Should Britain rescue her captured sailors by force?

[Nobunaga]

... Keep in mind (to give you an idea of the kind of people you're dealing with in Iran), the Iranians have surrounded their "Critical Facilities" (where they are developing their nuclear power / weapons(?) ), their oil refineries and power stations... surrounded them with dormitories that house children.

... Any of these places will be hard to blow up without collateral damage taking out a few hundred kids...

... What kind of government can do that?

[Guiscard]

[no_proof]

... Keep in mind (to give you an idea of the kind of people you're dealing with in Iran), the Iranians have surrounded their "Critical Facilities" (where they are developing their nuclear power / weapons(?) ), their oil refineries and power stations... surrounded them with dormitories that house children.

... Any of these places will be hard to blow up without collateral damage taking out a few hundred kids...

... What kind of government can do that?

[/no_proof]

[Jolly Roger]

... Keep in mind (to give you an idea of the kind of people you're dealing with in Iran), the Iranians have surrounded their "Critical Facilities" (where they are developing their nuclear power / weapons(?) ), their oil refineries and power stations... surrounded them with dormitories that house children.

... Any of these places will be hard to blow up without collateral damage taking out a few hundred kids...

... What kind of government can do that?

Do which? Surround their critical facilities with kids or bomb the critical facilities with the knowledge that they're surrounded by kids?

[unriggable]

What Iran did is an act of war. I'm disappointed that so many people fail to see this.

No they did not. But that rule, we have caused war by taking citizens and ssending them to Guatanamo Bay without trial and without the option of freedom.

Good points. I would also believe it if someone said that the people who voted no also believe in the 9/11 conspiracy and in gay marrage.

WTF? Somehow, just somehow, those two fit in that category along with 'no force'. BTW I believe in gay marriage.

I guess my comments weren't directed specifically at you, spurgistan; just in general. So I didn't mean to come off harsh, and your response is more reasonable than some.

As for "well treated," I wouldn't be so sure.

Let's take a look at Guatanamo. If we want our friends to recieve respect we should treat our enemies in that same way.

The difference is you believe Iran when they say they don't mean to harm the sailors. Iran also says the sailors were in Iranian waters, do you believe that? Iran also says they'll put the sailors on trial, which I'm sure will be a FAIR trial. And do you believe that as well? Remember who you're dealing with, and be careful what you take at face value.

We do not know what to expect from Iran. We do know that they will not e sentenced to anything major. Peace and diplomacy is the first stage. If Ahmadinejad (I misspelled that) continues to be defiant, force should then be considered as an option.

This is no misunderstanding. This is Iranian sabre-rattling.

All that the president of Iran wants is attention. He is not a warmonger, at least it does not appear that way. If he is considered a warmonger maybe you could care to evaluate the US's job in the world?

[unriggable]

... Keep in mind (to give you an idea of the kind of people you're dealing with in Iran), the Iranians have surrounded their "Critical Facilities" (where they are developing their nuclear power / weapons(?) ), their oil refineries and power stations... surrounded them with dormitories that house children.

... Any of these places will be hard to blow up without collateral damage taking out a few hundred kids...

... What kind of government can do that?

The government that wants the attention of a nation that tests the effects of radioactivity in their country, of course.

[Numia Kereru]

Don't worry, a regiment of New Zealand's crack SAS troops will have those sailors out in two shakes of an Iranian sabre.

Very well. Carry on.

[spiesr]

They should just forget about the whole thing...

[jay_a2j]

This is no misunderstanding. This is Iranian sabre-rattling.

agreed.

[unriggable]

They should just forget about the whole thing...

Uh, no. A lot of world problems are usually taken that way. "If we ignore it, it should go away". Like AIDS? And slavery? And jamie? Still here, my friend.

[Doublett22]

lol...i voted yes when i actually wanted to vote no. The vote should be yes first and then no (not the opposite). In any case i think attacking iran would be a premature response, the other thing is that how can you even attempt a rescue mission when you dont even know where the captives are. You will end up with 15 captives in addition to a loadful of british service men corpses from the rescue operation. But more importantly its not as simple as "oh well lets just get a rescue operation going". It will most definately escalate and the outcome would be a war, and i for one do not think that britain has what it takes to invade iran (and of course im not talking about a barbaric war with the use of nuclear weapons). For gods sake look at what happened when half of the west ventured into iraq, and you do have to realise that Iran is not as stupid, and the consequences of an invasion into iran would be disasterous. Some really biased people will tell you that they have already won the iraq war and others will say that if we really wanted to we could have blown the country to pieces, but the reality of war is that you can not blow a country to pieces and that at some point you will have to launch a land invasion, and that is where the problems begin. The west should learn from what happened to israel this past summer when the ventured into south lebanon. It obviously was not the smartest move and it goes to prove that even with all the technological benifits you may have in the air and sea it all comes do what you can accompish on land, and the consequences of failure this time when it comes to iran would be unimaginable, and as one person put it "the iranian army is of some caliber" as compared to other armies in the region, so if iraq was hell what would iran be? It would be interesting to see what people think would happen if the west invaded iran (but please dont give the argument of the "superpowers" always win" because we dont live in fairy land)

[btownmeggy]

Also, CNN thinks the Iranians aren't putting them on trial. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/ ... index.html

From what I know the Iranian legal system (and PENAL SYSTEM!!!!), that definitely seems like a good thing.

[Nobunaga]

... Looks to be about a 50/50 split on this poll.

... Flip a coin!

[flashleg8]

Sorry I've been out of the loop in the forums a bit recently, I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread yet but I'll copy a post I made in a thread in the flame forum (I didn't see this thread first).

I say apologise and remove our troops from the situation. At present everyone of the captives have admitted they were in Iranian waters. No independent 3rd party can confirm the British claim that they were in Iraqi waters (which I question the legality of anyway). The coordinates the government released are based on a region whose ownership is debated (and incidentally has not been surveyed for 20 years and subject to mud flats moving regularly over that time making positioning notoriously inaccurate).
Even if the British navy was in Iraqi waters as they say they were - what were they doing so close to a disputed border with the tension so high at present? A bit of sense and tact was clearly lacking in this boarding policy - or was the governments aim more sinister, I wonder, trying to escalate the current diplomatic problems with Iran.

[Nobunaga]

... - or was the governments aim more sinister, I wonder, trying to escalate the current diplomatic problems with Iran.

... I think they were just after some decent curry.

[cowshrptrn]

Knowing England's past, i wouldn't be surprised if they did stray into Iranian waters and now they're just covering it up. They found weapons on board the Lusitania when they dredged it up from the bottom, and the British had sworn that they weren't using a passenger ferry to carry weapons!

i might be completely wrong about this all, but don't they have GPS tracking for their ships, i'm sure they have some way of going back and seeing if the ship had crossed into Iranian waters or not.

[qeee1]

I'm too lazy to read the thread, but Britain is in the wrong, the Iranian's were right to capture the soldiers that were inside their waters, and Britain should issue an apology.

Iran is in a very difficult position as enemy no.1 in the middle east right now, and they need to show that they won't be mistreated just for fear of invasion.

[CreepyUncleAndy]

A formal apology in exchange for prisoner release and avoiding a full-scale war? That sounds like an excellent bargain! The only way I would condone use of force in the rescue of these P.O.W.s is the following scenario:

If Iran were mistreating the prisoners or threatening execution or making absurd demands, a surgical strike and rescue by U.K. SAS or SBS teams on their known location would be advisable. However, that opens up the possibilities of casualties on both sides and capture of the rescue team, and/or some serious botches (faulty intel giving the team the wrong target building, close air support accidentally wasting the team, the prisoners or innocent civilians, etc, etc, etc). The political fallout from a botched raid right now would be pretty bad. There are a thousand potential problems with such an audacious raid, and you can bet dollars to donuts that the Iranians are expecting something like this based on past experiences (anyone remember the botched attempt to rescue those hostages in Iran back when Carter was running the White House?).

Given this particular opportunity to either resolve this without shedding blood or polarizing the world with yet another act of war in the Middle East, I would err more towards peace than war.

[Spuzzell]

Sorry I've been out of the loop in the forums a bit recently, I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread yet but I'll copy a post I made in a thread in the flame forum (I didn't see this thread first).

I say apologise and remove our troops from the situation. At present everyone of the captives have admitted they were in Iranian waters. No independent 3rd party can confirm the British claim that they were in Iraqi waters (which I question the legality of anyway). The coordinates the government released are based on a region whose ownership is debated (and incidentally has not been surveyed for 20 years and subject to mud flats moving regularly over that time making positioning notoriously inaccurate).
Even if the British navy was in Iraqi waters as they say they were - what were they doing so close to a disputed border with the tension so high at present? A bit of sense and tact was clearly lacking in this boarding policy - or was the governments aim more sinister, I wonder, trying to escalate the current diplomatic problems with Iran.

Oh my god. I'm ashamed you're British. There are 15 people held hostage, and all you can do is snipe at imagined shady political motives? Grow the hell up.

These are real people!

What were British sailors doing in international waters? Fulfilling the UN mandate to prevent the theft of oil from the Iraqi people. They were where the merchant ship was, doing the UN's job, not joy-riding. You ignorant, heartless f*ck.

So, you think the Royal Navy decided to invade Iran with 2 motorboats, armed to the teeth..with a pistol? Are you legally mentally retarded?

And as has been said previously in this thread, the "confessions" are fooling nobody.

I don't understand you. Our people are being held captive for doing a peaceful job, and whether or not you think force is appropriate to rescue them, the fact that you'd side with the Iranians over this makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.

I despise what you posted. I think you're pathetic, regarding 15 lives as less important than some imagined conspiracy. I swear, if we were in a pub I would do my best to beat the hell out of you.

[Spuzzell]

I'm too lazy to read the thread, but Britain is in the wrong, the Iranian's were right to capture the soldiers that were inside their waters, and Britain should issue an apology.

Iran is in a very difficult position as enemy no.1 in the middle east right now, and they need to show that they won't be mistreated just for fear of invasion.

Mistreated? Please explain how 15 sailors in a boat boarding an Indian ship in international waters mistreats Iran?

And if they don't want to be hated, then possibly they should refrain from kidnapping other country's people at gun-point, and demanding concessions before they are released.

I'd be more annoyed with you, but you're probably also too lazy to know what you're talking about, so I'll let it slide.

[Spuzzell]

i might be completely wrong about this all, but don't they have GPS tracking for their ships, i'm sure they have some way of going back and seeing if the ship had crossed into Iranian waters or not.

They do, and they did. Did you not read the original post?

And the Luisitania was an American passenger liner sunk by a German submarine. I can't wait to hear how that's our fault..

[flashleg8]

Oh my god. I'm ashamed you're British. There are 15 people held hostage, and all you can do is snipe at imagined shady political motives? Grow the hell up.

Personally, I'm ashamed to be British after our involvement in this gulf war debackel.

These are real people!

And I hope they are returned home safely - along with every other serving soldier in the Gulf - as soon as possible.

What were British sailors doing in international waters? Fulfilling the UN mandate to prevent the theft of oil from the Iraqi people. They were where the merchant ship was, doing the UN's job, not joy-riding. You ignorant, heartless f*ck.

I disagree, they were there to enforce the will of the "Allies" to suppress the resistance movement in Iraq. You make me laugh with "theft of oil" part

So, you think the Royal Navy decided to invade Iran with 2 motorboats, armed to the teeth..with a pistol? Are you legally mentally retarded?

Thats not what I said. I stated that their presence in disputed waters was a provocation to Iran. And I'm not mentally retarded, I just choose to question the propaganda spouted by the Government.

And as has been said previously in this thread, the "confessions" are fooling nobody.

Neither is the aforementioned propaganda. I will choose to believe the word of 15 ordinary people until proven otherwise.

I don't understand you. Our people are being held captive for doing a peaceful job, and whether or not you think force is appropriate to rescue them, the fact that you'd side with the Iranians over this makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.

600,000 Iraqis dead in the current conflict - peaceful? And you want to start another one? That makes me sick to the stomach.

I despise what you posted. I think you're pathetic, regarding 15 lives as less important than some imagined conspiracy. I swear, if we were in a pub I would do my best to beat the hell out of you.

Well that goes well with your exposing of force as a solution to all problems.

[rocky8179]

I don't think the situation would have arisen if the sailors had been American. I'm in no doubt that the US would launch a rescue mission, and neither are the Iranians. US sailors would have been left the hell alone, because anything else would call down the wrath of the US military.

We'd only have to do it this once to garner the same fear.

Edit: And the reason why Blair shouldn't concede ANYTHING over this affair is that then gives a green light to every tin-pot terrorist group and rogue nation on the globe to capture British armed forces personnel. Why not? You'll get what you want and humble an entire country who are too scared to defend themselves.

I agree with you on this point exactly. It happens once it happens again.

"Why were the sailors captured....because there wasnt sufficent force in the area to back them up in the first place."

SO!!! Thats no excuse. One nation just doesn't take over another nations soldiers. What Iran did was intentional, dumb, and an act of war. That act was and attack on the British nation, its people, and its armed forces. The Brits should stand up and take action to make sure this is never repeated. Even if that action means force. I myself am planning on going into the armed forces and I would be damned if that happened to fellow servicemen of mine.

No they did not. But that rule, we have caused war by taking citizens and ssending them to Guatanamo Bay without trial and without the option of freedom.

Wrong.
1) Combatants are not Civilians
2) Those so called "civilians" (as you call them) are not part of any nations armed forces. Big Difference.

I don't understand you. Our people are being held captive for doing a peaceful job, and whether or not you think force is appropriate to rescue them, the fact that you'd side with the Iranians over this makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.

I despise what you posted. I think you're pathetic, regarding 15 lives as less important than some imagined conspiracy. I swear, if we were in a pub I would do my best to beat the hell out of you.

I couldn't have said that better myself. Why side with someone who is going to separate your head from your shoulders at the first opportunity anyway??

This act by the Iranians is all a plot to try and humble the British nation. Why should the Brits apologize?? They did nothing wrong. The Iranians should apologize because they are in the wrong. And this time they should pay. Big time.

[DirtyDishSoap]

I'd call the rescue mission
Iran has no right to hold hostages from any nation

[flashleg8]

I'd call the rescue mission
Iran has no right to hold hostages from any nation

Captives, not hostages. They completely have the right if the navy personnel were indeed in Iranian waters.
A rescue mission will only lead to an escalation of the crisis, it is complete madness.

[everywhere116]

This debate is getting good.

I don't understand you. Our people are being held captive for doing a peaceful job, and whether or not you think force is appropriate to rescue them, the fact that you'd side with the Iranians over this makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.

600,000 Iraqis dead in the current conflict - peaceful? And you want to start another one? That makes me sick to the stomach.

I despise what you posted. I think you're pathetic, regarding 15 lives as less important than some imagined conspiracy. I swear, if we were in a pub I would do my best to beat the hell out of you.

Well that goes well with your exposing of force as a solution to all problems.

flashleg, I have debated with you before, and with those arguements and this one, I can say that I deeply, from the bottom of my heart, consider you a moron. You say that you think we are starting another conflict. WRONG Iran started this by capturing those sailors, and they deserve everything they get. Then you say that using neccesary force is wrong. WRONG The world is run by the aggressive use of force when needed. Are you against WWII? WWI? Korea? Those look like examples of force.