Posted on 03/23/2007 1:04:28 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The Brits have become like Canada: socialist and wimps!
Consider that Tony "Limey Poofter" Blair is much closer to Rowan Atkinson than he is to Margaret Thatcher.
And then remember that about 90% of Britain is overrun with Islamists.
"Now, now. We must be tolerant, because our strength depends on our multicultural diversity." /Sarcasm>
Cheers!
It's a good job your not in charge. No-one is going to order that sort of action. Nothing will be done to provoke any harm or further detention of the captured sailors and marines.
It appears that the sailors have gone into appeasing the Iranians. Admit to being in Iranian waters and get released quicker. The same happened to the captured navy personnel back in 2004. Tell the Iranians that they were right and get released quicker.
Iranian vessels do it all the time. They are allowed to. They patrol all the way up to their water territorial limits. What do you want to do start a shooting war? The same goes for their maritime patrol aircraft monitoring shipping.
Are you for real. When US civilian naval advisors were detained by the Iranians on Iraqi naval vessels did the US declare war? No.
Nobody is going to start a shooting war in regards to such incidents. Nothing is going to put in harm the captured sailors and marines.
"Admit to being in Iranian waters and get released quicker. "
So you are saying that the contested waterway does belong to Iran and England sells out Iraq to get their 15 sailors back.
And people wonder why we America is consistently played as fools.
That is exactly what happened in the incident back in 2004. Those guys and the Iraqi's were plucked from Iraqi waters.
All the non-sense of name, rank, serial goes out the window. Look at the POWs in Desert Storm. Videod and filmed disagreeing with the war and apologising for attacking Iraq. In that case everybody knew that they were under duress and doing everything they could to survive. Only idiots belittled them for saying such things on camera.
Do you honestly think that those captured guys are going to go into name, rank, serial routine just to prolong their captivity? They will see it exactly as it is a diplomatic incident. They know that they were in Iraqi waters, but to aid their release will play along with the Iranians and give tongue in cheek apology.
The last time the Iranians were happy with videod apologies from all the navy and marine guys. It is likely that the Iranians will do that again.
Iranian vessels do it all the time. They are allowed to. They patrol all the way up to their water territorial limits.
Of course they are allowed to patrol their waters. However, they have shown a willingness to cross over that boundary in the past and capture British sailors to make a point.
So when the frigate saw the Iranian vessels near the border, it should have placed itself between the Iranian vessels and the small British boats that were boarding suspected smuggling ships, while remaining in Iraqi waters.
If the Iranian ships then approached, the Frigate should have warned them that they had entered Iraqi waters, and at the same time notified their commanders of the intrusion. If the Iraqis continued to approach their men, the frigate should have warned them to return to Iranian waters, and should have fired a warning shot if necessary.
Under no circumstances should they have allowed the Iranian ships to intercept their boats and take their men hostage.
We have two carrier groups in the region for a reason.
What do you want to do start a shooting war?
Iran, for the second time, entered Iraqi waters and kidnapped British sailors, and is holding them hostage.
Do you find that acceptable? Should they just keep letting it happen? When it happened the first time, and the British did nothing, they showed Iran that it could do this and the British would do nothing.
The British will have no peace with Iran, unless they are willing to defend themselves.
I don't want a shooting war, but I expect that commanders will uphold their responsibility and protect the men that serve under them. They should try to protect their men without firing a shot, but it their hand is forced, they should not fail to take measures necessary to protect their people.
Iran invaded the waters of a sovereign nation and took hostages. That is clearly an act of war. At what point do you think the British should defend themselves? After Iran starts shooting them? Well, it's pretty obvious that Iran is aiding the insurgents that are killing British troops, so that's already happening.
You don't want to expand the conflict to include fighting Iran directly? Well, Iran doesn't seem to have such a reservation. They just invaded and captured British sailors at gunpoint for the second time.
The rules of engagement require to be changed.
Those navy guys captured in 2004 were not forced at all to say anything. Although not allowed to be interviewed directly their wives were. They all agreed to tongue in cheek say that they were in the wrong in order to gain early release. Anything else would have delayed their release.
The helo that was watching over them was waived off by the boarding party commander. The merchant vessel had been searched and they were returning to their rigid inflatables. It was when communications were lost that the helo returned to see the rigids being escorted into Iranian waters. The rules of engagement would prevent any direct action in such circumstances. In that situation nothing would be done to endanger the lives of those detained.
Bear in mind that they would be under U.S. control.Even U.S. commanders wouldn't have wanted to escalate and endanger the RN guys detained in such circumstances by violating Iranian waters or airspace.
The commander of the boarding party doesn't have the radar capability that the Frigate has. The helo would also be pretty much useless as a picket to force the Iranian ships to go around in order to reach the boarding party.
The Frigate had to have known where the Iranian ships were, and should have put itself between those ships and its boarding party.
The Iranians are clearly not our friends as they have shown in the past, and there is no excuse for the commander of the frigate leaving his people exposed like that.
The rules of engagement would prevent any direct action in such circumstances. In that situation nothing would be done to endanger the lives of those detained.
Which is why that situation, which could have been foresee, since it has happened before, should have never been allowed to occur. Those men were surrendered without any chance to stop the Iranians because of gross strategic incompetence by the commander.
This was foreseeable, and preventable.
He left his men exposed to a far superior force from a nation that has shown past aggression in the area, and is actively working to undermine their mission in the area.
Bear in mind that they would be under U.S. control.Even U.S. commanders wouldn't have wanted to escalate and endanger the RN guys detained in such circumstances by violating Iranian waters or airspace.
You're missing the point. The circumstance where the Iraninas were able to get to those boats without having to confront the Frigate should have never been allowed to occur.
Your argument is that after he had already grossly failed in his duty the situation became such that there was no longer anything that he could do about it, so he shouldn't be held accountable for his original failure.
But you fail to see that putting Cornwall between the merchant vessel and the Iranian patrol boats might have meant Cornwall would be inside Iranian waters.
No Captain will be relieved of his command over this. It is the rules of engagement that are fault.
Even after the events in 2004 Iranian naval vessels were allowed to shadow all the way upto their territorial waterway limits. That both sides did. It has been seen consitantly since then as is the rights of both sides to do so. In this case the Iranians had an alterior motive in detaining the Royal Navy team.
The boarding party should not have been operating so close to the border that the Cornwall could not place itself between the boarding party and the Iranian navy.
There is no good reason for them to board boats that close to the border, especially after the Iranians had captured a group of British sailors in that area three years prior, and accused them of entering Iranian waters.
This is an obvious, foreseeable problem. It has happened before. They should have been operating in such a was as to be able to protect their people, because they obviously can't respond properly after their men have been taken hostage.
It would be bad if this were the first time British sailors had been taken captive working in this area and the British navy was caught being lax in employing measures to keep their people safe. However, this isn't the first time it has happened, and the commander cannot say this is something he had no reason to expect might happen.
They were forewarned by a previous similar situation, and the incident was preventable. He simply failed in his duty to protect his people. He should be sacked.
OOOOOH, they're stamping their feet now. how scary is that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.