Yea u can bet if they were american sailors all the rednecks would be spouting all kinds of anti iranian bs. Just like when the spy plane went down in China. bunch of ******* hillbillies give this country a bad name.
i love the report where iran sent the british coordinates for where the sailors were captured. WHen the coordinates were run, they were actually in Iraqi waters. Iran quickly said that was a mistake and provided new coordinates. what a freaking joke.
I don't buy this surprise argument if HMS Cornwell is well within Iraqi waters. I think such a mass of Iranian boats/ships should have been detected during their approach. Shouldn't other British ships around HMS Cornwell went there to reinforce? By showing up there, they might resolve the issue. Plus, if HMS Cornwell is well within Iraqi waters, that means many Iranians boats/ships are in Iraqi waters. This is clearly an act of war. Then the Brits should have responded more forcefully.
I don't know how it works here, but in the first Gulf war they set up a picket and I have to believe that the same is true here. If the Cornwall were 10 miles from shore, all the other ships would as well have been 10 miles from shore and displaced latteraly, so that all other ships would be more distant than the Cornwall. There is a concern that if you get too close to the shore you can hit mines or (more likely) that you will be within range of some yahoo with a dignhy loaded with explosives. I don't think it is safe to assume that anybody was closer than the Cornwall. Also, it is a bad idea to put a bunch of ships together as it aggrigates targets. You would never have several large ships together at the same place, so the idea of other ships reinforcing wouldn't happen. The iranian boats weren't massive hulking things. They were each about the size of a fishing boat. First, a show of force would have been directed to the same place where the sailors are being held. Secondly, I sincerely doubt that the rules of engagement allow the British Navy to be the first to fire against the Iranians. The decision to start a war is not given to commanding officers of boats like Frigates. It would be from Tony Blair via the MoD.
What's ironic is that the US came out worse out of the EP-3 incident. Technically the PRC pilot was at fault but the PRC still held US personel and US technology for weeks, got the US President to apologize and to cap it off didn't even let the US fix the plane and fly it out but instead had it shipped out in pieces.
I completely agree with your analysis. My understanding of the Iranian boats is that they are like the US Swiftboats of John Kerry fame and built for quick raids rather than slugging it out with destroyers. Also this being home waters for the Iranians I can easily see how they can make a quick strike in Iraqi waters, overwhelm a lightly armed force and get back to port before coalition forces could respond.
Look - the incident itself is probably recognized by all world leaders as a mistake by an overzealous Iranian naval commander. That guy is probably in hot water. Do you think the Iranians want to be here? Now - no one will ever admit that it was a mistake - because it serves no one's purpose. Not the British or the Iranians. The British saying Iran probably made a mistake would seem too concillatory and weak by Tony Blair. The Iranians are in a similar situation. Each side wants resolution without losing face. Remember the Cuban Missle Crisis?
It was a no-win for US to start with, when you are bumped whiling peeking other's house over the fence. The EP-3 had no choice but to land on Chinese soil and seek for help. US would never allow such peeking ever happen to them, but Chinese weren't strong enough to stop that. However, once a military plane lands on your soil without invitation, I guess it would be thoroughly examed for whatever reason, in every country. Bush's pathetic performance just made it even worse, with his unreasonable tough words in the beginning "that they have to return our crew and plane immediately, then we can talk about other things. Otherwise, they will be sanctions etc." Obviously, Chinese weren't really in a hurry. Then, Bush had to remind himself there is still words called "diplomacy" and "negotiation", and went on those half-a$$ed statement, we are not apologizing for what happened, but we are sorry that life is lost, back and forth.
They should give the boat searching job to the Israelis, we know what happens when someone kidnaps their troops.
Anyway, I don't think we can really know the truth unless we are the people involved. Hopefully it will just end like last time without any escalation.
Actually many people believe it was a calculated move by Iran. Since it was the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who took the British servicemen hostage and not the regular Iranian Navy or coast guard. The IRGC take their orders directly from the mullahs that rule the country
Why would Iran do it intentionally though? Maybe they made an error and thought the Brits were really in their own waters? Just seems Iran has nothing to gain but to force the SC to act against it. What does Iran have to gain? I don't see a motive. If anything, this could raise popularity with the war and bolster Bush's argument that this isn't a war against Saddam but rather terrorists and terrorist-supporting states.
You are wrong. Iran's regime made a deliberate move of belligerence. This was no accident. There is no way the timing was coincidental with the U.N. moves against them. You are free to have your opinion though and I understand why a person can rationalize your scenario, but only as an unlikely tangental consideration. Eventually Britain and Iran will exchange the proper verbiage in public and this will end. Iran has let the world know that if it is backed into a corner, things will get very ugly and they will wreak a lot of havoc.
Because Iran has the upper-hand no matter what they do. Everybody and their mothers knows that Iran is full of shyt and everything they say is a lie, but your not seeing much condemnation of Iran. The UN couldn't even come up with a resolution even condemning Iran, just a weakass declaration saying they are "gravely concerned" over the situation. People are too worried about the problems and consequences of ticking off Iran. The price of oil is reaching record highs as we speak. There are many reasons on why Iran would do such a thing, such as probing western intentions and spewing propaganda(look at letters that were just written by the female solder) to its citizens, this isn't a rational state by western standards. The UK inst going to use force to retrieve their servicemen, nor should they, it would just create more problems. Iran stated that all Britain has to do is admit that they were in Iranian waters and everything was their fault, then they would get their servicemen back, but Blair already rejected that. This has a real possibility of dragging out over a couple weeks.
So you are saying the motive is to spew propaganda and probe our intentions? Seems like creating an international crisis is a bit much for that, don't you think? Anyway, let me try to help you out with a motive....because as irrational as you claim Iran to be....strangely enough, there is always a method to the madness (and from their perspective, it's perfectly rationale and we are mad). Assuming that this was pre-meditated, Iran would have had to plan for this for a while, having it's navy in the area to intercept british patrol boats that ventured out of the help range of it's major naval ships. Question arises - if indeed Iran had been planning this for months - monitoring British movements and tracking how the British navy operated - why didn't the British navy take notice? I mean, wouldn't the presence of Iranian vessels make them a bit more careful about making sure there was helicopter or a ship closer to prevent this sort of thing happening???? So it doesn't necessarily make sense that Iran was able to plan this. And how could the Iranian gov't say - hey, you know, if you find an opportunity to capture British sailors out there when they are too far away from their ship and relatively defenseless - go surround and capture them? Nah. That seems unlikely. So let's take that anyway. The Iranian gov't issues an order to their revolutionary guard - navy, to capture British sailers, even if it meant venturing across into Iraq waters. The motive would be what? International attention? DOes Iran want to make it look tough against the west by now refusing to ever overturn soldiers. Iran hopes that by doing this, the West will bow down before it and beg, since now Iran has no other chocie - anything else will make it lose face. No, that doesn't work either. This will only serve to make the international community come down harder on Iran. These aren't American Sailors - they are British - and people like the Brits still. Iran's world opinion is tanking right now. So that leaves one last motive...Iran is hoping that by taking the British soliders and creating a mess for Britain, they will want to withdraw from Iraq and leave Bush even more isolated. Of course, since Tony Blair has already announced the British are leaving - that doesn't work either. So at the end of the day....I can't find the motive. Sorry - I tried. And without a motive, it seems that the only other conclusion is: Iran made a mistake and they can't get out. Diplomacy and face saving is the way out of this.
You are right, they peeked at each other. I should correct myself: "with current power status, US will never allow ...."
In response to the UN security council sanctions, Ayatollah Khamenei has been quoted as saying that Iran may have to respond to “illegal acts" of their own. This, together with the timing of the incident, indicates to me that the supposition of premeditation is not unreasonable.
The black generals in hillarious and shows how ignorant the film is. Iranians or the persians were the original euro-asian aryan race. they were white as you're avge German.
