Are we hours away from war with Iran??

I believe the Iranians are just doing this to show that they still have 'power' in the region - but being this stupid could easily be determined as an act of war.

Iran doesn't need to "that they still have 'power' in the region". They have more power and influence now than they did in 2003, thanks to the Iraq War.

Iran is actually running out of oil so there is no major concern for the oil companies there…

Credible sources please? All I've seen to support this argument is some spurios CIA affiliated report. Current estimates put Iranian Oil reserves at about 15% of global reserves. That's alot of Oil.

What do you think would be the response to 15 dead captives??

If that happened I do think the British public would support war with iran over any reason, unfortunately.

You obviously don't know much about the Persian culture - how many people died in the Iran Iraq war? Millions. Of course they are stupid enough to do this, they even fight amongst themselves because they can't agree on which prophet is right and wrong. They have been fighting and taking people against their will for thousands of years.

So, no different than the rest of us then? Shocking that... You also don't seem to realise Persian culture goes back at least 3000 years, whereas Islam only goes back for half that, so lumping the two together is stupid.

I think we need to stop using oil - period. Then we wouldn't even care what goes on over there. Yeah, that sounds like an ignorant comment - but hey they have been fighting since the beginning of time.

Er, not really. For a good bulk of recorded history, the majority of what we now call the ME, including Persia, was under the influence of one, large empire or another. Either the Persians, Ottomans, or Egyptians. Point being, that until the end of WW2, the multitude of crappy countries that we currently all aim at down there never existed and they didn't have a concept of "Iranian" or "Iraqi" or Jordanian".

Not really for this thread, but your premise "they have been fighting since the beginning of time" is about as stupid as saying "White christians have never fought each other once and live happily in fluffy white houses".

[edit on 24-3-2007 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
For 1, the people dont WANT you in their country.
For 2, there's no proof WHERE these soliders were when they were detained.
For 3, we have NO RIGHT what so ever to be in this part of the world, with such a large military base, threatenining nations.
For 4, when you say prop up democracy, you mean creating a cash cow, dont you?

If Iran are building nuclear weapons, show me proof, SOLID proof.
Because accusations with no proof led us into the BS that is Iraq, and ill be damned if i watch it happen again.

Your quick to accuse people of throwing around accusations without proof, yet your doing the very same thing.
For 1. It's actually well known that the majority of iraqi citizens welcomed the action to remove saddam from power. I personally KNOW an American Iraqi that moved here from Iraq (who actually served in the Iraqi baathist party under saddam) and although he doesn't like how the "war" has turned out so far, he CERTAINLY welcomed the occupation and the removal of saddam. The things he told me they did and treated him were horrific.
How much of the Iraq situation are you aware of? Are you aware that saddam was mass murdering kurds (his own citizens). The kurds were forced to smuggle THEMSELVES out of the country because saddam wouldn't willingly let them leave the country.
What if Bush was murdering you and yours because your Catholic?

For 2. As a active duty sailor, who has personally been to the hell hole they call the Persian Gulf (aboard the USS Nimitz during operation Iraqi Freedmon and Enduring Freedom), I can tell you that it is a very small body of water and to tell the truth, doesn't matter where they were when they were detained. Only the fact that they were is PROOF enough.

For 3. Well, personally I'd agree with you. However, foreign relations are an important aspect to the U.S. and our other friendly countries. The word Stability, while grossely overused and mis-interpreted, is and should be a goal of the United States in regards to the middle east. The culture is well known to engage in war and obviously resort to terrorist tactics and their agenda's are very emotional and volatile. If nuclear weapons came to exist in ANY un-stabilized region, it's a BAD BAD thing and doesn't only apply to the middle east.

For 4. I don't know if we should be imposing a system of government on them, but democracy is what we know best, and it has, so far, worked for us and many other countries. If the Iraqi's like it, they can keep it. If not they can adopt a new one. Or be conquered by another dictator and suffer under the rule of a oppressive ruler, or rule themselves via democracy.

Originally posted by whaaa

Great thinking blobby!! Do you realize that the majority to the Iranian citizens are very friendly to the west? It's mainly the mullahs and politicos in Iran that are doing all the saber rattling. And you just want to obliterate and level Iran.

if what you are saying is true then could this be the catalyst that "may" cause another revolution in Iran? What happens to the million man army if it turns on their own government?
Could this possible be the entire reason this incident happened in the 1st place, thats something to ponder................

Iran's problem is their problem trying to become a lesser NK but with eventually the same extreme weaponary, and I feel their getting there unless this time a too be extremist country is dealt with zappo.

But no, I don't think we're hours away from war. It seems to me, that battle would NOT be fought with men and woman, but with more aggressive stuff less nukes.

Dallas

Instead of being hours away from war, Iran may have actually bought themselves more time. What if they knew they were very close to having their nuke facilities bombed. The Russians may have got wind of this also, thus leading them to pull their people out while telling the public that the reason was for delinquent payments. Iran may want to place the Brits at locations that are likely to be bombed making the bombing campaign a little more complex. Having to tell another country that you knew their soldiers were at the locations you just bombed may be a good enough reason not to go forward with the bombings. Iran may actually be buying themselves more time.

[edit on 24-3-2007 by rockieboy]

Originally posted by rockieboyHaving to tell another country that you knew their soldiers were at the locations you just bombed may be a good enough reason not to go forward with the bombings. Iran may actually be buying themselves more time.

[edit on 24-3-2007 by rockieboy]

I think to the contrary, it would just change the targets somewhat.

Originally posted by stumason

I believe the Iranians are just doing this to show that they still have 'power' in the region - but being this stupid could easily be determined as an act of war.

Iran doesn't need to "that they still have 'power' in the region". They have more power and influence now than they did in 2003, thanks to the Iraq War.

Don't even try to get me on semantics - Of course they still have power in the region, but when the US and UK start pushing them this is how they will push back to SHOW they still have 'power'. Its a non-argument really, and I don't even know why you even pushed forward what you did - its common sense.

So, no different than the rest of us then? Shocking that... You also don't seem to realise Persian culture goes back at least 3000 years, whereas Islam only goes back for half that, so lumping the two together is stupid.

You are forgetting about the cultural notations made in my remark. Yes, the culture has changed a bit because of the Islamic belief system - but many of the 'old world' beliefs are still maintained also.

I think we need to stop using oil - period. Then we wouldn't even care what goes on over there. Yeah, that sounds like an ignorant comment - but hey they have been fighting since the beginning of time.

Er, not really. For a good bulk of recorded history, the majority of what we now call the ME, including Persia, was under the influence of one, large empire or another. Either the Persians, Ottomans, or Egyptians. Point being, that until the end of WW2, the multitude of crappy countries that we currently all aim at down there never existed and they didn't have a concept of "Iranian" or "Iraqi" or Jordanian".

Not really for this thread, but your premise "they have been fighting since the beginning of time" is about as stupid as saying "White christians have never fought each other once and live happily in fluffy white houses".

Actually, you are wrong. The Hittites fought with the Egyptians for a LONG period of time - they were sworn enemies. The Middle Kingdom of Egypt fought with the Upper and Lower portions of the country - and vica versa.
I could go into a long long long history that is not appropriate for this thread.
But, yes - they fought and the lands they inhabited where known by different names back then.
And that remark about white Christians is just silly, anyhow - the WHOLE of humanity has been fighting since the beginnings of time - why should we disappoint our ancestors??


Removed off-topic anatomy metaphor.

[edit on 24-3-2007 by The Vagabond]

Well Iran is now saying that the detained troops have confesed to being in thier waters illegally.....then again they could be just saying that.

Looks like the UN has just voted for further sanctions against Iran, hopefully this won't rattle Iran enough to do anything stupid with our navy personell.

CX.

Heres a link to the claims that our boys have confessed all......i think i'll take this one with a pinch of salt though.

British troops confess says Iran

CX.

erm yes they confessed last time, were released, came back and then insisted they were in Iraqi waters. So yes, a pinch of salt indeed.

US carriers vulnerable

"The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document."

"A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows."

Read full text: /3537f3


Who's territorial waters were violated? Unfortunately...we may never know the truth behind the recent Iranian 'kidnapping' situation...such is the nature wartime propaganda.

Given the current climate of US/Iranian friction in the ME, some see this incident as reminiscent of a similar situation in the Gulf of Tonkin almost 43 years ago.

Personally, I doubt that the British would be willing make this sacrifice, simply to provoke a false flag incident in behest of US policy makers. The violation of disputed territorial waters aside, I believe this incident is simply a game Iranian 'tit-for-tat', with Iran recently claiming the abduction of Revolutionary Guard personal by covert US groups operating within it's borders. I also read it as implied leverage & bravado against the backdrop of approved sanctions.

It seems the question is; will Iran summarily release the British personal in question?...or will they demand the turnover of these supposed high ranking Iranian officials in exchange?

A few more details on this incident today from a near observer: /2b73nm

Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

Its all a scam to jack up the price of oil.

Iran is just doing this for their own internal propaganda to deflect the bad news of heavier sanctions.

I doubt very much that this was an attempt by the British or Americans to spark a conflict. Since when do the Coalition need an excuse to go war.

It is likely that if the troops are not returned within a week, which is highly unlikely because Iran is making this all worse, you will probably see some action.

Especially now the EU have sided with the UK.

english.aljazeera.net...


Aljazeera said that the British crossed into Iranian waters when doing manuvers, none were harmed or shot at just detained. Also to boot: the people who took them are not part of the Iranian regular navy, they are a seperate organization. None the less, at this rate, I doubt anyone took them to do them harm, and I doubt Iran is trying to start a war, actually there is no doubt in my mind on that one. Anyway, at this rate unless those were rouge groups the Iranians will have handed them back sometime this week unless British forces do something dumb, or Israel or the bu#e army/navy/airforce.

The British have denied claims that UK troops entered Iranian waters, this was later re-enforced when Iran made the so called "confession" public.

I don't know why Iran is just to making the incident even worse, all the British media networks feel that this is all about to get out of hand.

Also, I like to point out that leaks from Iran point to the fact that this has been planned well in advance from the highest level of the Iranian government.

As I said before, if the troops are not returned, expect the night sky of Iran to light up.

Iran is just flexing a bit of miltary muscle , theres no way they would want to escalate it any further , theyll release the UK soldiers within a few days no doubt.

Originally posted by The_Coo
Iran is just flexing a bit of miltary muscle , theres no way they would want to escalate it any further , theyll release the UK soldiers within a few days no doubt.

I'm not sure, the last time Iran held our troops we were dealing with a moderate government. This time we are dealing with hardliners who have told their people to expect a war with the west.

Big news and a lot of insightful responses, but let's please keep it that way and shy away from the on-again off-again anatomy lessons.

Mod Note: Post On Topic – Please Review This Link.