Irans capture of British troops

[Crap Buddist]

Well saw a bit of telly last night, so I assume they went in little dingies with outboards, understand why they couldnt "not surrender to" a couple of Iranian warships, now we have to think that if a couple of Iranian warships turned up then , why were they not detained and captured for being in Iraqi waters ?

Bit odd, so maybe the Brits, thought up yours lets get into Iranian waters to check that boat out anyway and got caught with their thumbs in the pie. ?

 

[JTrader]

Iran says they were in Iranian waters.
The allies says they were in Iraqi waters.

Who is telling the truth? How can we know?

Lets hope it turns into a big fuss about a simple misunderstanding & that the problem is resolved peacefully.

 

[Crap Buddist]

Here JT, I also had the pleasure of watching a bit of Fox news. LOL. that Bull Orielly came on, giving us the NO Spin low down on the worlds events........

Guess what , First feature, Loose Change. The maker or funder of it was shafted old bill not being very open to it at all, not impressed with charlie sheen maybe doing the narration of it either... The board behind Bills head in the studio, said, Hating America.

Poor old bill, the bloke said all people need to do bill is watch it for themselves and then they can refute it .

Hows that for a no spin approach , Bill Oreilly ?

Anyway they are trying to get loose change into american cinemas.

Bill was saying how people of america felt that media was bullsh!tting them, and he was giving it to the world straight.

hmm his next piece , LOL was an off duty copper beating the sh!t out of a female bartender all on video , the policeofficer was not drunk. Not that that should matter but.... That woman no longer trusts the police in chicago.... who protect and ermm serve .


his next piece was about the Mayor of salt lake ? I think, saying he has lied to us on this show, regarding documents and evidence of WMD , saying their was none. Fox news then talked at length to prop up the theory that there was evidence. And the invasion was justifiable.....

what a bloody comedy show, dear ohh dear.... And Bill wonders why the people of U.S. (his own idea)dont trust the U.S.

 

[Atilla]

Well saw a bit of telly last night, so I assume they went in little dingies with outboards, understand why they couldnt "not surrender to" a couple of Iranian warships, now we have to think that if a couple of Iranian warships turned up then , why were they not detained and captured for being in Iraqi waters ?

I really would like an answer to that one... Paxman :!:

 

[JTrader]

Here JT, I also had the pleasure of watching a bit of Fox news. LOL. that Bull Orielly came on, giving us the NO Spin low down on the worlds events........

Guess what , First feature, Loose Change. The maker or funder of it was shafted old bill not being very open to it at all, not impressed with charlie sheen maybe doing the narration of it either... The board behind Bills head in the studio, said, Hating America.

Poor old bill, the bloke said all people need to do bill is watch it for themselves and then they can refute it .

Hows that for a no spin approach , Bill Oreilly ?

Anyway they are trying to get loose change into american cinemas.

Bill was saying how people of america felt that media was bullsh!tting them, and he was giving it to the world straight.

hmm his next piece , LOL was an off duty copper beating the sh!t out of a female bartender all on video , the policeofficer was not drunk. Not that that should matter but.... That woman no longer trusts the police in chicago.... who protect and ermm serve .


his next piece was about the Mayor of salt lake ? I think, saying he has lied to us on this show, regarding documents and evidence of WMD , saying their was none. Fox news then talked at length to prop up the theory that there was evidence. And the invasion was justifiable.....

what a bloody comedy show, dear ohh dear.... And Bill wonders why the people of U.S. (his own idea)dont trust the U.S.

Exactly!

 

[Connie Brown]

Response to Crap Buddist

Sorry CB, I ‘lost’ your PM so am responding from memory.

I have no idea what will happen with oil. I take from a trading perspective that anything can happen.

In any event, it is unlikely that anyone in our sphere will ever know the real truth of this situation. Only what the media decide to give us or are told to give us.

I know from first-hand experience that the demarcation of international waters from the Gulf into the Shatt al-Arab waterway are far from well defined. They are not linear. There is no ‘officially’ recognized lat-long contour. You have an 0.65km channel-of-error and even with military grade GPS (let’s assume both sides have them!) the room for subjective error is high.

As for motives. It could be a response from Iran in light of the upcoming increase in pressure from the UN for them to stand-down their nuclear programme. It could be Iran’s attempt to manipulate the global oil market and therefore, the mighty dollar. But we have no significant intelligence that the current Tehran administration is capable of thinking quite that far out.

It could be a ploy by ‘The West’ as you have suggested to lay the foundation for whatever ‘they/we’ plan to do next.

It could be a simple initiative by Tehran to get public (Iranian) support for whatever they plan to do or say next.

Or, it could simply be some gung-ho career minded Iranian Colonel who didn’t get chain-of-command authorization to carry out the intercept and they (Tehran) really wished he hadn’t. Who knows.

There is sufficient possibility of intent to consider a real likelihood that the Iranians are using smuggling to fund illicit (not formally sponsored by the government) sourcing for materiel used by terrorist insurgents in Southern Iraq. The old adversaries are not exactly in collusion as the old power structure in Iraq has crumbled, but Iran sees clearly enough I suspect, that the power vacuum created by the West’s eventual withdrawal from the region will provide them with sufficient momentum to use the relationships they are culturing during this period to assist their longer-term aims in the region.

But take this scenario.

France has been secretly stockpiling nuclear weaponry to use on a pre-emptive strike against Kazakhstan in order to ‘safeguard’ (take ownership) of the natural gas pipeline running from Siberia to a port in Turkmenistan on the Caspian Sea. Russia, although devolved from the old USSR is still very much “Mother Russia”, decides to take a diplomatic route on this matter and gets a UN sanction to resolve the situation. It invades and occupies France.

Russian gunboats and frigates are constantly patrolling the English Channel, effectively your front garden, and frequently stop merchant shipping in an effort to reduce the smuggling into France from England of materiel which will be used by French terrorists in their continuing attrition of Russian troops occupying their country. The British Navy intercepts and detains one of these Russian search parties just after they have completed a ‘successful’ search mission. The British navy claim the Russians were in British territorial waters. Regardless of whether the Russians were or were not in British territorial waters, how do you feel about the British Navy’s action? LOL.

We’re all alike. You’re average Iranian will feel the same about this as would your average Brit or Yank in similar circumstances. I’m talking about your average man-in-the-street. But Traders are most definitely not your average man-(or woman, excuse me!)-in-the-street.

I am first and foremost a Technical Analyst, but my research is taking increasingly large orbits into areas that could be considered somewhat fundamental, and even political. All markets, and I mean all Global markets are related. Hugely related. Markets do not react to events. Traders do not (the ones that stay traders) react to events. People react to events. The man-in-the-street reacts to events. We, as traders, need to be taking a much bigger view of world events, which normally means standing back a bit. You can’t take a view on any single event or issue. If you do, you’re standing too close to it and seeing what is given to you, rather than what it might really be and mean to you and you’ll find yourself locked into it. You need to consider what might be behind, underneath and before each and every ‘world’ event. Not to work out why it happened or if it happened, but what it means that it has, or may have happened.

On a slightly separate note and not pointing at you at all, there have been a few references on these boards to ‘Yanks’ and U.S. foreign policy. Understandable and nothing wrong with that in the current circumstances and worldview. But the American government is no more representative of the American People than likely is the British government of the British People.

All of us, the American People and British People have far more in common with each other than either of us does with our respective governments. And in that, there’s hope for us all yet.

Cheers,

Connie

 

[Splitlink]

Iran says they were in Iranian waters.
The allies says they were in Iraqi waters.

Who is telling the truth? How can we know?

Lets hope it turns into a big fuss about a simple misunderstanding & that the problem is resolved peacefully.

I'm surprised that the Brits were caught on that one because it is not new. The border between Iraq/Iran has, always been the centre of the river. No problem during peaceful times; merchant traffic goes to and from Basra all the time without trouble. In these times, though, I should have thought the Brits would have been more careful. It's not a question of who was right or wrong, but of not getting into that situation in the first place.

Split

 

[Crap Buddist]

Sorry CB, I ‘lost’ your PM so am responding from memory.

I have no idea what will happen with oil. I take from a trading perspective that anything can happen.

Cheers,

Connie

***************************************************************************************


heres my PM to you.

Re: Irans capture of British troops


Morning Connie,

Well ive seen a few news programes now and the captain of the British ship said, " I have no doubt they were operating in Iraqi waters"

Beleive it or not I'm very open to spin and B.S. from all sides, but I will speak out to get some idea's or discussions flowing.

So Iran believes it was in there water ,the Brits say iraqi ?

who is right or wrong ? If the Brits were in Iranian waters, then fair play Iran, they should detain them and investigate and follow their protocol.

The thing at the back of my mind though, is the looming threat to petrodollars and Iran wanting to attempt to set up selling Oil pegged to the euro. That cannot happen for the sake of the U.S. can it?

Best wishes CB.

***********************************************************************************


Just briefly, thats where I think there 2 different sorts of traders, those that have no idea of what will happen and those who do.

I have Idea's of what "will happen", based on whats happend and is happening now, and if it doesnt then i'm wrong, but to trade with, "any thing " can happen , to me suggests a trader is trading on chance or random events or cannot see the picture.


Are we saying markets are random ?

I dont think they are.

 

[Splitlink]

***************************************************************************************


heres my PM to you.

Re: Irans capture of British troops


Morning Connie,

Well ive seen a few news programes now and the captain of the British ship said, " I have no doubt they were operating in Iraqi waters"

Beleive it or not I'm very open to spin and B.S. from all sides, but I will speak out to get some idea's or discussions flowing.

So Iran believes it was in there water ,the Brits say iraqi ?

who is right or wrong ? If the Brits were in Iranian waters, then fair play Iran, they should detain them and investigate and follow their protocol.

The thing at the back of my mind though, is the looming threat to petrodollars and Iran wanting to attempt to set up selling Oil pegged to the euro. That cannot happen for the sake of the U.S. can it?

Best wishes CB.

***********************************************************************************


Just briefly, thats where I think there 2 different sorts of traders, those that have no idea of what will happen and those who do.

I have Idea's of what "will happen", based on whats happend and is happening now, and if it doesnt then i'm wrong, but to trade with, "any thing " can happen , to me suggests a trader is trading on chance or random events or cannot see the picture.


Are we saying markets are random ?

I dont think they are.

I can't understand why the ship being searched was not allowed to proceed to berth and get searched there. Why search traffic in a disputed waterway, especially when there is a bigger row going on about uranium. I should have thought that the Captain would have had orders to keep well out of Iranian waters.

Split

 

[TWI]

I do not think that military action is imminent with Iran. I do however understand their motive for capturing the British sailors and Marines. Internationally they need to convince their potential aggressors that they will respond to any interference in their countries affairs. This sends a signal that they are not intimidated by the threat of military action and shows on a small scale that they are prepared to respond.
I believe that military action against Iran would be a huge disaster for initially the middle east but ultimately would take us down the road of an escalating and unstoppable global conflict. I am keeping my fingers crossed that the neocons have lost enough influence to allow more sane people to prevent any plans to send in the stealth bombers.

 

[Atilla]

I do not think that military action is imminent with Iran. I do however understand their motive for capturing the British sailors and Marines. Internationally they need to convince their potential aggressors that they will respond to any interference in their countries affairs. This sends a signal that they are not intimidated by the threat of military action and shows on a small scale that they are prepared to respond.
I believe that military action against Iran would be a huge disaster for initially the middle east but ultimately would take us down the road of an escalating and unstoppable global conflict. I am keeping my fingers crossed that the neocons have lost enough influence to allow more sane people to prevent any plans to send in the stealth bombers.

I would say this event shouldn't escallate but... it is exactly the kind of provocation the US has been prodding for. Couple of other points; the UN vote on Iran yesterday, and also there was a vote in the US about pulling troops out of Iraq. Democrats have won. Bush says he will veto the bill.

So the big question will the Bush war machine attack? No I don't think so. I hope not. But if it doesn't do something it will lose credibility. US has been arresting Iranian diplomats. Virtually closed down Iranian Embassy equivalent. Also been arresting people crossing the border from Iran to Iraq.

PS I think we should take UN out of NY if US is refusing to give visas to Iranians. UN supposed to be international territory.


Here is my analysis...


Before Iraq War

Saddam was an American ally as we all know. He only turned againts the US when he found out the Americans were supporting him against Iran but at the same time supplying Iranians with arms and weapons and sending the money to the contra rebels fighting the popullar Sandanists in Nicaragua at the time. Remember Colonel North and President Ragan fiasco?

Saddam bluffed he still had WMD to maintain his strength and make his enemies think twice. US intelligence way out of date. They supplied Iraq with the weapons but got fooled by the idiot (Saddam) who wanted the maintain the threat. Remember US was happy to supply the WMD to Iraq and allow it to be used against the Iranians. Not only that US supplied satellite intelligence on Iranian troop movements and imminent attacks. They were also quite indifferent about Iraq using it on the Kurds. Don't remember much of an outcry after the US left the Kurds high and dry along with the Shias, once they decided to leave they didn't want to defend their old allies. Now shameless politicians making cheap political capital about defending the free civilised world form these monsters like Saddam.

Apparently, also in some quarters (Dick Cheney), after the war in Afghanistan, US blood lust was not satisfied. They wanted the terrorists (Islamic world) humiliated. Islam is a peaceful religeon and wrong to throw in billions of people in the same basket as some CIA trained terrorists (Assuming Osama Bin Laden is the culprit).


Reasons for war

1. humilliation of the ME and show of US muscle. Payback for 9/11. This also had good political capital in US. Americans still believe they attacked us first story - when you talk about the Iraq war.
2. capture of Iraqi oil fields, remaining 1/3 to 1/2 worlds supply
3. at a later stage take on Syria and Iran - axis of evil, comply or else - flex muscle.
4. by destabilising Iran, disrupt Chinas oil supply
5. oil price goes through the stratosphere but US get it for free
6. US already has presence in Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Caspian energy fields also in control. Iran virtually sorrounded with Iraq taken over.


Problems

1. WMD - US Intelligence way out of date and old assumptions not verified.
2. Democracy - US calculations foolish. Iraq 55% Shia pro Iranian. Who did they think they were handing Iraq over to? That's what I call dumb ass planning...
3. Post War planning non existant. Rumsfeld a Hitler of a man in denial about his abilities. Listens to no one. Control freak. Still believes we don't understand and his the only one who does.

What Next

1. US is flexing muscle. If it can't fight and win in Iraq then hardly any chance of winning againts Iran highly trained, well supplied and backed by Russia and China.

2. US and Israel currently supplying and training Kurdish terrorist group PJAK to attack Iran.
(Where have we seen this before where US/CIA train recognised terrorists to attack countries they designate as enemies). Do they seriously believe some minor Kurdish terrorist organisation is going to bring down the Iranian government? No. But it's going to get a lot of Kurds killed but they don't know it yet.

3. Kurdish problem was first raised by the Shah or Iran, Henry Kissinger's idea to aid the Kurds to fight for autonomy in Iraq.

4. Kurds have always sided with any power that comes along and promises them some crumbs and they turn treacherously against the people of the land they live with.

5. US is planning a referendum on Kirkuk and make it a Kurdish city. With Mosul and Kerkuk US will have the major two oil fields in Iraq and via pipelines through Turkey syphon off the oil. 70% going to multinational oil companies (US & UK obviously) and 30% to the Iraqi people (70% of 30% going to Kurds first and the remaining crumbs to running Iraqi administration.

6. US will support the Kurds and take the oil. They couldn't give two hoots about the Sunnies or Shias. Let them fight their civil war. Always was the plan. (Remember UK SAS civilian dressed soldiers arrested by the Iraqi police with C4 bomb making equipment in the trunk of their car where tanks had to go in to get them out of the police station.) Any explanation. No. Devide and conquer. Let the people kill them selves whilst we take their oil.

These are facts on the ground. Not hype or hear say. It's plain to everyone, this is a pure outright plan to hijack Iraqi oil. 600,000 dead and Iraq devastated no matter to the US. I reckon they should be made to pay compensation for their criminal acts.

There are more problems like Saudies not being happy with Shia influence and Iranian power so now they are trying to bring the Sunnies back into the power sharing. But they are not playing ball. Not all Shias like the US either. Moqtdr is against the US. Very hotch potch and Uncle Sam either doesn't have a clue or deliberately instigating all this old mantra of devide and rule. Will they succeed. No don't think so as they are already failing. And I hope they fail and we pull our UK troops out of their fast.

Remember, supplying and training terrorists. It will not be long before the Kurds one day become another enemy of the US.

There is also another sad story here too that the people of the region will turn against the Kurds once the US leave. Kurds are too much into their oil and power at the moment to think that much ahead. Their leaders are foolish men. Their greatest asset is to be part of Iraq but they can't seem to see it always feeling they are on the fringes rather than an integral part of Iraq.

In all these discussions I have left the Russians and the Chineese out but they will be very much behind supplying all kinds of weapons once the full conflict starts coupled with Syria and Israel becoming involved too.

Finally, I recognise that all this is purely down to the neo conservative republican parties doing. Dicky Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfweitz and very few eveil twisted guys.

Purely the Bush administration is at fault. NOT the American people who have been sold a pack of lies like everyone else.

I feel sorry for all the marines being led by the nose. The American honour glory and dignity has been trampled on by these powerful men.

American media is hell bent on pride which in the international domain is rock bottom. Even their old allies and friends are now considered to be anti-American because they are not dishing out the advice they want to hear. Look at Spain and France.

Somebody mentioned impeaching the president over Iraq. How right they are. Until the truth gets out there Bush and Blair continue pushing their denials.

That's my view based on facts on the ground if I may add.

What does it mean to the markets?

US economy losing strength
US $ going down
Buy lots of gold
Oil is running out
The end is nigh...
We are at the cusp of a new era
Doom and glooommmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

PS. Don't forget Global Warming...

 

[DaveJB]

UK troops would, I'd think, be in RIBs or similar - unarmoured and unarmed, quite fast but no protection against even mg bullets, in no position to shoot at gunboats - they were a boarding/search party, not sent off to take a cruiser on.
Cornwall will be operating under rules of engagement that limit when they shoot at people - given the 'disputed' nature of this area and an unwillingmess to allow any old firgate captain to precipitate another Gulf War they probably say something along the lines of 'you can shoot back if fired upon, but don't overdo it', so unless the Iranians actually opened fire there was probably very little Cornwall could do - had the boarding party maxxed the throttle and tried to get back to Cornwall then they'd have found out if the Iranians were willing to fire on them, which might then have brought Cornwall into play.... not sure many people would take that as a viable tactic in the circs.
Probably an attempt by Iran to pressure the UK and take some heat off the nuclear issue/gain concessions - basically they've taken hostages. As for option 1 in the poll - forget it - if you want to engineer a border incident there are far more reliable ways to do it.

 

[Atilla]

UK troops would, I'd think, be in RIBs or similar - unarmoured and unarmed, quite fast but no protection against even mg bullets, in no position to shoot at gunboats - they were a boarding/search party, not sent off to take a cruiser on.
Cornwall will be operating under rules of engagement that limit when they shoot at people - given the 'disputed' nature of this area and an unwillingmess to allow any old firgate captain to precipitate another Gulf War they probably say something along the lines of 'you can shoot back if fired upon, but don't overdo it', so unless the Iranians actually opened fire there was probably very little Cornwall could do - had the boarding party maxxed the throttle and tried to get back to Cornwall then they'd have found out if the Iranians were willing to fire on them, which might then have brought Cornwall into play.... not sure many people would take that as a viable tactic in the circs.
Probably an attempt by Iran to pressure the UK and take some heat off the nuclear issue/gain concessions - basically they've taken hostages. As for option 1 in the poll - forget it - if you want to engineer a border incident there are far more reliable ways to do it.

More probable Iran want's to isolate the US. It will be a case of how much damage UK can sustain before pulling back. Testing public opinion call it what you will.

Border disputes have already taken place with PJAK killing 18 Irananian troops one high ranking officer + shooting down couple of Iranian helicopters.

US already has arrested Iraqi official shias coming back from visiting Iranian relatives...

 

[chump]

"How can we know?" what happened ...a better question ..why should we care ? all that is going to happen is 15 squaddies are going to come back more knowledgeable about Iranian cuisine ...and a few traders are going to make some money by getting in and out before others realise it was nothing more than handbags at dawn for w..kers.

 

[Atilla]

"How can we know?" what happened ...a better question ..why should we care ? all that is going to happen is 15 squaddies are going to come back more knowledgeable about Iranian cuisine ...and a few traders are going to make some money by getting in and out before others realise it was nothing more than handbags at dawn for w..kers.

600,000 Iraqi people have been giving blood, donating blood or extracting blood. Still not enough blood for some...

We also don't have enough oil... Or at least the US doesn't seem to have as much as it wants and is not prepared to buy it at market prices.

The equation is quite simple, when you have more blood you'll get more oil...

There is a little more than cuisine and hand bags to this...

 

[Crap Buddist]

"How can we know?" what happened ...a better question ..why should we care ? all that is going to happen is 15 squaddies are going to come back more knowledgeable about Iranian cuisine ...and a few traders are going to make some money by getting in and out before others realise it was nothing more than handbags at dawn for w..kers.

Good point, and do we really care? what I think when I look at these things, I think its more of me trying to suss out the driving mental ambitions of these people (individuals, entities,governments,nations etc.) who pursue ,hmm pursue what ? what are they pursuing ?, why on earth are they living like this. It seems like we witness a basic, cyclical mindset that is still blinkered to alternative ways to do life & biz or something.

These are adults, and I know theres what? ,6 parts to a persons ageing?, but it just seems a tad basic . Hmm what springs to mind is its a form of white collar thuggery.

And looking at it I come back to why,why, why?

Answers please , who has them to help me get my head around it ?

 

[chump]

people are dying ..what is new ..people can no more live peacefully togther than I can fly to the moon ..if it was not this war in that place it would be a war somewhere else over something else...history shows this so clearly it is not subject to rational argument.....meanwhile given no one will deliver the much needed kick to the nuts that might realign the thinking of Bush and his Iranian counterpart I'll just focus on the few traders who will come out ahead of the game with something tangible to show for it and don't knock the cuisine ..they do a lovely stew ..karesh or similar...

 

[DaveJB]

...a better question ..why should we care ?

Well, for one reason, rightly or wrongly the troops are out there because the government we elected under our current democratic system sent them there, consequently the troops who are gaining the knowledge of Iraqi cuisine are now in danger because WE sent them there.
It's a question of keeping faith - WE should care, because these are our troops doing what we told them to do, and I bet they (somewhat naively) expect our government to pull out all th stops to get them back.

Unfortunately soldiers, sailors and airmen end up paying for our political mistakes, it is (IMO) entirely appropriate for us to question the decisions our governments take - but I sincerely hope nobody thinks that excuses a lack of concern for the poor b******ds we send to horrible bits of the world to do our bidding.

I feel damn sorry for the Iraqis, for what that is worth, and don't particularly care for our actions over there (frankly I think we should have finished the job the first time round), but I always feel more empathy for our troops than anyone elses.

 

[chump]

I feel for the uncertainty their families are feeling,but those guys are there because they chose the job ..don't like it choose a different job...I was one so I don't speak from ignorance...anyone who put's themselves in harms way on the say so of this govt needs a little down time with a good stew to consider whether they should be in the job....perhaps we should democratise south america next ,or south africa...zimbabwe...or given this govt actually enjoys office on a minority mandate perhaps we should start at home.....the patriotic flag is wasted on me ,it's been used a blindfold for reason too many times to have any credibility left as far as I am concerned. Hope the squaddies enjoy a good meal and come home safely ..but the why of all this is still bulls..t which takes me back to my original remark

 

[yacarob1]

I feel no empathy for our troops whatsoever and personally do not care one hoot.

We should not even be there and wouldn't be were it not for the criminal Blair.

I feel more empathy for Leicester Tigers.