English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

As retaliation for keeping hostages and then having the nerve to dangle them in front of the world!

2007-04-02 03:56:34 · 10 answers · asked by Imperial American 1 in News & Events Current Events

10 answers

They are probably trying not to cause WW3

2007-04-02 03:59:27 · answer #1 · answered by shirley e 7 · 2 0

Destroy the infrastructure of Iran, one of the world's biggest oil suppliers (bigger than the producers except Iraq).

It would be all right for Britain, for a while, but the rest of the world would quickly fall into economic depression- an oil shortage tends to do that. So, not only would ordinary Iranians suffer, people (like me) in the rest of the world will suffer too. I'd prefer for the British to take a more measured, level headed approach, like they have so far.

Britain would also have to take responsibility for hundreds or thousands of Iranian civillian deaths, which is a lot in exchange for ten or so British soldiers. There's still such a thing as "excessive use of force". And whether warmongerers like it or not, after the Iraq debacle, the international community frowns on that sort of thing. Support would be hard to come by. Ask GW what happens when international support is hard to come by.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that Britain is taking this thing lying down. She's an old hand at this game. Once the greatest empire that ever existed, she has centuries of experience dealing with problems of this nature.

In a case like this she'll play it by the book and make sure that she can show that she's have taken all reasonable measures and the other side has been consistently unreasonable. That'll be easy in this case because the guy running Iran is crazier than a barrel full of polecats. Once all the reasonable options have been exhausted, then she'll step up the game and if Iran knows they can't play, they better get off the field.

We should be careful of warmongering and wishing for the destruction of a people or country. Its alright to call for war when you sit on the wealthy, happy, free-speech side of the fence, secure that your government can protect you. But in other places, the average ordinary person faces death and starvation once the bombs start falling.

2007-04-02 11:25:14 · answer #2 · answered by lokai1701 2 · 2 0

There are a lot of factors, and I know only some of them.
For one, too many Brits don't want to stand up for their country. (I am US, and the same is true here).
For another, a lot of Iranians are pro-west, notwithstanding the obligatory chants of "death to England" and "death to America." The Iranian people, like the British sailors, have to say what they are told to in public. It would be sad to harm them when they also are, in a sense, prisoners too, and not enemies.
Then too, the British sailors will probably be released without military action.
War with Iran is likely to come at some point anyway, because the global Islamist movement is growing.
Even though I expect a peaceful resolution to this particular crisis, I am seriously troubled by the behaviour of the Iranian government in this matter. Imagine what they will do if they get nuclear weapons.

2007-04-02 11:23:22 · answer #3 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 2 0

The British mentality mate!

We're far more civilised than you lot, we don't yelp and screech and whoop and jump around. (thats why it appears we don't care, when in fact a lot of things are happening behind the scenes - just because we don't hold street demos and cry and burn flags doesn't mean were not doing stuff)
We've recognised our past mistakes when we were the world power.
We don't burn flags and shout nuke em'
We won't kill millions of innocent people in the process.

We'll work this thing through until we get the result we want - the safe release of our soldiers.

HEY PRESTO!!! IT WORKED!!!

Not a single bomb fallen.
- If only Americans could work like that eh?

2007-04-04 15:17:31 · answer #4 · answered by jojo5050 3 · 1 0

I don't think Iran quite understand that a ticked of Brit is not a pretty sight. Normally the British are quite stoic and diplomatic but they can back one hell of a punch.

2007-04-02 11:38:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It seems that there have been enough lessons from Iraq invasion by Bush!
Do you want Blair to be as mad as big brother Bush?
Do you want oil prices reach to 150$ per barrel?
Do you want the Britons send 150000 troops to the region to free 15 sailors and involve in another mire?
Do you want to count the civilian and servicemen death toll daily after the attack as we do nowadays?
Do you want .....?

PS:Underestimating the enemy is not rational.

2007-04-02 11:58:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

because then the whole islamic world will declare war on the west and there will be a battle of religon.

2007-04-02 11:04:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Peace is NEEDED not the War!

2007-04-06 07:47:32 · answer #8 · answered by KISH 2 · 0 0

that would be an act of war.

2007-04-02 23:43:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

they should and us Yanks will have your back on this one, as you had ours in Iraq.

2007-04-02 11:00:45 · answer #10 · answered by Noel B 2 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers