how do americans think the way Britain , especially PM Blair ,handled the whole Iranian situation and get the 15 sailors back from Iran ?
2007-04-04 10:35:55 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
A fine job, release of the prisoners without warfare, couldn't have been done better, wtg Tony. .
2007-04-04 10:40:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Charity is right...we are working out the details...i have seen several questions on this thing and I have heard the following:
British sailors and marines were captured
A woman was among them
The British "kowtowed" to Iran
Tony Blair somehow negotiated a release
The woman was supposed to leave first.
The British were not in Iranian waters but Iraqi.
The British staged the kidnapping.
Honestly, I am trying to get good information. I have been working late, about 14 hour days, and I have not been watching the news so I didn't know they had been released.
I have heard so much and people are so angry with the sailors/marines and Tony Blair that I suspect he gave in without too much of a fight.
But all of the British involved were probably just trying to prevent war with Iran in the most delicate way possible and prevent the people from being killed, so ease up a bit.
Please remember that you have not negotiated getting hostages out alive, been a hostage, and tried to prevent another war (I have been to England several times and from what I can see the population is not happy about their presence in Iraq one bit).
If they are free, thank God.
And don't worry. The west will be dealing with Iran soon enough. They keep pushing and soon they will be pushed back.
2007-04-04 11:05:22 · answer #2 · answered by soulflower 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What exactly is your question?
Obviously most Americans are very pleased that the sailors were released, especially since it was done without bloodshed. It is to be hoped that Britain did not bend over and kiss Iran's posterior region to get it done.
Would the US have handled it the same way? Or gotten the sailors released as quickly? Probably not in both cases.
2007-04-04 11:01:34 · answer #3 · answered by John B 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i'm hoping they're fightin' words, and that i'm hoping Iran receives its collective butt kicked for it. I also choose you and others like you ought to get off of the drained previous "it really is all about oil!" schtick....it really is extremely starting up to placed on skinny. What Iran did became precisely what Bush suggested - inexcuseable, and the sailors and marines are merely that - hostages. If everybody will initiate taking action antagonistic to Iran, it will be Britain. And at the same time as they do, i'm hoping they ask us to assist because the camel jockeys in that particular pissant little u . s . have had some strong previous-shaped American PAYBACK coming on the grounds that 1977!
2016-12-03 07:07:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A mere few days... PM Blair made the necessary FIRM statement... ignored any claims that the Hostages had been in Iranian waters...
I personally think that the Iranian President looks weak... Take Hostages, violate international standards by televising them, then turn them loose...
2007-04-04 13:38:12 · answer #5 · answered by mariner31 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think PM Blair and the British people did a wonderful job, but I especially want to commend the soldiers themselves for their bravery. I can't imagine being in that situation and they appeared to hold themselves together extremely well.
I think the one thing we must be cautious of is President Ahmadinajad (sp?) - he is an evil man and wanted to flex his tiny muscle for a reason. He just doesn't have the guts to go all-out psycho...yet.
2007-04-04 10:45:57 · answer #6 · answered by higherlovetx 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
As a Brit I see that most Yanks love Blair and he can do no wrong. Shame you did not ask the same of the Brits.
2007-04-04 19:12:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the first answer!
The goals, of course, are to get the soldiers back, and to maintain national reputation and a credible deterrent to aggression - to prevent future incidents.
The first goal has been accomplished. I hope the second was also.
2007-04-04 11:01:25 · answer #8 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Blair cut a deal with the Devil
2007-04-05 02:49:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It shows that not every incident has to turn into a lethal escalation. I also think it's interesting that there are suddenly more stories about how the borders are in dispute.
2007-04-04 10:46:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Whatever he did obviously worked.
I dont think he did anything really. I think Iran got some sh-t in their neck when faced with the reality that G.W.Bush isnt exactly Jimmy Carter foreign policy wise.
Thats just me though....
2007-04-04 10:46:44 · answer #11 · answered by h h 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋