If the captured British soldiers were NOT in Iranian waters, doesnt that mean that Iran invaded British turf?

Question

Right? that would mean that IRAN crossed over the line and the British were wussies for not firing and allowing IRAN to cross over and take them in.

Answer 1

Uh, hello?

Since when are IRAQI waters considered BRITISH terrority?

Answer 2

The British were in Iraqi national waters, but the entire area is in dispute. Both Iran and Iraq claim the coastal waterway the British were patroling.

If the British would have tried to fight, we would be at war with Iran. I'm sure their commanders told them to stand down and let the diplomats handle the dispute. Reports say the British were outnumbered and out gunned. That incident is the closest we have come to an all out armed conflict with Iran.

There is so much military hardware in the gulf right now that its only a matter of time before Iran and British or American forces get into a fire fight.

Answer 3

Actually, it would mean the Iranians were in Iraqi waters. It would be up to the Iraqi government to determine a response. The Brits claim they were 1.5 miles within Iraqi waters, the Iranians claim the Brits were .5 km (about 550 yards) in Iranian waters.

Answer 4

Actually it's still not very clear where exactly the Brits were when the Iranians captured them...Everyone part has its side of the story and honestly I don't know which one could we believe...

Answer 5

Brits were in Iraq waters and I can tell you have never been in combat or the military so your the wussie.

Answer 6

One way or the other Iranians now got 15 UK soldiers.
Same number as the UNSC members.
The colonization era is long over.

Answer 7

Queen Elizabeth, now Queen of Iraq, did I miss something??

Answer 8

that's correct, it was an act of war, wonder why the brittishers bring this fact up.

Answer 9

INTERNATIONAL WATERS??????