I've been debating this issue with a bunch of people and would like to hear some opinions.
Would a public execution force Britain's hand? What about if instead of an execution they simply died in Iranian care under suspicious circumstances?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To what end? They can't conquer Iran. So either the war would be for regime change or...what?
If, in what I think is the unlikely event that they are executed, I think Britain would just flatten them, they wouldn't invade. There's enough hard military targets for Britain to attack without causing civilian casualties.
If they were particularly ballsy, they could go after Iran's oil, and totally destroy the lifeblood of the country (while simultaneously rocketing the price of oil worldwide).
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
Who needs a war? Just park a couple of nukes in downtown Tehran and watch chaos ensue.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
They won't be exectured, Iran isn't that stupid.
The problem with nukes is that wind could carry the fall out to neighboring nations. This isn't Japan out in the Pacific.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: What about if instead of an execution they simply died in Iranian care under suspicious circumstances?
What, like all 15 would fall down stairs, like dominoes?
15 POWs can't die in Iranian care accidentally, it would be obvious murder.
If they were executed, I agree with Lyrhawn. The UK would have to do something and they don't have enough troops to invade. So an air campaign makes sense. Whether NATO or the US would get involved is more difficult to predict.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
There's no way anybody's executing anyone at the moment. It might be considered a little tasteless to even be discussing it.
However, since we are - the recent unpleasantness is a a PR disaster for Iran as far as Britain is concerned. Lately, the majority of the British press and media have been stressing the positive points of Iran and the lack of need for anyone (i.e. the US) to carry out any kind of military action against them.
I think in the last week Iran has lost a lot of that support.
Having said that - they'd have to do something incredibly extreme for Britain to want to go to war. There's been huge opposition to the Iraq war since the start, and Iran is a far larger target. Simply put, without the US and other allies, Britain couldn't do anything much to Iran. Not enough troops, not enough equipment, not enough money. So basically, if it ever happened, the US would have to be coming too.
As for the possibility of dropping nukes - simply put, the British government isn't going to start World War 3 over 15 people. They're not morons.
But... never going to happen.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:15 POWs can't die in Iranian care accidentally, it would be obvious murder.
But what about if one or two die, perhaps accidentally, possible mistreatment, or due to negligence?
Posted by Chord (Member # 10122) on :
It's sad that the events in the Middle East seem (at least to me) to be leading to a war against Muslims, even though the extremists don't speak for the majority. Let's just hope nukes don't get involved.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chord: It's sad that the events in the Middle East seem (at least to me) to be leading to a war against Muslims, even though the extremists don't speak for the majority.
If they don't speak for the majority, then who is the majority? I see parades in the streets denouncing America and its allys daily. I've never seen a group of moderate Muslims in any real number go out and protest for peace and tollerance.
Actions speak louder than words.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Gecko, if you have to ask, you've obviously not been looking. Most of the prominent Muslim scholars around the world have been speaking against the terrorist activities and stating that the proper conduct is looking for a resolution to decades of violence. What you are doing is demonizing out of hand.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
The scholars aren't the muslim people. They are, in fact, the minority.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Okay, then. I guess that's the whole problem. I wonder why everyone else hasn't figured it out.
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
It's also much easier to have a parade denouncing something than supporting it. And if you're afraid of being killed (a very rational fear in the region) making yourself a target by holding protest against the extremists is not the best idea.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
But it's not that simple, Dragon. There have actually been conferences. In Middle East nations. With more than one speaker. It's not that it doesn't happen because people are afraid, it's that it doesn't get as much attention because it's 'boring'. It's not only easier to pay attention to the radicals, it gets more watchers, listeners, and half-informed commentary.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dragon: It's also much easier to have a parade denouncing something than supporting it. And if you're afraid of being killed (a very rational fear in the region) making yourself a target by holding protest against the extremists is not the best idea.
Fine, that's very true in the middle-east, but what about American Muslims? Or the huge Muslims populations in the UK and France? Do they have the same fear of reprisal?
In Michigan (the largest Muslim population in the USA) a ralley was held denouncing America and praising Hammas, where was the opposition?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Britain has the ability to cut off Iran's governmental head with a few well-placed nukes. Since the vast majority of the population hates the tyrannical and extremist ayatollahs and mullahs, it would not take much to depose them once their main power is gone.
But Britain is unlikely to act without the concurrence and participation of America. The U.S. has three carrier battle groups in the area. That is more than enough to do virtually anything the U.S. administration wants to do to Iran, and Britain must feel that they must allow America to call the shots because of this.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ya know, we could use MOABs instead of nukes...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But do the British have them, and means to deploy them?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
They can't execute them. They can murder them, but not execute them.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Since the vast majority of the population hates the tyrannical and extremist ayatollahs and mullahs, it would not take much to depose them once their main power is gone.
I know I've heard this before somewhere...
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I doubt Iran would kill the hostages...but even if they did nukes would not be used. It is likely the current government would be toppled...all it would take is an air campaign.
However, I doubt it will come to that. I really don't think the leadership in Iran wants to give the USA and Britain reason to go after them.
Whatever happens, I hope Bush does whatever he can to support what Blair chooses to do. After all Britain has done for the USA, I really hope Bush is doing whatever he can to bring those British troops home safely.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Nuke Iran for a safer tomorrow.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nuke jebus for a quieter one.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Nuke Kwea for a... shut up.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Nuke Kwea for fun today.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:15 POWs can't die in Iranian care accidentally, it would be obvious murder.
Zey fell down an ahlavaetor shaft. Uunto some bollets. All fiftaen ov sem.
It vas vahry trah-geec.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: They can't execute them. They can murder them, but not execute them.
Elaborate?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Execution is the good kind of killing, murder is the bad kind.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Execution is the good kind of killing, murder is the bad kind.
Okay, here's something a little more useful.
Iran has ratified the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly prohibit trying foreign armed forces in uniform for espionage.
Hopefully Iran will show some sense. But having already been subjected to sanctions by the UN, there's an unfortunate dearth of options to secure their release.
"Nuking Iran", however, would be both vicious and stupid.
My suspicion, and hope, is that the British sailors will be held until Iran feels it has shown itself and the international community that it is not powerless against what it views as outside aggression, then release the prisoners.
If executions occur, calmer heads are unlikely to prevail on either side.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Is it awful that when I read the post about parking nukes in Tehran my tongue-in-cheek thought was, "Well, they did say they wanted nuclear weapons... They didn't say how they wanted them delievered..." *hangs head*
Posted by Goldenstar (Member # 6990) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Is it awful that when I read the post about parking nukes in Tehran my tongue-in-cheek thought was, "Well, they did say they wanted nuclear weapons... They didn't say how they wanted them delievered..." *hangs head*
Personally I think Tehran finally provoking someone into nuking them is exactly what we need. The backbone of the anti-US philosophy in the middle east is coming from Iran, not to mention that Iran is funding Syria, Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Quaeda. Without Iran most of these groups will shrivel up, along with a large portion of the Anti-Western sentiment in the middle east. Iran is the key, and IMHO decapitating Tehran would do us a lot of good.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagree. I think that some of us think we are in a "war" with Islam. We aren't, not even close.
We (or they) nuke Iran and we will be.
God help us all.
Invading or otherwise destroying, another middle eastern country. Hmmm....why does that sound familiar?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Iran is pretending to be taking care of the hostages, I don't think it wants to execute them. It's acting the part of the victim, and the victim does not execute.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Is it awful that when I read the post about parking nukes in Tehran my tongue-in-cheek thought was, "Well, they did say they wanted nuclear weapons... They didn't say how they wanted them delievered..." *hangs head*
Without a certain black humor, it would be hard to get through rotten times.
Fortunately, there's a difference between black humor and policy.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The UK would not lob nukes for 15 sailors, or 1500 sailors. If they lost an entire city or more, that's different.
Why do nukes always get shrilly shilled like jingoistic snake-oil into any and all foreign policy debates anyway? It's the equivalent of Godwin's law--Shiva's Law: Any online foreign policy discussion will involve nuclear weapons in very short order, especially if said weapons are completely irrelevant to the topic.
There is a rabid tendency to skyrocket to extremes that is frightening at times.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
My bet: The US (and most likely Britain, too) will be at war with Iran by July 1, 2007.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko:
quote:Originally posted by Dragon: It's also much easier to have a parade denouncing something than supporting it. And if you're afraid of being killed (a very rational fear in the region) making yourself a target by holding protest against the extremists is not the best idea.
In Michigan (the largest Muslim population in the USA) a ralley was held denouncing America and praising Hammas, where was the opposition?
Too busy running all the convenience stores around here
I haven't heard about any pro-Hamas rallys around here lately, though it wouldn't REALLY surprise me. After Saddam was killed and after a lot of other major milestones in Iraq, there were huge parties around here though. I don't usually ask, but most of the Chaldeans around here that I've talked to hate much of what is going on over there, and they don't blame the US for it.
As for the domestic American Muslim population, I think their reaction to anti-American protests IN America was "I have to go to work today, why should I have to spend a day proving to you all how American I am?" It's not their job to do a public relations campaign with the country to offset the actions of the minority. If I were to suggest to any of the Chaldeans I work with that they should have been out protesting the protestors instead of going to work that day, I'd probably get punched in the face, and I think I'd deserve it.
And there isn't going to be any nuking. No matter how this ends up, no nukes. It's not even a serious question, and actually using nukes, will explode the Middle East arms race. Right now Iran wants a nuke because they think a nuke equals bargaining power and safety. Look at how the US deals with nations that have nuclear weapons. They offer them deals, and money, and whatever it takes to get them to back down and not use their weapons. They get free nuclear energy, they get food. And they certainly don't talk of invading those countries. A nuke means safety, it means not getting nuked yourself, and it means a huge bargaining chip. Were we to nuke them, it would only prove how right they were to begin with. I daresay at that point getting a nuke will be top priority for every Middle E country, then god help us all. No nukes, not this time.
Britain is perfectly capable of carrying our air combat operations against Iran. They have carriers, they have cruise missiles, they have submarines, they have frigates and destroyers, and they have bombers (I think we sold them the B-1B Lancer, but I'm not sure, someone can check me on that). They have much of what we have, just in much smaller concentrations.
MOABS, for all the pretty light and sound they make, aren't as effective for what we'd be doing. We'd be taking out hardened bunkers, and striking military bases. That likely means cluster bombs, bunker busters, and small munitions. If I were Britain, I would aim for as few casualties as I could, and then I'd use my military power to systematically remove Iran's ability to carry out military actions. Destroy their ports with a ship to shore bombardment, destroy their run ways, destroy their planes, destroy their tanks, destroy any piece of machinery you can find, then hit any and all known bunkers, but warn them ahead of time so they can evacuate.
After that's done, pull out, and let them lick their wounds. Make it clear you aren't attacking the people, you're attacking the military establishment of a government that wronged you. I think even that plan is extreme and very unlikely to happen, it's just too high in scale. But anything less to me seems like we'd just be trying to give them a bloody nose after they knifed us in the dark. It's a hypothetical discussion anyway, Iran won't kill the hostages, I think they're already beginning to see that it was a mistake to take them in the first place. And if this goes on much longer, they won't get the chance to kill them, Britain will proactively seek their return through whatever means necessary.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Nuke Kwea for fun today.
LOL
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
I don't think Britain will respond with large scale action (i.e. invasion or bombing of major urban centres) in the event that the soldiers are not released or are executed. At the same time, I doubt we'll see a similar scenario to the US hostage crisis after the 1979 Revolution.
Nukes are not going to be dropped. There is absolutely no chance of this happening. As has been said, no one will drop nukes over 15 soldiers. In fact, I think the most likely response would be targeted bombings of military installations well clear of civilian targets. Oil industry sites may be targeted as well. Part of the British response will be demonstrating a superior moral position.
"Personally I think Tehran finally provoking someone into nuking them is exactly what we need."
This is just ridiculous. Its the last thing anyone needs. Actually using nuclear weapons outside the most extraordinary circumstances imaginable would completely undermine the non-proliferation regime. It would also shred the fabric of nuclear security theory and strategy and could even encourage states to adopt a first strike approach.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Iran is pretending to be taking care of the hostages, I don't think it wants to execute them. It's acting the part of the victim, and the victim does not execute.
I'd like to change my opinion based on new evidence. I think that the Iran might charge and prosecute the 15 sailors and put them in jail for some extended period, say, 30 years.
I think several problems exist. It is possible that the Iranians did truly believe that the sailors were with their waters, gleefully arrested them, announced it to the world and then promptly realised that they weren't. Iran, being Iran- if I may make a somewhat insulting joke- is the typical patriarchal man who can't admit he is wrong and must keep trudging the same old path again and again.
Letting the sailors go for anything that isn't a good reason is probably not going to work. If I were the British government I'd provide/create a situation that allowed them to save face.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: They won't be exectured, Iran isn't that stupid.
The problem with nukes is that wind could carry the fall out to neighboring nations. This isn't Japan out in the Pacific.
Neighboring nations are Iraq and Afganistan. Not that worried. Tell our boys to put on their nuke suits for a few days.
Frankly, I think a good nuking and the horrors that ensue is more than overdue. It would bring home a reality check to these idiot nations that think it's cool to push the US's buttons on these issues, and refresh people just how bad a nuke will screw them.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Letting the sailors go for anything that isn't a good reason is probably not going to work. If I were the British government I'd provide/create a situation that allowed them to save face.
This is the most accurate and level headed post in this whole thread.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Iran has already reacted negatively to Britain talking about bringing this before the Security Council, and Britain has already taken steps to bring it to them. Iran certainly doesn't like where this is going.
What door can Britain possibly leave open to Iran?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: Neighboring nations are Iraq and Afganistan. Not that worried. Tell our boys to put on their nuke suits for a few days.
Frankly, I think a good nuking and the horrors that ensue is more than overdue. It would bring home a reality check to these idiot nations that think it's cool to push the US's buttons on these issues, and refresh people just how bad a nuke will screw them.
My goodness. I've got to say, I find this post utterly horrific. I'm British, these are technically my compatriots we're talking about, and I can't believe that what Iran has done yet has caused anyone, anywhere, to think like this. We're talking about thousands of potentially dead human beings here.
I hope Iran doesn't harm the captives. I hope even more that people like this are never in any kind of power.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Nuke Kwea for fun today.
LOL
Yay! Sometimes I worry that I only amuse myself. Thanks dude.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: They won't be exectured, Iran isn't that stupid.
The problem with nukes is that wind could carry the fall out to neighboring nations. This isn't Japan out in the Pacific.
Neighboring nations are Iraq and Afganistan. Not that worried. Tell our boys to put on their nuke suits for a few days.
Frankly, I think a good nuking and the horrors that ensue is more than overdue. It would bring home a reality check to these idiot nations that think it's cool to push the US's buttons on these issues, and refresh people just how bad a nuke will screw them.
Man that attitude just pisses me off!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It's instructive to replace "nuke" with "terrorist attack" in stihl1's chest-thumping rant: Frankly, I think a good terrorist attack like 9/11 and the horrors that ensue is more than overdue. It would bring home a reality check to that idiotic nation the US that thinks it's cool to push buttons on these issues, and refresh people just how bad a terrorist attack will screw them.
I agree with Bella and Syn--it's a horrific post.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Yeah, stihl1, I was going to respond pretty much like Syn did. While I try to be apathetic about politics (ie., I don't give a crap what Britain or Iran do. It's just easier this way) I can't help but disagree with the sentiment that the horrors of nuclear war is "overdue". I've run the numbers. In the case of Hiroshima, and it could be argued Nagasaki, the argument can be made that more lives were saved then lost. So, on one level, it made sense. But there is still a huge ethical debate about it. Oppenheimer himself was against it (al beit after the fact). Right now, there are no levels at which nuclear weapons make sense. I have a hard time accepting this notion that nuclear weapons should be used in a retaliatory manner, or a preemptive manner, at all. I never thought of myself as particularly anti-war. In fact, I identify (from an academic, abstract standpoint) with Lee when he said "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it". But the use of nuclear weapons is abhorrent and it would take a great great evil to make "nuking" someone the lesser.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
When we bombed Japan, I think we didn't really know how horrific it would be. We no longer have that excuse.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
...And it would kill thousands of civilians, many of whom are far more progressive than their leadership...
...And it would lend creedence to the view that there is a war going on, not between democracy and terrorism, but the West and Islam...
...And it would give a fresh horror story for the recruitment of jihadists in a hundred countries, a story that no amount of PR could possibly refute...
...And it would quash any progressive, reform-minded elements in Iran for a century...
...And it would further destabilize a region that's already stuggling to put off rule by drug lords or the Taliban in one country and civil war in another...
It's not for nothing I said serious contemplation of "Nuking Iran" is vicious and stupid.
Oh, and just for good measure: Do we need to be pushing the idea that the reason the U.S. is the strong influence in the world that it is is not democracy or moral strength or even financial power, but the possession of nuclear weapons? I think we've seen exactly where that idea leads.
Posted by phasma (Member # 10382) on :
I must say that I am dismayed at the extemely violent responses that are coming from some people on this forum. It's extremist thinking, and that is what we are trying to stop. I have a unique viewpoint shared by at least a few others on this forum, and let me tell you, we will go and fight any war our commander-in-chief tells us to, but what some of you are suggesting takes it to a whole new scale. One no soldier wants to comtemplate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh we aren't going to "nuke" Iran. I think even Iran knows that, they're just milking the press for all its worth.
It's a hypothetical discussion, and I don't think any of the likely outcomes are favorable.\
Bush seems to be sticking his nose into the whole affair with his most recent press conference. Ahmenidijad calls Britain arrogant for not admitting they were wrong (maybe that's Teshi's face saving exit?), but it seems they've already proven they weren't in internationall recognized Iranian waters. And either way, according to the news, the captured sailors are being tried under Iranian law, and the government admitting guilt certainly wouldn't help their "case."
Lots of different outcomes are possible at this point, but I still find it most likely that Iran will let them go and things will return to an uneasy peace.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
"Why do nukes always get shrilly shilled like jingoistic snake-oil into any and all foreign policy debates anyway? It's the equivalent of Godwin's law--Shiva's Law: Any online foreign policy discussion will involve nuclear weapons in very short order, especially if said weapons are completely irrelevant to the topic."
I think the bulk of folks (obviously, with exceptions) are using "nuke" as short hand for "really big bombs". Given how stupidly powerful today's nukes can be, I don't think most posters have really meant that.
I like the idea of Britain giving Iran an out. I don't have much faith in the Security Coucil's ability to do anything beyond saying, "Gee, Iran, looks like you were wrong there. How bout you give Britain back its sailors?" If everything else fails, going Reagan on them and bombing the Ayatollah's house would be ok by me. I'm not into hurting the civilians for something they didn't do.
And Lyrhawn? Wonderful post. Muslims shouldn't have to prove to us how American they are, just like any other minority.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Didn't Reagan give Iran weapons in exchange for hostages?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
No. (And he wouldn't have had time. They were returned the day he took office.)
quote:Originally posted by Goldenstar: Personally I think Tehran finally provoking someone into nuking them is exactly what we need. The backbone of the anti-US philosophy in the middle east is coming from Iran, not to mention that Iran is funding Syria, Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Quaeda. Without Iran most of these groups will shrivel up, along with a large portion of the Anti-Western sentiment in the middle east. Iran is the key, and IMHO decapitating Tehran would do us a lot of good.
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Neighboring nations are Iraq and Afganistan. Not that worried. Tell our boys to put on their nuke suits for a few days.
Frankly, I think a good nuking and the horrors that ensue is more than overdue. It would bring home a reality check to these idiot nations that think it's cool to push the US's buttons on these issues, and refresh people just how bad a nuke will screw them.
holey crap why does this thread even exist?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh for the love of god, assuming that story is true, will we NEVER learn?
How many times do we have to support groups like that and have it blow up in our faces before we learn it's not a good idea?
Dealing with them for intel is one thing, but funneling money and weapons to them is beyond stupid.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Qaz - From the article:
Faced with undeniable evidence of his involvement in the scandal, Reagan expressed regret regarding the situation at a nationally televised White House press conference on Ash Wednesday, March 4, 1987. Responding to questions, Reagan stated that his previous assertions that the U.S. did not trade arms for hostages were incorrect. He also stated that the Vice President knew of the plan.
Lyrhawn, it is an "enemy of my enemy" method that was used in no small degree during the Cold War. The reasoning behind it is not just to be able to get intel and the obvious annoyance it causes enemy groups, but it is supposed to create a situation where that enemy's enemy is not convinced to join forces with the "wrong" (meaning other) side. We are currently facing the results of this in Iraq, where the Shia-majority government has many members who hold ties to militias our leaders assumed would help to depose the Baathist regime. They did, and then they didn't stop killing, and eventually al Qaeda found a way to get in and begin recruiting from that majority. Saddam's regime was the enemy of our enemy twenty years ago.
It's difficult to come up with examples where our "enemy of my enemy" relations actually proved helpful in the long run.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I already pointed to this in another Iran thread, but it fits here as well. Sy Hersch claims we have gone so far as to support Al-Qaeda linked groups in Lebanon because they are anti-Hezbollah:
That is a very interesting article, orlox. I hadn't seen that previously. The details within it show that the administration is engaged in far more Cold War like operations than may be public knowledge.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
My guess? The Republican Guard - possibly with Ahmadinejad's approval - took the Brits hostage. Iran then need a face-saving way to get out of the situation. So they act tough for a week then magnanimously hand them over to Britain as a "gift".
At least the Iranian President is not without a sense of humour: "So you came on a mandatory vacation".
My guess? The Republican Guard - possibly with Ahmadinejad's approval - took the Brits hostage. Iran then need a face-saving way to get out of the situation. So they act tough for a week then magnanimously hand them over to Britain as a "gift".
At least the Iranian President is not without a sense of humour: "So you came on a mandatory vacation".
I agree with everything you said except the part about them being Republican.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I agree with everything you said except the part about them being Republican.
They aren't American Republicans, but they do call themselves the Republican Guard.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I thought they were the Revolutionary Guard.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Dagonee is correct. I tend to get those mixed up as well, which is why I've taken to trying to refer to them as the IRGC instead, except when already brought up by others.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The Republican Guard was an Iraqi unit, wasn't it?
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: The Republican Guard was an Iraqi unit, wasn't it?
Indeed.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
The core of the Iraq military. Point is, not Iran.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Lyrhawn, it is an "enemy of my enemy" method that was used in no small degree during the Cold War. The reasoning behind it is not just to be able to get intel and the obvious annoyance it causes enemy groups, but it is supposed to create a situation where that enemy's enemy is not convinced to join forces with the "wrong" (meaning other) side. We are currently facing the results of this in Iraq, where the Shia-majority government has many members who hold ties to militias our leaders assumed would help to depose the Baathist regime. They did, and then they didn't stop killing, and eventually al Qaeda found a way to get in and begin recruiting from that majority. Saddam's regime was the enemy of our enemy twenty years ago.
It's difficult to come up with examples where our "enemy of my enemy" relations actually proved helpful in the long run.
Did you miss the point of my post? I'm lamenting the fact that we never seem to learn our lesson, and that support for these kinds of groups always comes back to bite us in the butt, but we never change our behavior.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Lyrhawn, I never said anything opposed to that. What I posted was in support of that premise.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh I see, you were just giving me an unnecessary history lesson then.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Revolutionary Guard. My bad. *shrug*
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I think you were spot on with everything else. It wasn't that big a deal until NATO got involved.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Oh I see, you were just giving me an unnecessary history lesson then.
Nope, just tacking on my own thoughts at the end of your comments. Consider it the verbal equivalent of my pleasant nodding in agreement.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
They've been released and are on the way home. Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
There's recent reports of Ahmadenijad praising the bravery of the commander. I get the feeling that this was not a premeditated scenario.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ahmadinejad awarded medals to all of the Iranian sailors involved in the abduction, in an extensive ceremony praising their bravery&etc which led the international reporters covering the story to fear that the Iranian government was hardening its position inregard to the captives. Then Ahmadinejad announced the release of the prisoners as a "gift of goodwill celebrating" a Muslim holy day and Easter "the Christian celebration of Jesus*."
Which means of course that the Iranians are and have been absolutely positive that the abduction occurred in clearly Iraqi waters under the universal military doctrine of: If you screw up badly enough, you'll either get courtmartialed then tossed outta the service and into the brig, or bemedaled and promoted to cover up the embarassment to the nation.
Which leads to the why the Iranian ship commander decided to create an Incident. From its reaction, his actions don't seem to have been performed under the auspices of the Iranian government. Hence the highest probability is that the Iranian captain had been bribed by blackmarketeers to protect smuggling operations, and was creating a MAJOR distraction to prevent a nearby smuggling ship from being intercepted&inspected by the HMS Cornwall.
Obviously blackmarketeers cuz any Iranian government-approved smuggling ship would have been plying in Iranian waters by that point. An unapproved smuggler would stay in Iraqi waters until the last minute, then cut into Iranian waters only when the smuggler knows that there is a relatively safe passage to shore. Hence a bribed Iranian RevolutionaryGuard ship captain.
Thing about accepting the first bribe is ya can't refuse following bribes, which means that the "Iranian hero" is now a major security hole within the RevolutionaryGuard. Not that the Iranians in positions of power will believe it: they need a hero, and so will rationalize away any doubts that their "hero" isn't a hero. Undoubtedly they are already deluding themselves with descriptions such as "an overly enthusiastic but understandably gung-ho patriot going above&beyond the call of duty."
* Who is also a Muslim prophet.
[ April 05, 2007, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Britain has the ability to cut off Iran's governmental head with a few well-placed nukes. Since the vast majority of the population hates the tyrannical and extremist ayatollahs and mullahs, it would not take much to depose them once their main power is gone.
Not particularily true, and frankly impossible to know. The Iranians ive spoken to were far more suspisious of western motives then the motives of their government.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Plausible scenario except we know we dont know everything.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Britain has the ability to cut off Iran's governmental head with a few well-placed nukes. Since the vast majority of the population hates the tyrannical and extremist ayatollahs and mullahs, it would not take much to depose them once their main power is gone.
Not particularily true, and frankly impossible to know. The Iranians ive spoken to were far more suspisious of western motives then the motives of their government.
I think you're right, Blayne. Are the Iranians you've spoken with expats, or do you have links to Iranians living inside of Iran through your internet reach?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
holey crap why does this thread even exist?