What would Britain do if it found 15 Iranian Marines stopping and searching ships off her coast?

[NNN0LHI]

Not in British waters. Just outside of British waters. Would the Queens Navy take that real well do you think?

Don

[INDIA]

1. Yipee! More Iran apologists! n/t

[LynnTheDem]

9. WOW that brings back memories!!! When I was called an "Iraq apologist".

But of course that was by rightwingnuts.

[gatorboy]

20. The conservatives are all about Iran. They just don't know it.

After all, their demigod Reagan and Co. certainly didn't seem to mind beefing up Iran's arms.

[wtmusic]

10. Yippee! Another kneejerk patriot!

England...friend. Iran....enemy. Iran bad.

[MGD]

13. "England...friend. Iran....enemy. Iran bad."

That pretty much sums it up actually.

[INDIA]

18. You would think that would be obvious, but no. n/t

[wtmusic]

19. When you think in one dimension

everything is obvious.

[LynnTheDem]

21. No bloody kidding.

Just too bad that isn't obvious!

[uppityperson]

2. Nope.

[Nutmegger]

3. Snatch them up,

torture them and claim that they're terrorists.

[rockymountaindem]

4. Britain would probably put all its ships in that area under military escort

until the Iranians gave up and went home. Iran probably couldn't do that in this case though.

[LiberalFighter]

5. You mean like they did in the 1770's off the US coast?

[tabatha]

6. Maybe they will put them in nuclear facilities

and dare Bush to bring it on.

[mmonk]

7. We all know they would confront them.

[Prophet 451]

8. Probably not

Personally, as a Brit, I don't really care who's right on this one. I just want us to get out of this without a war or people dying.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

15. That sounds fine, Tony Blair would probably agree ...

... everyone would be happy to just get those sailors and marines back in one piece, and drop the subject. Maybe even let the Iranians keep the rubber boats.

No sane person really wants to start a war. (Calling into question the sanity of the current U.S. administration)

How far would Blair go for peace? Or the British people? Willing to just write-off the fifteen as a bit of bad luck?

[Prophet 451]

22. Open question

If Blair has any sense, he'll use diplomacy to try and get the 15 back. Hell, even bribe the Iranians (they can keep the dinghy). What worries me is that with Bush hellbent on invading Iran and the "close relationship" between the two, Blair might well have Bush in his ear calling for war.

As for the people, it's divided. Some desperatly want to avoid war at any cost. Others (including myself) are equally desperate to avoid war but ethically torn about abandoning the sailors to their fate. Still others (many of whom post on teh BBC website) are already calling for strikes on Iran, many calling for nuclear force.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. It would depend on whether the waters were Iranian

If, for instance, the British find the French searching ships in French waters that are just outside British waters, we do absolutely nothing.

I don't think anyone is claiming these were international waters; so I'm not sure how your hypothetical case helps.

[liberati]

12. Yep, more than just the British would be upset if Iran were searching ships in international waters

Most any nation that puts ships to sea would be concerned about that.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. Um, so the British have the right to search Iranian ships in the Shatt-Al-Arab?

Are you aware that efforts to territorialize the Shatt
is why the Iran-Iraq war hsappened? Iran and Iraq both
claim territory over the Shatt. They both have territorial
freedom of shipping under the Shatt treaty. Britain is
in the Shatt illegally under color of war crimes (US invasion).
There are no international waters here -- it is joint
Iraqi--Iranian waters. Iran never gave Iraq permission to
breach the Shatt treaty and board Iranian ships. This is
the sort of thing that led to the first Persian Gulf War
(between Iraq and Iran.) You guys defending the British
are nuts.

Yes, the British would, indeed, be torturing the Iranian
POWs who boarded a ship in British territorial waters.

Interesting how nobody's addressed that point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. The Shatt al-Arab is divided down the middle

by the Algiers agreement, which the Iranians accepted (Saddam tried to back out of it, and claim the whole waterway, in the Iraq-Iran war, but he failed).

I don't know why you ask "so the British have the right to search Iranian ships in the Shatt-Al-Arab?", since no-one has claimed that.

The British searched a Japanese ship, that they claimed was in Iraqi waters, and was therefore presumably bound for an Iraqi port.

Britain's presence there is at the request of the Iraqi government, and recognised by the United Nations. Even though the invasion of Iraq was probably illegal, that does not mean the subsequent presence of British or American forces there is.

"There are no international waters here" - yes, that's what I said. The British say they were in Iraqi waters; the Iranians say they were in Iranian waters. That's why the hypothetical starting this thread isn't very useful.

"Iran never gave Iraq permission to breach the Shatt treaty and board Iranian ships." - but it wasn't an Iranian ship.

"Yes, the British would, indeed, be torturing the Iranian POWs who boarded a ship in British territorial waters. "

(a) bollocks, they wouldn't be torturing them.
(b) Irrelevant to the question asked, since it wasn't about British territorial waters. It said "Just outside of British waters".

This whole incident hinges on whose territorial waters the British were in when they stopped the Japanese ship. Both sides claim they know where; but neither side has released any evidence.

What point do you think you addressed in your post?

[Prophet 451]

24. We wouldn't be torturing them

Or, at least, not systemically. Torture is still illegal for our armed forces.

For the record, I have no idea who's right and don't much care right now. I'm more concerned with everyone getting out of this in one piece.

[cali]

25. Are you aware that the British are operating under a U.N. mandate? n/t

[malaise]

16. That simple n/t

[The Straight Story]

23. And what would the reaction be here on DU if they did snatch them? (nt)