Iran captures 15 Royal Navy Personnel

[moose1am]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Why is it that they haven't released what actually happened? Something is really odd about all this. With radar and instant communications I can't see this happening unless you want it to happen or the leadership screwed up and needs to be relieved.
How you can sit there and betray your own men is beyond me.

Sometimes you don't want the enemy to know your capabilities.
And maybe just maybe the Brits actually went into Iranian territory to scout around.

I did read today that the Brits are about to release more proof that their guys were in Iraqi waters and not in Iranian territory. Well see what transpire in a few days.

If we go to war over this Iran will suffer much more than anyone else. But the West will suffer a lot too. Let's hope we can settle this by diplomatic means. I get pretty sick and tired of Iran pretty easily ever since the Hostage Crisis back in 1979/80 but I also lived though the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cooler heads will prevail hopefully. But I worry that mistakes can be made and a gulf of Tomkin Incident in the Persian Gulf may start a shooting war.

Our carriers are not invulnerable sitting in these waters. What would the USA do if Iran hit one of our carriers and sunk it in the Persian Gulf? Would we use tactical nukes on Iran? Or would we just unleash a barrage of cruise missiles and destroy Iran over a longer period of time? No wonder the Presidents all have grey hair by the time they leave office.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by moose1am

Ever heard of a device called GPS? Yes they both know where they were. But the line dividing Iraq and Iran is disputed by both parties.

Not everyone thinks so, even the commander of HMS Cornwall aired the possibility of this being a navigational error.

Originally Posted by BBC

However, one high-ranking Iraqi official has expressed surprise that British forces were operating in the area. Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, commander of Iraq's territorial waters, said: "Usually there is no presence of British forces in that area, so we were surprised and we wondered whether the British forces were inside Iraqi waters or inside Iranian regional waters."

[moose1am]

I was talking about the BATTLE not the WAR. If the German Tiger Tanks could have reached their goal (Port of Antwerp) it would have set the War effort back a bit. Our air power won the war for us. But the German's ran out of petrol before the fog lifted. Remember that our air force was grounded during most of the battle in the Arden's.

Yes after the skies cleared the German tanks would have been destroyed. Just glad that they ran out of gas when they did.

We just don't want to be a position to repeat the fate of the German Panzer's if we go to war with say ... IRAN.

Originally Posted by August

Not that I disagree with the likely causes of the next world war but the Germans lost the Battle of the Bulge because it was a really bad time and place to make such an offensive, not because they didn't have enough gas.

They could have had enough fuel to reach Paris even and it wouldn't have changed the outcome, not once the weather cleared and Allied air power was able to get at them.

A source of a personal nature told me that they were involved in 239 boardings to date. He told me that its a fairly regulalar occurance that the radios crap out at some time after they get dropped off. I was told that to be out of communications is for the better part of 10 hours is considered normal.

Do a Google on Al-Shatt Arab waterway, and discover its history; the British are as complicite in that issue as they are in the partitioning of Israel. Nothing but pure cosmic poetry, or random chance, can explain that British RN servicemembers are presently held for they reasons that they ostensibly are.

Since the event took place, a lot of things have occured. A Pakistani railway minister was spouting off how strongly in lock-step his country would fall in with Iran. Imediately after that came out the announcement concerning militry excercises that India would be conducting with other countries. Then pictures were splashed around the world of Russian and Chinese leaders shaking hands whilest making funny faces.

Then the U.S. Congress came out with a funding bill for continued operations for military operations in Iraq that demand a withdrawl by date X.

Now keep in mind, that in accordance to U.S. governmental procedures, the U.S. President can state that a requirements exists for continued funding for as long as 90 days after existing funding expires. So what happens if the existing U.S. Congress bill is passed by the U.S. Senate? The bill's have the proviso of troop withdrawl by 2008.

Give the ensuing scenario 30 seconds of thought. If Bush vetos the bill, then the troops essentially will have no funding for anything whatsoever. That means that Bush would have to invoke the War Power Act, and Congress would have to fund operations exclusively to pull the troops out of theater. The logical progression of this line of reasoning presently entails that all U.S. troops could possibly be out of Iraq as soon as Sep 2007. Bush's aproval of this bill would entail operations as long as 2008. That countless additional $billions would be wasted so as to buy the vote of influencial politicians is of no concern whatsoever.

I believe any of those options would be a great idea; first off: the whole region becomes SEP (as far as U.S.A. is concerned), and secondly the world will find out exactly what things are going to be like with the Persians controlling all of Iraq's oil (including their own). Finally, I believe that this will ultimately spell the death knell for the U.S. Democrat party. This reality will wholly manifest itself after we are notified about Persian testing of a nuclear weapon.

If anybody believes for 30 seconds that the Persians will not walk into the vacume that the U.S.A. would leave behind, and that anybody else will instead be a suitable substitute in that regard is at best akin to that of a crack smoking-whore.



Oh, and what about the 15 RN service members? Well, if all goes according to the way I see things going, and if enough tribute is paid, then maybe you'll see 'em within 12 months. If not, then sky's the limit, and if the Persians get the bomb, frankly I doubt you'll ever see 'em again. Of course by then there's going to be a whole lot more important matters to be concerned with than the lives of a mere 15 RN service membes. The greatest immediate concern will be the demands placed upon the UE, NATO, and to a lesser degree a significant portion of the rest of the world by some unnamed power, for which it will have no answer but capitulation.

At least everybody will be finally getting on as one big happy family, eh?

[baggygreen]

exceptionally well put. Couldnt have put it better myself

[Tchocky]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6501555.stm

Good good, finally some movement. I don't care much for Iran's history of boardings, but that can be left well alone until this is defused and the sailors are returned.

[bradclark1]

I believe any of those options would be a great idea; first off: the whole region becomes SEP (as far as U.S.A. is concerned), and secondly the world will find out exactly what things are going to be like with the Persians controlling all of Iraq's oil (including their own). Finally, I believe that this will ultimately spell the death knell for the U.S. Democrat party. This reality will wholly manifest itself after we are notified about Persian testing of a nuclear weapon.

You forgot a few things. Saudi Arabia for one. I kind of doubt any number of countries will allow Iran to run any oil but their own. Their is sunni/shia violence now but a Persian is still a Persian and the hate is instilled. My reality says Iran won't be running Iraq. Check the polls for America's thoughts on the U.S. Democratic party. I don't think they are going anywhere for a while although they do make you shake your head often. I'm not so sure of Iran and nuclear weapons yet either.

[STEED]

I see the Iranian propaganda machine at work with the release of footage of our folk.

[Skybird]

Der Spiegel's view on it reminds of some interesting historical details:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...474518,00.html

Most of Iran's oil wealth lies concentrated in Chusistan province, which is why the British would have liked nothing more, after World War One, than to make that stretch of land with its Arab population part of a British-controlled sheikhdom. But that was prevented by Shah Reza Pahlevi, who managed to consolidate his power. Still the region remained disputed, because the British remaining in Iraq continued to covet it.
Violating international custom, the British fixed the border along Shat al-Arab in such a way that the entire river, which marks the border between Iran and Iraq, became Iraqi territory - right up to the Iranian coast. It was only in 1975 that the government in Baghdad accepted shifting the border to the center of the river - a concession in return for which Shah Resa Pahlevi ceased supporting insurgent Iraqi Kurds.
In 1980, Saddam Hussein changed his mind, and the eight-year war between Iraq and Iran began with an Iraqi bombardment of the Iranian oil refinery town Abadan on the eastern bank of the Shat. Britain and the United States sided with the Iraqi dictator, providing him with military reconnaissance, weapons and even poison gas - a decision that continues to represent a bitter legacy liability for the West, and especially Britain, to this day.
Andrew Phillips, a British member of parliament, recently noted that the number of Iranians killed between 1980 and 1988 is comparable to that of British losses during World War One. In Iran, anti-British sentiment isn't limited to conservatives or to the radicals surrounding President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It's much more deep-seated than the hatred of the "Great Satan," the United States, that is constantly reiterated, partly for propaganda purposes.

(...)

But Tehran could also try exchanging the 15 British prisoners for the Iranians arrested during US raids in Iraq in the past months. This strategy would at least have a diplomatic framework and a forseeable schedule: Representatives of Iraq's neighboring countries and of the United States and Britain want to meet in mid-April in Istanbul for a second conference on Iraq, and this time the countries' foreign ministers will be taking part.
So the British sailors are probably facing a two-week wait - provided careless statements don't further escalate the situation.

Not so much an excuse of Iran's action, but maybe part of the explanation. there are no single, isolated events. Only events that are embedded into greater contexts.

[Enigma]

I, for one, am growing extremely impatient with this situation especially, and the Iraninan government in general. What length of time is required before we start talking about ultimatums?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Enigma

I, for one, am growing extremely impatient with this situation especially, and the Iraninan government in general. What length of time is required before we start talking about ultimatums?

Mid-April.

The article above makes a reasonable assumption on that date.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Enigma

I, for one, am growing extremely impatient with this situation especially, and the Iraninan government in general. What length of time is required before we start talking about ultimatums?

If you got the UN running the show say about 50 years if your lucky.

[Tchocky]

I think the slow pace of progress is a function of the volatility of the region, and neither side's willingness to start a war. Tony Blair said he was going to move into more aggressive negotiations today, thats good news, seeing as how reluctant Iran has been about more or less everything. And now there's one being released in the next few days. things are moving, but not as fast as they should.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I Tony Blair said he was going to move into more aggressive negotiations today

As if :rotfl: :rotfl:

What's he going to do? Send them a letter in bold type?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by STEED

As if :rotfl: :rotfl:

What's he going to do? Send them a letter in bold type?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6503211.stm