There are reports which say that the British soliders being held captive by Iran have confessed to being in illegal Iranian waters, which probably means Iran was torturing them. If that came out, do yuo think England would attack Iran?
2007-03-24 11:37:02 · 20 answers · asked by FootballFan1012 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
i believe it is very possible...
very, very dangerous situation
2007-03-28 11:23:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We quite simply haven't got the military manpower or budget (despite an addition £70bn over the next coming years) for a war with Iran. We're stretched enough as it is, keeping the peace in Afghanistan (which we do because no other NATO country will), and in Iraq. Plus we like to try diplomacy first before charging in with all guns blazing.
Failing any further developments with the Iranians (its the Ayatollahs' supporters who have control of the hostages NOT the direct government), then I'm sure we would mount some form of military response. Sanctions can only go so far, but I doubt a full conflict will transpose of this.
ETA: we can't do anything without US backing? In the politest way possible, chuff off - we may be lapdogs, but since the Iraq invasion the power of the common people has risen and we wouldn't let it happen, let alone be dragged into a conflict with the US. We do have our own military you know, everyone seems to think that we can't act if we wanted to.
2007-03-24 11:45:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Iran is getting more desperate to start a war. It's up to them, really. They look over to Pakistan with Musharraf getting his own people irked and think the same thing that brought them to power will be the same thing to remove it from them. They want a war, in order to focus the people's attentions away from the government.
I doubt Bush can start a war, it's been winding down about the discovery of Iranian arms in Iraq. And with the new predicament with the British soldiers, I doubt a war will be started if they carry on logically. Though, if they end up trying to kill (or actually doing so) the soldiers in some mock trial, then that may happen.
2007-03-24 11:50:45 · answer #3 · answered by K 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The men were paraded blindfolded and made to apologize on Iranian TV before their release was agreed.
Sir Alan told BBC News that tracking systems then had proven that the servicemen had been in Iraqi waters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6491577.stm
The Iranian government seems to want to provoke a war with the west, and the UK government will be asking for sanctions against Iran this week.
UN set to vote on Iran sanctions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6490607.stm
2007-03-24 11:45:03 · answer #4 · answered by Dina W 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, I don't think that the British will attack Iran in the foreseeable future. Most governments these days commonly write off soldiers rather than be politically or monetarily inconvenienced.
The USA still has not had a full accounting of lost and/or imprisoned soldiers from WWII, cold war, Korean war, or Vietnam war. And probably never will. It is just not politically or monetarily convenient for our countries politicians to push for a full accounting of our soldiers.
Sadly, that is the cold reality.
2007-03-24 11:49:29 · answer #5 · answered by Clown Knows 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I do not agree with you. I do not think Iran would torture British prisoners because most of the worlds armies are in the area of Iran now and for diplomatic reasons and to get world opinion on their side I think Iran would treat the prisoners like guests. Britian made the whole thing happen by invading Iranian territorial waters.
2007-03-24 11:42:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
soldiers die. why cry for them? it is their job to take risks at the expense of their lives. if they were there illegally, then too bad for England. England should be embarrassed that they got caught.
we all have rules, and demand them to be respected, but then the west seems to think that they can go to other countries and do what they want and expect to be let off if caught. like as if the west are the only 'good guys'...
remember, the arabs believe they are the good guys, just like the nazi's did. it is all perspective. so invade a country, expect to be shot! we dont want suicide bombers, they dont want troops invading. invading countries because of terrorism is dumb, as it is a movement that requires nothing but faith to perform. everyone is a potential enemy.
The west wants to be the winners, but that belief swings both ways.
and anyway, Iran would be a very bad mistake. Iraq was divided and under a tyrant, so it was easy to get in there, but Iran isnt like that. it is a very unified country that will be as dangerous as invading North Korea.
2007-03-24 12:04:04 · answer #7 · answered by SAINT G 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, no longer anymore than under Bush and Obama is plenty slicker in terms of international kinfolk. i do no longer think of maximum individuals % war with the exception of a few loopy fans on all facets who're or might desire to be remoted, beginning with Bush as an occasion.
2016-10-20 08:48:57 · answer #8 · answered by mcfee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran has been pushing for it ever sense the terrorist made president. Now even the Iranian government is trying to get him out 18 months early.
2007-03-24 14:20:30 · answer #9 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They did the exact same thing in 2004. They made the sailors go on Iranian TV, blindfolded, and "admit" that they were doing something illegal.
Iran will get whats coming to them within the next 5 years.
2007-03-24 11:40:14 · answer #10 · answered by Curt 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Probably not. I doubt that they were tortured..yet. Unless you see it with your own eyes, they did not confess to anything. It is propaganda. I don't believe that the UK would support a war with Iran and our Congress would never allow it to happen.
2007-03-24 11:40:37 · answer #11 · answered by EB 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋