Iran seizes 15 British Navy Personnel

[GeorgeSteele]

Iran captured fifteen British Royal Navy personnel during a "routine boarding operation" in Iraqi waters on Friday, Britain's Ministry of Defence said.

Iran's ambassador in London has been summoned and Britain is demanding the immediate safe release of the sailors.

"At approximately 1030 Iraqi time this morning, 15 British naval personnel, engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters ... were seized by Iranian naval vessels," the ministry said in a statement.

"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office. The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23679879.htm

[COMAMOTIVE]

Iran =  not the sharpest knives in the drawer

[Prometheus]

nothing new here... ahppened back in '04 too, though then it was deemed that the brits were actualy in the wrong spot...... this time they were not.


if any die..... we know what will come.


question is with what will britian and her allies reach out and touch them with.

first target everythign that beeps of radiation

[2112]

Could be nasty. Could go ok. 

[25]

if any die..... we know what will come.

Nothing? Oh wait, I know, a military response from Israel, right?!

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

if any die..... we know what will come.

Nothing? Oh wait, I know, a military response from Israel, right?!

ww4 ?

[25]

ww4 ?

Can we have a third one first, just for numerical continuity?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I think Iran is trying to do some posturing here since the UN voted in favor of the sanctions.

I bet all the British Navy personnel get released unharmed.

[Prometheus]

ww4 ?

Can we have a third one first, just for numerical continuity?

if you want to get technical...... then it would be WW4 as WW3 would be the war on terror. its global its banrupting countries and everyone is involved..... just because there is no real state to target and destroy does not mean its not a WW.

[25]

if you want to get technical...... then it would be WW4 as WW3 would be the war on terror. its global its banrupting countries and everyone is involved..... just because there is no real state to target and destroy does not mean its not a WW.

America is fighting a global war on terror. No-one else seems to be. And it's less global than specifically localized in the middle-eastern region. Don't see the U.S. targeting too many African or Asian terrorist groups. If you want to get technical, it's not a world war unless there's an actual war and a large portion of the world is actively fighting it. Technically.

[Prometheus]

hmmm im sorry..... i guess britian is not fighting and loosing troops? nor canada, nor the dutch, nor the germans, nor the french, nor teh spanish, nor the SK's nor the aussies, nor the japs, nor any other number of countries actively fighting this war. and like i said before if there is no real country to target, then the war is fought everywhere, in many differnet ways. local police and nationl investigations tracking down cells in their own countries and such..... But i guess you are blind to the other countires bleeding fighting this war as well?

[25]

hmmm im sorry..... i guess britian is not fighting and loosing troops? nor canada, nor the dutch, nor the germans, nor the french, nor teh spanish, nor the SK's nor the aussies, nor the japs, nor any other number of countries actively fighting this war. and like i said before if there is no real country to target, then the war is fought everywhere, in many differnet ways. local police and nationl investigations tracking down cells in their own countries and such..... But i guess you are blind to the other countires bleeding fighting this war as well?

You mean the other countries who contributed token forces and have since backed-out, announcing phased or complete withdrawals from the actual theater of the actual war?

And I'm sorry but if you're going to count law enforcement and intelligence agencies counteracting terrorism as "waging war" then every civilization in recorded history has been fighting the same war. To most of the world terrorism isn't a fun new concept, we've all been trying to avoid being senselessly killed by people with grudges for a long, long time. At least, since long before 9/11. 

Comparing "the war on terror" to trench warfare at the beginning of the 20th century or a land, air, and sea war which saw the deaths of tens of millions of people in six short years is pure political hackery.   

[Prometheus]

hmmm im sorry..... i guess britian is not fighting and loosing troops? nor canada, nor the dutch, nor the germans, nor the french, nor teh spanish, nor the SK's nor the aussies, nor the japs, nor any other number of countries actively fighting this war. and like i said before if there is no real country to target, then the war is fought everywhere, in many differnet ways. local police and nationl investigations tracking down cells in their own countries and such..... But i guess you are blind to the other countires bleeding fighting this war as well?

You mean the other countries who contributed token forces and have since backed-out, announcing phased or complete withdrawals from the actual theater of the actual war?

And I'm sorry but if you're going to count law enforcement and intelligence agencies counteracting terrorism as "waging war" then every civilization in recorded history has been fighting the same war. To most of the world terrorism isn't a fun new concept, we've all been trying to avoid being senselessly killed by people with grudges for a long, long time. At least, since long before 9/11.?

Comparing "the war on terror" to trench warfare at the beginning of the 20th century or a land, air, and sea war which saw the deaths of tens of millions of people in six short years is pure political hackery.? ?

you my friend need to do some research on all nations in the war on terror.... then come back...... oh and token forces?..... compare it to teh size and type of armed forces that they have.

[Prometheus]

oh and for a world war aid.... what is a world war?

a war in which the major nations of the world are involved
check


A world war is a military conflict affecting the majority of the world's countries. World wars usually span multiple continents, and are very bloody and destructive.

check

[25]

you my friend need to do some research on all nations in the war on terror.... then come back...... oh and token forces?..... compare it to teh size and type of armed forces that they have.

I need do no research, as I've been paying attention. Nearly half of the countries involved in the ridiculous coalition of the willing have withdrawn every one of their troops (including two of the countries you specifically mentioned). Of those remaining, about a quarter have less than 100 troops deployed, and the rest have fewer than 1000 - with the exception of the US, the UK and South Korea. Some countries have fewer than 50 troops involved. Some have fewer than 20.

How silly of me to overlook those wholehearted, vital contributions. If we're talking comparisons to military size, well, I'm pretty sure that 15 troops isn't nearly reflective of the size of the Netherlands military and 4 or 5 is probably less than Slovakia could really spare, even on a bad day.  The UK deployed over 40,000 troops on day one, less than a quarter of those remain.

So go ahead and maintain that the war on terror is comparable to actual world wars, that's fine, it's your burden.

While I can accept that not having a definable enemy or battlefield doesn't necessarily mean you can't be at war it does seem to logically follow that if those factors are combined with a lack of actual military objectives and a lack of physical fighting (at least by those who aren't trapped in a country that they invaded for reasons seemingly unrelated to terrorism, like WMDs and "liberating the Iraqi people") then you might not actually be involved in a world war.

[25]

oh and for a world war aid.... what is a world war?

a war in which the major nations of the world are involved
check


A world war is a military conflict affecting the majority of the world's countries. World wars usually span multiple continents, and are very bloody and destructive.

check

Arguing semantics, are we?  Then let's!

a war in which the major nations of the world are involved

Well, the US and the UK are involved. Oh, and Latvia, Moldova, Albania and Mongolia. And Iraq. That should cover the requirement. Totally checked. Of course, there is no major nation on the opposing side. . . but that can't possibly be what they mean.


A world war is a military conflict affecting the majority of the world's countries. World wars usually span multiple continents, and are very bloody and destructive.

Let's see. . . about 192 countries are recognized by the UN. We have about 25 countries deployed in Iraq, and Iraq makes 26. Well, if we discount all of the nations who backed out of the war and demand that they be demoted from country status that reduces the pool by about 10 to 15, so we have 26 of 173. Plus, America is big, and lots of countries not involved are small. If we go by surface area, the US counts for maybe 40. Call it 50. So that's 75/173. Now, let's cut China out because they're too busy keeping our economy afloat with cheap low-end merchandise to play the game. And they're big too, so they can counter balance our earlier arithmetic and count for 50 other countries as well. Let's eliminate 50, we've got 75/123. That's pretty good, definitely a majority. But let's slam dunk this one! Russia is hardly even a country, more a loose web of abstract suffering. And hey, they're pretty big too. Let's pretend Russia is another 50 countries and eliminate 50 from the equation. Now we have 75 out of 73! Tell me that's not a World War!

And yes, the "Global War On Terror" might only be a fraction as bloody as, well, nearly every other armed conflict involving more than one country (and less bloody than most civil wars but screw them, they're not global so they don't count) but we have much more media nowadays than they did back in 1945 so there's much more blood running down many more screens! And if we're fighting a war of ideas, the idea of violence is as good as actual violence, I suppose. Check and double check! 

[The Dog]

I don't see how in the world you can consider the "war on terror" as a world war.  Its basically the war in iraq which has done next to nothing to fight terror, only increase it.

a world war will be when either

1). the US and israel take on the arab nations of the middle east

or

2). Russia and China vs. the US and her allies

China is going to be a very serious threat to the US in the next decade.

[Grouse]

you my friend need to do some research on all nations in the war on terror.... then come back...... oh and token forces?..... compare it to teh size and type of armed forces that they have.

I need do no research, as I've been paying attention. Nearly half of the countries involved in the ridiculous coalition of the willing have withdrawn every one of their troops (including two of the countries you specifically mentioned). Of those remaining, about a quarter have less than 100 troops deployed, and the rest have fewer than 1000 - with the exception of the US, the UK and South Korea. Some countries have fewer than 50 troops involved. Some have fewer than 20.

How silly of me to overlook those wholehearted, vital contributions. If we're talking comparisons to military size, well, I'm pretty sure that 15 troops isn't nearly reflective of the size of the Netherlands military and 4 or 5 is probably less than Slovakia could really spare, even on a bad day.? The UK deployed over 40,000 troops on day one, less than a quarter of those remain.

So go ahead and maintain that the war on terror is comparable to actual world wars, that's fine, it's your burden.

While I can accept that not having a definable enemy or battlefield doesn't necessarily mean you can't be at war it does seem to logically follow that if those factors are combined with a lack of actual military objectives and a lack of physical fighting (at least by those who aren't trapped in a country that they invaded for reasons seemingly unrelated to terrorism, like WMDs and "liberating the Iraqi people") then you might not actually be involved in a world war.

I see that you are casually ignoring the fact that the netherlands still have close to 2000 troops in afghanistan (which I used to be part of) excluding several squadrons of f16 fighter jets and apache helicopters....

Not saying this is a world war just making sure you get your facts straight...

[25]

I see that you are casually ignoring the fact that the netherlands still have close to 2000 troops in afghanistan (which I used to be part of) excluding several squadrons of f16 fighter jets and apache helicopters....

Not saying this is a world war just making sure you get your facts straight...

You're right, I had casually ignored Afghanistan. Largely because I don't know the breakdown of deployments there. I think the total was around 40,000 last time I heard anything about it, but I don't recall where or when I read that so I'm not going to inject that figure into the argument. It's not a negligible sum either, compared to troop levels in Iraq or even the number of private military contractors alleged to have been in Iraq (somewhere in the region of 120,000 in total, apparently). 

[Prometheus]

everyone tends to forget about "the 'ghan" and the nations involved there.

oh and 25 since the statement "size and type of armed forces" is lost but seems to fall on country size how im not really sure but ok.... and since you forget about the above mentined war (part of teh overall war on terror) you need to add in canada as the 2nd largetst country in the world and as a % of its "army size" has approx 15-17% deployed personal, and the US has approx 20% in iraq. and 22.6% in iraq and "the 'ghan". so in % canada is def holing it own with regards to the US