15 British Marines taken by force by Iran's Navy

[Larry_OHF]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/....uk/index.html


The dispute has an important factor. Were they in International, Iraqi or Iranian waters? Reports are conflicting. If they were seized in International waters, that makes things worse for the abductors.

So far, all I have read is that ambassadors are being summoned here and there and the demand for immediate release of these men has been made. They have been taken to some place in Iran.

[PurpleXVI]

Either the British strayed into Iranian waters by mistake or the Iranians overreacted because the British and their allies are waving their guns at Iran and chanting battlecries. My guess is that there will be some: "RAR RELEASE THEM OR WE WILL BREAK THEM OUT!"-declaration from the US, Iran will stick out it's tongue at the West, there will be some military dickwaving back and forth, then Iran, having made it's point, quietly releases the British marines.

[VulcanRider]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: military dickwaving

Sounds like a great name for a rock band...

[PurpleXVI]

If you think so then you should hear my new punk CD, it's by the Military-Industrial Scrotum Complex.

[shamrock_uk]

Humph, pesky Iranians :S

I probably agree with PurpleXVI's appraisal of the situation, they seem to always come back.

All the same, I wouldn't mind a little sabre-rattling, they were sailors from a pretty big-ass ship after all.

I just watched a statement by Margaret Beckett, our passive 'Blair babe' of a foreign secretary, and she had this stupid smile playing on her face the whole time like she was really happy she finally got a chance to be on TV. I hate our government

From various links I've read, it sounds like their location was much less controversial this time than in 2004, when apparently we made comments about appalling weather etc and eventually admitted that we were in their waters.

Looks like they were in those little inflatable powerboats when they were jumped by Iranian ships:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17752685/

The Britons were in two boats from the frigate H.M.S. Cornwall during a routine smuggling investigation, said the British Defense Ministry. According to a statement from the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain and operates jointly with the British forces off the coast of Iraq, the British sailors had just finished inspecting the merchant ship about 10:30 a.m. Friday “when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters.” Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl of the Fifth Fleet said the British crew members were intercepted by several larger patrol boats operated by Iranian sailors belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, a radical force that operates separately from the country’s regular navy. The Iranian boats normally carry bow-mounted machine guns, while the British boarding party carried only sidearms, Aandahl said. No shots were fired and there appeared to be no physical harm done to any personnel involved or their vessels, Aandahl said.

The Commodore also made reference to them acting according to the rules of engagement, so perhaps they weren't allowed to fight The statement from the US Fifth Fleet also seems to suggest they were outside Iranian waters at the time.

[ 03-23-2007, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[PurpleXVI]

Hmmm... With the Revolutionary Guard thing, here's a guess of mine: They were outside Iranian waters, but the RG decided to go for them anyway since they tend to be a bunch of fanatical nutbars. They hand them over to their, non-RG, superiors(Or those people make sure to get them from the RG.) who do not want to cause internal trouble by saying: "Hey, sorry, this group of psychos in our army screwed up, here are your dudes back." or to appear internationally weak by just bending over and handing them back.

We can all agree that whether Iran would kick American ass or not in an invasion or attack, they would probably at least suffer some infrastructure damage, so they're unlikely to push it at the point where the US/UK coalition resort to violent means to get their men back. And since we can probably all agree that the US and/or UK would not come back from such a venture entirely unscathed, it's unlikely they will either.

Unless the US administration is completely composed of nutters, at any rate.

As for the RoE... #1: They would definitely have lost their guys in the inflateable boats no matter what if they decided to attack, so it was probably partially to avoid losing their buddies. #2: They are not officially at war with Iran, so I think they've likely got orders to give the Iranians the benefit of the doubt in anything they do, and only return fire in self-defense, not initiate a battle.

The last thing anyone needs is a misunderstanding or a retaliation to a bunch of maniacs operating on their own escalating into something no one can stop.

[robertthebard]

You know, we're right back to the US bashing, and it's British troops. Back off.

[PurpleXVI]

Who the hell is bashing the US or the UK here?

All anyone has said is that there's likely to be some back and forth military pressure of various kinds, and that the US/UK coalition(And you know they'd work together if it was to free British marines by military force) is unlikely to manage an attack on Iran completely free of casualties. Oh, and that the US administration would have to be(Have to be, not are.) mad to attack Iran over this.

No offense, but I think you're being a bit thin-skinned and seeing attacks where none are intended and where you'd have to really stretch things to see any.

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: Hmmm... With the Revolutionary Guard thing, here's a guess of mine: They were outside Iranian waters, but the RG decided to go for them anyway since they tend to be a bunch of fanatical nutbars. They hand them over to their, non-RG, superiors(Or those people make sure to get them from the RG.) who do not want to cause internal trouble by saying: "Hey, sorry, this group of psychos in our army screwed up, here are your dudes back." or to appear internationally weak by just bending over and handing them back. We can all agree that whether Iran would kick American ass or not in an invasion or attack, they would probably at least suffer some infrastructure damage, so they're unlikely to push it at the point where the US/UK coalition resort to violent means to get their men back. And since we can probably all agree that the US and/or UK would not come back from such a venture entirely unscathed, it's unlikely they will either. Unless the US administration is completely composed of nutters, at any rate. As for the RoE... #1: They would definitely have lost their guys in the inflateable boats no matter what if they decided to attack, so it was probably partially to avoid losing their buddies. #2: They are not officially at war with Iran, so I think they've likely got orders to give the Iranians the benefit of the doubt in anything they do, and only return fire in self-defense, not initiate a battle. The last thing anyone needs is a misunderstanding or a retaliation to a bunch of maniacs operating on their own escalating into something no one can stop.

'nuff said. You the hell are bashing the US, and I'm really sick of reading it. Look, you don't mind if the schoolyard bullies take your lunch money, that's fine. Lay down and take it any way you want. But, don't expect any one else to have your lay down and die attitude. Hey, since fighting for what's right seems to go so far against your grain, why don't you sign your properties over to me. I could use some extra stuff, if you haven't given it to a local bully already.

[Iron Greasel]

The issue looks just like a casual minor international incident. Iran captured some marines, whether to make a point, get general attention or by accident, and neither side really wants a full-scale war. So they'll shout threats at each other for a while, to not appear hideously weak, and then Iran will return the marines.

Robert the Bard: I really don't see any US bashing either. An quoting Purples entire post hardly sheds any light on which part in particular offends you.