Britain Appeals To UN In Sailors' Case

**glyn** · 30 Mar 07,, 11:51

Britain is going through the 'proper channels'. This is slow, and irritating to those who demand immediate action, but the measured response empowers us to legally (important in the eyes of the UN) take offensive action against Iran if this becomes the only way to repatriate our sailors. There are a number of steps that have to be taken before there is no option but to use force. At the moment it seems as if Iran is painting itself into a corner.

**Parihaka** · 30 Mar 07,, 12:25

:parihakadrumshisfingersonthetableimpatiently:
Who gives a monkeys whether Vladimir Putin or the Oligarch of Outer Westphalia thinks it's legal or not.
:parihakadrumshisfingersonthetableimpatiently:

**Dreadnought** · 30 Mar 07,, 13:40

IMO They should put together a task force including two subs. Sail to their Navy's moorings and then systematically destroy the largest elements first through the smallest ones and leave the area to the point where they sit on that "imaginary line" and invite them to come out and play

. If Iran wants to play their games with hostages then allow them to become Irans problem with the U.N. The U.N. knows they have them. Those Brits are tough and they know they have a country behind them. So if anything happens to them it is now a world wide problem and gives Britian a blank check to **** them up good. Iran once again wants to turn everybody's vision away from the Nuclear plan. They know they are running out of time with Russia and China. Soon the two will have to fold to international pressure and back away from the Iranians.

The U.S. should offer Britan to "rent"

the Carrier airwings that are standing by on those three U.S.carriers and literally beat them into submission starting with the Nuke sites and then all infastructure related to oil production,transportation and military. And certainly drop by

The Revolutionary Gaurd before leaving. Since it was them that pulled this highseas kidnapping then they should be held accountable for whatever happens to their country due to their actions. Since they did it let them explain to their "leaders" why Britain just kicked the countries ass infront of the world.

And after this the Brits should learn NEVER send your sailors/marines on inspections without a DD standing by at all times. A frigate (FF) is great dont get me wrong but you want the speed,handling and other handy tools of the DD immediately just in case.

Solves two problems at once. The hostages and the Nuclear issues.

**Dreadnought** · 30 Mar 07,, 13:57

Originally Posted by Ray

What do those who feel that Britain should do otherwise, think that Britain should do?

Go to War?

With what?

There are enough reasons for the US to go to war with Iran. Why is the US not going to war? And let's not have all that 'Democrats are sissies' humbug. Mere excuses and smokescreen to hide the inability. Let's get practical and not find excuses.

If the US, the richest and the most powerful nation of the world (as most preface their arguments ) cannot take on Iran, then what in the name of Dickens, do you think that Britain can wage a war against Iran?

The US has the wherewithal, but what wins wars is MEN or boots on the ground. The US or UK does not have them in the numbers essential.

That is why the US and the UK cannot attack Iran. That is, if they don't want another millstone around their neck!

The SAS is the answer and who knows if Britain is not undertaking the option already!

Sir,
With what we have had to absorb over going to war with Iraq the U.S. is taking the "high road". We will continue to try to negociate until the bitter end. Unfortunately we must to seem justified to those who believe we go to war for no reason and kill for pleasure. But the clock is ticking on Iran and they know it. Why else would you believe they pull this ****. Its to take the worlds eyes off their Nuke plan. Which IMO isisnt going to happen from our stand point. Its pathetic to believe these actions would from our standpoint.

The U.S. and Iran have a date to keep (with or without the U.N. backing) and we would'nt want to dissapoint them now would we?

**T_igger_cs_30** · 30 Mar 07,, 14:34

Of course it is Dreadnought, and why some people cannot see that is beyond me, its just a matter of time now, then maybe some of the fence sitters who like to critisise and love to point out the flaws of the coalition will for once have to watch thier governments make real decisions and not rely on everyone else to protect them.

**crooks** · 30 Mar 07,, 15:55

"Obviously we trespassed into their waters."

!

I was under the illusion they were taken from neutral waters

.

Britain will get them back eventually, Iran won't risk war for 15 soldiers.

Or at least, I would expect not

.

**Bluesman** · 30 Mar 07,, 16:03

'Eventually.'

Well. Ain't YOU just the manly man, then?

**Canuck** · 30 Mar 07,, 16:05

The Issue is. The American and British forces are out stretched. The US/UK can’t afford to fight Iran right now. Iran knows this, plus it would push the price of oil through the roof (Good for Canada). Bad for the rest of the world.

I think a better strategy to attain their goal of regime change would be to continue to Arm the Kurds and Sunni populations of Iran. Train them and let them create Havoc within Iran. I would also covertly purchase the Opium crop in Afghanistan then distribute it within Iran. They estimate 3% of Iran’s population is addicted to opium but this could be as high as 10% per some UN estimates.

Iran has a Massive drug problem I think it has the highest use per capita in the world. Bring them down with Addiction, crime, sanctions and havoc.

**Ali** · 30 Mar 07,, 16:20

All I can say is - Thank God it wasn't US marines kidnapped or we'd be bombing Tehran this weekend. We may end up bombing them anyways. It just seems to me that A-Jad really wants to provoke a war. He certainly seems to be doing everything in his power to piss people off. He's like a bully on the playground at recess - although this bully could do some real damage.

**Ray** · 30 Mar 07,, 16:30

Pdf27,

I have no doubts about the SAS. They are a capable lot and most of their exploits are not in the public domain. They are also not known to tomtom their achievement.

If anyone can quietly get this imbroglio on even keel, then, it is them. I have no doubts about that.

Dreadnought,

I am not prone to overestimating either our or the enemy's capabilities, nor do I underestimate the enemy.

While I appreciate your anger, I do not subscribe to your view that Iran has a tryst with the US - at least, not for now.

Wars are not fought out of pique. They are deliberate action with all the consequences worked out and all contingencies catered for.

If wars were fought so brashly without exploring all avenues and not undertaking a troops to task, then one would wallow like a beached whale, even if one has superiority in weapons and capabilities. Regretfully, I can only draw on the experiences of the Iraq War as an example. Compare the might of the US and that of Saddam's Iraq. Militarily it was a cakewalk, but because one was so full of brash confidence that they refused to walk through the consequences or the Islamic psyche.

Therefore, do you think a War on Iran will be any different? Indeed, if it could be, I would appreciate if one could elaborate on the same.

Right now (and I would like to be proved wrong), the US or the Coalition (whatever remains of it) does not have the troops to commit for a War on Iran. Or do they? Don't forget to also remember that Afghanistan is still going nowhere and effort is required there also. Worthy of note is that the Taliban is to organise a 'Spring Offensive'!

The war in Iraq and the War on Terror is a heavy burden on exchequer of all countries involved. It would be a further drain if a War on Iran is embarked on. Imagine the reaction when the extra burden on the exchequer is passed on to the citizens. Domestic politics cannot be given short shrift. Churchill who won the WWII lost immediately after the war to Atlee.

If indeed a war was feasible, then one would not go to the UN. There was enough provocation to retaliate, especially since the area is somewhat of a 'War Zone'. How long would it take to sink a Iranian warship and take the crew hostage and claim it had trespassed?

Britain, which is a matured nation and very sensitive in observing international norms, would first exhaust all other means before taking military action.

No matter how bland the UN resolution maybe, it must be understood, that while Britain may not be a world power, it still is not a banana republic. It continues to have a huge political, diplomatic, economic and military clout. It should also not be forgotten that it is one of the members of the UNSC and hence a reckonable nation.

Therefore, there will be much behind the scene diplomatic activities and the charade will be played out and Iran will capitulate and release the sailors.

All the bravado that Iran is showing is for its domestic audience. I wonder if you will recall that there is a jockeying of power going on within Iran.

Just my view!

**Ali** · 30 Mar 07,, 16:39

You underestimate the will of George W. Bush to create as much havoc in the world before he leaves the White House. Bush has been itching to bomb Tehran for years. This is his opening. So far, he has been uncharacteristically quiet on the issue. Of course, he is overwhelmed with his own domestic problems right now but I suspect he will turn his attention to Iran once Gonzalez resigns and we will hear more drum beating as Britain's best friend. We don't need a lot of troops to make a point in Iran. Just a few strategically dropped bombs. I am certainly not in favor of this right now - but realistically I do not trust Blair/Bush judgment in light of the events following 911. They may very well rush in without a plan. Its not like they haven't done it before!

**Dreadnought** · 30 Mar 07,, 16:42

Originally Posted by Canuck

The Issue is. The American and British forces are out stretched. The US/UK can’t afford to fight Iran right now. Iran knows this, plus it would push the price of oil through the roof (Good for Canada). Bad for the rest of the world.

I think a better strategy to attain their goal of regime change would be to continue to Arm the Kurds and Sunni populations of Iran. Train them and let them create Havoc within Iran. I would also covertly purchase the Opium crop in Afghanistan then distribute it within Iran. They estimate 3% of Iran’s population is addicted to opium but this could be as high as 10% per some UN estimates.

Iran has a Massive drug problem I think it has the highest use per capita in the world. Bring them down with Addiction, crime, sanctions and havoc.

The U.S. forces are not so way outstretched. You will notice when they say this that they fail to mention U.S. forces stationed in other countries close by. Japan,South Korea, Germany, Phillipines etc. Plus those on Irans doorstep on both sides of the country. Not too mention the troops here at home.

**Ray** · 30 Mar 07,, 17:05

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The U.S. forces are not so way outstretched. You will notice when they say this that they fail to mention U.S. forces stationed in other countries close by. Japan,South Korea, Germany, Phillipines etc. Plus those on Irans doorstep on both sides of the country. Not too mention the troops here at home.

Work it out.

Can the US pull out whatever it has elsewhere without opening up a void that could be exploited by inimical countries?

Also take the rotation tenures.

If all the troops could be used, would the US Administration continue to increase the rotation in Iraq and lower the morale of the troops?

Work it out with the geostrategic realities.

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak!

**Ray** · 30 Mar 07,, 17:06

Originally Posted by Ali

You underestimate the will of George W. Bush to create as much havoc in the world before he leaves the White House. Bush has been itching to bomb Tehran for years. This is his opening. So far, he has been uncharacteristically quiet on the issue. Of course, he is overwhelmed with his own domestic problems right now but I suspect he will turn his attention to Iran once Gonzalez resigns and we will hear more drum beating as Britain's best friend. We don't need a lot of troops to make a point in Iran. Just a few strategically dropped bombs. I am certainly not in favor of this right now - but realistically I do not trust Blair/Bush judgment in light of the events following 911. They may very well rush in without a plan. Its not like they haven't done it before!

Do forgive me, but only a lunatic would go through with what you suggest!

**Ali** · 30 Mar 07,, 17:15

Originally Posted by Ray

Do forgive me, but only a lunatic would go through with what you suggest!

Yes. My point exactly. This could turn into a showdown between 2 very unstable world leaders. Both Bush and A-jad are convinced of a Rapture-like event occurring on earth and are seemingly driven to make it a reality. One view is Christian, the other is Muslim - but they have similar components which include rather lunatic beliefs. In my opinion.