Should Britain rescue her captured sailors by force?

[spurgistan]

So in your (Spuzzells, mostly, but the other pro-nuke dudes on this thread,
too) estimation, Iran should / will cave to past colonial powers that, time and
time again have shown it gives exactly one rats ass about it's people (Shah,
anybody? Do your history books go back 50 years?), present political
situation (oh, and by the way, there was a moderate political party in power before the UK / USA began to ramp up hawkish rhetoric before their last election cycle ) or military capablities (the overriding opinion here seems to be that the 3rd Cavalry could take a break from Iraq, waltz into Tehran, and demand that the sailors be set free. )

[Serbia]

What difference does it make that the US/UK were past colonial powers? Should the US/UK cave to the past Persian Empire? That's what Iran was, you know. This logic is ridiculous. And, are you trying to tell me that if it weren't for BUSH and BLAIR, Achmadenajihad (whatever) wouldn't have come to power? It's all our fault there too, right? Moderate... they were still hardline Islamic leaders running Iran!

Spuzzell, if I were in a bar with you in England, I'd buy you a drink.

[Numia Kereru]

It will just end up like the 1980 Iranian Embassy siege in London.

SAS will get that crew out of Iran for sure and slap a few Iranian faces along the way for good measure.

My money's on the regiment.

[unriggable]

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.

Oky but here's the thing we may not be starting it but we are escalating it to an unnecessary level. Yes it is Iran's fault but when all UK needs to say is 'oops, sorry' why don't we take the easy way out?

[everywhere116]

That would be great, if Iran said "oops, sorry" and gave the sailors back unharmed. If they keep and/or harm them, well, lets just say we will get out the harriers.

[unriggable]

That would be great, if Iran said "oops, sorry" and gave the sailors back unharmed. If they keep and/or harm them, well, lets just say we will get out the harriers.

Why should they have to apologize for the UK going into disputed waters? I'm surprised that when this happens to Englishmen, its horrible, but when it happens to civilians in Guatanamo Bay its fine.

[everywhere116]

A) They were in Iraqi waters
B) Disputed waters arent Iranian waters
C) The people at Guatanomo Bay are convicted terrorists who were caught attacking the US

[unriggable]

A) They were in Iraqi waters
B) Disputed waters arent Iranian waters
C) The people at Guatanomo Bay are convicted terrorists who were caught attacking the US

A Disputed =/= Iraqi waters.
B They aren't, but would you really jump straight into war because of this instead of seeking a peaceful resolution.
C They went through no habeus corpus, in fact some were interviewed, and they said they were teachers, janitors, etc. Who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Normally I would believe that, but it happened to me with a bottle of booze (I was fifteen and I was caught carrying a bottle for a friend by my parents) so I can understand how that is possible. Almost none of them directly attacked anybody. The few who did, I can understand that. But most are not terrorists.

[everywhere116]

According to the British, they were in Iraqi waters. Even if they were in disputed waters, they are still neutral and the Iranian have no reason to capture them. If Cuba abducted some Americans off of our shores, what would we do? We would go in and take over all of the island if we had to! The point is that kind of action is intolerable, and I am disgusted that anyone would side with them!

[unriggable]

According to the British, they were in Iraqi waters. Even if they were in disputed waters, they are still neutral and the Iranian have no reason to capture them. If Cuba abducted some Americans off of our shores, what would we do? We would go in and take over all of the island if we had to! The point is that kind of action is intolerable, and I am disgusted that anyone would side with them!

The english's reality is just as valid as the iranians.

[everywhere116]

And what is the Iranians reality?

[unriggable]

And what is the Iranians reality?

They were in Iran waters.

[everywhere116]

You said they were in disputed waters. Which is it?

[unriggable]

You said they were in disputed waters. Which is it?

I'm trying to say that we should assume Iran is right this time. Not because they actually are, but because they have 15 sailors they can shoot at any point. It would be wiser to take a peaceful approach to this problem.

[everywhere116]

Then that means they win. You cant let anyone push you around, especially with atrocities like this. I am sure they wont shoot them with the threat of invasion hanging from a very thin wire over thier heads.

[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.

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.

Yes, I don't know what I'm talking about and am forming an opinion based on my intense nationalism without actually looking at the situation.

Anyway regardless of who's right, as more or less everyone (I've read) in the thread has pointed out, starting another war over this is not the way to go. Though what I'm really saying by that statement is starting a war is not the way to go. If war does start it'll be an excuse not a reason.

[Caleb the Cruel]

. I am sure they wont shoot them with the threat of invasion hanging from a very thin wire over thier heads.

Iran will not be invaded by any Western power(America, Britain, etc) until after the end of the decade when Blair and Bush are gone, I assure you of that. We are too pre-occupied with Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no way that we could handle another large conflict.

[hourman]

You do know that america has only like 20% of our military involved in Iraq and Afganistan that leaves 80% left .

[Nobunaga]

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

... Just thought I'd throw that quote out, though not absolutely relevant to the current situation, it still seems somehow appropriate in a lateral way.

... "Multi-Culturalism" is going to destroy Britain as world-leading democratic power long before it takes out the US, but sadly my country is starting down the same road. It's the source, I believe, of all the appeasing attitudes you see here.

... I suppose it's somehow enlightened to want to sit down with these slave-owning, science-hating 7th Century minded religious fanatics to try to work out some manner of peaceful solution... and to take the Irananians' word as fact (concerning who was in what waters, etc..) against the pervasive Propoganda being fed us by the western media... But it's this kind of enlightenment that is going to drag Europe, and the UK with it, down and into a chaotic mess.

... I wonder what Margaret Thatcher would've done? ...

[sam_levi_11]

they are COMING HOME
WOOT

[heavycola]

... I suppose it's somehow enlightened to want to sit down with these slave-owning, science-hating 7th Century minded religious fanatics to try to work out some manner of peaceful solution...

What can southern baptists possibly bring to this debate?


Joke du jour;

Ahmadinejad is an anagram of: 'me? Jihad mad? nah!"

[flashleg8]

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.

WWII: No, the fight against the rise of fascism was an absolute necessity.
WW1: Yes - it was a war for imperialist gains only. The real losers were the working classes who were tricked into losing a generation of men for jingoistic folly.
Korea: Not at all, the North Koreas correctly wanted to oust the corrupt western backed regime.


Well done Iran for unilaterally releasing the captives. A grand magnanimous gesture by their president. If only the US could reciprocate releasing the 5 Iranians detained in the Iraq-Kurdistan area we could perhaps see a reduction in the tensions in the area.

[rocky8179]

And what is the Iranians reality?

They were in Iran waters.

Wrong. Britain proved that with satelite imagery. Also, the Iranians have changed the location of where they claimed they captured the sailors twice already.

And your saying you believe the Iranians??

Thats like you having a friend that lies to you constantly and always changes his/her story. Time and time again they lie and decieve you and time and time again you believe them without checking out the facts. Absolutely ridiculous.

Or how bout this example: Your neighbor comes over to your house and takes your tv. You come home and find that your tv is missing. Your neighbor claims they took your tv because you haven't returned an issue of Sports Illustrated back to them. Now they are demanding the return of their magazine and an apology for you to get your tv back.

Does that make sense?? Of course not. The most logical thing your neighbor could've done was to ask you to give them back their magazine, which, consequently, is the most logical thing for Iran to do if they want to get something. They just have to ask and keep asking.

What you guys and gals (who support giving in and apologizing) are really doing is supporting Iran's eratic behavior. You guys and gals also want Britain to negotiate for the release of the sailors. Iran could've negotiated in the first place but didn't. Why?? Why are you guys coming down hard on Britain and not Iran?? Why do you think this will result in another war?? Why does Britain have to negotiate and apologize and Iran doesn't??

Someone hits you what do you do?? Negotiate?? Fight back?? Run away?? Stand up for yourself??

This is what happened with Hitler before WWII. Most of us can agree that someone should've stood up to him sooner. They didn't.

We should stand up to Iran.

I will.

You won't.

[cowshrptrn]

Thats not like WW2 @ all, giving in to another country antagonizing you and causing more unrest in a region which is already unstable while you've gotten yourself mixed up in another war isn't appeasing someone because they might fight back. This is a much trickier situation, and i think England did the right thing waiting for Iran to give in after it realized it's tantrum wasn't going anywhere.

[got tonkaed]

rocky...thast a fairly hardline stance to take against a nation. Comparing a nation who is willingly returner captured prisioners to Nazi Germany under hitler might be a stretch. In fact its just as easy to use your comparison of appeasement to America, our own country under a different light.

America (much like germany did) invades a soverign nation and essentially takes over. The world community does some squaking but eventually the invasion is allowed to continue. Now do i believe that America is like Nazi Germany....No not really, though the Iraqi civilian death toll is really a startling statistic. Its easy to throw around comparsions of people we dont like to really really bad people in order to get your own aims accomplished.

Have a little more care next time.