Iran seizes 15 British Navy Personnel

[Prometheus]

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).?

17,900 US deployed in "the 'ghan"

[25]

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

Sure, we can add Canada to the list. But the question isn't actually about military size, type, or deployments, those are merely amusing distractions. The heart of the matter is really whether the military and political effects of the war on terror are comparable to either of the "world wars". I don't think that it's possible to make a realistic argument which would put the war on terror in the same bracket as either, though it certainly could have escalated to that level eventually had the US not alienated its allies so early on. The war on terror seems largely a political creation, and largely fought in the realm of PR  and media innuendo (on the part of western countries that is, the actual terrorists are more inclined to use more effective weapons).

In my opinion,  it's really a matter of political convenience. Bush declared war on something which every major country was already taking measures against. In that respect it bares more resemblance to the "war on drugs" or the "war on crime," in both composition and result. True, many people have died because of this "war" but I don't feel that deaths or shots fired or boots on the ground are the right way to measure the credibility or meaning of this crusade. 

[25]

"Crusade" was a poor choice of words there, a little too loaded. I was just looking for an alternative to saying "war" again.

[Mr Rage]

gurantee the S.A.S will be on standby to resuce them.

[TAP]

gurantee the S.A.S will be on standby to resuce them.

I doubt it, they're in Tehran.

[mrlee]

irans leaders a bullshitting nob and needs to be blown away.

[axl_rose_700]

Why do we let this shit happen? Where was HMS Cornwall, why weren't these people being backed up? Also, just after this happened Iran should have been told, either release them within 6 hours or your presedential palaces are been blown to shit by cruise missiles, i guarantee they would have been released!

[Prometheus]

Why do we let this shit happen? Where was HMS Cornwall, why weren't these people being backed up? Also, just after this happened Iran should have been told, either release them within 6 hours or your presedential palaces are been blown to shit by cruise missiles, i guarantee they would have been released!

too little details about the exact area to give a good answer as to why they werent backed up by the Frigate. However if we want to speculate we could assume that the area they were in could have been to shallow for the frigate to render direct support, as well as angle of attack for teh IRN patrol boats could have been in such away that firing on them could have caused the FF deaths of the bording party. The fact that the borading party was only carrying small arms, and the iranin boats carrying bow mounted MG's put the boarding party at a disadvantage. most frigates carry helos that are equipped for TSAR and ASW weather these helos could ahve been used to provide fire support is doubtful and IR could ignore in attempts at buzzing of them and still allow them to capture the BP. All and all the Iranians proscuted a flaw in the borading party procedures which allowed for this to occur. if noe of that was a factor then the commanding officer of teh frigate will be releived from command, most likely any way.

the fact that they are not all over the news saying yes we were in the waters of iran boads well that they were actually not in the wrong spot and were actually still in iraqi waters. What we have here though is a power play by Iran tring to say hey we can do waht we want when we want.

[The Dog]

What is the mood of the people in the UK regarding this?  Is this the top news story in the country?

[GeorgeSteele]

According to this article, the US is holding 300 individuals linked to Iranian intelligence agencies, most captured over the past 2 months.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/03/us_holds_300_prisoners_linked.php

So, in addition to hoping to gain leverage against sanctions over its nuclear program, apparently Iran is looking for a prisoner swap. 

This all reminds me of that "Bad Idea Jeans" SNL skit.

[The Dog]

According to this article, the US is holding 300 individuals linked to Iranian intelligence agencies, most captured over the past 2 months.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/03/us_holds_300_prisoners_linked.php

So, in addition to hoping to gain leverage against sanctions over its nuclear program, apparently Iran is looking for a prisoner swap.?

This all reminds me of that "Bad Idea Jeans" SNL skit.

I would be absolutely shocked if there is a "swap" of any kind.  Iran better be REALLY careful here - Bush and his cowboys are probably looking for ANY reason to start a war in Iran.

[COMAMOTIVE]

According to this article, the US is holding 300 individuals linked to Iranian intelligence agencies, most captured over the past 2 months.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/03/us_holds_300_prisoners_linked.php

So, in addition to hoping to gain leverage against sanctions over its nuclear program, apparently Iran is looking for a prisoner swap.?

This all reminds me of that "Bad Idea Jeans" SNL skit.

I would be absolutely shocked if there is a "swap" of any kind.? Iran better be REALLY careful here - Bush and his cowboys are probably looking for ANY reason to start a war in Iran.

Yep

[Robman?]

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.

you sir need to do research. The British fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but have since taken thousands of their troops out of Iraq. 45,000 were present at the start, 7,100 are their now.


If Britian declares war on Iraq there will none of this messing around. The forces of Iraq will be hopeless.

[COMAMOTIVE]

If Britian declares war on Iraq there will none of this messing around. The forces of Iraq will be hopeless.

This statement does not make sense - Are you talking about Iran or Iraq?

[Robman?]

If Britian declares war on Iraq there will none of this messing around. The forces of Iraq will be hopeless.

This statement does not make sense - Are you talking about Iran or Iraq?

Iran, my mistake

[COMAMOTIVE]

If Britian declares war on Iraq there will none of this messing around. The forces of Iraq will be hopeless.

This statement does not make sense - Are you talking about Iran or Iraq?

Iran, my mistake

Yeah, that's what I thought. Yeah, I would'nt mind seeing the Brits blow some sense into that little Iranian fucker, myself.

[The Dog]

If Britian declares war on Iraq there will none of this messing around. The forces of Iraq will be hopeless.

This statement does not make sense - Are you talking about Iran or Iraq?

Iran, my mistake

Yeah, that's what I thought. Yeah, I would'nt mind seeing the Brits blow some sense into that little Iranian fucker, myself.

Does anyone know the UK reaction to this?  Are people up in arms? Are they so war wearied from Iraq that nobody is saying they should fight, that a swap would be acceptable?

I wonder if they were US troops what the average person would be saying......

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Old Mags would have taken care of things if she were in office.....

[mrlee]

we need to send SAS or something in! own those damn turds.

[TAP]

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.

you sir need to do research. The British fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but have since taken thousands of their troops out of Iraq. 45,000 were present at the start, 7,100 are their now.


If Britian declares war on Iraq there will none of this messing around. The forces of Iraq will be hopeless.

The UK forces would get annihilated by Iran if they went it alone. We might be able to successfully invade Iceland for example, but not a major military power halfway around the world. And enough with the SAS already, we don't even know where they are.