NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's the previous run in with Iranians who wanted to capture US or UK forces:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070323/23iran.htm



Sounds like they were using live bait, and when that didn't work, they tried to force the US soldiers across the border under threat of death.

They do seem to be as provacative as possible in words and actions.

Knowing this,we should deal with them accordingly.

They should also be taught hard lessons-costly and immediate. Its for sure they have no respect for diplomacy.

In consideration of the fact that

a. The Iranians had already threatened to do this, and...
Threatened to hold 'hostile forces' that were in 'Iranian' waters? I'm not shocked by that promise.


b. Tried it just before, against US troops who were well inside the Iraqi border, and..
Well, they tried it and succeeded against British Naval personnel before too - and the Brits were in dodgy territory then too.

c. Witnesses, including Iraqi civilians, say the ship being boarded by the UK forces in question was ANCHORED inside Iraqi waters...
Well, an Iraqi military (general I think) said the waters were Iranian. *shrug* I trust no one from the Iraqi side right now. I'm sure some Iraqi will claim they saw a flying pink unicorn carrying Bin Laden on its back entering the same area too.

it sounds like fucking bullshit when Iran claims the UK people were within their waters.
Hey, I ain't sayin' the Iranians are correct in this matter. What I'm saying is stop treating the situation like the British are infallible god-like beings. They are just as likely to have cocked this up.

During the engagement with US forces, the Iranians demanded that the US force accompany them back into Iran, under threat of death.
Well, they sure don't like the Americans very much. That is true. :D

I don't support a war with Iran at this time. I don't think it's in anyone's interest. I think there may be a need in the immediate future for a tactical military response, but I don't think that is justified yet, either.

That said, I keep hearing the standard "we're pissed at America so they and all their allies are ALWAYS wrong" brand of response to these kinds of things and I wonder, is there any situation where people who have said clearly and repeatedly in this thread that they are against action in Iran where you would change your mind and support military action in Iran? What would it take for Iran to be a necessary target for the military in your mind? This quesiton is open to anyone.

Alright, at this point I'm prepared to accept that Iran lied about the British sailors being in their waters.

What exactly have the Iranians done with the sailors thus far, though? Have they been imprisoned somewhere? Are they being treated properly(as in no beatings or improper feeding or poisoning of water or anything like that)? Furthermore, I still don't see what Iran is trying to do here other than make themselves look like idiots. What could they be after?

Alright, at this point I'm prepared to accept that Iran lied about the British sailors being in their waters.

What exactly have the Iranians done with the sailors thus far, though? Have they been imprisoned somewhere? Are they being treated properly(as in no beatings or improper feeding or poisoning of water or anything like that)? Furthermore, I still don't see what Iran is trying to do here other than make themselves look like idiots. What could they be after?

All excellent questions and I think the kinds of questions that need to be answered before I would support any form of military action in Iran (other than perhaps an extraction).

Alright, at this point I'm prepared to accept that Iran lied about the British sailors being in their waters.
Why?

I'd say neither side actually knew where exactly they were and the Iranians took a chance, and have since puffed out their chests. Unless I stand corrected....


What exactly have the Iranians done with the sailors thus far, though? Have they been imprisoned somewhere? Are they being treated properly(as in no beatings or improper feeding or poisoning of water or anything like that)?
Going by what happened last time, they are being questioned in Tehran and are being treated fine. The soldiers then were released unharmed but to a PR hoop-la.

Furthermore, I still don't see what Iran is trying to do here other than make themselves look like idiots. What could they be after?

There is that little thing about nuclear negotiations going on, but I'm sure that couldn't be connected.... ;)

Why?

I'd say neither side actually knew where exactly they were and the Iranians took a chance, and have since puffed out their chests. Unless I stand corrected....
Basically every government in the West is refusing to buy their story and I have to agree with Eve: the Iranian government just isn't as trustworthy.


Going by what happened last time, they are being questioned in Tehran and are being treated fine. The soldiers then were released unharmed but to a PR hoop-la.
I certainly hope you're right.


There is that little thing about nuclear negotiations going on, but I'm sure that couldn't be connected.... ;)
Nyet. Fifteen sailors are not a bargaining chip in such a negotiation. You need a much bigger chip, like, say, a captured aircraft carrier.

I don't support a war with Iran at this time. I don't think it's in anyone's interest. I think there may be a need in the immediate future for a tactical military response, but I don't think that is justified yet, either.

That said, I keep hearing the standard "we're pissed at America so they and all their allies are ALWAYS wrong" brand of response to these kinds of things and I wonder, is there any situation where people who have said clearly and repeatedly in this thread that they are against action in Iran where you would change your mind and support military action in Iran? What would it take for Iran to be a necessary target for the military in your mind? This quesiton is open to anyone.

Well, I'm annoyed at the USA and all their allies, but I'm certainly not saying that they're always wrong.
In this case I would support the use of armed force against Iran. I'm not saying I'd like it; I'd be an idiot if I did, especially with its potential to escalate quite rapidly, but as a British citizen who's proud of his nation's past, if not present, I'd be quite prepared to launch a limited military strike on Iran, preferably a naval one.
The Royal Navy is still the second-largest in the world in terms of gross tonnage, and does have the greatest history behind it.
As I said, though, I don't support the idea of a full-scale war; I just want my fellow Britons back home, safe and sound.

Oh, and regarding the wellbeing of the sailors: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6494289.stm
The 15 Royal Navy personnel who were seized four days ago are fit and well, Iran has told the Foreign Office.

Good. If they'd harmed them that would have been a major diplomatic no-no, and I'm quite sure we'd already be at war.

Ilaer

Basically every government in the West is refusing to buy their story and I have to agree with Eve: the Iranian government just isn't as trustworthy.


I certainly hope you're right.


Nyet. Fifteen sailors are not a bargaining chip in such a negotiation. You need a much bigger chip, like, say, a captured aircraft carrier.

Interestingly, though, the British government hasn't released the GPS coordinates...

Although, the Iranians haven't either. *shrugs*

I doubt the incident actually happened. They were just dolls that were captured so the Ayatollah could have a tea party. :p

I think that the British are going to pull out of Iraq and start a war with Iran. I suport Pres. Bush, but i think that we should get out of iraq and focus our efforts on finding Bin Laden and Stoping Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. :sniper:

I think that the British are going to pull out of Iraq and start a war with Iran. I suport Pres. Bush, but i think that we should get out of iraq and focus our efforts on finding Bin Laden and Stoping Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. :sniper:

Not going to happen... not the Korea part, anyway.

If we can't reason with North Korea... there's nothing else we are willing to do. We aren't about to get that up close and personal with China... we'll just have to sit in a corner, and hope China decides to deal with it.

Not going to happen... not the Korea part, anyway.

If we can't reason with North Korea... there's nothing else we are willing to do. We aren't about to get that up close and personal with China... we'll just have to sit in a corner, and hope China decides to deal with it.

The negotiations with North Korea seem to be going rather well. If that fails, we just wait for them to starve to death.

Nyet. Fifteen sailors are not a bargaining chip in such a negotiation. You need a much bigger chip, like, say, a captured aircraft carrier.

Will a stolen missile sub do? >.>

Nyet. Fifteen sailors are not a bargaining chip in such a negotiation. You need a much bigger chip, like, say, a captured aircraft carrier.

Cripes! Don't give them ideas, man!

Imagine if the Iranians did, in fact, capture an actual Coalition Forces vessel, like a frigate, or indeed an aircraft carrier, since they were operating in these "disputed waters". What a disaster that would be.

Cripes! Don't give them ideas, man!

Imagine if the Iranians did, in fact, capture an actual Coalition Forces vessel, like a frigate, or indeed an aircraft carrier, since they were operating in these "disputed waters". What a disaster that would be.

I would like to see them try to take a carrier. The Navy is trained for boarders :D

I would like to see them try to take a carrier. The Navy is trained for boarders :D

That would make a kick-ass movie.

That would make a kick-ass movie.

Indeed. Though Under Seige has a good way in taking over a ship.

Indeed. Though Under Seige has a good way in taking over a ship.

I've never been able to see that movie. I ought to buy the DVD or something sometime. Anyway.

I don't see the Iranians risking war by ill-treating the sailors. I'm pretty sure they're being well-looked after in a secret location, which may or may not be in Tehran. Then they'll be paraded on national television for PR purposes then return them.

There are apparently students in Tehran calling for the sailors being put on trial for esponiage, which carries the death penalty, but like I said, I don't think Tehran is stupid enough to let something like that happen.

The waters the sailors got captured in have been disputed for millenia. Their is no clear border line thats why both sides claim that they are right.
But the US/UK have both waiting for a situation like this arise. At the moment they are involved in a full on propoganda campaign to paint a bad image of Iran. They are bullying Iran on the nuclear issue, which at the moment is still completely legal under international law. But even if Iran were to build a nuclear bomb, it would only be as a detterent and not used agressivley as that would be just plain suicide.
Israel and the US are the only nuclear threats to the region, specialy considering the US have yet to rule out using "tactical nukes" on irans nuclear facilities which would have grave consequences for the civilian population. What Bush is saying about the safety of tactical nukes is what Truman said before Hiroshima.

Iran are now being used as a scapegoat for the mess that is Iraq. US has made weak, un-supported claims that Iran is supplying bombs to iraqi insurgentsin order to kill US troops. The US government and CIA has a long dirty history of covert actions against non-cooperating governments eg. Supporting Pinochet's military overthrow o the democraticaly elected Chilean government, The secret bombing campaign of the Cambodian countryside which killed 600,000 and led to the Khmer Rouge taking power, the overthrow of Iranian democraticaly elected government to impose the Shah as a dictator in order to open up for countries resources for foreign corporations.
I could go on forever....
The US sunds terror groups in Iran http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070225&articleId=4931

Oh and lets not forget the Gulf of Tonkin incident used as a pretext to go to war in Vietnam.

So you see why this latest incident looks a bit too convenient and plays in the US's hands nicely. It wouldn't surprise me that the poor troops were just being used as bait to provoke this type of incident.

Well i'll log off before i get shot but i'll just leave you with a few questions....

In the past decade which country has made and supported the most wars?

In the past decade which countries are responsible for killing the most innocent civilians?

Which country is armed to the teeth with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?

Which country is armed with “secret” directed energy and psychotronic weapons whose existence is not even acknowledged, let alone regulated?

Which country is brazenly, publically and privately, torturing innocent civilians for exercising their democratic rights with full complicity and/or acquiescence by other Governments, International Organisations and media globally?

Which country has a “defense” and “security” budget equal to the rest of the world combined?

Which country imprisons without trial, tortures, murders and conducts secret wars, dirty wars, propaganda wars and destabilisation campaigns around the world with full complicity, acquiescence and/or lack of scrutiny by other Governments, International Organisations and media globally?

Which country regularly broadcasts extremist propaganda, in the guise of religious programming, around the world whose message of hate, intolerance and fundamentalist extremism is equal to, or worse than, much Islamic fundamentalist propaganda and rhetoric?

Which country regularly violates International Law, Standards and Conventions and undermines and/or boycotts International Institutions?
Which country has already militarised space?

How then does the International Community pretend, and fool itself, that this might-is-right superpower is a champion of human rights, democracy, peace, accountability, and the rule of International Law?

Why then are Governments, International Organisations and the media falling over themselves to bully and threaten a demonised, minnow-sized and comparatively saintly Iran?

How can people acquiesce to, let alone support, such disgusting double-standards and hypocrisy?

How can people tolerate the sensationalism, bias, selective reporting and superficiality of the so-called free media?

The question is, is it right, just or intelligent for anybody to accede to the demands of an international gang of the most pitifully dihonest, hypocrital and violent bullies?

International Law, Institutions and consensuses have become that degraded and corrupted.

The waters the sailors got captured in have been disputed for millenia. Their is no clear border line thats why both sides claim that they are right.


There's a clear border that people have been tacitly agreeing to in those waters.

Oh and lets not forget the Gulf of Tonkin incident used as a pretext to go to war in Vietnam.

And now we know you're Rosie O'Donnell.

I never tire of hearing from posters who think that everything is a secret plot by the US to do this or that.

I guess you missed my previous post, where something like this was attempted by Iranian soldiers against US forces well within the border about a week ago. It wasn't a matter of border confusion - the Iranians came well inside Iraq, and demanded (on threat of death) that the US soldiers follow them back into Iran.

This seems to be more of the same, especially as it comes on the heels of public threats by Iran to do exactly this.

I sincerely doubt that any investigation will empiracally prove the location of the Marines when they were captured, and I must commend the audacity,and perspispacity, of the Iranians in fully exploiting the incident.

However, in light of what we might readily consider US supported insurrection within Iran of late, and its' somewhat expectedly pig headed approach to any diplomatic solution, whilst the sensationalist bollocks propounded in this thread is just wrong, surely the US would exploit any genuine pretext for aggression?

I sincerely doubt that any investigation will empiracally prove the location of the Marines when they were captured, and I must commend the audacity,and perspispacity, of the Iranians in fully exploiting the incident.

However, in light of what we might readily consider US supported insurrection within Iran of late, and its' somewhat expectedly pig headed approach to any diplomatic solution, whilst the sensationalist bollocks propounded in this thread is just wrong, surely the US would exploit any genuine pretext for aggression?

There was an attempt by Iranian forces to capture US forces inside Iraq (and try to force them to go into Iran) about a week ago.

Surely that was enough of a pretext?

In reply to Psychotic Mongooses, The Royal Navy says they were in Iraqi waters. The Iraqi government says they were in Iraqi waters. THE LOCAL FISHERMEN SAY THEY WERE IN IRAQI WATERS!! And yes, The Royal Navy is far far too professional to lie. And you want to believe people who slowly hang 13yr old girls in public on a rumour that they MAY have been imodest.:upyours: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

In reply to Psychotic Mongooses, The Royal Navy says they were in Iraqi waters. The Iraqi government says they were in Iraqi waters. THE LOCAL FISHERMEN SAY THEY WERE IN IRAQI WATERS!! And yes, The Royal Navy is far far too professional to lie. And you want to believe people who slowly hang 13yr old girls in public on a rumour that they MAY have been imodest.:upyours: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

If ya want to be taken seriously, lose the smilies.

There was an attempt by Iranian forces to capture US forces inside Iraq (and try to force them to go into Iran) about a week ago.

Surely that was enough of a pretext?
And the USA is also holding Iranian diplomats, and American support for anti-Iranian terrorists. Both sides are just playing cat and mouse with each other, and neither have any kind of moral high ground.

And the USA is also holding Iranian diplomats, and American support for anti-Iranian terrorists. Both sides are just playing cat and mouse with each other, and neither have any kind of moral high ground.

They aren't diplomats.

Apparently, the Iranians have admitted the men are members of the Quds force, and were under no diplomatic protection.

Awww. *blushes* I got quoted by a n00b. I feel touched... in a bad way.

In reply to Psychotic Mongooses, The Royal Navy says they were in Iraqi waters. Well, duh.
The Iraqi government says they were in Iraqi waters.
Yeh, now. Initally they went from "Nope, they weren't in our waters" to "Err, hold on a minute while we double check. We're not actually too sure. *quiet whispering* - "Oh, er, yeah. They were 100% positively in iraqi waters..... right?"

THE LOCAL FISHERMEN SAY THEY WERE IN IRAQI WATERS!!
Whoopie. Case closed then. Mohammed the tuna fisherman says the Brits were in Iraqi waters. In other news, Iraqi fishermen pissed off at Iranians for being too Iranian.

And yes, The Royal Navy is far far too professional to lie.
I reiterate:
HAH!

And you want to believe people who slowly hang 13yr old girls in public on a rumour that they MAY have been imodest.
Quite the contrary. In fact, all through the thread I've said I don't believe the Iranians per se. I merely don't believe the infallible god-like British. That's what I've been trying to dispell.

:upyours: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Bless your wee cotton socks.

So why put the smilies on there in the first place? Seriously, there is a bit too much of this attitude that because Bush and Blair are a trifle dumb, that regimes such as Iran are equally trustworthy. The west may have screwed up in Iraq, but the point is still true. Fundimentalist countrys want to destroy all Human rights everywere. The stance they take is evil, with their view of their religion as an excuse. I feel that if the date was 1939, people would be telling us that it was Germanys cultural right to gas Jews...

So why put the smilies on there in the first place? Seriously, there is a bit too much of this attitude that because Bush and Blair are a trifle dumb, that regimes such as Iran are equally trustworthy. The west may have screwed up in Iraq, but the point is still true. Fundimentalist countrys want to destroy all Human rights everywere. The stance they take is evil, with their view of their religion as an excuse. I feel that if the date was 1939, people would be telling us that it was Germanys cultural right to gas Jews...

So why put the smilies on there in the first place? Seriously, there is a bit too much of this attitude that because Bush and Blair are a trifle dumb, that regimes such as Iran are equally trustworthy. The west may have screwed up in Iraq, but the point is still true. Fundimentalist countrys want to destroy all Human rights everywere. The stance they take is evil, with their view of their religion as an excuse. I feel that if the date was 1939, people would be telling us that it was Germanys cultural right to gas Jews...

Hmmm.

I don't believe the World according to the British..... it's cool and perfectly ok to exterminate the Jews in Nazi Germany.


Right. I don't speak idiot so could you break that one down for me?

Ok, your view seems to be that everything the US and UK say or do is wrong. My view is that we are human, elect the odd idiot, but at least our societys are set up to try and improve and not make the same mistakes, and we do have some sort of democracy ( Ok, the US aint learnt from Vietnam) The line about Nazi Germany relates to the way that anti Bush and Blair people seem to take the line that the enemy of my enemy, is my friend. and therefore can be given any excuse for their actions. If Iran does start lobbing the odd nuke around the middle east, we lose oil (yeah it IS about oil) and the whole worlds economy goes down the pan. Not just the wests, but small inoffensive countrys like Kenya who depend on aid in US dollars.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

This can't be a good thing.



It's highly unlikely that the UK had people in Iranian waters. So I see this as a flexing of muscles by the Iranians.

Iranian is certainly stepping on some toes. Whether they step too far, and when, is the question.

Quite the contrary. In fact, all through the thread I've said I don't believe the Iranians per se. I merely don't believe the infallible god-like British. That's what I've been trying to dispell.
I mean, I'm British and I have a hard time trying to persuade people we aren't infallible. And for a country that moans continually, and when I say continually, I mean every single fucking day, about our lying and corrupt government (which is why changing the constitutional status quo is so unpopular.:rolleyes: ) we suddenly think that the Iranians ought to be nuked/invaded (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5882&edition=1&ttl=20070327172223&#paginator), since our government is whiter than white!

It's so maddening in so many ways.

*snip*

You know this would have played a lot better if there was just a little bit of balance. Instead it pretty much makes you sound like conspiracy nut. Yes, the US is guilty of some of the things you mention. I think if you examine it you'll find more of the same in most if not all government of the world. The US just happens to be one of the most powerful. So what'd you prove? Governments tend to look out for the own interests. News at 11.

And regarding the smileys, perhaps somebody would like to call me a noob, and pump up their own egos. Go on! you know you want to...

Perhaps we could have some views from some Irainian contributors. Oh yeah, in Iran, they put you in prison for going on forums such as this. Least I can call Tony Blair a c**t without the secret police kicking down my door.

Perhaps we could have some views from some Irainian contributors. Oh yeah, in Iran, they put you in prison for going on forums such as this.
Absolute nonsense.

Brown people don't have the internet.


Least I can call Tony Blair a c**t without the secret police kicking down my door.
Try it. Seriously, go up to him as he's going into or out of the Commons and point square in his face and yell that at him. I'm sure you won't be taken into custody and held under the 'Terrorism Act' at all.

I don't even know why I'm wasting my time on you. The fun is gone from toying with you.

Absolute nonsense.

Brown people don't have the internet.

Actually, Iran does have the Internet. But it's as heavily censored as if they were living in Cuba or North Korea.

Absolute nonsense.

Brown people don't have the internet.

Perhaps you should learn about Iranian censorship of the Internet and other forms of mass media. You'd actually sound educated if you did.

Oh and the previous poster might not be able to call Blair a **** to his face, but he could do so in a newspaper, on TV, or on this forum without consequence. Do that to Ahmedinejad and see how long your life lasts.

Absolute nonsense.

Brown people don't have the internet.


Yes, Iran does

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/mena1105/5.htm

The government has imprisoned online journalists, bloggers, and technical support staff. It has blocked thousands of Web sites, including—contrary to its claims that it welcomes criticism—sites that criticize government policies or report stories the government does not wish to see published. It has sought to limit the spread of blogs by blocking popular Web sites that offer free publishing tools for blogs.

Perhaps you should learn about Iranian censorship of the Internet and other forms of mass media. You'd actually sound educated if you did.
Oh please. Educate me. *sits at IDFs feet, cups chin in hands and stares in awe*

Oh and the previous poster might not be able to call Blair a **** to his face, but he could do so in a newspaper, on TV, or on this forum without consequence. Do that to Ahmedinejad and see how long your life lasts.
Riiight. Again. "Me no agree with Britain = Me LOVE Iran!!1!"

Yes, Iran does


No shit? Really? Next you'll be telling me they have auto-ma-cars. Pull the other one Eve.

No shit? Really? Next you'll be telling me they have auto-ma-cars. Pull the other one Eve.

Where do you get this "brown people"?

Where do you get this "brown people"?

Wait, you're serious?

Damn. Sarcasm is no fun when I have to back track and explain it.

Wait, you're serious?

Damn. Sarcasm is no fun when I have to back track and explain it.

Yes, I'm serious. And stop calling me Shirley.

Cripes! Don't give them ideas, man!

Imagine if the Iranians did, in fact, capture an actual Coalition Forces vessel, like a frigate, or indeed an aircraft carrier, since they were operating in these "disputed waters". What a disaster that would be.
No Iranian vessel would be able to get close enough in order to capture such a vessel. Even a weak Perry class FFG would waste an Iranian vessel with Harpoons and SM2s.

Yes, I'm serious. And stop calling me Shirley.

ABUUH! :eek:

http://www.videodetective.com/photos/580/024392_15.jpg

I mean, I'm British and I have a hard time trying to persuade people we aren't infallible. And for a country that moans continually, and when I say continually, I mean every single fucking day, about our lying and corrupt government (which is why changing the constitutional status quo is so unpopular.:rolleyes: ) we suddenly think that the Iranians ought to be nuked/invaded (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5882&edition=1&ttl=20070327172223&#paginator), since our government is whiter than white!

It's so maddening in so many ways.

The Brits aren't infalliable. The Americans are, though. THe Brits only get to share in the Awesome American Infallibility between 2am and 11pm on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.

Also, Leslie Nielsen is The Man. Have you seen his "Bad Golf My Way?" It's the most hilarious thing I've ever seen.

Perhaps we could have some views from some Irainian contributors. Oh yeah, in Iran, they put you in prison for going on forums such as this. Least I can call Tony Blair a c**t without the secret police kicking down my door.

That's rubbish. I've seen Iranians posting on political discussion forums like PoliticsForum.org before.

Now Egypt on the other hand...

I hear the British now have maps and photos and shit showing that the marines were in Iraqi waters at the time.

I can't be bother to link to an article. Go use news.google.com or something.

I hear the British now have maps and photos and shit showing that the marines were in Iraqi waters at the time.

I can't be bother to link to an article. Go use news.google.com or something.

Yah lazy bugger!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501555.stm

Yah lazy bugger!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501555.stmYes, very lazy, so sue me. Interesting article by the way.

Yes, very lazy, so sue me. Interesting article by the way.

Are you worth suing? :p

And regarding the smileys, perhaps somebody would like to call me a noob, and pump up their own egos. Go on! you know you want to...

Noob/Newb! *looks at self* Noob/Newb! Hmm, my ego feels balanced...

Perhaps you should learn about Iranian censorship of the Internet and other forms of mass media. You'd actually sound educated if you did.

Oh and the previous poster might not be able to call Blair a **** to his face, but he could do so in a newspaper, on TV, or on this forum without consequence. Do that to Ahmedinejad and see how long your life lasts.

I wouldn't want to say it whilst there are some of his (minority) supporters. Probably wouldn't want to do it period (might be 'extra-ordairily extradited' from Aus).

That's rubbish. I've seen Iranians posting on political discussion forums like PoliticsForum.org before.

Now Egypt on the other hand...

Let us be fair now, they do have quite abit of censorship. They do seem to be getting a growing amount of reformist ayatolas (was that correct spelling?) but they still have a fair amount to go. The internet is does have much more freedom than the press their but it is not as if all of the press is a state owned system.

Whats Egypt like?

No Iranian vessel would be able to get close enough in order to capture such a vessel. Even a weak Perry class FFG would waste an Iranian vessel with Harpoons and SM2s.

Iran, whilst not at the cutting edge, does have significant defense technologies. They seem to have built a large portion of their surface navy on the merits of torpedo/missile ships and those vessels can easily compete with a ship 3-4 times larger in tonnage.

No shit? Really? Next you'll be telling me they have auto-ma-cars. Pull the other one Eve.

They don't use auto-ma-cars, they use the Dromedary-Camel single Humpback version for most of their day to day needs whilst the military has the two humped version, which houses a sand blaster on the front hump and a book of with arabic/persian cliches and stereotype guides for the person on the move. It also, free of charge, comes with a feces mine deployer, which can be produce mines as long as it is given food.