Conquer Club

I'm not happy that the EU doesn't seem to be going as far as it could to pressurise Iran, especially with all the trade that Germany and France do with them.

If there was going to be a rescue operation, then it's unlikely anyone, anywhere would know about it until it was launched.

At any rate, I'm not convinced a rescue operation is at all plausible, and the consequences of an operation, successful or otherwise, would, at the very least, make things worse for Britain and America in Iraq. I very much doubt that Iran would take a successful attempt lying down - we'd definitely see tit-for-tat in one way or another.

The problem with the diplomacy route, though, is that it's perfectly possible that this thing could stretch on, like other hostage situations in the past, for months, or even years. It could be over tomorrow, but I would have thought a long haul is more likely.

i really think the EU pressure would be fairly viable, especially if Germany and France do a large amount of trading with Iran.

I agree with you stopper though i agree with spuzzell also to an extent, but i do feel a strong united EU pressure would probably give the diplomats a slightly better leg to stand on

Point blank.... the UK should give them an ultimatum with a deadline. The sailors are returned by such and such time, unharmed or it's on. And I mean, IT'S ON. This scared to act for what others will think of you is crap! The world is in dire need of leaders..... one's like Churchill and Lincoln.

jay_a2j wrote:Point blank.... the UK should give them an ultimatum with a deadline. The sailors are returned by such and such time, unharmed or it's on. And I mean, IT'S ON. This scared to act for what others will think of you is crap! The world is in dire need of leaders..... one's like Churchill and Lincoln.

Forget the ultimatum. You hit the strategically NOW, and say, that was your warning, you have an unspecified amount of time to release the prisoners, OR ELSE. And within the week, you hit them hard, and keep it up, until the prisoners are released. This nonsense is so easy to end, just squeeze the bastards.

though i certainly havent been around as long and have only been in a few threads that jay was heavily involved in...allow me to congradulate you serbia....it simply is not every day that someone advocates jay to take a more hardline stance.

Spuzzell wrote:Winston Churchill III has no political clout here, no.

I think this is already a rallying point for the Iranians. This is now a situation with no winning scenario.

The least damaging option is to get our people out and demonstrate to the world why this was a BAD idea by the Iranians.

I'd hate to be in the British armed services right now. I'd struggle to justify putting my life on the line for a government who won't back me up if things go wrong.

Why attack when a simply 'sorry we entered your god damned waters' will suffice?

unriggable wrote:

Spuzzell wrote:Winston Churchill III has no political clout here, no.

I think this is already a rallying point for the Iranians. This is now a situation with no winning scenario.

The least damaging option is to get our people out and demonstrate to the world why this was a BAD idea by the Iranians.

I'd hate to be in the British armed services right now. I'd struggle to justify putting my life on the line for a government who won't back me up if things go wrong.

Why attack when a simply 'sorry we entered your god damned waters' will suffice?

Because THEY DIDN'T ENTER IRANIAN WATERS!!!!!!!!

No, Britain should not(and I assure you will not) rescue their sailors by force.

This is just some political posturing by Iran. Iran has nothing to gain from harming these sailors. They have EVERYTHING to gain from showing that they are a legitimite military power in the face of an American campaign to show the opposite. If the US and UK don't try anything dumb (i.e. forced extraction) the saliors should be fine.

spurgistan wrote:This is just some political posturing by Iran. Iran has nothing to gain from harming these sailors. They have EVERYTHING to gain from showing that they are a legitimite military power in the face of an American campaign to show the opposite. If the US and UK don't try anything dumb (i.e. forced extraction) the saliors should be fine.

Really.

So... what level of provocation would warrant a military response? 16 soldiers? 100 soldiers? 1000? Invading the Rhineland?

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

Aimless wrote:

spurgistan wrote:This is just some political posturing by Iran. Iran has nothing to gain from harming these sailors. They have EVERYTHING to gain from showing that they are a legitimite military power in the face of an American campaign to show the opposite. If the US and UK don't try anything dumb (i.e. forced extraction) the saliors should be fine.

Really.

So... what level of provocation would warrant a military response? 16 soldiers? 100 soldiers? 1000? Invading the Rhineland?

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

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.

nice touch with the rhineland bit.

anyways, Iran has made it clear that they don't mean any harm to these servicemen and servicewomen. sure, pressure has been lacking to get them out, but as long as they are reasonably well taken care of, there's little sense risking their lives and other British and Iranian lives to get them out forcefully.

everywhere116 wrote:

Aimless wrote:

spurgistan wrote:This is just some political posturing by Iran. Iran has nothing to gain from harming these sailors. They have EVERYTHING to gain from showing that they are a legitimite military power in the face of an American campaign to show the opposite. If the US and UK don't try anything dumb (i.e. forced extraction) the saliors should be fine.

Really.

So... what level of provocation would warrant a military response? 16 soldiers? 100 soldiers? 1000? Invading the Rhineland?

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

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.

How the hell do you believe in gay marriage? And no, I believe the American government has been uncharacteristically honest about September 11th, if slow to learn from it.

im often wrong but i actually think everywhere was perhaps dabbling with some of the sarcasms there...

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.

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.

The commanding officer of HMS Cornwall, Commodore Nick Lambert wrote:There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the marines were in Iraqi waters. But the extent and the definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated... We may well find, and I hope we find, that this is a simple misunderstanding at a tactical level.

It would be a shame if people on either side had to die due to a simple misunderstanding.

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

spurgistan wrote:

everywhere116 wrote:

Aimless wrote:

spurgistan wrote:This is just some political posturing by Iran. Iran has nothing to gain from harming these sailors. They have EVERYTHING to gain from showing that they are a legitimite military power in the face of an American campaign to show the opposite. If the US and UK don't try anything dumb (i.e. forced extraction) the saliors should be fine.

Really.

So... what level of provocation would warrant a military response? 16 soldiers? 100 soldiers? 1000? Invading the Rhineland?

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

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.

How the hell do you believe in gay marriage? And no, I believe the American government has been uncharacteristically honest about September 11th, if slow to learn from it.

I dont, I am bashing people who believe in either.

Serbia wrote: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.

some of my reasoning:
[a] Iran doesn't want to get blown the fu3k up
[b] If they kill those hostages, their gonna get blown the fu3k up
[c] Iran isn't completely run by idiots who don't get [b]

Anyways, I place just enough faith in the Iranian system that maybe they just thought thse guys were in their water, know they're wrong now, but are just blustering to save what international cred they might think they have, and that the worst thing we could do would be to press the situation too hard. Maybe this is naivete, but I call it sound reasoning

And when I said "reasonable", I meant "in accordance with Geneva", not "being waited on hand and foot" They're in the British navy, they're used to the hard living

Serbia wrote:This is no misunderstanding. This is Iranian sabre-rattling.

I didn't say it was a misunderstanding. The commander of the vessel where the 15 sailors served said it could be a misunderstanding. Are you saying you have a better grasp of the events and geography than the Commander?

... Everybody has an opinion and unfortunately, with subjects such as this, those opinions rarely change....

... Personally, I like the way Ronald Reagan dealt with the Iranians during a similar "crisis" in 1988 when the Iranians mined the Strait of Hormuz (sp?).

... Operation Praying Mantis, it was called. The US Navy went to Iran and sank the Iranian navy. It was over in a matter of minutes... and when it was over, the Iranians were clearing away their mines.

... Anybody who proposes negotiation or diplomacy with madmen isn't thinking straight. The Iranian Mullahs are hard-core Islamic Law / Conquer the World types who believe wholeheartedly in the prophecy of the coming "Islamic Armageddon" which will see them victorious over all.

... I agree with an earlier post, though - nobody wants a "New Iraq War", in Iran. But kick them in the balls hard and show them you won't bow to this insanity.

... And yes, I know there are many opinions and this is mine, no more or less valid than any.

... Cheers.

spurgistan wrote:

Serbia wrote: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.

some of my reasoning:
[a] Iran doesn't want to get blown the fu3k up
[b] If they kill those hostages, their gonna get blown the fu3k up
[c] Iran isn't completely run by idiots who don't get [b]

Anyways, I place just enough faith in the Iranian system that maybe they just thought thse guys were in their water, know they're wrong now, but are just blustering to save what international cred they might think they have, and that the worst thing we could do would be to press the situation too hard. Maybe this is naivete, but I call it sound reasoning

And when I said "reasonable", I meant "in accordance with Geneva", not "being waited on hand and foot" They're in the British navy, they're used to the hard living

I agree with B. I dont agree with A or C, or the rest of your post.

spurgistan wrote:This is just some political posturing by Iran. Iran has nothing to gain from harming these sailors. They have EVERYTHING to gain from showing that they are a legitimate military power in the face of an American campaign to show the opposite. If the US and UK don't try anything dumb (i.e. forced extraction) the sailors should be fine.

Sensible post.

Perhaps we shouldn't go in with force because it will involve loss of life on a massive scale. A war between the US, UK and Iran would be much more costly than Iraq, plus it is likely that the Iranians will spill over into Iraq destabilising the situation there even further...

Seriously... You guys think we can just boot up Rainbow 6 for the PS2 and go get those guys out?

Try telling the mothers or kids of those 15 soldiers that they had their heads chopped off live in Iranian TV because we thought it a good political manoeuvre to take a hard-line stance at this stage.

As for 'Iranian sabre rattling' you're probably right, but it'll never result in actual aggressive action from the Iranians. Its more a response to the threat of an American invasion. They need to seem like a formidable opponent who will stand firm against the tide of Western oppression. Its not like they're actually gonna launch some kind of invasion.

Also, CNN thinks the Iranians aren't putting them on trial. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/02/iran.sailors.ap/index.html