British troops seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guard

[latefordinner]

it's all politics and theatrics obv.

even i, who am loathe to put anything past Bush and Co, am not in the least worried about the possibility of attacking Iran over this. It would be political suicide and completely destabilize the entire region that we are now working to restabilize after we destabilized it in the first place. Not even the neocons and their wet dreams of making the world safe for U$ capitalism and christianity once and for all even remotely consider the possibility of entering into another war as a realistic option. Iran knows it, just as North Korea knows it, and will continue to push the envelope because their leaders are megalomaniacal crazy [censored].

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
The incident occurred mid-morning when a boarding party left HMS Cornwall, the flagship of the multinational task force in the northern Gulf, in two small craft to inspect an Iranian merchant ship.

When the inspection was completed the British were surrounded by six larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit.

The Iranian ships are normally armed with heavy mounted machineguns while the British had only side arms to protect themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely understand why the party in the rafts was not going to try shooting. But after 15 sailors were captured on an Iranian ship, I would expect that ship and any other Iranian vessel to be captured in turn immediately. Maybe it's smarter to let it be settled onshore for various reasons. I don't know. I also have no idea how the various forces are deployed exactly.---But...come on isn't this a war zone? Don't you envision jets scrambling off of carriers?

Is it really better to negotiate and let your men be paraded on TV in blindfolds as hostages, in disgrace (and then get into the game of negotiating with that type), than to put the fear of god in those f-n Iranians on the water right then and there?

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whiskey

Do you believe the threat from the USA having nuclear capabilities is the moral equivalent of Iran having them?

If so, justify your position, please.

The mind boggles.

[/ QUOTE ]

America is the only nation in the history of the planet to ever use these weapons in war.

Iran's ( and many other nations) only chance in hell of defending themselves from invasion from Powerful western superpowers is to obtain nuclear weapons.

the reason the US doesnt want others to have nukes is that it weakens our position as a world power.

I root for the underdogs in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rooting for the underdog, a noble sentiment indeed. Once they have nuclear capability I'll be rooting that they do not decide to proliferate their newfound expertise, I'll be rooting that they don't pull a powerplay in the straits of Hormuz, I'll be rooting that their President doesn't really believe what he says about the coming of the 12th Imam and/or wiping out Israel. But most of all what I'll be rooting for is for the people such as yourself, who hope for a nuclear Iran, that you and you alone bear the negative consequences of nukes in Iran's hands. Of course that can't happen, it's only a fantasy weatherman, undoubtedly you will still be able to bless us with your pearls of 'rooting' wisdom from the sanctity of your dorm room.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
The UK "rules of engagement" (ROE) are incredible stupid...
I suspect the Iranians knew of these restrictive ROE and knew they could captured the whole lot without a shot being fired. If the British troops fired on the Iranians, there would have been a lot of court martial tribunals for the soldier or soldiers that violated the ROE....


[/ QUOTE ]

They were out-gunned, just a bunch of boat inspectors (albiet in uniform) in inflatable boats, kind of like the Coast Guard.

The interesting question is why are the Iranians picking on the Brits. Maybe because they view them as weaker and less likely to respond in force because of the Brits' announced time table for leaving southern Iraq?

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]

They were out-gunned, just a bunch of boat inspectors (albiet in uniform) in inflatable boats, kind of like the Coast Guard.

The interesting question is why are the Iranians picking on the Brits. Maybe because they view them as weaker and less likely to respond in force because of the Brits' announced time table for leaving southern Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, but they came off of a nearby warship didn't they? why didn't that give chase? (maybe it wasn't really a combat vessel?) aren't there ships and planes all over the region? (maybe not right there...?)

my questions are a bit disingenuous b/c I understand that the British probably figured that it was smarter to play a diplomatic game than threaten to fight--no lives lost. But I don't like it. I'm not sure that giving in to hostage taking at all is a good idea--even though I'm glad that the coalition is probably doing it to them--screw them, parity or symmetry means nothing to me. I'd much rather have seen that Iranian ship blown out of the water. I wonder how many of the sailors would have encouraged them to attack rather than go along as hostages. (The headline today is that the female sailor is being released--there's a good case that she should insist on staying with her fellows too.)

and as far as the rules of engagement go, I don't know anything about them and apparently the poster does. But I would think that it's not a ROE problem when you are surrounded by hostile forces with guns pointed at you. How could it be?

I'm just kind of disappointed with all of it. What would brighten it all for me is if the intent was to let it develop while planning a bigger attack to use it as grounds for.

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd much rather have seen that Iranian ship blown out of the water.

[/ QUOTE ]

= all hell brakes loose in Iran/Iraq etc (again)

what proof is there that the UK troops were in international waters? AIUI UK held GPS data.

So esentially our word vs Iranians.

Iran says "of course we know where our [censored] boundaries are - then they attack us as well !!!! WAR"

Unless Iran really actually wants war then the hostages will get released in time and they'll back down (what other real choice do they have?)

If HMS Cornwall "puts the fear of God" into the Iranian captors there's a good chance some hostages die anyway - AND a whole new war kicks off which is good for noone - let the Iranians pontificate and posture and take hostages if it means we don't go to war.

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd much rather have seen that Iranian ship blown out of the water.

[/ QUOTE ]

= all hell brakes loose in Iran/Iraq etc (again)

what proof is there that the UK troops were in international waters? AIUI UK held GPS data.

So esentially our word vs Iranians.

Iran says "of course we know where our [censored] boundaries are - then they attack us as well !!!! WAR"

Unless Iran really actually wants war then the hostages will get released in time and they'll back down (what other real choice do they have?)

If HMS Cornwall "puts the fear of God" into the Iranian captors there's a good chance some hostages die anyway - AND a whole new war kicks off which is good for noone - let the Iranians pontificate and posture and take hostages if it means we don't go to war.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first GPS coordinates that the Iranians gave the British was actually a location in Iraqi waters. After Britain informed Iran of this, they received "corrected" coordinates showing them in Iranian waters. The British coordinates and the coordinates confirmed from the Indian shipping vessel that was stopped are also both in Iraqi waters.

map


I also cannot believe how many people are out there who think Iran is great and our countries suck and would probably be willing to jump in a fire and die so that Iran can achieve their righteous goal of wiping us off the map. when lunatic leaders say they are going to do something, they should be taken seriously and held accountable. Even if that means war. Did we not learn anything by all the time spent trying to appease hitler before war became inevitable? Their are numerous other examples thoughout history. Europe needs to step up to the plate here.

I understand the anxiety against starting another war because of the Iraq mess, but Iran is an extremely serious threat that needs to be dealt with. This does not mean we should attack them right now, but we really need to crack down diplomatically and stop letting them push the world around and start holding them accountable, and the threat of military force if they do not comply should be explicit.

After the current hostage crisis is over (assuming they let all the hostages go peacefully), they should be warned that if something similar happens again it will be considered a declaration of war.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I'm just thinking that also Russia probably has a satelite above, so I would guess it would be risky for Britain to bring in the satelites into the issue if they wouldn't think they are right.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

I also cannot believe how many people are out there who think Iran is great and our countries suck and would probably be willing to jump in a fire and die so that Iran can achieve their righteous goal of wiping us off the map. when lunatic leaders say they are going to do something, they should be taken seriously and held accountable. Even if that means war. Did we not learn anything by all the time spent trying to appease hitler before war became inevitable? Their are numerous other examples thoughout history. Europe needs to step up to the plate here.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the time of Chamberlain's famous "peace for our time" proclamation England and France were incapable of fighting Germany. Their economies had been in recession/depression for nearly a decade and they had little military buildup to that point. In fact the case can be made that Britain entered the war to early as the British expeditionary force was easily routed and trapped at Dunkirk and it took a lot of luck to save the 300,000+ troops that did get off. Had they not been able to Britain may have been forced to discuss terms before the US got involved with the war. Long story short there were a bunch of things that the British and the French could have to speed up their preparations, and for various reasons didn't, but the war was not caused by appeasement. Hitler invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland in an attempt to provoke war with the more powerful European nations knowing that the sooner war started the greater his advantage as Germany was way ahead of the pack in terms of preparations for war.

Beyond this there is simply no parallel between that situation and the one with Iran. In the 1930s there was no world power to speak of. British power and influence had been steadily decreasing for decades, the Russians were involved with consolidating power over their own people, depression had prevented the US from emerging as a superpower and France had made a serious error in relying to heavily on the Maginot line as defense. It was not a huge leap to enter the world stage as a military presence at that point in time. Iran can not conceivably make this leap with the US around. An aquisition of nuclear weapons makes them harder to invade but does not mean they can effectively threaten their Jewish neighbors as Israel also has nuclear capabilities and the US would (99% certainty) bomb the hell out of Iran if they ever did launch a first strike against Israel.

[wpr101]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I also cannot believe how many people are out there who think Iran is great and our countries suck and would probably be willing to jump in a fire and die so that Iran can achieve their righteous goal of wiping us off the map. when lunatic leaders say they are going to do something, they should be taken seriously and held accountable. Even if that means war. Did we not learn anything by all the time spent trying to appease hitler before war became inevitable? Their are numerous other examples thoughout history. Europe needs to step up to the plate here.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the time of Chamberlain's famous "peace for our time" proclamation England and France were incapable of fighting Germany. Their economies had been in recession/depression for nearly a decade and they had little military buildup to that point. In fact the case can be made that Britain entered the war to early as the British expeditionary force was easily routed and trapped at Dunkirk and it took a lot of luck to save the 300,000+ troops that did get off. Had they not been able to Britain may have been forced to discuss terms before the US got involved with the war. Long story short there were a bunch of things that the British and the French could have to speed up their preparations, and for various reasons didn't, but the war was not caused by appeasement. Hitler invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland in an attempt to provoke war with the more powerful European nations knowing that the sooner war started the greater his advantage as Germany was way ahead of the pack in terms of preparations for war.

Beyond this there is simply no parallel between that situation and the one with Iran. In the 1930s there was no world power to speak of. British power and influence had been steadily decreasing for decades, the Russians were involved with consolidating power over their own people, depression had prevented the US from emerging as a superpower and France had made a serious error in relying to heavily on the Maginot line as defense. It was not a huge leap to enter the world stage as a military presence at that point in time. Iran can not conceivably make this leap with the US around. An aquisition of nuclear weapons makes them harder to invade but does not mean they can effectively threaten their Jewish neighbors as Israel also has nuclear capabilities and the US would (99% certainty) bomb the hell out of Iran if they ever did launch a first strike against Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your forgetting that there were regulations in place that were supposed to disallow Germany from military build up. If these had been enforced initially it could have prevented a lot of the mess.

Also documents show that Hitler was not initially planning on hostile takeover. However, when the German army crossed into foreign territory and there were no reprecussions they kept going.