What no thread on this here yet?

I just wanted to say that I think that whole situation is a little fishy, I don't entirely buy the UK story. It kind of sounds more like some covert operation that got screwed up and they got caught. One question that doesn't seem to be mentioned or even asked is where was the UK support ship when they were supposively searching a merchant ship? Normally the support ship is not far away and should have been close enough to prevent Iran from seizing those marines.

00 agents don't use support ships!

James Bond failed

What no thread on this here yet?

I just wanted to say that I think that whole situation is a little fishy, I don't entirely buy the UK story. It kind of sounds more like some covert operation that got screwed up and they got caught. One question that doesn't seem to be mentioned or even asked is where was the UK support ship when they were supposively searching a merchant ship? Normally the support ship is not far away and should have been close enough to prevent Iran from seizing those marines.

I think the main ship was at a distance and the captured people were on smaller launch boats used to catch and board civilian boats in the area. It's not that Iran showed up and snatched them before the british navy could respond, it's more that they didn't want to escalate the situation or put their personnel in danger when they realized exactly what had happened.

Anyway I'm not sure what to make of this. This has happened before innnn 2004 I think, and the captured navy personnel confessed to being in Iranian waters - but they were in Iranian custody at the time. The captain of the ship in question denies they were where they shouldn't have been, but he would say that and apparently he has a bit of a reputation. This current incident smacks of the 'he said/she said' stuff - apparently the UK will release evidence that the navy was in the right place, if the prisoners aren't released in the next few days, but the UK government had a lot of 'evidence' about pre-invasion Iraq.

Plus the border is apparently disputed, and with all the pressure and intimidation on Iran it's understandable that they'd assert their right to protect their territory by arresting any incursions into it. I guess we'll have to see

This is a heaven sent pretext for an excuse to invade Iran. This is what the "coalition of the willing" has been looking for.

all you weenies thought i was fucking crazy when i posted that Iran WW3 shit a while back.

suck my d

i'm pretty sure this will diffuse and there's no cause for concern. i love how the price of oil has spiked so dramatically.

I'd bet a good fortune the UK soldiers were, indeed, in Iran's waters - or at least waters Iran believes they control.

It's not the first time UK marines have been found where they weren't supposed to be ...

I'd bet a good fortune the UK soldiers were, indeed, in Iran's waters - or at least waters Iran believes they control.

It's not the first time UK marines have been found where they weren't supposed to be ...
by incompetence or by design? :)

What no thread on this here yet?
Because lots of people aren't posting on Netphoria at the moment?

this underscores the tinderbox that the middle east is.

it's possible this scenario provides a pre-text for the west to invade Iran...Blair, Bush and Mr. Prophet are each looking for their legacy while they have the seats of power, but won't for long...

some Russia intel suggest we invade in a week. Bush has been rumoured he challenged China buy threatening to knock Iran's oil supply to them before they wipe out our currency...

place your bets, window closes at first launch.

i'm pretty sure this will diffuse and there's no cause for concern. i love how the price of oil has spiked so dramatically.

<secret message for the illuminati>

When did England become as spineless as France anyway?

When did England become as spineless as France anyway?

NUKE 'EM ALL!!

it seems a show trial is now pending...

the rules of engagement leave a lot to be desired. they should be armed to the teeth but were sent in with hand pistols. ridiculous.

Iran have either overstepped their bounds or are weakening western resolve, time will tell. Too bad England is so stricken and scared and paralyzed as to not pluck off an Iranian naval ship per day until they get their soldiers back. alas, here lies western civ. r.i.p. 2007 due to weakened spined from bleeding hearts.

it seems a show trial is now pending...

the rules of engagement leave a lot to be desired. they should be armed to the teeth but were sent in with hand pistols. ridiculous.

Iran have either overstepped their bounds or are weakening western resolve, time will tell. Too bad England is so stricken and scared and paralyzed as to not pluck off an Iranian naval ship per day until they get their soldiers back. alas, here lies western civ. r.i.p. 2007 due to weakened spined from bleeding hearts.

NUKE 'EM ALL!!!

P.S. why'd you stop posting in the Al Gore thread? I thought you'd be interested in the updates

I guess this time next week we'll be reading in the papers about how those British sailors were beheaded.

Britain should apologize and Iran should quit acting like fucking terrorists with their stupid videos

Britain would have apologised in a heartbeat if it was their fault. They're British for fucks sake.

I guess this time next week we'll be reading in the papers about how those British sailors were beheaded.

If you subscribe to the Weekly World News, sure

Anyone heard anything about this before?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html

A Deadly U.S.-Iran Firefight

The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, the main U.S. military outpost in Iraq's eastern Diyala Province bordering Iran, U.S. troops recount events reluctantly, offering details only on condition that they remain nameless. Everyone seems to sense the possible consequences of revealing that a clash between U.S. and Iranian forces had turned deadly. And although the Pentagon has acknowledged that a firefight took place, it says it cannot say anything more. "For that level of detail, you're going to have to ask the [U.S.] military in Baghdad," says Army Lieut. Col. Mark Ballesteros. "We don't know anything about it."

A short Army press release issued on the day of the skirmish offered the following information: U.S. soldiers from the 5th Squadron 73rd Cavalry 82nd Airborne were accompanying Iraqi forces on a routine joint patrol along the border with Iran, about 75 miles east of Baghdad, when they spotted two Iranian soldiers retreating from Iraqi territory back into Iran. A moment later, U.S. and Iraqi forces came upon a third Iranian soldier on the Iraqi side of the border, who stood his ground. As U.S. and Iraqi soldiers approached the Iranian officer and began speaking with him, a platoon of Iranian soldiers appeared and moved to surround the coalition patrol, taking up positions on high ground. At that point, according to the Army's statement, the Iranian captain told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that if they tried to leave they would be fired on. Fearing abduction by the Iranians, U.S. troops moved to go anyway, and fighting broke out. Army officials say the Iranian troops fired first with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, and that U.S. troops fell further back into Iraqi territory, while four Iraqi army soldiers, one interpreter and one Iraqi border guard remained in the hands of the Iranians.

The official release says there were no casualties among the Americans, and makes no mention of any on the Iranian side. U.S. soldiers present at the firefight, however, tell TIME that American forces killed at least one Iranian soldier who had been aiming a rocket-propelled grenade at their convoy of Humvees.

The revelation comes amid rising tensions over the past week since Iran captured 15 British Navy personnel in waters between Iran and Iraq. Analysts have suggested that some Iranian officials have argued against speedily returning the Brits, preferring to use them as a bargaining chip in Tehran's efforts to free five of its own officials captured by the U.S. in Erbil earlier this year. News that an Iranian soldier had been killed in a clash with American forces would do little to ease those tensions.

In the months after the incident, U.S. forces have kept up joint patrols on the Iran-Iraq border, where their movements are closely monitored by Iranian outposts. Increasingly, however, U.S. troops stationed in Diyala Province are moving to help counter-insurgency efforts in the Baqubah area, leaving a thinner American presence at the border. On some days, says Lt. Col. Ronald Ward, the U.S. commander tasked with helping Iraqi units maintain border security in the area, no U.S. troops appear there at all.

all this falls in line with the notion it's Cheney's task to start a war with Iran (to threaten China's oil supply to persuade them not to tank the U.S. dollar).

Yeah it sure does

Yeah it sure does
what?

what?

Iran captured the sailors and sent troops into Iraq on Cheney's orders YOU FOOL. Can't you see?

well, I dunno about that...but, why were these soldiers sent into harm's way with nothing more than pistols. reeks of political Cannon Fodder is all...

regardless, the West is weak right now. the Jihadist of the world know they can't stand up to us militarily, so they gameplan to defeat our willingness to fight and claim victory as the battles get drawn out.

I heard Blair talk about how the rules of engagement were appropiate here for the soldiers who got caught...that's highly suspect (perhaps though, he was commenting on their right to be where they were), considering what they were asked to do and not being fully armed or even trained to deal with the mess their in now.

don't get me stared on what the Dem's are doing in congress right now...western commie appeasement is getting louder and louder over here in the states.

By soldiers do you mean Royal Navy personnel? Sent by Cheney? And what do sidearms have to do with anything, it's not like they'd have shot their way out if they'd been carrying more guns'n'ammo.

I think Blair was probably talking about how the situation was not completely clear, and that Iran is not The Enemy in a war, so the way it was handled (not shooting at Iranians, with pistols or rifles or deck guns or whatever) was appropriate. After this I'd expect any approaching Iranian boats to be treated as a potential threat, but in this situation it made sense to let things play out rather than maybe start a war.

West vs commie jihadists FIGHT

(to threaten China's oil supply to persuade them not to tank the U.S. dollar).

maybe we've been here before and maybe you don't believe any of the following, but what's your reaction to the opinion that china doesn't dare tank the u.s. dollar since it owns the vast majority of u.s. debt?

depressing, embarrassing and predictable. why were such lightly equipped personnel effectively abandoned to their fate? the support ship was 8 miles away (!), but surely picked up surface targets closing on the british boats and the freighter being inspected while they were still some distance off. the helicopter providing air cover left for refuel during the search operation; there should be continuous provision of air cover during such an operation - especially if it is in disputed waters - or what is the point? continuous military cuts, overambitious commitments by the government allied to obfuscatory rules of engagement lead to the current absurd predicament. this is similar to our troops patrolling in inadequate armoured landrovers: saves money, doesn't offend the indigenous population, cost soldiers' lives.

if britain lays down again they're sending a clear message to the world that they're willing to be pushed around

President Ahmadinejad has agreed to set them free. A wonderful gesture.

depressing, embarrassing and predictable. why were such lightly equipped personnel effectively abandoned to their fate? the support ship was 8 miles away (!), but surely picked up surface targets closing on the british boats and the freighter being inspected while they were still some distance off. the helicopter providing air cover left for refuel during the search operation; there should be continuous provision of air cover during such an operation - especially if it is in disputed waters - or what is the point? continuous military cuts, overambitious commitments by the government allied to obfuscatory rules of engagement lead to the current absurd predicament. this is similar to our troops patrolling in inadequate armoured landrovers: saves money, doesn't offend the indigenous population, cost soldiers' lives.

See my last reply. Do you even know why they were there?

President Ahmadinejad has agreed to set them free. A wonderful gesture.

Oh no, now Iran looks weak! Nice guys finish last, Ahmedinejad!

See my last reply. Do you even know why they were there?

i believe they were inspecting an indian-registered freighter for contraband, probably arms or iraqi oil (if it was outbound).

if you were referring to the rules of engagement, well UK relations with Iran is better than the US as we at least will engage with them diplomatically. captured US personnel would suffer a more indefinite fate. regardless, nobody expected the sailors/marines to put up a fight under the circumstances; but those circumstances should not have been permitted to develop.

i believe they were inspecting an indian-registered freighter for contraband, probably arms or iraqi oil (if it was outbound).

if you were referring to the rules of engagement, well UK relations with Iran is better than the US as we at least will engage with them diplomatically. captured US personnel would suffer a more indefinite fate. regardless, nobody expected the sailors/marines to put up a fight under the circumstances; but those circumstances should not have been permitted to develop.

And how should the circumstances have been controlled? Should the Royal Navy, present under a UN mandate and inspecting civilian vessels on the edge of Iraqi-controlled water, have seen an Iranian ship approaching from Iranian waters and, say, ordered them to halt with threats of an attack if they didn't comply? Should they have moved in to engage this non-enemy ship close to or within its own territory? Should they have opened fire when they realized their sailors on the inspected boat were being arrested?

Iran did something unexpected, and Britain responded by not escalating the situation and by applying pressure to resolve the matter. That's how things are done - nobody was 'abandoned to their fate'

Lets face it, Britain has allowed itself to be pushed around for a long time now. IN]n my opinion, we knew exactly what we were doing when entering Iranian waters, it wouldn't surprise me one little bit if we did to get a reaction out of the Iranians that we did. The UK AND the US are just looking for an excuse to wage yet another illegal war...

And how should the circumstances have been controlled? Should the Royal Navy, present under a UN mandate and inspecting civilian vessels on the edge of Iraqi-controlled water, have seen an Iranian ship approaching from Iranian waters and, say, ordered them to halt with threats of an attack if they didn't comply? Should they have moved in to engage this non-enemy ship close to or within its own territory? Should they have opened fire when they realized their sailors on the inspected boat were being arrested?
There's a reason the Navy does this sort of work. Its because it can be dangerous for the people performing it, and military support is supposed to mitigate that. No one's saying that there should have been some grand naval battle between the UK and Iran, but one would hope you wouldn't send fifteen lightly armed sailors so far away from the main ship that they're basically on their own, especially if there was a possibility they might find themselves in disputed territory. Do you think Iran would have made such an aggressive move in disputed waters if these sailors had support closeby?

Iran did something unexpected, and Britain responded by not escalating the situation and by applying pressure to resolve the matter. That's how things are done - nobody was 'abandoned to their fate'
Subjecting your servicemen to prolonged foreign captivity is not "how things are done."

There's a reason the Navy does this sort of work. Its because it can be dangerous for the people performing it, and military support is supposed to mitigate that. No one's saying that there should have been some grand naval battle between the UK and Iran, but one would hope you wouldn't send fifteen lightly armed sailors so far away from the main ship that they're basically on their own, especially if there was a possibility they might find themselves in disputed territory. Do you think Iran would have made such an aggressive move in disputed waters if these sailors had support closeby?

Oh ok, why don't you write to the Royal Navy and let them know that they have no idea how to run patrol and inspection missions. I suppose you want them to chase boats around with an entire frigate. And exactly what level of 'support' would they need? Does every single boarding need a warship nearby ready to threaten any other boats that show up?

The point is it was unexpected, and not because they didn't know Iran would be 'in the area'. We don't even know if they were absolutely within Iraqi territory yet.


Subjecting your servicemen to prolonged foreign captivity is not "how things are done."

Considering what happened and the way it happened, actually yes it is. I'm sure you'd have suggested the frigate chase the Iranian boats deep into Iranian waters or something? Maybe issue a statement saying 'release them now we don't care why you took them or we'll fuck you up'?

oroginally posted by Mariner:

maybe we've been here before and maybe you don't believe any of the following, but what's your reaction to the opinion that china doesn't dare tank the u.s. dollar since it owns the vast majority of u.s. debt?

well bingo, they're slowly making us their economic bitch and it's been going on for a while.

and why wouldn't they if they can back the dollar in exchange for the euro and gold?...that's a threat that throws that many more dollars into the world market and devalues american currency which further deconstructs the good 'ol american way...before our politicians made the country into nothing more than a trading zone for international companies.

anyway...

Mr. Prophet rules the country that invented Chess, so this gesture of releasing these guys in time for Easter is pure propaganda and surely a move to set up another, and pretty good stuff at that considering how many apologist in American media will try to normalize this guy.

Mr. Prophet rules the country that invented Chess, so this gesture of releasing these guys in time for Easter is pure propaganda and surely a move to set up another, and pretty good stuff at that considering how many apologist in American media will try to normalize this guy.

Oh for fuck's sake. Look, this was clearly propaganda from the moment they had the female sailor on tv reading 'statements', and it didn't fool anyone. If the Iranian government wants to create propaganda for the the Iranian people then that's what's going to happen

those guys were BALLIN in those suits

Oh ok, why don't you write to the Royal Navy and let them know that they have no idea how to run patrol and inspection missions. I suppose you want them to chase boats around with an entire frigate. And exactly what level of 'support' would they need? Does every single boarding need a warship nearby ready to threaten any other boats that show up?
Considering that the support ship apparently had no clue what was going on until the sailors were being loaded on the Iranian ship, I don't think its much of a stretch to say that help could have been closer.

The point is it was unexpected, and not because they didn't know Iran would be 'in the area'. We don't even know if they were absolutely within Iraqi territory yet.
But doesn't the fact that there's still dispute over what side of the line they were on indicate that they should have expected the possibility of an incident? As though they really said "Wha? The Iranians aren't taking kindly to our taking actions against ships here in these ambiguously held waters? How unexpected!"??? I certainly hope not.

Considering what happened and the way it happened, actually yes it is. I'm sure you'd have suggested the frigate chase the Iranian boats deep into Iranian waters or something? Maybe issue a statement saying 'release them now we don't care why you took them or we'll fuck you up'?
The point is that the way things happened isn't the way things should be done. The Royal Navy stepped in it bigtime here no matter how you slice it. When you get fifteen servicemen captured by a foreign country and held for several days, that's not a good thing regardless of the fact that you manage to avoid a major military incident.

Considering that the support ship apparently had no clue what was going on until the sailors were being loaded on the Iranian ship, I don't think its much of a stretch to say that help could have been closer.

Who said the frigate was meant to be playing a 'support' role?


But doesn't the fact that there's still dispute over what side of the line they were on indicate that they should have expected the possibility of an incident? As though they really said "Wha? The Iranians aren't taking kindly to our taking actions against ships here in these ambiguously held waters? How unexpected!"??? I certainly hope not.

So you're saying that because the area is a disputed border, they should have expected the Iranians to swoop in at any given moment and capture sailors the moment nobody was looking?

The point is that the way things happened isn't the way things should be done. The Royal Navy stepped in it bigtime here no matter how you slice it. When you get fifteen servicemen captured by a foreign country and held for several days, that's not a good thing regardless of the fact that you manage to avoid a major military incident.

Well we're talking about two different things, because I was saying that the process that took place after the incident occurred was how things should be done. A major incident was avoided, they'll be home safely by the weekend, and this action won't be forgotten.

Also, Pelosi pro-active pragmatism possibly prevailed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040400334.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

[Blair] thanked friends and allies in Europe, the U.N. Security Council and in the Middle East who had "played their part," but he did not elaborate.

Syria, which today hosted a visit by a U.S. congressional delegation headed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), later said it had played a key role in obtaining the release of the British captives. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told reporters that his country had "exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem."

corganist: agreed.

deviousj: deterrent is enough. like i said earlier, i'm not second-guessing the RN protocols here; as per usual they are being asked by the politicians to do a difficult job with insufficient resources. the frigate compliment, exactly those assets utilized by the navy in these UN police actions are constantly getting reduced. but how can the navy be expected to interdict suspect vessels without constant air cover? i seriously doubt the US would do so, unless the support vessel was right there. wrt the UN mandate, the US operates under its own rules of engagement, or at least interprets the UN authority somewhat loosely, so why shouldn't britain? the threat of adequate force would've been enough to deter the iranians; if not then it is a different ballgame.

http://www.indiaenews.com/middle-east/20070404/45848.htm

The US is planning to attack Iran's nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities by the end of this month, the Kuwait-based Arab Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

Citing anonymous sources in Washington, it said that various White House departments had started preparing the political speech to be delivered by the US president later this month, announcing the military attack on Iran.

The speech will provide the 'evidence' and the 'justification' for the US to resort to the military option after failing to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions, said the report.

According to the Times, one of the justifications expected in the speech is Iran's alleged role in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq by supporting various militias with money and arms.

The US president's speech will also point to Iran's political interference in Iraq, obviously in cooperation with Syria.

The sources were quoted as saying that US will not resort to a ground attack in order to avoid human losses.

The thought makes my brain hurt, but I seriously doubt that's going to happen. Bush would be a fool to do something like that. The military is spread too thin.

corganist: agreed.

deviousj: deterrent is enough. like i said earlier, i'm not second-guessing the RN protocols here; as per usual they are being asked by the politicians to do a difficult job with insufficient resources. the frigate compliment, exactly those assets utilized by the navy in these UN police actions are constantly getting reduced. but how can the navy be expected to interdict suspect vessels without constant air cover? i seriously doubt the US would do so, unless the support vessel was right there. wrt the UN mandate, the US operates under its own rules of engagement, or at least interprets the UN authority somewhat loosely, so why shouldn't britain? the threat of adequate force would've been enough to deter the iranians; if not then it is a different ballgame.

The suspect vessels are being intercepted and inspected fine (and as far as I can tell air cover was provided until the inspection was underway) - Iranian coastguard ships showing up and arresting the Royal Navy personnel was obviously completely unexpected, and instead of being considered 'unlikely' will probably now be given serious consideration when planning further operations.

But again, you're assuming the frigate was meant to be operating as a 'support vessel' for the inspection teams (and was therefore negligent or not following the mission plan, by not actually being within support range). Like you said, the navy has a job to do with finite resources, and these operations are planned to be as effective and efficient as possible without creating unacceptable risk. By saying that the inspection teams didn't get an adequate level of support for your estimation of the risk they faced, you actually are second-guessing the navy.

And they did operate under their own rules of engagement - the helicopter saw what was happening and the navy did not engage them. The government later said that they followed the rules well. You people all seem to be assuming that because they didn't chase them with guns at the ready it means that they were somehow bound to an unwanted course of action, like they were forced into diplomacy somehow

i believe the frigate was described by the media as "a support ship"; presumably the craft were launched from it, or at least it was acting in a supervisory manner - patrol area or whatever.

maybe i phrased it badly, but no criticism of the navy was intended; i would assume the operations people are assigned a task and allocated assets judged by higher levels of command to be adequate to the task. invariably, in britain's case this mean stretching finite resources thinly due to overcommitment by the government

i agree that the RN could not really have anticipated what the iranians would do and given the situation abided by the rules of engagement laid down for them.

Well they were launched from the Cornwall yeah, but that doesn't mean its role was to guard them and make sure that they weren't approached by any hostile ships. It also doesn't mean that resources were necessarily stretched thinly or that there was overcommitment - if something's considered very unlikely to happen, it doesn't make sense to put everything available into covering that particular base. I'd characterize this as being a routine operation where something completely unexpected happened, not a situation which was expected and which could have been avoided if the navy had been less negligent

maybe so, but i'm sure there will be a re-think of the way such operations are handled in the future. and like i mentioned earlier i'd be really shocked if the US navy were caught out like this. i still feel that the british military is spread too thinly across all theatres. look at afghanistan a few months back - there were literally no reserves available to reinforce against the taleban offensive. in the end they transferred a battalion of infantry from the balkans; 500 extra troops for a province the size of france (i think!). whilst in other parts of the country UN troops were sitting around drinking cappucino's and eating fried chicken.

the ones not smiling and waving should be held on by the Navy...the rest are useless in a war.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-04/05/xin_3404040509144061724044.jpg

i'm not really one to start a new thread in here, so i'll put it in here.

does an article like this http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/09/ap3593979.html make you dudes worried?

when you're a little kid learning about the holocaust you think, 'why didn't anyone stop it? didn't anyone see it coming?', and its a super simplistic way to look at things, but i sort of got the same feelings when reading this, except with more of an understanding that seeing something coming doesn't necessarily mean you have any power to stop it.

the government's blasting text messages to citizens to celebrate their nuclear abilities? students chanting death to america, death to britain? policy statements such as 'this is a peaceful nuclear project, but don't do anything that might make this great nation change its mind' while we're setting timelines to increase sanctions?

jeez

I think 'the holocaust' is a loaded term when talking about this, because that was a strong nation rising to power through massive conquest, before using that power to coordinate mass killings in territories they controlled - you could argue that, say, Iran would in the future gain the power and the technology to nuke Israel, but that's completely hypothetical and it would be suicidal.

There are a few key points which tend to get lost in media reports - Iran is only claiming to be producing fuel; if it is producing fuel-grade uranium (6% pure or so) it's a lonnnnnnnnnnnnng way off from producing weapons-grade uranium (90-95%); and they have legitimate reasons for wanting to refine their own nuclear fuel (independence, and being able to export oil for profit instead of using it for fuel, which is heavily subsidized anyway).

It's easy to paint them as a dangerous threat to the world, but right now they're the ones being leaned on, and Israel introduced nuclear weapons to the region. It's understandable that they're not acquiescing to demands, and many of the people who say they're flouting the will of the UN are the same people who call the UN wrong and impractical when it suits them. I do think it needs to be watched closely, but at the same time trying to force Iran into a corner unfairly will only cause problems

I think 'the holocaust' is a loaded term when talking about this, because that was a strong nation rising to power through massive conquest, before using that power to coordinate mass killings in territories they controlled - you could argue that, say, Iran would in the future gain the power and the technology to nuke Israel, but that's completely hypothetical and it would be suicidal.

There are a few key points which tend to get lost in media reports - Iran is only claiming to be producing fuel; if it is producing fuel-grade uranium (6% pure or so) it's a lonnnnnnnnnnnnng way off from producing weapons-grade uranium (90-95%); and they have legitimate reasons for wanting to refine their own nuclear fuel (independence, and being able to export oil for profit instead of using it for fuel, which is heavily subsidized anyway).

It's easy to paint them as a dangerous threat to the world, but right now they're the ones being leaned on, and Israel introduced nuclear weapons to the region. It's understandable that they're not acquiescing to demands, and many of the people who say they're flouting the will of the UN are the same people who call the UN wrong and impractical when it suits them. I do think it needs to be watched closely, but at the same time trying to force Iran into a corner unfairly will only cause problems
.. for THEM

Yep, nothing could possibly go wrong

the ones not smiling and waving should be held on by the Navy...the rest are useless in a war.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-04/05/xin_3404040509144061724044.jpg

Funny how when these sailors violated the law and were apprehended by Iranian authority we call them "hostages," yet when we capture innocent Pakistani and incarcerate and torture them at Guantanamo without right to fair trial we call them "detainees." Ah the age of newspeak.

I think 'the holocaust' is a loaded term when talking about this, because that was a strong nation rising to power through massive conquest, before using that power to coordinate mass killings in territories they controlled - you could argue that, say, Iran would in the future gain the power and the technology to nuke Israel, but that's completely hypothetical and it would be suicidal.

There are a few key points which tend to get lost in media reports - Iran is only claiming to be producing fuel; if it is producing fuel-grade uranium (6% pure or so) it's a lonnnnnnnnnnnnng way off from producing weapons-grade uranium (90-95%); and they have legitimate reasons for wanting to refine their own nuclear fuel (independence, and being able to export oil for profit instead of using it for fuel, which is heavily subsidized anyway).

It's easy to paint them as a dangerous threat to the world, but right now they're the ones being leaned on, and Israel introduced nuclear weapons to the region. It's understandable that they're not acquiescing to demands, and many of the people who say they're flouting the will of the UN are the same people who call the UN wrong and impractical when it suits them. I do think it needs to be watched closely, but at the same time trying to force Iran into a corner unfairly will only cause problems


cool. yeah, i wasn't trying to invoke the holocaust specifically, i guess i just meant 'dangerous events that did not happen overnight'.

also, so they say they're claiming to be producing fuel-grade. there is a chance they're closer to producing weapon grade material than they're admitting, right?

this isn't really my arena at all, i just wanted to hear what you guys thought.

http://www.indiaenews.com/middle-east/20070404/45848.htm

The US is planning to attack Iran's nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities by the end of this month, the Kuwait-based Arab Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

Citing anonymous sources in Washington, it said that various White House departments had started preparing the political speech to be delivered by the US president later this month, announcing the military attack on Iran.

The speech will provide the 'evidence' and the 'justification' for the US to resort to the military option after failing to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions, said the report.

According to the Times, one of the justifications expected in the speech is Iran's alleged role in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq by supporting various militias with money and arms.

The US president's speech will also point to Iran's political interference in Iraq, obviously in cooperation with Syria.

The sources were quoted as saying that US will not resort to a ground attack in order to avoid human losses.
there is no way we are this stupid

Funny how when these sailors violated the law and were apprehended by Iranian authority we call them "hostages," yet when we capture innocent Pakistani and incarcerate and torture them at Guantanamo without right to fair trial we call them "detainees." Ah the age of newspeak.

it cuts both ways. i doubt the "free" iranian media were referring to them as hostages.

cool. yeah, i wasn't trying to invoke the holocaust specifically, i guess i just meant 'dangerous events that did not happen overnight'.

also, so they say they're claiming to be producing fuel-grade. there is a chance they're closer to producing weapon grade material than they're admitting, right?

this isn't really my arena at all, i just wanted to hear what you guys thought.

Oh yeah, I didn't think you were actually comparing it to the holocaust, I just meant that that came after the Nazis were already conquering Europe - they were already established to be a definite and powerful threat. Iran really isn't at that stage, they're an underdog if anything (although they're quite powerful compared to other states in the region).

It's possible they could be keeping the full extent of their progress secret, but I think it's far more likely that they'd actually exaggerate what they've achieved - makes for good state propaganda, makes Iran look powerful and shows that they've managed to create their own fuel enrichment process despite the UN's best efforts. Apparently they've been beset with technical problems in reality, but still there's the huge 'we did it' ceremony, some guy singing a song about nuclear fuel and Ahmedinejad weeping with emotion. It's obviously a big thing for them, whether they've really managed it or not.

Just a quick thing about the enrichment cycle - natural uranium contains basically two isotopes, U-235 and U-238. The 235 is the one that fissions and releases energy, the 238 actually gets in the way of that happening, so enrichment involves trying to remove as much 238 as possible (natural uranium is 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235). Thing is it's really difficult, expensive and time consuming to do this, and what they do is put uranium gas into a centrifuge, spin it so the slightly heavier 238 moves to the edge, then skim it off. They weigh almost the same so this is a case of skimming the very edge to be sure you're not taking out 235 as well, then taking what's left and doing the whole thing again, and again and again and again, until eventually the ratio of 235 to 238 is high enough. Natural uranium is 0.7% U-235, fuel-grade is about 3-5% U-235, and weapons grade is 90-95% U-235.

When you look at how long the process takes, how it becomes harder to only skim U-238 as the uranium becomes more enriched, and how the actual amount of end product is whittled down the more you remove, you can see that jumping from fuel-grade uranium to weapons-grade requires a whole different level of engineering. It's not just a case of leaving the centrifuges on overnight

that was really helpful, i never really understood it like that before. thank you DeviousJ!!

Hey no problem - just don't go using it for evil and/or nefarious purposes, ok?

deal!