This is all just a statement by Iran, it has nothing to do with rouge RG officers it will have come straight from Tehran, not only is it sabre rattling but they also now have a bargaining chip, as they know we can't do anything to get them back straight away at this point.
I hope we start discussing this in public soon to embarass Iran, I don't respect the US on all issues but you can bet if this was US soldiers that had been taken they would be back in US hands by now.
Once we get the soldiers back I would hope we do as artist said and just strangle the life out of the country until the people revolt, Iran has had its chances times up in my book, or they will be a bigger uncontrolable threat in the future. If Israel wants to go and sort it out then I wouldn't shed a tear either.
I also hate the way the media is going on about the service woman and how she has a family and how its so awful, I find it just as upsetting that we have Royal Marines and RN boys who may well have families too being held.
Lastly it annoys me this whole situation has arisen AGAIN, where was the force protection and why were they allowed to be taken like that when we have a big badass warship on scene? No doubt this was in Iraqi waters so why were the Iranian ships not spotted and challenged?
Share This Page:
15 British Personnel seized by Iranian Navy
Got to remember these guys aren't just stuck in Iran for no reason. Everyday they are stuck there, China and Russia are waking up to the fact that these Iranian's can't be trusted with anything. So they are doing their service for the greater good.
China and Russia are not stupid, they both have border fronts with Islamic extremists and will not stand in the way of action against Iran now, last thing the Russians want is the Chechen's getting hold of a bomb. They may even look the other way when Israel strike Iran like they are threatening.
Unfortunately our 15 guys are stuck in the middle of this bigger argument.
But like artist says, they should isolate and blockade them. Get round the borders and cut all the phone lines to start with. Send them back to the dark ages. Bombing the population rarely sparks an internal uprising, but if you destabilise the country's currency. Then your odds of achieving a bit of instability are greatly increased.
China and Russia are not stupid, they both have border fronts with Islamic extremists and will not stand in the way of action against Iran now, last thing the Russians want is the Chechen's getting hold of a bomb. They may even look the other way when Israel strike Iran like they are threatening.
Unfortunately our 15 guys are stuck in the middle of this bigger argument.
But like artist says, they should isolate and blockade them. Get round the borders and cut all the phone lines to start with. Send them back to the dark ages. Bombing the population rarely sparks an internal uprising, but if you destabilise the country's currency. Then your odds of achieving a bit of instability are greatly increased.
-
Dangermouse
- Member
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Sat 17 Mar, 2007 4:46 pm
- Location: Wales
I cant believe that people are actually calling for war or measures that could easily be seen as acts of war (such as blockades).
Do you not realise the costs in terms of human lives that a war on Iran would cause? Even the most modest of estimates suggests that at least 30,000 civilians would die during a campaign on Iran's nuclear programs alone. Have not any of you learned from Iraq? A war with Iran would be far more costly. Iran is not like Chechnya, and whatever you think of it's current leaders they are not hardline Islamists - no more hardline anyway than Evangigelical Christian leaders in America.
Iran is not going to use nuclear weapons if it gets them, if it is indeed trying to obtain them. Evidence does suggest that it's nuclear programs have military connentions, but that alone does not mean they are actively seeking to produce a nuclear weapon, but rather the capability so that they could potentially arm themselves with nuclear weapons in the future.
People are basically calling for blood. The ad fact of the matter that if it was YOUR life and your families lives on the line it owuld be you calling for peace, and not escalation.
Regardign the Sailors and Marines, it is obvious they did not resist capture because they are trained in tactics that run less risk of causing an escalation in political affairs. So what the hell would be solved by escalating the situation now?
Stop looking at the world through a political lense. Politics is meant to serve people, not kill them. I'd rather see an Iran with nuclear weapons than a war between Iran, The US/Israel/Britain.
Do you not realise the costs in terms of human lives that a war on Iran would cause? Even the most modest of estimates suggests that at least 30,000 civilians would die during a campaign on Iran's nuclear programs alone. Have not any of you learned from Iraq? A war with Iran would be far more costly. Iran is not like Chechnya, and whatever you think of it's current leaders they are not hardline Islamists - no more hardline anyway than Evangigelical Christian leaders in America.
Iran is not going to use nuclear weapons if it gets them, if it is indeed trying to obtain them. Evidence does suggest that it's nuclear programs have military connentions, but that alone does not mean they are actively seeking to produce a nuclear weapon, but rather the capability so that they could potentially arm themselves with nuclear weapons in the future.
People are basically calling for blood. The ad fact of the matter that if it was YOUR life and your families lives on the line it owuld be you calling for peace, and not escalation.
Regardign the Sailors and Marines, it is obvious they did not resist capture because they are trained in tactics that run less risk of causing an escalation in political affairs. So what the hell would be solved by escalating the situation now?
Stop looking at the world through a political lense. Politics is meant to serve people, not kill them. I'd rather see an Iran with nuclear weapons than a war between Iran, The US/Israel/Britain.
Just played on the radio that Iran have changed their mind on releasing this female solider, just a political mind game. Iran would have nothing to gain from killing these soldiers kidnapping them has made their point.
I think that even though it is completly wrong that they have been kidnapped its a political war not a public war and its making statements. Lets not revert to school ground ethics.
Would you care to expand on your comment wholly, interested to hear your opinion.
Good discussion, deep shame though its about this subject.
I think that even though it is completly wrong that they have been kidnapped its a political war not a public war and its making statements. Lets not revert to school ground ethics.
Would you care to expand on your comment wholly, interested to hear your opinion.
Good discussion, deep shame though its about this subject.
Last edited by bird on Thu 29 Mar, 2007 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
On the road to recovery.
-
Frank S.
- Guest
Dangermouse I've read your posts with interest. Because while I don't necessarily disagree with the intent behind your opinions, I cannot reconcile the actual content of your posts with my personal and professional experience.
This is not a dig at you, far from it. It's just that I'd expect views like this from a junior diplomat rather than someone planning a military career.
This is not a dig at you, far from it. It's just that I'd expect views like this from a junior diplomat rather than someone planning a military career.
Some years back I read a report alleging that Amadinejad
was one of the guards when the American Embassy staff
were captured and incarcerated.
Today I am singularly aggrieved by various reports in some
American newspapers stating that our RN/RM personnel were
spineless not to put up any resistance.
So much for our so called allies.
was one of the guards when the American Embassy staff
were captured and incarcerated.
Today I am singularly aggrieved by various reports in some
American newspapers stating that our RN/RM personnel were
spineless not to put up any resistance.
So much for our so called allies.
RM., Colonial Police & Queen's Regt HSF.
In my opinion they did the right thing and I'm sure it was harder for them to put down their weapons. American newspapers just talking hot air!
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject:
Some years back I read a report alleging that Amadinejad
was one of the guards when the American Embassy staff
were captured and incarcerated.
Today I am singularly aggrieved by various reports in some
American newspapers stating that our RN/RM personnel were
spineless not to put up any resistance.
So much for our so called allies.
On the road to recovery.
Of course they did the right thing.
However there was always a chance
of this sort ocurrence. No doubt they
had been briefed for this scenario.
Possibly and I write this with due caution
they should have had better back up from
HMS Cornwall.
Chas-
Order of the BlueNose HMS Undine.
However there was always a chance
of this sort ocurrence. No doubt they
had been briefed for this scenario.
Possibly and I write this with due caution
they should have had better back up from
HMS Cornwall.
Chas-
Order of the BlueNose HMS Undine.
RM., Colonial Police & Queen's Regt HSF.
-
Dangermouse
- Member
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Sat 17 Mar, 2007 4:46 pm
- Location: Wales
I don't think I am. I'm just being realistic. Delcaring war on Iran would be in no ones interests. It would lead to thousands of deaths, the loss of billions of pounds to the global economy, massive ecological damage, possibly regional conflict, and would be counter-productive to anti-proliferation efforts.Wholley wrote:I suggest you stop looking at the world through rose tinted glasses.
Frank, sure mate no probs. Though I can't understand why I sound more like a junior diplomat? Do you suggest I become apathetic to political matters?
-
Frank S.
- Guest
I said Junior because I don't think seasoned diplos really care anymore. I don't suggest anything to you, but I'll submit that you do care.Dangermouse wrote: Frank, sure mate no probs. Though I can't understand why I sound more like a junior diplomat? Do you suggest I become apathetic to political matters?
Never a bad thing even if I disagree with your interpretation of facts as we know them, that's all...
-
Dangermouse
- Member
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Sat 17 Mar, 2007 4:46 pm
- Location: Wales
sound mate, ive got no probs with that
though i've changed my perceptions about the Iranians handling. Whether or not it was a pre-planned political move, the Iranian government is being unreasonable by holding them continuously. Tony Blair has said that they will not negotiate with Iran (though diplomacy will still take place unofficially), so I'm not sure which way this is going to go. I doubt it would escalate into a military conflict, and very much doubt that the use of special forces is a likely option, especially if the sailors and marines have been moved to Tehran as previously suggested.
though i've changed my perceptions about the Iranians handling. Whether or not it was a pre-planned political move, the Iranian government is being unreasonable by holding them continuously. Tony Blair has said that they will not negotiate with Iran (though diplomacy will still take place unofficially), so I'm not sure which way this is going to go. I doubt it would escalate into a military conflict, and very much doubt that the use of special forces is a likely option, especially if the sailors and marines have been moved to Tehran as previously suggested.
I don't so much have a problem with the Iranian PM, he is just a tool, more the crack pots that guide him, ultimately they control the country.
Its unfortunate that the Iranian civilians are once again in the middle, just like the Iraqi ones were but realities are realities, as you say all out war is never going to be an option unless Israel wants to use its nuclear arsenal, because the loss of life would be too great on our side.
That leaves:
a) Diplomacy (that has worked great so far hasn't it )
b) Let them get on with it or;
c) Tougher sanctions leading to a blockade on the country
Iran with nuclear weapons is unthinkable, not because they would use them but because some elements of their military wouldn't think twice about giving them as presents to terrorist groups or insurgents in Iraq.
So in my view C is the best option, the Iranian people are clever and eventually they would get rid of the current regime.
DM I respect what you are saying, but stuff like this gets to me because it reminds me of my politics seminar where there are people that think North Korea and Iran should have as many nuclear weapons as they can build, The West are always wrong (but they can only find Iraq as an example) and that poverty in Africa is part of a conspiracy by the west to cause anarchy so the west can be superior.
Sometimes you just have to think with a bit of trust and respect of your nation, rather than living in an ideal theorectical political world which doesn't exist outside the classroom.
Its unfortunate that the Iranian civilians are once again in the middle, just like the Iraqi ones were but realities are realities, as you say all out war is never going to be an option unless Israel wants to use its nuclear arsenal, because the loss of life would be too great on our side.
That leaves:
a) Diplomacy (that has worked great so far hasn't it )
b) Let them get on with it or;
c) Tougher sanctions leading to a blockade on the country
Iran with nuclear weapons is unthinkable, not because they would use them but because some elements of their military wouldn't think twice about giving them as presents to terrorist groups or insurgents in Iraq.
So in my view C is the best option, the Iranian people are clever and eventually they would get rid of the current regime.
DM I respect what you are saying, but stuff like this gets to me because it reminds me of my politics seminar where there are people that think North Korea and Iran should have as many nuclear weapons as they can build, The West are always wrong (but they can only find Iraq as an example) and that poverty in Africa is part of a conspiracy by the west to cause anarchy so the west can be superior.
Sometimes you just have to think with a bit of trust and respect of your nation, rather than living in an ideal theorectical political world which doesn't exist outside the classroom.
Applied: 11th November 05
Written test: Passed
Interview: Passed
Medical: Passed
PJFT: Passed 9.47
PRMC: october
Written test: Passed
Interview: Passed
Medical: Passed
PJFT: Passed 9.47
PRMC: october
-
Dangermouse
- Member
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Sat 17 Mar, 2007 4:46 pm
- Location: Wales
yer mate, I agree with most things you said, including the bit about letting Iran and the DPRK getting nukes.
But the reality is that if Iran and the DPRK have the capability to get nukes, then thier is very little the US or anyone else can do to stop them, especailly when they have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons with virtually no outside help.
I'm against any form of military strike on Iran. First of all, the loss of lives for both civilians and soliders on all sides would be unnacceptable. Secondly, any military strike would be counter productive. If anything, its probably better to do nothing but give support to internal reform movements.
As for Iran giving nuclear weapons to terrorist groups? That is nonsense mate. Firstly, thier is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has been supplying Iraqi insrugents with arms. An Iraqi insurgent gorup would have no use for nuclear weapons. Secondly, Hizbollah and Hamas - who the Iranian government does have ties to - are both a lot different from your extremist movements such as al Qaeda. Hizbollah and Hamas are political parties with military wings, that are a result of thier society that they come from. They are popular movements. They owuld have no use of nuclear wepaons. I'm sure someone wil point out that they have a wish to remove Israel from the map, but to think that this means they are prepared to use force to do this is simply absurd. Who is and who isn't a terrorist is a subjective argument. Becuase the US and a whole lot of other nations designates these groups as 'terrorists' does not mean they are straight out of an episode of 24 and wish to kill as many people as possible for no apparent reason. And third, nuclear weapons can easily be traced back to thier source. A bomb produced by Iran is an Iranian bomb whoever uses it. Iran would have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by handing a bomb over to anyone outside of thier control. Evidence suggests that Iran would be more capably of handling nuclear weapons than Pakistan, China and possibly India.
But please, lets back to the topic at hand - the sailors. A blockade would do absolutely nothing and would be seen as an act of war. International pressure is probably the best option. It ay take time, but it would undoubtably work.
But the reality is that if Iran and the DPRK have the capability to get nukes, then thier is very little the US or anyone else can do to stop them, especailly when they have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons with virtually no outside help.
I'm against any form of military strike on Iran. First of all, the loss of lives for both civilians and soliders on all sides would be unnacceptable. Secondly, any military strike would be counter productive. If anything, its probably better to do nothing but give support to internal reform movements.
As for Iran giving nuclear weapons to terrorist groups? That is nonsense mate. Firstly, thier is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has been supplying Iraqi insrugents with arms. An Iraqi insurgent gorup would have no use for nuclear weapons. Secondly, Hizbollah and Hamas - who the Iranian government does have ties to - are both a lot different from your extremist movements such as al Qaeda. Hizbollah and Hamas are political parties with military wings, that are a result of thier society that they come from. They are popular movements. They owuld have no use of nuclear wepaons. I'm sure someone wil point out that they have a wish to remove Israel from the map, but to think that this means they are prepared to use force to do this is simply absurd. Who is and who isn't a terrorist is a subjective argument. Becuase the US and a whole lot of other nations designates these groups as 'terrorists' does not mean they are straight out of an episode of 24 and wish to kill as many people as possible for no apparent reason. And third, nuclear weapons can easily be traced back to thier source. A bomb produced by Iran is an Iranian bomb whoever uses it. Iran would have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by handing a bomb over to anyone outside of thier control. Evidence suggests that Iran would be more capably of handling nuclear weapons than Pakistan, China and possibly India.
But please, lets back to the topic at hand - the sailors. A blockade would do absolutely nothing and would be seen as an act of war. International pressure is probably the best option. It ay take time, but it would undoubtably work.
-
Dangermouse
- Member
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Sat 17 Mar, 2007 4:46 pm
- Location: Wales
Borisimo wrote:DM I respect what you are saying, but stuff like this gets to me because it reminds me of my politics seminar where there are people that think North Korea and Iran should have as many nuclear weapons as they can build, The West are always wrong (but they can only find Iraq as an example) and that poverty in Africa is part of a conspiracy by the west to cause anarchy so the west can be superior.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to start the blame game here. And I get pricks like that too at my uni. I'm not an idealist, but a realist and understand that politics is not thier to serve moral inclinations.
I did mention Iraq earlier, but only because that campaign has shown that, with the removal of Saddam, to hope for an idealistic outcome is deeply flawed. We can only hope for the best of what is availble, not an ideal situation. That is why you get your conspiracy theorists who are convinced the world should be perfect and someone is going out of tier way to make sure it is not. I'm sure you also get the Che Guevara wannabe types.
