Just read that the Brits had their guys change back into their military uniform during flight. They can't see their boys looking normal. btw, they have to "prepare" them before the debriefing takes place.
maybe it's b/c they are part of the military, so wearing UNIFORMS is NORMAL. yes, Iran knows everything about that.
They are still active duty, and most military personnel who are not on leave from the service must wear their uniform while not on leave. I flew back from New York to Spokane, WA two weeks ago and there were three uniformed US military personnel (one Navy and two AF) on the plane. Or, it could be the lack of ties with the suits . . .
IMO, both Britain and Iran came out losers. Iran as a hostage taker, bent on Easter giving mood and Britain as politically weak, since every statement that came out from Tony Blair was a voice of a weakling.
Would you have rather seen a strong voice with the possibility of escalation or the loss of lives? Its politics and diplomacy is always the winner, the men got back home safe.
Of course peaceful way is always better, but at what price? Sometimes (not necessarily this time)few lives lost today are better than million tomorrow. It just seems to me that everyone is postponing the inevitable.
The price today was 15 people. It was well worth it if you ask me. Some countries actually know a thing or two about diplomacy, England has a long history of it, I think this administration has much to learn. Not everything can be solved via brute force.
I think that the outcome here was great as it didn't escalate into something that could have gotten well out of hand. The question that comes up next is will there be another incident like this and if so will there be a similar response from England or will it escalate right away?
It all depends on whether the US is ready for war with Iran. If the 'next time' comes before the US is prepared for such a war, the Brits would do what they have done repeatedly in the past. British soldiers withdrew when, after the Iraqi invasion and occupation, Iranian forces moved the land border with Iraq a few hundreds yards in front of the British forces. They surrendered without a fight when Iran captured British sailors in 2004. They surrendered without a fight this time as well. On the other hand, if the 'next time' is when the US has prepared itself for war with Iran, things would be different.
Once again you seem to have UK and US confused. The UK Marines and sailors followed their ROE. In the reported incident inside Iraq with Iranian and US forces, again INSIDE Iraq, when the US forces were engaged, they didn't surrender and when they went to leave were fired upon and they fought back. Successfully too since they killed an iranian and didn't lose a single American. Something tells me though that Iran will not be going into Iraqi waters again to try and capture anymore British sailors since I expect the Brits to alter their tactics. And we know for certain that Iran wouldn't dare try this with the US because we know how badly that would end for iran.
Just because some anxious, glory seeking, US soldiers claim an Iranian was killed, doesn't make it so! In that incident, the US led forces withdrew, no air support was called, and several soldiers (Iraqis, because most of the unit was Iraqi) were captured. If you think that shows the US is ready to pick a real fight with Iran, then you and I obviously don't see things the same way. The Iranian revolutionary guards navy regularly tracks the US navy up close, flown UAVs over US aircraft carriers, and even claims to have painted Iran's insignia on board a US ship. If the US was ready for a fight, as it was against Panama's Noriega, even 'beating up' a single US soldier would be enough of a provocation already. As it is, Iran and the US have been fighting many low level wars against one another, from Lebanon in the 1980s and today, to the reflagging operations and the tanker war in the 1980s, to Iraq, with casualties on both sides. But neither side has escalated the fight yet. Such an escalation would not take place until and unless one or the other side felt they had more to gain from it than they had to lose. Actually, the reverse. And I don't need to speculate on that either. The British foreign ministry delivered a note to Iran promising it would make sure its forces would not be operating in Iranian waters again, before this incident was resolved.
All I am saying is that sooner or later shit will hit the fan and if by earlier means losing fewer lives, then so be it. If someone would have stopped Hitler earlier, 20+ million people would not have to die (again, not necessarily a true comparison with current situation, but something to think about.) In your example with England's diplomacy, it did not work too will with Chamberlain, did it?
Yes yes we know, Iran is so powerful, their military is the greatest in the world. Of course there is no proof of that painting on the US Ship anywhere though is there? We have already been down that road of discussion here, as well as all your other points. It is delusional thinking like yours that Iran would stand a chance against the most Powerful Military on the planet that will lead to a war. You have no idea what the US Military is capable of, and hopefully you will never have to find out. What iran has are unproven, inexperienced systems and troops that would have to face Combat proven systems and troops.
This dude doesn't see the contradictions in his own posts. Having said that, I'm not sure that the behaovior of some of the captives served their country well.
Pre-emptive strikes and notions are a bad idea. Acting on how you THINK things will shape up are specially a bad idea when you have an administration like that of the US. What Iran is doing isnt provoking, its simply self defense, throw 200 thousand troops from the only major worldpower around any country and they will do much more.
Originally posted by the Belgian Guy You really know very little about the military or the American spirit. This was in my mind a disgraceful action on the part of these soldiers. They were in international waters and were pirated away by a country who is for all intent and purposes a rogue republic. How could one lose all of ones principals and agree to lie, aid and abet the enemy. I would rather be beaten, tortured or killed over my principals than turn around and lie and be a pawn for an outlaw republic. This was two weeks and they appear to have been treated well. I have not heard of any torture. They gave up rather easily and capitulated with the enemy. I really don't know if I could live with myself under those circumstances. Whether you believe it or not and judging by your posts you are probably a cynical and jaded person who thinks the worst of the motives of the US and the coalition with respect to the middle east, but these soldiers are trying to maintain order and by doing so help the Iraqi's rebuild their country. So spare me the assured response that we are the ones killing people there. Clearly, there are many in the region that want to maintain a chaotic situation in the hopes of advancing their interests and consolidating power. It's such a shame for the Iraqi people and or the soldiers trying to maintain the peace.
What about the principal that the British marines were taken in international waters? Allowing actions like this to go without some diplomatic sanctions will reinforce the belief that future acts of pirating can take place without fear of military or economic reprisals. This just escalated things. the next time Iran may be bolder and the consequences will be graver. It was a stupid game of chicken they played.
It's not self defense when you capture someone elses troops in international waters. It's not self defense when their president actively speaks of creating weapons of mass destruction and possibly using them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_marines#Training "Marines undergo the longest basic training regime of any Infantry force in the world (32 weeks)" Lets just say they are better trained then US marines. And no you are right the US marines would have started shooting and would have all ended up with bullets in them.
UK captives tell of ill treatment http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6533069.stm "We realised that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won and with consequences major strategic impacts. "We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians and do as they asked," he said.
7 out of the 15 Brits made a public appearance, two of them alternated reading a prepared statement, and then answered some questions. Missing from the lineup, notably, was the British servicewoman. Of course, the fact that they are in service, in the military, means that they are required to follow orders. In this regard, these Brits were not allowed to give public statements when they had first arrived, and 'debriefed' by the British government. Personally, I have never made a huge point about whether they were in Iranian or Iraqi waters. The notion that I can sit behind a computer and know an answer for sure is preposterous, especially knowing the difficulties in determining where exactly the two boundaries separate. I mention this because this issue to me was always a sideshow. The real issue was always something else. To be specific, to send a message to the US/UK know that the revolutionary guards will not be sitting idly as they continue kidnapping Iranians and forment trouble in Iran and for Iran. The issue about these marines and sailors having trespassed into Iranian waters, which itself to me is not exactly determinable, was to provide the revolutionary guards a legal pretext for a message they intended to deliver regardless.