UK sailors captured at gunpoint by Iranian Forces

[PrinceOfLeigh]

You could have abandoned them, what's the importance of Falklands anyway? Few barren islands inhabited by farmers - useless, leave them to Argentinians...

Not entirely useless:

Spoiler :

As mentioned, however, the Falkland Islands is believed to have massive amounts of oil and gas reserves within its territorial waters. The United Kingdom now controls these oil areas, since winning the war between itself and Argentina in 1982. According to the British Geological Survey (BGS), approximately half of the 420,000 square kilometer of Falkland Islands waters contain sedimentary basins, holding concentrated areas of Cenozoic and Mesozoic infills.1 "The shallower water Malvinas basin lies to the west of the islands in 200-500 m of water and extends westward into the Argentine area, where there has already been some exploratory success."

Still think we should leave them to Argentina?

 

[JollyRoger]

Nothing lasts forever, the important part is they've accomplished it. Not many nations can say that.

I'm not denying that, but obviously, the Brits can't take on much more than the Falklands these days without support from elsewhere. They are going to have to get the sailors back through diplomacy rather than force.

 

[Winner]

Not entirely useless:

Still think we should leave them to Argentina?

Ah, didn't know about that. But I doubt this was known back in the 80's...

 

[Winner]

I'm not denying that, but obviously, the Brits can't take on much more than the Falklands these days without support from elsewhere. They are going to have to get the sailors back through diplomacy rather than force.

Better to do something and fail than to do nothing and appear weak.

Bleating is what attracts the wolves...

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Ah, didn't know about that. But I doubt this was known back in the 80's...

Of course you do, because it doesn't play into your argument that we are a weak willed nation.

Fact is, when there are important matters at stake, we will act. This has been shown by both the Falklands conflict, and by the numbers we have contributed in Afghanistan and Iraq. This matter relates to the "what and where" of 15 soliders. You don't know, and we don't know if Iran will hand them over or not. Perhaps best to give diplomacy a little try before we ask Lizzy for the launch codes heh?

 

[StarWorms]

It's not childish, it is just true. I could make long, diplomatic sentences about it being unable to exert appropriate pressure against an enemy government, but this is shorter, clearer, and it describes the situation much better.

In other words, you can't explain. The UK could exert pressure, and will do if necessary. Our country does not want another expensive and pointless war. It's better to spend the money on the people of our country than on killing people of another country.

No, I don't. Do you enjoy the idea of people being kidnapped and then exchanged for a ransom? If yes, you can keep being nice to Iran, I am sure they'll do it again at the next opportunity.

Again, got any evidence of this ransom money idea? No, I enjoy the idea of the kidnapped being released. Unfortunately for you, you seem to also like the idea of bargaining with their lives. Iran could just pull the trigger on all 15 of them if too much pressure is exerted.

If you don't, you have to be ready to use force to defend your country's reputation.

Other countries know our reputation. They already know how powerful our military is. Force therefore isn't necessary.

How many people lived on Falkland Islands? You refused to abandon them and you went to war. Many people died, but the world realized that Britain is still a power nobody can mess with. You could have abandoned them, what's the importance of Falklands anyway? Few barren islands inhabited by farmers - useless, leave them to Argentinians...

You think that before the Falklands people thought the UK wasn't a power? You have to stop inventing all this tripe.

Wake up - it's Iran who should prove they were! All I know is that a very untrustworthy anti-western government claims something, what is not very likely. I have no reason to believe them, on the other hand, Britain is much more credible.

So now you're denying the evidence and making up your own idea about the situation, with no evidence to back it up. Britain did not deny that they were in Iranian waters. Again, give me evidence to back up your point that they were not in Iranian waters.

Why should they think that? So far, you haven't done anything to show them you're serious. They keep pushing it and you keep retreating.

I've already told you why.

Bargaining chip? Propagandist material? Credit in the Muslim world for standing up to the Western Infidels?

Even though they'll get released anyway?

 

[Winner]

Of course you do, because it doesn't play into your argument that we are a weak willed nation.

Excuse me? If you understand my posts like this, then you're very wrong.

Fact is, when there are important matters at stake, we will act. This has been shown by both the Falklands conflict, and by the numbers we have contributed in Afghanistan and Iraq. This matter relates to the "what and where" of 15 soliders. You don't know, and we don't know if Iran will hand them over or not. Perhaps best to give diplomacy a little try before we ask Lizzy for the launch codes heh?

I agree, but the time is quickly running out and all I see is more timidity. It's about time to make first threats in diplomatic language, you know, "we'll get our troops by any means necessary" etc.

 

[warpus]

So now you're denying the evidence and making up your own idea about the situation, with no evidence to back it up. Britain did not deny that they were in Iranian waters. Again, give me evidence to back up your point that they were not in Iranian waters.

Here it is

 

[StarWorms]

I agree, but the time is quickly running out and all I see is more timidity. It's about time to make first threats in diplomatic language, you know, "we'll get our troops by any means necessary" etc.

Here we go again...

Iran already knows what the UK is capable of. They know that a war with the UK will also mean a war with the USA and ultimately to their destruction. Do you deny any of this?

Here it is

Afraid not, as I was referring to the prisoners captured in 2004.

 

[Winner]

In other words, you can't explain. The UK could exert pressure, and will do if necessary. Our country does not want another expensive and pointless war. It's better to spend the money on the people of our country than on killing people of another country.

That's what you've beem telling to yourselves when you signed the Munich Agreement?

Again, got any evidence of this ransom money idea? No, I enjoy the idea of the kidnapped being released. Unfortunately for you, you seem to also like the idea of bargaining with their lives. Iran could just pull the trigger on all 15 of them if too much pressure is exerted.

I am sorry, perhaps I used a wrong word. I didn't mean money, I meant a concession from you, may it be anything.

If Iran executed them, it would be even more illegal and even better reason to punish them.

Other countries know our reputation. They already know how powerful our military is. Force therefore isn't necessary.

No. Argentina attacked Britain exactly from this reason: they though't you won't wage a war over few islands. They believed you can't fight a war so far from your territory. They were wrong and they lost.

Country needs to show its power from time to time, or the other will begin to underestimate it.

You think that before the Falklands people thought the UK wasn't a power? You have to stop inventing all this tripe.

Argentina thought that, obviously, otherwise it wouldn't have attacked.

So now you're denying the evidence and making up your own idea about the situation, with no evidence to back it up. Britain did not deny that they were in Iranian waters. Again, give me evidence to back up your point that they were not in Iranian waters.

Kriste pane

All right, let's play your game: give me evidence that they were in Iranian waters. Iranian statements don't count, BTW.

I've already told you why.

You have not explained anything.

Even though they'll get released anyway?

You're an oracle now?

Anyway, they will serve the purpose for a while, then they will probably release them. By that time, British humiliation will be complete.

 

[Winner]

Here we go again...

Iran already knows what the UK is capable of. They know that a war with the UK will also mean a war with the USA and ultimately to their destruction. Do you deny any of this?

Are you obtuse? Sorry for asking, but I don't know.

My entire point is based on their perception of the situation. If they're not conviced you are prepared to punish them with force, they will keep doing things like that.

In short - they don't think the UK is ready to go to war, which makes your point invalid.

 

[Whomp]

I think the British government is doing the right thing. The only loser right now is Iran. The U.S. has two carrier groups in the vicinity doing exercises so it wouldn't take much for us to fly off the handle. I think cooler heads in Britain are prevailing.

I also think this explains a bit on how Iranians see it.
Dr Ali Pahlavan is the executive editor of Iran News, an independent newspaper published in Tehran

To understand the differences you need to follow the rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad and the revolutionary guards in the past couple of years.

Two years ago when British sailors were seized, there was a different Iranian government which was more moderate and more reformist.

But now the revolutionary guard is the government; it is very different situation as the crisis over the nuclear issue is at a very critical stage... the revolutionary guards are of the view that the UK and the US should be pushed and their interests need to be threatened. So this is a serious situation.

But the British are more diplomatically astute and understand Persia... if it was American servicemen or the American marines, this could have led to war.

With Iranians on holiday my guess is this could spell disaster internally for Ahmadinejad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6496191.stm

 

[Winner]

"But the British are more diplomatically astute and understand Persia... if it was American servicemen or the American marines, this could have led to war."

Which is why there are no American servicemen held hostage...

 

[Whomp]

What's the upside in that Winner? The Iranian government has enormous economic problems right now and discontent with Ahmadinejad.

If the US/Britain were to attack they could, like their Iraq/Iran war, blame it on outside influences and have the population "buy into it". There's no reason to give Ahmadinejad that excuse on why their economy is imploding.

 

[Winner]

What's the upside in that Winner? The Iranian government has enormous economic pressure right now and discontent with Ahmadinejad.

If the US/Britain were to attack they could, like their Iraq/Iran war, blame it on outside influences and have the population "buy into it". There's no reason to give Ahmadinejad any excuses to use why their economy is imploding.

Iranian economy is not imploding. The sancions they face now target weapon exports/imports, nuclear material etc. So long as they export their oil, they'll do just fine.

This is a huge political victory for Ahmadinejad and his thugs: "See? We captured 8 infidels and those dogs are unable to get them! We are stronger then they are! Rally behind me!"
(I am exaggerating it, but you know what I mean)

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the hawks keep forgetting that the militarists in Iran are on the defensive internally. Sheesh. You don't want to give them their power back.

 

[Winner]

I think the hawks keep forgetting that the militarists in Iran are on the defensive internally. Sheesh. You don't want to give them their power back.

Doing nothing will give them the credit.

 

[Che Guava]

Doing nothing will give them the credit.

Sure, but sabre-rattling only brings them together...

 

[Whomp]

Iranian economy is not imploding. The sancions they face now target weapon exports/imports, nuclear material etc. So long as they export their oil, they'll do just fine.

This is a huge political victory for Ahmadinejad and his thugs: "See? We captured 8 infidels and those dogs are unable to get them! We are stronger then they are! Rally behind me!"
(I am exaggerating it, but you know what I mean)

That's the problem. They're on the verge of a petroleum crisis that could drive their oil exports to zero amongst other issues that are already apparent.
The short version
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/08/opinion/edstern.php
The peer reviewed version
http://intl.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/1/377

 

[StarWorms]

That's what you've beem telling to yourselves when you signed the Munich Agreement?

Irrelevant as Iran and Iraq do not threaten the UK and are much further away.

I am sorry, perhaps I used a wrong word. I didn't mean money, I meant a concession from you, may it be anything.

For the third time - where's the evidence?

If Iran executed them, it would be even more illegal and even better reason to punish them.

More illegal? It was perfectly legal for them to capture the UK sailors. Iran runs under Iranian law and I wouldn't be at all surprised if their execution wasn't illegal.

No. Argentina attacked Britain exactly from this reason: they though't you won't wage a war over few islands. They believed you can't fight a war so far from your territory. They were wrong and they lost.

Why do you believe the UK is perfectly willing to go to war with Iraq and not with Iran?

Country needs to show its power from time to time, or the other will begin to underestimate it.

No it doesn't. What use is power? Sure, it was helpful in medieval times. Now we're seeing the emergence of countries that actually put their money into helping their people rather than into the military. Many of these countries now boast the highest life expectancies in the world and the highest standards of living.

Argentina thought that, obviously, otherwise it wouldn't have attacked.

You need to learn some history.

Kriste pane

All right, let's play your game: give me evidence that they were in Iranian waters. Iranian statements don't count, BTW.

OK, here's another article. Deny the facts all you like but it doesn't make it true. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ry?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

They were captured IN the Shatt al Arab waterway.

You have not explained anything.

Then you need to read what I've already put again.

You're an oracle now?

It seems so, yes. Look, they've released one! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6503657.stm

Anyway, they will serve the purpose for a while, then they will probably release them. By that time, British humiliation will be complete.

There isn't any British humiliation and there was no purpose for those that were captured.

Are you obtuse? Sorry for asking, but I don't know.

My entire point is based on their perception of the situation. If they're not conviced you are prepared to punish them with force, they will keep doing things like that.

In short - they don't think the UK is ready to go to war, which makes your point invalid.

Well then you don't understand the situation fully enough. Iran knows that the UK would be willing to go to war if necessary. Iran is not simply catching British sailors to have fun. Again, you don't give me the evidence showing how you believe the UK is paying Iran, in one way or another, to release the men.

You're making statements that go against all the evidence and which also have no evidence to back them up