UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

The_Zergling

The_Zergling

Junior Member
Let me understand more clearly. Is Iran just as justified to use military force against the US in Iraq as the UK is against Iran for similar reasons? Or is the UK exempt because we all know that it's just a "friendly patrol" that shouldn't make the Iranians feel the least bit threatened? I understand that there is a distinction in that the UK sailors were not actively assisting in the killing of Iranians. However if captured soldiers/citizens are an excuse to use military force against another sovereign nation...

Again, simply trying to understand the reasoning. Why does the US have the right to arrest Iranians meddling in Iraq when the US itself is meddling even more influentially in Iraq? If there is to be justification for military force I want to be convinced.
 
B

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
The_Zergling said:
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?
Click to expand...
Good point! I think those UK troops will be used as bargaining chips (no offense!) in negotiations- the same thing happened, regretfuly, without success, in Lebanon last year- those Isreali soldiers are still POWs. As far as tactics, if it was a USN team, and if they were against superior force the outcome would not be hard to guess- and after capture if their boats were attacked by helos or shipboard fire then both the captured and iranians would have been killed.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
The_Zergling said:
Is Iran just as justified to use military force against the US in Iraq as the UK is against Iran for similar reasons?
Click to expand...
If we were doing the same in Iran, of course they would be justified from their perspective in attempting to do so. Then there would be war and hsitroy would be the long term judge for us in this life.

The big difference is that the Iranians are in Iraq doing this, with intent, and actually helping kill our people...the UK sailors were not in Iran doing any such thing, therefore, IMHO, there is no moral equivalence.
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
The_Zergling said:
Is Iran just as justified to use military force against the US in Iraq as the UK is against Iran for similar reasons?
Click to expand...

Well the argument would go that if the Iranians weren't trying to make things worse in Iraq their people wouldn't have been detained at all.

Or is the UK exempt because we all know that it's just a "friendly patrol" that shouldn't make the Iranians feel the least bit threatened?
Click to expand...

No, it's because, as has been repeatedly pointed out, crossing over into territorial waters is not sufficient to detain the people concerned, especially if it's done without warning. Whereas potentially helping insurgents murder people is grounds for arrest - if they have certifiable diplomatic status then they can still be ejected; if not then legally they can be charged.

Why does the US have the right to arrest Iranians meddling in Iraq when the US itself is meddling even more influentially in Iraq?
Click to expand...

The Coalition now has a UN mandate to stay in Iraq. Whether or not you supported the war, the peace is now legal.

As to the Iranians being arrested I've mentioned it about. It's also none of the UK's problem - the Iranians shouldn't have involved our personnel.
 
SampanViking

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Mr Blair says the Marines were in Iraqi territorial waters and that there capture was wrong.

Bearing in mind however, Mr Blair's track record in this region, I think then we can assume that the Marines were well inside Iranian waters and that the revolutionary Guards were well within their rights to intervene.

Point in mind is that the RN did not open fire in support - why???? I doubt if the RN's rules of engagement are so emasculated as to allowing the forces of an "hostile" power to violate territorial waters for which they are responsible and to abduct its own servicemen at gunpoint, under the nose of a major warship!!!

Something very fishy going on here and Blair looked even more dodgy than usual when he tried to talk butch!
 
Last edited:
B

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
It could also be a set up- Iranians get UK hostages, their president cancells UN speech, tentions rise, and there is much needed justification for war/regime change. Let's not forget that it was the UK which drew those borders, as well as helped to remove
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from power- which led to the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and on to the present day.

Sailors high and dry
There is now good reason to be concerned about possible military ramifications to the sanctions, given that Iran's capturing of the British sailors could be directly connected to London's leading role against Iran in the nuclear row. This raises the prospect of a long ordeal over the sailors, who Iran claims have "confessed" to transgressing into Iranian waters.
Already, a top Iranian lawmaker has supported the action by Iran's Revolutionary Guards in taking the sailors and hinted at lengthy legal proceedings, much to the chagrin of the British government,which has demanded their immediate release.
A political analyst close to the government told this author that Tehran may not release them until all the Iranian "hostages" in the United States' hands are free. Six diplomats and scores of others, deemed "agents" by the US, are in its custody. London's plans to extricate itself quietly from Iraq may now be in jeopardy.
From Iran's vantage, however, what matters is to drive home the point, expressed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei last week, that those who inflict pain on Iran will have to pay a price.
The escalating crisis may not, after all, develop into the kind of air campaign that the likes of US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh have been penning for some time. Rather, it is beginning to spiral in an entirely different direction that poses a serious threat to regional and international peace - that is, small skirmishes combined with proxy attacks, hostage-taking, intelligence war and the like, which can easily trigger bigger and deadlier showdowns.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
BLUEJACKET said:
It could also be a set up- Iranians get UK hostages, their president cancells UN speech, tentions rise, and there is much needed justification for war/regime change. Let's not forget that it was the UK which drew those borders, as well as helped to remove
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from power- which led to the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and on to the present day.
Click to expand...
Yes, it could be a set up. But a couple of things would lean away from thnking that it was an operation set up intentionally to get their people kidnapped.

1)The Iranians would have had to take the bait and do so in the militaristic way, there was no promise that that would happen on this occassion.

2) In order for that to have happened with intent, it would mean that the UK had to intentionally station its support far enough away to leave its people out there with haning in the wind as free game for the Iranians. Now, even though I think there is more at stake in the overall war and conflict, I do not believe the UK government, even Tony Blair would so blatantly use his own in such a manner. It would lead to far too much risk with the trust and credability of his entire force...the moral and overall force cohesion could be destroyed by such a gambit as surely as enemy fire. I do not believe they would take such a risk.

Anyhow, although this is about a military matter, once again, it is drifting into a purely political discussion and I will reframe from going down that path as SD is not abou the politics of the days issue.
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
SampanViking said:
Bearing in mind however, Mr Blair's track record in this region, I think then we can assume that the Marines were well inside Iranian waters and that the revolutionary Guards were well within their rights to intervene.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the Royal Navy, USN and Iraqi government are lying too?

Sampan, did you even bother to read my posts about UN law? I know you hate Tony Blair, but you shouldn't let that railroad you into justifying the illegal detention of our people under UN law.

Point in mind is that the RN did not open fire in support - why????
Click to expand...

Because Cornwall was not in a position to help, nor was the Lynx. And the Iranians had a lot more firepower than they did.

Something very fishy going on here and Blair looked even more dodgy than usual when he tried to talk butch!
Click to expand...

Nothing fishy is going on - you just need to read the thread and the information supplied.

What I find fishy is that someone in the UK seems so quick to condemn the Royal Navy.
 
V

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
Some guys here are obviously assuming that british military and intelligence forces are immaculate like little Miss Innocence! But reality is harsh as even Alice in Wonderland has eventually learned.

The iranian intel services are not plain stupid and know that the London based and MI6 sponsored ´Ahwazi Friendship Organization´is the driving force behind bloody terrorist attacks resulting in the deaths of dozens of people in the iranian province of Khuzistan (capital Ahwaz). (and please do not make arguments about evidence: the iranian allegations are certainly not murkier than US stories of iranian agents ´caught red handed´.):coffee:

In 2005 a clandestine group of british agents was arrested in Basra by Iraqi police. The Iraqi's found explosives and typical car bomb equipment in their vehicle but interestingly after some hours in a Basra police station they were ´liberated´by british special forces killing several iraqi policemen during the operation. Of course the raid was motivated by fears that the agents could be tortured but conveniently the outcome enabled the british military to keep the lid on the whole affair.

Without doubt a ´dirty war´is going on between US/UK military and intelligence forces and their Iranian counterparts on iraqi soil (and waters). Without drawing on reliable and complete information judging who of both adversaries has more dirt on their boots or blood on their hands is decidedly premature. :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top