Violet Oboe
Junior Member
@Fu:
At least the legitimate and democratically elected government of PM al-Maliki does not subscribe to the view that the Iranians are creating mischief in Iraq. The shiite majority in Iraq does appreciate the friendship of the Islamic Republic and even people like former (?) MI5 asset Iyad Allawi (himself a Shii) are not alleging that Iran is conducting terror operations in Iraq (but he is indeed angry at them for supporting the ´wrong people´ like Muqtada al-Sadr).
Britain apparently wants to terminate the iraqi ´adventure´after more than four years of (futile?, Basra is currently in chaos) military presence and is working steadily to extricate more and more troops from southern Iraq. Tehran obviously is aware of the situation and is signaling that confronting them (in Iraq as well as on the nuclear program) will cost the UK a significant price. Alternatively London could negotiate a mutually acceptable solution with Tehran and that would the UK enable to complete a phased withdrawal without harmful casualties.
Believing that Britain can put Iran under pressure and inflict pain on them without suffering from Iranian ´countermeasures´is quite naive and would invite disaster for british troops. The british forces have lost already 134 men in Iraq for a dubious cause and risking additional lives in a much more dangerous conflict with Iran does certainly not serve the interests of the United Kingdom well.
(Fortunately Tony Blair who has proved more than one time being strategically quite shortsighted will be replaced by Gordon Brown in a couple of months and correspondingly the chances for resolving the potential crisis peacefully are relatively good.
)
At least the legitimate and democratically elected government of PM al-Maliki does not subscribe to the view that the Iranians are creating mischief in Iraq. The shiite majority in Iraq does appreciate the friendship of the Islamic Republic and even people like former (?) MI5 asset Iyad Allawi (himself a Shii) are not alleging that Iran is conducting terror operations in Iraq (but he is indeed angry at them for supporting the ´wrong people´ like Muqtada al-Sadr).
Britain apparently wants to terminate the iraqi ´adventure´after more than four years of (futile?, Basra is currently in chaos) military presence and is working steadily to extricate more and more troops from southern Iraq. Tehran obviously is aware of the situation and is signaling that confronting them (in Iraq as well as on the nuclear program) will cost the UK a significant price. Alternatively London could negotiate a mutually acceptable solution with Tehran and that would the UK enable to complete a phased withdrawal without harmful casualties.
Believing that Britain can put Iran under pressure and inflict pain on them without suffering from Iranian ´countermeasures´is quite naive and would invite disaster for british troops. The british forces have lost already 134 men in Iraq for a dubious cause and risking additional lives in a much more dangerous conflict with Iran does certainly not serve the interests of the United Kingdom well.
(Fortunately Tony Blair who has proved more than one time being strategically quite shortsighted will be replaced by Gordon Brown in a couple of months and correspondingly the chances for resolving the potential crisis peacefully are relatively good.
)
Hmmm...how did that legitimate and democratically elected government come into being?
IMHO, you can't have it both ways. To use that situation, and to frame it as you did, as something positive, and then to try and term the very process that brought it into being as futile, dubious, short sighted, etc. just doesn't make sense...it has a significant problem in logic from an arguement standpoint IMHO.
But, as I say, that is just my own opinion.
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
Are you sure it's legitimate? I hear no end of how it's illegal because the war was illegal. Anyway, this legitimate government (as you describe it) is insisting its "friend" Iran hand the RN members back and is saying that they were in Iraqi waters.
Who said that Britain was going to do anything to Iran other than put diplomatic pressure on them? The only reason a military operation would occur is if Iran hurts them. In which case military action would be needed - you wouldn't want your country to stand back while its people are abused or even murdered by another country, would you?
Blair is heating up the rhetoric. Giving then days. Sounds almost like an ultimatum to me.
The Australian said:
The_Zergling
Junior Member
Is a broader sense, can someone spell out the difference between Iran capturing British soldiers transgressing in its waters and the US capturing Iranian soldiers in Iraq? According to logic, would Iran be justified in attacking US forces in Iraq to free its captured soldiers?
Well, I don't even think that will happen. Remember Iran embassy staff shooting your policewoman right in the street of London? And what did you do about it?
Without Uncle Sam's action backing, Britain properly won't do much except playing some lip service.
Iranian diplomatic mission are being used in Iraq to mask Iranian military personnel helping the insurgents develop and deploy ballistic projectile IEDs which are killing coalition soldiers in Iraq. They have been caught red-handed at this, with the material, and with the plans.
British naval personnel are conducting routine (along with US navy personnel) inspections of shipping entering Iraqi territorial waters...not attcking oir threatening Iran in any way. They do it hundreds and hundreds of times and Iran knows it, and we know it.
Even if the UK personnel strayed...and because of what happened in 2004 and because of the technology capabilities available to the UK and US, I seriously doubt that such a mistake was made...but even if it was, it was not threatening. IMHO, it was an event taken advantage of by Iran, who was watching waiting for an opportunity when a UK vessels was far enough away from their boarding teams to make this possible so that they could cause as much embarrasement to the UK as possible.
From my own research and study, that is the basic difference. There is no moral equivalence of the UK putting diplomatic pressure and perhaps ultimately military pressure on Iran for what they have done, to Iran invading Iraq to get its people back. Their activities are in no way comparable IMHO.
IMHO, in both instances you have a fairly rogue regime putting more and more direct, military pressure on the coalition. If they continue, they are apt to push the US and UK in responding militarily against them strongly.