Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0

[canis582]

What gives the Brits any right to search any boat in the Gulf?

----
Quote: Im confused how an armed Unit of UK forces could be forcibly kidnapped and it NOT be considered an "act of war." When a foreign Naval power threatens or uses force at sea on another Navy it is clear "act of war.""

How could you not consider GWB & Cos. rhetoric about Iran an act of war? When visiting a bomber factory, American politicans publically commented that wooden Japanese cities would burn nicely from fire bombs delivered by B-39's...Before Pearl Harbor. Why did the Japs attack first again?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know anything for a fact, but if there is in fact a border dispute, and the British were doing typical customs inspection work in a tiny boat, it seems odd to classify it as some sort of deliberate hostile incursion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the border dispute was settled in the peace negotiations after the Iran-Iraq-war. However it is a bit unclear where it runs, but as I understand it that is another area than where this happened.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
What gives the Brits any right to search any boat in the Gulf?

----
Quote: Im confused how an armed Unit of UK forces could be forcibly kidnapped and it NOT be considered an "act of war." When a foreign Naval power threatens or uses force at sea on another Navy it is clear "act of war.""

How could you not consider GWB & Cos. rhetoric about Iran an act of war? When visiting a bomber factory, American politicans publically commented that wooden Japanese cities would burn nicely from fire bombs delivered by B-39's...Before Pearl Harbor. Why did the Japs attack first again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Canis, what exactly did GWB and Co. say about Iran that you would consider to be an act of war?

Also, do you consider Iran's parading of missiles emblazoned with the slogan "Death To America!" an act of war?

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
What gives the Brits any right to search any boat in the Gulf?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maratime law, UN resolutions, right to self defense, Iraqi government auhorizing coalition forces to maintain law and order in Iraqi territory and waters.

Is that list long enough to satisfy?

[ QUOTE ]
How could you not consider GWB & Cos. rhetoric about Iran an act of war?

[/ QUOTE ]
GWB says a lot of silly chit. I'll grant you that. But, I can't seem to recall him openly calling for the anhiliation of another country/people (as Iran has wrt Israel). I also don't see how loudly trying to prevent a "clearly deranged" Iranian Leadership from getting ahold of nuclear weapons is an act of war.

I'm sure next you will try to compare Gitmo with The Iranian hijacking of the Brit Marines and Sailors. These two situations are completely different. Uniformed British personnell are required to be handled VERY differently by other military forces both during times of open combat and international unease.

Iran has ZERO legs to stand on from an international law or maratime law perspective in this instance.


[ QUOTE ]
When visiting a bomber factory, American politicans publically commented that wooden Japanese cities would burn nicely from fire bombs delivered by B-39's...Before Pearl Harbor. Why did the Japs attack first again?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Historical revisionism! Trying to prop up WWII Japanese leadership and their decisions to anything approaching a legal or moral stance goes beyond belief. Please answer why they attacked China, Korea, Siam, Burma, The Philipines, e.t.c. Furthermore please answer to their actions whilst occupying those countries.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
What gives the Brits any right to search any boat in the Gulf?

[/ QUOTE ]

excerpt:

"The 15 Britons were detained by Iranian naval units on March 23 while patrolling for smugglers as part of a U.N.-mandated force monitoring the Persian Gulf. "

AP

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
So really, what the [censored] are they thinking? It seems like the potential costs of this stunt outweigh any benefits of asserting their sovereignty over their territory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, try to tell that to the US should someone invade their territoriality! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I'm having trouble figuring out why Iran would take the Brits hostage.

[/ QUOTE ]
They think they can score domestic political victory, intimidate the UK, and they think they can exchange these UK sailors for captured Iranian spies.

I have to wonder weather any of the UK political leadership has any balls. The fact that the UK political leadership forbid any response while their sailors are being captured is beyond me.

If the Iranians tried this on an American outfit, there would have been a big fire fight. It has not been publicized adequately, but the USA/Iran have been engaged in several fire fights on the Iraq/Iran border. And shortly after the Iraq invasion, Iran moved troops into disputed territory hoping to take advantage of Iraq's weakness.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...0/ixportal.html

Perhaps the UK has become too feminized under Labour's rule. One Tory MP has more balls than a hundred labour MPs.

[CTKid]

This entire crisis seems almost too perfect of an event for drumming up anti-Iranian public sentiment in the UK and US. The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters, and have said that they, as instructed, left the main vessel, which was in Iraqi waters, in a smaller craft and traveled into Iranian waters, where they were detained. Why would they do that? Is it possible that the large vessel was indeed in Iraqi waters, but the smaller one which was captured was not? Maybe that's why there has been so much confusion.

Also, I agree with everyone else's sentiment that the sailors (and their support) might not allow themselves to be captured so easily. Perhaps they were instructed not to resist. Is it possible that the Iranians simply took the bait?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
This entire crisis seems almost too perfect of an event for drumming up anti-Iranian public sentiment in the UK and US. The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters, and have said that they, as instructed, left the main vessel, which was in Iraqi waters, in a smaller craft and traveled into Iranian waters, where they were detained. Why would they do that? Is it possible that the large vessel was indeed in Iraqi waters, but the smaller one which was captured was not? Maybe that's why there has been so much confusion.

Also, I agree with everyone else's sentiment that the sailors (and their support) might not allow themselves to be captured so easily. Perhaps they were instructed not to resist. Is it possible that the Iranians simply took the bait?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you suppose that the sailors "admitting to being in Iranian waters" means anything? What do you suppose "under duress" means? The sailors are right now under extreme duress.

The British rules of engagement forbade the sailors from fighting back.

Also, in my opinion there's no confusion at all as to what occurred. The Iranians simply captured hostages and are lying about the location of the capture. Not surprisingly, the first location the Iranians provided was not in Iranian waters - they later "corrected" that to their current claim. Yeah...right, sure, Ok, uh-huh...the second coordinates they provided are really the correct ones - it is simply unbelievable.

Just because it is hard to fathom a motive for the Iranians' actions does not mean a motive does not exist.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
This entire crisis seems almost too perfect of an event for drumming up anti-Iranian public sentiment in the UK and US. The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters, and have said that they, as instructed, left the main vessel, which was in Iraqi waters, in a smaller craft and traveled into Iranian waters, where they were detained. Why would they do that? Is it possible that the large vessel was indeed in Iraqi waters, but the smaller one which was captured was not? Maybe that's why there has been so much confusion.

Also, I agree with everyone else's sentiment that the sailors (and their support) might not allow themselves to be captured so easily. Perhaps they were instructed not to resist. Is it possible that the Iranians simply took the bait?

[/ QUOTE ]

These types of routine inspections of suspected smuggler vessels are always mothershipped from larger ships. IOW The marines and sailors would be based on a Ship (most likely a Brit Frigate or Destroyer patrolling the upper Gulf). When a suspected smuggler is located, they are queried by radio. If the answers are nonsatisfactory or nonexistent, they get paid a visit by a team of Marines and sailors via speedboat which is housed on the mother ship. So all that part of the story is routine.

The Brit ship would always have positive control of the boarding team via radio until they actually boarded the suspected smuggler for inspection. Once the boarding team was onboard the smuggler they would have little difficulty in gaining control of the vessel but are in a uniquely vulnerable position WRT other warships. In this case, I suspect an Iranian Patrol Craft likely approached rapidly from Iranian waters and trained it's guns on the smuggler vessel then boarded and took the Brits hostage before the Brit Ship could move in to assist. Once the Iranians had positive control of the smuggler vessel and the Brit Marines and sailors the Brit ship could do little aside from use "harsh language" on the radio OR blow the sheeeet out of the Iranian Patrol Craft. Option 1 OBV had little effect and option 2 would OBV resulted in a brief and fiery battle at sea with follow on results of all Iranians dead along with their ship but also all the Marines and Sailors likely killed as well.

I'm guessing it all happened a bit fast and with little warning from The Iranians the sailors/marines were in "enemy hands" before much could be done.

All that said, The Iranians would still have had to give NO warning (which as I stated in an earlier post is standard for these sort of disputed waters) and come with a clear intention of essentially kidnapping Brit servicemen.