to pick a fight,
>> which is at any time.

>> I am most almost maybe positively correct when I say that the British
>> crew had a (probably NATO) map, and that the Iranians did not.  And
>> that not only are the lines different, but the name of every place is
>> also different.  In fact the only thing that might be the same is the
>> color of the water - and even that will be subject to argument.

>> Even Microsoft Streets & Trips (which probably comes with most
>> computers) shows "a" line.

> No maritime boundary agreement between Iraq and Iran has been lodged
> with the UN. Until that happens there is no internationally recognised
> boundary. The actions of Iran seem perfectly sensible to prevent the
> establishment of a de facto boundary to their disadvantage. Our
> interceptions should be kept well out of any possible disputed area -
> indeed most customs interventions are conducted once the ship has docked.

>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:46:09 +0100, Scott <blackh...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:

>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:

>>>>> Stunning admission by female sailor

>>>>> Story Highlights

>>>>> . NEW: Female sailor writes letter to parents admitting entering
>>>>> Iranian waters . NEW: Video footage of sailors shown on Iranian
>>>>> television shows them eating . UK foreign secretary says Britain will
>>>>> freeze bilateral business with Iran . Iran says sailors, captured
>>>>> while boarding vessels, were in Iranian waters
>>>>> LONDON, England (CNN)

>>> <snip>

>>> CNN as usual knows nothing. There is no internationally recognised
>>> boarder between Iraqi and Iranian waters. They went into a disputed
>>> area and started boarding foreign vessels. The map produced by the UK
>>> claiming to show a boarder is a work of pure fiction - I repeat there
>>> is NO recognised boarder; that sea area is disputed. This information
>>> emerged today from Craig Murray, former Head of Maritime Section,
>>> FCO, London - a man with great deal more credibility than the bunch
>>> of lying scum bags who took us to war in Iraq.

>> You are thinking that Iran thought the area was disputed and therefore
>> took hostages because it was disputed?

> Of course, even you Zeno can't dispute that that the UK sailors were
> captured in the Persian Gulf. Not Iranians captured in the English Cannel.

> Only hypocrites or soft brained ones can only call this defense. What
> category do you belong to, Zeno?

>>>> Oh look! Moralizing from a racist hypocrite living in the Occupied
>>>> First
>>>> Nations.
>>> Shouldn't this be in the subject line of your post?  You know, to sorta
>>> let folks know what's about to follow.....

>> Is that a folklaw around these parts?

> Sho nuff.

>>>>> The video also showed some of the other British detainees eating.
>>>>> All appeared to be in good health.

>>>>> The letter said she regretted entering Iranian waters in the
>>>>> Persian Gulf.
>>>> God you are gullible
>>> I don't know about gullible but (1) British person imprisoned by
>>> foreign country  says she broke the law, she must have been pressured
>>> into lying.  (2) Foreign national imprisoned by UK or US admits to
>>> being a terrorist, it must be the truth.
>> And I supose you think she was wearing the headress of her own
>> freewill?

> Like the Gitmo captives are wearing orange jumpsuits and blindfolds
> of their own free will, eh asswipe?

>>>> The guns of the frigate should have been covering
>>>> the boats at all times.
>>> <snip>

>>> Agreed.  With guns manned and at ready (or whatever seatalk is for ready
>>> to
>>> fire).  The dinghies should never have been allowed to move out of range,
>>> or the frigate should have moved with them as necessary.

>> IIUC, Cornwall's only "manned" guns are machine guns no bigger, and
>> probably smaller, than those fitted to an Iranian launch. Her fully
>> automatic weapons include a 4.5" gun, great for hitting football pitches
>> at 10 miles - which would quite possibly be the result if it was fired
>> (ISTR sheep on a headland being killed when a warship got the angle wrong
>> by 180 degrees during a practice shoot). Plus a couple of anti-missile
>> "Gatling" guns that can't be targetted against surface craft*..

>> Cornwall has no armour plating and machine gun bullets and RPGs would pass
>> through into the innards with little difficulty. Where practically every
>> shot would hit something or someone that doesn't take kindly to machine
>> gun bullets and RPGs...

>> So which do you reckon would come off worst?

>> Once again this shows how hopelessly ill-equipped the UK armed forces are
>> and how they have to make do with what they have, inappropriate and
>> dangerous as it is. What is needed to "police" this area is fast patrol
>> boats capable of higher speed than smugglers (and Iranians..), armed with
>> a 30mm gun.

>> What should have been doing the interceptions, this close to land, were
>> *Iraqi* boats - we have heard a little about the training of Iraqi
>> soldiers, but is Iraq going to be permitted a coastal defence force and an
>> air force as well???

> Did Iraq have a navy at all recently?  If so, what happened to it?

>>> FACE wrote:

>>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:38:44 +1200,  in uk.politics.misc "Roger
>>>> Dewhurst"
>>>> <dewhu...@wave.co.nz>, wrote <snip>

>>>>> The guns of the frigate should have been covering
>>>>> the boats at all times.

>>>> <snip>

>>>> Agreed.  With guns manned and at ready (or whatever seatalk is for
>>>> ready to
>>>> fire).  The dinghies should never have been allowed to move out of
>>>> range,
>>>> or the frigate should have moved with them as necessary.

>>> IIUC, Cornwall's only "manned" guns are machine guns no bigger, and
>>> probably smaller, than those fitted to an Iranian launch. Her fully
>>> automatic weapons include a 4.5" gun, great for hitting football
>>> pitches at 10 miles - which would quite possibly be the result if it
>>> was fired (ISTR sheep on a headland being killed when a warship got
>>> the angle wrong by 180 degrees during a practice shoot). Plus a
>>> couple of anti-missile "Gatling" guns that can't be targetted against
>>> surface craft*..

>>> Cornwall has no armour plating and machine gun bullets and RPGs would
>>> pass through into the innards with little difficulty. Where
>>> practically every shot would hit something or someone that doesn't
>>> take kindly to machine gun bullets and RPGs...

>> When I first read this I thought you were kidding.  Then I looked up
>> the specifications on the Cornwall's weapons.
>> Compared to a British ship US ships are bristling with 'line-of-sight'
>> weapons.  Even our anti-aircraft missiles can be used for direct fire
>> against surface targets.

>> BTW - what possible reason would anybody have for putting a 5" gun on
>> a warship that cannot engage surface targets?

> The 4.5" gun *can* be used against surface targets - provided they don't
> attack from aft of midships, aren't too close, have a big enough radar
> cross sectional area, the sea isn't too rough( too much clutter), the
> captain isn't worried about hitting anything beyond them (eg the odd
> tanker), etc..

> Most of the above applies to SAMs used against surface targets, US Navy
> ones included. Plus they have to hit the target as the warhead fusing is
> inhibited. Chances against a speedboat - zero.

> US warships in the Gulf also have had a load of machine guns fitted
> around the uppoer deck - they are just about as vulnerable to a fleet of
> fast, samll, craft as the RN ones.

> Think Luke Skywalker and DeathStars...

>>gn gnu d wrote:

>>> Oh look! Moralizing from a racist hypocrite living in the Occupied
First
>>> Nations.

>>Shouldn't this be in the subject line of your post?  You know, to sorta
>>let folks know what's about to follow.....

>Gosh, how witty, LOL.
>Surely you have a corpse somewhere to defile or something.

>>_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:

>>[...]

>>>"We are now in a new phase of diplomatic activity," British Foreign

> Secretary

>>>Margaret Beckett told members of parliament.

>>>"We need to focus all our bilateral efforts during this phase to

> resolution of

>>>this issue," she added. "We will therefore be imposing a freeze on all

> other

>>>official bilateral business with Iran until this situation is resolved."

>>It's a pity, that it has never crossed Margaret Beckett's mind that the
>>British navy should stay in the English Channel, rather then harass the
>>locals at the Shat-El-Arab. But the British genes of imperial aggression
>> take a long time to be eradicated after 500 years of nurturing them.

> Oh look! Moralizing from a racist hypocrite living in the Occupied First
> Nations.

> Done scalped any o' yo' slaves or injuns today, sport?

>> ray wrote:

>> [......................]
>>>> Thus Spake Earth's Angel;

>>>> So that's what ruined Bush's life, and made a
>>>> drunken alcoholic Christian out of him?

>>> A ruined life?  A multi-millionaire, a popular person, the father of a
>>> successful and attractive family.  So how is your life these days?

>> --
>> Thus Spake Earth's Angel;

>> Ummm... not _too_ bad, How's yorn?

>> But, Bush will wind up like Saddam Hussien in your lifetime.

> I seriously doubt it.  Your wet dream is for that to happen, and this is
> understandable given you and our ilk consider your fellow American to be
> a greater enemy than those who wish you dead.