MilitaryForums.co.uk

xcj wrote:he might not have a choice bird, hes put cut back after cut back on the armed forces and as a result its over-stretched. He's an idiot and what international leader should be scared of him?

we shouldn't be dis-arming, we should be re-arming... to preserve the peace prepare for war. This is a good example.

I fail to see how military cut-backs have anything to do with this. Even when Britain military was at the strongest it has been in recent years, Britain could in no way take on Iran alone if military action is what you're talking about.

Nor has the abduction of the soldiers got anything to do with Ahmadinejad. As i've said, they were probably taken by an overzealous revolutionary guard officer. They are going to be returned. It's just a matter of the Iranians concluding that they were indeed in Iraqi waters. This has been proven by the British, and now its just a matter of sharing this information with the Iranian government.

This incident could be palyed out on virtually any border. Its standard for a government to take seriously what they believe to be trespassing. All you're going to have in this case is an Iranian commander shitting himself because he's f@#k up, thus defending his actions by any means possible and the Iranians going through thier channels to investigate the matter.

Instead of arguing about who is to blame or what should be done, at this stage all we can do is hope for the safe return of the soldiers.

Dangermouse wrote: Nor has the abduction of the soldiers got anything to do with Ahmadinejad. As i've said, they were probably taken by an overzealous revolutionary guard officer.

This I don't believe. If it was an overzealous RG officer, do you not think the Iranian government would have expedited the release, rather than stick up for some officer's blunder..?
Rather than grandstanding and discussing putting the troops on trial?

You may be right dangermouse, who knows. I'd like to think it was caused by your "over-zealous" Iranian officer... but I just can't see it. It might just be me looking too far into it, but it strikes me as being a very well calculated move from very high up in the Iranian command. A tactical "we won't take any sh*t" move.

As for Blairs cut backs making no difference, again you may be right. We may never have been able to properly deal with the Iranians but at one stage we were without doubt capable of making them not want to take us on either. Apparently this isn't the case anymore.

The UN will be on our side with this new evidence showing they were in iraqi waters, meaning that the Iranians have no real choice but to release the personnel - they can't take on everyone even if they are mad enough to attempt it.

It does boil down to hoping for a speedy resolution and safe return and it looking likely to happen within the next day or two which is good news.

Frank S. wrote:

Dangermouse wrote: Nor has the abduction of the soldiers got anything to do with Ahmadinejad. As i've said, they were probably taken by an overzealous revolutionary guard officer.

This I don't believe. If it was an overzealous RG officer, do you not think the Iranian government would have expedited the release, rather than stick up for some officer's blunder..?
Rather than grandstanding and discussing putting the troops on trial?

But thats my point - the government is probably not sticking up for thier officers blunder. The Iranians are carrying out an investigation, and naturally they will assume that the Brits were in Iranian waters. They need to question everyone. Any RG commander that has made a blunder causing an internationla political incident will undoubtably try and save his own arse. The iranian government wouldn't be standing up for him. Nor are they discussing putting the troops on trial - this was a quote made by an Iranian official who said if they were found guilty (by an investigation) then they may face trial. This would happen in any country. The Iranian government isn't taking sides. They will want to defuse the situation as quickly as possible, but investigations take time

(here you're talking about officials flying to Tehran and back to the border over and over again, conducting interrogations with both Iranian and British troops, contacting foreign diplomatic missions, talking to downing street officials, analysiing the equipment, trying to talk to coalition commanders who are naturally recluctant to devulge thier operations) - these things take time, money and a hell of a lot of effort.I doubt it the Iranians are stalling.

xcj wrote:It does boil down to hoping for a speedy resolution and safe return and it looking likely to happen within the next day or two which is good news.

I hope your right, but doubt it will be speedy. Plus, the UN is unlikely to get involved.

Dangermouse wrote: The Iranians are carrying out an investigation, and naturally they will assume that the Brits were in Iranian waters. They need to question everyone. Any RG commander that has made a blunder causing an internationla political incident will undoubtably try and save his own arse. The iranian government wouldn't be standing up for him. Nor are they discussing putting the troops on trial - this was a quote made by an Iranian official who said if they were found guilty (by an investigation) then they may face trial. This would happen in any country. The Iranian government isn't taking sides. They will want to defuse the situation as quickly as possible, but investigations take time

(here you're talking about officials flying to Tehran and back to the border over and over again, conducting interrogations with both Iranian and British troops, contacting foreign diplomatic missions, talking to downing street officials, analysiing the equipment, trying to talk to coalition commanders who are naturally recluctant to devulge thier operations) - these things take time, money and a hell of a lot of effort.I doubt it the Iranians are stalling.

This suggests a modicum of straightforwardness on their part. Something for which they've not been known.
Personally I think it has everything to do with Amadehnijad. As to why, well perhaps this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0308/p99s01-duts.html

"A former Iranian deputy defense minister – a top general with key knowledge of the Revolutionary guard – is reportedly seeking asylum in the West.

Haaretz reports that Arab media says Gen. Ali Reza Asghari, who went missing last month in Turkey, is currently being questioned in a "northern European country" before going to the United States."

Tit for tat, except Ashgari defected.

Frank S. wrote:This suggests a modicum of straightforwardness on their part. Something for which they've not been known.

Quite so.

The thing that worries me most is that this situation is so unpredictable. Iran, along with North Korea, are the 2 countries you really want to avoid a major political stand off with.

Personally I don't think they want this situation resolved amicably, of course I have no real basis for this but it feels like there's a hidden agenda here. Why won't they give up the location of the detained servicemen/women?

My guess is they don't want to risk allowing a snatch and grab rescue mission because they'll lose their politcal bargaining tool.

Many people forget that Iran has a large, decentralised beaurocracy and that the country itself is both modern, and to some degree, democratic (obviously thier are restrictions on freedom of the press, etc, but thier are civilian restrictions in every society.) Amadinejad is probably personally more worried about opponents of his economic record than the interntional scene. The man did his PhD in Urban Traffic Planning remember - he's not a trained diplomat.

Perhaps more important in Amadenihjad's past is having been a member of the Revolutionary Guard himself, and his worldview being shaped in large part by the Iran-Iraq war.
It matters nothing whether Iran's democratic to some degree. Look at the Guard's expansion of power since 2005 especially in the economic arena in Iran.

true, but most evidence suggest he's going to get kicked out of power by 2009 and replaced by a moderate. A moderate was in power before him, but the Bush admin basically refused to talk to him because of his links with the RG.

Iran used to be called Persia. They have one of the oldest and indeed longest Historys of a country in the world (their history as a nation goes back nearly 5000 years). They do not consider themselves to be an Arab nation but a nation put on this world by God to rule the rest of the world. They were fighting the Ancient Greeks before the Roman Empire was Founded.

To attack them is going to kick of a multitude of major problems due to their believe that they are the oldest nation in the world. They are not Ragheads, tossers, wa*nkers, deluded or stupid. They have a history much longer than Great Britain, the USA or any other country, China included.

I taught some of the Buggers how to soldier at CTCRM back in the Seventies. So most of the "Buggers" who I taught got topped when the zealots took over the country but by heck they are a still a proud nation blighted at this time as far as I am concerned by the religious Dogma spouted by the various Mullahs and other Eeijuts who rule the place at this time.

Our best plan is to blockade them like we blockaded the German Empire during the first world war. The Germans signed the Armistice in 1918 due to the fact that the German population were starving. Not saying we should starve them but what is Mr Joe Average Iranian going to say if he can't get a new car, or a part for his car? A new fridge, a new cooker, etc, etc?

He is going to say "Enough! We need these things! without my car how do I get to work? Without my gas/electric stove how does my wife cook my meals? Without my DVD Player/TV how do I watch my favourite program/film? How do I keep my food fresh without a fridge? Do I have to revert to digging a hole in the gound in order to have a shit rather than pulling a chain on a WC because my WC (made in Stoke on Trent) is bolloxed?

Allah may be great but when Mr and Mrs Joe Average Iranian has to revert to the dark ages because of the Mullahs and the Governments reactions to Jolly Jack and Royal checking up on Dhows in the Gulf then as far as I am concerned watch and shoot. Revolutions work both ways you know. Be they Political or Religous. If the leader of the latest revolution pisses off the general public, then the general public tend to get a mega sad on normally resulting in the leader and his followers being binned ASAP!

Artist

Artist wrote:
Our best plan is to blockade them like we blockaded the German Empire during the first world war.

Well you should know

Dunno how the Royal Navy will achieve this master plan of yours as Iran is easily supplied from Russia through Syria overland.


I'll get me coat.

Shame we got rid of Saddam, somehow I think he was better at negotiating with Iran than we are.

yeah with us/uk foriegnpolicy we have inadvertedly made iran the main power in the middle east....

Persia was defeated by Alexander The Great with an army that was outnumbered 4:1. Macedonians and their other Greek allies led by Alexander, with about 31,000 hoplites, 9,000 light infantry, and 7,050 cavalry while on the other hand Persia had under the command of Darius III with some 63,000 light infantry, 11,000 cavalry, 10,000 Persian Immortals, and 10,000 Greek mercenaries. If you havnt read about the battle i recommend you do, its called the 'Battle of Issus'. Also the 300 Spartan story is very real its called the 'Battle of Thermopylae' of 480 BC. There was 300 Spartans and 700 Thespian volunteers against 50,000-100,000 Persians. The spartans killed 20,000 before they got flanked and encircled by the Persians.
I dont think the Iranians(Persians) have anything to great to be proud off, they've been defeated by armies less than half there size. The only reason why the persian army was so massive was because they enslaved everyone they found and made them fight for persia(An army of slaves cannot match an army of free men). So i think if they start sh!t AGAIN they will get a firm slap in the face and a kick in the Bo!!ocks for not learning there history.