# British Sailors seized by Iran.



## plan_D (Mar 23, 2007)

Iran nabs British sailors in Iraq waters - Yahoo! News

This is unbelievable. The British government are nowhere near being firm enough. In the days of Empire this would be a declaration of war.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 23, 2007)

You can bet if the Brits grabbed a bunch of Iranian Sailors, there would be protest, burnings of flags and riots in the streets. Iranians are throwing their weight around and getting away with it.

What a crock.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 23, 2007)

Iran has no weight that's the worst part about it. The British government is so touchy, feely that it won't do anything about it. It's made an empty demand to the Iranian government, it will not follow anything up and it will be up to the Iranians to hand them over when they get their publicity. 

In the Thatcher days, the British government would have demanded them back or there would have been a Royal Navy task force on its way. Good thing about Thatcher, she didn't screw around. 

Only 40 years before Thatcher, anything like this happening would have resulted in British forces piling into Iran.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 23, 2007)

You boys over better inflate your balls marc... I was amazed when I saw that. They should try their best to get your sailors back - then it's on. Iran needs a hurting.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 23, 2007)

I reluctantly agree, mkloby. They need an ass whooping. And quick. It's the only thing these 4th century morons respect. The sword.


----------



## Glider (Mar 23, 2007)

I am willing to bet the Captain was almost crying with frustration over the rules of engagement had was having to operate under.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 23, 2007)

15 sailors. Claim is that they were a boarding party checking a freighter suspected of carrying cars (to Iraq?). They were surrounded by Iranian navy boats, arrested and taken back to the Motherland. Likely this will be resolved peacefully, but the Brits should take a piece of their hide in return. Give them a 4hr ultimatum or the bombing begins.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 23, 2007)

Iran are definately cruisin' for a bruisin' - Lucky for them unfortunately for us our governments weak as water!


----------



## timshatz (Mar 23, 2007)

It's amazing that the Captain of the RN ship let it go/or had ROE that made him let it go. An officer letting his men get captured and stand by watching? Nah, that can't be.

Can it?


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 23, 2007)

Well The Guardian says they were released. The NYTimes (liberal rag piece of ****) indicates otherwise.

Iran frees eight British sailors | Iran | Guardian Unlimited

Iran Detains British Sailors in Waters Off Iraq - New York Times


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 23, 2007)

BBC NEWS | UK | UK sailors captured at gunpoint

No indication of release on the BBC either. I agree with what has been said, in times past there would of been a task force on the way to blast the sh*t out of them, now it is just someone from the foreign ministry who asks nicely if we can have them back. Iran needs to be taught a lesson and taught it quickly and the only real way it seems is going to be with explosives and armour...


----------



## Erich (Mar 23, 2007)

I think it's high time for tea in Tehran boyz ..........


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 23, 2007)

Shades of the USS Pueblo


----------



## joebong (Mar 23, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Shades of the USS Pueblo



Hope "M.O.D" will not let this decay into a "Peublo like" fiasco.
Godspeed to their safe return.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 23, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> Iran needs to be taught a lesson and taught it quickly and the only real way it seems is going to be with explosives and armour...


Doesnt ur country have ship launched cruise missles Gnomey???? Ol' Blair needs to drop in some SAS and get some...


----------



## mkloby (Mar 24, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Doesnt ur country have ship launched cruise missles Gnomey???? Ol' Blair needs to drop in some SAS and get some...



I would be personally embarressed if a similar situation happened to the US and we stood by and did nothing.

For the brits: do the majority of the British realize how weak a "non-response" would make them look internationally? What's actual public sentiment in the UK - not the media reported sentiment?


----------



## trackend (Mar 24, 2007)

My opinion is that at the moment the right action is being taken charging in with all guns blazing is a last resort not a first if re patriating the personel without a big stick works then I feel thats fine.
The whole thing should not of happened in the first place. if the vessel was not in Iranian waters as is claimed ( I cant believe their GPS is that bad) then they should have the right to prevent boarding IE: blow the crap out of anyone attempting it, the politicians are and always have been a thorn in the side of the forces although they instigate actions they tend to start dictating operational policies and that is just making the job harder still.
Locating and rescuing captured personel requires planning and I am sure that this is currently in action so if required a ready to deploy team will be gend and tooled up. The regiment have a rota of stand too so I suspect a team will already be within the zone of conflict.
But as I say I would prefer a peaceful solution.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 24, 2007)

trackend said:


> My opinion is that at the moment the right action is being taken charging in with all guns blazing is a last resort not a first if re patriating the personel without a big stick works then I feel thats fine.
> The whole thing should not of happened in the first place. if the vessel was not in Iranian waters as is claimed ( I cant believe their GPS is that bad) then they should have the right to prevent boarding IE: blow the crap out of anyone attempting it, the politicians are and always have been a thorn in the side of the forces although they instigate actions they tend to start dictating operational policies and that is just making the job harder still.
> Locating and rescuing captured personel requires planning and I am sure that this is currently in action so if required a ready to deploy team will be gend and tooled up. The regiment have a rota of stand too so I suspect a team will already be within the zone of conflict.
> But as I say I would prefer a peaceful solution.



See - that's the attitude that I believe is dangerous. I believe you're right with the initial response. Try to get your sailors back. However, if Britain has absolutely no response and shows not a bit of bravado - that emboldens those that will do her harm - with no fear of reprisals. There should should be a task force steaming towards Iran right now.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 24, 2007)

Better yet, a Vanguard class ballistic missile submarine.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2007)

Iran needs to be tought a lesson. First thing should be to get those sailors back but in some kind of lesson needs to be tought or they will think they can do something like that again.

I say send some cruise missiles and knock out there nuke plant. Tell them next time it is Tehran.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 24, 2007)

I've a feeling the Iranians grabbed them in an attempt to up the bet on their nuke deal. Get the Brits to attack them and then cry "Victim of Western Imperialism". Get some sympathy from the outside world (anybody with half a brain knows the press is going to take the Iranian's side on this one).

With the Russians pulling out, their access to decent, working nuke technology has to be limited. And going nuke is their big deal. 

It's going to be tricky figure out a way to get the guys back (the most important part of the whole thing) and figuring out a way to make sure the Iranians don't pull this crap again (did it two years ago and always pull it when the EU starts getting heavy on them for their nuke development). 

In short, the last thing we want these guys to get is any good press in that end of the world for this. But more important, the Brits get their guys back.


----------



## Erich (Mar 24, 2007)

doesn't Great Britain still hold he cycling speed/track record ? ............ yep the plan for the Velodrome based in downtown Tehran is still going strong


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 24, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Doesnt ur country have ship launched cruise missles Gnomey???? Ol' Blair needs to drop in some SAS and get some...



Yeah we have ship and sub launchable Tomahawks. I agree with the SAS as well. Send in some Tomahawks followed by the SAS with some CAS if needed and get the job down. In and out as fast as possible and they won't know what hit them (in theory).


----------



## evangilder (Mar 24, 2007)

Here is an interesting scenario. The Russian technicians pulled out because of "lack of payment". Or is it because they know something is coming and they don't want to be in the line of fire? The Iranians might have an inkling of that and the British sailors are their bargaining chip or human shields. 

Now I read today that allegedly, the British sailors have "confessed" to being in Iranian waters. Bweep, bweep, bweep...BS ALERT! If the British sailors confessed, they were either coerced or tortured into it. There is no way they would volunteer that kind of propaganda victory to the Iranians.

I am with Erich, time for the velodrome.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 24, 2007)

according to what I've heard this is the Farsi New Year which is curtailing news from Iran and also heard about the confession but also that the RN guys were moved to Tehran


----------



## Ajax (Mar 24, 2007)

Now NATO is imposing more, heavier sanctions...
How long before Iran cracks and we all have to fight _them_ aswell?


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 24, 2007)

Let it rain cruise missles... Use the Allied/NATO/Coalition Special Operations Branches to the fullest extent... Riddle the country with covert ops and pin point tactical strikes...


----------



## mkloby (Mar 24, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Let it rain cruise missles... Use the Allied/NATO/Coalition Special Operations Branches to the fullest extent... Riddle the country with covert ops and pin point tactical strikes...



I'd prefer to see a conventional destruction of the old Persian state. Those crackheads probably think they can go toe to toe vs western forces. Without any rebuilding either.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 25, 2007)

I read that Iran's Towelhead special forces were likely in the mix of smuggling operations and this was a warning to the UK that they were getting a little too close to home. I say cruise missile response if they don't cough up the sailors in one F'ing hour. Quit play this game with these 4th century monkeys. Trackend, you should be ashamed.


----------



## trackend (Mar 25, 2007)

Hi Matt. the blow the **** out of everything attitude has been a huge **** up in many post war actions including Iran which is now faction ally unstable and IMO will remain as such long after the withdrawal . As for me being ashamed, you know sod all about me because I choose not to spout off about my past but I can a sure you I have nothing to be ashamed of, I was merely expressing my opinion even if it flies in the face of those who disagree every one has the right to do that, I am all in favour of you giving yours but please try to avoid getting too personal. 
Thankyou


----------



## evangilder (Mar 25, 2007)

In most cases, I would agree with you Lee about a peaceful solution first. The reason I don't this time is because the current leader of Iran has been puffing himself up and doing some things that have been had the international community very concerned. He is like that kid that acts the bully, but isn't. Someday in the schoolyard, that kid gets his butt kicked and that's the end of that. At the very least, one very well placed sniper round would put an end to his insanity. But there seems to be no shortage of people like him there. 

What the Iranians essentially did was commit kidnapping. Then they coerced (at the very least) confessions out of these guys. I spent enough time over in England and worked with enough of the UK forces to know that they are professional soldiers who wouldn't do that kind of thing unless under duress.

I would prefer a peaceful solution to this too, but at some point, the leadership in Iran needs a good smackdown. Unfortunately, that is all they understand. Any give from their "enemy" is considered a weakness


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 25, 2007)

Tracks got no need to be ashamed, and his opinion is the sensible one, but I think the gov't over there needs to wake up in a big freakin hurry... If we were dealing with an "ordianary" country, this wouldnt be happening in the first place...

It reminds me of the Iranian hostage situation we went through back when... We as citizens couldnt understand why our country was just letting it go.... We were pissed off... So pissed off we changed Presidents... Piss on Jimmy Carter...

Anyways, after the diplomatic soulution doesnt fly, which it wont, its time to act like the Great Britian of old and stomp some ass Track...


----------



## trackend (Mar 25, 2007)

I value all the contributions on this thread including yours Matt and I have to agree with much of the thoughts behind them 
Eric and Dan, you both have made very valid reasons why a good wupping (sorry Les for nicking your catch phrase)is the right action.
I suppose I think it's a no win situation. If the UK does take an aggressive stance which it is more than capable of doing, it will make the situation in the middle east/Iraq even worse than it already is and prolong the overly long deployment of the forces already there. On the other hand as many have pointed out (including yourself matt) trying a more diplomatic approach and attempting to get UN support for enforced stricter sanctions (I use the word very loosely as many of the UN membership do squat diddly anyway and ride on the backs of others ) could result in a more aggressive stance from Iran as they would feel that the west and more over the UK is a soft touch. In turn this would require an even more aggressive action to counter this Idea. 
OH F**k it! I think I've just manage to disagree with my own original opinion. Ok Ok you guys win the Iranian's have been cruising for a bruising lets grease the w****rs


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2007)

I say let Iran burn. They need a lesson taught to them...


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 25, 2007)

Track, u crack me up man...


----------



## Erich (Mar 25, 2007)

I say pursue the Velodrome syndrome .............. you guys know full well this Mojameed smoke the weed turd is on some bad doobie and has been ever since the situation with the embassy takeover years ago, I remember that too well ......... this Persian clown has been on a stand up ever since he took power and keeps trying to put the log in the Allies eyes. It's time to flush him down the toilet. Time for a pork BBQ !


----------



## trackend (Mar 25, 2007)

Well les at least I know when I've talked total twatish some politicians spend there whole lives talking like Stanley Unwin (just in case he's unknown to you see attachment) and still believe they make sense.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 25, 2007)

I approve of your realization track. People fear a military operation against Iran could make the middle east situation worse. I don't subscribe to that line of BS. How is allowing that buffoon that believes he's xerxes to act with impunity no matter what course of action he takes (capturing British sailors/developing nuclear weapons) a positive alternative? I fear Iran is the biggest threat to global security.

Conventional ops are the only thing that will bring the persian gov't to its knees.


----------



## Ajax (Mar 25, 2007)

Blow their brains out:
They're running rings around us. It looks like even _they_ don't know where the've put the sailors. This can go two ways, in my opinion

1) They torture them into saying they were in Iranian waters, our Brits come home, all is well.
2) They decide to call them hostages, the UN gets involved, and we have a war on our hands.

It's looking alot like the build up to WWI, with the 
jealousy ([WWI]Imperial Supremacy-([Iran]Nuclear Program)
the short-term cause (Shooting of Franz Ferdinand-British sailors taken)
and alliances (Serbia Russia-Britain the USA)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2007)

Ajax said:


> Blow their brains out:
> They're running rings around us. It looks like even _they_ don't know where the've put the sailors. This can go two ways, in my opinion



The Iranians know exactly where they are. You dont "lose" such high profile prisoners. They are just trying to blow smoke up our ass because they think they are so smart when they are really just un inteligent pricks who in the long run are going to pay for this.



Ajax said:


> 1) They torture them into saying they were in Iranian waters, our Brits come home, all is well.
> 2) They decide to call them hostages, the UN gets involved, and we have a war on our hands.
> 
> It's looking alot like the build up to WWI, with the
> ...



How old are you? Just wondering.


----------



## Erich (Mar 26, 2007)

~ UN is nothing in this case and the Persian wanna-be king is living on idle threats. Of course he wants someone to act against him so he can go off and cry and "try" and unite all the Muslim nations in one big grandiose Jihad. that has been his scheme of things from the begining edging on Israel through his verbal taunts, come and attack me and then I will release the 12 Immam who never existed and will never exist in reality. I think the Tehran loser has been smokin bag-weed too long


----------



## bigZ (Mar 26, 2007)

Remember the good old days when we used to send in the gunboats?


----------



## Ajax (Mar 26, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How old are you? Just wondering.



Young enough to dream but old enough to drink (usually at the same time)

about losing them... well, I guess it's just my very dry humour.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 26, 2007)

Like ur age is some kind of big conspiracy or something??? A big secret u keep only with ur sister???

Im 40 and will be 41 in 11 days.... Was that such a difficult thing???


----------



## timshatz (Mar 27, 2007)

Happy Birthday in advance Les. Hope you have many more.


----------



## Emac44 (Mar 27, 2007)

This isn't the first time this has occured with Iran. 8 British sailors were captured 2 years ago virtually same area as the the latest 16 UK Servicemen were captured last Friday. HMAS Parramtta of the Royal Australian Navy on patrol in the Gulf was conducting security watch around Iraqi Oil Platforms 2 years ago well inside Iraqi Territorial Waters was surrounded by 3 Iranian Military vessels. Iranians were told to back off in no uncertain terms as they had violated Iraqi Territorial Waters and were in breach of UN sanctions regarding HMAS Parramatta and Iraqi Waters etc. Iranians retired quickly as Parratmatta was about to defend itself if necassary. Also I believe it was in 1988 that the USN had a mini war with Iran in same part of Gulf. 3 Iranian vessels were sunk by USN back then/ Any one else remember that incident in the 1980s with Iran and US? I agree that iran is cruising for the provbial bruising but lets not fall out amongst ourselves over this. Iran needs to be smacked and smacked hard. I believe the British would have their SAS Teams already to go at a moments notice. One thing the British are not and that is pussies which this Iranian jackonapes thinks the English are. Push an Englishmen far enough and hard enough he will come out swinging but at a time when you least expect it. The diplomacy thing would be in my opinion would be used by the English to try and get this Iranian nit wit into believing his own victory over England. The SAS infiltration into Iran would be another matter. Iran has under estimated the British they are one nation in my opinion who have never taken **** for to long from any one. any way that is my opinion


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2007)

It was alson announced that in 2006 in an area of Iraq/Iran border US soldiers along with Iraqi Soldiers fought a battle with Iranian soldiers. No US soldiers were hurt but several Iraqi soldiers are still MIA.


----------



## Emac44 (Mar 27, 2007)

Well Adler looks like the push me pull you scenerio is on or about to happen in near future. Iran is strutting about like a rooster about to get plucked. One problem will the US Congress under that left wing idiot Pelosi understand the differences or just her and her mates side track funding to some obscure area like they are trying to do now Adler


----------



## timshatz (Mar 27, 2007)

My understanding of the way the Dems are running Congress is they are trying to cut it down the middle. The Lefties (who are their base) are not happy that an immediate pullout resolution wasn't passed and are yelling at the Democratic leadership. Meanwhile, the leadership doesn't want to piss of the majority of America who wants an end to the war but doesn't want to lose it. 

The Dems aren't going to do anything about Iran. It's a very tough question and the only solution they ever have is to run to the UN. That the UN never solves these things and tends to make a bad situation worse is not the question. It is not the doing but the appearence of doing that matters to the Dems. 

In truth, I don't think most Americans want to bother with Iran either. They don't want them getting nukes but don't think it's our problem to deal with, being fairly fed up with Iraq at this point. One more Moslem Country creating problems is enough to piss them off, but not enough for them to do anything about.


----------



## Erich (Mar 27, 2007)

most likely correct on your thoughts Tim until we get hit at home again,,,,,,,,, then ~ ?

let the guys go in rub out the opposition and get home. this has been said to me over and over again and by every one of the 356th fg pilot veterans I have chatted with by phone over the past 3-4 months.

get the job done ! ........... period. If only


----------



## timshatz (Mar 27, 2007)

I hear ya'.


----------



## Erich (Mar 27, 2007)

along the lines of something sea-faring, maybe just go in and obtain all the sea provisions going onto Persia like the Pirates of old. Pirates of the Caribeean-the black pearl but of course armed with something more up to date.

if the Persians are going to play like a bunch of children panty-waists then let's play their game with a bit of discipline


----------



## Ajax (Mar 27, 2007)

> The spokesman for Tony Blair told reporters: "We are utterly confident that we were in Iraqi waters, and not just marginally in Iraqi waters but in Iraqi waters. It's a case of tactics and if and when we have to prove that."
> 
> Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, commander of Iraq's territorial waters, said: "Usually there is no presence of British forces in that area, so we were surprised and we wondered whether the British forces were inside Iraqi waters or inside Iranian regional waters."



How bold can you get?


----------



## timshatz (Mar 28, 2007)

Is there anybody in the Middle East who doesn't talk out of both sides of their mouth? Any of these jokers ever "get with the program"?


----------



## evangilder (Mar 28, 2007)

Not when it comes to westerners.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2007)

Cruise Missiles....


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 28, 2007)

Mysterious destruction of their power grid and water treatment facilities.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 28, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Mysterious destruction of their power grid and water treatment facilities.


And certain military installations...


----------



## Jared (Mar 28, 2007)

Lol matt... Just let it blow over for the mean time. Suddenly 6 months later their reactor goes boom? Sorry thought it was Iraqi territory  ^^


----------



## Erich (Mar 28, 2007)

same old BS from Nam days.........force confessions from the girl that she indeed was part of an team in illegal waters. garbage. I'd luv to do some enlightening over there again. Blair better get with the program


----------



## bigZ (Mar 28, 2007)

As far as am concerned this is an act of war. The Iranians cant even get their BS right.

Disagreed about Iraq but these pr$%ks need a good kicking. Am concerned that are policy in dealing with Iran will be constrained by current commitments are miltary is facing.

Erich can you explain the Velodrome syndrome?


----------



## Erich (Mar 28, 2007)

♀ ♪ ♫ ☼ ► ◄ Ü╕└ •◘○◙ ♂ ♥ ♦ ♣ ☻ ♂ 

sorry just practicing with some weird crap .......

ah the famous velodrome syndrome. Much needed throughout the mideast region(s)

blow off the swill's land turned into a wasteland and then move in. use the surviving bad guys under watch to build a Velodrome so the politicians of the mid-eastern world can compete instead of trying to kutt each others heads off. 

♫ A much more noble idea do you not think ? ♫


----------



## bigZ (Mar 28, 2007)

Perhaps I could give the Iranians a good kicking with a little something I bought of a guy called Chris Boardman(Gold Medalist/ Tour de France Prologue winner etc). I still have the track ends for it. Mectronic radio controlled gears, carbon throughout. British made and 180mm carbon cranks any smaller is for girlies/Iranians.


----------



## Erich (Mar 28, 2007)

now I would take that in a flash. I have a set of mavic Cosmics on my toy as well, not as deep dish as those and man do they make all the difference on my old trek

great bike big Z


----------



## evangilder (Mar 29, 2007)

Perhaps it's time for the Brits to catch some Iranian sailors in "Iraqi" waters. What do you think Erich, the old chopper treatment to get their "confession" to being spies? 

The Iranians are thinking the rest of world are fools and that no one can see through this charade. After what happened to the American captives and their length of stay, courtesy of the current leader, ahmadouchebag, I am hoping for a positive outcome. The problem is that the sailors and Marines are now a great propaganda tool for the Iranians.

Now, lets look at those velodrome plans, E. If they can build an indoor ski area in the Middle East, I think a climate controlled velodrome should be doable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2007)

I heard today that there a few Iranians that are being held in Iraq after crossing the boarder into Iraq. Not verified however.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 29, 2007)

Wouldn't be suprised if some of them sneak across all the time. Little doubt in my mind that the Iranians are monkeying around in Iraq. Playing with Fire, if you ask me. That sort of thing always comes back to haunt you.


----------



## Erich (Mar 29, 2007)

Eric that is a grand idea. I really like the idea of the British navy showing their strength and putting on a little piracy show. If those men/woman are not released soon, it is then free reign to prey on anything looking close to an Iranian boat going in any direction

up the Jolly Roger and waste that stinking, stark place, I'm getting impatient ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2007)

I know they are toying around in Iraq. There were skirmishes when I was there between US troops and Iranian. These have been confirmed but that Iranians were captured that I have heard today but again it is not confirmed.


----------



## Erich (Mar 29, 2007)

am sure that Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese, the whole lot under different guises have been captured and the Allies are just waiting to do something with them

walk the plank matey !


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 29, 2007)

US (Iraq) is holding 5 Iranian Republican Guards suspected of training/participating in terrorist acts in Iraq. I have not read any specifics other than they were apparently caught red handed.

UK has not missed their window yet. It will take some decent assets and planning (which should have been done already for such a contingency) to put together a proper military response. However, in the mean time the EU is Iran's largest trading partner. Let's see if the EU can provide a consolidated response on behalf of one of their own.  I know. Not likely.

Issue a 24hr ultimatum for release. Failure to comply, kick the Iranian rep out of the country with 5 mins to pack his ****. Simultaneous strikes against all Iranian naval assets and use Tornados loaded with Storm Shadow cruise missiles on port facilities. Then issue another 24hr ultimatum and ignore world pleas for negotiation.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 29, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Issue a 24hr ultimatum for release. Failure to comply, kick the Iranian rep out of the country with 5 mins to pack his ****. Simultaneous strikes against all Iranian naval assets and use Tornados loaded with Storm Shadow cruise missiles on port facilities. Then issue another 24hr ultimatum and ignore world pleas for negotiation.



Sounds like a good plan.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 29, 2007)

Any body hear about gunshots on an Iranian video?

"Iranian state television broadcast a few seconds of video it said showed the seizure of the Britons, with gunshots heard and a helicopter hovering, the Associated Press said. "

I thought those persian pricks had politely asked the UK sailors to board their patrol boats under no threat of harm? This is sounding more and more like a real FUBAR the more I read about it.


----------



## bigZ (Mar 29, 2007)

The helicopter had left the area before the kidnap took place.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 29, 2007)

That's what I heard too. In fact the supposed cockpit video with GPS coordinates displayed and the anchored Indian ship with the UK inflatables in view was from a Lynx. So Iran had helicopters in the area? Cornwal didn't have surface and airborne search radar activated? What is going on here?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2007)

Yeap I saw the video on the German news a few hours ago.

I dont know what the EU response is going to be but I know that the German Chancellor has stepped up and condemned the incidents and called for the immediate release of the Brits and pledged support (what that support would be I do not know since Germany can not conduct offensive operations such as an invasion or so forth based off the consitution.)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2007)

Also this just in, the Iranians have gone back on there pledge to release the female sailor.

_But Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, Iran's military chief, said that because of the "wrong behavior" by the British government, "the release of a female British soldier has been suspended," the semiofficial Iranian news agency Mehr reported.

Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani also told state television that British leaders "have miscalculated this issue" and if they follow through with threats, the case "may face a legal path" — presumably putting the Britons on trial._

Britain takes case against Iran to U.N. - Yahoo! News


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 29, 2007)

Lord I hate to say this, but the threat of the greater implications of letting Iran run roughshod over the world outweighs the lives... 

You can't negotiate with people who do not value human lives. Evil. Pure 4th century inbred evil.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2007)

That I agree with. I too believe that an ultimatum needs to be given and if that ultimatum is not met, let the bombs start falling.


----------



## Erich (Mar 29, 2007)

Matt I read your last comments on the last page....this sounds almost like a pure set-up, ah not godd not good at all.

calling Israel, calling Israel, fire up the engines it's "time to party"


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 29, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That I agree with. I too believe that an ultimatum needs to be given and if that ultimatum is not met, let the bombs start falling.



Agreed. Live by the sword die by the sword.

Invade our country will kill you.

Kidnap our people we kill you.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 29, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont know what the EU response is going to be but I know that the German Chancellor has stepped up and condemned the incidents and called for the immediate release of the Brits and pledged support (what that support would be I do not know since Germany can not conduct offensive operations such as an invasion or so forth based off the consitution.)



Great question. Does the EU have any capacity to do anything. Once you get past the RN and the Charles De Gaul, what kind of power projection do they have? And would you get all the countries (27?) on board for this thing?


----------



## Erich (Mar 29, 2007)

can U imagine f the British govt starts a serious man0hunt in the UK for Iranians

sorry you are within our borders, off with you


----------



## renrich (Mar 29, 2007)

Tim, you had a post a couple of days ago about the Democrat party in Congress and I thought you hit the nail on the head. Matt, your idea of an ultimatum and then action which is then turned up in intensity if the proper resonse is not received is excellent. It is time to teach the Muslim world how the cow ate the cabbage. As to causing more upheaval in the Middle East, it can't get much worse than it already is. We will pay a price in oil prices but probably only short term. If Blair decides to do the necessary, he will get plenty of support from George W and the devil with the Dems and their Pelosis and her ilk.


----------



## bigZ (Mar 29, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> US (Iraq) is holding 5 Iranian Republican Guards suspected of training/participating in terrorist acts in Iraq. I have not read any specifics other than they were apparently caught red handed.
> 
> UK has not missed their window yet. It will take some decent assets and planning (which should have been done already for such a contingency) to put together a proper military response. However, in the mean time the EU is Iran's largest trading partner. Let's see if the EU can provide a consolidated response on behalf of one of their own.  I know. Not likely.
> 
> Issue a 24hr ultimatum for release. Failure to comply, kick the Iranian rep out of the country with 5 mins to pack his ****. Simultaneous strikes against all Iranian naval assets and use Tornados loaded with Storm Shadow cruise missiles on port facilities. Then issue another 24hr ultimatum and ignore world pleas for negotiation.



Agree ultimatum NOW.


----------



## Erich (Mar 29, 2007)

price of oil already jumped today over this issue.

it's time to play "real" hard ball now


----------



## evangilder (Mar 29, 2007)

Surely we could lend a few dozen Tomahawks to our friends across the pond...


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 29, 2007)

I guess some of the NATO countries should will have to buck up Germany France Belgium and some of our newer buddies if Cruise missles are launched 
I don't think we have the assets to deal with another conflict . Canada could and probably would supply air assets and the Navy would be a possibility but the combat arms types would be in short supply


----------



## Erich (Mar 29, 2007)

it might be of note : Persia has only 1 working oil refinery. send her an ultimatum if they do not comply then send them back to the stone age ........


----------



## timshatz (Mar 30, 2007)

Erich said:


> it might be of note : Persia has only 1 working oil refinery. send her an ultimatum if they do not comply then send them back to the stone age ........



Now that would put a hurt on them. And you don't have to make it obvious. A refinery is so technical that knocking it off line with an explosion here or there (nontraceable, of course) would be pretty simple. 

Turn up the heat on them. 

Good idea Erich, good thinking.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 30, 2007)

I believe the Royal Navy should mobilise its assets and sail a combat fleet into Iranian waters blockading all their ports. Then tell Iran that British personnel are in their waters now, what are they going to do about it? 

Then order the release or the Iranian "navy" will be destroyed with its ports, oil facilities will be wrecked and Tornado's will be busting up any nuclear technology. This doesn't need to be an invasion, so the military assets do not need to be large. We shouldn't plan on an occupation so massive manpower is not required. Just hit the country to its knees then back away.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 30, 2007)

I like that, d. Keep the risks to the friendlies at a minimum and to the bad guys at a maximum. Now if we could only give Tony Blair the balls that Margaret Thatcher has.


----------



## bigZ (Mar 30, 2007)

Lord Palmerston knew what to do.

Gunboat diplomacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a celebrated speech to Parliament in 1850, Palmerston said: "As a Roman, in days of old, held himself free of indignity when he could say Civis Romanus sum, 'I am a Roman citizen', so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him from injustice and wrong."”


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I believe the Royal Navy should mobilise its assets and sail a combat fleet into Iranian waters blockading all their ports. Then tell Iran that British personnel are in their waters now, what are they going to do about it?
> 
> Then order the release or the Iranian "navy" will be destroyed with its ports, oil facilities will be wrecked and Tornado's will be busting up any nuclear technology. This doesn't need to be an invasion, so the military assets do not need to be large. We shouldn't plan on an occupation so massive manpower is not required. Just hit the country to its knees then back away.



I concur. Now why aren't enough Brits thinking like this. The reaction in the news is amazing... some blaming the brits. It's like apologizing to someone for hitting their fist with your face. As Toby Keith says in one of his songs, "it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you..." That is what I want to see. It's more dangerous to not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Great question. Does the EU have any capacity to do anything. Once you get past the RN and the Charles De Gaul, what kind of power projection do they have? And would you get all the countries (27?) on board for this thing?



No you will never get them all together. 

Germany is not allowed to go to war due to the constitution that was set after WW2. They can support in non combat roles but that is it. (it would be differently if a NATO country were invaded by an outsider then they could help defend due to the treaty, but they can not offensively go outside of Germany or EU/NATO borders.)

France will never agree with anything that has to do with its EU partners. They are stuck up and unreliable. If it does not make money for them (ie selling weapons to NATOs enemies) they are not for it.

Italy I do not think would get involved because of Iraq. The people are against sending troops to foriegn locations. They would not allow there gov. to do so.

Nobody else really has much of a military might to project. Poland might help out because they are trying to get in good with the US and England and the rest of NATO at the moment.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 30, 2007)

Kinda thought so. Bummer. EU has the capacity (in terms of industry), the population and the know how. But I guess getting all those countries on the same page is about the same as herding cats. 

Just not gonna happen.


----------



## bomber (Mar 30, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I concur. Now why aren't enough Brits thinking like this. The reaction in the news is amazing... some blaming the brits. It's like apologizing to someone for hitting their fist with your face. As Toby Keith says in one of his songs, "it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you..." That is what I want to see. It's more dangerous to not.



Because we're not all stupid...

Just how would this suggestion get those sailors back... or is that a secondary concern to just smacking a few ragheads ?

Are we suddenly expecting the Iranians and the Muslim world to suddenly become reasonable because we've blown up their citizens.. ?

Now I don't know the answer, but I'm sure that an out and out fist fight live on CNN isn't it either... We Brits are a bit more subtle than that and I'd like to think that our leaders first thoughts are about getting those sailors home to their families and if that means lieing through our teath on TV, making some bullshit apology then that's what needs to be done. When that's acheived we'll make our true feelings known to em.... sublty... in the dark, so they'll not forget.


Simon


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Kinda thought so. Bummer. EU has the capacity (in terms of industry), the population and the know how. But I guess getting all those countries on the same page is about the same as herding cats.
> 
> Just not gonna happen.



Getting France on the same page is impossible. As I said if it does not benefit them they wont agree to anything, even if it means to help out an aly that helpled liberate them. They forget very easily.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2007)

bomber said:


> Because we're not all stupid...
> 
> Just how would this suggestion get those sailors back... or is that a secondary concern to just smacking a few ragheads ?
> 
> ...



Diplomacy only goes so far and the Iranians dont understand diplomacy unless it is giving them everything they want and they dont have to budge a bit.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 30, 2007)

bomber said:


> few ragheads ?
> 
> Simon



While Iranian Gov is acting like a bunch of jackazz, that comment I don't feel is right or needed. You are doing nothing but generalizing and insulting an entire group of people, it is racist.

Iranian Gov is the bad guy here, not the people of Iran. The people only know what they are taught by their goverment and priests. The people only do what they are allowed to do or encouraged to do by the Gov and priests.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2007)

While I am of a different opinion of the Arabs and agree more with bomber on this, I have to agree with you on what you are saying Hunter. For someone who is "not all stupid" that was a pretty dumb comment.

And since I will not tolerate dumb comments like that made about the US, British, German, anyone really unless it is made in a joking manner I will not tolerate this as well.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> While I am of a different opinion of the Arabs and agree more with bomber on this, I have to agree with you on what you are saying Hunter. For someone who is "not all stupid" that was a pretty dumb comment.



Thanks.


----------



## Ajax (Mar 30, 2007)

How could this end peacefully? The Iranians seem only to want to give up the Servicemen if we apologize, but we know from GPS that we weren't actually in Iranian waters. And could a modern-day, democratic nation get away with lying so blatantly?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2007)

Ajax said:


> And could a modern-day, democratic nation get away with lying so blatantly?



Where have you been kid? These modern-day democratic nations lie out of there teeth every day. They are called politicians and it is what they do.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 30, 2007)

Ajax said:


> How could this end peacefully? The Iranians seem only to want to give up the Servicemen if we apologize, but we know from GPS that we weren't actually in Iranian waters. And could a modern-day, democratic nation get away with lying so blatantly?




LOL ever single nation on this planet lies. Just some of them are much worse then us. We all have lied for our benefit at one time or another.

-USA
-Canada
-UK
-Germany
-List goes on and on.

But the fact is Iran Gov is evil through and through.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2007)

bomber said:


> Because we're not all stupid...
> 
> Just how would this suggestion get those sailors back... or is that a secondary concern to just smacking a few ragheads ?
> 
> ...




Inetersting comments, Mr Simon. You made it clear that you believe you are of superior intellect. That is exactly the dangerous attitude that I feel pervades much of Britain. The Britain of old carried a big stick. That's the only thing much of that culture understands. Such a subdued response I fear is likely to do more harm to Britain in the future. The US response in 79 didn't do much good. But I must just be stupid.

1stLt M. F. Kloby


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 30, 2007)

Negotations. 444 days of negotiations. Remember President IamAMeanOleWackJob was directly involved in past hostage situations and thus this is right up his alley of how to operate. Simon, I personally am dis-gusted that your pacifist, negotiate at all costs attitude, is becoming more and more pervasive in a world where a significant portion of the populace is willing to blow up their kids to kill westerners.

Hell the EU, Iran's largest trading partner, cannot even direct a passive/non-military response of ceasing economic trade in support of this incident in combination with nuclear weapon ambitions by a known terrorist state. So negotiate. Have tea and crumpets with these evil killers of democracy and freedom. Apologize on behalf of all Brittania for whatever slights they perceive and fabricate on your country's behalf. Lick their persian boots which are coated with the pride that they apparently ****-kicked out of the England of old and her commonwealth. Throw a pint back in honor, as you negotiate with Theocratic baby killers. Cheers. It's all good. And do me a favor. Kiss your little girl on the forehead and tell her "Daddy will protect you". Because the spread of fundemental Islam will ensure she is a uneducated sexslave, having no rights and subject to the same respect and physical discipline as the mongrel dog on the street. So chin up, Simon. You are representative of enlightened. The new British. And you should be most proud, mate.


----------



## Erich (Mar 30, 2007)

and sadly we go off to have the 666 printed in our foreheads to be ever proclaimed as robotic slaves

it's coming

enough of this pansy mamby attitude. England go get your people back and then slam the door in those Tehranian goons faces


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 30, 2007)

are you guys forgetting the USS Pueblo or SS Mayaguez and US reaction


----------



## Ajax (Mar 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Where have you been kid? These modern-day democratic nations lie out of there teeth every day. They are called politicians and it is what they do.



I don't know if a politician would take a risk as bad as apologising publicly to the Iranians, In front of everyone in Britain who know for sure that it is all false, and be lashed by the media.

Then again, Blair is already on the way out _anyways_...


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 30, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I believe the Royal Navy should mobilise its assets and sail a combat fleet into Iranian waters blockading all their ports. Then tell Iran that British personnel are in their waters now, what are they going to do about it?
> 
> Then order the release or the Iranian "navy" will be destroyed with its ports, oil facilities will be wrecked and Tornado's will be busting up any nuclear technology. This doesn't need to be an invasion, so the military assets do not need to be large. We shouldn't plan on an occupation so massive manpower is not required. Just hit the country to its knees then back away.



Nice plan D. I would think that this would have some effect on them. I am all for negotiation's but I don't believe that they are going to have any really progress here. The Iranians have already decided that they are not going to release them until they get an apology from us that they were in "Iranian" waters. F*ck that. Sod the apology we should just send them a note along the lines of a single word rebuke (such as "NUTS") and then blockade them and bomb them until they release the West isn't as stupid as they think they are and that in fact they will not stand for the Iranians BS anymore.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 30, 2007)

Ajax said:


> I don't know if a politician would take a risk as bad as apologising publicly to the Iranians, In front of everyone in Britain who know for sure that it is all false, and be lashed by the media.
> 
> Then again, Blair is already on the way out _anyways_...



They will not apologise for something they did not do wrong, it will not happen. British troops did nothing wrong, this is Iran just trying to gain face and embarress the West (trying to look good to their people and the rest of the people in Middle East)

Iran cares about appearing as the leader of the Middle East, it wants to be a big player in the Middle East.


They are doing a good job up to this point, they had better be careful not to over play their hand though. If they do this could all back fire in their faces.


----------



## Ajax (Mar 30, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> They will not apologise for something they did not do wrong, it will not happen



Precisely. If they push us over the edge, there'll be hell to pay


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 30, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> are you guys forgetting the USS Pueblo or SS Mayaguez and US reaction



One good point PB. The other not so good. But nope. Not forgotten on me at any rate.

USS Pueblo should serve as a reminder of what not to do. And let's not forget that at the height of the Cold War, Russia/China were just looking for a reason bang on us. I think the immediate military repercussions associated with strikes against NK are apparent. Not so with Iran.

And SS Mayaguez? We initiated military action. Perhaps not the proper military action, but Ford recognized the failure to act in earlier instances was an improper response for world consumption. Therefore, this example actually reinforces the need to throttle Iran's leadership.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 30, 2007)

Ajax said:


> Precisely. If they push us over the edge, there'll be hell to pay



I hope so. But sadly I don't think UK will do anything big or important.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 30, 2007)

Not with the likes of Simon behind the steerage.


----------



## Ajax (Mar 30, 2007)

> But sadly I don't think UK will do anything big or important


They can't keep those people in Iran forever, and if they start calling them hostages... we won't really have a choice.


----------



## Erich (Mar 30, 2007)

it all depends on how Blair and the govt responds and acts and yes Iran can keep them all-split up and housed seperately or cut their throats and bury them in un-marked sands

you are to young to remember the US embassy fiasco of years back. what a frickin joke pulling concessions and making idle threats on them and they kept the hostages for a year beating the crap out of them when and how they wished.........

it's time to quit acting like pussies and start acting like real men


----------



## bigZ (Mar 30, 2007)

The Iranians know they have f$%ked up. I think they will foolishly persist in their present course of action in order to try and save face.

We tried appeasement to are eternal same in 38 and looked what happened. These guys need to know we won't be walked over. If we do ***** around it will only allow the flood gates to open and every other despotic country with an axe to grind will have a pop.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 30, 2007)

Erich said:


> it's time to quit acting like pussies and start acting like real men



Yup its time for the West to put or shut up!!! Unless you want these azzholes pulling crap like this ever 6 months.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 30, 2007)

bigZ said:


> The Iranians know they have f$%ked up. I think they will foolishly persist in their present course of action in order to try and save face.
> 
> We tried appeasement to are eternal same in 38 and looked what happened. These guys need to know we won't be walked over.




Oh really ? I think they are doing a pretty good job making the West like morons and wimps.


The West has to show them we don't have marbles.......we have grapefruits.

Toughen up West!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2007)

I agree. The response has not been strong eneogh. Negotiations only go so far. You negotiate once. No more than a week or two, after that you give them an ultimatum of say 48 hours and if that does not work you go forth with the ultimatum and kick some ass.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree. The response has not been strong eneogh. Negotiations only go so far. You negotiate once. No more than a week or two, after that you give them an ultimatum of say 48 hours and if that does not work you go forth with the ultimatum and kick some ass.



Agreed. If all you do is talk then you get no respect. You have to show that you will talk first, if that fails then you will beat the living crap out of them.

"Walk quitely and carry a big stick" and be prepared to use it when needed.

The West does not scare anyone anymore b/c they know the West will do nothing unless put in extremely bad spot (see 9/11 USA had to act).


----------



## renrich (Mar 30, 2007)

Yesterday I thought that Matt308's idea of an ultimatum and if no results an escalating response was a good one. Sort of like taking off one finger at a time. Now I realise it ain't going to happen. What is going to happen is that the Iranians are going to milk this situation for every drop of propaganda edge they can and when the British do some sort of mea culpa the sailors will be released. The Brits don't have the political will to do otherwise and frankly I am not sure the US has either in a similar situation. I think that Bush would get tough if need be but he probably would be impeached and convicted if he did so. Blair has paid a huge political price for his siding with Bush(and Bush has paid his price also) and Blair has looked at the tea leaves and realised he can do nothing except negotiate. I agree with the member who said that the government of Iran doesn't necessarily reflect the attitude of all the Iranians. This episode will do nothing except strengthen that regime's power in Iran. Britain is going to come off looking like a toothless lion and the US will lose face with a lot of the muslim world. One thing that needs to happen with all of our military if it hasn't already happened is that the ROE need to be clear in a situation like this. My inclination is to follow the rule, "never give up the ship." we should never send any unit into a area where this type of situation could take place without that unit knowing that if they are faced with capture they must resist with every means possible and we should try and make sure that we have the ability to timely come to the aid of a unit that is about to be captured. Either that or instruct them that they are expendable and they must go down fighting rather than be captured. Anyway we are the losers in this and the Islamic radicals will be rejoicing.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 30, 2007)

I happen to agree with Bigz the Brits usually stand up when confronted and will not lay down this time .We have the cajones but you must pick your spots and you certainly don't announce what your plans are . 
Did the US react with weaponary when their EP3 aircraft was forced to land in China . Maybe if the CIA had not installed the Shah in 1953 over a democratically elected Iranian gov't and backed his regime this situation would not have occured . Remember the UK and USSR invaded Iran in 41 Some people hold grudges for a long time and we don't have to look far as there are people on this site holding grudges dating back to the same time frame


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I happen to agree with Bigz the Brits usually stand up when confronted and will not lay down this time .We have the cajones but you must pick your spots and you certainly don't announce what your plans are .
> Did the US react with weaponary when their EP3 aircraft was forced to land in China . Maybe if the CIA had not installed the Shah in 1953 over a democratically elected Iranian gov't and backed his regime this situation would not have occured . Remember the UK and USSR invaded Iran in 41 Some people hold grudges for a long time and we don't have to look far as there are people on this site holding grudges dating back to the same time frame



Maybe it would have, and maybe it would not have. However, that sort of apologist attitude doesn't resolve the situation.

Renrich - if Bush did decide to commit US forces in engaging Iran, that's not something he can be impeached for. As C-in-C, he has that power.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 30, 2007)

It isn't apologist its a real take as mr churchill once stated " if you don't know your history you don't know your future " I think somebody should smack the Iranians but it had better be more competent then the Iraq fiasco


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> It isn't apologist its a real take as mr churchill once stated " if you don't know your history you don't know your future " I think somebody should smack the Iranians but it had better be more competent then the Iraq fiasco



Who says you need to rebuild the damn place? Just level it.


----------



## renrich (Mar 30, 2007)

Mk loby, I know technically you are right about Bush having certain powers but the Dems don't necessarily have to have the law on their side, all they need is the votes.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2007)

renrich said:


> Mk loby, I know technically you are right about Bush having certain powers but the Dems don't necessarily have to have the law on their side, all they need is the votes.



US Constitution Section II 


Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 

you just cant vote the president out because you dislike/disagree.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 30, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Who says you need to rebuild the damn place? Just level it.


Read what I said it should be a more competent and i'll add comprehensive strategy. Meaning have a plan in place for after the end because the E4's and 5's are paying for that lack of plan right now


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Read what I said it should be a more competent and i'll add comprehensive strategy. Meaning have a plan in place for after the end because the E4's and 5's are paying for that lack of plan right now



A couple reactions to your comment.

#1 - If we did not rebuild the country, then a situation such as that present in Iraq would not occur.

#2 - Actually Privates, PFCs, and LCpls form the bulk of the USMC, and the equivalent ranks in the US Army. Not Corporals and Sergeants.

Perhaps your right. All western countries shall have citizens and legislatures debate and pass conjecture on what is the proper course of action. Meanwhile, no action will be taken because that is "more safe." You form that competent and comprehensive strategy, because all of the General and Flag officers are obviously not qualified to do so.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 30, 2007)

Your military performed beautifully in Iraq as a military force but having to perform civilian type tasks that is probably not included in the training sylabus and its hard to learn on the fly . There was no civilian authority after the ground offensive and it looked like the planners never even thought about it which is something the leaders or planners should be forced to own up to. 
You can't tell me that not having a plan to police or provide civil services after the offensive was a good one . The coalition barred Ba'ath party guys from holding any position well the whole civil service was Ba'ath you had to be to work there. 
In Canada a the equivilant of an an E4 is a private an E5 a Cpl


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Your military performed beautifully in Iraq as a military force but having to perform civilian type tasks that is probably not included in the training sylabus and its hard to learn on the fly . There was no civilian authority after the ground offensive and it looked like the planners never even thought about it which is something the leaders or planners should be forced to own up to.
> You can't tell me that not having a plan to police or provide civil services after the offensive was a good one . The coalition barred Ba'ath party guys from holding any position well the whole civil service was Ba'ath you had to be to work there.
> In Canada a the equivilant of an an E4 is a private an E5 a Cpl



I'm not going to say that Iraq couldn't have gone any better. However, the conflict is bigger than Iraq. It's bigger than just Afghanistan. It's an all encompassing conflict, rightfully termed the Long War. We may not know how things could have turned out if Iraq was seperated into 3 individual states, or if the US entered the ground war with 800,000 MPs stateside waiting for the ground war to end.

I think it's unfair to say that the US military had "no plan" regarding the conclusion of the conventional war. I'm not sure what kind of results that many throughout the world that look harshly upon the US expected. What I wonder more is what kind of results could have been had if the rest of the world took a stand with the US, and contributed substantial forces. This "it's not our problem" attitude is dangerous. The longer the western world allows militant islam to run unchecked - the bigger the mess it will be for our children and grandchildren. It's going to be a hell of a world we pass on to them.

I honestly have no idea what the Canadian rank structures are. I've only bumped into Canadian troops once back in Quantico. Loved their cammies! So - what's E1-3?


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 30, 2007)

The rest of the world was behind you 100% for Afghanistan and the war on terrorism and joined you , but most of the world cannot connect the war on terrorism to Iraq be it right or wrong.
If its still the same E1 is recruit , E2 trained recruit, E3 would be basic MOC qualified , E4 you get your first "hook" after 3 yrs , E5 is basic Cpl or "master private" after 4 yrs 
We don't use E so I translated it the best I could as we don't zip up the ranks as fast Sgt after 6-7 years would be exceptional


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 30, 2007)

PB your comments about the US not responding are again comparing apples and oranges. The EP-3 going down with the US' primary trading partner, 6th largest economy on the planet, and one of the world's primary military powers is not the same. The UK is the 5th largest economic engine on earth. And it is scared of Iran? Whom 40% are below the poverty line, is run by a despot theocracy, and whose economic ranking is WAY in the double digits is quite telling.

The Chinese coughed up our boys in 11 days. They did not parade them around in Confucius uniforms like Iran, force video confessions of guilt like Iran, exact written statements of Chinese superiority like Iran, nor provide smug condemnations of world opinion like Iran. At least those commie ***holes have some honor.

Iran on the other side, appears to only reckon with force. I'm not advocating Iranian casualties...yet. Rather, a consolidated EU set of sanctions, some destruction of their naval assets to prevent them from doing this again, and some pain inflicted upon their gov't by disabling their primary naval port facilities.

What does trouble me is that this may result in 15 casualties. However, since my statements are "as if I were Prime Minister" I also must weigh the cost versus the repercussions (benefits). No leader wishes to condemn their people to death, but God****it, at some point in time the Commonwealth's well-being must outweigh a single tactical deployment. And only a man who is not vying for political office can make those types of decisions.

There. I said it.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 30, 2007)

Yeah but 70million zealots is nothing to trifle with


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2007)

I'll agree that the public "pitch" to the international community was poor. However, I've said this before, and I'll say it again. All information and intelligence is not diseminated to the public. Therefore, what you saw on TV and in the news is not going to be the entire affair. Obviously, most discussions are behind closed doors. That's the way it has always been, and will always be. There were, and are other factors that were under consideration. That is for sure.



pbfoot said:


> Yeah but 70million zealots is nothing to trifle with



You say that as if you fear them. This is the reaction they desire, and I for one fear throughout the western world.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 30, 2007)

70M. Yep. And likely more than 80% wish that their theocracy was a democracy.


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 30, 2007)

If Mr Blair doesnt do anything to stop this outrage im gonna start recruiting people with any type of military experience and start a special ops team to set those poor guys free.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 31, 2007)

Mr. HaW*********, what unit did you serve with, what was your MOD, and PEX?


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Mar 31, 2007)

I know this is no concern of mine, but lets not rush this. I think the war is what they really want, Iranians I mean. Don't rush, remember Egypt and Suez Canal crisis??


----------



## trackend (Mar 31, 2007)

HaWk3r T3mP3sT said:


> If Mr Blair doesnt do anything to stop this outrage im gonna start recruiting people with any type of military experience and start a special ops team to set those poor guys free.



Little bit of a silly comment there Hawk


----------



## Ajax (Mar 31, 2007)

BBC News Player - Navy crewman 'apologises'

Another bold, obvious move.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 31, 2007)

Yep, they are putting words in their mouths for sure. The BBC's Have your say is also interesting, for once the most recommended course of action is a 48 hour ultimatum and then a declaration of war rather than the normal weak ass sh*t that is normally seen there (and America bashing) - this can been seen further down though (the main one being from a French person )

BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Can UK and Iran resolve their difference?


----------



## timshatz (Mar 31, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> Yep, they are putting words in their mouths for sure. The BBC's Have your say is also interesting, for once the most recommended course of action is a 48 hour ultimatum and then a declaration of war rather than the normal weak ass sh*t that is normally seen there (and America bashing) - this can been seen further down though (the main one being from a French person )
> 
> BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Can UK and Iran resolve their difference?




Looked for the Frenchy post, didn't see it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 31, 2007)

Added: Saturday, 24 March, 2007, 12:37 GMT 12:37 UK 

If Iranian sailors entered British waters, the British would arrest the Iranians. The Iranians would then protest that they had not been in British waters; but the British public would not believe that.

That is exactly what has happened but in reverse. 

So what should be done? Nothing. It'll all blow over.

E Taylor, PARIS


----------



## timshatz (Mar 31, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Added: Saturday, 24 March, 2007, 12:37 GMT 12:37 UK
> 
> If Iranian sailors entered British waters, the British would arrest the Iranians. The Iranians would then protest that they had not been in British waters; but the British public would not believe that.
> 
> ...



That's one way of looking at it. Not sure I agree with it. Don't think the Brits would hold them, put them on TV, threaten them with a trial....ect, ect. And you surely wouldn't have the lone female in the group forced to dress as the Brits thought she should. Nah, not the same thing in reverse.

Watch oil prices, they're generally a good indicator of how the world feels and if it wil blow over. Right now they are holding steady in the mid 60s. Were down a little yesterday after running up for about a week.

Thanks for finding it Les.


----------



## renrich (Mar 31, 2007)

Mkloby, of course you are right in your post on impeachment but Congress alone has the power to declare war. Of course now we are not in an officially declared war, which would give the President more powers than he currently has. If Bush were to send troops to aid Britain in any action against Iran, he could never get the Congress to agree to that action. Then the Dems would claim he declared war without the required consent of Congress and I have no doubt that they would start impeachment proceedings. In fact, I have no doubt that if the Dem leadership thought they had the votes they would start the impeachment process today and unfortunately there would be some Republicans who would back them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> The rest of the world was behind you 100% for Afghanistan and the war on terrorism and joined you , but most of the world cannot connect the war on terrorism to Iraq be it right or wrong.



Because they have only seen the bullshit media and what the liberals want them to see. They have not seen the training camps that were in Iraq before we went in. I have...


----------



## mkloby (Mar 31, 2007)

renrich said:


> Mkloby, of course you are right in your post on impeachment but Congress alone has the power to declare war. Of course now we are not in an officially declared war, which would give the President more powers than he currently has. If Bush were to send troops to aid Britain in any action against Iran, he could never get the Congress to agree to that action. Then the Dems would claim he declared war without the required consent of Congress and I have no doubt that they would start impeachment proceedings. In fact, I have no doubt that if the Dem leadership thought they had the votes they would start the impeachment process today and unfortunately there would be some Republicans who would back them.



I'm more of the position of screw the war powers act. The democrats think that each one of them is a mini commander in chief... 
Legislature has the authority to declare a state of war - not to conduct war. They have power of appropriation - if they want to cease a conflict, cut off funding.


----------



## renrich (Mar 31, 2007)

I agree with you Mkloby about your opinion of the war powers act but I am not sure that the dems are trying to micro-manage the war but rather use the Iraq situation as a club to beat Bush with and to try to gain more power. If the dems win the presidency and still control congress it will be interesting to see how they conduct this war against radical islam. The dems keep saying that the people in the US want the US out of Iraq now as proven by the midterm elections. I do not believe that is true of the majority of American voters. I think they are unhappy with the progress of the war but most know the danger of pulling out prematurely. What is frustrating to me is that all this political BS that is going on here where the dems are trying to maneuver for votes is giving encouragement to our enemies.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 31, 2007)

renrich said:


> I agree with you Mkloby about your opinion of the war powers act but I am not sure that the dems are trying to micro-manage the war but rather use the Iraq situation as a club to beat Bush with and to try to gain more power. If the dems win the presidency and still control congress it will be interesting to see how they conduct this war against radical islam. The dems keep saying that the people in the US want the US out of Iraq now as proven by the midterm elections. I do not believe that is true of the majority of American voters. I think they are unhappy with the progress of the war but most know the danger of pulling out prematurely. What is frustrating to me is that all this political BS that is going on here where the dems are trying to maneuver for votes is giving encouragement to our enemies.




Good post Ren. As somebody once said about another politician, "He doesn't care which way the bus is going, as long as he is driving". Same can be said of a lot of the Dems in Congress, especially the far left bunch.


----------



## Erich (Mar 31, 2007)

we have talked previously many times if the US pulls out of the mideast what recourse action the mideastern foes will take. Jihad will blow open wide ......... 

someone wrote me from Israel this morn saying that the head dildo in Tehran is now personally involved with the capture of the British and that he claims the British knew they were in Iranian waters and must suffer the consequences.......whatever that means.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 31, 2007)

Erich said:


> we have talked previously many times if the US pulls out of the mideast what recourse action the mideastern foes will take. Jihad will blow open wide .........
> 
> someone wrote me from Israel this morn saying that the head dildo in Tehran is now personally involved with the capture of the British and that he claims the British knew they were in Iranian waters and must suffer the consequences.......whatever that means.



There've been reports of an persian ambassador talking of trying them for trespassing or something to that effect. Said amb. subsequently denied that there is thought of a trial. I'd like to see how those in Britain that support a foreign policy with the strength of a 1 legged puppy react... I'm sure they'd still have an enlightened reason to not have ANY sort of military response.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 31, 2007)

I say give the Iranians what they want.


----------



## bomber (Mar 31, 2007)

Well to answer my critics.. 

There's a right time for everything... and it's not after a couple of days...

In the Cold war with Russia, when they captured an American agent did you Americans make a big issue of it ?
No of course not, because it's not the way to get them back..

We are not at war... whatever you read. War I gather is a lot rougher... shouldn't you guys know that ?

The battlelines are being drawn, the oponents are taking sides,, don't rush into this.. and don't any American or Canadian or whoever think that the Brits are soft, timing is everything. 

We Brits are made of stronger stuff, and right now it takes a strong man to stay talking... but when the **** hits the fan you can bet your house on us being in the middle of it.. it's not going to take us 2 years to get involved.

Yes I'm intelligent....(I can't spell tho) probably more than some of those calling for us to launch an attack.. I guess those are the breaks

Simon


----------



## Ajax (Mar 31, 2007)

The Iranians wouldn't opt for a trial because the evidence isn't sufficient on their part for the trial to seem fair. And as long as the British media are involved, the foreign office won't be as fickle as to let this go.


----------



## Erich (Mar 31, 2007)

and I say B.S. to you man, we are at war !!!!! .............. you better wake the F up


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2007)

bomber said:


> We are not at war... whatever you read. War I gather is a lot rougher... shouldn't you guys know that ?



And how rough is it over there? How would you know? Got news for you buddy it is a war over there and Iraq and Iran are just part of the picture. Please before you go thinking you are the all knowing being about how rough some place is, go there and learn first hand what it is is like there at the moment because you obviously dont have a clue.

It just really annoys me that people that are not there adn have not been there think they know what is like and what is going on. You dont get half of it from the news...


----------



## plan_D (Mar 31, 2007)

*The United Kingdom of Great Britain is weak. *​
The last time the British government stood up to be counted was in 1982 when Prime Minister Thatcher ordered our fleet to the Falklands. That was a simple case of "the mouse that roared", when a mouse roars it gets squashed. But now a rat, Iran, has roared and Britain has found no guts inside itself, all that British spirit has been dilluted and the passion of "Rule Brittania" is gone. Iran has squared up and Britain is backing away. 

The world is laughing at us, and I don't blame them. This country is full of people who act twenty when they're thirteen and act twelve when they're twenty. They believe bravery is fighting in the street, and call themselves soldiers because they carry a knife. But when the real world looks upon them, the people either hide or call for the U.S. 

The people who call for the U.S are the same people that "hate" America. They don't know why but they live off some stupid idea that Americans are loud, so they're as*holes. They don't realise they are the arrogant ones, at least America has a reason to be arrogant. We shout ... but can't bite. 

The only country really left in this world that will stand up for what is right in its own eyes, whether you like it or not, is America. Even if you don't agree with the U.S foreign policy AT LEAST it's got the balls to put force behind its beliefs. Britain hasn't. We're cowards! We go on and on about British spirit that's unbreakable, it's not 1940 anymore! We've lost that spirit, it's all half caste babies and Manchester Utd. now.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 31, 2007)

The British economy is the 5th largest in the world. Their military is the 28th. In 1990, the RAF had 90,000 personnel. Today they have 40,000. America, The United States, the US of A would fall on its sword for the UK.

Not sure if the UK would do the same for us based upon what I read. 


The UK and the US are the last bastions. If we fall. We ALL fall.


----------



## Ajax (Mar 31, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> The British economy is the 5th largest in the world. Their military is the 28th. In 1990, the RAF had 90,000 personnel. Today they have 40,000. America, The United States, the US of A would fall on its sword for the UK.
> Not sure if the UK would do the same for us based upon what I read.
> The UK and the US are the last bastions. If we fall. We ALL fall.



- Our military is a shambles. We would still follow the USA though, just look at Iraq. Only our attempt would be pitiful compared to size of the Marines.
- The Germans should be able to fight, but they're not allowed. Hasn't that treaty bitten us on the arse?
- Oh and one British aircraft carrier (the name escapes me), due to 'monetary restrictions' only has enough fuel for one of it's engines so limps around at half speed. How sad is that?
- There may be much patriotism here, but if you went to Britain, I think you would (unfortunatley) be suprised at how dissapointment there is in the government and country as a whole.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 31, 2007)

Well. Irrespective. We have your back.


----------



## bigZ (Mar 31, 2007)

Have to agree with some of the comments from Plan D and Ajax. Patriotism is for a football and not a nation. Christ on a recent quiz in my place of work they didn't even know that the BOB was fought with planes(not to mention which war it was!!!!). But ask some trival sh%t about Liverpool and Everton FC......

I see David Beckham is now flying the flag for British masculinity in the US along with his skinny pouting and very talented wife(Proudly admitted once she had never read a single book in her life after publishing her autobiography).

"Well. Irrespective. We have your back. `" Cheers Matt


----------



## mkloby (Mar 31, 2007)

bomber said:


> Well to answer my critics..
> 
> There's a right time for everything... and it's not after a couple of days...
> 
> ...



This is not war? Are you serious? I'm not sure what you would call a war, Simon. We've lost many brothers and sisters in arms over there. Guess what pal, they aren't going to Iraq and having a tea party. Unless you are a veteran that has spent time in zone - who are you to say it's not war? Every fellow Marine, soldier, sailor, and airmen I know that has been in the sandbox will say it is a war. As soon as they pin wings on my chest the Marines have promised to send me in zone also. Again, may I ask, WHO ARE YOU? Your post smacks of arrogance and niavete. Why would you just assume that you are more intelligent than anyone?

By the way - capturing an operative and uniformed military personnel are vastly different. But, since you are intelligent, you probably already knew that. What would you say would be a proper course to take if king xerxes decided to put these sailors/marines on trial? Continue to wait for perfect timing?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 1, 2007)

mkloby said:


> you are a veteran that has spent time in zone - who are you to say it's not war? Every fellow Marine, soldier, sailor, and airmen I know that has been in the sandbox will say it is a war. As soon as they pin wings on my chest the Marines have promised to send me in zone also. Again, may I ask, WHO ARE YOU? Your post smacks of arrogance and niavete. Why would you just assume that you are more intelligent than anyone?



Exactly and that is why his post pissed me off. To say that it is not a war over there and that is not "rough" eneogh! Who the hell is he to say that. I was there, I know what it is like. I have lost comrads over there.

Bomber do me a favor and watch this video of my unit when we were in Iraq and then you tell the families that it was not "rough" over there. I would gladly give you some addresses but you would not have the balls to do it.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tpD8iqkvZ4_


----------



## timshatz (Apr 1, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I say give the Iranians what they want.



What is it that they want? Do you think it's the Bomb? Do they want control of the Persian Gulf? Great Arabia?

Not dissin' ya', just trying to figure out what the Persians want? It most certainly isn't 15 British Marines who are on patrol. Everybody on this board knows that this a political grandstanding event. Juxtipose the Iranians actions with the Swiss Army contingent that wandered a mile into a neighboring country before realizing it and heading back. Nobody noticed and would have noticed had the Swiss not said something. 

What's the greater goal of the Iranians? What is their plan?


----------



## Ajax (Apr 1, 2007)

timshatz said:


> What is it that they want? Do you think it's the Bomb? Do they want control of the Persian Gulf? Great Arabia?
> Not dissin' ya', just trying to figure out what the Persians want? It most certainly isn't 15 British Marines who are on patrol. Everybody on this board knows that this a political grandstanding event. Juxtipose the Iranians actions with the Swiss Army contingent that wandered a mile into a neighboring country before realizing it and heading back. Nobody noticed and would have noticed had the Swiss not said something.
> What's the greater goal of the Iranians? What is their plan?



They _probably_ want the release of the Iranians that were captured in Iraq, but that's not going to happen

In an extract from a poem by the great Jeremy Clarkson;


> _When the world was in trouble we were there in a trice,
> We've beaten the Germans solidly twice
> But now in battle our guns don't work
> And the guys on the subs have started to shirk
> ...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2007)

_"Well. Irrespective. We have your back."_

No you don't. The U.S has never backed Great Britain up in any situation that didn't aid them. Never has the U.S sent a military task force to aid Great Britain in her own wars. 

Where was the U.S when Great Britain was fighting her war on terrorism against the IRA? Where was the American sword when Argentina invaded the Falklands? 

As much as you may like to believe it, Matt, the U.S isn't propping Great Britain up. They haven't always got our back and we haven't always got the U.S back. 

The fact of the matter is, in the last twenty years it's been Great Britain aiding America in her wars. It may always be a case of Collie helping the Rotweiler but at least we're there, everytime. 

My country may be full of pompous little scrubbers, but at least there's something in the country that throws our military to help our greatest friends in the world, the U.S.A. So, don't start getting this stupid arrogant idea that the USA will always help Britain, and Britain doesn't seem like it would return the favour. 

_"Not sure if the UK would do the same for us based upon what I read."_

Ever since the War of 1812, Britain and America have been alongside each other in almost every war they've fought in. So, pull your head out of your arse and realise Britain has done, and will continue to do so... you should be more grateful because now the country is full of sh*t - so there's even less people here willing to help you. 

Great Britain and the U.S.A is the greatest alliance in history. Luckily stupid public opinion of one another hasn't broken that.


----------



## joebong (Apr 1, 2007)

These rug weaving bad boys have caused enough trouble, all in the name of nuclear aspiration. I say the U.K/ U.S join together, to sponsor their fissile fetish. We send them a couple dozen warheads, via air delivery. They should get them in 10-20 minutes. Heh heh heh.


----------



## Ajax (Apr 1, 2007)

joebong said:


> These rug weaving bad boys have caused enough trouble, all in the name of nuclear aspiration. I say the U.K/ U.S join together, to sponsor their fissile fetish. We send them a couple dozen warheads, via air delivery. They should get them in 10-20 minutes. Heh heh heh.




How did you do that _fissile_ typo? The _f_ is miles away from the _m_...

I think the best idea was the 48hr ultimatum. If they don't give up _then_, negotiating will have been pointless anyways.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 1, 2007)

Plan D - I see where you're coming from, but I have a couple comments. First of all, all nations act in self-interest. Sometimes that self-interest falls in-line with aiding another nation. Very rarely will a nation take action if it feels this course of action is detrimental. Fortunately, US and UK interests have long coincided. However, I don't think the examples of Falklands and IRA fit this, nor do I think the UK should have expected I want to believe that if the UK became invovled in a major conflict, the US would not let Britain go south, as what's good for her is often good for the US. Hopefully those in Britain and the US that see the threats of radical islam as a cultural threat to the west will really start making themselves heard.

I don't think the US could have, nor should have gotten involved with Troubles, or anything else to do w/ the IRA. That's an internal affair for the UK to deal with. Such a move would incur the wrath of a large part of America as well. Much of the northeast US sympathizes with the Republican cause, even if they don't support IRA operations - particularly as they took an increasingly large toll of civilians.

With regard to the falklands, it was a territorial dispute between Britain and Argentina. She had to deal with the situation herself, and the matter did not concern the US. Not to mention, she obviously did not need any military assistance from the US. In some instances, I think that a political blessing or approval is sufficient. Can you think of how weak the UK would have looked if US carrier groups steamed south and participated in the counter-attack, along with marine BLTs storming ashores and soldiers taking to the fray.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2007)

I admit my reply wasn't well thought out. And in actual fact I would have never expected U.S aid against the IRA or in the Falklands conflict beyond what was handed to us. However, I did make the comment that Britain doesn't act on behalf of the U.S. For me to believe that nations act in anything other than self-interest is naive, and I recognise that. 

_"America, The United States, the US of A would fall on its sword for the UK.
Not sure if the UK would do the same for us based upon what I read."_

The quote above got to me though. The USA would not fall on its sword for the U.K nor would the U.K fall on its sword for the USA. That comment just annoyed me, I was a little out of line.


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Apr 2, 2007)

Oi its war now! did you see that angry mob yelling out death to britain and america?


----------



## Ajax (Apr 2, 2007)

HaWk3r T3mP3sT said:


> Oi its war now! did you see that angry mob yelling out death to britain and america?



They were college idiots who had been fed propoganda by president i'm-really-a-member-of-jihad or watever his name is outside the British embassy. They all think that the sun shines out of Iran's arse and staged it to keep things confrontational (and halt some of the diplomacy)


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 2, 2007)

> They all think that the sun shines out of Iran's arse and staged it to keep things confrontational (and halt some of the diplomacy)


Sorta sounds like how Japan was back in the days before WW2...


----------



## bomber (Apr 2, 2007)

Ohhh I'm convinced now that people are shouting death to Britian that it's a war...

Thanks for clearing that up...

Soilders dieing doesn't constitute a war.. it's an occupational hazzard.
Soilders getting taken hostage doesn't constitute a war, it's another occupational hazzard..

But I think steaming your fleet in there, guns ablazin, or as has been called for on here (without any rebuke) using nuclear weapons most certainly does...

Plan-D good climb down there... and yes what more could the British people want from America in it's own decades long fight against terrosism ? Apart from stoping sending the IRA money and arms, their politicians supporting IRA fund raising rallys ?

Did you notice how as soon as this dried up following 9/11 how quickly the terrosism stoped ?

What I object to most is the goading of British public opinions and forces to start another conflict in the region by non British persons... who should keep their noses out of it...

If the American people want a war with Muslims of the world, then they should do it themselves... because I suspect that's whats going to happen if anyone steams into Iran, The moderate muslim countries governments will have no choice but to listen to their public.

You think this is a war ?.... ohh it will be then that is for sure.

Invade a single county run by a dictator to free it's people is one thing, but attack a democtratic muslim country because it wants nothing more than to have the same nuclear capablity as ourselves is another... and that would be the reason behind attacking, don't think in nievety it's the 15 sailors, because we'd never see them aliive again.

I'm sorry if not having been in the military means that I don't have an opinion in your eyes as to what constitutes a war..

I'm just Dad of 42 to a boy of 13... and if talking can get those sailors home without having to go to WWIII then I say we talk a lot longer than 48 hours !

Simon


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 2, 2007)

> but attack a democtratic muslim country because it wants nothing more than to have the same nuclear capablity as ourselves is another...


Are u fu*cking stoopid pal??? A Democratic country RUN BY A FU*CKING TERRORIST.... One who wishes to wipe Israel off the map....

That doesnt sound scary to u???

If not it should...


> and if talking can get those sailors home without having to go to WWIII then I say we talk a lot longer than 48 hours !


I agree with u there... But that doesnt stop u from droppin in some SAS boys to "scope" things out a bit and get ready for the next "step" in negotiations....


----------



## Ajax (Apr 2, 2007)

Look at this:




They change their story so it looks like what the've done is legal, then get _all 15_ servicemen to confess. This isn't right...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2007)

_"Plan-D good climb down there... and yes what more could the British people want from America in it's own decades long fight against terrosism ? Apart from stoping sending the IRA money and arms, their politicians supporting IRA fund raising rallys ?"_

I quite clearly stated that I wouldn't expect aid from the U.S in the fight against the IRA. The U.S government didn't send the IRA money and arms. The U.S government should have stopped the fund-raising, yes, but that wouldn't be aid. 
All the aid to the IRA was personal, and mostly came from the Boston area. The U.S did arrest a few arms smugglers but nowhere near enough.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2007)

HaWk3r T3mP3sT said:


> Oi its war now! did you see that angry mob yelling out death to britain and america?



They do that every day...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2007)

Ajax said:


> They were college idiots who had been fed propoganda by president i'm-really-a-member-of-jihad or watever his name is outside the British embassy. They all think that the sun shines out of Iran's arse and staged it to keep things confrontational (and halt some of the diplomacy)



That is what they all do and they are all fed that propaganda day in and day out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2007)

bomber said:


> Soilders dieing doesn't constitute a war.. it's an occupational hazzard.
> Soilders getting taken hostage doesn't constitute a war, it's another occupational hazzard..



Youve been over there? Youve been in street to street, door to door fighting with organized insurgant armies. You have been on the battlefield over there? Wow you really are the expert on this aren't you?

Sorry buddy, but I have been there, I know what it really is like...
You dont...

What you know is what you see in the news and I promise you that it is not like that.

So please before you decide not to call the global war on terrorism and what is going on in Iraq, get a clue!



bomber said:


> If the American people want a war with Muslims of the world, then they should do it themselves... because I suspect that's whats going to happen if anyone steams into Iran, The moderate muslim countries governments will have no choice but to listen to their public.



The war is allready upon us. Get off your couch and go see it for yourself before you state facts that are not true.



bomber said:


> You think this is a war ?.... ohh it will be then that is for sure.



Actually I do, but then again I served in the Army over there and do not watch in the news and think I am an expert on the matter.



bomber said:


> Invade a single county run by a dictator to free it's people is one thing, but attack a democtratic muslim country because it wants nothing more than to have the same nuclear capablity as ourselves is another... and that would be the reason behind attacking, don't think in nievety it's the 15 sailors, because we'd never see them aliive again.



You are blind my friend. They openly state they want the destruction of the west and Isreal. Yeah they are real peace loving animals aren' they?



bomber said:


> I'm sorry if not having been in the military means that I don't have an opinion in your eyes as to what constitutes a war.



No you are entitled to an opinion but do me a favor before you think you know everything about what is going on over there, get a clue...

I was there, you were not, I know what is going on there.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 2, 2007)

timshatz said:


> What is it that they want? Do you think it's the Bomb? Do they want control of the Persian Gulf? Great Arabia?
> 
> Not dissin' ya', just trying to figure out what the Persians want? It most certainly isn't 15 British Marines who are on patrol. Everybody on this board knows that this a political grandstanding event. Juxtipose the Iranians actions with the Swiss Army contingent that wandered a mile into a neighboring country before realizing it and heading back. Nobody noticed and would have noticed had the Swiss not said something.
> 
> What's the greater goal of the Iranians? What is their plan?



War, timshatz. War. That's what they want. I say we give it to them. They have been kicking us around on their terms long enough. Time for some payback.


----------



## Erich (Apr 2, 2007)

well we are just another step closer to total Muslim country unification and THAT is what the little boy in Tehran wants with his scare tactics. he has stated this publically in his adresses to his own puny nation repeatedly. they are not a demo society, never have been never will, none of the mid-eastern-muslim countries are. Some more educated-yes than others but they are just biding their own time before they get involved. don;t be stupid bomber to think we are not in a war, it started even earlier than the 70's when we started to support Israel both the US and Britain, when the little shrimp from the PLO started having fun blowing up ets thinking he was a real man/fighter. israel should of popped that poop out back in the late 1960's or at least allowed us to move in and do so, but our govt thought it best not too. We sit on a land mine all of us just ready to go off. The Soviets sit north just waiting to be asked for full funding and aiding the Muslims and then they will step in and secure the badly needed oil. they have had army aides in the region for many years.

If the English govt can pull off a paper ploy and get those soldiers home - so be it, but be ready for a blow that is soon to come .......

Babylon will be decided by it's waring tribes not be the demo govt we have been trying to place in leadership. In time Babylon will rise again and with a different name, we as Allies move out home too quickly, Persia and Syria will move in, join forces and will head west towards Israel


----------



## timshatz (Apr 2, 2007)

Can't imagine all of those nutjobs want a war. If it does come, the average Iranian is going to be on the losing end of it all. 

As for those pokes in the picture who are demonstrating against "The Great Satan", seen that gig before. Talk about the Usual Suspects. You gotta wonder if the people around them actually respect them or see them as losers. The people I know who are "demonstrators" and generally, think of them as clowns. Nice enough, when not in a group of "demonstrators" but not the people I think of when I want to pick the phone up and call somebody to go out for a beer.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 2, 2007)

plan_D said:


> _"Well. Irrespective. We have your back."_
> 
> No you don't. The U.S has never backed Great Britain up in any situation that didn't aid them. Never has the U.S sent a military task force to aid Great Britain in her own wars.
> 
> ...



Easy there big dog. My statement was a rant against the dainty panzy ass class of folks that appear to be populating more and more of both our countries. I owe you an apology for that one.

But before you start telling me to remove my head from my lower digestive track, you need to do a little more homework. The US has bent over backwards in support of your country, both directly and indirectly. When we kept nuclear secrets as close as possible to our chest, we gave key technology ONLY to the Brits. No we didn't fight your IRA "insurrection", but then again, you didn't come over here and fight in Watts either. I don't think your example is worth its weight dog turds. And, Mr. D, your Falklands example is just another classic case of your collosal ignorance. The US military (admittedly after some soul searching on how to deal with our number one ally going to war in the already troubled South America) provided your Gov't intelligence and military technology during the war. In fact, as admitted by Lord O'Sullivan, Advisor to Lady Thatcher, some of this brand new military technology was delivered to YOUR wartime footing BEFORE it was delivered to our troops in recognition of YOUR immediate need. This special relationship between our countries cannot be better illustrated than our sharing of the Trident Missiles with MacMillan.

Yes its a two way street, D. But I am very concerned that the liberal bent of many in the UK may be changing that relationship. And not for the better.


----------



## Erich (Apr 2, 2007)

Tim wait till the NEW admin comes in 2008, in 4 years alot could be done to reduce our military to nothing and with the plausible thought the Muslims nations of which there are many band together as an alliance. They have moved into the west/Europe subtely after ww2. we have talked about this many times. Adler and others living in Germany know full well of what I speak and in England and in .........


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 2, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Can't imagine all of those nutjobs want a war. If it does come, the average Iranian is going to be on the losing end of it all.
> 
> .



Tim, agree. That's why we should advocate an ultimatum that of which the Iranian people are made aware. Only then do you destroy the Theocratic (NOT DEMOCRATIC) assets to wage war. Start with destruction of any and all naval assets to prevent them from taking further hostages. And disable their naval port facilities. Sure they are going to ratchet up the response. And oil prices will go out of sight. However, to remain silent and allow that region to acquire nuclear technology coupled with their 4th century anti-Christian (read that as anti-western) mentality is only increasing our risk.

Or perhaps, we could just wait around until we lose a city to some "Islamic nutjob" who is claimed to be acting outside of gov't sponsorship for Middle Eastern anonymity. It's not a question of Iran sponsoring terrorism, training Iraqi insurgents, or threatening to wipe Isreal of the face of the earth. Their leader is a terrorist for Christ's sake.


----------



## twoeagles (Apr 2, 2007)

What I find terribly sad is how damaged the Iranian people are as a result of
a generation growing up under the influence of hard line radical Shiite clerics.
In the 1970's, with the Shah in power (and I recognize he had a sinister side),
the people I met had melded Western and Iranian cultures in a way that captured some of the best of both. Wonderful music, food, beautiful women, and warm 'giving' people. Who was or wasn't Muslim was no more important than wondering if the neighbor was Episcopal...With the introduction of 
oppressive backwards thinking Shiism, the Iranians have been duped in the worst way...Believing their destiny is guided by Allah, and therefore reason
isn't so important. No more questioning. Blind obediance to the Imams.
It's tragic. Regardless, they will reap what they sow.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 2, 2007)

Well said, twoeagles. I too feel for the Iranian people. But conversely, there becomes a time when the oppressed must take up arms and police their own.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 2, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Well said, twoeagles. I too feel for the Iranian people. But conversely, there becomes a time when the oppressed must take up arms and police their own.



True but do they truely know they are being told total BS from their leaders?

Also they have to be willing to become a more flexible modern day citizen on the planet earth. Stop living according to your out of date hard line beliefs.

Be a modern moderate Muslim, not this hardline BS Muslim. Hard liners believe its their way for the world or death. Well as a well rounded free thinking Western I say ........**** THAT!!!

You want to threaten me, threaten my family, threaten my way of life, threaten my beliefs, threaten my freedom........that will only get you war.

Hard line Muslim's understand one thing only.....death. The problem is that the Hard liners are in charge of these other rational Muslims. Hardliners fill their minds with BS, lies, promises of a better after life.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 2, 2007)

I work with an Armenian whose Mom and Brother are still in Iran. He claims the people do know. That most, not all, but most want to be a more mainstream world citizen, and blame their gov't for oppressing them. As long as that type of thinking is held by the sheep in their society, things will never change. It is unfortunate that the wolves run the country.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 2, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I work with an Armenian whose Mom and Brother are still in Iran. He claims the people do know. That most, not all, but most want to be a more mainstream world citizen, and blame their gov't for oppressing them. As long as that type of thinking is held by the sheep in their society, things will never change. It is unfortunate that the wolves run the country.



Agreed


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2007)

_"Easy there big dog. My statement was a rant against the dainty panzy ass class of folks that appear to be populating more and more of both our countries. I owe you an apology for that one.

But before you start telling me to remove my head from my lower digestive track, you need to do a little more homework. The US has bent over backwards in support of your country, both directly and indirectly. When we kept nuclear secrets as close as possible to our chest, we gave key technology ONLY to the Brits. No we didn't fight your IRA "insurrection", but then again, you didn't come over here and fight in Watts either. I don't think your example is worth its weight dog turds. And, Mr. D, your Falklands example is just another classic case of your collosal ignorance. The US military (admittedly after some soul searching on how to deal with our number one ally going to war in the already troubled South America) provided your Gov't intelligence and military technology during the war. In fact, as admitted by Lord O'Sullivan, Advisor to Lady Thatcher, some of this brand new military technology was delivered to YOUR wartime footing BEFORE it was delivered to our troops in recognition of YOUR immediate need. This special relationship between our countries cannot be better illustrated than our sharing of the Trident Missiles with MacMillan.

Yes its a two way street, D. But I am very concerned that the liberal bent of many in the UK may be changing that relationship. And not for the better."_

Maybe you should have continued reading a few further posts before replying to that one. As I willingly backed away from the Falklands and IRA examples, only a few posts later. 

I've done plenty of homework on this US/UK alliance and your words were clearly misplaced. As you rightly said in the final paragraph, it's been a two-way street. The U.S hasn't been handing over weapons and technology without something in return from Great Britain. 

I do recognise the increase in liberal loonies in Great Britain, but as long as there's still some guts left in some of the people here, we'll keep standing shoulder to shoulder. So there's no need for you to claim the U.S will "fall on its sword" for us because the U.S wouldn't, nor would the British fall on her sword for you. But in most cases we will stand side by side.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 2, 2007)

Sadly, you made my point.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 2, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I do recognise the increase in liberal loonies in Great Britain



Sadly I believe it is true in UK, USA and every Western country (Canada always has had lonnies left wingers). It seems they are being heard more and more. Western countries worry too much about public opinion, PR and media then doing the "right thing."


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2007)

Your reading, Matt, should have been concentrated more on the first two paragraphs of my post. 

And you're right, Hunter. Britain though should be a world superpower, but the people - even when not left, are not capable of using their brain.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 2, 2007)

Fox News -

Iran's top international negotiator Ali Larijani said Iran's priority "is to solve the problem through proper diplomatic channels."

"There is no need for any trial," he told Britain's Channel 4 television news.

Earlier Monday, Iran's state-run media said all 15 British sailors and marines had confessed to illegally entering Iranian waters, but the confessions would not be broadcast because of what it called "positive changes" in Britain's negotiating stance.

In London, a British official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Prime Minister Tony Blair's government had agreed to consider ways to avoid such situations in the future.

The official insisted that Britain was not negotiating with the Iranians and still wanted the captives freed unconditionally.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 2, 2007)

plan_D said:


> And you're right, Hunter. Britain though should be a world superpower, but the people - even when not left, are not capable of using their brain.



Yup even my sister, who I love, she would not talk to me for 6 months b/c she was so pissed off at me b/c I supported USA and Iraq war when it started.

She was soooo mad at me, I just wanted to sit her down and lock her in a room with me until I conveinced her Iraq needed to be taken down.

Just like Iran needs to be taken down. 


Lets all get real IMHO:

In this world you are either good or evil

Strong or weak

With us or against us

The West needs to stop being a bunch of pussies and stand up to North Korea, Iran and any other Muslim country that takes it too far. 

You are either a friend or foe and should be treated as such.

or

Once in while you are a neutral, but you had better mind your own damn business then and stay neutral.

I am sooooo damn tired of all this azz kissing the west does. Just tell Iran "this is the way it is going to be.......or else" and back it up. If they don't follow through then bomb the hell out of their military, navy, ports, HQ, nuclear locations, airports, rail, bridges, radio stations and every other non-emgergency item of value related to the goverment.

Then stand back and say to the goverment of Iran "you ready to listen now?". If they say yes then we welcome them, if they say no........bomb them more. Until the goverment does not exist in meaning or they listen or the people take over the goverment.

This talking with Muslim countries just does not work the way we do it now.


----------



## bigZ (Apr 2, 2007)

Did anyone notice the lorry full of bricks conviently go past those protesting against the British embassey?

Apart from tit for tat swap of prisoners and shaming the West. What else do you think is motivating the Iranian government?

As already pointed out the younger generation in Iran are becoming more western in their outlook. Also the drug culture has become an epidemic in both high and low society. Perhaps the government feels its losing its grip and needs to whip up some anti western feeling in order to restablish firm control?

These guys will only respect a show of force. Their actions have already proved they dont respect the Geneva convention.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 2, 2007)

I honestly think it is more about fomenting anti-western dissent and establishing Iran and the great bastion of Islamic power willing to be the flag bearer. Iran holds US hostages for 444 days, supports the bombing of US Marines in Lebanon, provides direct support to embassy bombings, linked to shooting down Isreali airliners, publically renounces the Holocaust in a world forum, demands Isreal's absolute destruction with no apologies, is providing backing to Hamas and believes they have accomplished some form of sick victory in Lebanon, is training Iraqi insurgents who are admittedly causing causualties that make front page news, is building nuclear weapons and ignoring UN ultimatums, is establishing energy ties with Russia and China (who back the Iranians up in the UN Security Council), and now pluck sailors out of the water with virtual impunity.

I would say their track record is pretty damn good for establishing themselves as the hardline, no-compromise, protector of Islam in most fanatics eyes.


----------



## Ajax (Apr 2, 2007)

The problem with wars is there's always some sly idiot who exploits whatever's been laid to bear, like the oil in iraq. It's not _why_ we went to war, but it's a big bad side effect and it's what the media just _loves_ to portray.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 2, 2007)

The Iranians as stated earlier were very westernized and the regime of the Shah which was installed in a violent coup by the CIA (prompted by the UK) over a democratically elected government in 1953 because of the impending nationalization of the Anglo Iranian oil Company which was later known as BP. It became autocratic in rule under the Shah. Popular demonstration led to the Shahs overthrow in 73 and the leader of the populist movement Khomeni immediatly instituted an Islamic constitution . 
This being said Iran has turned into pariah nation which does not deserve our respect and should be chastised severely but one wonders what would have happened if western greed had not overthrown the democratically elected government in 53


----------



## Erich (Apr 2, 2007)

had not western influence "interfeared" then Persia would of stayed as such, in the post stone age but not by much. Millions probably would of felt the hand of the Ayatolah(s)


----------



## bigZ (Apr 2, 2007)

Remember when Khomeni was thought to be a posistive moderate influence during his exile in Paris?

Hindsight is always 20/20.


----------



## Erich (Apr 2, 2007)

yes I do, glad the old fart is dry in the mud


----------



## bigZ (Apr 2, 2007)

Another recipient of Time's Man of the year. 

Which gives me an idea All recpients of Times Man of the Year award should immediately be assainated


----------



## renrich (Apr 2, 2007)

One wonders what we will be saying about the present regime in Iraq( if they stay in power) 5,10, 15 years from now.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 2, 2007)

bomber said:


> Soilders dieing doesn't constitute a war.. it's an occupational hazzard.
> Soilders getting taken hostage doesn't constitute a war, it's another occupational hazzard..



Spoken like someone that never served a lick in their life. These British servicemen were in Iraqi waters. They get captured by Iranian forces in IRAQI waters - a third party to the conflict (formally on paper only). You say it's an occupational hazard? Was it an act of peace by the Iranians? Maybe a friendly gesture? Let me ask you this - what if the British defended themselves and a firefight ensued?



bomber said:


> Plan-D good climb down there... and yes what more could the British people want from America in it's own decades long fight against terrosism ? Apart from stoping sending the IRA money and arms, their politicians supporting IRA fund raising rallys ?



As pointed out already, the US gov't did not support the IRA. The IRA has always had a high level of support throughout the northeastern US due to the high numbers of Irish Americans and immigrants. We shall see how that turns out when Catholics begin to hopefully outnumber protestants soon.



bomber said:


> Did you notice how as soon as this dried up following 9/11 how quickly the terrosism stoped ?


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't violence fallen sharply since the 1998 GFA?



bomber said:


> What I object to most is the goading of British public opinions and forces to start another conflict in the region by non British persons... who should keep their noses out of it...


That's a valid obection.



bomber said:


> If the American people want a war with Muslims of the world, then they should do it themselves... because I suspect that's whats going to happen if anyone steams into Iran, The moderate muslim countries governments will have no choice but to listen to their public.



That's the mindset that troubles me. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. That's the case here. Let's bury our heads in the sand and forget the fact that the Muslim world has been trying to destroy western Christian civilization for well over 1000 years. Thank the Franks for checking almohad advances, Tours 732, and the Polish for aiding the Austrians in the Turks 2nd siege of Vienna in 1683. Many in Europe don't have a fighting spirit anymore, they are content to grovel those attempting to destroy them while they bask in the glory of their enlightened societies. That's not the Ameircan way - and I pray this apathetic and weak leftist tide in America is on it's way out once my parents' generation rids themselves from positions of power.



bomber said:


> Invade a single county run by a dictator to free it's people is one thing, but attack a democtratic muslim country because it wants nothing more than to have the same nuclear capablity as ourselves is another... and that would be the reason behind attacking, don't think in nievety it's the 15 sailors, because we'd never see them aliive again.


 Did you really type that in all seriousness???




bomber said:


> I'm sorry if not having been in the military means that I don't have an opinion in your eyes as to what constitutes a war..


You've shown you have absolutely no idea. Quite frankly, your absurd statements like "occ hazard" and the way you shrug the Iraqi war off as OOTW make me believe that you haven't the slightest clue of anything pertaining to the military.



bomber said:


> I'm just Dad of 42 to a boy of 13... and if talking can get those sailors home without having to go to WWIII then I say we talk a lot longer than 48 hours !



I am a father also. I agree that the UK should take the route of negotiations. I don't think anybody disputes that. Believe me - I want those troops to come home to you guys. However, I firmly believe that Iran is still testing the international community to see how far they can go. A nuclear Iran is perhaps the greatest threat to the global community, not just America. If the western world continues to prance around with its tail between their legs, my children will have to rectify this mess. THEN, it will be even costlier for them since we didn't have the balls to stand up to tyranny.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 3, 2007)

_"As pointed out already, the US gov't did not support the IRA. The IRA has always had a high level of support throughout the northeastern US due to the high numbers of Irish Americans and immigrants. We shall see how that turns out when Catholics begin to hopefully outnumber protestants soon."_

Am I right in assuming you support the IRA, mkloby? As you seem to like the idea of the Protestants being rid from Northern Ireland. Whether you do or not; I'd like to point out that anyone who supports the IRA, or the UDA, are pr*cks. And anyone who supports either of them and then goes on about this "War on Terror" are hypocritical **** suckers. 

The thing that annoys me the most is that they're both Christian. And for some stupid reason; they fight against each other as civilians instead of just growing up. If they're really so bothered about British rule, then take it out on the British military...but no, they are all terrorist **** suckers, just like their supporters. 

By the way, mkloby, I remember you said something quite some time ago about Britain becoming Catholic again. Not bloody likely, we'll be Muslim before then by the looks of things.


----------



## bomber (Apr 3, 2007)

About the IRA .. I never said American governement.. I said politician, does anyone deny that politicains attended rallies

Secondly.... locking somone in a room untill they understand the Iraq situation... mmmmmmm I'm not so sure on this.

Third... Being acused on not understand the military,,, if the response to any provocation is to retaliate militarily then thankfully they're not in power or is that the next step for the West.. ?

fouth.... Sending in Special forces is something that's done on the quite, you don't broadcast it.

Fith..... When a government says it's a war, what it means is "we have to get behind our boys and not question the politcal desicisions that have placed them in harms way".. However in a free thinking democrassy it's the duty of every individual to question their governement...

But it seemly unpatriotic to question when you're in a war, doesn't it....

"I was just following orders" is not acceptable.

You guys love to get into debates about 'what would have happened if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia' and the like... well now's your chance to play that game in real time.

What would happen if the UK sailed it's fleet into Iranian waters and started an armed conflict..

Simon

"I told you so"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Hard line Muslim's understand one thing only.....death. The problem is that the Hard liners are in charge of these other rational Muslims. Hardliners fill their minds with BS, lies, promises of a better after life.



Not really a good comparison but it kind of reminds you of 1930s Germany does it not?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2007)

bomber said:


> Third... Being acused on not understand the military,,, if the response to any provocation is to retaliate militarily then thankfully they're not in power or is that the next step for the West.. ?



I certainly think you have no clue what is really going on the middle east and you certainly dont know what is happening militarily in the middle east either and that you have proven by argueing with people that have been there.



bomber said:


> What would happen if the UK sailed it's fleet into Iranian waters and started an armed conflict..
> 
> Simon
> 
> "I told you so"



It would cause a major war with many muslim nations but that is going to happen anyhow because of there hard line stance and there desire to destroy Isreal and the West.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 3, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not really a good comparison but it kind of reminds you of 1930s Germany does it not?



Little bit.

This is what third world countries with Dictators do. They fill the uneducated minds with BS and what the Dictators "want them" to believe. Soon to the uneducatated that becomes reality. Not to mention they rule with an iron fist, those who do question or refuse to believe publicly get "taken care of".

Then the thousands / millions of uneducated believe what the goverment (priests) tells them is true.

Thats where we are now.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 3, 2007)

plan_D said:


> _"As pointed out already, the US gov't did not support the IRA. The IRA has always had a high level of support throughout the northeastern US due to the high numbers of Irish Americans and immigrants. We shall see how that turns out when Catholics begin to hopefully outnumber protestants soon."_
> 
> Am I right in assuming you support the IRA, mkloby? As you seem to like the idea of the Protestants being rid from Northern Ireland. Whether you do or not; I'd like to point out that anyone who supports the IRA, or the UDA, are pr*cks. And anyone who supports either of them and then goes on about this "War on Terror" are hypocritical **** suckers.
> 
> ...



PD - right out of the gate I want to say *NO, I CERTAINLY DO NOT SUPPORT THE IRA. NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST.* There have been threads about this where I stated my position. I support the REPUBLICAN cause. The IRA, including all factions, most certainly not, as your right they do engage in terrorism. There was a time long ago when they were a partisan force, though. Since then, however their means of acheiving their end state are morally corrupt. I'm a fervent Catholic, so it should go hand in hand that I oppose the actions taken by the IRA. Unfortunately, British policy toward Ireland guaranteed the development of such unrest - Sorry. However, that by no means justifies terrorism.


The IRA had lost much support throughout the North and the Republic as their attacks caused more and more collateral damage. There were many that did think as you stated "take it out on the Brit military." When attacks were killing women, children, and innocent bystanders in order kill a single targeted individual, support waned.

My comment a while ago was about North becoming predominantly Catholic - which has been the trend. Catholics like to have more babies than you Protestant bubbas  Estimates range about 40-42% I believe for the total Catholic pop of the North, which I beleive increased by 10% since 1960. Do the math - it won't take too much longer. Then, in a referendum in the North... get it? About Britain as a whole becoming Catholic... never said that, that's gibberish! Not even I am crazy enough to think something that loopy.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 3, 2007)

They look a bit sheepish. I wonder if their captors were telling them to "giggle." And the flowers and fruit give a cute, almost playschool feeling to the picture. No worries then. 

Unless they put them there to splatter their brains agains't the wall by a firing squad. Or maybe some Iranians will lynch 'em and do the dirty work instead of the Goverment. They seem mad enough. 

Britain wants all it military personnel back of course. But does anyone feel Iran is pressuring Britain into perhaps a "Save the White Woman" mentality? They were going to let her go, but then decided to keep her as a trump card. More pressure to get Britain to do......well what do they want Britain to do? Leave Iraq, right?

If Britain were to attack Iran over this, and someday it was made into a film, could it be called "Saving Snared Sailors?"


----------



## Erich (Apr 3, 2007)

some guy overseas sent me this as I walked in the door about a British column writer blaming the US of A for their botched attempts in Iraq so thus the British soldiers were captured and harassed.............. ah go suck your dirty toe nails loser


----------



## Ajax (Apr 3, 2007)

That would be Piers Morgan probably.
Just don't look at him, and hope he'll go away...


----------



## Erich (Apr 3, 2007)

would somebody please bag this bugger and send him to the front lines in Afghanistan ?


----------



## Ajax (Apr 3, 2007)

We would try, but he might write about us and call us perverts, or child molesters, or murderers, or rapists, or theives, or...


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 3, 2007)

Well Ajax, your in good company. We have those press wankers too.


----------



## Erich (Apr 3, 2007)

in every town and every state ............ nothing new


----------



## Aggie08 (Apr 4, 2007)

I am pretty surprised Britian hasn't done anything other than write a first draft of a somewhat strongly worded letter. No one can accuse a country of using any and all means necessary to rescue any of it's own.

I sincerely hope that Tehran and Washington don't do anything stupid and start another war. Iran is enjoying it's moment in the spotlight and I believe that in five years they'll have crawled back into their huts and fallen from the public eye.


----------



## Ajax (Apr 4, 2007)

Aggie08 said:


> I am pretty surprised Britian hasn't done anything other than write a first draft of a somewhat strongly worded letter. No one can accuse a country of using any and all means necessary to rescue any of it's own.



The foreign office is passing notes "discreetly" according to the media. As to wether or not they are "strongly worded" i don't know. Tony Blair has said that we are entering the most critical 24 hours of negotiation .



> I sincerely hope that Tehran and Washington don't do anything stupid and start another war. Iran is enjoying it's moment in the spotlight and I believe that in five years they'll have crawled back into their huts and fallen from the public eye



Hopefully, but as long as they try get nukes, they will always be in th public eye.


----------



## bomber (Apr 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I certainly think you have no clue what is really going on the middle east and you certainly dont know what is happening militarily in the middle east either and that you have proven by argueing with people that have been there..



I've not argued with anyone here...

As a moderator can't you tell the difference between me stateing my opinions in a grown up manner and those that simply call names ?




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It would cause a major war with many muslim nations but that is going to happen anyhow because of there hard line stance and there desire to destroy Isreal and the West.



So in your mind it's inevitable and we should simply get on with it... ?

And when it's finished what major power will simply 'clean up' the winner. ?

Simon


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2007)

bomber said:


> I've not argued with anyone here...
> 
> As a moderator can't you tell the difference between me stateing my opinions in a grown up manner and those that simply call names ?



So you have not claimed that no war is being fought. You have not claimed that it is not "rough" eneogh over there. Even though someone who has been there tells you otherwise...

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, everyone is and I will defend that myself. I am also not trying to offend you or anything and I dont really think I have called you any names.

However to call things occupational hazards when you have not seen armed units of combatives armed and equipped (with evidence the equipment came from Iran) that are recieving real military tactics and training thent that tells me your opinions are based off of false ideas and news.

The War on Terrorism is not just being fought in Iraq. It goes into Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, and much farther. 




bomber said:


> So in your mind it's inevitable and we should simply get on with it... ?
> 
> And when it's finished what major power will simply 'clean up' the winner. ?
> 
> Simon



Never said that. If you actually go back and read the posts the (the serious ones that I have posted) I did say that the first step should allways be diplomacy but diplomacy only goes to far with these people. Countries like Iran have openly stated they wish for the destruction of the west and Isreal. They have allready set the stage for what they want and until the moderates in there country decide that they need to stand up against this evil stupid regime that is getting the uneducated masses behind them it will not end.

War is inevitable with Iran unfortunatly...


----------



## mkloby (Apr 4, 2007)

Aggie08 said:


> I sincerely hope that Tehran and Washington don't do anything stupid and start another war. Iran is enjoying it's moment in the spotlight and I believe that in five years they'll have crawled back into their huts and fallen from the public eye.



it's just a matter of time. persia is the most irresponsible nation out there. do you want them to go nuclear?


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2007)

the Royal Persian D**k has decided after his lengthy speech of nonsense against the west and awarding Persian coast guard crews medals for capturing the British to let the British go. Guess the bozo can't think of anything else to keep the hostages under lock and key iliegaly 

I again wonder just how many promises were made to that cretin and his perverse govt. ?


----------



## twoeagles (Apr 4, 2007)

He's a total nut job, but he also knows the value of PR to the rest of the Muslim world...I wouldn't say crafty fox as that imples a level of intellectual ability I believe is lacking, but he sure knows how to grand stand.

From the point of view of 15 families back in England, it's simply a very good day.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 4, 2007)

twoeagles said:


> From the point of view of 15 families back in England, it's simply a very good day.



This is true. His beatin' is still a-coming. I really feel it was another poke to test the waters. I think little xerxes feels that he can act with impunity and that the western pansy @ss nations won't take any military action against him. I fear this episode further reinforced that belief.

Israel - are you watching???


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2007)

oh yeah they are watching. I know two chaps that are just waiting for the word ~ "GO"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2007)

Erich said:


> the Royal Persian D**k has decided after his lengthy speech of nonsense against the west and awarding Persian coast guard crews medals for capturing the British to let the British go. Guess the bozo can't think of anything else to keep the hostages under lock and key iliegaly
> 
> I again wonder just how many promises were made to that cretin and his perverse govt. ?



Yeap he called it an early "Easter Present" Here is the story. Either way it is great to see they are going home.

_Iranian leader says he'll free Britons By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would free the 15 detained British sailors and marines Wednesday as an Easter holiday "gift" to the British people. 

He said the captives, who were seized while on patrol in the northern Persian Gulf on March 23, would be taken to the airport following his news conference, but Iranian state television reported they would leave Iran on Thursday. An Iranian official in London said they would be handed over to British diplomats in Tehran.

After the news conference, state television showed Ahmadinejad meeting with the British crew, dressed in business suits, at the presidential palace. He shook hands and chatted with them through a translator, and a caption to the video said the meeting was taking place as part of the "process of release."

"We appreciate it. Your people have been really kind to us, and we appreciate it very much," one of the crew could be heard telling Ahmadinejad in English.

Another said: "We are grateful for your forgiveness."

Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi, "You are welcome."

Iranian TV said the British captives had watched Ahmadinejad's news conference live and were ecstatic when a translator told them what the president had said.

Their release would end a 13-day standoff between London and Tehran that was sparked when the crew was seized as it searched for smugglers off the Iraqi coast. Britain denied Iranian claims the crew had entered Iranian waters.

In London, the office of Prime Minister Tony Blair said it welcomed the news. President Bush, who had condemned the seizure of the Britons and referred to them as "hostages," also welcomed the news, said his national security spokesman, Gordon Johndroe.

In New York, British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said "if this news is confirmed, then it's tremendous news and we're delighted."

Recent days saw talk of direct negotiations between Britain and Iran, and a decrease in tensions that had risen after Iran broadcast videos in which female British sailor Faye Turney and others "confessed" to violating Iranian territorial waters, and Britain expressed outrage.

Ahmadinejad said the British government had sent a letter to the Iranian Foreign Ministry pledging that entering Iranian waters "will not happen again." Britain issued no immediate confirmation of the letter.

"On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet (Muhammad) ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people — with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial — forgave those 15," he said, referring to the Muslim prophet's birthday on March 30 and the Easter holiday.

"This pardon is a gift to the British people," he said.

The surprise announcement came shortly after Ahmadinejad pinned a medal on the chest of the Iranian coast guard commander who intercepted the sailors and marines.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said Blair's office was "establishing exactly what this means in terms of the method and timing of their release."

An Iranian official in London said the crew members would be handed over to British diplomats in Tehran and that it would then be up to the Foreign Office to decide how they would return home.

"They will go through some brief formalities and then they will go to the embassy," said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. "They can go on a British Airways flight to Heathrow, they can go through the UAE (United Arab Emirates), it is up to the British Embassy in Tehran in coordination with the Foreign Office here." 

In London, a Foreign Office spokesman said wanted to "make sure we've actually got them in hand, and that they're safe and well," before making travel plans. 

A group of British service members who were seized by Iran in 2004 were sent back to the British sector of southern Iraq aboard an Iranian commercial flight, after stops in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. 

Ahmadinejad's announcement came after Iran's state media reported that an Iranian envoy would be allowed to meet five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in northern Iraq. Another Iranian diplomat, separately seized two months ago by uniformed gunmen in Iraq, was released and returned Tuesday to Tehran. 

Ahmadinejad said Iran will never accept trespassing in its territorial waters. 

"On behalf of the great Iranian people, I want to thank the Iranian coast guard who courageously defended and captured those who violated their territorial waters," he said. 

"We are sorry that British troops remain in Iraq and their sailors are being arrested in Iran," Ahmadinejad said. 

Ahmadinejad asked Blair not to "punish" the crew for confessing that they had been in Iranian waters when they were seized by Iranian coast guard. Iran broadcast video of some of the crew giving confessions, angering Britain. 

He also criticized Britain for deploying Turney in the Gulf, pointing out that she is a woman with a child. 

"How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don't they respect family values in the West?" he asked of the British government. 

Iran has denied it seized the Britons to force the release of Iranians held in Iraq, and Britain has steadfastly insisted it would not negotiate for the sailors' freedom. 

Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency said earlier Wednesday that an Iranian envoy would be allowed to meet with the five detained Iranians in Iraq but gave no further details. 

A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said, however, that American authorities were still considering the request. The spokesman, Maj. Gen. William C. Caldwell, said an international Red Cross team, including one Iranian, had visited the prisoners but he did not say when. 

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told The Associated Press that the case of the five Iranians detained in Irbil, the capital of the Kurdish self-governing region in northern Iraq, had no connection with the British captives. 

Zebari, a Kurd, said his government had been relaying Iranian requests for a meeting with the five detainees, but could not confirm the request had been approved. 

In a commentary, the Iranian news agency said the movement on the Iranian prisoner issue was due in part to "the new American political and military appointments in Iraq." 

The agency was referring to Gen. David Petraeus, who assumed command of U.S. forces in February, and Ryan Crocker, who began work as the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq last month. 

U.S. troops detained the five Iranians on Jan. 11, accusing them of links to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard network that was supplying money and weapons to insurgents in Iraq. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said President Bush had approved the strategy of raiding Iranian targets in Iraq as part of efforts to confront the government in Tehran. 

Iraqi Kurds, like the country's Shiites, maintain close ties with Shiite-dominated Iran, despite their warm relationship with the U.S. — and have been upset over the arrests in their own capital. 

Iran denounced the raid and insisted that the five were diplomats who were engaged exclusively in consular work. The Iraqi government said they were arrested at an office that was supposed to become an Iranian consulate. 

The British newspaper The Independent reported this week that the Irbil raid had escalated tensions between the U.S. and Iran and may have set the stage for the March 23 seizure of the British naval personnel. 

Also Wednesday, a Kuwaiti newspaper quoted Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem as saying Damascus was also mediating the case of the 15 Britons._


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2007)

now to see if any British news firm has the balls to really proclaim the truth as to what happened "yes they forced confessions with a gun pointed at our heads" attitude


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 4, 2007)

..and to read about the Great Victory that Iran pulled off agains The Great Satan and its puppets. 

I too wonder what was promised to make the change of heart...

Or perhaps threatened.


----------



## FalkeEins (Apr 4, 2007)

_"...He also criticized Britain for deploying Turney in the Gulf, pointing out that she is a woman with a child. "How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don't they respect family values in the West?" he asked of the British government....."_


..well, he's got a point here...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2007)

And the islamic extremists have family values?? 

Lets see lets go blow up a a building full of mothers and fathers to punish the west.

Lets go and strap bombs to our children and parade them around.

Lets go and blow up ourselves and make our children fend for themselves while we go and get our 72 raisins!

Yeah that really sounds like family values to me!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 4, 2007)

Yeah I suppose he does. Now to lobotomize her so she acts uneducated, cover her body from head to toe, force her to talk with no male on the planet and have the child's father beat her on occasion to remind her of her place in life. Paradise, I say.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 4, 2007)

Of course  

Good to see they were released but the quick change of heart from trying them for spying to releasing them has to have been brought around by something.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 4, 2007)

And thus my post above. 

Either that, or wishful thinking.


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2007)

Jewish women serve a tenure of 8 years at least, pregnant or no. It is just a statement that the mojaaheedsmoketheweed is trying to press upon the world.

funny did you see the 3 year old Phillistine punks marching along with big brothers with lily white sheets and cocanuts strapped around their waist impersonating bombers in response to the anniversary of some local spot on the mideast planet recently ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Yeah I suppose he does. Now to lobotomize her so she acts uneducated, cover her body from head to toe, force her to talk with no male on the planet and have the child's father beat her on occasion to remind her of her place in life. Paradise, I say.



The best thing that I saw when I was in Iraq was all the men would walk hand in hand with there young boys by the river while the young girls and the women would do hard labor in the fields.

Yeah thats great family values!


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2007)

Chris you know full well as I that is abnormal to us but acceptable norms to the mideastern culture. Sure when first there we all had a shock to our system besides the bizarre food tastes they have and the horribly strong swill they call kaffee. Geez i still remember the Jordanian stuff with a small spoon stuck vertically in it, expected to not offend we drank that horrible concoction, I had the YUK tate in my mouth all day as we hunted for bad guys


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2007)

I did not mind the food though. I thought the food was pretty good (well atleast in Kurdistan it was very good when we ate at the KDP headquarters). I never tried the coffee but the tea was magnificant served in slightly larger shot glasses.


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2007)

never had the tea but our small group was rather skeptical of trying anything else provided except for our own crap issued.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 4, 2007)

Oh Christ. News just announced that Syria was instrumental in sailors release. Pelosi will be touted as a hero by the left. You watch.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 4, 2007)

FalkeEins said:


> _"...He also criticized Britain for deploying Turney in the Gulf, pointing out that she is a woman with a child. "How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don't they respect family values in the West?" he asked of the British government....."_
> 
> 
> ..well, he's got a point here...



I'm pretty sure she wasn't forced into the military pal. She joined of her own free will, no? I would think the British armed forces have hardship discharges as well for extreme situations.


----------



## bigZ (Apr 4, 2007)

FalkeEins said:


> _"...He also criticized Britain for deploying Turney in the Gulf, pointing out that she is a woman with a child. "How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don't they respect family values in the West?" he asked of the British government....."_
> 
> 
> ..well, he's got a point here...




What differnce does it make that Turney is a mother? How many of the other 14 soldiers are fathers? Arn't they just as important?

As a father of 2 I can sympathsise with the families who have suffered the loss of a loved one in the current situation. It was not too long ago that families where being kicked out of barracks after their husbands/fathers had been KIA.

Good to see the hostages released but I wonder when will thier be another incident.


----------



## Ajax (Apr 4, 2007)

*They've been released!*
Iranians release British sailors


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2007)

well since the enviros have eliminated all BBQ's in Tehran I have called my Jewish AF friends to go bomb the mad-dog diseased wanna be king and govt with partially cooked p**k cutlets and ...........

cut their throats matey !


----------



## plan_D (Apr 5, 2007)

Yea, the British government has paid them off.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2007)

I was thinking the same thing pD. I wonder how much?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 5, 2007)

I don't know, but the payment probably involves a visit to Tehran where Tony Blair will lick all the Iranian assholes' boots.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2007)

I hope the story gets out soon though how the Iranians forced the prisoners to talk all that I love Iran bull ****.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 5, 2007)

baby xerxes has such illusions of grandeur. He'll be cut down...


----------



## timshatz (Apr 5, 2007)

mkloby said:


> baby xerxes has such illusions of grandeur. He'll be cut down...



300 Greeks (plus a couple of thou other guys) or a nasty little sea battle?


----------



## mkloby (Apr 5, 2007)

timshatz said:


> 300 Greeks (plus a couple of thou other guys) or a nasty little sea battle?





We'll see. Much to his dismay it may be 300 Israelis...


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 5, 2007)

Blair claims no deal was done: BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | 'No deal done with Iran' - Blair

Sooner or later the truth will come out so lets wait and see what really happened with the whole affair...


----------



## timshatz (Apr 5, 2007)

mkloby said:


> We'll see. Much to his dismay it may be 300 Israelis...



Either way, one less pain in the ass cluttering up the evening news. Isn't this guy's 15 minutes up yet?


----------



## Erich (Apr 5, 2007)

I agree let the nation of Israel pound that crumb into dust. I wait impatiently for my Velodrome. his attitude is so snotty he's run out of bugger cloth's


----------



## Ajax (Apr 5, 2007)

There are rumours warbling at least one of the sailors was kept in solitary confinement...


----------



## Emac44 (Apr 5, 2007)

Just glad these Sailors and Marines are home with their families. Saw on Sky News that Iranian Military Vessels had boarded civilian shipping numerous times and Iranian Military personal had robbed the Civilian Crews of money and valuables. Which amounts to Piracy. And more so its Piracy because it is sanctioned by the Iranian Government. Sky News had suppressed the story until there was some sort of a release date for the Marines and Sailors. But once they were released Sky News reported the delayed news story


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 6, 2007)

BBC NEWS | UK | UK captives tell of ill treatment

Anyone surprised


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 6, 2007)

Nope.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 6, 2007)

Now the British Marines say that they were lying when making statements in captivity about tresspassing into Iranian waters. I guess if I was told I would be going to jail for seven years I might say a white lie like that too. 

I imagine this last statement from them is the correct one? That Iran was the one that tresspassed into Iraq's waters?

Or is just that the two countries waterway borders are all mixed up anyway?


----------



## Ajax (Apr 6, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Now the British Marines say that they were lying when making statements in captivity about tresspassing into Iranian waters. I guess if I was told I would be going to jail for seven years I might say a white lie like that too.
> 
> I imagine this last statement from them is the correct one? That Iran was the one that tresspassed into Iraq's waters? 1
> 
> Or is just that the two countries waterway borders are all mixed up anyway? 2



1 I don't think the Iraqis are in any position to argue the point, so I guess we'll have to do it for them...

2 The borders are disputed, but it's obvious we were well within iraqi waters


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 6, 2007)

Hell they didn't even know where they were when they reported the capture to begin with. Not only are they supporters of terrorism, but they apparently can't even read GPS coordinates.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 6, 2007)

Hehehe


----------



## mkloby (Apr 6, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Hehehe



Is that you laughing at your own wisecrack???


----------



## Ajax (Apr 6, 2007)

That sort of thing is *Strictly* forbidden!





How can a nation get away with *mock* execution nowadays? The dirty, theavin, ungrateful bastards...


----------



## renrich (Apr 6, 2007)

I have a concern about the British sailors and marines who were captured without a fight and who in a very short time caved in and said whatever their captors wanted them to. Is this the type of behavior their training prepared them for? When I compare this to the behavior of John McCain and Sam Johnson and countless others in Viet Nam and when I try to remember the words of the code of honor we learned when I was in the service(admittedly not in combat) Does anyone else share my concern?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 6, 2007)

Matt said:


> Hehehe





kloby said:


> Is that you laughing at your own wisecrack???


Ur damn right it was....


----------



## plan_D (Apr 6, 2007)

Reinrich, what planet do you live on? 'Cos it certainly isn't the same one I'm on.

You're complaining about 15 British servicemen surrendering without a fight, against six Iranian gunboats. It ain't Hollywood, if those people would have fought against the Iranians they'd have been killed in an instant. 

And for the troops to announce that they were in Iranian waters means nothing. Everyone knew they were lying, and they just wanted to go home. British training is "name, rank and number" that's it...but if telling a lie gets you home then so be it.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 6, 2007)

renrich said:


> I have a concern about the British sailors and marines who were captured without a fight and who in a very short time caved in and said whatever their captors wanted them to. Is this the type of behavior their training prepared them for? When I compare this to the behavior of John McCain and Sam Johnson and countless others in Viet Nam and when I try to remember the words of the code of honor we learned when I was in the service(admittedly not in combat) Does anyone else share my concern?


nope


----------



## mkloby (Apr 6, 2007)

Renrich is referring the US Code of Conduct:

Article I: I am an American, fighting in the armed forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense. 

Article II: I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist. 

Article III: If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy. 

Article IV: If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way. 

Article V: When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service, number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause. 

Article VI: I will never forget that I am an American, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.


Honestly, renrich, that had crossed my mind. But, the thing is, 1 - I don't know what type of code of conduct the British forces have. And 2 - I really know nothing of the sort of what went on. You really just don't know what had happened. I think that's the important part. I don't think anyone is in a position to pass judgment on their actions. I believe if there is any thought of wrongdoing, the british will investigate and take appropriate action.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 6, 2007)

No actually, it was a rather lame attempt to cover up the fact that I pasted a post in the wrong thread. 

Heed my Title, mkloby! I shall not answer your queries of my F'ups hence forward.


----------



## Jank (Apr 6, 2007)

renrich said, "_Does anyone else share my concern?_"

Very well said renrich and yes, I for one do.

Joint statement from Lt. Carmen:

_"I would just like to stress three points at this stage:

* When taken by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard we were well inside Iraqi territorial waters.
* The detention was clearly illegal and not a pleasant experience.
* We as a group held out for as long as we though appropriate. We then complied up to a point with our captors.

We remain Immensely proud of our team. Their courage and dignity throughout their illegal detention was in line with the best tradition of the service."_

Held out for as long as they felt appropriate? They caved within a week. Complied up to a point? I'm trying to imagine what they possibly were asked to say which they refused to give in on. Best traditions of the service? If I were a member of the Iranian military, I would certainly feel emboldened by this display of "best tradition."

They say the sun never sets on the British Empire. Perhaps she finally shriveled up from too much exposure.

The aspect of this story that I find most interesting is just how dangerous the Iranians are. The British captives said that a primary reason for not fighting back was they did not want to provoke an international incident with its unintended, attendant consequences. Interesting that the Iranians deliberately planned a seizure of 15 British a mile and a half within internationally recognized Iraqi waters without the restraint of any such considerations. What if there had been a firefight (which the Iranians necessarily would have expected as not just possible but quite likely) and an ensuing loss of all 15 Britons? 

Oops.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 6, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> No actually, it was a rather lame attempt to cover up the fact that I pasted a post in the wrong thread.
> 
> Heed my Title, mkloby! I shall not answer your queries of my F'ups hence forward.



Yes, Sir!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 6, 2007)




----------



## pbfoot (Apr 6, 2007)

Firstly they were not POW's nor was it a war . Was the detention illegal yes , 
and you can't say squat until you've walked in the mans shoes ,. Did you believe the confession's I know I didn't nor did anyone with an iota of sense . I'm quite sure the RM's know the code and probably have done training in interogation techniques . Were there not US pilots who confessed on Iraqi TV back in 91 I believe there were but could be wrong


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 6, 2007)

Well said, Pb. Its part of the captive training. Agree to anything for well being, but attempt to provide clues to your duress.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 7, 2007)

Has the stupid bug just bitten everyone who is "showing concern" here? 

Those soldiers would have been killed instantly for absolutely no gain. Why should they fight back just to be killed for nothing? America might not care about its troops and expects them to fight in any situation, but Britain shows some restraint. 

Those troops did the right thing, and they gave away no military secrets. Everyone knew they were forced to say those things about entering Iranian waters, they would have known we had the idea they were forced. So what fu*king difference does it make?! 

Basically, being concerned about their actions just says to anyone with a brain that you wanted them to go all gung-ho and get themselves killed. It ISN'T Hollywood, people die, those people have families ...trying to act like John Wayne would have got them killed, their families distressed and the British government in the position of war. For what? Just to make Hollywood junkies happy?!

And it WAS said the sun never set on the British Empire - the Empire has been and gone. Those lads were not fighting for a tradition, they're family members and soldiers ... I feel the need to repeat - opening fire would have got them all killed for NOTHING.


----------



## FalkeEins (Apr 7, 2007)

.._these people have families_....

and I thought that they were in the military to lay down their lives for us in time of war - couldn't see that lot doing it frankly......they'll be suing the government for compensation next... taking on those Iranian gunboats might have avoided the whole sorry farce of their 'captivity' ..and shown the Iranians that we will not tolerate the Mullahs messing around with the UN ...

mind you having said that, why should we believe anything our government tells us about the location of these 15 when they were taken....they have been economical with the truth with us so much over the past few years..

I come back to my previous point of women in the military..while we have some 20,000 serving women in the British armed forces they are still barred from serving in units likely to close directly with the enemy... ..yet over 500 service women have been wounded, maimed or killed in Iraq, (mostly US) many of whom have (had) kids at home....
...here a recent review arrived at the conclusion that 'mixed' forces hinder combat effectiveness..as far as the 15 were concerned it seems to have completely emasculated it...certainly the Iranians 'milked it' ....

interesting piece in the paper today ..apparently 83 service women have been sent home from Iraq after falling pregnant...


----------



## Erich (Apr 7, 2007)

gents/ladies :

hoping this makes sense, as I am on more cancer fighting drugs this grey morn.

what type of ship and what type of arms did this British vessel have on board and did it have the capabilities to take on the Iranian copters or whatever they used to capture the British as hostages ? I have not really followed this as close as i should have .........


----------



## trackend (Apr 7, 2007)

My concern has never been about the conduct or non conduct of the personel in the incident ( the end resolution was better than having a volley fired over 15 boxes it was all political bollocks and not worth one persons life) I am more interested in how the hell it happened in the first place.
A war ship fitted with modern radar close helo air support available and they never saw a bloody thing coming a small show of force before arrival would of been enough to send half a dozen Tupperware boats packing somebody wants their backside kicking pronto.


----------



## Erich (Apr 7, 2007)

so do we dare say it ? : someone was asleep at their post - a certain R/O


----------



## Jank (Apr 7, 2007)

And what was with that kissy face session with Imadinnerjacket before they left? No doubt the cherry on top of that "best tradition."

There is no way around the conclusion that this whole episode left England looking like a pushover in the "best tradition" of international embarrassments. 

The only thing missing from this story so far is an allegation that the female Brit slept with her captors. You know, as Matt 308 said, "Agree to anything for well being." Maybe if she was offered a more comfortable bed or a nice Persian carpet.


----------



## Jank (Apr 7, 2007)

I just saw an analyst on CNN state that he has been told by a source in the Briish Navy that the brass is not happy with how the british captives handled themselves in light of the coercive circumstances they faced. The criticism was characterized as an "unnecessary capitulation."

Best Tradition my ass.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 7, 2007)

Jank - I think that if there's any thought of a breeching of whatever the British military's code of conduct is, there will be an investigation and it will be taken care of. I really don't think it's our place to judge sitting on the sidelines. I think it should just be left at that.


----------



## renrich (Apr 7, 2007)

Plan D, I live on the same planet as you. Let me clarify my prior message and say that I am not complaining nor am I pointing fingers at any nationality. I am concerned about the incident in Iraqui waters and I was concerned and still am about the actions of the CO and crew of the Pueblo. By clarification, if the training of the British personnel led them to act in the manner they did, then they acted properly and if the EM were following orders from an officer and it did not contravene what they were trained to do then they acted properly. The Code of Conduct(thank you Mkloby) was adopted in the US Military after the Korean War when some American POWs acted in their own self interest while in the hands of the enemy. Believe me when I say that when I was serving, we took the Code of Conduct seriously. Never having been exposed to combat, thankfully, I do not know if I would have comported myself according to the Code but I hope I would. I know we are not dealing with hollywood here, this is real life, but neither were John McCain, Sam Johnson, Jim Stockdale and many others in Hollywood. If one has not read about what they endured, I invite you to do so. Some of them kept the faith until their bodies were broken and when they finally gave in it broke their hearts. McCain cannot lift his arms above his shoulders today because of the torture he endured. Maybe the Code of Conduct is outmoded and is no longer relevant today like a lot of other "old fashioned" stuff. I hope not. I am out of date on much today but if the training of troops teaches them to act in a fashion that they apparently(I know we don't know all the issues) acted, then I am concerned about the training.


----------



## Jank (Apr 7, 2007)

mkloby said, "_I really don't think it's our place to judge sitting on the sidelines_."

Sorry but I disagree and to be accurate, I am not in a position to sit in judgement. I am merely expressing an opinion which is just that, an opinion. I also expressed the conclusory opinion that OJ was guilty even before the trial in which he was judged. In fact, it is still my opinion that he is guilty.

Many areas of this forum exist to express opinions about events and circumstances that involve an element of speculation. If you disagree with the conclusions I have stated because the "jury is still out" then that is fine and a legitimate criticism of me.

I for one don't subscribe to the notion that we can't express opinions embracing ultimate conclusions because the truth of all the facts are not yet known. Often, the truth of conflicting "facts" are never known.

It is certainly wrong for those who are investigating or sitting in judgement to pre-judge without sufficient facts. Occupying the sidelines, I am free to conclude anything I like.

I understand that you think I have rushed to judgement. Again, that is a valid criticism and I promise not to protest if you later throw my rush to judgement in my face should new or different facts come to light.

Lastly, I suspect that had this incident involved French sailors instead of British, many of those do not wish to rush to judgement would be speaking louder than me in the face of uncertain facts about their training, the expectations of them when in captivity and what they actually endured. Do you really disagree?


----------



## mkloby (Apr 7, 2007)

Jank - you have the right to draw any conclusion you wish. However, my whole point is that you will never get all the facts, regardless of what you may think you know. The Brits themselves will investigate as to whether they breeched their code of conduct, which nobody has ever mentioned any specifics as to what theirs is. It may be different from ours. The British military will likely not release much of what they ascertain from their investigation, if one is indeed launched. Obviously, they'll debrief, and take it further if deemed necessary.

I pray to God that if I'm ever shot down and captured, that I have the strength to abide by the code of conduct and don't weaken.

Renrich - The Code of Conduct is just as stressed today as it was when you were in. Our monthly Professional Military Training for Feb was on Code of Conduct. They particularly stress it for us involved in aviation due to the chances of going down isolated in unfriendly territory.


----------



## Ajax (Apr 7, 2007)

The main ship they were serving on had more than enough guns to take on the Iranians, but the captives were a "boarding party" and were basically on board a souped up rubber dinghy. They used it to do a routine check on a merchant vessel, but ended up with several heavy machine guns trained on them. And the rest, as they say, is history...


----------



## mkloby (Apr 7, 2007)

Ajax said:


> The main ship they were serving on had more than enough guns to take on the Iranians, but the captives were a "boarding party" and were basically on board a souped up rubber dinghy. They used it to do a routine check on a merchant vessel, but ended up with several heavy machine guns trained on them. And the rest, as they say, is history...



Thanks for the info - I think that the Brits' SOPs will likely be revised due to the vulnerability of the boarding party.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 7, 2007)

Having seen and watched many incidents such as aviation incidents its amazing how many take the news bytes and believe what some gossip show or magazine spews > the best bet is wait til the inquiry deseminates all the info and then make your call as to whether the actions were correct or not. At this point we know squat we have not heard the radio transcripts or seen the tapes of the radar either intercepted or the RN's or the Awacs that was more then likely present . 
So how can anyone with a modicum intelligence make a call on the what occured certainly not a soul on this forum


----------



## mkloby (Apr 7, 2007)

Pb - I agree in full. That's the point I've been trying to make.


----------



## FalkeEins (Apr 7, 2007)

Jank said:


> The only thing missing from this story so far is an allegation that the female Brit slept with her captors. You know, as Matt 308 said, "Agree to anything for well being." Maybe if she was offered a more comfortable bed or a nice Persian carpet.



..investigation, facts, enquiry ..??? we hear now that the 'captives' are being allowed to sell their stories to the press... and keep the cash ...as the only woman she stands to make a cool $500,000 ....


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 7, 2007)

FalkeEins said:


> ..investigation, facts, enquiry ..??? we hear now that the 'captives' are being allowed to sell their stories to the press... and keep the cash ...as the only woman she stands to make a cool $500,000 ....


Once again securuty clearance is Not Top Secret Nor Secret Nor Restricted or Classified but cleared to rumour


----------



## renrich (Apr 7, 2007)

Mkloby, I hope you never have to test yourself on the Code of Honor but have no doubt that you will keep the Faith if you are so tested.


----------



## Jank (Apr 7, 2007)

renrich said, _"Mkloby, I hope you never have to test yourself on the Code of Honor but have no doubt that you will keep the Faith if you are so tested."_

And if it appears that you fail said test miserably, only I will point it out and criticize you for it. 

Displaying the Best Traditions of the Royal Navy at the airport in Tehran just berfore returning home. 





.
.
.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 8, 2007)

The British sailors had only their SA-80s as defence and one MG. They were confronted by six Iranian armoured vessels, with heavy MG. The sailors were out-numbered, out-gunned and too far from any support. They had one Lynx helicopter in support but they do not have the firepower to provide safety for the sailors in the patrol vessels. 

It's nice to believe that these people should have fought, but it would have gotten them killed for nothing. Their actions after capture can be debated all day long, but for anyone to imply the sailors should have gone down all guns blazing have been watching too many Die Hard movies and need to grow up.

The only part of this operation and resultant capture I'm concerned with is the actions of HMS Cornwall, the mother ship. The Iranian vessels would have been detected, the sailors should have been ordered back to the ship while HMS Cornwall steamed toward them. If the Iranians had continued their pursuit, the Lynx should then warn them off - if they refused, by the time they reached the patrol HMS Cornwall would have been in sight and the Iranians would have found their fortunes reversed.


----------



## Ajax (Apr 8, 2007)

They didn't know if the Iranians were hostile plan d, so maybe they weren't expecting the confrontation.

And would *you* risk death hostilities between _two nations_ for the sake of some now outdated sense of honour?



.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2007)

> The only part of this operation and resultant capture I'm concerned with is the actions of HMS Cornwall, the mother ship. The Iranian vessels would have been detected, the sailors should have been ordered back to the ship while HMS Cornwall steamed toward them. If the Iranians had continued their pursuit, the Lynx should then warn them off - if they refused, by the time they reached the patrol HMS Cornwall would have been in sight and the Iranians would have found their fortunes reversed.


 I agree with u 100% pD... What the hell were those yahoos thinking in CIC when the radar operator detected the Iranian vessels....

Someone in the Admiralty is lucky as hell no one was killed...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 8, 2007)

I happen to agree with mkloby here. We do not know what was happening in behind those walls, opinions are fine but lets not pass judgement.

As for the code of conduct you are trained to hold out as long as you can but when you do cave in (and everyone does eventually, that is taught as well in training) you are to give some kind of hint that you are still alive and kicking and just doing this to stay alive. Those US airforce pilots who were shot down in the first gulf war did just that. Our Airforce SEAR trainers taught us about it, and when you know what to do and what to look for it is obvious that you are doing so to keep from getting your face kicked in.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 8, 2007)

The key with confessions and the like is that they are used for propaganda purposes. One thing to show you are under duress is to do something uncharacteristic. If a written confession, deliberately misspell a word, or sign your name different than you normally would. Spoken confessions, use body language or mispronounce words, or pronounce them differently than you would normally. It has to be subtle enough that your captors would not know the difference, but people that know you do.

I always hated the thought of being captured and thankfully never was. The only time that was close, I had a bullet in reserve. I knew what the people we were up against were particularly nasty, and did not even know what the Geneva convention was, much less follow it. I had seen their handywork, and knew then that they would not be any kinder to me.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 8, 2007)

I think its possible that the smaller iranian ships approached using the larger vessel that was to be searched as a block from radar . I've been given to understand that it is a fairly congested waterway and these were smaller ships. Where was AWACS those ships departure and courses should have been plotted as soon as they left port . There are so many variables and tactics that could have been used to mask detection and and intentions . There is no doubt it was planned and even possible the ship to be searched was a Judas Goat. Was all the radar operational ot was some or any of the systems down for maintainence . Was temperature inversion a problem was there precipitation . None of us know . Once again our collective securuty clearance on this website is 
"cleared to Rumour"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 8, 2007)

evangilder said:


> I always hated the thought of being captured and thankfully never was. The only time that was close, I had a bullet in reserve. I knew what the people we were up against were particularly nasty, and did not even know what the Geneva convention was, much less follow it. I had seen their handywork, and knew then that they would not be any kinder to me.




Same here. When I was in Iraq I had an extra bullet just in case. I was not going to be captured (I to this day have not told my wife that however).


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 8, 2007)

Ajax said:


> BBC News Player - Navy crewman 'apologises'
> 
> Another bold, obvious move.



They probably had AK-47s pointed at him the whole time


----------



## bigZ (Apr 8, 2007)

I believe they are now going to sell their story. Does this setup a dangerous precedent?

I too am curious to know what is the approved conduct for captured British servicemen? I cant help comparing them to the 2 British tornado airmen captured during the first Gulf War(you could tell those guys had it hard).


----------



## Ajax (Apr 8, 2007)

I don't know if they will sell their stories; they would live the rest of their lives scared of some Iranian gunslinger coming through the door


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 8, 2007)

I guess following that vein I would think the movie can't be far behind .
I can't see the MoD allowing it while in uniform


----------



## plan_D (Apr 8, 2007)

The body language of all the sailors shown on Iranian TV was analysed, and everytime they "confessed" it was obvious they were shuffling to say it's not the truth.


----------



## bigZ (Apr 9, 2007)

Ajax said:


> I don't know if they will sell their stories; they would live the rest of their lives scared of some Iranian gunslinger coming through the door



As far as am aware the Navy has given the green light for them to sell their stories as they felt someone from their familiy would spill the beans anyway. Apparently 2 marines are going to donate their fees.

But does this open up a possible dangerous precedent for other service personal to sell their stories, especially in on going conflicts?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2007)

Ajax said:


> I don't know if they will sell their stories; they would live the rest of their lives scared of some Iranian gunslinger coming through the door



 

This is not Hollywood.


----------



## Jank (Apr 9, 2007)

FELLOW captive Faye Turney was instrumental in getting Arthur Batchelor through their terrifying 13-day kidnap ordeal, the 20-year-old said yesterday.

Mirror.co.uk - News - Top Stories - ARTHUR: FAYE SAVED ME

*But, speaking of the moment they were reunited, he told how he wept and begged the 26-year-old for a hug. Arthur said: "I missed Topsy most of all. I really love her, as a mum and a big sister. Not seeing her and not knowing if she was safe was one of the hardest parts of the whole thing.

"Then on the sixth day, when I was just about giving up hope, I was pulled from my bed in the early hours of the morning.

"They led me down a corridor and into a room, where I saw Topsy in a corner.

"I can't describe how that felt...just every emotion rolled into one. I ran up to her, threw my arms round her and cried like a baby.

"When I'd calmed down, she asked, 'Do you need another hug, a mother hug?' and I said, 'damn right'. She was just as pleased to see me because they'd told her I'd been sent home.*


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2007)

WTF is that all about??? A Mummy hug??? Where are the balls of the Britsh Navy and Marines???


----------



## plan_D (Apr 9, 2007)

I have no idea and I'm not going to defend those words; what a pansy.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 9, 2007)

he'll never live it down! I bet he's in this clip see if u can spot him:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pHsZqqZ2XE_


you gotta see the head banging helo pilots at 4:00


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2007)

The headbanging is the best part....


----------



## mkloby (Apr 9, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> WTF is that all about??? A Mummy hug??? Where are the balls of the Britsh Navy and Marines???



 

That was some of the most ridiculous crap I've ever read... Are the British now severing the testicles of their troops?


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 9, 2007)

mkloby said:


> That was some of the most ridiculous crap I've ever read... Are the British now severing the testicles of their troops?



Tea must be high in Estrogen.


----------



## bigZ (Apr 9, 2007)

The 15 hostages talking to the press seems to be becoming more embarrasing/controversal than the whole Iranian kidnapping.

Latest joke to be doing the rounds:-

"15 British servicemen arrested in Iranian waters. 14 guys and 1 girl. It doesn't take a f$*king genius to work out who was reading the map."


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2007)

Now thats a fuc*king funny ass woman joke...


----------



## Ajax (Apr 9, 2007)

BBC NEWS | UK | MoD ban on troops selling stories

Odd...


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2007)

> The Ministry of Defence has banned personnel from selling their stories to the media until a review of the rules governing the issue is completed.


Not odd, expected... They have to review it and they cant make up their minds, so ban it for the time being...


----------



## Erich (Apr 9, 2007)

ah yes 14 troops making it with 72 celestial virgins, sorry the girl was left out

movie making at it's finest ............ puke


----------



## timshatz (Apr 9, 2007)

bigZ said:


> The 15 hostages talking to the press seems to be becoming more embarrasing/controversal than the whole Iranian kidnapping.
> 
> Latest joke to be doing the rounds:-
> 
> "15 British servicemen arrested in Iranian waters. 14 guys and 1 girl. It doesn't take a f$*king genius to work out who was reading the map."



Good chuckle.


----------



## Udet (Apr 10, 2007)

Les:

I agree with you that those words would not seem to come from a man that is in the military of a nation who stills move within the inner circle of world powers...but do you think the feeling of that guy is out of line?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 10, 2007)

Out of line??? 

No.... Not everyone has an iron will, and obviously this kid bein 20 didnt help matters much, just bein off of mommies tit.... He thought he was gonna die and was scared... Nothing wrong with that, in solitude, but to act all out of control around ur shipmates is wrong... Gotta be strong and give all the support u can...

Not whimper and ask for a hug...


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 10, 2007)

I'm sure there were some whiners in Alexander the Greats Army, Trafalgar and Gettysburg. there just weren't any parasitic press looking for "Good Stories".

Modern soldiers are allowed to be afraid but they need to use good judgement too!

Heres at tip: NEVER TELL ANYONE U WANT A "MUMMY HUG" or it may end up on You Tube!


----------



## Udet (Apr 10, 2007)

I agree with you...nothing wrong with missing your mother just save the weeping until reaching a more private or intimate moment. 

I think these situations are very likely to become the common thing; what percentage of any army is comprised by guys either in their late teens/early 20s? No less than 80% of the Russian army guys fighting in Chechnya as we speak here belong into this age group: fresh meat.

Just curious Primus, can you say how old were you the first time you were sent into action? I have no clue regarding ages for allowance into a branch such as the Navy SEALS.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 10, 2007)

There is no age requirements for SOCOM... I was 23 when I enlisted in 1988...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2007)

Dont take me wrong, what that guy said was outright stupid with the mummy hug but I think emotions are okay. I cried when I said goodbye to my wife when we shipped out to Iraq. I felt no shame it in either. However I did not cry like a 5 year old does when they dont get what they want. I just shed a few tears and got on the bus.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 11, 2007)

FalkeEins said:


> ..investigation, facts, enquiry ..??? we hear now that the 'captives' are being allowed to sell their stories to the press... and keep the cash ...as the only woman she stands to make a cool $500,000 ....



That has since been overridden. They cannot talk with the press for $$.


----------



## FalkeEins (Apr 11, 2007)

..they already did...in two of the tabloid papers at least ...a percentage of the fee going to the ship apparently...but yes they've back-tracked subsequently...


----------



## evangilder (Apr 11, 2007)

I remember in my day they basically told us to not talk to the press at all.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 12, 2007)

Mummy hug. 

I guess women have their place in the armed forces after all. 

Consoling their despondent comrades like mummies will do.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 12, 2007)

evangilder said:


> I remember in my day they basically told us to not talk to the press at all.



That should be a rule of thumb for all, in or out of the Military. Nothing good happens when you talk to a reporter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 12, 2007)

When I talked to the press when I was in, it was allways "I have not comment on this at that time."


----------



## bigZ (Apr 12, 2007)

I would be very supprised if Tony Blair himself did not give the green light for the sevicemen(not all have sold their story BTW) to talk to the press in a PR stunt. Unfortunately it has backfired and we have some minsters looking a bit uncomfortable.

I guess most of us posting in this section are of a slighly older generation to Arthur. But I wonder how normal it seems to the younger generation talking about things that the older generation may not wish to disclose. Especially when we have television programs such as Big Brother, Jerry Springer Show etc constantly bombarding us. Jeez we even make celebraties out of nobodies who have kissed an told. Or is Arthur just a bit simple?


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 12, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Mummy hug.
> 
> I guess women have their place in the armed forces after all.
> 
> Consoling their despondent comrades like mummies will do.



We should all be relieved that it was a woman dispensing "Mummy Hugs".

At least it wasn't man on man Mummy hugs!


----------



## timshatz (Apr 12, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> At least it wasn't man on man Mummy hugs!



Wouldn't that come under "Don't ask, don't tell"?


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 12, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Wouldn't that come under "Don't ask, don't tell"?



I think that would be Don't Ask don't tell..... but if you do, hold out for "Movie Rights and a ton of $$$$$."

_HMS Cornhole?
Brokeback Frigate?
Seaman Holiday?_


----------



## Ajax (Apr 12, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I think that would be Don't Ask don't tell..... but if you do, hold out for "Movie Rights and a ton of $$$$$."
> 
> _HMS Cornhole?
> Brokeback Frigate?
> Seaman Holiday?_




Sh*gg*ng private brian?
Jaws? ..shiver


----------



## mkloby (Apr 12, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Brokeback Frigate?



 Funny. Just so you guys know, don't ask don't tell is not official DoD policy anymore.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 13, 2007)

What IS the official policy, mkloby. God can any serviceman nowadays discuss their bedroom picadillos?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 14, 2007)

God be praised, NO....


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 14, 2007)




----------



## comiso90 (Apr 14, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> God can any serviceman nowadays discuss their bedroom picadillos?



Pickled dildo's? That's sick.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 14, 2007)

Lord strike me down. Why am I thinking of Animal House?


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 14, 2007)

"Hi Mrs. Wormer. Mine's bigger than that."


----------



## mkloby (Apr 14, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> What IS the official policy, mkloby. God can any serviceman nowadays discuss their bedroom picadillos?



Official policy is that homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service. Homosexual conduct can be a homosexual act, or a genuine displayed propensity that one engages in homosexual acts. Being homosexual, in and of itself, is not a violation of DoD policy. Violation of this policy is grounds for being sep'd.


----------



## Erich (Apr 14, 2007)

what the hey, how did homo's come into this . ...... . ? gag why am I asking


----------



## mkloby (Apr 14, 2007)

Erich said:


> what the hey, how did homo's come into this . ...... . ? gag why am I asking



I think it was the 'mummy hug'


----------



## Ajax (Apr 14, 2007)

And the new *official* naval salute of the RN;


----------



## plan_D (Apr 14, 2007)

I see someone watched "Have I Got News For You" ... classic.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 15, 2007)

So, tell me guys, what happens when Iran does this again???


----------



## mkloby (Apr 15, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> So, tell me guys, what happens when Iran does this again???



I'd like to see a MEF in Iran with some army divisions to annihilate their ground forces, the USN blockading their entire coast with carriers engaged in full operations, the USAF conducting operations from Iraq.

Completely destroy the Iranian gov't power from the ground up. Even a power vacuum left there is more favorable to leaving that regime to continue its current path.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2007)

You might get that wish mkloby, quite soon...


----------



## Ajax (Apr 15, 2007)

Or we could all give each other mummy-hugs and prance into the sunlight threading daisies through each other's hair...

The fact is, our government is looking very rickety and with a new prime minister will stumble into the general elections doing anything they can for PR. Starting a war is not good for PR unfortunatley.


----------



## bigZ (Apr 15, 2007)

But is good for keeping you in power ask Mrs T.


----------

