Iranians Seize 15 British Sailors/Marines

[SuAside]

i hope you're being sarcastic, because hoping for a fight with Iran is about the stupidest thing i've heard this week. how about you go read US General Barry McCaffrey's After Action Report and find out that if you go up against Iran, even the USA doesn't have the resources to back you up Muff.

besides, aren't the brits phasing out soon-ish?

 

[Muff]

SuAside I can't comment if we are going to pull out of Iraq any time soon there is some debate on that.
Oh and I am looking forward to a fight with Iran because it would be the best thing for the region and I personally think Iran should have it's arse kicked for trying to play with the big boy's militarily and politicly, also to teach the world that British troop's are out of bounds for kidnapper's and rouge states.

 

[Nology5890]

I believe that what you Brits are doing is just a troop reduction, get some proper R&R.

 

[Muff]

I just phoned my friend who is a staff sergeant he said we are most likely in the next few months going to cycle out the old troop's and get some new troop's in and reduce the numbers a bit although this should not be taken as the word of god just his opinion on the matter.

 

[Sander]

I just phoned my friend who is a staff sergeant he said we are most likely in the next few months going to cycle out the old troop's and get some new troop's in and reduce the numbers a bit although this should not be taken as the word of god just his opinion on the matter.

And this is the same as pulling out how, exactly?

 

[Muff]

didnot say it was sander besides it's just Staff Sergeant Clifton's opinion not mine.

 

[Gonzalez]

...hope I can get my leg fixed so I can get back into the fight missed the first years of Iraq hope I can do Iran that would be a fight to look forward to 8)

Yup, I sure hope you can get your hands into some real shit too, bud. And, although I think this whole thing is a complete madness if it ever went yo happen, wish you the best of luck to you out there.

 

[SuAside]

Oh and I am looking forward to a fight with Iran because it would be the best thing for the region and I personally think Iran should have it's arse kicked for trying to play with the big boy's militarily and politicly, also to teach the world that British troop's are out of bounds for kidnapper's and rogue states.

i'd advice you not to hope for wars you can't win. (well, except if you're willing to turn the desert into a glass plain)

the USA is already stretched and cannot keep up the quality of its currrent commitement for very long. the only thing that is preventing total collapse is the 9 billion dollars that the USA is throwing at the war on a monthly basis and the exceptionally high re-enlistment rates of combat troops. but none of that is going to matter if you attack Iran. a bigger country, a lot more citizens and a lot better army. (an army that is probably trained to go to ground and go guerilla on your ass if necessary i bet. they're aware that a conventional war is hard to win vs UK and USA)

it's also to be noted that if you attack Iran, the searoute into Kuwait will be blocked and that is the main artery that feeds logistics into Iraq. without that artery, troops in Iraq will not hold out very long... (and there is no simple way to create another artery such as an air bridge of the same magnitude)

while you think attacking Iran is the best that could happen to the region, it's probably the worst that could happen to the soldiers on the ground...

 

[welsh]

No doubt that the war would be an awful one. But you guys assume that the West would have to occupy Iran, why?

The West stays in Iraq because it feels the investment in men and money is worth it. I admit that, if your numbers are right, 9 billion is high, but even if that's true you are talking about $108 billion a year from an $12.3 trillion dollar economy. That means that war only accounts for .87% of GDP (less then 1%). This at a time when the economy is growing at 3.4% and inflation is at 2.5% means that the economy can absorb the war in Iraq. That the US has lost 3,000 KIA is, frankly, peanuts. The US lost more in one day in World War 2 than it did in the years in Iraq.

So far the entire war in Iraq has not really cost much in the way of economic growth or even society. In fact, most Americans have hardly been impacted by the war at all. No one has stopped shopping, there is no rationing, there is no draft. Realistically, the war has been cheap.

A war with Iran would be more expensive, sure. But would it be affordable? Woudl it be worth the costs?

Would it be cheaper to create a no-man's land running from the Persian Gulf to about 100 miles inland of Iran than to occupy the country? (And yes, this has been done before with free fire zones in Iran).

How long would such a war last? Well, arguably until Iran made peace or the US and Brits gave up because the war was no longer affordable.

But lets say the Iranians didn't make peace or the West thought the war was affordable? Then until an alternative for oil was discovered and thus the reason for the war would no longer exist.

At which point the US and Brits could withdraw, leaving Iran and Iraq in a Hobbesian anarchy if necessary. Simply, it wouldn't be worth it for the US or the Brits to fight over a piece of dirt that has no value to anyone but those who want to own it. And why would the US and Brits want to own a lot of desert wasteland?

Morally that might sound repugnant. But lets face it. The West has fought colonial wars that meant thousands if not millions of deaths to indiginous peoples. The only reason why the West is interested in the Middle East is oil, and but for oil, the West could leave the Middle East much like it leaves Africa.

It's not like the West really did anything to stop the killing in Congo, Cambodia, Rwanda, Uganda, Sudan...... Why? Because those regions lacked sufficient value.

 

[Sander]

No doubt that the war would be an awful one. But you guys assume that the West would have to occupy Iran, why?

The West stays in Iraq because it feels the investment in men and money is worth it. I admit that, if your numbers are right, 9 billion is high, but even if that's true you are talking about $108 billion a year from an $12.3 trillion dollar economy. That means that war only accounts for .87% of GDP (less then 1%). This at a time when the economy is growing at 3.4% and inflation is at 2.5% means that the economy can absorb the war in Iraq. That the US has lost 3,000 KIA is, frankly, peanuts. The US lost more in one day in World War 2 than it did in the years in Iraq.

So far the entire war in Iraq has not really cost much in the way of economic growth or even society. In fact, most Americans have hardly been impacted by the war at all. No one has stopped shopping, there is no rationing, there is no draft. Realistically, the war has been cheap.

A war with Iran would be more expensive, sure. But would it be affordable? Woudl it be worth the costs?

Would it be cheaper to create a no-man's land running from the Persian Gulf to about 100 miles inland of Iran than to occupy the country? (And yes, this has been done before with free fire zones in Iran).

How long would such a war last? Well, arguably until Iran made peace or the US and Brits gave up because the war was no longer affordable.

But lets say the Iranians didn't make peace or the West thought the war was affordable? Then until an alternative for oil was discovered and thus the reason for the war would no longer exist.

At which point the US and Brits could withdraw, leaving Iran and Iraq in a Hobbesian anarchy if necessary. Simply, it wouldn't be worth it for the US or the Brits to fight over a piece of dirt that has no value to anyone but those who want to own it. And why would the US and Brits want to own a lot of desert wasteland?

Morally that might sound repugnant. But lets face it. The West has fought colonial wars that meant thousands if not millions of deaths to indiginous peoples. The only reason why the West is interested in the Middle East is oil, and but for oil, the West could leave the Middle East much like it leaves Africa.

It's not like the West really did anything to stop the killing in Congo, Cambodia, Rwanda, Uganda, Sudan...... Why? Because those regions lacked sufficient value.

Are you looking at this from the point of view what the West *should* do, or from what the West is likely to do? Because that changes the motivation a whole lot.

It's unlikely that a war would continue with no benefits to the country, unless there is heavy domestic opposition to pulling out in such a case. And even that, it would only take a year or two to change the public's perception on the original cause for going to war to a new one, and then claim that they accomplished that a while ago and can safely pull out now. That much is obvious.

But, is this the *right* thing to do? Nope. Not by a long shot. Invading a country, fucking over any stability in the region and then leaving is probably the worst thing one can do. And I'm not sure whether it would tactically be the best thing to do either. It would cause the Middle East to blow up even further, and this can't be a good thing for the world.

 

[welsh]

I am not so sure Sander if I agree.

While I agree that destabilizing the region is a "morally bad" thing to do, honestly, I think Iran's desire to play regional power and to develop nuclear weapons is perhaps an even worse situation.

Morally? I am thinking costs and benefits here as I find that moral choice is often shaped by material interests.

Iran has threatened the flow of oil coming out of the Persian Gulf in the past (remember the Silk Worm missiles? the mining of the straights?) and has paid for it in the past. If Iran were to be capable of actually achieving that goal, how costly would it be for the West to tolerate that? How expensive is it to the West or the rest of the World to tolerate an aggressive and potentially nuclear armed Iran?
IF the US were to do nothing, then what?

I think the problem that the US faces and which Britain faces as well, is not that there was a war. Sure there are lots of people who argue that the war was fought for false pretenses, that these countries were tricked into war- sure. But at the end of the day, the war in Iraq, just like policy with Iran, is about oil. The problem is not so much that a war was fought, that the war has not ended nor has it ended on terms favorable to the West. The problem is not that the war was fought, but that the war has not been won. This is war fatigue.

But the war was fought over oil.

How important is the flow of oil from that region to the rest of the world? How far is the rest of the world willing to go to protect this and for how long?

It seems to me that if Iran wanted to peacefully resolve this problem and claim to be a good neighbor, the answer is simple- let the marines and sailors go home and call a meeting to discuss the problem, perhaps take to the ICJ and negotiate.

Rather, the Iranians want to parade the soldiers in front of TV to show the middle east that Iran can stick a finger in the eye of the West- it's PR drama.

Ok, let Iran play that angle if it wants to. I don't think 15 soldiers is enough reason to go to war with Iran. A nuclear armed Iran? Yes, I think going to war to stop that is worth it.

This is different than Iraq. Iraq claimed it wasn't working on a nuclear project but was a bit shakey in the way it tried to prove that. It makes matters worse that the US used crap evidence to prove its case. But here, Iran isn't even denying it, and isn't even trying to be cooperative.

What is the rest of the world supposed to think of this?

Let's see what this seizure is?

(a) an accident and mistake- on the part of either the Brits or the Iranians, the solution is an easy one. Send them home and commit to working out the difference. This might be an opportunity to build more peaceful co-existence. This might look like the Tonkin Gulf incident, but it doesn't have to lead to war.

(b) a move to test the resolve of the Brits and the Americans. IF so than the right response is to show fierce and powerful resolve.

(c) one more move of the Iranians for regional domination- which is too dangerous to allow.

The argument for war can be made on a variety of grounds but lets keep it simple- oil.

If it weren't for oil, no one would care about the Persian Gulf.

Until a substitute for oil is found, the Persian Gulf will remain important to maintainign the global economy.

So yes, I enthusiastically support finding some alternative to Persian Gulf Oil, or from any oil for that matter. But right now, there are no substitutes.

So what is the West willing to pay to maintain its addiction to oil?

 

[Muff]

They have just been freed from Iran all 15 of them, I don't have more details it just come up on the radio. I will post when I have more info.

 

[Mikey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6525905.stm

Iran 'to release British sailors'

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf will be freed.

He repeated allegations that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they would be freed as a "gift" to Britain.

He made the announcement at a news conference, in which he also awarded medals to the commanders who captured the British personnel in the Gulf.

He said the Britons would be released immediately and taken to an airport.

"They are free after this meeting and can go back to their families," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

"I'm asking Mr Blair to not put these 15 personnel on trial because they admitted they came to Iranian territorial water," he said, referring to taped "confessions" made by the British sailors and marines.

"I ask Mr Blair: Instead of occupying the other countries, I ask Mr Blair to think about the justice, to think about the truth and work for the British people not for himself."

Britain says the 15 were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate when they were captured nearly two weeks ago. It says the confessions were extracted under duress.

"Unfortunately the British government was not even brave enough to tell their people the truth, that it made a mistake," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

"We have every right to put these people on trial," he asserted.

"But I want to give them as a present to the British people to say they are all free."

A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "We welcome what the president has said about the release of our 15 personnel. We are now establishing exactly what this means in terms of the method and timing of their release."

'Causing misery'

Mr Ahmadinejad also criticised the US-led invasion of Iraq and Israel's war in Lebanon.

He used a news conference marking the Persian New Year to condemn the countries he said were behind "misery" and "destruction" in the world.

He said there did not appear to be anyone "to stand up and defend the rights of those oppressed".

He opened the news conference with references to the Islamic holy book, the Koran, then made a wide-ranging speech about the modern history of the Middle East, while attacking the West.

The invasion of Iraq was based on the false premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he said, but even now "the occupation forces continue to stay there and people are still being killed".

Is that Iran backing down, or just getting bored of sabre-rattling, or what? I don't understand all this politics. :/

 

[SuAside]

backing down? not really...

it was never the intention to keep them. but to exploit them to maximum effect. iran's popularity has risen, iran has made a joke of Blair and his country and in the meanwhile it has tested the resolve of the involved nations.

blair will try to paint this a victory, but it's all marketing spin.

 

[welsh]

Yep- its clever for Iran. It has milked this for publicity and has gained some prestige. And it has done so before things become dangerous.

With the sailors and marines home, there is no reason to maintain hostilities. Iran gets good PR and the Brits lose face. A rather successful move by Iran- deflating the crisis before it can proceed yet showing itself to be "responsible" and "peaceful" while asserting its sovereignty.

 

[Thrawn]

Classic no-win situation for the West. If we captured their soldiers at Sea the PR would be pretty bad.

If we showed we were all tough and badass and did some military operation to get the soldiers back we would be regarded as war mongers.

I hate the fact that we hold ourselves to so much higher standards than our enemies and seem to gain nothing from it. Everyone still thinks the US is still just a country of war criminals even though we execute our own soldiers instead of our captured terrorists.

On the subject of Iran... I always look at it this way. Iraq of 2002 was the Iran of 5 years ago, and the Iran of today is the Korea of 5 years ago.

As we sit here in 2007 we have an insane dictator in Korea with (crapy) nuclear war heads and missiles that can reach one of the US's best allies, Japan.

In 5 years if something doesn't change we will have the same problem in Iran. They will have Nuclear missiles with the range to hit most of Europe.

How is this acceptable?

EDIT: I luk samrtar win i spel chk

 

[Wooz]

Kay-o, who was right all along, told you so, kthxbye.

PS: Oh yeah. In case you didn't notice, it wasn't a "clever move". This situation further damaged Iran's ties with the West. Badly.

Very macho, but it's shooting oneself in the foot on the long run.

 

[SuAside]

if their goal was to be all buddy-like with the west, they wouldn't have been researching a-bombs & shit. their goal was never to be a buddy of the west, so it was indeed a clever move along their line of reasoning and strategy...

 

[Wooz]

It isn't a question of friendship. Iran needs Teh West, wether President-Muslim-Extremist-Cabaret likes it or not.

 

[Big T]

This whole thing was a joke. There was never any serious questioning of whether they would be released, but only of when. A war with the UK (and most probably the US) would be too expensive.

The retaliatory behavior of idiots and tabloids has conspired to make a fool of anyone who would proclaim themselves to be British.

if their goal was to be all buddy-like with the west, they wouldn't have been researching a-bombs & shit. their goal was never to be a buddy of the west, so it was indeed a clever move along their line of reasoning and strategy...

Because "a-bombs & shit" are uncommon among western nations.

Do as I say ...

The problem with wars these days is that they are too political... enough of this bullshit.

Isn't war an extension of politics, of diplomacy? Generally only used when diplomacy fails comletely, but there are many reasons for such failure.

hope I can get my leg fixed so I can get back into the fight missed the first years of Iraq hope I can do Iran that would be a fight to look forward to 8)

Do I really have to share a country with this gentleman? I hate unbridled patriotism. So blind.