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

[lurkey]

Iraq backs Britain over captured sailors

[Yarrah]

A member of the Iranian ministry of foreign affairs said that Iran doesn't want to trade the British soldier for Iranian prisoner in Iraq. They do however want to interrogate the British soldier to find out why exactly they entered Iranian territorial waters. Note that the boundary between Iraq and Iran in the Shatt al-Arab is still very unclear and is still being disputed, so it will be hard for both parties to prove that they are right. Maybe this is why Iran captured the British soldier at this location.

It's good to see that the UK and the EU are still looking for a diplomatic way to solve this problem. I don't think anyone wants to start a war with Iran over here.

[Cryomaniac]

I don't think anyone wants to start a war with Iran over here.

I do.

[P.K.]

It's good to see that the UK and the EU are still looking for a diplomatic way to solve this problem. I don't think anyone wants to start a war with Iran over here.

Well no, I was just wondering how long we had to wait until we could send the SAS in to get them.

[nholley]

It's good to see that the UK and the EU are still looking for a diplomatic way to solve this problem. I don't think anyone wants to start a war with Iran over here.

Well no, I was just wondering how long we had to wait until we could send the SAS in to get them.

The SAS are already in there. The reason for all this talking is to try and find out where they are. As soon as they know I am sure the SAS will be in after them.

[nystate]

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

Alright, here's an example-

Suppose we are trying to take out anti-aircraft artillery in Tehran in preparation for an invasion. Because we are America, we would use smart bombs and take out the artillery that we could and try to minimize collateral damage. It sounds to me that you would rather just decimate the areas around the artillery (regardless of civilian deaths) to be sure we got it all.

Using that logic the terrorists could claim that they were targeting one business in NYC on 9/11 (say a stock brockerage company for example) and that they just took out both towers to make sure that this business was completely destroyed. Or, they could use our own logic against us in the future by nuking an American city and claiming that they were really going for only police officers or Jews or something insane like that.

Basically, killing recklessly makes us just as bad as the terrorists.

[Derek Ortt]

major difference between us and the terrorists

The acts of 9/11 and other terrorist tactics are classified as illegal partisan warfare. The forces need to clearly identify themselves as combatants and not carry out attacks in civilian clothing. If they were to fight like a real enemy, my stance on them would be totally different. If an enemy airforce can attack our cities in clearly marked aircraft (as we do and I would nt advocate using any partisan tactics), it means we need to improve our air defenses first and foremost

However, they are partisans and those carrying out partisan acts should be shot based upon the provisions of the Geneva Convention

[Stephanie]

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

That's what I think would be the only way that there will be a war. I just hope Iran doesn't do anything more "stupid".

Derek - they're not at war. You've already have the battle lines drawn and the personnel in position!

If NOONE ever took the high road, the world as we know it would've already been bombed out of existance. I agree that countries must defend themselves but never attack first.

[LSU2001]

First and foremost let me make it clear that I am not in favor of any war with Iran or any other govt. But in defense of Derek's assertion that attacking cities has always been an acceptable instrument of warfare, I recall that in WWII allied forces routinely bombed citys into ruins. The major citys of Germany were basically reduced to rubble and the fire bombing of Toyko was considered an acceptable means of securing Japans surrender. Later the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (sp) were certainly directed mainly toward civilian targets.

I think that what Derek is advocating is all out war once WAR has been embraced as the proper route for a nation. I tend to agree that our sensibilites toward both casulties and civilan collateral damage have ended up causing our forces much more trouble than an all out campaign of destruction would have. We used strict rules of engagement in Vietnam and ended up in a protracted covert war with extensive losses. Many experts have opined that had the US unleashed the full might of the military early on then North Vietnam could not have lasted very long. Our war of attrition ended up costing us the loss of around 50,000 US servicemen and countless others permantly damaged from the sights and sounds they experienced in that little police action. We have lost our stomach for massive casulties and for supreme sacrifice for our country's national interests. I do not advocate war and I agree with Kevin that war should always be the last option for any nation. BUT I believe that once the mantle of war has been embraced, anything less than a complete and total comittment to winning is a grave disservice to both the interests of the nation and to its soldiers.

Just My 2 cents,
Tim

[HURAKAN]

Iran Softens Stance on British Sailors

"("It should become clear whether their entry was intentional or unintentional. After that is clarified, the necessary decision will be made," Mostafavi said.)"

[Derek Ortt]

Thank you Tim

If war is necessary, anything less than all out total war only places our troops in danger

[nholley]

Iran Softens Stance on British Sailors

"("It should become clear whether their entry was intentional or unintentional. After that is clarified, the necessary decision will be made," Mostafavi said.)"

Looks like the start of a backdown to me.

[Yarrah]

Looks like the start of a backdown to me.

It looks like it. Iranian ambassador in Iraq, Hassan Qomi, said that this has nothing to do with the new sanctions or the the pressure put on Iran because of it's nuclear program. Also, the Iranian ministry of foreign affairs told the British ambassador in Teheran that the soldiers are in good condition and that Iran wants to resolve this problem as soon as possible.

[fwbbreeze]

Looks like the start of a backdown to me.

It looks like it. Iranian ambassador in Iraq, Hassan Qomi, said that this has nothing to do with the new sanctions or the the pressure put on Iran because of it's nuclear program. Also, the Iranian ministry of foreign affairs told the British ambassador in Teheran that the soldiers are in good condition and that Iran wants to resolve this problem as soon as possible.

Iran does not have any intention of solving this quickly. If that were the case the British soilders would already be back in British hands. Iran is using this to draw attention to themselves, and keep themselves on a world stage. Britian needs to set a timetable for the return of their soliders and if the timetable is not met......smack Iran dead in the nose!!

[Yarrah]

Britian needs to set a timetable for the return of their soliders and if the timetable is not met......smack Iran dead in the nose!!

I don't think that's going to happen very soon:

In an interview on GMTV on Tuesday Blair said: "I hope we manage to get them (the Iranian government) to realize they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase."

Asked what that meant, Blair said: "Well, we will just have to see, but what they should understand is that we cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized when actually they are in Iraqi waters under a U.N. mandate, patrolling perfectly rightly and in accordance with that mandate, and then effectively captured and taken to Iran."

Blair's spokesman said later the prime minister did not mean Iranian diplomats would be expelled or military action was likely.
[align=right]Source: CNN[/align]

[lurkey]

UK to reveal GPS in Iran clash

[Cryomaniac]

Britian needs to set a timetable for the return of their soliders and if the timetable is not met......smack Iran dead in the nose!!

I don't think that's going to happen very soon:

In an interview on GMTV on Tuesday Blair said: "I hope we manage to get them (the Iranian government) to realize they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase."

Asked what that meant, Blair said: "Well, we will just have to see, but what they should understand is that we cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized when actually they are in Iraqi waters under a U.N. mandate, patrolling perfectly rightly and in accordance with that mandate, and then effectively captured and taken to Iran."

Blair's spokesman said later the prime minister did not mean Iranian diplomats would be expelled or military action was likely.
[align=right]Source: CNN[/align]

To be honest, I can see no reason at all not to expel Iranian diplomats, and if I could I'd ask Mr. Blair just what a country would have to do to provoke military action.

The language is getting stronger, which can only be a good thing, however, I honestly don't think we'll get anywhere without at the very least a deadline and a threat of military action

[Stephanie]

I do not advocate war and I agree with Kevin that war should always be the last option for any nation. BUT I believe that once the mantle of war has been embraced, anything less than a complete and total comittment to winning is a grave disservice to both the interests of the nation and to its soldiers.

I DEFINATELY agree with this Tim. Once you make a decision, especially of this magnitude, you need to jump in with both feet and don't look back. It's all or nothing.

[kevin]

I do not advocate war and I agree with Kevin that war should always be the last option for any nation. BUT I believe that once the mantle of war has been embraced, anything less than a complete and total comittment to winning is a grave disservice to both the interests of the nation and to its soldiers.

I DEFINATELY agree with this Tim. Once you make a decision, especially of this magnitude, you need to jump in with both feet and don't look back. It's all or nothing.

Nope. Wars are rarely all or nothing events, which demand 'unconditional surrender'. Wars are entered into as a tool of foreign policy, the gravest coercive diplomacy one can enter into is force. Failed policy nevertheless remains failed policy, and the actions of any patriot should be to advance the cause of good policy. No business has ever prospered by throwing more good money into bad ventures.

[Janie2006]

Iran has very little to gain and quite a lot to lose if they harm those people, so I really don't expect them to be held much longer. I don't think Iran is trying to maintain world attention, it is much more likely they would want less of the spotlight. I think Iran pulled this stunt to make a point.