Should Britain rescue her captured sailors by force?

by **Spuzzell** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:00 pm

No idea if this has received any coverage anywhere else but here, but the Iranian government is currently holding captive fifteen British sailors, who were captured while boarding an Indian merchant ship in Iraqi waters on 23 March.

From the BBC summary of events:

1 Crew boards merchant ship 1.7NM inside Iraqi waters
2 HMS Cornwall was south-east of this, and inside Iraqi waters
3 Iran tells UK that merchant ship was at a different point, still within Iraqi waters
4 After UK points this out, Iran provides alternative position, now within Iranian waters

The captives have been paraded on Iranian TV, "confessions" of culpability from the sailors have been broadcast by the Iranians and Iranian extremist students have rioted in front of the British embassy in Iran.

My question is this: Should Britain continue to negotiate with an untrustworthy and unpredictable regime in the hope that they won't demand too much in concessions to give our people back, or should Britain find them, extract them and bring them home through force?

I'm well aware that the region is sensitive, but in my opinion we should go in, and hard.

by **The1exile** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:08 pm

Yes. Why do we let this continue? The code of conduct as it were should be universal; Iran shouldn't be allowed to keep acting dumb while the UK has to pussyfoot around for fear of provking the UN's displeasure.

by **Balsiefen** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:08 pm

i dont think we should attack them because knowing us we'd make a complete cock up and start world war 3
i think we should use diplomacy and publicize irans mistake, making them look more and more stupid untill they realise that it might be an idea to let them go

failing that we could always hit them financielly, losing trade with britain and her allies would damage iran quite badly

whatever happens though we should not make another iraq of this

by **Serbia** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:09 pm

FINALLY, a Brit talking sense about this! Yes, you should be going in, and going in hard. And while you're at it, destroy their oil refinery, just hit the bastards. You don't have to nuke them, or hit civilian populations, but let that psycho leader of theirs know you DON'T mess with the U.K.! Israel went to war over one capture soldier, and England won't don ANYTHING for 15? And don't give me this diplomacy crap. It doesn't work, never works, sanctions, don't make me laugh, the Iranians already are.

Hit them hard.

by **btownmeggy** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:10 pm

The Iranian government has stated that they'll release the prisoners if the British government issues a formal apology for and admission of entering Iranian waters. I say, "WTF!?!?! IS WRONG WITH YOU, TONY BLAIR (or whoever!?)?? Say you're sorry! You can take it back when 15 of your citizens aren't pissing their pants in an Iranian military prison."

I don't know. That's my initial response. It's such a horrible situation and so messy in so many regards. All I can hope is that the US doesn't get itself involved, because that would only make things worse for everyone.

by **Spuzzell** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:14 pm

I don't think the situation would have arisen if the sailors had been American. I'm in no doubt that the US would launch a rescue mission, and neither are the Iranians. US sailors would have been left the hell alone, because anything else would call down the wrath of the US military.

We'd only have to do it this once to garner the same fear.

Edit: And the reason why Blair shouldn't concede ANYTHING over this affair is that then gives a green light to every tin-pot terrorist group and rogue nation on the globe to capture British armed forces personnel. Why not? You'll get what you want and humble an entire country who are too scared to defend themselves.

by **got tonkaed** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:15 pm

I think as much as everyone is concerned about the safety of the british sailors....i dont think going in and hitting them hard is the play here.

Why were the sailors captured....because there wasnt sufficent force in the area to back them up in the first place. It seems rather unlikely that there will be a way to get them out at the moment especially using a battering ram.

This is why we have diplomats so that incidents like this dont turn into larger conflicts. No one wants to see any of those sailors hurt, just in the same fashion as no one wants to see any one of the numerous people which periodically are kidnapped in the region. However, if you barge in their with force pretty much the only you guarantee is their execution.

Its a publicized enough issue that if iran doesnt want to give anyone a reason to bust down their doors, that everyone can deal with the situation delicatly

by **pancakemix** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:18 pm

The Americans attempted a covert maneuver to extract their hostages in the 70's. It was a complete failure.

by **Balsiefen** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:19 pm

Serbia wrote:FINALLY, a Brit talking sense about this! Yes, you should be going in, and going in hard. And while you're at it, destroy their oil refinery, just hit the bastards. You don't have to nuke them, or hit civilian populations, but let that psycho leader of theirs know you DON'T mess with the U.K.! Israel went to war over one capture soldier, and England won't don ANYTHING for 15? And don't give me this diplomacy crap. It doesn't work, never works, sanctions, don't make me laugh, the Iranians already are.

Hit them hard.

and israels campain really worked diddnt it, britain is closely following the us as one of the most hated countries in the world, and hate usally follows fear

if we attack the iranians will kill the sailors without further thaughts, they wont just say sorry and give them bach once thayve been invaded. It could also creat a new fresh open scource of scuicide bombers

by **Spuzzell** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:22 pm

got tonkaed wrote:I think as much as everyone is concerned about the safety of the british sailors....i dont think going in and hitting them hard is the play here.

Why were the sailors captured....because there wasnt sufficent force in the area to back them up in the first place. It seems rather unlikely that there will be a way to get them out at the moment especially using a battering ram.

This is why we have diplomats so that incidents like this dont turn into larger conflicts. No one wants to see any of those sailors hurt, just in the same fashion as no one wants to see any one of the numerous people which periodically are kidnapped in the region. However, if you barge in their with force pretty much the only you guarantee is their execution.

Its a publicized enough issue that if iran doesnt want to give anyone a reason to bust down their doors, that everyone can deal with the situation delicatly

I know, I know.. I was where you are a week ago, but now I'm not. I feel sick that our people are there, and I don't understand why the UN did not unequivocally condemn Iran.

There is a hell of a lot of force in the Gulf, I'm sure a rescue is feasible.. it's a question of will.

Besides, an extraction would be stealthy rather than full-on.

As far as the sailors themselves go, well, they are armed forces personnel.. a military response and its risks would be understood by them. I'm sure they're sitting in their cells praying an attempt is made.

by **got tonkaed** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:26 pm

i certainly understand and agree that you should be sick that there are your countrymen over there....at the same time i question anyone who isnt sick by the entire situation in general.

My fear is that too rash of a move only emboldens iran if it fails. There is not as widespread support for the current regime as many people seem to think, but if we give people something to rally around, well it may be looked back upon as a poor decision.

As an interesting aside....i dont know too much about british political scene but on fox news (caught it flipping through) i saw winston churchill III on the air and was wondering, does he have any political clout?

by **sam_levi_11** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:27 pm

i dont think their "admissions" are fooling anyone

by **Serbia** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:27 pm

Balsiefen wrote:
Serbia wrote:FINALLY, a Brit talking sense about this! Yes, you should be going in, and going in hard. And while you're at it, destroy their oil refinery, just hit the bastards. You don't have to nuke them, or hit civilian populations, but let that psycho leader of theirs know you DON'T mess with the U.K.! Israel went to war over one capture soldier, and England won't don ANYTHING for 15? And don't give me this diplomacy crap. It doesn't work, never works, sanctions, don't make me laugh, the Iranians already are.

Hit them hard.

and israels campain really worked diddnt it, britain is closely following the us as one of the most hated countries in the world, and hate usally follows fear

if we attack the iranians will kill the sailors without further thaughts, they wont just say sorry and give them bach once thayve been invaded. It could also creat a new fresh open scource of scuicide bombers

You're right, Israel didn't go far enough, they didn't get their guys back. And I don't care if the rest of the world hates us. But this is about how others look at you. Will Britain let Iran push them around in this? If so, that's precendent, and you can BET it'll happen again.

by **got tonkaed** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:31 pm

although i must admit im shamefully unaware of what degrees of western investment currently occur in iran....still the actual sensible strategy for any investors or corporations that would actually hurt iran...would not to be using any kind of military strategy....it would be to threaten to lower global credit ratings and threaten to remove investment, especially in their fledgling nuclear power industry

That would probably put more pressure on teh government than saying we are going to come over there would....globalization threatens soverignity just as much as someone carrying a big stick.

by **sam_levi_11** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:33 pm

threaten to or their nulear development sites

by **Spuzzell** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:37 pm

Winston Churchill III has no political clout here, no.

I think this is already a rallying point for the Iranians. This is now a situation with no winning scenario.

The least damaging option is to get our people out and demonstrate to the world why this was a BAD idea by the Iranians.

I'd hate to be in the British armed services right now. I'd struggle to justify putting my life on the line for a government who won't back me up if things go wrong.

by **jonnybgood** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:37 pm

I would agree with staying out. You never know what Iran could do if they were provoked or put into danger by british troops. if i was tony blaire i would put my and Britains ego aside and just say sorry, regardless if it was actually your fault. I wouldnt like WW3 any time soon

by **sam_levi_11** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:37 pm

yeah, why do something for someone when they dont give a flying fuk about you

by **Spuzzell** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:40 pm

jonnybgood wrote:I would agree with staying out. You never know what Iran could do if they were provoked or put into danger by british troops. if i was tony blaire i would put my and Britains ego aside and just say sorry, regardless if it was actually your fault. I wouldnt like WW3 any time soon

What if it was fifteen guys from Chicago?

by **got tonkaed** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:43 pm

i think we have all learned what happens when you make what amounted to a snap decision after something terrible happens in your country....

all we can hope is that the lessons that we have learned from 9/11 help us from continuing to repeat that mistake.

by **sam_levi_11** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:44 pm

thats was what i was about to say spuzzell

by **Spuzzell** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:46 pm

got tonkaed wrote:i think we have all learned what happens when you make what amounted to a snap decision after something terrible happens in your country....

all we can hope is that the lessons that we have learned from 9/11 help us from continuing to repeat that mistake.

No, that's just emotive. There's a qualitative difference in invading a country for revenge for those already dead, and mounting a rescue mission for live captives.

There's no doubt as to who is responsible here, and a rescue mission is totally proportionate, it's very different.

by **got tonkaed** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:49 pm

though i agree with your contention

if the situation in an already tense region escalated because of a failure to use diplomacy would it matter that you were right on the semantics...the essence of my point is that when people are rash...as i feel a military action here is, we are often left in situations that cost the lives of a lot of young men and women.

by **Spuzzell** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:01 pm

I don't think it would be rash.

I've certainly considered this for some time.. as I said earlier, I've turned 180 degrees.

I thought that diplomacy was the only sensible solution for some time, but the latest round of TV appearances and the reaction of the Iranian students outside our embassy changed my mind.

This is already a terrible situation, for Iran, for Britain and for the sailors themselves. The UN has turned its back on us, so political diplomacy is toothless.. the least harmful option left is to get our people home and demonstrate why no-one else should ever do this.

by **got tonkaed** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:04 pm

though im sure there probably has been planning and consideration for the operation...but how many men would this take...do we know where the sailors are? im fairly sure that if there is notice of the rescue operation it will turn into a very quick public execution.

If you try diplomacy and fail, then at least you have made the effort, if you make a military effort and you fail, then you are left with little diplomatic leg to stand on and more military operations forthcoming.

I wont use churchill III as a reliable source as youve said he has little clout, but does the british armed forces have enough of a force in position to do some kind of extraction successfully?