Author Topic: hostage release (Read 2468 times)

cpxxx · « **Reply #75 on:** April 07, 2007, 01:21:30 PM »

Seagoon's post pretty much covered it. I can't understand why there are still people who think it made any sense to fight it out. Remember Britain and Iran are not at war.

When the Iranians approached the boarding party initially, there was no reason to expect a fight. It might very easily have ended by both sides confirming their positions and separating amiably. Once the Iranians intentions were made clear, there was no sense in trying to resist against the 12.7 machine guns which I saw on the on the TV images.

Hap · « **Reply #76 on:** April 07, 2007, 01:42:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cpxxx
I can't understand why there are still people who think it made any sense

"Sense," in here and amongst many posters, isn't a de facto prerequisite.

cpxxx · « **Reply #77 on:** April 07, 2007, 05:04:50 PM »

bj229r · « **Reply #78 on:** April 07, 2007, 06:32:26 PM »

It's my understanding that the captain of the Cornwall (the frigate from which the boarders came), who was only a couple miles off, saw the situation developing, and frantically radioed London for permission to fire on the gunboats, but was denied by the Admiralty....leaving the rubber boat guys to fend for themselves---hard to say if the Iranians would have opened up on them, and they were supposedly 1.7 nautical miles outside Iranian waters.

The Brit government seems to be the big loser in this--cannot blame the frigate captain for not disobeying orders

Quote

But looking to the British government itself, pride seems to be sorely lacking. The most outrage I could find from a government official came from Patricia Hewitt, the British health secretary, who called the spectacle “deplorable.” Alas, she was referring to something else. She was infuriated “that the woman hostage should be shown smoking. This sends completely the wrong message to our young people.” Imagine the outrage if those captured marines had been fed trans fats.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWJkNzFlOTFmOTBjZTgzOTIzZTIxNWFiMzdhZDZjMTU=

john9001 · « **Reply #79 on:** April 07, 2007, 06:47:12 PM »

shoot first , apologies later.

"we have very sorry for sinking your boats mr abajabajaba, we shall give those responsible a stern talking to, by jove."

Squire · « **Reply #80 on:** April 07, 2007, 08:46:15 PM »

I knew it would not be long before the internet-commandos decided that the Brits should have "shot it out" with the Iranians.

Beyond stupid.

#1 They are not at war with Iran, despite what "Glenn Beck" might be saying.

#2 You have 15 sailors and Marines in a small rigid boat with some small arms vs many times your number, they were not on a Destroyer. As the Officer in Charge its your responsibility to bring your people home, not lose your head like a fool and get them all killed over a border spat, to make at-home-rambos feel good about how big their schlongs are.

bj229r · « **Reply #81 on:** April 07, 2007, 09:46:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Squire
I knew it would not be long before the internet-commandos decided that the Brits should have "shot it out" with the Iranians.

Beyond stupid.

#1 They are not at war with Iran, despite what "Glenn Beck" might be saying.

#2 You have 15 sailors and Marines in a small rigid boat with some small arms vs many times your number, they were not on a Destroyer. As the Officer in Charge its your responsibility to bring your people home, not lose your head like a fool and get them all killed over a border spat, to make at-home-rambos feel good about how big their schlongs are.

From everything I've read, the frigate could have erased the Iranian boats easily, but was told not to

john9001 · « **Reply #82 on:** April 07, 2007, 09:56:52 PM »

you people really need to keep up with the news, Iran is saying because of their "gift" of generosity to England by releasing the sailors that England now owes Iran something in return. I thought England learned something with Chamberlain, guess not.

peace in our time, my butt.

bj229r · « **Reply #83 on:** April 07, 2007, 10:24:39 PM »

The biggest thing Iran found out was the the EU isnt gonna do ANYthing to them--40% of Iran's trade is via the EU---one word of threat from EU and the hostages would have been home in nothing flat---UN couldnt even decide on one of their useless condemnations---and no the last possible threat (other than the US) to any of Iran's future plans--Britain--has blinked. They have no reason to think anything will happen to them if the keep after the Bomb

Hap · « **Reply #84 on:** April 08, 2007, 01:27:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Squire
I knew it would not be long before the internet-commandos decided that the Brits should have "shot it out" with the Iranians.

Beyond stupid.

#1 They are not at war with Iran, despite what "Glenn Beck" might be saying.

#2 You have 15 sailors and Marines in a small rigid boat with some small arms vs many times your number, they were not on a Destroyer. As the Officer in Charge its your responsibility to bring your people home, not lose your head like a fool and get them all killed over a border spat, to make at-home-rambos feel good about how big their schlongs are.

Every now and then someone comes out of the blue with 10 strike!

Great post Squire. True, lucid, concise, and witty!!

All the Best,

hap

Elfie · « **Reply #85 on:** April 08, 2007, 01:59:32 AM »

Quote

As the Officer in Charge its your responsibility to bring your people home, not lose your head like a fool and get them all killed over a border spat,

That also applies to the frigate commander. A couple warning shots by the frigate just might have avoided this whole mess. We'll never know that for sure now though, all we can do is speculate.

Edbert · « **Reply #86 on:** April 08, 2007, 08:42:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Squire
I knew it would not be long before the internet-commandos decided that the Brits should have "shot it out" with the Iranians.

I do not think they should have shot it out with them. the Iranian force should have been anihilated for crossing the border into a war zone before they even knew they were engaged. One laser designated JDAM should have sufficed, no need for a small arms shootout at all.

Why do we send our men into harms way and order them not to use their weapons? Oh yeah, official reason from Blair was that it might cause an escalation. SO these poor marines were pawns sent to meet their fate with no support from the admiralty whatsoever, now I get it.

Toad · « **Reply #87 on:** April 08, 2007, 08:49:41 AM »

The issue of fight/no fight really isn't the issue.

Krauthammer said it pretty well in a recent editorial:

Britain's Humiliation -- and Europe's

Quote

Ironically, the existence of transnational institutions such as the United Nations makes it harder for collective action against bad actors. In the past, interested parties would simply get together in temporary coalitions to do what they had to do. That is much harder now because they believe such action is illegitimate without the Security Council's blessing. The result is utterly predictable. Nothing has been done about the Iranian bomb. In fact, the only effective sanctions are those coming unilaterally out of the U.S. Treasury.

Remember the great return to multilateralism -- the new emphasis on diplomacy and "working with the allies" -- so widely heralded at the beginning of the second Bush administration? To general acclaim, the cowboys had been banished and the grown-ups brought back to town.

What exactly has the new multilateralism brought us? North Korea tested a nuclear device. Iran has accelerated its march to developing the bomb. The pro-Western government in Beirut hangs by a thread. The Darfur genocide continues unabated.

The capture and release of the British hostages illustrate once again the fatuousness of the "international community" and its great institutions. You want your people back? Go to the European Union and get stiffed. Go to the Security Council and get a statement that refuses even to "deplore" this act of piracy. (You settle for a humiliating expression of "grave concern.") Then turn to the despised Americans. They'll deal some cards and bail you out.

That's harsh but it is the real issue right now.

This hostage taking was a test; the "good guys" flunked.... ALL of the "good guys".

cpxxx · « **Reply #88 on:** April 08, 2007, 05:38:36 PM »

Quote

I do not think they should have shot it out with them. the Iranian force should have been anihilated for crossing the border into a war zone before they even knew they were engaged. One laser designated JDAM should have sufficed, no need for a small arms shootout at all.

Iran and Britain are not at war, nor indeed is the United States at war with Iran. Crossing an imaginary line in the ocean is not a good reason to start a war. Equally the Iranians had no business taking the British prisoner whether the transgression is real or imagined.

I suspect this had been an embarrassing incident for the Iranian government despite their public stance. Already the Iranian ambassador to Britain has asked the British to help mend international relations with Iran. From other reading it may be that the whole incident was engineered not so much to get at the British but to cause problems for the President of Iran. He is not as universally popular in Iran as many seem to believe.

A war, even a limited one would be disastrous for Iran and the government knows it. The US does not need to invade to reduce the infrastructure to ashes. I'm quite sure their military has fully briefed Ahmadinejad about the consequences of hostilities. Also there seems to be a power struggle in Iran between the extremists and the moderates. This time the moderates won.

Whatever the reason, this has to be seen as a climb down by the Iranians. Despite Krauthammers nonsense. There was in fact a concerted campaign by other countries, including Syria, Turkey and other middle eastern countries which seems to have had an effect. One of the problems Saddam's Iraq had was no friends. So when the Americans came it ended quickly. That is a lesson Iran has learned.

Far too many people love the JDAM method of diplomacy. We all see how well that worked in Iraq!

Toad · « **Reply #89 on:** April 08, 2007, 05:47:02 PM »

I personally believe what bought the Brits freedom were concessions given by the US on Iranians held in Iraq.

Believe what you want to believe but I think Iran has pretty much achieved what it intended to achieve in a carefully orchestrated, carefully planned deliberate action.

From The Australian:

Pride of British fleet takes a body blow

Quote

The first sign of a possible quid pro quo came when Jalal Sharafi, an Iranian diplomat and suspected member of the Quds force held in Iraq - purportedly by an insurgent group - was released last Tuesday. Some US sources assert that he was in the joint custody of the Iraqi Government and Americans at the time.

According to one report, Shafari was released at the urging of the White House over the objections of some US military commanders.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates went on to say that US and Iraqi officials hoped to be able to give "some kind of Iranian access" to the five Iranian prisoners captured by US forces in the northern city of Irbil in January.

He denied they would be released, but speculation persists that they may be freed before Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, heads to Baghdad this month for regional talks on Iraq's future.