To: Continental Soldier
The troops had pistols, the iranians had machine guns.
It would have been a blood bath, with OUR BLOOD.
To: UKrepublican
"The troops had pistols, the iranians had machine guns."
Outgun me once, shame on you. Outgun me twice, shame on me. Hopefully someone "over the pond" will understand that.
To: UKrepublican
The mother ship was also armed.
13 posted on
03/31/2007 3:07:09 PM PDT by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: UKrepublican
"It would have been a blood bath, with OUR BLOOD."
Oh well, you can just let this thing drag on and end up being another example of a big Western Civilization dog wimping away with its tail between its legs.
Welcome to the club.
14 posted on
03/31/2007 3:09:47 PM PDT by
Radix
(Reasonable people often can and do disagree.)
To: UKrepublican
The troops had pistols, the iranians had machine guns. It would have been a blood bath, with OUR BLOOD.
Which leads to the next logical question. WHY did they only have pistols to defend themselves?
To: UKrepublican
The mother ship has great weapons and the helicopter over watch was armed.
If not the command need reprimands and the rules of engagement need some change.
69 posted on
03/31/2007 5:22:07 PM PDT by
colonialhk
(Power and Money,the new mantra of the left!)
To: UKrepublican
Next time sink any Iranian vessel that gats closer than 100 yards. Apologize later at leisure about "the unfortunate incident."
72 posted on
03/31/2007 5:54:28 PM PDT by
ffusco
(Maecilius Fuscus,Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
To: UKrepublican
You know, when a country puts it's soldiers in harm's way, that country has an obligation to do more than buy bullets for handguns.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson