Iran seizes U.K. troops=The 15 sailors are back home

[Scorpion]

War with Iran is not needed. We don't have the manpower.

[kevin]

wx247, I appreciate your reply. If diplomacy fails to bring the fifteen sailors home, then the British will be entitled to attempt to bring them home by force. British special ops in conjunction with US forces could perhaps do this effectively. If that fails then the British have a right to 'test' the line of demarcation and change their rules of engagement. The British can punish and humiliate the Iranians if they are unable to bring their soldiers home. They would even be entitled to punitive strikes if the soldiers are harmed.

[Derek Ortt]

we have the resources to bomb Iran for many years. We have not even mobilized to a war time economy. If needed, we could totally mobilize like we did in WW2 and just overwhelm Iran.

I don't think it would get to that point, I think after a couple of months of sustained attacks, Iran would surrender as the people would likely be tired of being bombed and killed each night. If not, we can simply accelerate the process, like we and the British did in the Second World War

[Stephanie]

I thank you Kevin for this wonderful opportunity to discuss this topic in a scholarly and mature fashion. This is how the forum works at its best. While we have opposing viewpoints, each is grounded in information and thought provoking posts... not empty hateful remarks against a person or group of people. I hope this thread continues in this manner.

It has been a very civil discussion of a very serious matter.

wx247 and Kevin, in particular, have made very informative, logical points to the case. It's been a very interesting read for me and I have agree with a lot of what has been said.

The LAST THING I'd want to see is a war. I do hope that somehow this is worked out through diplomatic channels. However, if those sailor are harmed we will be dealing with a whole new ball of wax, and a very ugly one at that. I would have no doubt that the US will help are friends in whatever way possible.

[nystate]

we have the resources to bomb Iran for many years. We have not even mobilized to a war time economy. If needed, we could totally mobilize like we did in WW2 and just overwhelm Iran.

I don't think it would get to that point, I think after a couple of months of sustained attacks, Iran would surrender as the people would likely be tired of being bombed and killed each night. If not, we can simply accelerate the process, like we and the British did in the Second World War

So you propose to kill thousands of civilians because Iran captured 15 soldiers?

Who would be the bad guy in that case?

[Derek Ortt]

Having the "moral high ground" does not win wars

Recent history has showed that there are severe consequences for inaction. We caved in Somalia in 1993 as we did not want to take a few casualties and kill civilians. That only emboldened Al Queda and they ratched up the attacks. That caving eventually led to the towers falling, the Pentagon being severely damaged, and the downing of flight 93 on 9/11

Are you suggesting that we go down this same road AGAIN? Please help me understand the logic you are using, as I do not quite get it.

[MGC]

Sorry folks, but the UK and Iran will not be going to war over these 15 sailors unless Iran does something even more stupid than seizing them. If Iran is stupid enough to harm one hair on any of the sailors' heads than I expect Blair to send an armada to the Persian Gulf simular to the Fauklands. I expect the sailors to be released once the short one gets some more air time.....MGC

[kevin]

Having the "moral high ground" does not win wars

Recent history has showed that there are severe consequences for inaction. We caved in Somalia in 1993 as we did not want to take a few casualties and kill civilians. That only emboldened Al Queda and they ratched up the attacks. That caving eventually led to the towers falling, the Pentagon being severely damaged, and the downing of flight 93 on 9/11

Are you suggesting that we go down this same road AGAIN? Please help me understand the logic you are using, as I do not quite get it.

The closest I can come to giving you a logical explanation of how you are flawed in thinking about this is that the events which occurred in Somalia were not simple equations. For instance, when we went into Somalia it was basically because the dictatorship of Siad Barre collapsed after we withdrew support for him following the end of the Cold War. Somalia has always been both a 'nation' which is larger than its territorial boundaries (extending into Kenya, Ethiopia, and Djibouti) and also a patchwork of clan-families (six major ones) and their constituent clans. What the conflict was about was the various southern clan groups trying to gain supremacy in Mogadishu.

Food was valuable at that time, with high prices on the black market. UN forces brought food and it was stolen. The United States began to hunt down warlords and found itself outmaneuvered and shot down. We decided our national interests were not being enhanced by participation in that land, and withdrew.

Somali walords did not attack the United States on September 11th 2001. Saudi and Egyptian men did. Personally I think it would have been in our national interests to continue participation in the Somali nation-building, but there is not a clear causation between Somali intervention ceasing and the terrorist attacks.

The only thread running between them is the mujahadeen, and I can safely say that the mujahadeen participation in Somalia isn't as bad as say the mujahadeen participation in the Sudan or Afghanistan or the North Western Territory of Pakistan at that time. If you're looking for failures, it wasn't the withdraw of troops in Somalia, it was the inactivity in engaging the mujahadeen camps in the countries I listed above.

[Derek Ortt]

weren't there also Al Queda influences in Somalia and wasn't Al Queda responsible for the blackhawk downing? Or do I have my facts mixed up

[Category 5]

People are out of there minds. I don't care what the burocrats on ether side say, we know what this is REALLY about.

[HurricaneBill]

His continued defiance is getting him more and more in hot water.

From what I've heard, the Iranian people are getting very fed up with him.

[Yarrah]

His continued defiance is getting him more and more in hot water.

From what I've heard, the Iranian people are getting very fed up with him.

Indeed, recent studies have shown that more then 2/3 of the Iranians are actually pro-western and very well educated. They're too affraid of stepping up and showing their discontent, because the extremist minority (including Ahmadinejad) will come with heavy retribution.

-edit- It seems the British and Iranian ministers of foreign affairs talked to each other and the Iranian minister said that British diplomates *might* visit the prisoners once the research on the incident by Iran has been finished.

[Brent]

His continued defiance is getting him more and more in hot water.

From what I've heard, the Iranian people are getting very fed up with him.

Oh yeah... mostly ironically over his obsession with confronting the West and not paying enough attention to domestic issues(especially Iran's economy, which is not good). In the election last year he suffered big losses.

[nystate]

Having the "moral high ground" does not win wars

Recent history has showed that there are severe consequences for inaction. We caved in Somalia in 1993 as we did not want to take a few casualties and kill civilians. That only emboldened Al Queda and they ratched up the attacks. That caving eventually led to the towers falling, the Pentagon being severely damaged, and the downing of flight 93 on 9/11

Are you suggesting that we go down this same road AGAIN? Please help me understand the logic you are using, as I do not quite get it.

Actually, it does.

Killing thousands of innocents would only cause the Iranians to rise against us when they otherwise may not. Thus, not only would it be the wrong thing to do but it could potentially lead to more of our troops being killed.

Besides, America is better than that. We aren't some crack third-world military dictatorship. We wage war on militaries, not civilians.

[HURAKAN]

Tehran says detained sailors are fine

Lets hope the crisis ends as quick as possible. It has been many days already.

[Derek Ortt]

NYS, please explain further

We killed several thousand less than 10 yearsa go and the Serbs never rose up against us, they blamed their gov't, and the Iranians already hate their government.

Also, when did killing civilians become wrong in WAR, that has been the accepted primary tactic for 4,000 years, since the conquest of Canaan and has proven effective every time. Of course, my stance may just be my "if it is not broke, do not fix it" mentality

[Windswept]

I don't get it. If not for consideration of "high moral ground" aren't we just another species battling over control of territory?

[sunny]

Also, when did killing civilians become wrong in WAR, that has been the accepted primary tactic for 4,000 years, since the conquest of Canaan and has proven effective every time. Of course, my stance may just be my "if it is not broke, do not fix it" mentality

Oh wow - I find this scary. I truly hope you do not mean the deliberate killing of innocent civilians. We do what we can to NOT deliberately kill civilians.

[Derek Ortt]

if we have to go to war with Iran, God forbid, and we do not go all out, we will be in serious trobule. Iran will decimate our forces if we are more concerned with Iranian civilians than the mission

[sunny]

While everyone knows the mission is most important Derek, it is also vital to avoid civilian deaths whenever possible!! Surely even you must admit that. Killing innocent civilians 'just because' is not acceptable in my book - it makes us no better than the insurgents we are fighting in Iraq.

Anyway, bringing this back around to topic - the latest I heard is that Iran will not disclose the location of the British soldiers and therefore British personnel will not be allowed to meet with them.