From: "Rich Gauszka" 


"George Sherwood"  wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.26.16.58.22{at}beernabeer.com...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:49:27 +0100, Phil Payne wrote:
>
>>> Rooting for? What an odd question. I believe that UK Forces were within
>>> Iraqi territorial waters.
>>
>> They boarded a moving ship and then got off.  Wanna bet they were in
>> Iraqi/international waters when they got on, and in Iranian waters when
>> they got off, which was when they were taken.
>
> Now that would figure.  The UK says they were in Iraqi waters, the US
> says they were in Iraqi waters, Iraq says they were in Iraqi waters, but
> you go with the Iranians on this one.
>
> This is a stunt to get their Quds force members back. It really is that
> simple and they knew taking US personnel wouldn't get them anything and
> would likely get a reaction they didn't want.
>
> George

As in waterway disputes around the world it depends

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1284398.0.0.php
IN COMMON with most disputed waterways which provide a border between two
countries - in this case Iraq and Iran - the Shatt al-Arab (or Arab River)
is a difficult place to demarcate. As a result, it has been the scene of
countless disputes in which shots have been fired or people have been
arrested. The 120-mile stretch of water, formed by the confluence of the
Tigris and Euphrates rivers, is a vital channel for Iraq as it provides its
only access to the Persian Gulf. The river also supplies fresh water to
southern Iraq and Kuwait, but its main importance is the channel it
provides for ships to travel as far as Basra, Iraq's principal port.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5