Agreed. I think that any maneuvers will see the attached Ship staying much closer, or perhaps even have air support with them at all times. This was certainly a planned event. They knew what they wanted to do and did it.
That's a good question. I've no doubt they could do it again, as pretty much any country can do this sort of thing if they put their minds to it and don't care that much about the consequences. I'm also sure there is a fair amount of patience and goodwill towards Iran internationally that has now been lost over this little escapade. In a future similar event, any favourable arguements put forward by Iran's main trading partners, like germany and japan, either won't be made, or at the very least, will carry less weight. That's a pretty heavy price to pay for a short-term publicity stunt. I understand Iran's actions to a point given the western (aka the US) presence in it's region, but pissing off the influential friends it may have had is naive to the extreme. A potentially wasted opportunity and really not the best way to go about things..
Ummm, no I didn't. Maybe you have me confused with someone else. Go ahead and call up my post history in this forum, if you'd like. I've only posted 3 or 4 times, and I never, ever, said anything against the Royal Marines, or the British. I even made it a point to say that I didn't know what kind of force these marines were, in an effort to give the 15 detainees the benefit of the doubt(i.e. they weren't trained for how to respond to being captured). When someone showed they spent 30 weeks, just in basic training , I readily conceded they were better trained then the American marines. The only thing I ever questioned was why the 15 captured marines and sailors behaved the way they did.
See, this is the kind of response I was looking for - a reasoned argument. I disagree with you in that I think the behavior of the sailors & marines was going to have very little impact on how long they were captive. I think that was decided on by other parties and that their "confessions" and waving and everything else didn't matter very much. I could be wrong, though, that's just my reading of the situation. A simple name, rank and serial number response to questioning and sitting blandly for the cameras probably wouldn't have mattered too much to their release time. Nor have I, in regards to the government's response. I thought it was handled very well by the British government, despite the grief they got from people on both sides of the aisle.
It will not happen again. What Iranian did this for the purpose: 1. Stir domestic nationalist sentiment in the wake of new UN sanction and smooth out internal police debate that resulted from US' intensified pressure. 2. Showed Iran's ability on tit-for-tit. So if you play tough game, we can match you. 3. Showed Iran is flexible on negotiation if they are "respected as equal" and without threat. So if you are nice to us, we will nice to you. 4. Somehow forced UK to open a bilaterial direct diplomatic channel for future negotiaions on nulcear issue. 5. Tested the real intention of US about attacking Iran--at least looks US is not really into it like it pretends.
My opinion is that I believe that Iran, like the Iraqi people are for the most part wonderful people however they are run by a repressive government that does not allow people to express themselves for fear of reprisal. I think that if a war were to start every man from 14-60 would forced into service if need be. I also think that some of the Iranians that post here talk a big talk but would the the last one to sign up and fight for their country.
iranians are nationalists like the turkish people. in the war with iraq iranians in america went to iran to help iran against iraq and the united states
Thats so obvious it didn't need expressing, every country has wonderful people. ANY country who when needed will ask everyone to join, including the US. What you say now is very different from what you said earlier. Iran is not as anti muslim as the government makes it out to be, Iran has been a multicultural nation for a lot longer than most countries has existed, they know and live well with each other. Saying that every Iranian will take a gun and shoot any non muslim is simply an insult to anyone who is Iranian. To be honest with you, if a war were to start, no one would be forced to do anything, they would all volunteer, Persians in general (that includes all religions) are very patriotic and would much rather live under a repressive regime than to be occupied by foreign one. History is full of these examples. The Iranians on this board are in no way representative of the average Iranian at all. I know I for one am not, and I honestly doubt if the average Iranian in Iran would share any of our views on here. Don't pass judgment on a nation based on what a few posters post on a message board, news propaganda, or what you see in Iraq, its incomplete and very superficial.
Interesting pice by Andrew Sullivan, right-wing commentator, on the American attitudes to the Iranian crisis. His most salient point is that the US is limited in its capacity to deal with Iran, either on a military or diplomatic front, due to the US administrations incompetence and short-sightedness in Iraq. You can't attack Iran militarily, because "the United States, to put it bluntly, is not ready for conflict" due to the surge strategy in Iraq being put at risk and because "if the United States had used this moment to launch an attack on Iran... the country would hurtle towards a constitutional crisis, with Congress coming close to a veto-proof majority against a commander-in-chief at a time of war". On a diplomatic front you cannot criticise Iran because "the United States itself has done far worse in the war on terror, even in those areas of conflict, such as Iraq, where not even Donald Rumsfeld said Geneva did not apply. There is a memo with the president’s signature on it relaxing adherence to Geneva — and one he refuses to revoke". (BTW it is my understanding that Geneva doesn't apply in this case, but its principles can be used to develop criticism of various actions, which although not legally binding, may be argued to be morally relevant). He concludes with his belief that "military force against Iran is not a viable option for the foreseeable future, and that, at some point, some diplomatic attempt to deal with Tehran on a limited agenda may well be necessary. If Iraq had not been bungled, none of this would be the case." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article1626533.ece Perhaps the US military might have fought back, and perhaps any US servicepeople might not have smoked cigarettes and played chess in front of cameras, but once captured the US administration would likely have had to negotiate. And judging by the US's negotiating skills at present, they would still be negotiating today without their people back at home.
Point 5 is way off base. Try not to confuse UK and US. It was UK personnel that were taken not US people. UK asked the US to tone down the rhetoric and we did. For #5 to be accurate, Iran would have had to take US hostages.
I think this could actually be the simplest sentance with a lot of truth in it. Except that they were not just testing America, they were testing the Western alliance in general.
I agree that they were testing the West, but it wasn't as much about America as you said. The US did what we should have done, and that is let UK handle the situation. If they wanted to test they US then they would have chosen a US target. I really don't see that happening because aside from all the stupidity that Bush has done, any overt action against the US would have given Bush an excuse to fight Iran and one that would have gotten backing from the people of the US.
I agree, but then I don't know how easy it would be? I mean do we share patrols with you on the sea borders? I assume that if we don't then it would be far easier to capture Brits than Americans. Plus however much we ourselves see the difference, many countries and their citizens do not see the difference between the UK and US and see as one enemy.
Yes this is the difference. We are looking at this from a western POV while as you stated, the ME views the US and UK as one and the same. I give big props to UK for how they handled this situation. Hopefully a different path towards diplomacy can be found from this situation. If not, then I think it is only a matter of time, and not that long either, before we see another shooting war.
Apparently there is a big media storm about how the UK Navy erred in letting the marines sell their stories to newspapers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6546303.stm UK marine: "As you can see from the map provided, we were initially on the right side of the boundaries of taste and decency, but sadly after selling our stories to the press and losing the media battle we accidentally crossed this boundary and found ourselves in Iranian hot water. My apologies to the Iranian people etc."
Going in and out of the UK a lot these days I dip in and out of the english papers on planes and stuff. I have been fascinated at how the whole thing which started as a Iranian PR stunt (mainly for internal consumption I think) quickly was turned into pure tabloid PR in the UK (while elsewhere english soldiers were dying as usual) before finally they all became Big Brother Style 5 mins of fame stars, before being villified within 3 days of being home