Should UK have responded more aggressively?

Question

When Israeli solders were captured by Palestine, Israel declared War on Palestine. As they were ready and not afraid of a good fight. Why then does the UK government do nothing when Iran captured their solders? Too chicken for a fight maybe? Or they just don’t think it’s important enough to go to war over a few captured UK solders.

Answer 1

In fact the government did a fair bot more than "nothing" they responded cleverly.

Oh yeah we could have gone in there, in the frigate chased the boats in, hosed the area down and left the gulf full of floating bodies.

That would have won the battle and lost the war.

What the government did was far more sensible.

Of course the question remains why were these guys and girls out there when the helicopter was not above them.

That was the oportunity the Iranians siezed.

R

Answer 2

You "question" is littered with misconceptions.

Point 1. Palestine does not exist as separate entity as of yet, Israel has been at war against terrorists for many years.

Point 2. Until the situation was understood using diplomatic channels in regards to exactly where the British Marines and Royal Navy personnel were apprehended you don't declare war and go charging in with all guns blazing.

Point 3. Great Britain is not in a position to mount an all out attack on a country with the small military she currently posses thanks to the Labor Party cutting the size of the British Military.

Point 4, some times you are required to remain calm, more things can be settled amicably by talk than weapons.

Point 5. The situation was NOT considered to be serious enough for a War to be declared, no British Service people were killed or injured when apprehended by the Iranian Republican Guard.

Point 6, sorry if I spoiled your chance for a rant and flame war against the U.K.!! (NOT)

Answer 3

I love arm chair generals. The comparison between Palestine and Iran is completely bogus. It would be a completely fool hardy decision for the little old UK to declare war on Iran. With the full backing of the US we may possibly win a very long drawn out war, however the cost in life would be substantial.
Iran has a huge number of combatants and in a ground war the number of causalities would be to high to think about.
The current thinking is that a small air campaign against several high value targets may be the Way forward, but to be honest after Iraq and Afghanistan there is no public support for such an action.
In short if Sudan had kidnapped our personnel then possibly the Israeli action would work.

Answer 4

The UK armed forces are really pitifuly equipped. The very rifle is a sick joke, without a doubt the worst military weapon to see service in the last 100 years. There are not enough flak vests to go around, and sometimes they are held together with gaffer tape.They patrol in ordinary Land Rover 4x4s, sitting ducks for bombs. The radios are pretty useless, in the Gulf war the guys often used mobile phones. The Americans call us 'The borrowers' because we are always scrounging. Families have to send the guys soap and underwear, and when you join the army they give you a list of things to buy because the army can't supply them. In the Gulf the boots melted in the heat, even in the Falklands war the boots gave soldiers trench foot, something that had not been seen since the first war. The ammunition supplied for the .50 cal. Browning machine guns had been bought wherever in the world the Govt. could buy it cheapest; it constantly failed to fire or jammed the guns. I know a soldier, a radio op. who had been given a pistol but had to buy his own holster for it! Can you believe that? In the end he bought one meant for a toy gun, because pistols were banned in Britain more than ten years ago and real ones are not available. He had to buy his own boots too. Over the years, the MOD has siphoned off billions of pounds, what have they spent the money on? They must be as rotten as a pear. All the top soldiers are asking desperately for more money to equip their men, for they know the state our armed forces are in. We are incapable of fighting the wars we are already invoved in, the guys do their best but there are not enough of them and the equipment is rubbish. Now you want another war! If you are so brave and spoiling for a fight, why don't you pick up a rifle and go there? As for the Israelis fighting the Palestinians, they have overwhelming firepower courtesy of America, they knew that they were vastly more powerful.

Answer 5

Methinks you are a wind up merchant.
Chicken. Away and boil your head, child. You really haven't got a clue, have you?

Israel declaring war on Palestine is merely an extension of their de facto position against their next door neighbour. It's a lot simpler to go to war with your neighbour than it is to hit a nation thousands of miles away.

The British SAILORS and ROYAL MARINES (not bloody soldiers) were held in Tehran, hundreds of miles inland. By the time a military assault of any type could have got there the captives would probably have been dead, and even if they weren't, there would then be the very difficult job of getting back out of the country.
As for all out war, no, a couple of personnel are not worth going to war for. Lose twelve people, bit of a shame, but not worth starting a war where thousands might die for them, now is it?

Bradley, the UK boat was NOT in Iranian waters. The initial position given by the Iranians for where they apprehended the boat was several hundred yards INSIDE Iraqi waters. It was only after very swift rethinking that they 'reassessed' the information and suddenly their position changes to one inside Iranian waters.
You don't honestly think a UK ship would have transmitted false information on positions to it's boats, do you? Those small boats are constantly in touch with the ship. An accurate position is available to the boat coxswain via a small computer system which shows his position, the ship's position and, if the ship transmits it, the positions of all other shipping around them.
The boat was NOT in Iranian waters.

Answer 6

the u.k would go to war if the soldiers were harmed....you must look at the facts

1. the u.k. boat was in foreign waters.....iranian water...so under the u.n. convention they could contain them for a period of time.

2. the u.k. wants to leave iraq- the uk controlled area is a sh'ia area in southern iraq which is calm due to iranian influence in the area quelling resistance to the uk - when the uk leave this area will look towards iran for governance(iran is sh'ia too) and not bagdad and sunni governement. thus bioth want to speed up the removal of troops. this incident helped speed up british opinion for withdrawal.


3. it is a show of strength by iran to its own media. its is propaganda directed at the iranian media. they are showing that they can 'protect ' their land and seas from foreign aggressores if need be ....look out west

4. it show the west and the wests media that they can protect the straits of humuz- a strategic area that opens up iraq and iran to the west i.e. we can block of oil exports in the region. mess with us and we will mess with your oil


also would you attack a country that has the bomb capability in another 18 months when iraq a country a third the size and a quarter of the iranian population cant be controlled. there was no need for the u.k. to rush in and both sides knew that and the uk gained more backing for leaving while iran looked a power on the world stage ----a win win situation

Answer 7

The sailors captured by the Iranians were on a secret mission. A spying mission. The ship they came from was probably part of the GCHQ set up and gathering electronic intelligence - radio intercepts etc.

We're not talking weather beaten seafarers here, we're talking desk jockeys, telegraphers and such.

When these sailors were taken prisoner by the Iranians, you bet your sweet life everyone was in shock. The Iranians seemed quite unaware of the 'prise' they had captured.

Believe me, by day two in an Iranian dungeon, anyone will be ready to confess anything that's suggested to them.

Thankfully none of this happened.

During all of this the Americans went into action and flew high speed fighter sorties along the Iranian coast. This must have scared the shite out of the Iranians. Whatever, it seems to have worked.

Answer 8

Better to try and negotiate in the short-term, rather than put the lives of thousands at risk. Many solidiers of many nationalities have been held hostage in the Middle East over the years - hasn't led to all their governments immediately launching an invasion. [Not sure Israel has ever needed an excuse to attack Palestinians. They know the US will support whatever they do].

Answer 9

Robert Heinlein's works may suggest going to war over unreturned prisoners is the right thing to do, regardless of the thousands of people who will undoubtedly die... but is it really the right thing to do, considering that hundreds, possibly thousands of people will die?

As of yet, Israel still hasn't got their kidnapped soldiers back yet. But with a little patience and diplomacy, Britain's seized sailors and marines were returned without further incident. No harm done.

Answer 10

it extremely is a hypothetical question through fact for all the sword-damn i do no longer think of Argentina are daft sufficient to have yet another pass on the Falklands. Britain is plenty greater appropriate placed than we've been 30 years in the past, through fact we've already got some 2,000 servicemen at RAF Mount friendly on the islands. those 2,000 would be nicely versed in what to do interior the shape of Argentinian aggression. Depleted through fact the Royal army is it remains 4 situations as good through fact the Argentinian army and has the latest technologies at its disposal. there's a staggering possibility considered one of our subs is already floating suitable to the South Atlantic and ought to respond interior of a remember of days, unleashing sufficient hearth skill to devastate any Argentinian possibility. interior the shape of conflict i might assume the U. S. to sit down down on the sidelines, offering diplomatic help to Britain yet no longer something militarily.