Should We Take Military Action Against Iran If our Soldiers Are Harmed

[Larry]

Obviously right now diplomacy is the only weapeon we have and we can only hope that international pressure from the U.N will put enough pressure on Iran to release our soldiers.

But the fact is Iran, have not only humiliated us but shown up to be week,Tony Blair needs to get tough with Iran, and tell them in no uncertain terms that if any harm comes to our soldiers we will not hesitate to take military action. But should the worst happen and Iran dared to kill any of 15 hostages then the R.A.F should should be given orders to flatten Tehran.

One thing is for sure when all this is over our softly softly give in with out a fight attitude should end and our sailors/soldiers when on patrol in the Gulf should be told if Iran do this again then they are not to surrender instead they are to fight their way out and call for back up.

[Alex]

No. Christ No. We've ****ed around with the Middle East so much, bombing another country would be disastrous for the political situation there.

[Captain Tancredi]

We've spent so much time trying to persuade the Iranians that diplomatic channels are the proper way to deal with the nuclear issue that it would be hypocritical of us to attack Iran directly over this one incident. If we stick to diplomatic channels, we have UN support. The reason why the Iranians haven't released our troops yet is that they need to save face and appear to be in control of the situation, so we have to engineer a situation which allows them to release the prisoners without being seen to give in to Western pressure.

Having said that, if our troops do come to any harm then there are courses such as precision strikes which we can use, aimed against military facilities. Removing Iran's capability to operate as a naval power would be a start.

[stephenhannan]

Jaw Jaw not war war

[WhiteCrow]

It's so frustrating. You get the feeling British navy were targeted not Americans because they knew with the Americans it'd be world war again now.

And it's shocking to see these people paraded around on the TV apologising for crimes against Iran. Amazing what results 15 days of torture will do to someone isn't it?

It's very reminiscent of the way Saddam Hussain paraded people on television in the Gulf War Part One.

[Raston]

We should move the fleet to the coast of Iran, and fly out more RAF aircaraft to the area, then give iran a deadline to release the hostages, and if they don't we should flatten their nuclear sites-with a warning of further strikes against army and political targets if they don't hand them over unharmed right away. Iran does not understand diplomacy, they have already broken international law over the treatment of our subjects, we must fufil our obligation to defend our citizens. And most importantly of all, we should do it without any US help, its about time the world realised that other countries wont be pushed around by these illegal and evil regimes.

[Rob McCow]

If we do attack, it may unite the Middle East and the Muslim countries against us.

[Anthony Williams]

the main question (certainly to my mind, anyway) is what the hell does Iran think they were doing capturing British troops anyway? Are they trying to start a war, given the very fine line that the country has been walking on re: their nuclear policy? There seems to be a very delicate balance there, and if this incident escalates, it could push the UK and the US into war with Iran.

Ant x

[Si Hunt]

Loving all this talk of simply "flattening Tehran". What is it, four soldiers and a small machine gun nest?

Si.

[Larry]

well it seems the Americans have ruled out a prisoner exchange - but what I can't understand is why our soldiers allowed themselves to be taken prisoner or did not call for back up.

[WhiteCrow]

We should move the fleet to the coast of Iran, and fly out more RAF aircaraft to the area, then give iran a deadline to release the hostages, and if they don't we should flatten their nuclear sites-with a warning of further strikes against army and political targets if they don't hand them over unharmed right away. Iran does not understand diplomacy, they have already broken international law over the treatment of our subjects, we must fufil our obligation to defend our citizens. And most importantly of all, we should do it without any US help, its about time the world realised that other countries wont be pushed around by these illegal and evil regimes.

Because of course this tactic has worked so well in Iraq ...

[Raston]

Because of course this tactic has worked so well in Iraq ...

'Civis Romanus Sum' as the Romans used to say, and they would be free to go without provication because their state would protect them-it should be the same for British citizens around the world today-it even says as much in your passport.

[WhiteCrow]

'Civis Romanus Sum' as the Romans used to say, and they would be free to go without provication because their state would protect them-it should be the same for British citizens around the world today-it even says as much in your passport.

These days it's "you can't do this to me, I'm an American". Saw someone try and fail to get out of a fine for not having a ticket on a train. Yeah like the US Embasy is going to get involved over something like that.

[Ralph]

Now that it appears that these soldiers seem to be getting up to 6 figure sums for selling their stories to the media, I think it's completely out of order particularly when so many soldiers have died in the IRAQ conflict. I reckon it's a bad move if British military personnel are to have a professional standing in the world.

How much did it cost the British tax payer in the negotiations to get them released? 10% going to a benevolent fund doesn't sort it either.

[WhiteCrow]

Now that it appears that these soldiers seem to be getting up to 6 figure sums for selling their stories to the media, I think it's completely out of order particularly when so many soldiers have died in the IRAQ conflict. I reckon it's a bad move if British military personnel are to have a professional standing in the world.

How much did it cost the British tax payer in the negotiations to get them released? 10% going to a benevolent fund doesn't sort it either.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who was a bit apalled by this development. Annoys me to read about them using this as a kind of cash cow.

[WhiteCrow]

I was thinking today - how long before they apply for huge compensation do you think? It's the way of the world that if they were killed we pay out about 50,000 in benefits to the family, if we get them back we pay about about 1,000,000 each because their training didn't cover the stress they endured. Ironic.

[Si Hunt]

Am I the only one who doesn't see what either the cost of negotiations to free them or the soliders that died in Iraq has to do with a newspaper interview?! Those things would have happened anyway. I agree it's a bit tacky, but after all they went through I don't begrudge them a few quid for their story as compensation.

Si.

[Dirk Gently]

I agree with you Si, I'd rather the newspapers paid them rather than the tax payer.

[Si Hunt]

And let's not forget, of course, that they wouldn't be able to sell the story if the British Public didn't buy the papers. I bet there are loads of people complaining that they're making money out of it, then going out and buying the papers just to see what they have to say.

Si.

[Dirk Gently]

Quite. I for one won't be one of them.

[Ralph]

Just for the record I won't be buying the rags the story's printed on and "tacky" is the word.

A sad development - the best people probably to answer whether it's right or wrong are those who have lost loved ones in the conflict.

[Si Hunt]

Don't want to be prevocative, but why?? What's the connection? Why should the family of people killed in Iraq dictate if the victims of a border dispute with Iran are allowed to talk to newspapers? I just don't get it.

Si.

[Ralph]

The people specifically concerned are British military personnel thats the connection. (This being paid for capture also sends out the wrong message to those in the forces.)

The UK government can choose whether or not contact can be made by these personnel with the Press and selling the stories so it's tacky on the part of Blair to use them for propaganda in this way, but then no surprise there!

Anyway Si, I'll agree to differ as I hate protracted debates - There's plenty of the UK public that see my point without having to labour it and you did agree it's tacky

[Si Hunt]

I agree it's tacky but I don't really see that it's a big deal. It's also a bit unfair to accuse Tony Blair of "using them for propaganda" - it's not like he arranged the interviews or anything.

Si.

[Ralph]

I guess thats a bit unfair yes...Tony Blair would never choose to manipulate events in such a way