[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[i]"Success is never guaranteed in any war.
But that’s no reason to guarantee failure."[/i]
…
[/quote]
Great article.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That is what they all say so they will not be abused any more.
We’ll see about that as the crisis unfolds…
For now, it’s the word of the Brits against that of the Iranians. After the WMDs fiasco, I can’t help but consider Downing St.'s statements as dubious.[/quote]
Actually, it’s the Iranians’ initial position and the unchanged British position versus the Iranians’ modified position:
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
[i]"Success is never guaranteed in any war.
But that’s no reason to guarantee failure."[/i]
…
Great article.[/quote]
Zap, BF:
I agree, great article.
You know what’s frustating, if George was on the offensive publically, the idiotic dems wouldn’t be on the radar.
I’d have a large map of Baghdad and point to all the recent successes.
Once a week, updates on the Iraq War.
How hard would that be!!??!!
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
[i]"Success is never guaranteed in any war.
But that’s no reason to guarantee failure."[/i]
…
Great article.
Zap, BF:
I agree, great article.
You know what’s frustating, if George was on the offensive publically, the idiotic dems wouldn’t be on the radar.
I’d have a large map of Baghdad and point to all the recent successes.
Once a week, updates on the Iraq War.
How hard would that be!!??!!
JeffR
[/quote]
I know. Bush pisses me off because he refuses to communicate. He has had success rallying the world against Iran and no one knows it. He has an agreement with North Korea about their nukes (for what it is worth) and no one knows it.
The surge in Baghdad has been successful but no one knows it.
Most of Iraq is peaceful but no one knows it.
He knows the media isn’t going to get his message out for him. They hate him.
He needs a weekly “fireside chat” with the American people to tell us how the war is going.
He has basically turned his back on communicating with the American people. I agree with many of his policies but I am mad he doesn’t try to sell them to the American people.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Do you really want to compare the credibility of the UK compared with Iran?[/quote]
God forbid a US ally’s credibity is compared to that of a country in the “axis of evil”.
Researchers will always claim to have achieved huge things to draw money in. It made the news on Fox and Ynet just because they happened to be Iranian scientists. Remember Meyer and his water fual cell?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
We’ll see about that as the crisis unfolds…
For now, it’s the word of the Brits against that of the Iranians. After the WMDs fiasco, I can’t help but consider Downing St.'s statements as dubious.
Do you really want to compare the credibility of the UK compared with Iran?
I mean hell, Iran said they found the cure for AIDS awhile back.
Get real.[/quote]
That and according to them the holocaust didn’t happen.
real credible…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Truman was pretty racist in his early days, referring to Asians and Blacks in very derogatory terms. Amazing that he desegregated the military.
[/quote]
I have no doubt he was pretty racist. My issue is this–for AT LEAST 100 yrs or more, some of the most influential people in history have been sounding the alarm about the dangers of Zionism… Ulysses Grant, Henry Ford, Winston Churchill, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, Harry Truman, Charles Lindbergh, General Patton, FDR, Richard Nixon, Rev. Billy Graham, just to name a few.
–Winston Churchill - February 8, 1920
[quote][i]"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine…
Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future."[/i][/quote]
–Albert Einstein - December 4, 1948
Richard Nixon, Billy Graham target Jews on tape
St. Petersburg Times
March 2, 2002
[quote]“This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” the nation’s best-known preacher said as he agreed with a stream of bigoted Nixon comments on Feb. 1, 1972.
“You believe that?” Nixon says.
“Yes, sir,” Graham says.
“Oh, boy,” Nixon replies. “So do I. I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.”[/quote]
http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/2002/03/02/news_pf/Worldandnation/Nixon__Billy_Graham_t.shtml
[quote][i]"Zionism is challenging the attention of the world today because it is creating a situation out of which many believe the next war will come.
To adopt a phraseology familiar to students of prophecy, it is believed by many students of world affairs that Armageddon will be the direct result of what is now beginning to be manifested in Palestine.
With Zionism as a dream of pious Jews this investigation has nothing to do. With Zionism as a political fact, every government is now compelled to have something to do. It is a bigger question than any other world question, it lies back of all world problems, large or small, national or international, and is rapidly proceeding under cover of many other interests…"[/i][/quote]
–Henry Ford - May 26, 1921
Israeli billionaire Saban biggest donor to US politicians
I used to be able to dismiss these statements as merely collective bigotry and ignorance – in light of the current push for collective war in the Middle East by the exact same element, thats no longer possible.
In hindsight, the warnings were crystal clear…
Get tough on Iran
Tehran broke international law again by abducting British soldiers; it’s time for the world to enforce the rules.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
March 30, 2007
HOLLYWOOD HAS an almost inexhaustible capacity to irritate politicians, both foreign and domestic. The recent film “300,” which tells the story of a few hundred Greeks holding off a massive army of invading Persians in 480 BC ? saving Western civilization from death in its cradle ? has outraged the government of Iran. The latter-day Persians complain, among other things, that filmmakers portrayed Great King Xerxes as a two-dimensional tyrant. He was, of course, a three-dimensional tyrant, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems determined to follow in his footsteps.
Iran is already subject to international sanctions because of its nuclear weapons program. It also is one of the few modern states that continues to use hostage-taking as a tool of statecraft ? as it once again proved with the March 23 seizure of 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters. Taking hostages is, of course, a serious violation of international law, but the Iranian government is an old hand at it.
Shortly after the current regime came to power in 1979, U.S. diplomats in Tehran were unlawfully seized and held as prisoners for 444 days. The pretext that the Americans were held by Iranian “students” acting without government sanction was as risible in 1979 as are Tehran’s current claims that the British sailors violated Iranian territorial waters. Ever-watchful global positioning satellites show they did not.
No matter where the Iranian capture took place, Tehran’s British detainees are entitled to all of the rights and privileges of prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. They are the regular service members of a sovereign state. They were on duty, in uniform and following lawful orders when they were taken captive in an unprovoked act of aggression.
The Geneva Convention, which binds Iran, requires that the captives be treated honorably and humanely. POWs “must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.” This includes parading them before television cameras and using them as propaganda tools, as has already been done. They are entitled to contact with the International Committee of the Red Cross, and they may not be used as hostages.
Moreover, once the armed conflict that brought the Geneva Convention into play ? Iran’s capture of the British force operating in Iraqi waters ? has ended, they must be released at once. Unless Iran now considers itself to be engaged in active hostilities against Britain ? and potentially, with Britain’s allies such as the United States ? the sailors must be repatriated. POWs cannot be held beyond the close of active hostilities. That is the law.
It is doubtful whether Iran will comply. It has reneged on its promise to free the one female British POW because of Britain’s threatened freeze on bilateral diplomatic relations. This makes clear its intentions to use innocent men and women as bargaining chips to obtain other advantages. We can expect efforts by Tehran to exchange the Brits for the five Iranian infiltrators recently captured in Iraq by U.S. forces, or for the former Iranian deputy defense minister, Ali Reza Asghari, who is believed to have defected to the West in February.
The international community’s failure to show immediate outrage at Iran’s action is deafening. Ancient legal principles governing how states make war are on the line. Compliance with the laws of war is most important at the time of actual conflict. These principles are already, unfortunately, under assault by terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda. Permitting a United Nations member state that is also a regional power like Iran to violate these norms repeatedly and with impunity would have grave humanitarian consequences for the future.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, at least, understands the stakes. He has already opened talks with Iran. But the U.N. Security Council adopted a weak statement Thursday expressing only “grave concern” at the capture of the sailors. Britain was unable to win a stronger council statement to “deplore” the Iranian action, mainly because of Russian objections to a provision that stated that the British were in Iraqi, not Iranian, waters.
If the Security Council cannot even “deplore” the unlawful detention of prisoners of war, let alone take more forceful action when a sovereign state chooses to act ? openly and unapologetically ? like a transnational terrorist organization, then it would better have remained deadlocked and silent. It is worthless as a guarantor of international peace and stability. The Iranian government has chosen to act as an international pariah, and it is time it is treated as such.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
[i]"Success is never guaranteed in any war.
But that’s no reason to guarantee failure."[/i]
…
Great article.
Zap, BF:
I agree, great article.
You know what’s frustating, if George was on the offensive publically, the idiotic dems wouldn’t be on the radar.
I’d have a large map of Baghdad and point to all the recent successes.
Once a week, updates on the Iraq War.
How hard would that be!!??!!
JeffR
I know. Bush pisses me off because he refuses to communicate. He has had success rallying the world against Iran and no one knows it. He has an agreement with North Korea about their nukes (for what it is worth) and no one knows it.
The surge in Baghdad has been successful but no one knows it.
Most of Iraq is peaceful but no one knows it.
He knows the media isn’t going to get his message out for him. They hate him.
He needs a weekly “fireside chat” with the American people to tell us how the war is going.
He has basically turned his back on communicating with the American people. I agree with many of his policies but I am mad he doesn’t try to sell them to the American people.[/quote]
Zap,
I agree with everything you said. If we, in the amateur politician category, can see THIS GLARING HOLE, why can’t he?
It may be that he truly doesn’t care about what the papers say.
What he doesn’t seem to grasp is that this war’s political front is AT LEAST IF NOT MORE important than the actual fighting.
Think about it, he has changed the paradigm of foreign policy. The weapons and tactics of our enemies have become so dangerous and unpredictable, that we could not wait to be hit again.
With nuclear/biological weapons, enemies need to be dealt with pro-actively.
He’ll make the argument once or twice, and then stop talking.
He doesn’t realize the ROT and DAMAGE that guys like tme/pox/newyorktimes/bradley/liftus can do if given the floor unopposed.
Like any fungus, you MUST sweep them away or they will rot the wood (circa 2006).
It just seems like such a simple concept.
Worse, there are media outlets that would cover him if he was aggressive. In fact, even the libs like npr/cbs/nbc/abc/nyt/cnn who are all fighting for their lives, would cover him if he pushed.
He has the bully-pulpit and refuses to use it.
Rudy won’t make the same mistake.
Guaranteed.
JeffR
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[i]"Success is never guaranteed in any war.
But that’s no reason to guarantee failure."[/i]
A terrific article that discusses why the dems “contract with al-queda” is a bad, bad idea. I believe that the authors premise is correct, that we’re already witnessing the repercussions of our congress’s commitment to defeat.
Maybe our congress can display some backbone and support the troops with a commitment to victory, rather than a their commitment to retreat and defeat.
[/quote]
Great article. It seems the human propensity for personal (in this case political) gain at the expense of everything and anything else is alive and well. The also rans seem to be desperate to be the big fish in our natioinal pond at all costs, including flushing our credibility down the toilet in the eyes of the rest of the world.
One question that I’d like to raise though. At this point with all the shit going on in the region, what exactly constitutes a U.S. "victory’ at this point? Do we still think that democracy is going to blossom in Irak and transform the Middle East?
Do we just want to get them to stop killing each other to the extent that it makes the news every night? Are we just biding our time until Iran tries to put their thing down, so we can nuke them back into the stone age? Where do you guys see this going?
[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
Get tough on Iran
Tehran broke international law again by abducting British soldiers; it’s time for the world to enforce the rules.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey[/quote]
“The problem with the neo-cons is not that so many of them are Jews. The problem is that so many of them are journalists.”
[quote]haney1 wrote:
That and according to them the holocaust didn’t happen.[/quote]
In every interview of Ahmadinejad I know of, he didn’t deny the occurence of the Holocaust, but rather questionned the 6 millions figure. I understand that - whatever the truth - it is insulting to the memory of the victims.
However, the point he consistently defend is the responsability of the Palestinian people in all that. Why weren’t the Jews given a state in Germany? Why punish the Palestinians for something others have done?
[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
One question that I’d like to raise though. At this point with all the shit going on in the region, what exactly constitutes a U.S. "victory’ at this point?[/quote]
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, here’s what I believe is “US victory” in the eyes of the Pentagon’s strategic planners:
-
Install a client regime democratically if possible, thru violence if necessary (Given US history, its unconditional support for Israel, the numerous abuses by US soldiers towards Iraqis, the non-public nature of the “reconstruction” contracts in favor of US companies, I’ll let you figure out the chances of the first one occuring)
-
Permanent military bases in Iraq. (why do you think the biggest US embassy in the world was built there?)
-
Juicy contracts for oil companies.
-
Iraqis handing out flowers to GIs. Ok, this one was just mean…
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That is what they all say so they will not be abused any more.
We’ll see about that as the crisis unfolds…
For now, it’s the word of the Brits against that of the Iranians. After the WMDs fiasco, I can’t help but consider Downing St.'s statements as dubious.[/quote]
I cannot get over this comment.
To say that I find it offensive would be innacurate, it merely reinforces my view of the dimwitted bleeding heart-“liberal” brigade.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” seems to be the driving force of you people. A group of my countrymen have been taken hostage by some despotic middle eastern country and a you are supporting the Iranians? This is a prime example why as and Englishman I do not consider myself a European, and never will.
I wasn’t suprised the Russians and the Chinese supported them - but your comments sicken me.
I hope they return unharmed but suspect they will face a show trial and remain in prison for a long time.
I note the distinct silence over this matter from the muslim community in Britain, seems their “outrage” is nowhere to be seen on this issue.
If they do not release them, then I do believe in taking military action; this hostage taking was an act of war. Either we fight them here, or we leave the middle east altogether (all investment, all military supplies, everything), let one group of muslims kill another, let them live without democracy, and let them live out their Islamic dealth cult fantasies without western intervention.
[quote]The Beast wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That is what they all say so they will not be abused any more.
We’ll see about that as the crisis unfolds…
For now, it’s the word of the Brits against that of the Iranians. After the WMDs fiasco, I can’t help but consider Downing St.'s statements as dubious.
I cannot get over this comment.
To say that I find it offensive would be innacurate, it merely reinforces my view of the dimwitted bleeding heart-“liberal” brigade.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” seems to be the driving force of you people. A group of my countrymen have been taken hostage by some despotic middle eastern country and a you are supporting the Iranians? This is a prime example why as and Englishman I do not consider myself a European, and never will.
I wasn’t suprised the Russians and the Chinese supported them - but your comments sicken me.
I hope they return unharmed but suspect they will face a show trial and remain in prison for a long time.
I note the distinct silence over this matter from the muslim community in Britain, seems their “outrage” is nowhere to be seen on this issue.
If they do not release them, then I do believe in taking military action; this hostage taking was an act of war. Either we fight them here, or we leave the middle east altogether (all investment, all military supplies, everything), let one group of muslims kill another, let them live without democracy, and let them live out their Islamic dealth cult fantasies without western intervention.[/quote]
Hey Beast,
Welcome to the forum.
You must be one of those clear-thinking Britains that never gets interviewed for any poll.
Trust me, I know the feeling.
To hear some of the tools from my country and yours talk about it, Blair joined the U.S. in Iraq against the wishes of everyone in England.
You and I both know that hussein was bent on domination of the region. He was also an inveterate foe of the U.S. and Britain.
Anyone with a functioning cortex could see the result of appeasement.
You are also the type of Englishman who most Americans are proud to have on our side.
Again, welcome. I encourage you to post more and become vocally involved in your country.
We could use more rational thinkers.
JeffR
[quote]The Beast wrote:
I cannot get over this comment.[/quote]
You’re evidently not the only one.
Judging from the responses I got, it seems like it’s a sacrilege to compare the word of Iranians to that of Brits.
Because…?
I hope so to. Will wait for facts before suspecting anything though.
Again, if they were trespassing in Iranian waters, there’s nothing to be outraged about. If they were US waters, rest assured the trespasser’s country would be obliterated into oblivion…
From the POV of Iranians, they’re at war with the West ever since 1979. I mean, you armed Saddam, keep calling them “axis of evil” and
you don’t respect their right to acquire civil nuclear technology. From their perspective, they’ve seen worse and survived it. Why should they worry about the current crisis.
That’d be very wise. That way, people will have a hard time blaming the troubles of the region on you.
Seems they already tried to get some U.S. prisoners and maybe had to take the Brits when the opportunity presented itself…
A Deadly U.S.-Iran Firefight
By Mark Kukis/Baqubah
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.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner
Lixy,
I actually find it almost funny that you think some people consider it to be almost ‘sacreligeous’ to compare Britain and Iran.
The British sailors and marines made a statement under duress- why is there any reason to believe the statements that they are purported to have written? It’s not just because I’m British. If Britain paraded foreign troops on television, made them read statements denouncing the war that they were fighting and stating that they were in British waters, I wouldn’t believe their statements.
Objectively, why should any of us believe the ‘confessions’ of the sailors, particularly when analysis of the statements has shown glaring errors of basic English and when satellite imaging has shown that they were in Iraqi waters.
[quote]The Beast wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That is what they all say so they will not be abused any more.
We’ll see about that as the crisis unfolds…
For now, it’s the word of the Brits against that of the Iranians. After the WMDs fiasco, I can’t help but consider Downing St.'s statements as dubious.
I cannot get over this comment.
To say that I find it offensive would be innacurate, it merely reinforces my view of the dimwitted bleeding heart-“liberal” brigade.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” seems to be the driving force of you people. A group of my countrymen have been taken hostage by some despotic middle eastern country and a you are supporting the Iranians? This is a prime example why as and Englishman I do not consider myself a European, and never will…
[/quote]
I think the point is, Bush and Blair have used up ALL (and then some) of their credibility. Its not a matter of “supporting” Iran – its a matter of losing faith in OUR government because they have lied about or “bungled” EVERYTHING.
They very well could be telling the truth about this situation – if so, it would be the first time in six years they have told the truth about ANYTHING. That’s the ultimate dilemma, and the percentages say they are lying AGAIN to start a war.
Think about it for a moment. Even if I myself could be convinced Iran needed to be taken out – why in the living FUCK would ANYONE want the Bush/Blair/Olmert team to do it!!!
We already know it will be a disaster that costs 1000X more and lasts 1000X longer than anybody “could have predicted”. Recent history PROVES that we are much better off if Bush just doesn’t touch anything else for the next three years.
Seriously, after Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon – what are people so looking forward to by attacking Iran!!!
Afghan war may be lost: experts
Olmert takes blame for army’s failings
I do feel bad for the 15 soldiers, unfortunately there is more to this story and EVERY reason to be suspicious.
[i]"In claiming HMS Cornwall was within Iraqi territorial waters, the British government and the media have covered-up the fact there is no agreed upon Iraqi-Iranian maritime border, as other bizarre coincidences and dubious circumstances surrounding the hostage crisis begin to emerge…
Readers have also pointed out the bizarre coincidence of the fact that immediately before the sailors were captured, they were being accompanied by a BBC film crew onboard HMS Cornwall, who filmed a human interest interview with Faye Turney, who has become the poster child of the whole crisis…"[/i]
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/300307bordermap.htm
“Of course, for the neocons, these developments are welcome, as they are on a fishing expedition for a pretense, a refashioned Gulf of Tonkin event, and they may as well troll the disputed waters of the Shatt al-Arab in search of it.”
Operation Northwoods:
[i]"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere.
People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."[/i]
[quote]majicka wrote:
The British sailors and marines made a statement under duress- why is there any reason to believe the statements that they are purported to have written? It’s not just because I’m British. If Britain paraded foreign troops on television, made them read statements denouncing the war that they were fighting and stating that they were in British waters, I wouldn’t believe their statements. [/quote]
You’re right. I should have picked my words more carefully. Got carried away, I guess…
It’s very likely that the “confessions” of the sailors were coerced, but the Iranian position is easily defendable.
"According to analysis by the International Boundary Research Unit (IBRU) at Durham University in the United Kingdom, the location provided by the UK Ministry of Defence for the location of the seizure is 3.1 km southwest of this Point “R” boundary terminus and 2.9 km south of this international boundary line. Thus the university says: “The point lies on the Iraqi side of…the agreed land boundary.”[7][8] This has been challenged by Iran, whose second set of released co-ordinates were inside its territorial waters. Nevertheless, as IBRU points out, the UK Ministry of Defence location is not in disputed territory, as it is only in Iran and Iraq’s territorial waters beyond Point “R” (east and southeast of Point “R”) where Iran and Iraq have never agreed to any delineation of their boundary. Confirming this, Richard Schofield, an expert in international boundaries at King’s College London, stated “Iran and Iraq have never agreed to a boundary of their territorial waters. There is no legal definition of the boundary beyond the Shatt al-Arab.” "
I empathize with the plight of your fellows, but after the US/UK/EU position on the nuclear issue it became a political struggle. Iran was abiding by the NPT and was snapped unlawfully. They’re trying to get back anyway they can.