My guess is that it could be hard to determine what really happened. They were on some kind surveillance mission afaik, and the both sides say different things. The UK military will say they were on international waters and Iran will say they were on their waters. Not sure how far those things they use for surveillance reach either.
But history will tell us that imposing sanctions on Iran will affect its people more than whatever government you might hope to affect. The U.N. sanctions on Iraq had horrific consequences on the poor and especially children.
I think you should also understand slasher that for the most part, Europeans to my knowledge did not wish a war against Iraq, and especially not against Iran who could have nukes in the first place (at least they have not pretended otherwise up to this point), and causing another war is defintely something you want to avoid. I cant speak for everyone of course, but I think that when it comes to sanctions and such measures which will cause the deaths of thousands realistically one should tread carefully.

Btw, moved it to off topic at your request :p

Iraqi waters not international waters. Big difference there mate :o

I've heard them say both Iraq and international waters on tv tho :)

Your TV might be broken then :o

it wasnt their place to do anything

not my trouble

Slasher: stop learning diplomacy from tabloids

yeah, instead they should have suggested military actions like the U.S. ..

They should have dug up Winston Churchill. He wouldn't have stood for it for a second.

And did what, bomb more people?

I think the situation was handled perfectly. We didn't admit any mistake, we held off being heavy handed and Iran knew they had a certain window of time to use those people for media.

Who cares what those people think anyway as they all hate us anyway.

They're all nuts, storming British Embassy the second they hear something they don't like.
They believe whatever they are told and they're too stupid to entertain the reality.

Having read this post and your other post below: Do you even know where Iran is?
People all around the world believe what they're told. I've seen people on the streets of Teheran being interviewed by media and most said the sailors should be released.
[Ahmadinejad was forced to release them. He doesn't have much backing anymore.]

And yeah many hate "you", but do you know why?
Don't you think you'd do the same when some country helped a dictator come to power after you've just elected your first president. And for what? Oil.

Firstly, it was blindingly obvious they were forced to say what they did and airing it on TV was pretty damn low.

Yes, showing them on TV is pretty low. Hello? Abu-Ghuraib? Saddam Hussein?
This was a quite good read for the most part: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2047128,00.html

Secondly they were blind folded, taken to a room lined up against a wall, where soldiers cocked their guns.

So what? How many are being tortured every day in Guantanamo? And why? How many are actually guilty of committing a crime? You know Kurnaz?

Thirdly they were not even in Iranian waters.

"They believe whatever they are told..."
You know how the sentence ends.

They believe whatever they are told and they're too stupid to entertain the reality.

Same goes for the UK/US public. No difference.

great in-depth analysis right there.

nice prediction whine

The rest of EU = Paddle
UK = Boat
Iraq war = Shit creek

Up shit creek without a paddle isn't very nice.

Now the rest of the EU wanted no part in this ridiculous war. If there was no war, this wouldn't of happened. It's rather simple.

And with two sides saying completely different things, with no hard evidence of who is right or wrong. And with no solid border in which the argument is about. It's a rather pointless discussion.

regardless of what led to the situation it was way out of line for iran to kidnap 15 sailors in iraqi waters.

what if it was irani water? Trespassing and a possible invasion?

1. They weren't in Iranian waters. The only people to say they were was Iran and even the first set of gps coordinates they released put the brits in Iraqi waters.

2. Even if they were in iranian waters, the best solution would be for iran to ask the sailors to turn around and to stay out of Iranian waters. Just like somebody would do if they saw somebody wandering around their front yard and didn't want them there. If that was the situation it probably would have ended like that. Iran was obviously looking for an opportunity like this to exploit for their own good. The whole media circus makes it even more obvious that this is the case.

"1. They weren't in Iranian waters. The only people to say they were was Iran and even the first set of gps coordinates they released put the brits in Iraqi waters."

erm, why do you believe this? i wouldnt trust some gps coordinates that could be faked in minutes... i think the british version is nearer to the truth, but its almost for sure not the whole truth + there is no way of finding out.

I was just trying to imagine 15 Iranian soldiers riding in a oat inside u.s. waters.
Surely the navy would just politely ask them to turn around. right.

Not saying it happened in Iranian waters but the proposal is just bullshit.

countries don't start wars (economic or physical) for a few hostages, come back on earth pls

tell that to israel.

ok, I mean experienced countries, not newborn noob ones

israel doesnt exist wtf

I decided not to get a shawarma during the hostage crisis. The Iranians will surely feel the effect of that!

The sheep are grateful

The EU demanded their immediate release - Britian didn't threaten much more. We've no idea what went on behind closed doors.

Though had their demands been any tougher and you're risking needlessly escalating the situation - when this was clearly not the time for senseless rhetoric.

Not sure if you noticed though but all 15 got released unharmed, with neither nation having to lose face over their release.

btw how can a yank comment on any hostage taking whilst guantanamo is thriving.

"Land of kidnap, torture, murder, terror"

Ah sorry you're right, not on uncle sams soil.

You've illegally occupied Cuba for that.

Why is that again?

spanish-american war ('illegally occupied HAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHA im done.

)

thanks :)

:)

Did you read the article in guardian's "comment is free"? :D

So you are saying, you have articles in serious newspapers about the EU not wanting to start a war about a hostage situation that finally ended up beeing resolved peacefully with diplomatic means ? That's what I would call propaganda :)

Looks familiar to that incident when the Chinese downed that US reconnaissance plane. Why believe one or the other?

oO

well, as a european, i say fuck off. because uk, as italy, spain and a few more idiots, went to iraq AGAINST the european common sense and against UN. if someone is arrested, kidnapped or killed over there, i don't give a fuck (not because they are english, but also for italians etc). we don't know if they were in international, iraq or for real in iran waters (i don't trust propaganda), so i can't judge. but i don't care about mercenaries. it's a uk problem, not an european one. europe didn't go to iraq. uk did.

since they got back the sailors have said they were blind folded and they could hear guns being kocked behind their heads etc

2 of the sailors were from my home town (Swansea) so we get to hear stuff outside of the papers.
Firstly, it was blindingly obvious they were forced to say what they did and airing it on TV was pretty damn low.

Secondly they were blind folded, taken to a room lined up against a wall, where soldiers cocked their guns.

Thirdly they were not even in Iranian waters.

The same thing happened a few years ago and those two were subjected to the same treatment-that's how they do things over there in between beating their wives and sleeping with camels.

The UK handled it well. We did not admit we were in the wrong waters like they wanted us too and I'm pretty sure they'll get what's coming to them soon enough. Probably some form of sanction.

The rest of Europe does not really want to get involved.
Russia just wants to appear neutral when all they really want is a fraction of the influence they had over the world 60 years ago and realise they won't get that while America is in its current position.

The whole thing is a bundle of contradictions anyway.

All's fair in love an war I say. Iran milked this situation for as long as they felt they could get away with it for before we said enough is enough and took the heavy handed approach because IF they were in Iraqi waters, then they had no right to do what they did in the first place.

btw

US soldiers dead by the thousands in Iraq. Where is the US? OH WAIT

THEY ARE IN IRAQ OBVIOUSLY

IVE HEARD OF SUCH THINGS

sanctions ha! oil cartel will backfire in your ass.

big fuckin glass crater i tell ya!

uhm, why do you ask lol

slasher doing his bit to recruit for GGL new sponsor? :P

i think we should of just bombed iran

Fuck yeah let's start another war - if we can gets the yanks involved and drag it out perhaps we can finally bankrupt them so they'll retreat within their own borders and shut the fuck up.

Most probably. Not many people know millitary potential of iran. Most think its just another iraq, but its not so simple. Aside from old ex-us equipment (I mean they still got even some F14 running), their local copies, self modified versions of chineese modified copies of russian stuff :P recently they were buying a lot of toys from russia (including Tor-M antiair system and so on). Basicaly since russia renounced silent agreement with usa about not selling weapons to iran, they went shopping spree :P
So if there would be a war against iran, it would be a full scale one. USA would need to deploy all forces they got, and it would be nearly impossible to do while situation in iraq and afghanistan still look so bad. I also dont belive they would get any support from other countries. Nobody would be stupid enough to do so :P

Agreed.
The US couldn't never, ever occupy and fully control Iran.
They can't even control Baghdad for crying out loud.

An attack on Iran would be exactly that: an attack.
The 'coallition' would use their superior air power, maybe hurl a mini-nuke or five in there. But they'll never succeed in an invasion, which they'll, in my mind, won't even attempt, other than in some very few strategical places, probably.

we support your war of terror! :P

But honestly I was in uk when all of that happened, and I simply couldnt belive all that biassed crap in papers, and tv I saw there. It was better than communistic propaganda from years ago.

They had no place being there in the first place. (Iraq)