Comments:Ahmadinejad to free British navy personnel

What a pile of crap

Pardoned for a crime they didn't commit, but were forced to confess to. At least this time there weren't any mock executions. Bloody barbarians. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Rules of Engagement

I disagree with Brian McNeil. There is an internationally acknowledged and known boundary in the Persian Gulf of where the Iraqi waters are and where the Iranian waters are. Two different sides report some evidence of where the Royal Navy ship was located. Though both pieces of evidence show different positions, one thing that both pieces of evidence have in common is that the British were really close, by less than a km, to either side of the boundary line. Both sides know this. It's a thick boundary line, however, since it is hard to precisely survey an imaginary line in the middle of a gulf. The best example I can think of to argue with is the border with the United States and Mexico. Out in the rural uninhabited Arizona deserts, there is no physical boundary of where Mexico ends and USA begins, but there are close approximations. Less than 800 meters--if you are going to be that close, there is bound to be some sort of conflict. If some foreigner is walking right next to that imaginary line out in the desert of Arizona, the USA is going to be investigating it too. Iran has the right to exercise protection and security of it's borders. Both countries were a bit too stubborn in their prejudice while handling this situation. However, this situation was resolved peacefully, the detainees were treated exceptionally well, and therefore wasn't an act of war. Let it go. Rules of engagement. Bapinney 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)