Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Edbert on April 04, 2007, 08:39:39 AM
-
Iranian Leader Says He Will Free Britons
By Howard Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 4, 2007; 9:26 AM
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today said he had pardoned 15 British sailors seized by the Iranian military two weeks ago and would free them today to be with their families.
In a Tehran press conference Ahmadinejad first decorated members of the Republican Guards who had taken the 15 British personnel captive -- then announced that the British personnel would be released.
"After our meeting they will go to the airport and be with their families," the Iranian president said, according to a translation of the press conference aired on CNN.
The release comes in the midst of intense diplomatic contacts. In addition, in recent days Iraqi authorities released an Iranian diplomat held in Iraq. The Islamic Republic News Agency also reported that Iranian personnel would be allowed to meet with five Iranian men taken by U.S. forces late last year in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil.
-
I just heard a commentator on the radio saying that within the last few days two american warplanes overflew a primary oil refinery in southern Iran. I haven't heard of this in the news so it was odd to hear a local radio talk show guy (liberal democrat) reporting this as fact. Anyone hear about this.
Good on the Brits. SHould be intersting to hear their explanation for admitting guilt in trespassing into Iranian waters :confused:
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Good on the Brits. SHould be intersting to hear their explanation for admitting guilt in trespassing into Iranian waters :confused:
Yeah, and particularly so with no obvious signs of coercion.
I think though that the military needs to do some explaing why a group of their marines were taken prisoner without a fight AND right under the nose of a RN Warship.
-
Looks on the surface, our British brothers did not cut off their nose to spite their face.
Hope they arrive home safe and sound.
-
"This pardon is a gift to the British people."
— MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD
the president of Iran announcing Wedenesday that he is releasing the 15 British sailors and marines seized almost two weeks ago
-----
-
They aren't out yet so don't count it as a done deal. Threatening a fellow hostsage with execution to coerce a "confession" doesn't leave any marks so no visible marks is not a sign of a free admission.
-
An unidentified crew member said: "I'd like to say that myself and my whole team are very grateful for your forgiveness. I'd like to thank yourself and the Iranian people... Thank you very much, sir."
Mr Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi: "You are welcome."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6525905.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6525905.stm)
Thank you Mr. Ahmadinejad.... Even though they were not in Iranian waters...
-
I am guessing they were released on the condition that the British will not publicly release details of their detainment.
Be interesting to see if the hostages will do this on their own accord in the newspapers.
-
Originally posted by Ahmadinejad
I'm asking Mr Blair to not put these 15 personnel on trial because they admitted they came to Iranian territorial water
he added, referring to taped "confessions" made by the British sailors and marines.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
so ah , are they going to be punished by England for violating Iranian holy waters?
-
Why do you call them as "hostages"? They were arrested for illegal border crossing. So they are prisoners. Or suspected. But not hostages.
-
Originally posted by Estel
Why do you call them as "hostages"? They were arrested for illegal border crossing.
no, no, that makes them undocumented workers.:rolleyes:
-
Good thing they wern't labeled terrorists, then they could have denied having them.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Estel
Why do you call them as "hostages"? They were arrested for illegal border crossing. So they are prisoners. Or suspected. But not hostages.
Every evidence that has been provided clearly showed that the British sailors and marines were not in Iranian waters. The GPS coordinates clearly showed that. So in my book, they were held hostage.
ack-ack
-
yeah...no midnight express for them.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I just heard a commentator on the radio saying that within the last few days two american warplanes overflew a primary oil refinery in southern Iran. I haven't heard of this in the news so it was odd to hear a local radio talk show guy (liberal democrat) reporting this as fact. Anyone hear about this.
doubt it, Iran has a pretty elaborate SAM system.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
doubt it, Iran has a pretty elaborate SAM system.
True, as long as you're attacking with an F4 Phantom or Mig-21.
I'm still curious whether or not their F-14s are functional or not. The global assumption is that they must have run out of spare parts years ago, but necessity is the mother of invention, anything's possible.
Hells bells, was there an export version of the Phoenix missile? I don't know if the casings would still be good after this long (if not, perhaps Iran could cast new ones, they certainly have the expertise with that size SRM, based on the Katyusha variants they're accused of supplying to folks in the region) but it certainly would be interesting to see them try and use them.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Every evidence that has been provided clearly showed that the British sailors and marines were not in Iranian waters. The GPS coordinates clearly showed that. So in my book, they were held hostage.
Really?
GPS coordinates monitored from where?
West has a looong record of violating souverign water and air space, including attacks against ground objects in neutral countries (Sukhaya Rechka airfield is a good example), so I'd better believe Iranian side.
Who was the guy who accused USSR of "illegally" shooting down two Iranian choppers over Kara-Kum channel? :rofl
Look, they showed enough good will, not sending that UK sailors to prison for illegal border crossing, weapon smuggling and terrorist activities.
Hostages for what? Holding them to prevent an attack that is reported to be planned already on April 6th against Iranian nuclear objects? Sorry, but Yugoslavs holding US servicemen caught and arrested after a gun-fight with Yugoslavian police forces in Kosovo in 1999 didn't stop aggressors from bombing a souverign country, killing thousands of innocent civilians and blowing up hospitals, schools, bridges and foreign embassies.
Poor Brits were either mistaken or following criminal orders, but I wonder what could really happen if Iran attempted to arrest them in Iraqi water space that is supposed to be controlled by occupants.
-
Iran has a very elaborate SAM system, it is the super secret Russian Kavorkian radar system, my secret sources tell me at the time of the alleged flyover the Russian techs that were supposed to man the system were all partying and drunk and the Iranians could not figure out how to turn it on.
hence, World War Three did not start.
now back to global warming.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Look, they showed enough good will, not sending that UK sailors to prison for illegal border crossing, weapon smuggling and terrorist activities.
They were smuggling weapons and they were terrorists? LOL! Where were they smuggling weapons too?? LOL!
What "terrorist" activities were the Brits enganged in?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
killing thousands of innocent civilians and blowing up hospitals, schools, bridges and foreign embassies.
yes, the evil american imperial storm troops always blow up hospitals and schools, the cowards. no food for oil. long live the USSR.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by john9001
Iran has a very elaborate SAM system,
Like that means anything. No SAM system has been able to deal with an American assault.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
doubt it, Iran has a pretty elaborate SAM system.
Too bad the SAM system is worthless against American power.
-
Originally posted by Comrad
They were smuggling weapons and they were terrorists? LOL! Where were they smuggling weapons too?? LOL!
What "terrorist" activities were the Brits enganged in?
Illegally crossing the border while carrying weapons, it's obvious that when you commit two crimes like that - it's for terrorism.
I wonder what will happen to any Iranian group caught in Iraqi space in the same conditions. I don't think they'll be ever shown on TV with Iraqi "officials", more likely they'll be simply shot on sight.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Illegally crossing the border while carrying weapons, it's obvious that when you commit two crimes like that - it's for terrorism.
I wonder what will happen to any Iranian group caught in Iraqi space in the same conditions. I don't think they'll be ever shown on TV with Iraqi "officials", more likely they'll be simply shot on sight.
So the Brits were trying to smuggle weapons into Iran and they also had a planned terrorist attack against Iran? Those BASTARDS!
I always knew that the Brits are terrorists!
-
Originally posted by john9001
yes, the evil american imperial storm troops always blow up hospitals and schools, the cowards. no food for oil. long live the USSR.:rolleyes:
I'll tell you more: you guys also bomb foreign embassies that belong to neutral countries that are permanent UN security counsil members.
no food for oil - what did you mean by that?
I think that US is the only country that bombed innocent civilians to support the organisation that was declared "terrorist" by their own Congress (KLA was in Autumn 1998).
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Comrad
Too bad the SAM system is worthless against American power.
Who cares? They'll simply stop exporting oil. I wonder how much a gallon of gas will cost where you live. I think - about $4 a litre. I can only hope that in Russia we'll have govt regulated prices, even now it's ridiculous when gas here is more expensive then in the US.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Who cares? They'll simply stop exporting oil. I wonder how much a gallon of gas will cost where you live. I think - about $4 a litre. I can only hope that in Russia we'll have govt regulated prices, even now it's ridiculous when gas here is more expensive then in the US.
We have everything, including oil.
-
Originally posted by Comrad
See Rule #4
I am not a girl to be "loved" by someone.
If you don't understand what I post - then maybe I have problems with English, or maybe you have problems with logics.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I am not a girl to be "loved" by someone.
If you don't understand what I post - then maybe I have problems with English, or maybe you have problems with logics.
I don't dislike you as a person. In fact, I like you.
-
Originally posted by Comrad
We have everything, including oil.
You from Greece? Greece is famous for "having everything" :D
-
Originally posted by Comrad
I don't dislike you as a person. In fact, I like you.
Thank you, now I'll sleep well! ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Who cares? They'll simply stop exporting oil.
and where will they find money to run the country, Iran has oil but they have to import gasoline because they have very little refining capacity.
if they stop exporting oil the price of gas in iran might go up.
boroda misses the good old days with uncle Joe Stalin.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Who cares? They'll simply stop exporting oil. I wonder how much a gallon of gas will cost where you live. I think - about $4 a litre. I can only hope that in Russia we'll have govt regulated prices, even now it's ridiculous when gas here is more expensive then in the US.
That certainly would devastate the Iranian economy more so than any other. It would be political suicide by Ah whack job too. The current international community’s confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program already has affected the Iranian economy drastically it is threatening investment and growth in Iran if this nuke crisis continues to go on.
The best thing that could happen to the "west" is if they did stop exportation of oil. No doubt an Iranian ruler more friendly to the West would emerge through a coup.
-
Originally posted by john9001
and where will they find money to run the country, Iran has oil but they have to import gasoline because they have very little refining capacity.
if they stop exporting oil the price of gas in iran might go up.
boroda misses the good old days with uncle Joe Stalin.
As I remember, they didn't raise refinery due to another reason. Mostly because of their oil production is too high. And low electricity production at the same time.
They can stop oil exporting only for "West". And sell it to Venezuela, for example. And that's funny, but USA will anyway buy it.
Looking onto criminal situation, I'm missing him too. Really.
-
Just curious. I remember a talk with an old Aeroflot pilot. He worked on international flights scince end of the war. So he said, that in middle 70th Iran asked USSR to create few Aeroflot hubs. In Teheran and some big cities. With Jet-A or TS-1 for 6$ (six dollars) per tonn. I don't know, was that true or not. But for me, it looks truly.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Every evidence that has been provided clearly showed that the British sailors and marines were not in Iranian waters. The GPS coordinates clearly showed that. So in my book, they were held hostage.
ack-ack
It's clear for you, but not for Iran. They were catched in the waters wich ownership is very doubted.
-
Originally posted by Comrad
Too bad the SAM system is worthless against American power.
Funny. Do you remember this: "Sorry, we didn't knew that it's invisible!"? If you need, I can remind you where and why it was said.
-
Watching the choppers land now.
Those evil Iranians further humiliated them with some nasty-arsed suits for the final photo-op eh?
-
Originally Posted by Estel
onto criminal situation, I'm missing him too. Really. (editors note: Referring to Stalin)
Originally posted by Estel
Just curious. I remember a talk with an old Aeroflot pilot. He worked on international flights scince end of the war. So he said, that in middle 70th Iran asked USSR to create few Aeroflot hubs. In Teheran and some big cities. With Jet-A or TS-1 for 6$ (six dollars) per tonn. I don't know, was that true or not. But for me, it looks truly.
Why do I have a vision of Borat and the sound of his accent in my head when I read your posts?:rolleyes: :rofl
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/243342580.jpg)
-
see... you can get good results if you are willing to beg and say you are wrong when someone kidnaps your people.
I am glad that the brits didn't resort to violence.. I can't imagine the carnage those three boats and six harriers could have done.
I am glad they followed the lead of the great president jimmy (peanut man) carter..
lazs
-
Originally posted by Edbert
Watching the choppers land now.
Those evil Iranians further humiliated them with some nasty-arsed suits for the final photo-op eh?
I was wondering if the iranians kept their uniforms and if so why..
-
Had to be a quid pro quo. Somehow I'm thinking the Iranians caught and jailed in Iraq will be released soon, probably sub rosa.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
see... you can get good results if you are willing to beg and say you are wrong when someone kidnaps your people.
Focusing on results is helpful.
Get 'em back in one piece.
Disuade Iran from doing it again.
Make it impossible for Iran to do it again.
Kill a bunch of Iranians for doing it in the first place -- punishment/revenge
Use carnage to disuage others from doing it.
Use carnage to boost morale back home.
That's off the top of my head. And there's a problem.
Unless one desires war for war's sake, conflict should have a goal. A state or condition that exists after war that did not exist prior. And of course, one that is superior.
-
If I were the Brits, I'd now take the most powerful flotilla I could put together from ships already in the area and sail them all over the area where the marines/sailors were taken. I'd be in there about a month doing that.
I'd coordinate with the US CV groups in the area, so they had a plan ready just in case.
Then we'd see what the Iranians do about their claims to sovereignity when it's not a couple of rubber boats.
Oh yeah... I'd send films of the floatilla to Al Jaz just so none of the tough ole Muslims missed the news.
-
out maneuvered on the political and military field by a supposedly blabbering idiot, makes you wonder when they beat them at their own game of propaganda.
iran's problem, they act too much like the west.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Then we'd see what the Iranians do about their claims to sovereignity when it's not a couple of rubber boats.
From what I understand there was a RN Destroyer overseeing the actions (boarding of the ship), as well a chopper and Harrier top-cover. Details as to how close to the "kidnapping" the support actually was are unclear for obvious reasons. But it SHOULD be safe to assume that the Royal Marine Corp does not carry paintball guns. I cannot explain why a bunch of diaper-hatted "revolutionary guards" in rubber rafts defeated the RMC without some sort of fight.
Maybe there's a good reason why they went after the Brits and not the USMC.
-
Hello Boroda,
Originally posted by Boroda
Really?
GPS coordinates monitored from where?
The GPS Coordinates that the IRANIANS originally supplied to the world press and in their diplomatic contacts with the West were clearly within IRAQI waters. When this was pointed out to them they released "adjusted" co-ords that put the Brits just over the line on the Iranian side.
The Iranians also blundered in diplomatic talks by giving the British their own compass reference for the place where they said the 14 men and one woman had been seized. When Britain plotted these on a map and pointed out that the spot was in Iraq’s maritime area, the Iranians came up with a new set of coordinates, putting the seizure in their own waters.
( Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1582544.ece )
The GPS photos the British shot were taken on board the Dhow they had originally boarded which had been anchored in the same spot since the incident.
While many have been screaming that it was all the Brits fault because they shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place, only the most tenacious of Ahmadinejad supporters actually believe the adjusted Iranian coords that moved the incident over the line.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Why do I have a vision of Borat and the sound of his accent in my head when I read your posts?:rolleyes: :rofl
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/243342580.jpg)
Why do i have a vision of a giant talking sphincter in my head when I read your posts? :rolleyes: :rofl
-
Awwww, Weasel is angry because I called him out, yet again. How many times and how many handles have you had banned now in your lifetime with HiTech Creations?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Why do I have a vision of Borat and the sound of his accent in my head when I read your posts?:rolleyes: :rofl
Estel can communicate with ATCs in Eng. I wonder if you, Rip, can do the same in Rus.
I was taught to speak Your language for 9 years, while Estel was trained to fly helicopters.
And pls no borat here. I hope we'll share some drinks one day, and our Kazakh friends will join us.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I was wondering if the iranians kept their uniforms and if so why..
If "blue" side is right - then why the hall do they need any uniforms when they can arrest occupational force soldiers in Iraqi space??? And noone could oppose them!!!.....
-
boroda... many of us speak spanish but as a hobby or to communicate with our less fortunate neighbors..
It is not a language you would use to get ahead.. English works much better for that... very very few of us would have any use at all for russian.. we have few russians and no russian neighbors and there is no economic reason for it. it would be a hobby language of little or no use to anyone not russian.
lazs
-
I know this will sound odd, but more guys in our congregation speak Russian than Spanish, and Arabic would be the second most common language - those of you familiar with SF will understand. Personally, Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew are my "business" languages...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Why do I have a vision of Borat and the sound of his accent in my head when I read your posts?:rolleyes: :rofl
Change a head. Guess it will help. If it's not too late for you.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
boroda... many of us speak spanish but as a hobby or to communicate with our less fortunate neighbors..
It is not a language you would use to get ahead.. English works much better for that... very very few of us would have any use at all for russian.. we have few russians and no russian neighbors and there is no economic reason for it. it would be a hobby language of little or no use to anyone not russian.
lazs
And besides, we won the cold war. You shall be assimilated. :D
-
I got an answer to my question of why did the Royal Marines give up without a fight, and it was not due to being a neighbor of the French.
Official response from the so-called soldiers (paraphrased) was that they chose to surrender in order to avoid escalation in an already tense situation. Their decision was upheld by the top-brass as being the correct decision.
I'd love to say that a US soldier would not respond in such a way; but then I am reminded of the USNG guys who were armed and "guarding" our southern border. They were fired upon by men of an unknown origin/souce who came accross the border and chose to retreat without returning fire in order to make sure nobody got hurt.
I know it is already too late for the western part of the EU, but god save us all if that becomes the normal response for our "armed" forces.
-
I imagine that the sudden and rather showy release of the Brits by amanidnutjob is a sign of the discord he has in his country. If he figured he had total control of the situation in iran he would have had no reason to release them so soon or in the manner that he did. There was still more political sway to build outside the country by keeping them. My guess is that he felt he could not keep them safe from the more radical elements in his government that wanted to put them on trial or "punish" them so he had to get them out of the country before that happened knowing the political chaos that would cause for his country internationally. He knows there is long precedent for maintaining international hostages and that if they were harmed in any way he could not hope to hold any outside business inte4rest in his country. They can't live secluded from the globe and that might just have happened with their neighbors blessing had harm come to the hostages.
-
Originally posted by namvet
Why do i have a vision of a giant talking sphincter in my head when I read your posts? :rolleyes: :rofl
because you're trying to read with your head up your... Pull your head out ;) and its easier to read...
-
Originally posted by Edbert
Official response from the so-called soldiers (paraphrased) was that they chose to surrender in order to avoid escalation in an already tense situation. Their decision was upheld by the top-brass as being the correct decision.
That guys were on combat duty, weren't they? Surrendering to enemy forces without even attempting to fight back, while standing on your own land - it's... i don't know... cowardice and treason. Life threat? - you guys SERVE, it's your duty to risk lives.
All i can say - I wonder how this people wanted to have a nuclear war with us....
-
Originally posted by Boroda
That guys were on combat duty, weren't they? Surrendering to enemy forces without even attempting to fight back, while standing on your own land - it's... i don't know... cowardice and treason. Life threat? - you guys SERVE, it's your duty to risk lives.
All i can say - I wonder how this people wanted to have a nuclear war with us....
amazing, boroda and I agree on something, see there is hope for the world after all.:)
-
Hi Mav,
Originally posted by Maverick
I imagine that the sudden and rather showy release of the Brits by amanidnutjob is a sign of the discord he has in his country. If he figured he had total control of the situation in iran he would have had no reason to release them so soon or in the manner that he did. There was still more political sway to build outside the country by keeping them. My guess is that he felt he could not keep them safe from the more radical elements in his government that wanted to put them on trial or "punish" them so he had to get them out of the country before that happened knowing the political chaos that would cause for his country internationally.
Actually, and I know this is hard to believe, but Iran's military - even the Revolutionary guard - is actually more sane and politically inclined than the civilian leadership. That isn't surprising considering that the government is now being run by the Imams and student radicals (including Ahmadinejad) who were the foot soldiers and hostage takers in the 1979 Islamic revolution. The Army on the other hand is slightly more conservative and even keeled (which keep in mind is a relatively statment). Apparently it was pressure from the military (in particular RG generals Safavi and Rezai) and the realization of their short-term objectives (embarrass the West, divert attention from Nukes, force the return of their "diplomat") that caused the government to change its tune at the last moment. That and a third CVBG headed for the gulf didn't hurt.
- SEAGOON
-
If what I read be correct, Brits' rules of engagement bar them from attacking Iran.
-
Originally posted by Hap
If what I read be correct, Brits' rules of engagement bar them from attacking Iran.
So you admit that they were in fact caught in Iran?
I simply wonder HOW could it happen that a Royal Navy patrol wasn't covered by all possible forces. Even if they were in Iranian space - who cares? Save your people and let diplomats take care of the issue later.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
That guys were on combat duty, weren't they? Surrendering to enemy forces without even attempting to fight back, while standing on your own land - it's... i don't know... cowardice and treason. Life threat? - you guys SERVE, it's your duty to risk lives.
All i can say - I wonder how this people wanted to have a nuclear war with us....
That's hardly the situation but far be it from you to understand that. They were on the water in an inflatable boat, surrounded by a force with superior numbers and with far superior weapons. You might think dying gloriously is great with your keyboard experiance but it is foolish to expend people for no gain other than body bags with your people in them, that's just suicide.
They were in iraqi territory but that is immaterial given the weapon and numbers inequality.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
That's hardly the situation but far be it from you to understand that. They were on the water in an inflatable boat, surrounded by a force with superior numbers and with far superior weapons. You might think dying gloriously is great with your keyboard experiance but it is foolish to expend people for no gain other than body bags with your people in them, that's just suicide.
They were in iraqi territory but that is immaterial given the weapon and numbers inequality.
Do what you have to do and let it be as it should be.
They didn't even open fire.
Open fire and call for support.
What they did is simply sick.
When admiral Nebogatov surrendered to Japanese in Tsushima - he probably had to sink his vessels, he had no chance to even fight back. Nebogatov was centenced to death by court-martial.
Before Nebogatov there was only one Russian vessel that surrendered. It deserved a special Royal order. Making it's crew and officers outlaws in the Empire. In Sinop battle Russian fleet first targeted it, and only after setting it on fire they turned to burning Turkish fleet.
Sinop was the last victory of the Russian Navy.
Later Russians preferred to die but not surrender.
Battleship Slava, Moonzund strait, 1917, fought with two German dreadnought-class battleships. 20 guns vs 4. They were out of Russian artillery range. Slava's commander had to sink starboard compartments to elevate his 12" guns so he could reach the enemy. Germans withdrew. Slava was sunk by it's crew on the shallow part of the strait after it exausted it's ammunition. This is how it should be IMHO. Varyag cruiser's crew didn't hesitate to come out for a fight with a ten-times stronger enemy squadron - they simply had to do it, no doubts at all.
Noone wants to die, but sometimes life is worse then death.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
They were on the water in an inflatable boat, surrounded by a force with superior numbers and with far superior weapons.
the question remains, why were they put in that situation without proper backup. Are the English still picking their officer corp from the nobility?
-
Originally posted by john9001
Are the English still picking their officer corp from the nobility?
Recently I re-read "HMS Uliss" by Alister McLean.
It's unbelievable if what he wrote is true.
At the same time Soviets sailed in Arctic Ocean on the shallow-water Baltic destroyers type 7, that simply broke apart on oceanic waves.
After reading McLean I understood that our Fathers have indeed built an Utopia.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
That's hardly the situation but far be it from you to understand that. They were on the water in an inflatable boat, surrounded by a force with superior numbers and with far superior weapons. You might think dying gloriously is great with your keyboard experiance but it is foolish to expend people for no gain other than body bags with your people in them, that's just suicide.
They were in iraqi territory but that is immaterial given the weapon and numbers inequality.
Then it remains to be answered why the brass allowed or sent them into the mission of boarding that merchant vessel without appropriate weapons to complete the mission. A second, related but even more important question is why were those men sent on a mission AND an incursion by Iranian paramilitary forces (particularly one sufficient in strenght and firepower to overwhelm the boarding party) allowed to infiltrate the perimiter and overwhelm the Marines?
FWIW all I saw on the video was some revolutionary guardsmen in small boats, has the Royal Navy nothing at their disposal to compete with that, and if so why were they not used to protect their servicemen and prevent the Iranians from attacking?
-
Guys,
Originally posted by Edbert
Then it remains to be answered why the brass allowed or sent them into the mission of boarding that merchant vessel without appropriate weapons to complete the mission. A second, related but even more important question is why were those men sent on a mission AND an incursion by Iranian paramilitary forces (particularly one sufficient in strenght and firepower to overwhelm the boarding party) allowed to infiltrate the perimiter and overwhelm the Marines?
FWIW all I saw on the video was some revolutionary guardsmen in small boats, has the Royal Navy nothing at their disposal to compete with that, and if so why were they not used to protect their servicemen and prevent the Iranians from attacking?
This is getting out of hand, here is the situation.
The Royal Navy patrols Iraqi waters and boards countless small boats and ships entering Iraqi waters every day. Most of these are small Dhows trading with Iraq and Kuwait, amongst them are a goodly number of smugglers bringing in arms and explosives from Iran to the Shi 'ia militia in Southern Iraq. The Iranians have had standing gunboat patrols on their side of the line since before the conflict, and now "monitor" all coalition traffic in the area to make sure they don't violate Iranian sovereignty.
The standard procedure is for larger RN vessels like the Cornwall to stop the Dhows and then send in a boarding party in inflatable boats (RIBs). The waters are too shallow for the larger vessels to get really close to shore in any event. These boarding parties consist of a mix of lightly armed sailors and marines. There is also usually a female sailor in the party in case they need to search or question Muslim women. Usually a helicopter monitors the situation until the boarding party reports that the vessel is not hostile and not smuggling at which time it withdraws and the boarding party clears the ship to continue. They then climb back in their RIBs and return to the ship.
In this case, the Cornwall stopped an Indian Dhow, the boarding party, monitored by the ships helo went aboard, nothing unusual was detected, the boarding party cleared the Dhow, and reported they were returning to their RIBs. The Helo left station and the Boarding party began climbing back into their boats. However, as soon as the report was given and the Helo left its station, Iranian gunboats left their station and travelled at 40 knots to the Dhow arriving 3 minutes later as the boarding party was entering their boats. Given that they had heavy machine guns and AA cannons trained on them by Iranian sailors and were in the process of getting into inflatables (and possibly because they had a girly with them) the Boarding Party commander decided that discretion was the better part of valor and ordered the party to surrender. Given that they would have been cut to ribbons in seconds had they resisted and immediately started Gulf War III this was probably the right decision.
Did everyone get sloppy because this happened in the middle of several years of daily SOP without any warning? Absolutely. Does it point out that with Iran in the mix there is no such thing as "normal relations?" Yes.
Given that Brits are currently being killed by Iranian manufactured EFPs, acting like they are can be trusted at all is extremely silly. But to maintain that the Marines and Sailors committed some sort of breach of military ettiquette by not dying valiantly but senselessly and forcing a war with Iran is a bit over the top.
-
well said Seagoon.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
But to maintain that the Marines and Sailors committed some sort of breach of military ettiquette by not dying valiantly but senselessly and forcing a war with Iran is a bit over the top.
Perhaps this was not directed at me, since I never said such a thing, but my points are completely in line with your post.
The details of the conflict are still secret, but it was mentioned here that the Marines were vastly out-powered, to the point of making any resistance suicidal. So we have a small contingent of Marines who are carrying only small arms. The Iranians show up with overwhelming force. Explain how the helicopter did not see them approach and take them out with some heavy ordinance, or how come there was no top cover, what about naval radar that could have seen such a large package crossing "the border" coming to intercept the hapless boarding party?
I only saw a few seconds of one video, and it could have been propoganda (not from the Iranians of course ), but it did not show a flotilla, it showed a small group of Iranians in very small boats carrying small arms. If there was such a large battle group that the poor marines had no chance then it was the fault of the RN that it was allowed to get TO the dhow.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
So you admit that they were in fact caught in Iran?
Actually, "no."
How would I know? I wasn't there.
I found an article, if you google you can find it, that Britian's ROE bar their guys from fighting Iranians. In the same piece, the author writes that American troops can if Iranians attack them.
I almost laughed, "So you ADMIT it was Miss Scarlet with the rope in the Conservatory!!!"
This to the mook in Wyoming.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
I know this will sound odd, but more guys in our congregation speak Russian than Spanish, and Arabic would be the second most common language - those of you familiar with SF will understand. Personally, Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew are my "business" languages...
Think. in Russian
(http://dvd.eck24.de/images/20/20503.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
true
-
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
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=
-
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."
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040501796.html?nav=hcmodule)
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".
-
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!
-
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 (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21524844-2703,00.html)
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.
-
Before the 2nd coming of Jessus or 1st.of Messiah , a new /last world power should arise in middle east, an islamic aliance, and Iran/Persia is going to have a central position,
Soo, i think the UN,US ,Brits ,Euro can't stop it,
In the bible, Daniel ,Ezekiel, Isaiah,jeremiah,Revelation,etc all are talking about New Babylon, and an islamic beast power and an invasion/war vs Holly Land and acording with Nostradamus, Malachi invasion of Europe/destructions of Rome and Catholic church,
i think we live close to Apocalyptic times ,
Also, the Mayan prophecy of the end (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6wI3Pbolbw&mode=related&search=)
but: Matt. 24:36 Jesus said the following. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
-
Originally posted by ghi
Before the 2nd coming of Jessus or 1st.of Messiah , a new /last world power should arise in middle east, an islamic aliance, and Iran/Persia is going to have a central position,
Soo, i think the UN,US ,Brits ,Euro can't stop it,
In the bible, Daniel ,Ezekiel, Isaiah,jeremiah,Revelation,etc all are talking about New Babylon, and an islamic beast power and an invasion/war vs Holly Land and acording with Nostradamus, Malachi invasion of Europe/destructions of Rome and Catholic church,
i think we live close to Apocalyptic times ,
Also, the Mayan prophecy of the end (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6wI3Pbolbw&mode=related&search=)
but: Matt. 24:36 Jesus said the following. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
all right , bring it on, Armageddon, lets see who wins.
-
It gets better:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1626726.ece
The 15 British military captives who were released by the Iranians have been authorised by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to sell their stories.
MoD officials claimed that the move to lift the ban on military personnel selling their stories while in service was justified because of the “exceptional circumstances” of the case. The hostages are expected to earn as much as £250,000 between them.
The story of Faye Turney, 26, the only female among them, is expected to be the most lucrative. She could profit by as much as £150,000 from a joint deal with a newspaper and ITV.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Crossing an imaginary line in the ocean is not a good reason to start a war.
International borders are far from "imaginary".
Originally posted by cpxxx
Far too many people love the JDAM method of diplomacy. We all see how well that worked in Iraq!
That plan worked rather well actually, it was the second phase where infantrymen are turned into policemen (and prevented from using all the tools at their disposal by insane ROE from politicians and beuarocrats who are afraid of upsetting someone) that things have utterly failed.