NorthSideSox72 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 06:29 AM) From what I understand, both sides know exactly where they were, but the waters are claimed by both Iran and Iraq historically. Exactly what I was getting at. GPS data serves no purpose at this point (dealing directly with Iran, in a dialogue). If this escalates, then it comes into play. And... apparently things continue to escalate. UK releases location data. This is pretty much the step before asking for permission/assistance from a few other countries to go in and get their boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 I guess this is a pretty tense thing. A rumor got out last night that some sort of military action was taking place, and everything went nuts. Crude went up $5 a barrel on the overnights, along with the dollar getting crushed, gold and silver rallying, and stocks getting punished. Turns out it wasn't true, but it made for an interesting evening. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8O4PVHG7.htm Attack rumor sends oil prices higher The U.S. military denied reports Tuesday that Iran fired a missile at a U.S. ship in the Persian Gulf. The rumors of an attack had sent oil prices soaring more than 8 percent in after-hours trading. Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown of the U.S. Navy 5th Fleet said all ships in the Gulf had been checked and the rumors were untrue. A Navy spokesman in Washington, Cmdr. Dave Werner, also said the Navy had no indication that any of its ships has been attacked. Crude oil futures jumped in a matter of minutes, topping $68 as rumors of a military confrontation in the Persian Gulf spurred panic buying, Dow Jones reported. The price eased lower to $64.10 less than two hours after the spike, but it was still above its settlement of $62.93 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Rising tensions between Tehran and the West have created a potentially dangerous situation in the Gulf, and markets are jumpy. Tehran continues to hold 15 British sailors it captured Friday, giving no indications of their whereabouts despite repeated pleas for their release from Britain, the United States and the European Union. The British government on Tuesday also denied it was involved in any action in the region. "There have certainly been no developments on our side in the last few hours," a Foreign Office spokeswoman in London said, on condition of anonymity in line with government policy. Meanwhile, the U.S. kicked off a military training operation in the Persian Gulf on Tuesday that commanders said was meant to send a warning to Iran. The operations are the largest show of U.S. force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Brits said this morning their sailors were 2 miles inside of Iraqi waters when the incident occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 *********************************************************** British servicewoman seized by Iran to be released Wednesday or Thursday 2 hours, 5 minutes ago RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - Iran will free a detained British servicewoman on Wednesday or Thursday, the Iranian foreign minister told the Associated Press. "Today or tomorrow, the lady will be released," Manouchehr Mottaki said Wednesday on the sidelines of an Arab summit that he was attending in the Saudi capital. The woman is among 15 British sailors and marines detained by Iran in disputed waters off the Iranian-Iraqi coast last week, sparking a crisis between Iran and Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Also in that article, the rhetoric coming from Iran is softening on it maybe being a mistake, and it seems the Iranians have also changed their mind at least once on where the seizure supposedly occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Let's see if the gas prices drop as fast as they went up yesterday. Tuesday AM, $2.45. When I left for home yesterday, $2.79. I managed to find one station that hadn't raised their price yet, but this morning, they were $2.79 like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Anyone care to remember the USS Pueblo and their capture by the Koreans in 1968? Separate comment, not linked to above. When these things happen, it always seems that one country is trying to provoke or expand the "line in the sand". If we go here and they didn't attack, tomorrow we will go here, and then here, and here. Many boundaries are established like that. I'm guessing there is some blame to go all the way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 10:07 AM) Let's see if the gas prices drop as fast as they went up yesterday. Tuesday AM, $2.45. When I left for home yesterday, $2.79. I managed to find one station that hadn't raised their price yet, but this morning, they were $2.79 like everyone else. Yesterday has nothing to do with the rise in gas prices. The gasoline futures are up 50% since their lows because of a mix of things. The Iran thing has just been icing on the cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(Soxy @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 12:03 PM) No, but they are also led by a crazy person who is rapidly losing the support of the common people. Which country? Iran or the U.S.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Iran has aired footage of the prisoners on TV, which as I understand it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 11:54 AM) Iran has aired footage of the prisoners on TV, which as I understand it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Seriously, is the Geneva Convention relevent today? I think it's time for a new set of rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 10:54 AM) Iran has aired footage of the prisoners on TV, which as I understand it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. So would have been trying them for espionage, if they tried to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 10:33 AM) So would have been trying them for espionage, if they tried to do that. So you have a problem in this case with someone being tried on trumped up charges against the Geneva conventions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Some people argue that the Iran seizure of the British naval vessel has a lot to do with Iranian diplomats currently being held by the US in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 12:40 PM) So you have a problem in this case with someone being tried on trumped up charges against the Geneva conventions? They are in uniform, not clandistine agents operating behind enemy lines. Go for enemy combatants if you want, but spying would be against the GC. Article 46 of the GC states: 2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces. So even if they were within sight of the coast, espionage wouldn't be correct. The charges wouldn't be trumped up, they would be complete fantasy. Edited March 28, 2007 by Alpha Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 12:32 PM) Some people argue that the Iran seizure of the British naval vessel has a lot to do with Iranian diplomats currently being held by the US in Iraq. Even if that's 100% their reasoning...how smart is it to try to convince the Bush Administration to back down by escalating a potentially military situation? "No Mr. Bush, I will not give you my lunch money, you're going to have to take it" (Machine gun fire is heard). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Since it was asked before, according to the Brits, Britain's Defense Ministry said global positioning data showed the British sailors and marines were 1.7 nautical miles within Iraqi waters when they were captured by Iranian gunboats near the waterway that separates Iran and Iraq. While according to Iraq, Iran's embassy in London said the British sailors and marines were 0.5 km inside Iranian waters at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 02:32 PM) Some people argue that the Iran seizure of the British naval vessel has a lot to do with Iranian diplomats currently being held by the US in Iraq. Iran is the best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 More fun...Iran says British must admit they were in Iranian territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 04:39 PM) Even if that's 100% their reasoning...how smart is it to try to convince the Bush Administration to back down by escalating a potentially military situation? "No Mr. Bush, I will not give you my lunch money, you're going to have to take it" (Machine gun fire is heard). They're betting on the fact that this can last for a couple weeks, maybe get their guys out of custody and be a nonthreatening enough situation to keep from any kind of serious military attack on Iran from the US due to our overstretched military position in the reason. That's my guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 This was designed to overshadow the fact that we're doing miliary excercises right off their coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 29, 2007 Author Share Posted March 29, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 29, 2007 -> 07:25 AM) This was designed to overshadow the fact that we're doing miliary excercises right off their coast. Actually I am going to disagree with you. The whole thrust of their build ups, things such as buying missiles, supplying the nuclear know-how etc, has been that it is all for peaceful and defensive purposes. They have been playing the victim to American aggression card like it is going out of style. This actually would have been the perfect chance for them to cry victim again, as the American military is now playing outside of their sandbox. Kidnapping someone else's military doesn't play into that at all. This move is to try to unite the public inside Iraq behind the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 29, 2007 -> 09:04 AM) Actually I am going to disagree with you. The whole thrust of their build ups, things such as buying missiles, supplying the nuclear know-how etc, has been that it is all for peaceful and defensive purposes. They have been playing the victim to American aggression card like it is going out of style. This actually would have been the perfect chance for them to cry victim again, as the American military is now playing outside of their sandbox. Kidnapping someone else's military doesn't play into that at all. This move is to try to unite the public inside Iraq behind the government. Heh. Freudian typo? I do agree with your point as well, about Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts