主播大秀

Dear Newsnight

Why is the Iranian leader setting up his own country to be attacked? if I could I'd seriously check whether he made any visits to the US or had any connections with it that are not known about?

More probably I guess he shares the view of fundamentalists over here that he can perhaps lend a helping hand and 'bounce' the Lord into returning by tipping the World into the abyss

or he is simply mad?

Age or Elections will see him gone and it is the responsibility of our leaders not to kill thousands more innocent people because one leader is giving them the excuse they think to do so.

re the idea of a federal European state at least they have come to terms more with their past, and tried to make amends for it. We still teach our history as if the bloodthirsty murderers who have led us for most of it and have tried to enslave millions were some kind of heroes instead of the wicked people they are.

I think Europe and Britain as states are out of date and we should be thinking more in terms of the World as a whole with us as individuals in it. The real difference in the World now is not race or nationality but the values we hold and the way we treat others

Best Wishes
Bob

I am sorry that it is Martha's last Newsnight tonight, she has always been a good political reporter for the programme and occasional presenter. Working evenings must have been difficult for her at times, I can fully understand why she wants to reclaim her evenings and get a day job. Martha will be a good presenter for Radio 4's World At One. I am sure that all of her colleagues on Newsnight and viewers will wish her well in her new career on RADIO 4. We shall all miss seeing Martha on the television and hope that she enjoys her new job on Radio 4. I am sure that she will.

As usual, the rabid Europhiles (including Newsnight)present the EU as a good thing that you have to be mad to oppose. Who is paying them to say this? The evidence is against them. The EU has not brought peace (Martha), or free trade, or cooperation. Thet was the common market and democracy. The EU is claiming things it is NOT reponsible for, and pretending it didn't;
do stuff it DID do - straight bananas were NOT a myth. "Europe" is fine, the EU is a corrupt monstrosity. The sooner we can get back to the common market we actually asked for, the better.

Please, please get Kirsty some professional advice as to what to wear ! for some reason, she never seem to know what suits her. But this awful sleeveless silk golden top and tight fitting shiny black skirt she is wearing to-night must be the worse thing I have have seen her in. Shame really, because it distracts from what she has to say.

Please, please get Kirsty some professional advice as to what to wear ! for some reason, she never seem to know what suits her. But this awful sleeveless silk golden top and tight fitting shiny black skirt she is wearing to-night must be the worse thing I have have seen her in. Shame really, because it distracts from what she has to say.

As we are celebrating 50 years since the signing of the Treaty of Rome, I do not think that Europe has done much for us in many ways. What Europe has done however is ensure us of peace for 62 years which I think is a great achievement. More could be achieved if all members states worked better together. Give and take is vital in any negotiations and would go along way to a common understanding and better co-operation within Europe. It is very important that Europe is successful and has to promote itself better making itself more appealing to ordinary people. Something I think for all in Brussels to think about for the future.

Had this happened to America or Britain 50 years ago, I expect bombs would be falling and rockets landing all over Iran and wouldn't stop until the sailors were released. The emasculated response brings into question whether we have the political will to survive as a civilization even though we clearly have the means. This is what happens when you are conditioned to a mentality where sovereignty has been relinquished and the use of military force even when attacked is out of the question. President Bush's tepid response to the forcing down of an American reconaissance plane flying over international waters by China in early 2001, the detention of the crew and the capture of the equipment shows the US can be just as weak and feeble.

if the RN was in Iraqi waters why did THEY not 'arrest' the iranians for trespassing? Or do they not have the power of arrest?

BRINKMANSHIP v DESPERATION:

Several significant events leading back to direct/legacy policy & action of radical regime in Iran.

a) March 2007 - kidnap of British Military personnel (15 sailors & marines) [1]

b) March 2007 - kidnap of 主播大秀 reporter in Gaza, Alan Johnston by whom? (in area dominated by Iranian funded Islamic militants) [2a] [2b]

c) January 2007 - US & Iraq forces in two raids within Iraq detained 5 Iranians [3a] [3b]

d) December 2006 - U.S. forces seized two senior Iranians, Brig. Gen. Mohsen Chirazi and Col. Abu Amad Davari -- in the first round of raids. Chirazi is the No. 3 official in the al-Quds Brigade and the highest ranking Iranian ever held by the United State [4]

Meantime, other alleged terrorist actions, come back to haut Iran as "Interpol recommends arrest warrants for former Iranian officials" in connection with the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community centre in Argentina, which killed 85 people [4]

All of which is activity surely relevant to Iran violation of UNSC Resolutions on nuclear development & the further vote on Sanctions [5]

AN EXERCISE IN DESPERATION:

Several 'elected leaders' from pariah states, demonstrate commonality.

1) North Korean 'Great Leader' Kim Jong-il's drive to attain nuclear weapons, brought his country to its social & economic knees & into head long confrontation with the International Community & done nothing for his reputation, no wonder he is 'so lonely' [6]

2) Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe, is forced to act more radically as his position deteriorates & his regime fails [7]

3) Iranian President, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad either: (A) has not control of government agencies who are acting independently or (B) has sanctioned direct actions designed to bring about conflict with the UN & other countries (funding militia/terrorist in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Afghanistan, abroad, kidnap of British forces) which is all tied into economic policy to fund such actions [8a]

Therfore, the 'irrational' acts by all 3 Presidents, make sense through the prism of desperation & they daily demonstrate an utter failure of policy to be able to do anything else, then pursue actions purposely designed & engineered to cause 'conflict' (domestic, political, military).

Kim Jong-il's is wedded to the maintenance of an what is an unsustainable regime, fearing how Korea & the international community would hold him too his actions

Mugabe is wedded to protecting himself & his failing regime by suppression & violence, fearing how Zimbabwe & the international community would hold him too action [7]

Ahmadinejad rule is wedded to the development of Iran's Nuclear Program. If he goes soft in eyes of radicals at home & bows to UN pressure, he will be ousted & the program as part of greater Iranian desires (political, religious prophecy) will be severely curtailed [8b]

SUMMARY:

The political implications are wide indeed, especially for the nations who have thus far defended & excused the excesses of:

- North Korea (China)
- Zimbabwe (South Africa)
- Iran (Russia, China)

These appeasers/supporters of such pariah states, are faced by the clear need of international action too & resolve (& prevent unilateral actions) to address blatant pariah state sponsored: repression; international law breaking; kidnap; hostage; criminality; terrorism; and aspiring armageddon-esque capability.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]
[2a]
[2b]
[3a]
[3b]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8a]
[8b]

Goodbye Martha. You have been a great presenter on Newsnight and have made politics easier for me to understand. I wish you well.

With GPS the ship's commander knew his true position within five feet. You can be sure he was in Iraqi waters, unless you want to call the Royal Navy a pack of liars. I know there are a lot of people who oppose the war who would call anyone who disagrees with them liars. I put my money on the RN. This was a deliberate provocation by Iran, they want to see just how far they can go. So far they haven't crossed the rubicon. I think when they start playing this game with the USN though, they will be playing with fire and they will get burned. Just a hunch. They're lucky I'm not the commander in chief, I wouldn't have waited nearly this long.

AN EXERCISE IN DESPERATION:

Several 'elected leaders' from pariah states, demonstrate commonality.

1) North Korean 'Great Leader' Kim Jong-il's drive to attain nuclear weapons, brought his country to its social & economic knees & into head long confrontation with the International Community & done nothing for his reputation, no wonder he is 'so lonely' [6]

2) Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe, is forced to act more radically as his position deteriorates & his regime fails [7]

3) Iranian President, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad either: (A) has not control of government agencies who are acting independently or (B) has sanctioned direct actions designed to bring about conflict with the UN & other countries (funding militia/terrorist in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Afghanistan, abroad, kidnap of British forces) which is all tied into economic policy to fund such actions [8a]

Therfore, the 'irrational' acts by all 3 Presidents, make sense through the prism of desperation & they daily demonstrate an utter failure of policy to be able to do anything else, then pursue actions purposely designed & engineered to cause 'conflict' (domestic, political, military).

Kim Jong-il's is wedded to the maintenance of an unsustainable regime, fearing how Korea & the international community would hold him too his actions

Mugabe is wedded to protecting himself & his failing regime by suppression & violence, fearing how Zimbabwe & the international community would hold him too action [7]

Ahmadinejad rule is wedded to the development of Iran's Nuclear Program. If he goes soft in eyes of radicals at home & bows to UN pressure, he will be ousted & the program as part of greater Iranian desires (political, religious prophecy) will be severely curtailed [8b]

SUMMARY:

The political implications are wide indeed, especially for the nations who have thus far defended & excused the excesses of:

- North Korea (China)
- Zimbabwe (South Africa)
- Iran (Russia, China)

These appeasers/supporters of such pariah states, are faced by the clear need of international action too & resolve (& prevent unilateral actions) to address blatant pariah state sponsored: repression; international law breaking; kidnap; hostage; criminality; terrorism; and aspiring armageddon-esque capability.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[6]
[7]
[8a]
[8b]

It has been truely sad to see Britain's public humiliation and shame cowering before this third rate wanabee military power, at least in public. Not only doesn't Britania rule the waves anymore, it doesn't even seem to rule the bathtub. How can Great Britain, the once mighty empire upon which the sun never set sit idly by as fifteen of its sailors are captured right under its nose and its entire military including a war ship right at the scene of the crime sits by helplessly? Why not just surrender to Iran now Britain and get it over with. If they won't accept, surrender to Luxembourg, Monaco, or San Marino instead.

Mark at 13
You wont find a more patriotic flag waving Britain than me mark,and i will get the union jack out even if my German shepherd doggie will sit on command.I love this country and its military history,sadly the British empire which ruled the waves are gone and we are left with a military which has found itself running almost on empty,mostly due to cuts from a govt that does not understand or really care for the underfunded military in all its parts ,and has its service men with an embarrisingly limited resources,from lack of body armour to shortage of ships.We can romanticize how great this country was,but conflicts around the world can tell you how difficult our military has to operate under ,with a blatant shortages of men and hardware.Do you remember the Falklands,when we waved the ships goodbye and good luck at Southampton docks,it was no easy fight,considering that the British army and navy were taking on mostly undertrained argie conscripts,although the argie air force still gave the British a good run for its money,and the logistics was massive and caught the conservative govt out with their budget cuts to the military.Sadly today we are still short of the needed gear and tackle to take on the Iranians,no political will and lack of resources, and already bogged down in Iraq with the British army scattered around the globe.It is humiliating that we have to stand by,navel gazing whilst a country such as Iran takes the piss, but irans military is not as shoddy as you suggest and the 15 captured service men will only be released through the "normal negotiations" and both the Iranians and British will try to avoid losing face or appear weak,the usual brinkmanship has to play out its course.Still think we made a mistake in getting involved in Iraq, though i give my unwavering support and flag wave, for our low paid,under resourced service men/and women(lets not forget the lassies) who are prepared to risk the ultimate price that the rest of us civies can not even imagine.Lets hope the 15 service personnel are released soon and unharmed, as i fear that the USA Bush led admistration may use this as a reason to "up the anti" in its war of words and even possibly, air strikes that the USA has subtly suggested in its past rhetoric.The USA has a large naval presense of ships gathered in the region to unsettle Iran already,posed i think,for action of a larger kind, brinkmanship again rears its head..

Mr. Wallace;
The situation on my side of the pond is entirely different. America learned its lesson from Pearl Harbor. It will always have far and away the most powerful military force in the world. The government if not all of its people learned a lesson from 9-11 as well, the necessity of pre-emptive wars in an era of WMDs in the hands of terrorists and state supporters of terrorists like Iran. This is very frightening to a lot of people in the US, Britain and in other civilized nations but it doesn't appear to be nearly frightening enough to governments of rogue states like Iran. Iraq was not a sufficient lesson for them.

Diplomacy will no more work with the Ayatolahs or Ahmadinejads of the world than it did with Saddam Hussein or Adlof Hitler. The only recourse you have with these kind of people is brute military force, the anathema of the French philosophy of the world which asserts that you can talk your way out of anything if you have enough skill (I heard de Villepin blathering on for an hour on C-Span 2 in a recording of his March 16 talk at the Kennedy School of Government. He made me even more Francophobic than I already had been.) So you are afraid that the USA led Bush administration may use this as a reason to up the ante? Why, would you have us wait until after Iran has an atom bomb to do something about it when the cost to us in lost lives will be a milion times greater or do you propose to ultimately surrender as Britain would have had to had the US not come to its rescue when it made the same mistake in World War II? Small wonder Britain places so little importance on having military strength, what's the good of it if you are never prepared to use it under any circumstances? Is there not one drop of red blood or one vestige trace of spine left in the British lion? Methinks you've been around the French too long. Were I British, I think I'd advoctate blowing up the Chunnel for starters to get my nation's self respect back.

BRITISH MILITARY:

The rich history of stability in the UK (more so than European nations) has shaped our laws, institutions & shared moral & common values.

On more than one occasion, this stability (often misread read as intransigence) has SAVED old & much of new Europe (if not the notion of progressive western society).

Today's social & political climate is somewhat the consequence of 'living' history & is a direct consequence of our heritage (social, political, economic & MILITARY).

The UK has the resolve, a well sprung of potential recruits & the resources to back up a military projection of power, in a changing world.

Moreover, despite policy disasters, its retains the best all round forces in the world (esp the ethos & culture of such, which is reflective of national values & society).

Today, we face several surmountable problems:

1) UK British Forces misuse / under resource

2) Tactical dismantling of British Forces by new alliance/restructuring outside of NATO & national tradition.

3) Disingenuous rationale & agenda of domestic 'surrender monkeys' ref the retention of military infrastructure * & its use, period (conventional/nuclear)

* usual bleating suspects: left, liberal left & ultra liberals

Would argue, that the general publics real desire to retain, man, fund & then use military force is virtually undiminished **

** the rationale of the use of such forces obviously depends on the scale of action & cause though

vikingar

There's talk on American news television tonight that the Commander of the Cornwall ordered his men not to interfere with the capture of their fellow sailors or trying to rescue them. If something like this were true in the US Navy, I think that would be unquestionable grounds for a court marshall.

To Mark (message 18)

You seem to forget that USN ships form part of the same task force as Cornwall's, and, fortunately, they too did not show the kind of rash, gung-ho attitude you advocate. Had they done so, a bad outcome could have been much worse: people killed and a shooting war with Iran on the cards, giving Iran an excuse to send forces in numbers onto Iraqi soil.

Should anyone doubt the British (and American) claim that the incident took place in Iraqi waters, there's strong corroborating evidence to support them: the presence of the Iraqi merchant ship which had just been inspected. Clearly, the Iraqi merchantman would have kept within its territorial waters on its way to the high seas.

If it wasn't, why wasn't it arrested by the Iranians? Given a choice of a good-sized vessel or two small craft, why go for the small craft? Obviously, because they wanted the people on those boats.

The evidence seems quite clear: the Iranians know full well the incident took place in Iraqi waters (which, therefore, their craft were violating) and that it was a deliberate act to seize coalition personnel and assets.

Stranded in Babylon #19
Judging from the Neville Chamberlainism still prevalent in British culture, self defense is by your definition a "rash gung-ho attitude."

When it is clear that war is inevitable, postponing it for a less advantageous time when the enemy is stronger and has the element of surprise is a losing strategy. If we have to fight Iran as is clearly inevitable already, it would be far better to get it over with as soon as possible and on our own terms. American culture is not like British culture in this respect at all. America is a very violent society and its propensity to use its destructive might when provoked, what its detractors call swagger, apparantly has not frightened Iran sufficiently. Luckily for them, they kidnapped British sailors and not American sailors. If they had, the drumbeat of public opinion in the US calling for war would by now be deafening and irresistable. All of the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan would be set aside and forgotten. The American public also has a notoriously short attention span and is very impatient for results. Why do you think Jimmy Carter lost his bid for re-election? Were Iran foolish enough to launch a land attack invading Iraq to assault coalition troops, they would be descimated. With complete air supremacy, 150,000 American troops, and as a backup tac-nukes, they wouldn't stand a chance. A lot of people are going to die in the coming war with Iran, that's how war is. I just hope most of them are Iranians and not ours. Waiting until they have nuclear weapons would be a catastrophic blunder for us just as waiting for Nazi Germany to re-arm was a catastrophic blunder for Britain.

To Mark (Message 21)

Your reference to Jimmy Carter's experience with American hostages in Iran shows your assumption about America's response, had the current crisis involved Americans rather than Britons, is not borne out by history.

Furthermore, Israel's experience only last year showed the shortcomings of a military response in this situation. Did they recover any of their troops, and was the position in Lebanon and Gaza improved as a result?

The low-key approach may not satisfy the egos of those (on either side) disposed to vainglory and national sabre-rattling, but attempts to defuse the situation rather than inflame it seem to offer the better likelihood of a decent outcome, if one can be attained at all.

Stranded in Babylon #22
The only reason Jimmy Who was elected in the first place was in protest over Gerald Ford having pardoned Nixon immediately after he left office and Ford's gaff during the presidential debates in which he referred to Poland as a free nation. Carter was defeated in his bid for re-election because he was seen as weak and ineffective, his response to the hostage crisis epitomized his failure. Had we more presidents like him, the cold war would still be waging and the USSR and its evil empire would still exist.

Israel too was weak and ineffective in war, its defense minister already forced to resign and its entire government may fall as a result. When you fight a war, you don't pull you punches, you don't cease combat for an entire day to find out why an appartment building used to store enemy munitions that was supposed to be uninhabited still had 30 people in it you didn't know about. And you don't fight without the expectation that you will suffer casualties...or that you will inflict them on the enemy even massively. The US gave Israel a green light to destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon regardless of the consequences to Lebanon itself, equipped it generously for the mission, and Israel flubbed it. Weak, indecisive, having grown soft and flabby, they'd better shape up fast if they want to survive. If the US doesn't take out Iran before much longer, they will have to get the job done themselves...with nuclear weapons. Will they have the guts? The survival of their nation could depend on it.

To Mark (Message 23)

And there I was, thinking Israel lost the world's (including the USA's) sympathy and support because its reaction was seen to be disproportionate.

Silly me!

Stranded in Babylon #24
Israel never had the world's support. Europe keeps hoping the Arabs will finish off the job Hitler started. Why do you think Europe has no credibility with Israel and cannot be a participant in any negotiations between Israel and the Arabs?

On the other hand, Israel has the unyielding and unconditional support of many Americans, perhaps most Americans. America does not see the world the same way Europe does. America has always supported Israel, is its closest ally, supported its creation, and was the first nation to recognize it. Support of American governments has varied from supportive but somewhat neutral to very warm. Israel has never had a better friend in the White House than the Bush Administration. It is behind Israel 100%. Given the potency of American assistance and the impotence of Europe to do anything except talk, Israel is lucky in that respect, if it can only have one of Europe or America as its ally, it has the right one. America's unconditional support for Israel is one of the reasons so many in the Islamic world hate it and one of the reasons so many Europeans hate it too. The feelings have become largely mutual. Most Americans have little respect or regard for the opinions or needs of anything that comes out of Western Europe no matter what the govenment in Washington DC says about it. Frankly I think that if Dr. Rice had her way, we'd be at war with France this very day. Heaven help them if she's ever elected President.

Mark, re. the Iranian hostages in '79 it's pretty much suspected that Reagan's Republicans made a deal with the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election (and if you don't believe the Republicans would do back-door deals with Iran look up "Iran/Contra").

For all those who want another war please go ahead and sign-up.

I've always wondered how a nation like the U.S has never failed to kill, not only its enemy, but also its allies in every military campaign it has ever been involved in, but after reading the comments from our American cousin Mark, my wondering has now ceased.

It's hard being British in today's world affairs . We have the demented elders to our east, the baby with a bazooka to our west, and the conveniently deaf, dumb and blind to the south.

By the way Jay, I am NOT your American cousin. The so called "special relationship" is a figment of Britain's imagination. Nations don't have friends, they have interests. And don't think that Britain's and America's interests will necessarily coincide forever. Should Britain turn sharply to the left in the direction of continental Europe, it will be viewed by Americans witht the same contempt we feel for the French. According to Sir Christopher Meyers, Britain's former ambassador to the US for over 5 years, the nation America is closest to right now by far is Israel. I think this is one time he is "spot on." But even Isreal knows that in the real world of politics, that can change quickly. Israel is not relying on America's nuclear umbrella to protect it from extinction. Most experts belive it has its own umbrella and a very good one at that.

By the way Mark, the cousin remark was alluding to our shared ancestry, and as to a special relationship being in our imagination, the truth is we couldn't care less, in fact we view the American culture as been pretty cheesy and great source of amusement.

Also, why do you feel contempt for the French, after all, the French helped you gain independence from the British and also built you the statue of liberty. Surely it cant be to do with the War because the Italians allied themselves with the Nazis and you show absolutely no contempt towards them.
Sounds to me as though you may have a touch of the denials and have trouble accepting the French involvement in your independence, so instead you choose to show contempt towards them through the events of World War 2, mmmm, interesting.

Jay #29
If we go far back enough, I am your distant cousin...if you want to talk about the apes swinging from the trees...or the garden of Eden depending on what you beieve in but trust me, I don't have one drop of Anglo-Saxon blood in me. And there is little in common my view of the world has with Europeans' I've met. Same for most of the other Americans I know, they don't either. We live in different worlds. I am much more impressed by the differences between our cultures than the similarities. Take this hostage crisis for example. European leaders including Tony Blair and Javier Solana seem obsessed with not even considering military acton. The Vietnam war was started under just such circumstances with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. It received overwhelming support in Congress at the time. I still have strong red blood and real testosterone flowing in my veins. It seems to me Europeans have ice water instead. Is there nothing worth fighting and dying for in your world including your freedom? I suppose there isn't.

Yes the French were very instrumental in America's winning the Revolutionary war and we owed them a debt of gratitude for it. We've been paying that debt back ever since. A lot of American blood and treasure have been spilled saving France from one disaster or another. When is that debt finally paid back, one world war? Two world wars? Three world wars? The French government made it clear 5 years ago that it wanted to be America's adversary, to challenge America. de Villepin said it just again last week only he softened the terminology and called it "counterbalance." That's why they are pushing for the EU to be as large as possible and don't care if it's a bureaucratic and economic mess. Chirac said so then in 2002 he says so now. Do you recall how he told the aspiring members that if they didn't support France's position on Iraq or shut up, he might see to it that they wouldn't get into the EU? He did everything he could to divide France and Europe from America. His wish has come true. I wasn't the one who coined the phrase, "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" that was Bart Simpson. I didn't change the name of French fries to "freedom fries" either. Actually America has had trouble with France ever since the XYZ affair shortly after the American revolution. They were viewed as self serving and corrupt then, and they still are. Chirac did not invent playing the Anti American card himself, he copied Gerhard Schoeder who used it to win an election he had been trailing in the polls in. It worked for him in Germany, it worked for Chirac the same way. I lived in France for nearly two years, I think I understand them fairly well. Nothing they do surprises me. I also didn't invent the terms "Axis of Weasel" or "Eurotrash" either. You'd be surprised at how many Americans hold Europe and Europeans in low regard right now. It could take generations to undo the damage Chiric and Schroeder did to relations among people in just a few short years by cynically whipping up Anti-American public sentiment for their own short term domestic political gains. Americans have noticed, they don't like it, and there is a strong backlash. If a trade war comes, Europe will find America a very formidable adversary. It's already fighting back with its weak dollar. Wait until our next recession or our next big oil crisis. I've heard American oil analysts say on CNBC they can't wait for oil to go to 150 to 200 dollars a barrel so that it will fall to 20 dollars a barrel after. By then presumably, the EU will have been priced out of the market and gone bankrupt. Nobody on this side of the pond would even dare suggest baling it out again.

After the disgraceful exibition of the two Naval perdonnel selling their story, what will be the fate of any service personnel taken a prisoner by Iran in the future? It is almost certain they will not live to sell their story. The Second Sea Lord should be dismissed the service for his part in this disgraceful episode.
Ron Edwards