Now they've taken the 15 British naval hostages to Tehran and have published hostage's sworn statements of crossing into Iranian waters.

Hmmm....ya think those statements were made under duress? I sadly believe Iran will make examples out of these boys.

This is JUST the kind of incident that has sparked major retaliations in the past. Why would Iran 'beat the hornet's nest' with this sort of aggression unless they knew it would elicit an agressive response that Iran can then act upon?....your thoughts please.....

__________________
O'TEDDY BIN-SWIMIN

Iran is trying to change the subject from the UNANIMOUS vote against them regarding their Nuke program. I don't blame Tony Blair for doing ANYTHING he sees fit to do in response to this kidnapping and taking of hostages for blackmail. And I'm sure that George W. Bush has already told Tony in no uncertain terms that we back him whatever he decides to do.

IMHO, it would be an excellent opportunity to bomb the heck out of all his nuke and military facilities.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

As the 1975 agreement that describes the borders in the shat-al-arab also stated that the boundary had to be surveyed every 10 years to re-establish the border.

Iran/Iraq war stopped the 1985 survey. Disagreement with the conclusions of the war stopped the 1995 survey and the US invasion stopped the 2005 survey.

Their is no established border.

So in this case the British Government is correct in saying the marines were in Iraqi waters, but also the Iranians were correct in saying that the marines were in Iranian waters.

Yet again it could be used as an excuse to invade or have a war with another country but it would not hold water in a legal sense.

Somewhat similar to Iraq.

Tony Blair should deliver an ultimatum saying to the Iranians that Britain will use any means necessary to get the detainee's back within 24 hours of the statement. He should further mention the American's commitment to back him in whatever Britain does.

The SAS should be deployed the after the 24 hours, get in, shoot all the guards, get out and all in 10 minutes.

This would not be unjustified as the action by Iran constitutes war. Britain should not just rely on America to back it up, but rather the UNSC.

However, I imagine the Iranians will be forced to back down and give the troops back b/c of overwhelming international support of the UK.

The problem with this situation is that there is a possibility that the issue could get blown out of proportion, maybe leading to war. I'll be watching the position that the EU, China and Russia adopt for the situation.

__________________
'I disagree with what your saying, but I will die to defend your right to say it!'

That should be just enough to cause a conflagration in the area then the coalition forces can be even more overstretched in juggling a war in three countries.

Come on man, be realistic.

Iran would do well in the beginning of the war but it is highly doubtful of a complete coalition defeat in Iraq. You forget of America's strength alone would be enough to defeat and hold down Iran, it's just a matter of deploying troops and lot's of them. Hypothetically the US could reinstate the draft, raise an army of 200000, train and then deploy the whole force in under 2 months. Plus the existing reserves would easily buff up the force to around 500000. 500000 American soldiers, the best trained and armed in the world and two aircraft carrier battle groups which are the strongest task forces ever. Iran would have no chance.

__________________
'I disagree with what your saying, but I will die to defend your right to say it!'