Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hawco on April 11, 2007, 04:29:12 PM
-
Not a bad Job, collapse like a pack of cards and diss your country on TV while some of your comrades are dying in Iraq, then sell your story to the media on your release. They should give the cash they make from this to the families that have lost loved ones.
What's the betting that the sole chick pockets the most as she no doubt will attract the most "sympathy" ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6546303.stm
:furious
-
I was hoping all the Brit military wasn't like those kids---just didn't seem possible things could have sunk that low:
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20070413-012809-3245r.htm
But the heaviest flak was aimed at Leading Seaman Faye Turney, the only woman in the group, for having pocketed a reported $117,000 payoff for her story, and Seaman Arthur Batchelor, at 20 the youngest of the 15, who complained that he was paid "less than a tenth" of Seaman Turney's fee. That, he said, was not even enough to buy a car.
"It is simply shocking," fumed one critic on the Rum Ration site. "Get captured (i.e., don't do your job right) and you make 5 times the average sailor's salary in one story."
Another said that "in the same week as we lost 6 of our soldiers in Iraq, for these people to be given permission to line their pockets is disgusting."
Yet another said all 15 "have embarrassed the nation, the forces and themselves. They are a disgrace to the uniforms they wear and should leave."
A poll on the Rum Ration Web site, which is frequented by both active and retired military personnel, said 92 percent of its contributors agreed that Seaman Batchelor was "wrong to sell his story."
In an interview he sold to London's Daily Mirror newspaper, Seaman Batchelor said, "I'm really hurt by all the criticism. ... The money I received will simply pay for a few driving lessons. I'm not sure it will cover the cost of an actual test, let alone a car."
The young seaman complained that during his capture, the Iranians stole his IPod and he conceded that he had cried himself to sleep after his captors nicknamed him "Mr. Bean," a comically nerdish figure in British entertainment. To his dismay, his critics back home have now eagerly seized on it.
"It's perfectly fair to criticize Mr. Bean," said one Rum Ration contributor. "Not for being unattractive ... but for being a complete numpty wimp who blubbed [cried] when they took his iPod, blubbed when they flicked the back of his neck, blubbed when they called him Mr. Bean and asked Faye for a big huggy-wuggy when they met up."
-
A good AAR about British forces in Iraq by Yon.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/british-forces-at-war-as-witnessed-by-an-american.htm
-
Well obviously a few guys in a dingy can capture a british warship.....
Actually I am not up to date on the story other than heresay. But capturing a warship seems odd to me.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
A good AAR about British forces in Iraq by Yon.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/british-forces-at-war-as-witnessed-by-an-american.htm
Good read Mickey. Thanks!
-
Actually I am not up to date on the story other than heresay. But capturing a warship seems odd to me.
How about you actually do a little light research before highlighting your ignorance?
You'll find that the 'warship' was a little rubber dinghy.
-
It is annoying that these folks can make some cash out of this for nothing and that the MOD let them do it, something wrong with that picture.
-
Is the controversy because they are active in the military when they sold the story?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You'll find that the 'warship' was a little rubber dinghy.
Rigid-hulled inflatable boat
General characteristics
RIBs are commonly 4 to 7 metres (13 to 24 ft) long, although they can range in length between 2.5 and 18 metres (7.5 and 55 ft). A RIB is often propelled by one or more outboard motors or an inboard motor turning a water jet or z-drive. Generally the power of the motors is in the range of 5 to 500 horse power (4 to 400 kW).
RIBs are used as rescue craft, safety boats for sailing, dive boats or tenders for larger boats and ships. Their shallow draught, high maneuverability, speed and relative immunity to damage in low speed collisions are advantages in these applications.
RIBs up to about 7 metres in length can be towed on trailers on the road, making them attractive as leisure craft.
not exactly a "little rubber dinghy"
-
William Lind has an interesting perspective on the issues over at SFTT. For those unfamiliar, he's not a "euro basher" he just calls them like he see's them and is more than critical about US military shortcomings and operational failures.
Horatio Hornblower's Worst Nightmare
The tiff over maritime boundaries in the Shatt-al-Arab between Iran and Great Britain seems to be over, with the British sailors and Marines released and returned to the U.K. I continue to suspect a deal was made regarding the five Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers held by the U.S. in Iraq. If they go home in a few weeks or months, it will be a quid pro quo, regardless of how much Washington and London deny it.
For Britain, and especially for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, the incident ended in utter disgrace. The initial surrender of the British boarding party to what appears to have been a much larger Iranian force is the only defensible British action in the whole sorry business. Even in Horatio Hornblower's Royal Navy, a British frigate captain was not disgraced if he struck to a French or Spanish ship of the line. Force majeure remains a valid excuse...
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=HOME%20DefenseWatch%202.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=3&rnd=314.7783851644373
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
William Lind has an interesting perspective on the issues over at SFTT. For those unfamiliar, he's not a "euro basher" he just calls them like he see's them and is more than critical about US military shortcomings and operational failures.
Charon
I blame it on the lowering of standards RE: Recruitment, Just as in the US forces, I think the recruiters are under pressure to make sure enough numbers Join up.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
A good AAR about British forces in Iraq by Yon.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/british-forces-at-war-as-witnessed-by-an-american.htm
very good read, thanks for sharing that Mickey.
-
Dowding...there was a warship standing off that did nothing...the facts about their capture are still murky but until they're cleared up I'm going with this:
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=568862007
Ravs
-
Whatever about selling their stories. it is disappointing that someone like General Rose should criticise them for not resisting a superior force and dying pointlessly and absurdly in firefight against forces of a country they are not even at war with. Surrender is no disgrace in that situation.
The real question to be addressed is why they were left thus exposed. I know it was said that the Cornwall was unable to close on the vessel they were inspecting due to the shallowness of the water. But it does seem to be a bit strange.
-
you are assuming that if they had resisted, the "superior" force would not have backed down, or even lost the fight if it came to that.
-
that was way beyond pathetic. They took away their iPods? WTF?
A disgrace.
http://technorati.com/search/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2F%3Fv%3DBQ1b3dNKkCo
http://technorati.com/search/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2F%3Fv%3DPnBykQEK1zY
-
Originally posted by Hawco
It is annoying that these folks can make some cash out of this for nothing and that the MOD let them do it, something wrong with that picture.
*cough cough* Jessica Lynch *cough cough*
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
*cough cough* Jessica Lynch *cough cough*
I don't remember Jessica Lynch appearing on Iraqi television mouthing a script fed to her, or rushing to apologize and take blame for anything, much less admit guilt to a situation that wasn't true.
I was and still am under the impression she acted with more bravery despite serious injuries while being held by a enemy combatant force, unlike the British sailors and marines, who were held by a country they are not at war with.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I don't remember Jessica Lynch appearing on Iraqi television mouthing a script fed to her, or rushing to apologize and take blame for anything, much less admit guilt to a situation that wasn't true.
I was and still am under the impression she acted with more bravery despite serious injuries while being held by a enemy combatant force, unlike the British sailors and marines, who were held by a country they are not at war with.
My point was not about her conduct... it was for us to remember that here in the states it is apparently fine to make millions over your ordeal... that is of course if your story suits American PR needs.
As far as Jessica Lynch never appearing on TV or apologizing and whatnot...she was medicated and unconscious in a hospital bed, getting the best care available to treat her wounds... who knows what she would have done if Saddam's PR machine got a hold of her.
Thankfully for her she was rescued before it got to that. So she gets to be a hero (and she is) and not dragged through the mud like these Brits.
Lastly, IIRC several of the American's held in the original Iranian Hostage Crisis of 79 were brought out, paraded, and forced to read BS about the evils of American imperialism or some such crap... Where's the outrage directed towards them?
All I'm saying is give these folks a break before we burn them in effigy. Lets let the facts come out.
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
My point was not about her conduct... it was for us to remember that here in the states it is apparently fine to make millions over your ordeal... that is of course if your story suits American PR needs.
As far as Jessica Lynch never appearing on TV or apologizing and whatnot...she was medicated and unconscious in a hospital bed, getting the best care available to treat her wounds... who knows what she would have done if Saddam's PR machine got a hold of her.
Thankfully for her she was rescued before it got to that. So she gets to be a hero (and she is) and not dragged through the mud like these Brits.
Lastly, IIRC several of the American's held in the original Iranian Hostage Crisis of 79 were brought out, paraded, and forced to read BS about the evils of American imperialism or some such crap... Where's the outrage directed towards them?
All I'm saying is give these folks a break before we burn them in effigy. Lets let the facts come out.
I am not hanging anyone , but I don't think your comparison to Jessica Lynch is even close.
-
I find it hard to comprehend judging what these folks did when 1) we have no way of knowing whether or not we know the entire circumstances and 2) we weren't the ones staring down the wrong end of a gun.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe soldiers should fight even in the face of long odds when circumstances dictate they should. But, I can also see where in a non-combat situation that holding fire and trusting chain of command to resolve things might be the wisest move. Just because you are armed does not mean that fighting is always the right move. These folks are alive, nobody lost their lives on either side. That's a good thing. If they had chosen to fight, that would not be the case.
And, I certainly do not blame anyone for wanting to enrich themselves :)
-
Originally posted by culero
I find it hard to comprehend judging what these folks did when 1) we have no way of knowing whether or not we know the entire circumstances and 2) we weren't the ones staring down the wrong end of a gun.
watch her own version of what happened.
http://technorati.com/search/http%3...v%3DBQ1b3dNKkCo
http://technorati.com/search/http%3...v%3DPnBykQEK1zY
"They've pointed their guns at us..."
"and those insect bites, my God, the bites"
-
Originally posted by john9001
you are assuming that if they had resisted, the "superior" force would not have backed down, or even lost the fight if it came to that.
I'm assuming that they were faced with being surrounded at point blank range by several boats on open water armed with heavy machine guns and others armed with RPG's. I'm also assuming that of their 15 personnel only 7 are actual marines the rest being sailors with no combat training and all only armed with assault rifles. I would assume that in those circumstances resisting would not only be folly, it would be suicide. On top of that I would assume the RN's ROE in those circumstances is that they may only fire on Iranian craft if fired on first.
They had no choice but to surrender.
In the same circumstances even Americans would have surrendered. The difference with Americans though is that they would never have left their people so badly exposed.
It was a right British **** up.
-
what was HMS Cornwall doing. How would they let this happen? Refueling helo? what kind of operation is that.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
. On top of that I would assume the RN's ROE in those circumstances is that they may only fire on Iranian craft if fired on first.
They had no choice but to surrender.
In the same circumstances even Americans would have surrendered. The difference with Americans though is that they would never have left their people so badly exposed.
It was a right British **** up.
I agree. Lambert contacted the chain of command and was told to hold fire.
But I do have a problem withe their cowardy behavior after that.
-
Originally posted by mietla
I agree. Lambert contacted the chain of command and was told to hold fire.
But I do have a problem withe their cowardy behavior after that.
Am I correct in assuming that by "cowardly" you mean them having uttered "confessions" while in captivity?
If so, here's my question: Isn't this scenario entirely different than similar circumstances in time of war? The UK isn't in a state of combat with Iran, therefore there are no tactical problems created by the prisoners cooperating.
I know what I would have told people under my supervision - "Do whatever it takes to stay healthy, and chill. We will not leave you there, but we're gonna try to talk you out first. In the meantime, cooperate with them."
~shrug~ And as for talking to the media and cashing in, these are citizen soldiers. If they are not disobeying standing or direct orders to the contrary, and do not say anything inappropriate from a national security standpoint, I see no ethical problem.
-
crying in a view on the enemy because they've taken your iPod and called you Mr Bean?
What happen to "name, rank and s#"
-
Originally posted by mietla
crying in a view on the enemy because they've taken your iPod and called you Mr Bean?
What happen to "name, rank and s#"
Its still SOP when what you say may give the enemy a tactical advantage. My point is that wasn't the case here. Nothing but pride was wounded, everyone came home alive and well. All is good so far as I see it.
-
You have a problem with their behavior because your sitting in front of your PC, not surrounded by a bunch of machine guns in an open boat.
Maybe the Marines (the 4 of them) should have opened fire and then they could all have been killed, but the internet-commandos would be happier in their cartoonish bravado, and we could post silly things like "they died fighting" or whatever hallow nonsense would seem fitting, then we could go and make lunch and turn on cable sports.
As for them selling their stories? who cares, let them sell their stories, they got approval from the MOD to do it.
They were not at war with Iran, they were not fired on, and it was common sense to do what they did. As for the vidoes, those were coerced.
-
Originally posted by Squire
You have a problem with their behavior because your sitting in front of your PC, not surrounded by a bunch of machine guns in an open boat.
Maybe the Marines (the 4 of them) should have opened fire and then they could all have been killed, but the internet-commandos would be happier in their cartoonish bravado, and we could post silly things like "they died fighting" or whatever hallow nonsense would seem fitting, then we could go and make lunch and turn on cable sports.
As for them selling their stories? who cares, let them sell their stories, they got approval from the MOD to do it.
They were not at war with Iran, they were not fired on, and it was common sense to do what they did. As for the vidoes, those were coerced.
Another person who doesn't bother reading all the words.
:rolleyes:
Hardly anyone faults them for not getting into a gunfight when outnumbered, it is all about their behavior during captivity and afterwards.
Read all the words, even the big ones.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Another person who doesn't bother reading all the words.
:rolleyes:
Hardly anyone faults them for not getting into a gunfight when outnumbered, it is all about their behavior during captivity and afterwards.
Read all the words, even the big ones.
Pot, meet Kettle.
"They were not at war with Iran, they were not fired on, and it was common sense to do what they did. As for the vidoes, those were coerced." addresses not only avoiding a gunfight, but also avoiding beatings and possibly worse by going along with the video idiocy. They weren't at war, wartime rules don't apply.
-
what Dago said.
-
I have no issue with them surrendering to a superior force, none at all.
I have an issue with them not sticking to name, rank and serial number which IS sop in the UK forces. I have an issue with them being allowed to sell their story and cash in over this.
The blame lies with the MOD for allowing the stories to the media and also with the British personnel for not sticking to name, rank and serial number.
EVERY serving member of the UK forces deployed to a combat zone gets issued with a card outlying the ROE's and Geneva convention basics, on that card, it clearly states name, rank and serial number only.
We can argue all day long that we are not at war with Iran, but tell that to the families of loved ones who have died from Iranian weaponry. The sailors should do the decent thing and give that cash to families who have lost sons etc, unlike the US forces, the British personnel get paltry sums when they die on active service.
When you sign on, you represent your country, some people don't take that responsibility seriously it would seem.
-
wait a minute, you people keep saying England is not at war with Iran, so then they would not be POW's because there is no war, so they would not be required to give only "name, rank and serial number".
they would be "undocumented aliens".
Iran should have done with them what the USA does, give them a free lunch and a bus ride back to Mexico or in this case back to Iraq.