Iran may charge British sailors

By DAVID STRINGER, Associated Press Writers

LONDON - Iran warned that 15 British sailors and marines could face charges for allegedly entering Iranian waters and rejected British requests to meet with the servicemen detained off the coast of Iraq.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki threatened unspecified consequences for the Royal Navy crew in comments to reporters in New York on Sunday, describing the charge against them as "illegal entrance into Iranian waters."

"In terms of legal issues, it's under investigation," Mottaki said.

Iraq's foreign minister demanded that Iran release the servicemen who were captured Friday, saying they had been detained in Iraqi waters and were operating with government consent, a statement from his office said Monday.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari discussed the issue with Mottaki on Sunday and "called for their release and for addressing their issue legally and wisely," the statement said.

Meanwhile, Iranian state television on Monday quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi as saying that Iran was not aiming to swap the British servicemen for five Iranians who were arrested in northern Iraq.

In comments read out by a newscaster, Mostafavi did not say what Iran plans to do with the British servicemen, but he said they were being interrogated.

"Iran has enough evidence to prove that the British Forces personnel were detained in Iranian waters," he said. He added that the British government was accountable for their actions.

The capture and detention of the British service personnel increased tensions between Iran and the West that already were high over Tehran's nuclear program and allegations that Iran is interfering with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.


The U.N. Security Council agreed Saturday to tougher sanctions against Iran for its refusal to meet U.N. demands that it halt uranium enrichment. Many in the West fear the country's civilian nuclear research is cover for a weapons program, a claim Iran denies.

Britain and the United States have said the sailors and marines were intercepted Friday just after they completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the border with Iran has historically been disputed.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Tony Blair called the detentions "unjustified and wrong," and insisted during a European Union meeting that Royal Navy crew was in Iraqi waters.

"It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters, and I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," he said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted during a trip to the Middle East that the Britons be released, saying "we all fully trust the British" account.

Mottaki gave no firm commitment on their release during a telephone conversation with British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett late Sunday.

Beckett reiterated that the sailors and marines had been searching for smugglers in Iraqi waters under an agreement with the Baghdad government when they were seized by the naval forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the Foreign Office said.

The Iranian state news agency IRNA said that Ibrahim Rahimpour, the foreign ministry official in charge of western Europe, had told British Ambassador Geoffrey Adams that the British sailors and marines were "well and sound" and that "legal proceedings" were under way.

The capture of the British sailors and marines was not the first time Iranians have taken Western forces by surprise in the border area.

In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were captured, then paraded blindfolded on Iranian television. They admitted they had entered Iranian waters illegally but were released unharmed after three days.

U.S. News and World Report, citing a U.S. Army report out of Iraq, said American troops working with Iraqi border guards within Iraq were attacked by a much larger Iranian military unit in September. U.S. News said no Americans were hurt in the incident, but four Iraqi soldiers, an interpreter, and an Iraqi border policeman remain missing.

The U.S. military said the account was accurate, adding that the incident with the American troops, who were training, advising and helping the Iraqi border police, could have been a result of confusion in the vast desert area along the border.

"There is a lot of open terrain," military spokesman Lt. Col. Mike Donnelly said in an e-mail. "Visual sighting and happenstance encounters from a distance occur routinely."


===========================================================



Just seems to me that the leaders of Iran are just itching for a confrontation.

This is bullshit on the Iranian government's part. From reported eyewitness accounts, the Brits were seized on Iraqi waters.

Remember folks from years back when that U.S. plane crashed in China, and the Chinese kept the Americans for many days?

Iran will bolster and claim they'll try these saps...then give them up to the West, out of "goodwill". Ultimately, this is part of the Iranian government to show that they, not America or the West, shapes and MAKES events in the Middle East.

I'm getting a few friends together with a couple of baseball bats, and we're getting a plane over.

Capo, oh yeah? What you gonna do, talk French cinema to the Iranian soldiers to death?

"You see, the mis-en-scene in WEEKEND is so profound..."
ZZZZZZZZZZZ

"Alright chaps, lets go in!"

Can I join you?

This is a prelude to some Gulf of Tonkin bullshit our war criminal administration in Washington will use to bomb Iran.

So you're saying that Iran is justified in doing this?

Not at all. I am saying I do not know all the facts, and I do believe it is possible they were in Iranian territory. God knows I do not believe one word our government or the British government says about anything in this area of the world. All they have done the past four years is lie.

So you take the word of a stranger over your own family?

Seriously though, right now, at this point, I am not advocating any kind of military action. Britain must attempt to negotiate their release through talks and with the help of the USA, the
UN (yeah right) and other allies. Personally I think that Iran is doing this to try and provoke a military response from the British and the USA.

However, what do you do if Iran tells the British to go and f**k themselves and jails or harms these sailors?

I never thought the U.S. and British soldiers and sailors were bad soldiers and sailors, I thought Giorgio the Younger was a bad don.

My guess is the Iranians will hold them for a few weeks and make a lot of noise and then let them go. If, however, they so something stupid... like kill them I would say it is a British problem, and as their allies, we should support any military action THEY choose to take. On the other hand maybe we shouldn't give this to our paisan. Maybe we should give it to a Jew prime minister in another district.

Speaking of the UN, did you see the clip the other day of the Secretary General of the UN in Iraq when that bomb went off? LOL I think he crapped his pants.

Very good Don T!

I was going to invite you to join us, but not now.

But I'd gladly except Don Cardi's offer. We could do with a big gangster mo'fo to sort a few Iranians out.

Gary Powers anyone?

Right! Because, after all, before America showed up, the Middle East was a happy place! They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

And if they do hold them for a couple of weeks and make a lot of noise and then let them go, should Iran then be let off the hook wihtout any type of action being taken against them?

I'll tell you something. The more I think about what Iran has done over the years and how they have acted lately, how they have supplied the terrroists with weapons and shit in this war in Iraq, and how this leader of theirs has just continually spit in the face of the west, the more I'm begining to believe that something needs to be done with him before it's too late.

Maybe the rivers of chocolate is a bit too much

Well, what do you suggest we do then DC? US has had sanctions against the Iranian regime for decades, and the UN Security Council applied a few more sanctions over the nuclear issue.

Besides, we're got ass stuck in a hell of a mess in Iraq already. We're not in the desired state of military manpower/supplies to even consider removing the Iranian regime. Maybe bombing and Tomahawk attacks, but thats it.

Worse, unless Iran outright militarily attacks American servicepeople, there is no appetite in the American people and government for a war with Iran. I mean jesus, you even had Republican Chuckie Hagel in the Senate leaving the idea hanging in the air of impeachment of the President goes to war with Iran without Congressional and public support.

Iran are being punkass bitches because they can. Its like America is the dog tied to a tree by a steel chain, and Iran is that little shit annoying kid. The kid spits, throws rocks, and mocks the dog...since he knows that the dog can't run after him.

Besides, nobody commented on Gary Powers...what did mighty America do when Gary Powers was captured by the Soviets?

They traded in a Soviet spy in exchange for him at West Berlin.

Which Clancy novel is it in which the Iranian President is a woman, and slyly assisting the bigger, more prominent enemy? I'm sure it's Executive Orders.

DonTom, unless I'm mistaken, its BRITISH sailors that got captured.

How could the AMERICAN President use this to justify a war then?

She was the Prime Minister of India, since in Clancy's worldview of those books, India was a happy-go-lucky ally of China, who decided to collaborate with the Iran-Iraq-absorbed Islamic republic to get mutual advantage over the Americans.

Of course, India and China are about as friendly as Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart so I never cared for that Clancy scenario, but whatever.

BTW, it was EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance America, and then America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.

DJ, you're creative and sometimes intelligent("A team will trade FOR Pavano!") without needing to quote TEAM AMERICA.

Unless you want to be Patrick.

But...but...if I go back to my old ways, I'll once again be ousted for honesty.

You wouldn't want us exposing ourselves, would you?!?

Besides, Pavano could be shipped to another team with cash and probably a helmet.

I've changed my mind. I now say that we pull all of our troops out of Iraq and that whole area, bring everyone of them home, and sit back and watch them all kill each other. Sit back and watch Iran invade Iraq when we are out of there. Tell them all that we really don't give a shit anymore. If they want to kill each other, let them kill each other.

The only people in that area that we protect is Israel.

Then take it up with the Mods. Not my problem DJ.

Notice that I'm an asshole without BEING an asshole. You should shadow me at work. Besides, you're copying Trey Parker and Matt Stone...and as we saw with their CARTOON WARS and their hatred of FAMILY GUY, they don't care for people making pop culture references in their creative work.

P.S. - You never countered, at any time, my questioning of Yankee fans believing the sillyness that a MLB team will *trade* for Pavano. Continuing silence means I'm right...and Mr. Perfect wins again!

I did, and was banned.



Link me up to that page, I don't remember the response.

So now we Americans are the policemen of that region, as we get stuck between Iraq and a hard place.

Its not our fault that the screwy Shia seem to want to unite with Iran. We tried, considering alot of circumstances, we did try to make a preferable government to Iran, but they didn't want it. Fuck 'em.

As for the Sunni, historically they deserve it. Decades of persecution and exterminations of your Shia and Kurd neighbors tend to piss them off. Nevermind that whole Saddam thing of his when he invaded Iran in the 80s. Opps.

The Shia and Sunni have a hardon to kill each other, and if thats what they want....they can have at it for all I care. The only people that Americans could depend on is the Kurds. They have their shit together, and whats the last time you read an article about a car bombing or street guerilla insurgent battles up there? Nada

We can keep a presence in the area, by making a security guarantee to the Kurds in northern Iraq. In exchange for us keeping the Turks from wanting to exterminate the shit out of them, this Kurdistan will be our Cuba in the region...security/intelligence safe haven.

Besides DC, do you rather that our boys get whacked, or them?

This is racist and xenophobic, but...better them than us.

There wasn't a response. It was when Irish and I got in that little fight days back, and nobody could logically answer me why a GM of another team would trade for Pavano.

The way I see it, Pavano could only be moved if he becomes a nice bonus addition to an existing basic trade agreement, and if the Yanks eat up the whole/majority of his salary.

Why would someone trade for Pavano? Because unlike batters, pitchers are a rare commodity at this point (Gil Meche, $55 million?), and even mediocrity is being rewarded. Pavano has done sorta-well in the NL, and I could see a team, particularly in the NL, want to add another starter. Plus, if the Yankees offer to pay most of the contract, and toss in a minor leaguer. Who knows? I still think the best deal, and it is logical, would be:

Mariners Get
Pavano
Cash

Yankees Get
Sexson

Both teams would benefit...we could dump Mientkeiwicz, and get a power hitting 1B with a glove.

Even if that's unlikely, it could be done. Pavano is still young, and many teams would be willing to take a shot at him if the Yankees pay the way. More importantly, the Yanks deal from a position of strength, because they have plenty of pitching talent in the minor leagues, so they could toss in another prospect as trade bait.