Can someone explain why we haven't bombed Iran to an inch of its life ???

Lets start by giving them an ultimatum
You release the hostages on such and such a date or we start cutting your water and electricity supplies off
I'm a supporter of Tony Blair but on this issue he has fallen well short of the task
I cannot watch the news without feeling humiliated to be British

 

Simple

The 15 'hostages' just confess to being in their waters, tug their forelocks and say sorry. They come home and then we send Al-Jazeera a tape of them all partying back home, saying it didn't count 'cos they had their fingers crossed and flicking the V's at the towelheads. It's the way forward for ALL diplomacy.</p>

 

because we arent americans nt

 

Spot on

And then they admit that they were in their waters, and all of them did a wee in it.

 

we don't have the capability to take them or defend against their retaliation

also don't have the public backing or finances to get involved in another conflict

frustrating tho innit? they take the piss and we can do **** all

 

Or a floater. nt

 

And smegged the curtains in the press room. nt

 

Even the lady sailor? nt

 

Oh yes indeed.

Snail trail-tastic.

 

Interesting...

I would think Islamic fundamentalists might have something to say about lady sailors wiping their bits on the curtains - I'm not sure they'd approve...

Saying that, I would think they'd have something to say about the whole "In the Navy" thing, to be honest...

 

Like it or not we aren't a major power any more, we are already involved in Afghanistan and Iraq, can we really stretch ourselves to get embroiled in another conflict?

Secondly these are disputed waters, apparently there is no official border registered with the UN and other authorities, so it is entirely likely that both the British and Iranians are correct in their assertion that they were in the right, i.e. we are using the Iraqi interpretation of the border whilst the Iranians are using theirs.

Unlike the US, we still have diplomatic relations with Iran and want to minimise any damage to that so are seeking a diplomatic solution.

 

RE: Interesting...

Well she's upset them by being in a blokes job, so she may as well do the job properly.

 

Don't be daft. Of course we have the economic influence to crush Iran if we really had to! If we backed our economic partners into a corner they would have to side with Great Britain to act in their own economic national interest. However taking such action would win us no friends internationally. Allies and trading partners don't like being backed into corners. Therefore the governement have decided that the greater interest does not lie with taking such action at this stage.

On the military side of things of course we could do great damage to Iran in spite of military resources already being stretched. But again an assessment must be made as to whether this is neccessary and what would be the gains and losses of taking such action. It is likely we would lose international support and allies as it would be seen as disproportionate action. For anyone to suggest we don't have the capability is nonsense, British miltatry muscle could reduce the entire nation to ashes within hours. But non of us want that. All we want is to see our personell released.

It appears to me the governement is handling this wholly correctly dispite the flagrant breach of international law by Iran. I hope this incident will result in greater communication between Iran and Great Britain in future. That could be a positive outcome of the whole incident. We need to become much closer to Iran.

 

RELEASE OR WE NUKE? nt

 

That's a reason why we can't do owt. Spend billions a year on

a 'nuclear deterrent' whichis just something that we would never dare use.

 

Too early for another war. It's not general election time yet.

 

Not heard of "proportional response" then nt

 

If we wiped the middle east off the map it would result in melt down for western economies due to reliance on the natural assets of the region. Therefore its not an option on the table.

 

Sorry, misread your post - thought you were proposing the "nuke" option nt

 

RE: Sorry, misread your post - thought you were proposing the "nuke" option nt

No the only value of the nuclear fleet is ward off threats from other countries.

However what would happen if a country like I an aquired the bomb. The may have a leader who believes the country should be willing to die for the cause just like the suicide bomber. They might think the whole nation could be martyrs and so be willing to using knowing it would result in their annihilation.

We should befriend Iran.