Quote from: SpikeI'm sorry... Did I miss the news story where the secret Iranian Armada overwhelmed the tiny British fishing boat?

:rolleyes:
No, you just missed the basic (widely reported) facts.

Quote from: One Horse TownAh, armchair Generals. Gotta love 'em ain't you? Don't see either of you two out there...

:confused:
I'm not engaging in any 'armchair General' behaviour.  I'm just noting the facts (viz. the UN directives under which the British were operating, the position of the hostages when captured, etc.).

Quote from: Akrasia:confused:
I'm not engaging in any 'armchair General' behaviour.  I'm just noting the facts (viz. the UN directives under which the British were operating, the position of the hostages when captured, etc.).

I wasn't refering to you, but Spike and Werekoala. The time between starting my post and finishing it saw a few more posts in the thread than when i started...

Quote from: One Horse TownI wasn't refering to you, but Spike and Werekoala. The time between starting my post and finishing it saw a few more posts in the thread than when i started...

Okay, cool.  :cool:

Its not just the British, One Horse. Not at all. Need I remind you of the US Embassy hostages? Armed mobs overran an Embassy without a shot fired. Or the US troops captured in Bosnia not so long ago? They had a 50 caliber machine gun on their truck and they were captured by 15 men hiding in straw piles.  They didn't fire back.


I'm sorry, but any sane Rules of Engagement handed down include the internationally recognized right to defend yourself against hostile actions.  



Akrasia: It has taken some doing, given the human interest in the story is more on the state of the hostages rather than how they became hostages, but I get this: Their boat was surrounded and they were escorted back to shore. In other words, they complied, presumably without orders from their higher level commander, with orders given by a hostile force, given options.  Sure, the Iranians didn't shoot at them.  So they don't have to shoot back. They also don't have to meekly return to Iran to be disarmed.  Which is what they did.   Who, exactly, ordered them to surrender?

The Iranians did.  I guess we have a new way to end wars, just order the other guys to surrender. It'll work like a champ!

And believe me, my bile is not restricted to the hostages. Not by any measure.

Quote from: One Horse TownAh, armchair Generals. Gotta love 'em ain't you? Don't see either of you two out there.

I'm guessing there wasn't a firefight because they didn't want a diplomatic incident that really could have caused another war that no-one can afford. Instead, they got a diplomatic incident that made both sides look a bit stupid.

I hope the actual reasons for the incident come out soon, if for no other reason than to highlight any incompetence by the Navy. Still, that kind of incompetence is preferable to being so trigger-happy that you end up with 'blue on blue' situations and then try to hide the evidence or have soldiers in your army so brutal that they murder and rape young women for kicks and thrills or a government that condones torture trying to 'export democracy and moral values' to the world.

We have a lot to learn about civilised society from our American cousins it seems. Still, our navy didn't shoot a few ragheads when provoked. We're crap!

Return volley fired sir! :evillaugh:  Prepare for incoming...

Oh, the old "You're not there fighting so you can't comment on it" line. How original.

You missed one salient point though - obviously the BRITS weren't fighting, either, so I AM just as qualified as them to comment on it.

What exactly do you think the situation was? The Royal Marines were boarding and searching dhows and other ships looking for contraband. Up motors some 50 yeard old (judging by their pics getting medals from President Bob) Iranian Coast Guardsmen in a speedboat. With guns, presumably. Nearby, a large British "warship" looms, with officers no doubt looking on as they add a lemon slice to their tea.

"Pardon me, old chaps," the Coastguards enquire, "would you mind terribly coming with us? We believe you've strayed into our waters!"

The Brits, in their inemitable style, of course assented, no doubt looking forward to a few week's R&R in Teheran. They got some good food, some new clothes, and all they had to do was to "admit" to what everyone else on Earth knows to be a lie. In exchange, President Bob got to show the Islamic world once again that the West is a paper tiger whose soldiers won't even RESIST when confronted by ENEMY SOLDIERS. He can abduct he men and women CHARGED WITH DEFENDING ENGLAND (and presumably themselves), with nothing more to fear than a "stern letter" from Downing Street.

Whoop-ty Fuck.

I'm glad it ended well for the soldiers, but it ended HORRIBLY for England and by extension, the West. I'll say it again - England is DONE. You may as well scrap what's left of your military. I imagine the Argies will get frisky again one of these days. That'll be a sight to behold.

Nice job, guys.

As an aside, it is challenging to define 'Armchair General' in definite terms. Urban Dictionary doesn't have it, and most Google searches are overwhelmed by the presence of a magazine that has that name. Since I would not use a self serving source for any term, I am forced to generalize.

Quotearmchair warrior: someone who has never served in the military, but who rah-rahs a war

from a slightly different term.

Amazingly enough, that would make One Horse Town speaking out of his ass.  I am certain that he has absolutely no knowledge of my profession, work history or for that matter the life story of Werekoala.  For all he knows we are both active duty special forces operators speaking from locations that shall not be named.  That would pretty much invalidate the Armchair thing.

As for general... well, you don't have to be a general to say what a soldier/sailor/marine should or should not do.  

This is article two of the United State Soldier's Code of Conduct.  I imagine british military forces should have something similar.

QuoteI will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist

EDIT::::I found this from Australia, actually, regarding proper behavior once captured... It seems very relevant.

Quote2. AVOID CAPTURE if possible - use your fieldcraft training to evade the enemy - even if it means lying up for days.
(2) GIVE THE INTERROGATOR ONLY YOUR:
(a) NUMBER.  
(b) RANK.  
(c) NAME.  
(d) DATE OF BIRTH.  
(3) Australian military law, as well as loyalty to your country and your mates, demands that you give no more. To give more purely personal and non-military information may show up some weakness which a skilled interrogator can exploit.  
(4) You cannot be expected to decide what information is and is not useful to an experienced interrogator so you must refuse to answer after giving your:
(a) NUMBER.  
(b) RANK.  
(c) NAME.  
(d) DATE OF BIRTH.  
f. DETAILED INTERROGATION. To wear you down with repetition, threats of punishment and promises of rewards.
g. INDOCTRINATION. Linked with interrogation. To play on your personal weaknesses and criticize democracy in order to undermine your loyalty and get you to give information and inform on your fellows.

Sad to say, but constant reports of the hostages critisizing the war, admitting to fault and other such activities DO NOT fall under that.

Quote from: Spike...
And believe me, my bile is not restricted to the hostages. Not by any measure.

Your bile shouldn't involve the hostages at all, as far as I'm concerned.  I think that being angry at them is just plain ignorant, given the UN directives under which they were operating, and the specific circumstances under which they were kidnapped (viz. to fight back would have killed them immediately).

Beyond that, though, I think that I share your irritation with the overall situation, namely, that the British should never have agreed to the UN directives in the first place, and that British forces should be operating under more robust rules of engagement in general (in order to better protect their men and women in the execution of their duties, and their national interests).

Akrasia:

I have been to Iraq. They behead hostages over there. Why should the British expect any difference when they were captured?  

Why, they shouldn't!  They have no way of knowing if their captors will treat them humanely, or if they are really working with the insurgents.

Thus, they are already under threat of death, the differences being in one way they have a chance to escape and fight another day, or at least die with some dignity and honor, the other way they become yet another propaganda tool before dying as helpless lambs being lead to the slaughter.  You have seen the same beheading footage I have or you have avoided it utterly, it is no way to go, no way at all.

Just being captured without a fight is bad enough. Not enough maybe for bile and venom, but it is discraceful.  If the UN regulations don't allow them to attempt to flee, or to fire back if fired upon, then the UN regulations are actually illegal orders given the international Law of War... under which you do have the right to defend yourself.  

And while I know that the footage being shown of the hostages is carefully selected for maximum impact, they still had no business saying the shit they were saying. THAT is where they earn my bile.  If they are so terrified for their lives that they are willing to pay any price to save them they have no business in the military.  Look again at the Australian Code of Conduct for Prisoners of War.  You don't say shit. You don't admit your country is wrong, you don't say you are sorry.  You tell them who the fuck you are and you keep your fucking mouth shut.  THAT is where they earned my bile. Their surrender is only icing on the cake at that point.  


Of course, like most people I would dearly love to learn more of exactly what went down out there that let them get captured in open water. Did they not see the boats approaching? Did they run out of fuel? Or did their immediate commander realize that his life was on the line and turn into a quivering pile of jello?  I don't know, but the first two seem pretty improbable.   That means they had working vehicles, open water means that there were places to go (I HAVE seen the Iranian boats, they aren't so big as to prove an obstacle to other vessels), freindly ships in the neighborhood. I can only assume, given certain acceptable assumptions (military personnel engaged in potentially hostile actions... interdicting potential smugglers) that they were armed, thus they could shoot back.     So, I put to you the question: Why the fuck did they surrender in the first place?

Quote from: Spike.

Amazingly enough, that would make One Horse Town speaking out of his ass.  

Absolutely, i'm speaking out of my arse. The irreverant last sentance and evil chuckle smilie should have been a clue that i wasn't being entirely serious.

I agree that this doesn't reflect well at all. I'm British for fucks sake. I gather you two ain't and werekoala gets out the 'don't critisise America or American lives if you aren't American or have never lived there' whenever someone says something he sees as out of line. Practise what you preach lads.

Quote from: One Horse TownAbsolutely, i'm speaking out of my arse. The irreverant last sentance and evil chuckle smilie should have been a clue that i wasn't being entirely serious.

I agree that this doesn't reflect well at all. I'm British for fucks sake. I gather you two ain't and werekoala gets out the 'don't critisise America or American lives if you aren't American or have never lived there' whenever someone says something he sees as out of line. Practise what you preach lads.

I have pointed out that I have the same response to US soldiers who are captured without fighting back. In fact, in my initial entry into this thread I leveled by shotgun of hate at the entire western world, more or less.  

The mentality of sending people with guns into warzones with instructions that 'force' them to be sitting targets is... well, I'm not entirely sure I have a word that truely incompasses the insanity of it all.  The entire situation is looking more an more like a case of 'overdeveloped civilization' or something...:mad:

Quote from: David JohansenIran wants them to make an offensive move. Britain's strategists know this. Iran's strategists know Britain knows this. If it takes too long, Iran will torture these guys (but only to the extent that we could get away with, nothing that'll turn the other Muslims against them) because they know damn well that bluffing won't get them the response they want. The only real question is how long it takes for Britain's intelligence to figure out where the soldiers are.

Two questions: Why prompt Britain to act offensively? What makes you believe Iran would torture them? The latter strikes me as a bit odd. Iran has taken hostages before, and wasn't so atrocious about it. Also, they seem alright in the tapes or what have you.

Quote from: One Horse TownIt's win/win for Iran, even though world opinion of them isn't exactly being bolstered by this. They know that any largescale military action isn't forthcoming due to commitments elsewhere. They know that any kind of airstrikes will play into radicals' hands and increase trouble in Iraq for allied forces, as well as solidify opinion in Iran against us (which, really, isn't there for most of Iran's population. Before the Iraq war, they were actually one of the more reformed nations in the region). So, they are milking this for as much as they can before they release them.

Sounds about right. Iran doesn't have much to gain by war, but by turning popular opinion against the West they can put more hardcore fanatics in power.

Quote from: WerekoalaI've got an idea - how about the UK grab a few Iranian soliders, see how well that goes over?

Yeah, let's just nab some of those Iranian soldiers floating along on the English Channel... oh, wait...

Quote from: Dominus NoxUnder the shah, they had access to western culture and such, the problem was the shah was a tyrannical secular despot who ruled with an iron fist but allowed the people some cultural freedom and access to western goods.

Been brushing up on your history, eh? That's good. No, really. You got the Shah's regime in a nutshell.

Quote from: Dominus NoxThey tossed him out and got a tyrannical theocractic regime that was even more repressive and oppressiven than the shah, and didn;t allow them any cultural freedom. In other words they went from a bad secular dictatorship to an even worse islamofascist one.

Young iranians listen to their parents talk about the shah's regime, and it's the good old days as far as their concerned.

I've heard that the iranian hardliners are actually paying foreign islamic hardliners to come in and keep order as so much of the populace is dissatiffied with the current reime in iran. Now, if the west were to cripple iran's economy, espcially after the government provoked it with kidnapping western sailors, it might make it impossible for the hardliners to pay enough thugs to stay in power and their system could collapse.

Now, hopefully the iranian masses won't let another hardliner islamofascist regime replace it, so they end up with a more tolerable regime, and the west ends up with a more tolerable, less dangerous, iran.*

Crippling the economy will what now? I don't care who's paying who; if Iran doesn't eat, that's free PR against us, and a little more effective than a foreign hardliner I might add. Iran's got a constitution with room for ammendment; there's room for peaceful and gradual change (or at least internally initiated).

Quote from: Dominus NoxIt's true, we can't invade iran, but we sure as hell can bomb their vital facilities, their water plants, their government centers, their oil facilities, their bridges, their power plants, etc.

Forget negotiating with these fanatics, just tell them to release the hostages or else. No negotiation, no dealings, just "Do this or suffer the consequences."

If they kill the hostages, see to it that at least a thousand iranians die for each one of them.

You can't deal with fanatics like you would sane people, you can't deal with barbarians like they were civillized people.

And again with the fallacy. I know you were probably just in the mood for hyperbole, but there aren't too many thousands of Iranians about and the vast majority of them are not fanatics.

Both Spike and Werekoala appear to be missing the point that the Iranians were not enemy soldiers. Firing on them would have been incredibly stupid.

- Q

Quote from: QuireBoth Spike and Werekoala appear to be missing the point that the Iranians were not enemy soldiers. Firing on them would have been incredibly stupid.

- Q

Not leaving the area with their own boats was incredibly stupid.  If the Iranians boarded by force, not shooting them would have been incredibly stupid.

A kidnapper is not an enemy soldier, but I'd still expect a kidnappee to fight back using any means available, up to and including gunfire.  

And hostage takers are essentially kidnappers, both in practice and under most legal defintions.


Thus you are missing MY point: The hostages did not take reasonable steps to defend themselves, therefore the hostages are stupid. Had they taken reasonable steps one of two things would have happened: They would not have been kidnapped and left the area under their own power, or the Iranians would have opened fire to stop them and there would have been a firefight.  

From a military perspective either one is preferrable by a large margin to throwing up one's hands and going 'woe is me, oh all is woe.. whatever shall I do? How about I badmouth my own nation on television? Won't that be nice? Maybe I shall get tea and crumpets!'

Quote from: One Horse TownI gather you two ain't and werekoala gets out the 'don't critisise America or American lives if you aren't American or have never lived there' whenever someone says something he sees as out of line. Practise what you preach lads.

Do what now?