Is this amazing or what? Iran commits an act of war against coalition forces and not a peep!

[DuaneBidoux]

From Bush absolute quiet. Why could that be?

I can't believe how quite the MSM is. There have been many wars started over such an act in the past. What's the deal?

Let's hear theories.

[bluerum]

1. They were in Iranian waters? eom

[jellybeancurse]

5. According to the BBC

the British are adamant that the sailors were in Iraqi territorial waters, captured, and then taken into Iran. Frankly, I'm more inclined to trust the British than the Iranians, because they have been so forth coming in the past. :sarcasm:

[soothsayer]

2. they were prolly planning to kidnap the iranian prez in NYC, but

he canceled (or were gonna' start bombing while he was out of the country, stranding him)

[youngdem]

3. They are occupied with covering for Cheney's bribe crimes in the US atty issue, for starters

And secondly, they KNOW they can't start military action over British captives because the British aren't coming along to Iran, so if Bush started publicly flogging Iran over the soldiers, Blair et al would come on TV downplaying the incident, embarrassing Bush, because the Brits don't want to be drafted into the next Bush War debacle.

Iran was very savvy in taking British troops and not American troops for this purpose. It exposes the deep divisions in the 'coalition' and expose us as very, very alone in our quest to attack another country without provocation.

Third, there is probably a little defiance here. BUSH starts wars, NOT the enemy. Bush probably feels a little offended that someone would try to out-asshole him, and refuses to play war with someone who won't follow his rules. He seems petulant enough for such stupidity, doesn't he?

Lastly, perhaps with the Iraq funding resolution supporting withdrawal has given them pause, perhaps now realizing that any sabre rattling done by Bush won't be endorsed with muscle by the Congress, further neutering and embarrassing the Pres.

[liberal N proud]

4. It is not time yet for the attack!

He fights his wars on his terms on his time table.
:sarcasm:

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Act of war?

Uh - no. The siezed vessel and crew were not on the high seas, they were in Iranian territorial waters. At worst there is a minor dispute here about who was where. Unless of course both sides would like to go to war over this, in which case they can pretend that this is an act of war and proceed accordingly.

A similar incident in 2004 went exactly nowhere and was peacefully resolved. That is the most likely scenario here, although Bush needs a distraction so he could always choose to roll the dice.

[windbreeze]

7. Maybe the Iranians are not as dumb as we are?

One of the biggest mistakes we made going into Iraq, was in not taking the time to understand the mindset of the country and what made it tick...The Iranians appear to be every bit as savvy and maybe twice as smart as *...whatever the real story behind them grabbing the Brits...I see it as a warning, that we aren't going to stand down, and let you run over us...you poke and jab....we poke and jab back...tit for tat....and that...should give us something to think about....
wb

[donsu]

8. they did not commit an act of war

nt

[gulliver]

9. No peep isn't comforting to me.

[Flabbergasted]

10. Did I miss something. Link?

[uppityperson]

11. Sailors admitted incursion - Iran

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6491577.stm
Royal Navy personnel seized at gunpoint by Iran in the Gulf have admitted being in the country's waters, an Iranian general has claimed.

Gen Ali Reza Afshar told Iranian media the 15 personnel were being interrogated, but were in good health....(more@ link)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6491581.stm

'To fight would not be clever'
HMS Cornwall
Former Royal Navy chief Admiral Sir Alan West explains the issues surrounding the seizure of 15 Royal Navy personnel from HMS Cornwall in the Gulf by Iran.

Sir Alan was first sea lord in 2004, when Iran detained eight British servicemen after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border.

How do the current events differ from 2004?

This seems to be something that has been orchestrated from Tehran. I think the incident in 2004, one can't be sure of it, but I think that was something that started locally and then Tehran became involved.

Why suddenly should an operation we do every day be aggressive and suspicious? It's absolute nonsense. ...(more)