Was the release of 15 Brits considered a success?

Question

Once again the chickenhawks rear their ugly heads-Hannity-Limbaugh etc. all say the Brits were weak blah blah---ya know they could have went over and freed them by force LOL LOL-they don't understand how precious these kids were to their loved ones-most neo-con chickenhawks have never been in the military let alone closley related to anyone in the miltary.Those kids are home now bottom line.

Answer 1

Saving lives is always a success but politicaly speaking, yes and no however, it was a disaster for Bush. Here's what happened step by step:

1- Iran decided to and announced it would release the female captive to show good faith and then Blair started talking tough so Iran cancelled the promise and sent a letter to UK.

2- The letter PROBABLY contained demands about future recognition of its borders; Blair shutting up right away or else; The release of the Iranian embassy official that was kidnapped in Iraq a few weeks ago; and God knows what else.

3- Needless to say Blair softened up right away and started chanting the "no ill will towards Iran" speech.

4- Iran also accomplished another goal by showing the world the captives on TV which was a big blow to the US. Iran gets to gloat and advertise its treatment of them compared to Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay.

5- Iran also seized the chance to advertise its mercy to the world by releasing the captives even though this was the SECOND time the Brits had violated its borders (last time in 2004 and they were promptly released after UK apologized).

6- Iran proved that neither UK nor US could do anything about it.

7- The Iranian embassy official who was kidnapped in Iraq was miraculously and magically released just BEFORE Iran announced the release of the UK sailors.

No matter how you look at it Iran came out ahead and UK submitted but it wasn't a disaster for it like it was for Bush.

---UPDATE for "Eric K" below ------

Regarding the Brits in the Iranian waters or Iraqis,

If the Iranian vessels had in fact entered the Iraqi waters the U.S. would have most certainly done something right away and then reported it in the media ASAP as "another act of aggression" by Iran specially at the time of these crisis when the U.S. is trying to rally support against Iran.

This is not the first time this has happened. The same exact thing happened before in 2004, UK apologized and the soldiers were released promptly.

US did the same thing in 1988. USS Vincennes during a panic after seeing something on their radar shot down IRANAIR Flight 655 killing all 290 people aboard and despite Iran’s countless protests blatantly lied about their position and falsified radar charts to show they were outside of Iranian waters. The truth came out during the next U.S. presidential elections revealing USS Vincennes's true position during the attack which was 7 miles inside Iranian waters.

Regarding USS Nimitz moving towards the region,

The deployment of a U.S. Aircraft Carrier usually gets any country to back down. USS Nimitz is the second one to go the Persian Gulf and U.S. had one of its biggest military exercises ever just a week ago in that region. Guess what? Iran didn't even blink. They are determined and know what they want and are willing to stand their ground at any cost which explains their suicide training camps with approximately 200,000 trained troops willing to die at any time as part of the elite armed forces.

Regarding our soldiers being attacked,

We are only attacked in countries we have attacked and occupied mostly for oil and once we leave, our attackers will be named "freedom fighters" by those countries. Also, which weapons they're using and from what countries doesn't really make a difference since they can all be bought in the black market. I'm sure if they use Uzis you wont blame Israel for it.

Answer 2

I don't think anyone is analyzing this correctly at all.

The Left starts with the result, and declares it a victory, without considering the actual reasons for the release.

The Right stops at what the British "should have done", and ignore what WAS done, the result, and ignore the possibility that there might be a reason for the release.

I know this much. They weren't released because of British Diplomatic efforts, because those had barely begun. They weren't released because they feared force, because no one with the power to do so had given them any warnings.

I don't know what's really behind the release, but the difference between me and most people is that I know there's a reason I can't see yet.

I've ruled out the possibility that it was because the Iranians are just super human beings.

Answer 3

It is pretty hard to say, and it might be a wash.

Certainly, the British govt. never admitted that their soldiers were in Iranian waters, and the evidence supports that fact; The British soldiers are always monitored via gps, and at least one Iraqi fisherman who saw the abduction say they were in Iraqi waters.

Getting them home was, however, successful. How the Iranians came to the conclusion that they would release them is still under debate. Reports of vicious infighting in the Iranian govt. about holding them and putting them on trial shows that it was not an easy decision for them to make, despite Mahmoud Ahmadinajad's "gift baskets" given to the prisoners who were supposedly sent home as an "Easter present" to the British people. Does anyone seriously believe that?
Reports are that much of the reason that the abductees were released was a) The British govt was not backing down b) The international community was not reacting as planned in usually siding with dictatorships and c) The US was sending the USS Nimitz to the region, resulting in a huge amount of firepower right on Iran's doorstep.
However, at least one Iranian was released to the Iranian govt, although who was holding him is under debate.

What your question seems to imply is that all US and British soldiers are fair game for abduction for simply being in the region. This is patently false. Also consider that it is Iranian supported personell who are killing our soldiers every day using Iranian weapons. Recently, Iranian soldiers were pursued in Iraq and this led to an attack on US/Iraqi forces that led to the capture of 4 iraqis who have not been returned.
Without a doubt, Iran wants Iraq. They are proving that via their actions in the region.

Your use of the name "Chickenhawk" defines you as a Left wing passifist. In America you have the right to be one. Simply realize that if American/Brit/Iraqi forces are attacked by a Mullahcracy bent on the destruction of Israel and America, they should be dealt with with more than words and hugs.

Answer 4

It's always easier to blow up bridges than build them. I am impressed by the Brits on this one, they didn't waver but they didn't lose their heads either. No blood was shed and everyone got to save face. The best part was having Bush say that Syria is a terrorist sponsoring state and there is no point in talking with them, they only understand force, the day before the sailors and marines were released. Way to go Beorge Gush you Fame Luck.

Answer 5

The way we dealt with it is much better than the Americans would have.

They would have gone in with alll guns blazing, and the hostages would probably have been executed..

I'm just waiting for the press conference that is being held in 2 hours to see what the hostages themselves have to say

Answer 6

They live................. But Iran is the big winner in the end. Next time, they will push harder and since the world seems to have lost it's back bone, nothing will happen next time either--except maybe more sanctions

Answer 7

Hello !
It is always a success when the outcome is peaceful and people are given the freedom back, to go home.

Guess we need to see more of that in our lifetime...

Answer 8

Absolutely. It was a diplomatic success.
Very unlike the "success" in Iraq.

Answer 9

Using force is U.S. and Irael philosophy personified. It keeps countries at war indefinately.