If Iran had captured US sailors, would the US have gone to war?

Answer 1

That would be a fight on the Hill, in the current environment, like we haven't seen yet with this Congress. We have had armed services personnel captured by hostile regimes in the past, without going to war. We need balance and strategic thought to guide such decsions, not arrogance and a lusty need to battle for pride!

Answer 2

If the Decider wanted an excuse to use our military as his own personal Palace Guard, he might well have attacked Iran if US personnel had been captured.

When Lyndon Johnson wanted an excuse for his "surge," he used the alleged attack by Vietnamese gunboats on an American ship as his excuse. Never mind the fact that it did not happen. So if King George wants to attack Iran he should be able to invent some justification. After all, when Hitler's Wehrmacht invaded Poland, the German people were told that this was a response to a Polish invasion.

Answer 3

I doubt it. It takes more than a couple of soldiers for a country to go to war. Chances are, the same thing would have happened. Iran was just showing the world it's capabilities and seeing how far the world would let them go before turning the soldiers back over.

Answer 4

Iran wouldn't have captured US sailors for two reasons:

1. They are cowards when confronted head on.

2. Our sailors wouldn't have had to worry about whether their support ship would fire first.

The Iranians are only going to pick public conflicts where they have a reasonable chance of looking good in the public eye. There isn't a chance of that with a US-Iran conflict.

Answer 5

No Iran just wanted the Iranians entry level diplomats released from U.S. forces and the day before Iran announced that they were going to release the British some were let go from Iraq.

Answer 6

first off the Marines would have fired back as would have the Navy, and if captured would have held their mud longer than a few days! We'd of torn Iran a new bung hole which is what we need to do to all those terrorist countries in the form of tactical nukes, they decalred a Jihad in the name of their child molesting prophit right, well lets catrate them the hard way

Answer 7

i do no longer think of they'd desire to flow to conflict for this, there are greater greater effective thank you to try this, merely look on the Lebanese and Israeli history,properly to place it greater effective, look on the hezbollah and Israeli history, each and every time hezbollah kidnaps somebody from Israel they slaughter one yet another, Israel destroys Lebanese infrastructure Failing to rescue their squaddies, costing the two factors assorted materials & in actuality assorted souls, at a similar time as the captives are suffering the least, and interior the top the warriors are freed in diplomatic procedures and by way of civilized communications, interior the case of hezbollah and Israel it is frequently Germany that handles it, & i think this may be resolved in civil count, conflict would desire to be stopped, mankind hasn't considered peace for an prolonged time...

Answer 8

I'm sure Bush would have wanted to and probably done everything in his power to.. hopefully our congress would have kept him in check.

He was disappointed that no British sailors were actually tortured or killed so he could have an excuse to start something. He is a little man with little thoughts.

Answer 9

Nope. GW already dealt with a similar incident when China forced the P-3 down shortly after he was elected the first time. That was successfully resolved diplomatically.

Answer 10

First of all they would not have even tried, they already know we are looking reason to take them out. Them trying to capture our men would have been like committing suicide.