• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Iran attacks british forces

Farsi man formidum kam-ast.

But my spelling probably sucks.

Fields?

Well - everything from security, capacity development / public administration rebuilding in the post-conflict environment, health & sanitation would be a biggie, gender issues / women in government, rebuilding central government / rule of law...

You know - the typical Afghanistan / Iraq post-conflict fields of expertise... ;)
 
Antiquehunter said:
Farsi man formidum kam-ast.

But my spelling probably sucks.

Fields?

Well - everything from security, capacity development / public administration rebuilding in the post-conflict environment, health & sanitation would be a biggie, gender issues / women in government, rebuilding central government / rule of law...

You know - the typical Afghanistan / Iraq post-conflict fields of expertise... ;)
Click to expand...
I don't see Iran in a war with much of anyone but themselves for the next four years.

We are watching a whole lot of bluff and blunder at the moment, as I read the tea leaves.

Oh, wait, those are coffee grounds.

Never mind . . .

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Most likely, a firefight did not erupt due to the Brits' discipline in following their RoE when trouble arose.

I'd give a case of beer to have been with the captain on the Cornwall and see how he handled this situation.

I imagine he aged about a year in an afternoon. He's got 15 of his men taken, and he was probably, due to the RoE, powerless to do what his seafarer's gut demanded of him: kill any jackanape who messes with his sailors and marines. :(

DR
Click to expand...

Once again, though not all that often, we agree.:mad:
 


I'm blowing the whistle on you guys, sorry. There's far too much sense being made here.

People. This is a thread about Iran/Middle East/USA, you are not permitted to make sensible, articulated arguments. Stick to ad hominem and red herrings, please.

Darth, I'm nominating you for Secretary of State.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/26/wiran26.xml

Tony Blair warned Iran last night that it has only a few days to find a diplomatic solution to the escalating crisis over the 15 missing British sailors and Marines.

Margaret Beckett; Blair: Iran must free naval prisoners in days
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett held talks with her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki

As the tension grew, the first direct high-level talks took place between Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, and Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, to press Britain's concerns.
Click to expand...

Or what?
 
NPR tonight is saying the 15 British men may go on trial for spying. This could really escalate. :(
 
Darth Rotor said:
I don't see Iran in a war with much of anyone but themselves for the next four years.

We are watching a whole lot of bluff and blunder at the moment, as I read the tea leaves.

Oh, wait, those are coffee grounds.

Never mind . . .

DR
Click to expand...

Given that Armadinajed is unpopular with the voters, he could be playing the classic wedge politics gambit. Take a stance that forces your countrymen to back their own country, or not. He wouldn't be the first to try it.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Most likely, a firefight did not erupt due to the Brits' discipline in following their RoE when trouble arose.

I'd give a case of beer to have been with the captain on the Cornwall and see how he handled this situation.

I imagine he aged about a year in an afternoon. He's got 15 of his men taken, and he was probably, due to the RoE, powerless to do what his seafarer's gut demanded of him: kill any jackanape who messes with his sailors and marines. :(

DR
Click to expand...
I think that assumption is extremely questionalbe. Personally my guess would be that they surrendered not primarilly due to rules of engagement (though that whould not be understood to say they didn't follow RoE), but because they were outgunned. The brits were in rubber boats, if the Iranians were in a real warship, even a Corvette (ducks) resistance would have been suicide.
 
a_unique_person said:
Given that Armadinajed is unpopular with the voters, he could be playing the classic wedge politics gambit. Take a stance that forces your countrymen to back their own country, or not. He wouldn't be the first to try it.
Click to expand...

i initially thought that this would be resolved relatively easily [albeit with plenty of diplomatic wranglings behind the scenes] but it would appear that the Iranian leadership are pushing for escalation.....

it's difficult to see what happens from here....

:boxedin::bigtank:
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate - is there no chance that the "or else what?" comment was intended to highlight the limited options available to any western government in a situation such as this? That's certainly how I read it; I really don't understand your outrage unless there's some prior history between you two that I'm not aware of.
 
Kerberos said:
I think that assumption is extremely questionalbe. Personally my guess would be that they surrendered not primarilly due to rules of engagement (though that whould not be understood to say they didn't follow RoE), but because they were outgunned. The brits were in rubber boats, if the Iranians were in a real warship, even a Corvette (ducks) resistance would have been suicide.
Click to expand...
HMS Cornwall isn't a rubber boat, Kerberos. Since I don't have a plot on where Cornwall was relative to the rubber boats, I'll stop there. It's not as though lone rubber boats were patrolling the area, they were from a British Warship.

DR
 
Big Les said:
Dr Adequate - is there no chance that the "or else what?" comment was intended to highlight the limited options available to any western government in a situation such as this? That's certainly how I read it; I really don't understand your outrage unless there's some prior history between you two that I'm not aware of.
Click to expand...

Thats how I read it too. And it's what I thought when I read Blair's words - and if they don't comply then what?

I wouldn't want to get involved in a war with Iran over a few soldiers. Remember that if the UK/USA are to believed then Iran's secret actions in Iraq have already led to the deaths of soldiers. I wouldn't want us to nuke them - can't kills millions of innocent people. Sanctions? That's already on the agenda re: their nuclear developments. I guess we could nip over the border and grab some Iranians? Would seem a bit churlish.

What I don't quite get is how they got taken in the first place with no shooting involved.
 
andyandy said:
i initially thought that this would be resolved relatively easily [albeit with plenty of diplomatic wranglings behind the scenes] but it would appear that the Iranian leadership are pushing for escalation.....

it's difficult to see what happens from here....

:boxedin::bigtank:
Click to expand...

The Chinese threatened the same thing over the spy plane incident. It's all in the game...I still don't think there's anything to fear. This posturing is a well-worn script.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
The Chinese threatened the same thing over the spy plane incident. It's all in the game...I still don't think there's anything to fear. This posturing is a well-worn script.

-z
Click to expand...
Then again, we have USS Pueblo and USS Liberty to consider as precedents of things not going well, nor smoothely. (Granted, this was no Liberty incident, as apparently no one was shot.)

I am content to let the Brits muddle through this latest problem. They'll manage.

In a related note, Rep Jack Murtha's move to pass was a Congressional prohibition on administration action in Iran without Congressional permission. That might be seen, from the Iranian side, as a self limiting move that would allow them to screw with the Brits while the US would not respond immediately: a window of opportunity for pulling a fast one.
ABC News said:
By ANNE FLAHERTY

WASHINGTON Feb 15, 2007 (AP)— A leading Iraq war opponent threatened Thursday to try prohibiting any U.S. military action against Iran without congressional sanction as House Republicans used military veterans within their ranks to oppose a resolution renouncing President Bush's Iraq troop buildup.
Click to expand...

DR
 
rikzilla said:
...I still don't think there's anything to fear. This posturing is a well-worn script.

-z
Click to expand...

But which script? I keep thinking this could go like the Iranian hostage crisis under Carter, but with higher stakes. It would be "funny" if it turned out Ahmadinejad was one of the original kidnappers after all.
 
Splossy said:
What I don't quite get is how they got taken in the first place with no shooting involved.
Click to expand...

Apparently this is the policy...
An Admiral said:
What are the rules of engagement in this type of situation?
The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting. The reason we are there is to be a force for good, to make the whole area safe, to look after the Iraqi big oil platforms and also to stop smuggling and terrorism there.
So we try to downplay things. Rather then roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.
Click to expand...

Lovely turn of phrase there. That is the rule of thumb at the moment, anyway; however


An Admiral said:
If we find this is going to be a standard practice we need to think very carefully about what rules of engagement we want and how we operate. One can't allow as a standard practice nations to capture a nation's servicemen. That is clearly wrong.

Click to expand...

 
Splossy said:
I wouldn't want to get involved in a war with Iran over a few soldiers.
Click to expand...

Why a full blown war? Just bomb some government buildings, take out the nuclear capabilities, some munitions plants, and a list of suspected terrorist training camps.

Don't bother trying to invade and change the regime. Just cripple them. This is your moment to fix the Iranian situation.
 
corplinx said:
Why a full blown war? Just bomb some government buildings, take out the nuclear capabilities, some munitions plants, and a list of suspected terrorist training camps.

Don't bother trying to invade and change the regime. Just cripple them. This is your moment to fix the Iranian situation.
Click to expand...

And BAM! I have gainful employment for the next 5 years! Booyah!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom