March 27th, 2007, 03:15 PM
With the recent crisis concerning the capture of fifteen British soldiers by Iranian forces rapidly escalating, how far do you think it will go before the matter is resolved and the soldiers are returned?
We have to take into account here the position Iran is in, with two super-powers angry at it, but we also have to consider how far Britain will go to get its soldiers back.
The Iranians are likely to try and gain as much political leverage as they can, If they hang onto these guys they may release them just after the next election (as they did to the US embassy hostages some years ago).
Personally I'd like to swap them for our top twenty politicians.
Realistically, I'd like to know what the hell our warship was doing letting the iranians creep up on these boats, I think there is alot unsaid - I'm quite sure rushing in and not protecting [and watching] your escape is against the norm...
It was I believe, a well orchestrated and well executed trap that we fell into, they have a need for these guys for some reason - it will become apparent
The Brits are in the 'Persian Gulf' because....? Roll over, fetch...here Tony...that's a good boy. Uncle George will give you some Freedom Fries and a slice of Yellow Cake for dessert.
The Brits can do nothing until the Americans say 'ok'. It's sad that the once mighty British nation has become a sidekick ...a Boo Boo to Yogi Bear.
I know what I think about the situation.
Let me ask you guys a question; if you dont like someone you cant jsut go up to him and punch him in the face. You need an excuse. 'nuff said.
Im certainly glad that I was never captured. Rules of engagement my arse. I would have carried on fighting, even if I was the only one left an up against a million men. Im not the type to surrender, which is probably what got me out alive.
What is the general feelings in Britain about the soldiers capture? Are people calling for military action? I've been worried that this might lead to another war starting.
By the way...have you seen Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? He's a little short f-ck...couldn't be more than 5'4" (162 cm) tall! Must have napoleon syndrome.
Concerned but not about to call for a war, there are plenty of Iranians in britain and there seems to be no public backlash against them - that would be the usual sign of disquiet. I think we expect to get them back sometime.
if the release of the servicemen could only be done by force then wouldn't an SAS team be just as likely to secure them than an outright war would?
i don't even see how a war could be fought by iran against the UK, doesn't seem like they have an airforce or navy capable of getting from iran to london without being destroyed in the process.
I don't think there's any real question of a war, 1982 Britain sent a task force to the falklands against some 10,000 Argentines 'dug in' - that was a close call, our guys were just about out of ammo and very surprised at the sudden 'surrender' - since then our armed services have been even more decimated.
Britain is only an effective force these days as part of an international group. I am surpised that the Iranians have actually done this, they are trying to show that they are responsible when it comes to their nuclear program, what possible [positive] message can this activity send to the world?
I was an infanty officer for 2 years after finishing university. You don't need an SAS team but a two hundred thousand man invasion force with full mobile capability and even then, the captives wouldn't be found or freed.Originally Posted by wallaby
The UK has ZERO means of freeing these captives via force. No means of inflicting more than a pinprick against Iran. (except a nuclear strike which it won't do).
Hint: those movies and video games about SAS and Navy Seals on daring special operations are FICTION. Believe it or not, bad guys can shoot straight and aren't all waiting around twiddling their thumbs.There are no secret hostage finding machines or pretty agents directing the good guys to the power source :wink: The UK and Americans have little intelligence within Iran and any special force sent in would stand out like a sore thumb and be wiped out in a nano-second.
The UK has limited military capability and almost none to sustain any attack on a country like Iran. It's all up to the USA what happens. The UK in the Middle East is a cog in the U.S. war machine and delegated sovereignty to American decision makers. What governs that decision making is domestic U.S. politics. There's an irony that the scope UK's foreign actions are determined by polls in the USA...reversed colonialism from before 1776 :P
not a real world option huh.
well then i guess the life expectancy in games and in the real world is no different then, at least not in the one i played once apon a time.
I don't remember where, but the Iranian leader believes that his people want him to go to war or they'll overthrow him. I think he's just trying to start something.
-Starts nuclear program
-Testing 'research' missiles
-Captures British soldiers
Just my 2 cents though, I'm not too big on keeping up with other countries problems, us Americans have enough thanks to Mr. Bush.
The Iranians just want a scrap, what with capturing them and then parading them on T.V in humiliation, they are just looking to start a fight and don't want to be blamed for starting it. I think we should just send the SAS to nab them
congratulations on getting your troops back.
The iranians made a valid point with this little show - what could the Brits do about it? Absolutely nothing, any military action was out of the question due to Afghanistan and Iraq, anything economic would be blocked by China and Russia and anything diplomatic was merely fancy talk for the camera's.
Ahmadinejad had Blair by the balls as was making sure the world knew about it
Im fed up with this government. Its WEAK WEAK WEAK !!!
If they were american troops captured, they would have sent the seals in !!
Yeah Leo more pointless deaths.
U.S troops death count: 3296
U.K troops death count: 140
This whole stunt was so transparently propagantic to the global communtiy that it only served to show how backward these Iranians are and how they cannot be trusted with nuclear weaponry when they conduct such imature one upmanship on the international level. Yes there is nothing we could do as we dont want to start a potential nuclear war but as that serves noones purpose but those who say american would do the hero thing look at the facts. America has lost more troops per percentage than Britain while we have more troops deployed by percentage population that America and in the most hostile of hostile areas after America left the kitchen in search of colder climates. Why must the smallest country take the biggest dangers? Because we can do it right. We dont massively abuse our power, we dont drive around the city in tanks playing vietnam music through intercoms and we dont consider everyone the enemy. The british are the first to take of the kevlar helmets in Iraq as we realise this is a hearts and minds war something america seen in vietnam never seem to be able to accomplish. That is why we thought with our heads and avoided all out war than thought what would look better in the latest action movie.
Which goes to prove my point that we make better soldiers than any other country within the coalition.
During the great war and in particular WW2, it was empire against empire. Battlelines were clearly drawn out. Todays wars are not so. Okay so fighting in trenches full of shit and rat infested waters for months on end ISNT pleasant, but you know where your enemy is. In todays wars you dont know where the enemy is; infact half the time, you don't even know WHO the enemy is. thats the problem.
Leo, with all due respect, the UK has only 8000 troops compared to the USA at 140,000. In fact, they account for only 5%.Which goes to prove my point that we make better soldiers than any other country within the coalition.
Also, in my last post in this thread, I was dead wrong about them giving up so easily. I thought they were on the Cornwall but instead were in rafts. I stand corrected... they did the correct thing in surrendering and telling "stories" to save themselves. I would have been a basket case.
Bee
Bettina, with all due respect. King Xerxis of Persia had a million troops, against erm, 300 Spartan troops.Leo, with all due respect, the UK has only 8000 troops compared to the USA at 140,000. In fact, they account for only 5%.Which goes to prove my point that we make better soldiers than any other country within the coalition.
Also, in my last post in this thread, I was dead wrong about them giving up so easily. I thought they were on the Cornwall but instead were in rafts. I stand corrected... they did the correct thing in surrendering and telling "stories" to save themselves. I would have been a basket case.
Bee
Numbers dont matter. Its the quality. And I can guarantee that the British special forces. (the SAS and the SBS) would COMPLETELY WIPE THE FLOOR with ANY American special forces ANY DAY. :-D
300 spartans as part of a 7,000 troop force.
i wish that there were some special forces version of the Ashes then we could all watch as the Australian SAS brings it home again. :-D
What's Australian SAS ?
Australian Saturdays And Sundays ???
LMAO
jelous of the weekend weather?
cheeky brits.
The invasion involved 250,000 American troops, 45,000 British, 2,000 Australian, 300 Danish and 194 Poles. Talking about the number of troops now is stupid as even the great nation of Mongolia has 180 troops there now.
--------
Roll-on 2009 when we will win back the ashes, now that OLD warney and mcgrath are collecting their pensions.
--------
Back on topic. I think we should just withdraw all our troops and turn the middle east into a sheet of glass.
Quality over quantity, it's common knowlage that the Americans have the highest friendly-fire statisticLeo, with all due respect, the UK has only 8000 troops compared to the USA at 140,000. In fact, they account for only 5%.Which goes to prove my point that we make better soldiers than any other country within the coalition.
Also, in my last post in this thread, I was dead wrong about them giving up so easily. I thought they were on the Cornwall but instead were in rafts. I stand corrected... they did the correct thing in surrendering and telling "stories" to save themselves. I would have been a basket case.
Bee
i hope this isn't what it sounds like - surely you're not advocating the use of nuclear weapons ?
It's the theory of M.A.D. And if that means the use of lesser destructive weaponry then i am for it, after all. Weapons only get bigger and more powerfull and it has too end somwherei hope this isn't what it sounds like - surely you're not advocating the use of nuclear weapons ?
I was. But don't worry, i was only kidding.
| « Winning Wars | Star Wars anyone? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
