An Act of War?

[Azarkon]

I dunno. Detaining soldiers is not an act of war, or at least it wasn't when China detained the pilots of that US spy plane. If there is war, it will be because both sides really want it - I know that the US is willing, and Iran seems eager to pull the trigger as well, but the UK? Hard to say.

Edited March 29, 2007 by Azarkon

[metadigital]

I am wondering if Great Britain will end up going to war with Iran over the captured soldiers.

Dont be daft. Do you really think theres even a slight possibility of that happening?

Not for this reason.

[Jorian Drake]

I dunno. Detaining soldiers is not an act of war, or at least it wasn't when China detained the pilots of that US spy plane. If there is war, it will be because both sides really want it - I know that the US is willing, and Iran seems eager to pull the trigger as well, but the UK? Hard to say.

actually Iran plays the 'tuff guy' because others made them angry with talks about nukes and such, while they didn't wanted that (atleast at the start), the big players have all nukes, so they only want now to have a 'passive defense' what frightens away possible attackers

 

There will be a war, but not now, my guess is in 3-4 years

[metadigital]

You are ignoring the fact that, now that the Coalition has removed Iraq (as a power) from the region, Iran is THE regional h

[Jorian Drake]

You are ignoring the fact that, now that the Coalition has removed Iraq (as a power) from the region, Iran is THE regional h

[Dark_Raven]

Countries and their leaders are just like little boys trying to establish dominance over the others. They beat their chests, talk the talk about who has the biggest manhood and that is about it. Eventually one of them will back down that would have the most to lose if they were to continue on.

 

 

Just like America is beating their chest in the Gulf right now with their "war games". Like "hey look at us Iran, we're here to help our good buddies the Brits out!"

 

Which we should help our friends out since they have stuck with us. But I would rather not see us get involved in yet another military confrontation.

[Jorian Drake]

Countries and their leaders are just like little boys trying to establish dominance over the others. They beat their chests, talk the talk about who has the biggest manhood and that is about it. Eventually one of them will back down that would have the most to lose if they were to continue on.

 

 

Just like America is beating their chest in the Gulf right now with their "war games". Like "hey look at us Iran, we're here to help our good buddies the Brits out!"

 

Which we should help our friends out since they have stuck with us. But I would rather not see us get involved in yet another military confrontation.

is there a record on how many wars a PM of America ever had in their own time of rule?

did Bush break that already?

 

 

[taks]

a) bush is s not a PM, he's a president.

 

b) technically, we're not in any wars under bush. only congress can actually declare war, and they have not done so. even if we were to relax the definition of war, afghanistan would hardly count. it's a small military operation followed by an occupation. nothing near the scale of what is happening in iraq right now.

 

also, anyone that honestly thinks iran would move on iraq if some war did break out needs to take a look at reality. there's a huge difference between having a large standing army at home to defend against attack, and sending that army out to invade. sending soldiers in a few at a time to spurn revolutionary causes is one thing, but moving military force is another. iran has no hope in the air nor sea as the US dominates both those arenas. moving a large military force into iraq would therefore require ground movements, which the US can easily pick off from the persian gulf. ahmahdinejad is mad, not stupid.

 

taks

[Cantousent]

This shouldn't be a question. I fall squarely in the camp that believes that Iran will not escalate the issue. They'll try to leverage it so that it appears that they've managed to get the better of the western democracies. However, if Iran were to refuse to hand over the soldiers, then I'm sure the United Kingdom would be compelled to respond with increased diplomatic measures up to and possibly including military action. If Iran were to imprision the prisoners indefinitely or execute them, then the UK should take military action. It would be far more detrimental for the region and the world otherwise. People on this forum often wring their hands and rend their shirts and weeo about the danger of taking action. There are times when failure to respond with force is far more dangerous.

 

There are a lot of ifs in the original assumption. If.

[Aram]

I was pretty sure we weren't really going to go to Iraq, not too long ago. I don't know what to expect anymore.

Frankly, when dealing with the Middle East, I don't think anything works the way it's supposed to.

[steelfiredragon]

I was pretty sure we weren't really going to go to Iraq, not too long ago. I don't know what to expect anymore.

Frankly, when dealing with the Middle East, I don't think anything works the way it's supposed to.

that is true, and equally so the other way around

[roshan]

You are ignoring the fact that, now that the Coalition has removed Iraq (as a power) from the region, Iran is THE regional h

[Dark Helmet]

I dont think that Iran will dominate the region. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey surround it, and I dont think that Iran can push these countries around. I dont think Iraq was ever really one of Irans major rivals.

Er, Iran and Iraq were HUGE rivals. One was the champion of secular pan-Arabic politics, whereas Iran wanted (and still does) the whole region united under a fundamentalist banner. They fought for eight years (1980-1988), with about one million casualties on both sides... and there's still a good bit of tension today.

 

I don't think Iran will go to war unless they are sufficiently able to justify it as defense. The Iranian president isn't too popular at home, but I think any dissent would evaporate if the United States or the U.K. started a war as the agressor. Hopefully this'll just be like the spyplane in China; all over the press but no big deal.

[Gorgon]

Nothing drastic is gonna happen, Blair can't start a war just before he's out the door,

[Morgoth]

No matter how far superior the US/UK firepower is, in modern warfare, every participant will end up as a loser. Because wars are friggin' expensive. Etc Etc.

[metadigital]

You are ignoring the fact that, now that the Coalition has removed Iraq (as a power) from the region, Iran is THE regional h

[Sand]

I can just imagine the UK, US, and with Israel coming from behind invading Iran, then Iran unleashing its nuclear arsenal on Israel in retaliation. The atomic spark that will rage across the middle east will be deafening.

[Xard]

Humankind must be purified with fire

[Hildegard]

Ahhh I wrote a long time ago all about the up coming war between Iran and western forces...it's only a matter of time...

[Sand]

Humankind must be purified with fire

 

I don't know about hat but I think we are heading for a full Middle Eastern meltdown that destroy the region from Pakistan to Israel, from Saudi Arabia to Afganistan.

[kirottu]

I know about hats.

 

My knowledge knows no bounds.

[Rosbjerg]

Usually these kinds of plans are simple at heart, even if their consequences are wideranging.. I personally think Iran wanted to show the west that they were dilligent in defending their territory and watchful of any movement within their borders and were probably waiting for a chance to detain some Coalition forces. This, they hope, allows them to have a slight upper hand in diplomatic negotiations, as they could justify it as a military decision instead of a hostage situation. It also takes focus away from their nuclear program and while they are putting themselves in a bad light from a western point of view, I believe many Middle-eastern/African and Asian countries (currently being "threathend" by American foreign policies) sees them as being vigilant against the growing power The US (in their eyes growing hunger for power)..

Thus they send out a strong signal of power and defiance. But I'm sure that when Bush comes to shove, they'll hand over the marines in second. They are being held for political reasons and as political leverage, not as an excuse to ignite war and they won't loose face by handing the soldiers as long as they gain even the sligthest in return.

[metadigital]

^^

[Dark_Raven]

I can just imagine the UK, US, and with Israel coming from behind invading Iran, then Iran unleashing its nuclear arsenal on Israel in retaliation. The atomic spark that will rage across the middle east will be deafening.

Israel needs to stay out and mind their own business. The moment they joined the West against Iran, the whole Middle East would be in an upraor and join Iran and their cause.

[Volourn]

"Israel needs to stay out and mind their own business"

 

Bull. If Isreals allies enter a war, it's Isreal's right - no - OBLIGATION - to also enter it if they're asked to.

 

It's nonsensical if they don't. Theyw ere aksed not to be part of the Iraq War so I doubt any conflict with iran would be different.