Iran captures 15 Royal Navy Personnel

[Oberon]

More details here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm)

Goddamit!! Not again!! :down:

[Godalmighty83]

this shouldnt be tolerated, the iranians came into iraqi waters to kidnap those men.

the border should be closed off and any inranian ship trying to enter should be considered hostile.

i know we dont have a big fleet anymore by any means but we should have enough ships to cover the border (by radar/sonar)

if labour wants to prove there worth then all means necessary should be taken to sort out this situation and stop it happening again. odd's are though they will simply axe another 20 ships and call it a restructure.

[waste gate]

Good thing the French are in the area now.:D

[The Avon Lady]

Good thing the French are in the area now.:D
That was gonna be my line! :p

[bradclark1]

Good thing the French are in the area now.:D
Whose side are they really on though?:shifty:

[The Avon Lady]

Good thing the French are in the area now.:D
Whose side are they really on though?:shifty:
Theirs. Guaranteed.

[Letum]

What is Iran trying to gain from testing the Western powers like this?
I really can't see how it could be of benefit to them.

I don't want a offensive war with Iran atm, but I'm totally behind any decision to declare hostilities against Iranian personnel, ships etc in Iraqi waters with out good reason.

I hate to quote from a leader as harsh, megalomanic and crazy as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but:
Let them hate us, as long as they fear us. Caligula

I think the Royal Navy should impose a little more fear to ensure respect from Iran.

[Oberon]

Letum, I agree with you completely...if we find their boats in Iraqi waters we should fire a warning shot, and if they do not clear out, sink the sods, and capture THEIR sailors...see how much they like that. :arrgh!:

[SUBMAN1]

What is Iran trying to gain from testing the Western powers like this?
I really can't see how it could be of benefit to them.

I don't want a offensive war with Iran atm, but I'm totally behind any decision to declare hostilities against Iranian personnel, ships etc in Iraqi waters with out good reason.

I hate to quote from a leader as harsh, megalomanic and crazy as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but:
Let them hate us, as long as they fear us. Caligula

I think the Royal Navy should impose a little more fear to ensure respect from Iran.


I agree.

[SUBMAN1]

Good thing the French are in the area now.:D Whose side are they really on though?:shifty: Theirs. Guaranteed.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: You're probably right though. THey are their protecting their interest since they sell a lot of $$$ out there. French made weapons are still being used in Iraq that were sold as late as 2001.

-S

[Oberon]

Good thing the French are in the area now.:D Whose side are they really on though?:shifty: Theirs. Guaranteed.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: You're probably right though. THey are their protecting their interest since they sell a lot of $$$ out there. French made weapons are still being used in Iraq that were sold as late as 2001.

-S

Who knows? The De Gaulle might be there to drop off another shipment... :|\\

[STEED]

On behalf of my mate here who has no PC yet (I don't know :roll: )

Iran is gay and full of head bangers

Well......:hmm:

[Tchocky]

Jeez, this is dicey. The justification seems to be a breah of territorial waters. If it turns out that the British were over the line, then iran probably won't shut up for about 10-15 years. if Iran crossed the border to capture the soldiers, they must be shown that this is unacceptable.
Time is what's needed here, to make absolutely 100% sure who transgressed today. With the Middle East being the Middle East, especially in these years, there should be no chances taken.

The frigate's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said he was hoping there had been a "simple mistake" over territorial waters.
"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they [British personnel] were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may claim they were in Iranian territorial waters.
"We may well find that this is a simple misunderstanding at the tactical level."
Christ I hope so

[STEED]

Just saw the CH5 news on this, typical Iran just prodding the West and making capital out of it. Iran is playing a dumb game.

[micky1up]

Good thing the French are in the area now.:D



what are they doing selling more arms to iran

[Letum]

What is Iran trying to gain from
[........]
more fear to ensure respect from Iran.

I agree.


How very surreal! ;)

[SUBMAN1]

How very surreal! ;)

But you already knew I'd agree. :p

[Letum]

How very surreal! ;)
But you already knew I'd agree. :p


Nah...I would expect you to want all out nuclear war* with Iran, not just defensive hostilities.

*contains slight traces of exaggeration.

[SUBMAN1]

How very surreal! ;)
But you already knew I'd agree. :p

Nah...I would expect you to want all out nuclear war* with Iran, not just defensive hostilities.

*contains slight traces of exaggeration.
Nah - quite frankly I want Iran to get the bomb + Saudi Arabia + Syria - all of them. So all this effort with Iran is a waste of time in my opinion.

-S

[Letum]

How very surreal! ;)
But you already knew I'd agree. :p

Nah...I would expect you to want all out nuclear war* with Iran, not just defensive hostilities.

*contains slight traces of exaggeration. Nah - quite frankly I want Iran to get the bomb + Saudi Arabia + Syria - all of them. So all this effort with Iran is a waste of time in my opinion.

-S

....Ive lost you....

[SUBMAN1]

....Ive lost you....

Ah oh. Really? Have I gone off the deep end? :D Or is it because you don't understand? Whats wrong with giving them nukes? It would take them 50 years to miniturize it enough to bring over here anyway, and by that time, if history is my guide, they would have nuked each other back to the stone age already.

-S

[moose1am]

Can't belive that the British let themselved get captured ..... AGAIN. Do they not know how to shoot those rifles?

[Enigma]

Look at this BS....

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cancels planned visit to the United Nations. Iran says visas for the crew of his airplane were not issued in time.


The Royal Marines, assigned to HMS Cornwall, had been on an anti-smuggling procedure sanctioned by the U.N. but were apparently taken into custody anyway by Iranian naval vessels in the Shatt-al-Arab, a 120-mile stretch of salt marsh disputed between Iraq and Iran.


Coincidence? Nope! :nope:

Update: Actually, it appears im wrong here. Washington had already suggested the trip may be delayed before this occured. My baaaaad.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Britain is going to try and talk them out of there, guaranteed. Me, personally. I'd demand they be returned immediately or else I "nukkz0rz dere countryz0rz" :rotfl:

[sonar732]

How many people knew of this (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1602389,00.html)?

The public speculation about a potential war between the U.S. and Iran have added to that anxiety, as have incidents like the taking of the British marines and an earlier event in March when the Saudi Arabian navy engaged an Iranian submarine. No shots were fired but the Saudis found the sub near the Saudi city of Jubail, a coastal industrial center that is the site of major Saudi petrochemical and oil installations, as well as the location of the King Abdul Aziz naval base. The Saudis minimized the incident, accepting the Iranian explanatin that the sub's closeness to Jubail was a mistake. The Saudis also did not want to further stress relations between Riyadh and Tehran. But an Arab surce in the gulf believes that the incident may have been an Iranian political message to the U.S. and the world — a reminder that Iran has assets in the gulf to threaten American and its allies there.

:o:o:arrgh!::arrgh!::huh::huh:

[Yahoshua]

This was NOT a smart move by the Iranians as the Brits are already wanting to leave Iraq alone, so there's more than just political grandstanding at work here.

This is pure speculation, but I believe Iran wants to keep the Brits in the area for awhile longer, for how long and for what purpose I don't know. The one thing I do know is that if the SAS gets involved the Iranians are going to feel it for sure.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/Tankrunover.gif

[Oberon]

Heh, I always figured Iran would start threatening the Saudi oil ways, then again, it wouldn't exactly take a genius to figure out the most valuable commodity leaving the Gulf would it? :know:

According to a link on the Subsim front page, Iran launched a fairly large naval exercise yesterday too...saber rattling or the prelude to something bigger? :damn:

[Yahoshua]

When the U.S. navy attacked Libya the entire Libyan navy was destroyed in 30 minutes. I'm curious to see if that record can be beat.

[Enigma]

Would'nt suprise me if this is just absurd reprisal for the US detaining Iranians in Iraq.

Having said that, it's a dumb move on Irans part. They are testing the worlds patience, and the world is running out of it. Let them harm a hair on a British servicemans head. That would be genius. Pull the temple down on your own head. I'd be fully prepared if I were blair to go on TV and say "release my boys, or you will regret it."

And in the words of the fictional President Bartlett (again):
"If the admiral has to call this kids parents, im going to wipe them off the face of the earth with God's own thunder." :stare:

I've always been against military action against Iran until all other options are exhausted. The Iranians have been getting to big for their boots for some time now. This was a bad step in a bad direction for them.

[Yahoshua]

Maybe we can Sic Saudi Arabia on them, let them take care of the land war for us. http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/badidea.gif

[Skybird]

Do we really know all about what has happened?

The UK claimes the boats had been forced into Iranian waters and then their crews got arrested. That would be kind of kidnapping.

Iran claims they arrested the crews of the boats after they had breached the maritime border. That would be legal military action in a case of self-defense.

How do we know who is telling the truth?

We only know that both countries have interests and agendas in the region and with regard to the nuclear crisis. And both countries seek propaganda coups with their people's public opinions.

For me the information basis is too thin to make any conclusions and judgements yet.

Mind you that it would not be the first time that an agressive act at sea would have been triggered - Tonking, for example, or the US recce plane collision close to the Chinese coast in -when was it? 2002? Mind you also that it would not be the first time that Iran takes hostages - the US embassy crisis, the incident with the British navy in 2004.

Lets go silent running and listen for a while. If they go pinging we can start firing at them soon enough. No matter who "them" is.

[Yahoshua]

If Iran wanted to play down tension, they'd arrest them, hold them and then release them within a few hours.

If the sailors are still being held then I doubt that the Iranians are playing fair games here. Of course nobody has been playing on an even field in this entire mess?

[Skybird]

If Iran wanted to play down tension, they'd arrest them, hold them and then release them within a few hours.

If the sailors are still being held then I doubt that the Iranians are playing fair games here. Of course nobody has been playing on an even field in this entire mess?
As I said, both nations seek for propaganda coups.

we simply have no independant cionfirmation for what has happend. we do not know yet what has happened.

This is no attempt of mine to sympathise with the Iranians. It's just that I have not enough information to build an opinion yet. We only have statements from the British and Iranian governments. Both are not trustworthy and need independant confirmation.

[Yahoshua]

I guess all we can do is sit it out and see what happens....maybe the Brit soldiers were trying to do this just for the fun of it: http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/crosswater.gif

[Tchocky]

Maybe we can Sic Saudi Arabia on them, let them take care of the land war for us. http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/badidea.gif
Ah, one human rights-abusive country battering another for the US? Whatever floats your boat.

EDIT: I must be in a bad mood, didnt mean to sound so narky :)

[Yahoshua]

It was a http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/sarcasm_on.gif moment. (if the bad buld icon wasn't clear enough....it's kinda hard to see with the smart dark background).

[Tchocky]

It was a http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/sarcasm_on.gif moment. (if the bad buld icon wasn't clear enough....it's kinda hard to see with the smart dark background).
Brain must be having an off day.

On the whole, I'm with Skybird on this one, wait it out

[SUBMAN1]

Would'nt suprise me if this is just absurd reprisal for the US detaining Iranians in Iraq.

Having said that, it's a dumb move on Irans part. They are testing the worlds patience, and the world is running out of it. Let them harm a hair on a British servicemans head. That would be genius. Pull the temple down on your own head. I'd be fully prepared if I were blair to go on TV and say "release my boys, or you will regret it."

And in the words of the fictional President Bartlett (again):
"If the admiral has to call this kids parents, im going to wipe them off the face of the earth with God's own thunder." :stare:

I've always been against military action against Iran until all other options are exhausted. The Iranians have been getting to big for their boots for some time now. This was a bad step in a bad direction for them.

I think its provacation. They are itching for an excuse for something. What it is, I am not certain of.

One thing is for certain - they will use this incident as an excuse to rile up their own people by saying the British trespassed.

-S

[baggygreen]

Its simple - if they're not released immediately, then Iran oughta learn a little lesson. but im impatient. One report of maltreatment once the poms are released and Iran will learn a lesson anyways.

As for the record set by the US against Libya - I reckon it'll be done in 20 mins flat.





Oh and by the way, im back now fellas:)

[Oberon]

More news here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6489493.stm)

Apparently the British sailors have 'confessed' to being in Iranian waters, whilst under interrogation in Tehran. The Iranian armed forces spokesman says they're in 'sterling health' but then again, I should imagine he would...

Now we'll see if Blair has any balls to demand the return of the sailors or Iran starts losing parts of its Navy... :ping:

[Skybird]

I really think this issue should be played more cold-blooded and calm-minded. Determination is enough. Opposite to the gun-ho demand for attacking the Iranian navy, it is extremely unlikely that there will be a "live fire excercise" in the Gulf too soon. Live with it.

A late night comment yesterday said that at least two Iranian subs currently are at sea, apparently noone could say where they are right now. If that is true you better think twice before pulling a trigger. The British government probably already does. Or has anyone forgotten that just the rumour that maybe, eventually, who knows, a British sub was operating in the Falkland vicinity, far ahead of the arrival of the armada, already was enough concern to severly limit the Argentinian naval operations in the area? No matter what you believe how superior British or american technology is, Russian diesel subs of the Kilo class are no opponent to be taken easy. And then there is Iraq, and massive Iranian influence there. any British attack against Iran most likely will trigger massive retaliation against US and British troops in Iraq, according to the motto "Hit the enemy where he is most weak, and then repeat".

Step by step, guys. Step by step. Stubborn patience is needed, no gun-ho and hooray. The Iranians know that they cannot hold those marines forever without suffering massive political loss even with countries that right now tend to sympathise with them. they will wring the last drop of propaganda bonus out of it, and then release them.

[micky1up]

Do we really know all about what has happened?

The UK claimes the boats had been forced into Iranian waters and then their crews got arrested. That would be kind of kidnapping.

Iran claims they arrested the crews of the boats after they had breached the maritime border. That would be legal military action in a case of self-defense.

How do we know who is telling the truth?

We only know that both countries have interests and agendas in the region and with regard to the nuclear crisis. And both countries seek propaganda coups with their people's public opinions.

For me the information basis is too thin to make any conclusions and judgements yet.

Mind you that it would not be the first time that an agressive act at sea would have been triggered - Tonking, for example, or the US recce plane collision close to the Chinese coast in -when was it? 2002? Mind you also that it would not be the first time that Iran takes hostages - the US embassy crisis, the incident with the British navy in 2004.

Lets go silent running and listen for a while. If they go pinging we can start firing at them soon enough. No matter who "them" is. thats easy which country is more known to tell lies i think that would be iran

[fatty]

Step by step, guys. Step by step. Stubborn patience is needed, no gun-ho and hooray. The Iranians know that they cannot hold those marines forever without suffering massive political loss even with countries that right now tend to sympathise with them. they will wring the last drop of propaganda bonus out of it, and then release them.

Skybird, you are a breath of fresh air. After all the warmongering over the falsified Israeli article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/826019.html) I was sure this place had gone mad. Waiting for Iran's next move or signal of intent is the best thing we can do right now.

[Oberon]

Gah, as much as I hate to admit it...you're right Skybird...a gung ho attitude won't do anything to help here...and it's really what the Iranians are hoping for...attention seeking. It's like some stupid little kid that keeps beating people up for attention, or acting up and doing stupid stunts just to get attention.
It's just so frustrating having our hands tied like this. :damn:

[Skybird]

thats easy which country is more known to tell lies i think that would be iran
Just three words for you that neverthelss caused severe consequences and the death of many tens of thousands: "Tony's missile memo".

Iraq war and it's most ridiculous excuses has seen the firing of so many lies by Downing Street No1 and the White House, and later has seen so many attempts to gloss over the situation, that I would say I see not much differences between their and Teheran's mastery of telling lies.

[Skybird]

Gah, as much as I hate to admit it...you're right Skybird...a gung ho attitude won't do anything to help here...and it's really what the Iranians are hoping for...attention seeking. It's like some stupid little kid that keeps beating people up for attention, or acting up and doing stupid stunts just to get attention.
It's just so frustrating having our hands tied like this. :damn:
No one forces us to tie our hands, or keep them tied. It's just that we allow our establishements and leaders not to go into that effort of untying them. First thing you learn in almost every kind of martial arts: the importance of having a solid stand. We do not have that solid stand in the Gulf region, we allowed our leaders to push us into a position of extreme vulnerability, and that way our options are limited. we are also vulnerable towards not only the gulf states but the whole Muslim world and OPEC, since we do not attempt since decades to reduce our dependancy on them - for the benfit of our own oil lobby. we lost fourty years almost in trying to reduce our dependency from their oil, we wasted the time headlessly for just some more time to live out our excesses. Stupid. Reminds me of the deal with the devil: one life of 50 years in fame and glory, and afterwards an eternity of doom.

We need to become independant from Muslim oil, and since there is no more enough oil for all global players to please their needs and choose the origin of there oil, we need to become independant from oil altogether.

Next we must avoid to expose ourselves to such degrees of vulnerability like the Iraq war has done, and like our appeasement of Islam has done.

If we avoid these two mistakes, and reduce their effect in the future, we eventually could gain growing degrees of freedom of action. It's simple chess, guys. Just tactical play alone and setting the board on fire will help you only against an opponent that is of relatively weak abilities, and emans you are weak in ability yourself. Chess between better players is won by developing and enforcing a longterm strategy. You do not aim at just winning this pawn or that knight. You plan for figure constellations and positional advantages twenty, thirty moves away. It less spectacular, and needs more patience, yes. But there can only be one victor, and you prefer to be that one, so...

The West simply is too short-minded, and too much attracted by the sensation of the immediate present. Both China and Islam have longterm visions. That's why they "out-breathe" us.

[Oberon]

Spot on Sky, it's very much a case of thinking long-term...which as shown by the Iraq invasion, our current leaders are incapable of doing. I definately agree with you on the oil, not only to avoid our dependance on the Middle East...but on Russia too which seems to be playing a new version of 'Cold' war with its old WP states.

I guess it's because we've reached what we see as the pinnacle of our civilisation, we are at the top of the civilised world, or at least we view ourselves as such, thus we have no long term goal, no long term future...no grand vision of a global superpower, because we (or at least the US) already IS one...whereas China and the ME have bigger plans, they are working their way up the list by buying out or subduing everyone in the way.

[The Avon Lady]

How many people knew of this (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1602389,00.html)?
Or of this (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015784.php)?

[The Avon Lady]

Springtime for Mahdi in Teheran (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53577).

[geetrue]

It's just a power play by Iran ... they feel all powerful taking
hostages to show the world the power they have over life and death,
but in the end all they will do is cause the western world to have more unity
(peace of brotherhood) against Iran.

Perhaps another earthquake would convince them they have angered God. :o


all we can do is watch and pray.

Well, some watch and some pray ... many of us do both :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

all we can do is watch and pray.
See my sig's bottom line quote from General Hanks.

Frankly, I disagree with Skybird. The UK should have given Iran a 24 hour ultimatum to return the 15 soldiers unharmed or else an explictely named-in-advance relevant strategic/government/national Iranian target will be dust.

Repeat every 24 hours until the terms are met.

[bradclark1]

Frankly, I disagree with Skybird. The UK should have given Iran a 24 hour ultimatum to return the 15 soldiers unharmed or else an explictely named-in-advance relevant strategic/government/national Iranian target will be dust.

Repeat every 24 hours until the terms are met.
Thats exactly what should have happened. Should have gone in and sunk every boat in their navy.

[geetrue]

Faith that God will lead England to overcome this temporary problem Iran has provided is just that, Faith ...

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen ...

Without faith England would have been overcome by fear (not to mention American and Israel) in their time of crisis.

Faith and fear are a lot of alike ... When? You might say, "Are faith and fear a lot alike"?

In the small amount of time that it takes to replace each other ... "Click"

They are just alike ...

If you need to change your signature or your ryhme and reason to plead one word ... may I suggest "Freedom"

[Letum]

all we can do is watch and pray. See my sig's bottom line quote from General Hanks.

Frankly, I disagree with Skybird. The UK should have given Iran a 24 hour ultimatum to return the 15 soldiers unharmed or else an explicitly named-in-advance relevant strategic/government/national Iranian target will be dust.

Repeat every 24 hours until the terms are met.
Wouldn't that just incite them to kill the captured British?

As for your sig......
To get information, we have to marry the devil or at least employ him. You have to deal.
- General Tommy Franks

[geetrue]

Remember the Falklands ...:o

England will not back down ... :arrgh!:

[fatty]

Wouldn't that just incite them to kill the captured British?

And open the floodgates into Iraq, and push Iran to develop nuclear weapons, etc etc.

Iran != Lebanon.

[The Avon Lady]

all we can do is watch and pray. See my sig's bottom line quote from General Hanks.

Frankly, I disagree with Skybird. The UK should have given Iran a 24 hour ultimatum to return the 15 soldiers unharmed or else an explicitly named-in-advance relevant strategic/government/national Iranian target will be dust.

Repeat every 24 hours until the terms are met.
Wouldn't that just incite them to kill the captured British?
Possibly. But then the retalliation that would follow must be severe enough to make them think really hard if it's worth it.

Whether the war ends now or later is up to Iran. There's is the burden of responsibility.
As for your sig......
To get information, we have to marry the devil or at least employ him. You have to deal.
- General Tommy Franks
Let's put that in context:

Franks singles out White House Counter-terrorism Czar Richard Clarke as never providing him with "a single page of actionable intelligence" and of engaging in mostly wishful thinking. Franks also believes the U.S. invested too much in electronic spy surveillance and not enough in spies. "We can't send a Princeton-educated New York lawyer to infiltrate al-Qaeda. To get information, we have to marry the devil or at least employ him. You have to deal."

So, what does that Hanks quote have to do with the price of tea in China? Who said anything about not employing proper spywork and intelligence?

[CptGrayWolf]

The UK should have given Iran a 24 hour ultimatum to return the 15 soldiers unharmed or else an explictely named-in-advance relevant strategic/government/national Iranian target will be dust.

Repeat every 24 hours until the terms are met.

:lol: Avon Lady the great diplomat!

[geetrue]

See, even Tony has faith:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-03-25-iran-uk_N.htm



“I've been very clear throughout that the British forces do not ever intentionally enter into Iranian waters," he said. "There's no reason for them to do so, we don't intend to do so and I think people should accept there's good faith in those assertions."

[Skybird]

The UK should have given Iran a 24 hour ultimatum to return the 15 soldiers unharmed or else an explictely named-in-advance relevant strategic/government/national Iranian target will be dust.

Repeat every 24 hours until the terms are met.

:lol: Avon Lady the great diplomat!
That is only a strategy for a totally superior, invulnerable player (which the UK or the US or the West simply isn't). If you have Darth Vader and the deathstar in orbit around earth, you can do it like this, if you have open societies and several hundred million citizens scattered around and your military has been ordered into exposed positions and you are hanging at the bloodline controlled by friends of those you want to penalize, you better don't. First reduce your own vulnerabilities - and then start whipping the bad guy.

I wonder what kind of ROE the British have in the Gulf, some admrial was quoted saying "pretty much deescalatory". I also would like to know why vulnerable personnell in rubber boats is moving around outside the effective firing and combat range of it's home platform. That is something this novice i am does not get into his brain.

as a matter fo fact, options are limited. And this circumstance is selfmade - again.

[The Avon Lady]

The UK should have given Iran a 24 hour ultimatum to return the 15 soldiers unharmed or else an explictely named-in-advance relevant strategic/government/national Iranian target will be dust.

Repeat every 24 hours until the terms are met.

:lol: Avon Lady the great diplomat!
That is only a strategy for a totally superior
Agree.
invulnerable player
Disagree.

There have been many a war won by superiors but that did not mean they were invulnerable on the path to achieving victory.

But I do agree that the potential for vulnerabilities must be immediately reduced as much as is strategically possible. The fact that this is obvious doesn't mean that it has or will be done immediately.

[bradclark1]

as a matter fo fact, options are limited. And this circumstance is selfmade - again
How do you believe it's self-made? Kind of thinking that a rape victim deserved to get raped?
Yes options are limited. You either do something about it or you don't. Those are the options There are times to let roll and there are times to bring the hammer down. This is a hammer time. If they want to wag the tail of the dog let the dog bite them. The first thing should be to find these boats and sink them then ask for the marines back. If they don't, start sinking more. If they kill the marines destroy their air and the rest of their navy until they pay damages to the marines families. This is one of those distasteful times where what you do might jeopardize the marines lives but not doing anything will just embolden them more. The Iranians are making a lot of capitol with their Arab neighbors with this act and they have to be taught that the price is heavy.

[XabbaRus]

I agree with Avon on this one.

Surely it isn't outwith our capabilities eitehr using aircraft subs or surface ships to takeout one Iranian vessel every 24 hours until the men are released. Or find those two Kilos and sink them. In fact if they were sunk who would know and who could prove who did it?

[tycho102]

The enemy will always tell you where you are weak.

To my understanding, these Limeys were conducting maritime searches which have been in place since 1991. Apparently the Shah signed some kind of treaty back in 1975 which "gave" the waters to Iraq. The 1979 Iranian revolution probably annuled this treaty -- which is normal for any fedual government structure.

So, they/we have been searching ships in the area for 15 years, with little protection for the boarding parties. Iran certainly conducted reconnaissance for vulnerable areas, and this probably topped their list. Next month it might have been an American crew doing the searches.

I have absolutely no doubt that, according to Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, it was Iranian territorial waters.

[geetrue]

Tell me one thing Avon Lady ... where are the two crossing guards that caused the last war between Lebanon and Israel?

There is still a chance to get these 15 Royal Marines and sailors back ...

I understand your anger and your right to be agressive, but give them a chance to come back alive. Your way would only lead to an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth, besides the USA and France have them surrounded ...

We''ll help you out once again England, because I read somewhere that
they finally paid us back for the lend/lease program of WWII ... :yep:

[Skybird]

as a matter fo fact, options are limited. And this circumstance is selfmade - again
How do you believe it's self-made? Kind of thinking that a rape victim deserved to get raped?
Yes options are limited. You either do something about it or you don't. Those are the options There are times to let roll and there are times to bring the hammer down. This is a hammer time. If they want to wag the tail of the dog let the dog bite them. The first thing should be to find these boats and sink them then ask for the marines back. If they don't, start sinking more. If they kill the marines destroy their air and the rest of their navy until they pay damages to the marines families. This is one of those distasteful times where what you do might jeopardize the marines lives but not doing anything will just embolden them more. The Iranians are making a lot of capitol with their Arab neighbors with this act and they have to be taught that the price is heavy.

I thought in strategic, longtime terms here, Brad. Dependence on oil. Disadvantageous troops presence in a hostile environment where both it's presence and possible withdrawal only helps to strengthen the enemy's influence. Long-timed appeasement of Islam and trying to get it transplanted into Western societies - so that we cannot escape it's hostilee reactions and it's influence on our instittuions and public opinion building anymore - the enemy (in form of an ideology that calls for encourages the use of violance and intolerance) is within our society now, our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are at growing vulnerability, and we depend on their damn oil, so does worl economy and financial markets.

Note that I complained indirectly about the frigate or destroyer of the British not engaging the Iranians when wondering why one is sending around men in rubberboats, apparantly outside the assistance range of their home platform. I interpret it that they did operate outside that range. If the Iranians would have sought the confrontation with the rubberboats inside firing range of the British, I do not understand why they did not start to engage them. sounds like silly ROE to me, or being caught on the wrong leg. Or the British were indeed in Iranian waters - and knew it.

Different to 2004, this incident seem to have been planned since longer time now, which made me change my initial opinion that it only is about sacking some propaganda points and then releasing them. sounds more like retaliation for the capture of Iranians by the American forces some time ago, and also related to the nuclear program-crisis.

I stick to my opinion that currently the West position is too weak as that we should prematurely seek military action about this. That should have happened during the kidnapping. the Iranians are just waiting for an excuse to start acting in Iraq unhidden which could easily lead to a civil rebellion of the civil population against the British and American forces. That is the last thing that is needed there now. the only alternative would be to nuke them. And at the current stage I cannot support such a move, nor is it realistic to expect that somebody would dare to do like that. I would support conventional military operations with the goal to get the Marines free if that would not work so immensly counter-productive in Afghnaistan and Iraq, and more extremism in civil Islamic societies. That all I mean when saying we are too vulnerable in our global setup.

[moose1am]

Iran held the US DIPLOMATS for over a year until Ronald Regan Told them to let them go or else. I presume the the "OR ELSE" had something to do with blowing Iran off the map.

What I can't understand is why did the mother ship not destroy these 6 small Iranian boats?

Thoughout world history the West has had probelms with the Persians. We need to be very firm with the Iranians before it's too late.

If you are afraid that they will destroy the oil fields today just wait a few more months, years when they have nukes. One nuclear bomb would wipe out the Saudi Oil production and shut down most of the worlds oil output. The Saudis should not cater to Iran. Iran does not respond to diplomacy. Look at the History of this country!

Would'nt suprise me if this is just absurd reprisal for the US detaining Iranians in Iraq.

Having said that, it's a dumb move on Irans part. They are testing the worlds patience, and the world is running out of it. Let them harm a hair on a British servicemans head. That would be genius. Pull the temple down on your own head. I'd be fully prepared if I were blair to go on TV and say "release my boys, or you will regret it."

And in the words of the fictional President Bartlett (again):
"If the admiral has to call this kids parents, im going to wipe them off the face of the earth with God's own thunder." :stare:

I've always been against military action against Iran until all other options are exhausted. The Iranians have been getting to big for their boots for some time now. This was a bad step in a bad direction for them.

[Wim Libaers]

all we can do is watch and pray. See my sig's bottom line quote from General Hanks.

Frankly, I disagree with Skybird. The UK should have given Iran a 24 hour ultimatum to return the 15 soldiers unharmed or else an explictely named-in-advance relevant strategic/government/national Iranian target will be dust.

Repeat every 24 hours until the terms are met.

Unreasonable strategy. They'd just move the prisoners to that target. The target should be a surprise.

[geetrue]

Thoughout world history the West has had probelms with the Persians. We need to be very firm with the Iranians before it's too late.

If you are afraid that they will destroy the oil fields today just wait a few more months, years when they have nukes. One nuclear bomb would wipe out the Saudi Oil production and shut down most of the worlds oil output. The Saudis should not cater to Iran. Iran does not respond to diplomacy. Look at the History of this country!


:yep: :yep: :yep:

[baggygreen]

Skybird, i think that the reason the british ship didnt engage that Iranian patrol boats was because of the 'de-escalatory' ROE that the poms are operating under. Reading the interview on the homepage with the former first sea lord gives me the impression that the poms basically watched the Iranians sail away with their shipmates and were powerless to stop it happening...

which is a joke. the iranians shoulda been blown skyhigh. what kind of military force can't defend itself against the hostile actions of another nation?!? That is when you know theres something wrong...:down:

[Enigma]

what kind of military force can't defend itself against the hostile actions of another nation?!? That is when you know theres something wrong...:down:

Seriously!

[bradclark1]

the poms basically watched the Iranians sail away with their shipmates and were powerless to stop it happening...
Thats why officers are payed the big bucks to use their head for more than just pouring tea or coffee down.
But before I break into a tirade about using initiative I'll wait till I see something solid.

[baggygreen]

the poms basically watched the Iranians sail away with their shipmates and were powerless to stop it happening...
Thats why officers are payed the big bucks to use their head for more than just pouring tea or coffee down.
But before I break into a tirade about using initiative I'll wait till I see something solid.true enough - but the reason they couldnt do anything appears to be due to ROE that are not strong enough, their hands seem to have been bound. it woulda been tough to sit there and watch whilst being unable to do anything about it, but they had to

[geetrue]

Without sharp shooters they would have blown their own shipmates out of the water ...

I'm starting to think pre-meditated on Iran's part of this problem.

Nothing like hostages to keep Iran from being attacked and showing how stupid that country really is ...

If Iran had nukes would they threaten anyone that got in their way to use them?

[The Avon Lady]

Tell me one thing Avon Lady ... where are the two crossing guards that caused the last war between Lebanon and Israel?
I have no idea.
There is still a chance to get these 15 Royal Marines and sailors back ...
There's a chance for much worse things to come if you don't slay the beast or at least send it back to its lair.
I understand your anger and your right to be agressive, but give them a chance to come back alive. Your way would only lead to an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth, besides the USA and France have them surrounded ...
Wait till you see what lives will be at risk in the future for such hesitation.

This has nothing to do with eyes for eyes, which has never been taken literally in my circles in any case. This has to do with making your enemy regret acts of war to the point where they surrender or are forced to reconsider their actions.

[Wxman]

The RN servicemen should have attempted to leave and when the Iranians tried to prevent them, should have opened fire and gunned the boats while radioing for for help from American and British naval and air forces. Coalition forces should have immediately scrambled aircraft and given the Iranians an ultimatum: release the sailors or be sunk. And then sunk them if they hesitated. No one wants sailors or soldiers killed, but 15 men are not worth the loss of national credibility. Ever. Had the Spartans taken the easy way out, we'd all be speaking Persian and bowing to Ahuramazda.

This whole situation stinks. The British were engaged in something that is under the auspices of UN mandate for decades. One of the big things being attempted to thwart is the supply of materiel for the insurgency in Iraq. Quite frankly, that they were searching an Iranian ship, and the Iranians responded as they did speaks volumes to me.

It kind of makes one wonder who's in charge at the highest levels in Iran. If the more rationally inclined have abandoned reason or have kowtowed to the military, then all hope is lost and Iran will indeed have to be dealt with militarily. A militaristic Iran which possesses nuclear weapons is a situation which, from a western perspective, is untenable regardless of Iranian assurances of peaceful intent. The fact that British sailors have been seized indicates that Iran is not acting rationally nor in the interest of regional stability. The fact that the sailors have not been immediately returned indicates that the current government is a willing accomplice or is incapable of governing its own military. Such a situation is at the least, dangerous, at worst, provocative. Iran cannot save face in this situation, nor should it even try. Iran's irrational behavior only serves to bolster the U.N.'s decisions to sanction it. Maybe a bit more jaw jaw, or sanction sanction are in order before the war war begins.

However, the last part of the forging is a bunch of nonsense. I'm certain that 900,000 Rwandans would like to have their say about the policy of jaw jaw. Oh, wait, my bad, they're dead no jaw jaw for them. All because the worthless UN stood by and "jaw jawed." And how about Darfur? Indubiously jaw jaw certainly has helped there. Accoording to Geneva Convention, which I'm failry certain that Iran is a signatory to, the siezing of uniformed military troops and charging them with espionage is clearly illegal; never mind the paltry detail that prisoners are not to be paraded in front of the media either. The fact of the matter is thus: an act of war has clearly been conducted by by one sovereign nation against the armed forces of another nation. And we're not just talking any nation here, but one that is in allegiance with all those nations that comprise NATO. But you know what? "Rule Britannia!" is a quaint old pithy phrase having no meaning whatsoever. Neither does Britannia rules the waves. Without any doubt in my mind whatsoever, the British Bulldog has not just been neutered, but euthanized by its Muslim masters.

Royal Navy Incident: Iran's larger trap
(http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/03/23/royal-navy-incident-irans-larger-trap/)

[excerpted]

Anis Naccash, a Lebanese intellectual supporter of the Ayatollahs regime, appearing from Tehran few hours ago on the Qatari-based satellite and "explained" that the "US and the UK must understand that Iran is as much at war with these two powers in as much as they support the rise of movements and security instability inside Iran." He added that Khamenei is clear on the regime’s decision to strike: "we will be at war with you on all levels: secret, diplomatic, military and other."

Master of the Obvious says, "You're already at war with A-mad-Jihad."

I watched a frightening and disturbing interview with an Russian soldier a little while ago. He stated that all terrorists/enemies must be killed, that adult female relatations to terrorists should also be killed because they bred terrorists, and that the children should be killed, because they grow up to be terrorists or breeders of terrorists. This haunted me, it's seldom that one is challenged by a truth which is so ugly, and the answer so plain. This is what Iran should reap if any harm comes to those RN servicemen.

IF, & only IF the British were in what is recognised as International waters then Iran has commited an at best an Act of Piracy on the High Seas, and should be treated accordingly. If the Royal Navy can show the world the indisputable proof that they claim to have and the Iranians refuse to return the 'hostages' then the British Govt must enforce international law with clear and decisive use of military force to show the world that terrorists or pirates are not negotiated with & lets hope the Americans, NATO & Europe are prepared to back us up because if we give in to this then it will be 'open season' on British, and other Western military forces throughout the world.

I'm not holding my breath on this. The world condemned Israel for its "excessive use of force" in response to the taking of a couple of its service members. What's been going on over there lately? The Hez'b'allah still can't sit down because their behinds aren't just sore, but black with bruising. The sad fact of the matter is that the Iranians believe the nation of England and the United States are a bunch of wussies and will capitulate to their illegal aggression. As evidenced by the amount of people in both countries that actively undermine their own war efforts I would tend to agree with the iranians. NATO will back down, Britian will no doubt back down, just as the Congress here in America recently voted to back down from insurgents and terrorists in Iraq that blow up women, children, and churches. Western democracies have no stomach for any fight at this time.

Ronald Reagan once said, "I've lived through 4 wars in my lifetime, and not one started because they thought we were too strong."

Hey, look at from the bright side, Tony Blair acknowledges that this is a serious matter. Watch out when it becomes an extremely serious matter, cause then not mere stern words will fly, but most likely payments of tribute. Freedom is not free is a bumper sticker on my car. The British will soon discover how expensive securing the freedom of 15 RN servicemembers. After all what's a few tens of million pounds between adversaries? But what's the going rate for honor and credibility?

Winston Churchil said, "You have chosen dishonor before war. Soon you'll have both."

[CptGrayWolf]

Much talk about military action here.
Unfortunately this is real life and not a sim...
I personaly have nothing against military action, you could nuke those bastards for all I care. But this is another situation where the 2x4 approach will not help.

The last time the Iranians did this, it took about a week to release the sailors. Acting now would be excatly like the police moving in immediatly on a hostage situation (bad idea).
You only give the green light to the SWAT team when all 'diplomatic' options are exhausted or the hostages are in imminent danger.

There is a very complicated chess game being played with Iran now, with alot at stake (the whole region!), the kidnaping of the British sailors is just another move that must be countered.

To everybody wanting military actions, don't worry, I think the Tomahawks will be flying over Iran sooner or later.

[bradclark1]

true enough - but the reason they couldnt do anything appears to be due to ROE that are not strong enough, their hands seem to have been bound. it woulda been tough to sit there and watch whilst being unable to do anything about it, but they had to
Thats where initiative comes in. As an armchair admiral I would ask did the British ship have radar. Was it on? How long did they track them? Why were the marines not recalled when the Iranian's were discovered to be on an intercept course? Why was the ship not maneuvered between the Iranians and marines? Did the ship have communications with higher? Why was air not on standby? Was there complacency?
But until what actually happened becomes available everything is just speculation.

[krautkllr]

arm her torps ,send em away

[STEED]

Why the hell did we let them take us? We should had said sod off and if those Iran dogs kept coming blow the mad dogs out the water. Tip toeing around the edge with people like this is not the answer.

Bomb the bastards back to the stone age.

[Wxman]

One needs to keep in mind that the HMS Cornwall was standing nearby. She is equiped with a heavy compliment of anti-ship missiles, anti-missile-missiles, and big guns. She is also equiped with state-of-the-art radar and surveilance equipment. She had to have KNOWN that Iranian boats were encroaching on her troops in the rubber rafts. She did nothing, the troops did nothing. What does this tell you?

I can imagine, it went something like this:

The RN boarding party, seeing the approach of Iranian naval vessels, radio to the HMS Cornwall for help. They inform the captain that they are surrounded and being ordered to lay down arms. The Cornwall's captain radios his Admiral and the Admiral radios 10 Downing Street for permission to challenge the Iranian vessels and rescue their troops. Meanwhile, having no orders yet from the Cornwall, the British servicemen are overpowered and taken aboard the Iranian boats. Then word comes back to the captain of the (heavily armed) Cornwall from 10 Downing Street...... "Hold your fire, we don't want to create an incident with Iran at this time". However, no reply but static is heard in acknowledgment of this directive.

Blair: Iran must free naval prisoners in days-(Or what?) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/26/wiran26.xml)

because it is the welfare of the people that have been taken by the Iranian government that is most important.

Fraid it's not Tony. While the welfare of those Royal Marines is important, its not nearly as important as sending a FIRM message to Tehran that ANY attacks and captures of UK personnel will be met with SOLID, non-diplospeak military measures.

If the Cornwall had sunk one or two of those Iraniac boats, the UK would be ACTING, instead of REACTING! The FIRM message should have been sent in unmistakeable terms in 2004 when they did this the first time. Since nothing was done then to nip such behaviour in the bud now here you are again. Iran sees that they have no downside to capturing any UK personnel so why not? These foaming at the mouth mad-dogs don't attack strength, they attack weakness and they interpret all this mealy-mouthed, touchy-feely negotiations as weakness.

Let me see if I understand what is going on here. The British Foreign Secretary is attempting to negotiate with a group of people who think women are inferior to their dogs. Just what part of that leaves me serious reservations? Now I know political correctness is all the rage, but does anyone else see a problem with this? Lives are at stake here. I am not bad mouthing the Brits, or women for that matter; we in the USA do the same silly stuff. We sent two women to the UN and we have a woman Secretary of State who deals with these same idiots. Does anybody believe for thirty seconds they take these ladies seriously?

What's the ulitamtum there Tony? In addition to harsh language, you might impose a TIME OUT? Most likely Britain will resort to even higher level diplomacy (perhaps as high as at the UN level, and imnplentations of harsh, but fair sanctions). And if that doesn't work then you'll attack with "tough language", and "sternly worded press releases" and if that still doesn't work, then you'll have no option but to use the ultimate weapon - a package of incentives. I pity the poor Iranians!

Since when did the words "no contest" find their way into the vocabulary of Her Majesty's Royal Marines? I hear that in NZ its playing out that Iran having captured British Royal MARINES...

If this be true, then I fear that the true state-of-play is gonna be sad for the Iranian captors:

They've got us surrounded again, the poor bastards." - Creighton W. Abrams, Jr.

Although, sadly, that may be a quaint expression and sentiment from a bygone era.

A couple of days ago it was my position that Britain should give them 24 hrs to return the kidnapped soldiers or commence bombing raids bombing. That 24 hrs. window has long since passed and nothing has been done.

Nor do I frankly believe anything will be done either. Similiar to that Israeli soldier still being held by the Palsestiniacs, these Royal Marines will be held indefinitely. I wouldnt blame the other soldiers stationed there by Britain if they caught the first commercial jet out of there and went home. If one's country places one at risk and then abandons them, why bother to continue to serve?

Most importantly, we should all keep in mind that Iran's latest military aggression occured while still being a conventional military power. That means that any contemplated conventional response today can be rendered with the confidence of maintaining military superiority. That confidence will all but vanish like vapor the minute Iran achieves its goal of becoming a nuclear power. Who knows what the revolutionaries in Tehran will then be capable of?

The Iranians would be wise to remember what happened when Argentina assumed the UK was too weak to do anything when they siezed the Falklands when Maggie was in office.

There are, nevertheless, a number of profound differences: if Blair is about to leave office, this incident will be what people remember him for. couple that with the fact that the UK (along with the US) have quite a few assets in the area with which to do something.

This incident is a direct slap in the face of the British Navy that once ruled the oceans - if the UK does nothing, the prestige they lose will be enormous , and repercussions will be enormous. Does anybody even remotely believe that the Argies will think twice about trying retake the Falklands if this situation remains unadressed in unequivocal terms?

[geetrue]

Why the hell did we let them take us? We should had said sod off and if those Iran dogs kept coming blow the mad dogs out the water. Tip toeing around the edge with people like this is not the answer.

Bomb the bastards back to the stone age.

This comes after the learning experience of what men think who have to make quick decisions next time ...

[Kapitan_Phillips]

On behalf of my mate here who has no PC yet (I don't know :roll: )

Iran is gay and full of head bangers



:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Such an awesome generalisation right there

[STEED]

On behalf of my mate here who has no PC yet (I don't know :roll: )

Iran is gay and full of head bangers



:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Such an awesome generalisation right there

He firmly believes Iran should be Nuked with a minimum of 50 nukes. Are to be young and well you decide. ;)

[Tronics]

This reminds me of something...something 444 days long.

And now we enter Part 2.

[ASWnut101]

I don't think it will be another one of those, but still, all possibilities are open right now.

[Tchocky]

Do we know for definite yet which navy was over the line? Were Iran in Iraqi waters, or was HMS Cornwall in Iranian waters?

[Skybird]

Do we know for definite yet which navy was over the line? Were Iran in Iraqi waters, or was HMS Cornwall in Iranian waters?
We don't. The area the incbident took place and the eact borderline is dispzted by Iran, and Iraq, and the UN. It could very well be that the Brits and the Iranians both are right - according to their differing views about the border.

However, it would excuse the Iranians to sack that Britsh party. It would not legitimize them to keep them under arrest beyond a relatoively sdhort time frame.

I tend to agree on the thoughts about what the ROE probably were like. Such ROE are a bad joke.

Does the Cornwall have helicopters? If so what were they doing? Gone fishing?

[baggygreen]

But, the legal maritime limit would be the one set down by the UN, regardless of what Iran thinks - besides, they're a part of the UN as well... I got little doubt that you got it tho sky - the brits were working in the guidelines of the UN-mandated border, while the Iranians decided to play territory-hog. Which still puts them in the wrong, and hopefully a big stick isnt just gonna be waved at them, but used. How much should the West be expected to take?!:hmm:

[bradclark1]

The MOD won't make the coordinates public.

[Tchocky]

The MOD won't make the coordinates public.

That won't do them any favours. If the Cornwall was within Iraqi waters, they have nothing to lose by releassing the proof.
However, if the Cornwall was inside Iranian waters (actual Iranian waters, not claimed Iranian waters), then the Iranians are justified in taking prisoners.

[waste gate]

I've been wondering about; what was HMS Cornwall doing? Six Iranian gunboats approaching at a high rate of speed. Fifteen crewman in the water and my powerful warship and air cover does nothing? What is going on here? It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Skybird]

Ig uess we will never know the full story. Only the consequences. "Enjoy the show, but don't ask questions."

[waste gate]

Ig uess we will never know the full story. Only the consequences. "Enjoy the show, but don't ask questions."

Politics.

If I were the man on the scene I know what I'd do. Protect the crewmen. Everyone on HMS Cornwall must be questioning; 'why the hell am I here? These politicians and the captian dosen't give a rats behind about me'!

[Oberon]

Novel...

The BBC have the main story on the Iran situation up the top of the main page...and then a little bit further down in the Features, Views and Analysis they have 'In pictures, Key moments of the Falklands conflict."

Are they trying to tell us something? :hmm:

EDIT: Oooh, now I'm an Ocean Warrior....Nice ^_^

[moose1am]

Ever heard of a device called GPS? Yes they both know where they were. But the line dividing Iraq and Iran is disputed by both parties. The Iraqis fought a TEN YEAR WAR with Iran over this very same boarder. We (Regan/Bush/Rumsfeld) sided with the Iraqis and Saddam in that long war. We even gave the Iraqis poison gas to use.

Iran is a totally different country than Iraq. And Iran should be delt with sooner rather than later.

It's oil that will drive WWIII. Oil runs the world. Without it things grind to a sudden halt. Ask the German Tank Commander from the Battle of the Bludge why he lost that battle. His Tiger tanks ran out of gas. That's why.


Do we know for definite yet which navy was over the line? Were Iran in Iraqi waters, or was HMS Cornwall in Iranian waters?

[moose1am]

I am thinking the very same thing? Did we put them out there as Bait to help us go to war with Iran. I know that I am normally not that anxious to go to war but with Iran I still remember the Hostages of 1979. We own Iran a lot of WOOP ASS from that event. Now it's happened again TWICE not once. First 8 sailers and now 15 sailors.

Is this how we treat our service men. Hang them out to dry? I thought that we left no man behind?

I loved it when Libya challenged our Naval forces years ago and the score at the end of the game read. US Navy 2 Libya ZERO. Can you say TOP GUN! :)

I've been wondering about; what was HMS Cornwall doing? Six Iranian gunboats approaching at a high rate of speed. Fifteen crewman in the water and my powerful warship and air cover does nothing? What is going on here? It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

[waste gate]

Novel...

The BBC have the main story on the Iran situation up the top of the main page...and then a little bit further down in the Features, Views and Analysis they have 'In pictures, Key moments of the Falklands conflict."

Are they trying to tell us something? :hmm:

EDIT: Oooh, now I'm an Ocean Warrior....Nice ^_^

I took your advice and visited the BBC

What are the rules of engagement in this type of situation?

Admiral Sir Alan West

"The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting. The reason we are there is to be a force for good, to make the whole area safe, to look after the Iraqi big oil platforms and also to stop smuggling and terrorism there.
So we try to downplay things. Rather then roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away. If we find this is going to be a standard practice we need to think very carefully about what rules of engagement we want and how we operate. One can't allow as a standard practice nations to capture a nation's servicemen. That is clearly wrong. "

Wars won't start unless the enemy sees weakness my good Admiral Sir. As a senior member of the admiralty you and all other officers have a responsibility for those under your command.

Two grabs in three years sounds like it is standard practice.

[August]

It's oil that will drive WWIII. Oil runs the world. Without it things grind to a sudden halt. Ask the German Tank Commander from the Battle of the Bludge why he lost that battle. His Tiger tanks ran out of gas. That's why.

Not that I disagree with the likely causes of the next world war but the Germans lost the Battle of the Bulge because it was a really bad time and place to make such an offensive, not because they didn't have enough gas.

They could have had enough fuel to reach Paris even and it wouldn't have changed the outcome, not once the weather cleared and Allied air power was able to get at them.

[Wxman]

Ager-2 and the Occurance Near Yo Do Island (http://www.usspueblo.org/v2f/incident/incidentframe.html)

Auxiliary General Environmental Research (AGER) ships were conceived as small unarmed or lightly armed ELINT/SIGINT vessels. Manned by US Navy crews, communications technicians (CT) from the Naval Security Group and civilian oceanographers they would provide an equivalent capability to Soviet trawlers. Destroyers or heavily armed combatants were dismissed for missions off the coast of Communist countries as being blatantly belligerent in nature and as such were more likely to provoke hostility than collect intelligence. Besides, larger ships were going to be more costly to convert and operate than the type the Russians were using. The United States already had a series of converted WWII Liberty ships that served as intelligence platforms. The USS Liberty AGTR-5, a member of this series, was a success at its primary intelligence mission but was large and costly to operate. A small ship that appeared to be of an nonconfrontational nature might be able to remain on station for a significant period of time, receive much less attention than a large or heavily armed unit, and cost significantly less to run. Originally the US Navy envisioned a total of 40 ships in this new AGER class. To prove the theory behind this idea one ship was selected to be converted to a new type of intelligence platform. The USS BANNER, a light auxiliary cargo (AKL) vessel was selected for refitting to an intelligence platform and rechristened USS BANNER (AGER-1). During operations in 1967 off the coasts of the Soviet Union, China and the west coast of North Korea, her intelligence gathering abilities were considered a success. Authorization was granted to convert 2 more AKL's to AGER's; the USS Pueblo, AGER-2 and the USS Palm Beach, AGER-3. The USS Pueblo would join USS Banner in the western Pacific and the USS Palm Beach would operate in the Atlantic. The SOD Hut conversions were done by LTV/Raytheon Systems.

[MikeDixonUK]

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never shall be slaves!

...unless the Rules of Engagement state otherwise in which case we'll send a very harsh letter at a later date. :dead:

[Skybird]

Ig uess we will never know the full story. Only the consequences. "Enjoy the show, but don't ask questions."

Politics.

If I were the man on the scene I know what I'd do. Protect the crewmen. Everyone on HMS Cornwall must be questioning; 'why the hell am I here? These politicians and the captian dosen't give a rats behind about me'!

For once in a while, I agree. I think someone in responsebility and way up in the hierarchy lives by the impression that Britain today exclusively convinces by an aura of superior civilisation and smart reason, thus some more robustness in the carrying out of such operation is not needed. This incident should have been reacted to, and prevented, in the minute it took place.

Which maybe would have needed some more readiness and robust preparation ahead indeed.

[The Avon Lady]

Huff & Puff (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070327/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gulf_us_maneuvers;_ylt=AnO7wccSDza02ct1BJZyDfqs0NU E).

[Oberon]

Huff & Puff (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070327/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gulf_us_maneuvers;_ylt=AnO7wccSDza02ct1BJZyDfqs0NU E).

Well, with any luck Irans Kilos will get too interested, stray into an ASW trap and betray their positions, making them a lot easier to hole when the time comes. (because, let's face it...we're WAY past IF now....)

[bradclark1]

So we try to downplay things. Rather then roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.
Why is it that they haven't released what actually happened? Something is really odd about all this. With radar and instant communications I can't see this happening unless you want it to happen or the leadership screwed up and needs to be relieved.
How you can sit there and betray your own men is beyond me.:down:

[moose1am]

So we try to downplay things. Rather then roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.
Why is it that they haven't released what actually happened? Something is really odd about all this. With radar and instant communications I can't see this happening unless you want it to happen or the leadership screwed up and needs to be relieved.
How you can sit there and betray your own men is beyond me.:down:

Sometimes you don't want the enemy to know your capabilities.
And maybe just maybe the Brits actually went into Iranian territory to scout around.

I did read today that the Brits are about to release more proof that their guys were in Iraqi waters and not in Iranian territory. Well see what transpire in a few days.

If we go to war over this Iran will suffer much more than anyone else. But the West will suffer a lot too. Let's hope we can settle this by diplomatic means. I get pretty sick and tired of Iran pretty easily ever since the Hostage Crisis back in 1979/80 but I also lived though the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cooler heads will prevail hopefully. But I worry that mistakes can be made and a gulf of Tomkin Incident in the Persian Gulf may start a shooting war.

Our carriers are not invulnerable sitting in these waters. What would the USA do if Iran hit one of our carriers and sunk it in the Persian Gulf? Would we use tactical nukes on Iran? Or would we just unleash a barrage of cruise missiles and destroy Iran over a longer period of time? No wonder the Presidents all have grey hair by the time they leave office.

[Tchocky]

Ever heard of a device called GPS? Yes they both know where they were. But the line dividing Iraq and Iran is disputed by both parties.
Do we know for definite yet which navy was over the line? Were Iran in Iraqi waters, or was HMS Cornwall in Iranian waters?

Not everyone thinks so, even the commander of HMS Cornwall aired the possibility of this being a navigational error. However, one high-ranking Iraqi official has expressed surprise that British forces were operating in the area. Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, commander of Iraq's territorial waters, said: "Usually there is no presence of British forces in that area, so we were surprised and we wondered whether the British forces were inside Iraqi waters or inside Iranian regional waters."

[moose1am]

I was talking about the BATTLE not the WAR. If the German Tiger Tanks could have reached their goal (Port of Antwerp) it would have set the War effort back a bit. Our air power won the war for us. But the German's ran out of petrol before the fog lifted. Remember that our air force was grounded during most of the battle in the Arden's.

Yes after the skies cleared the German tanks would have been destroyed. Just glad that they ran out of gas when they did.

We just don't want to be a position to repeat the fate of the German Panzer's if we go to war with say ... IRAN.




It's oil that will drive WWIII. Oil runs the world. Without it things grind to a sudden halt. Ask the German Tank Commander from the Battle of the Bludge why he lost that battle. His Tiger tanks ran out of gas. That's why.

Not that I disagree with the likely causes of the next world war but the Germans lost the Battle of the Bulge because it was a really bad time and place to make such an offensive, not because they didn't have enough gas.

They could have had enough fuel to reach Paris even and it wouldn't have changed the outcome, not once the weather cleared and Allied air power was able to get at them.

[Wxman]

A source of a personal nature told me that they were involved in 239 boardings to date. He told me that its a fairly regulalar occurance that the radios crap out at some time after they get dropped off. I was told that to be out of communications is for the better part of 10 hours is considered normal.

Do a Google on Al-Shatt Arab waterway, and discover its history; the British are as complicite in that issue as they are in the partitioning of Israel. Nothing but pure cosmic poetry, or random chance, can explain that British RN servicemembers are presently held for they reasons that they ostensibly are.

Since the event took place, a lot of things have occured. A Pakistani railway minister was spouting off how strongly in lock-step his country would fall in with Iran. Imediately after that came out the announcement concerning militry excercises that India would be conducting with other countries. Then pictures were splashed around the world of Russian and Chinese leaders shaking hands whilest making funny faces.

Then the U.S. Congress came out with a funding bill for continued operations for military operations in Iraq that demand a withdrawl by date X.

Now keep in mind, that in accordance to U.S. governmental procedures, the U.S. President can state that a requirements exists for continued funding for as long as 90 days after existing funding expires. So what happens if the existing U.S. Congress bill is passed by the U.S. Senate? The bill's have the proviso of troop withdrawl by 2008.

Give the ensuing scenario 30 seconds of thought. If Bush vetos the bill, then the troops essentially will have no funding for anything whatsoever. That means that Bush would have to invoke the War Power Act, and Congress would have to fund operations exclusively to pull the troops out of theater. The logical progression of this line of reasoning presently entails that all U.S. troops could possibly be out of Iraq as soon as Sep 2007. Bush's aproval of this bill would entail operations as long as 2008. That countless additional $billions would be wasted so as to buy the vote of influencial politicians is of no concern whatsoever.

I believe any of those options would be a great idea; first off: the whole region becomes SEP (as far as U.S.A. is concerned), and secondly the world will find out exactly what things are going to be like with the Persians controlling all of Iraq's oil (including their own). Finally, I believe that this will ultimately spell the death knell for the U.S. Democrat party. This reality will wholly manifest itself after we are notified about Persian testing of a nuclear weapon.

If anybody believes for 30 seconds that the Persians will not walk into the vacume that the U.S.A. would leave behind, and that anybody else will instead be a suitable substitute in that regard is at best akin to that of a crack smoking-whore.

:rock:

Oh, and what about the 15 RN service members? Well, if all goes according to the way I see things going, and if enough tribute is paid, then maybe you'll see 'em within 12 months. If not, then sky's the limit, and if the Persians get the bomb, frankly I doubt you'll ever see 'em again. Of course by then there's going to be a whole lot more important matters to be concerned with than the lives of a mere 15 RN service membes. The greatest immediate concern will be the demands placed upon the UE, NATO, and to a lesser degree a significant portion of the rest of the world by some unnamed power, for which it will have no answer but capitulation.

At least everybody will be finally getting on as one big happy family, eh?

:|\\

[baggygreen]

exceptionally well put. Couldnt have put it better myself

[Tchocky]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6501555.stm

Good good, finally some movement. I don't care much for Iran's history of boardings, but that can be left well alone until this is defused and the sailors are returned.

[bradclark1]

I believe any of those options would be a great idea; first off: the whole region becomes SEP (as far as U.S.A. is concerned), and secondly the world will find out exactly what things are going to be like with the Persians controlling all of Iraq's oil (including their own). Finally, I believe that this will ultimately spell the death knell for the U.S. Democrat party. This reality will wholly manifest itself after we are notified about Persian testing of a nuclear weapon.

You forgot a few things. Saudi Arabia for one. I kind of doubt any number of countries will allow Iran to run any oil but their own. Their is sunni/shia violence now but a Persian is still a Persian and the hate is instilled. My reality says Iran won't be running Iraq. Check the polls for America's thoughts on the U.S. Democratic party. I don't think they are going anywhere for a while although they do make you shake your head often. I'm not so sure of Iran and nuclear weapons yet either.

[STEED]

I see the Iranian propaganda machine at work with the release of footage of our folk.

[Skybird]

Der Spiegel's view on it reminds of some interesting historical details:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,474518,00.html


Most of Iran's oil wealth lies concentrated in Chusistan province, which is why the British would have liked nothing more, after World War One, than to make that stretch of land with its Arab population part of a British-controlled sheikhdom. But that was prevented by Shah Reza Pahlevi, who managed to consolidate his power. Still the region remained disputed, because the British remaining in Iraq continued to covet it.
Violating international custom, the British fixed the border along Shat al-Arab in such a way that the entire river, which marks the border between Iran and Iraq, became Iraqi territory - right up to the Iranian coast. It was only in 1975 that the government in Baghdad accepted shifting the border to the center of the river - a concession in return for which Shah Resa Pahlevi ceased supporting insurgent Iraqi Kurds.
In 1980, Saddam Hussein changed his mind, and the eight-year war between Iraq and Iran began with an Iraqi bombardment of the Iranian oil refinery town Abadan on the eastern bank of the Shat. Britain and the United States sided with the Iraqi dictator, providing him with military reconnaissance, weapons and even poison gas - a decision that continues to represent a bitter legacy liability for the West, and especially Britain, to this day.
Andrew Phillips, a British member of parliament, recently noted that the number of Iranians killed between 1980 and 1988 is comparable to that of British losses during World War One. In Iran, anti-British sentiment isn't limited to conservatives or to the radicals surrounding President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It's much more deep-seated than the hatred of the "Great Satan," the United States, that is constantly reiterated, partly for propaganda purposes.

(...)

But Tehran could also try exchanging the 15 British prisoners for the Iranians arrested during US raids in Iraq in the past months. This strategy would at least have a diplomatic framework and a forseeable schedule: Representatives of Iraq's neighboring countries and of the United States and Britain want to meet in mid-April in Istanbul for a second conference on Iraq, and this time the countries' foreign ministers will be taking part.
So the British sailors are probably facing a two-week wait - provided careless statements don't further escalate the situation.

Not so much an excuse of Iran's action, but maybe part of the explanation. there are no single, isolated events. Only events that are embedded into greater contexts.

[Enigma]

I, for one, am growing extremely impatient with this situation especially, and the Iraninan government in general. What length of time is required before we start talking about ultimatums? :nope:

[Skybird]

I, for one, am growing extremely impatient with this situation especially, and the Iraninan government in general. What length of time is required before we start talking about ultimatums? :nope:

Mid-April.

The article above makes a reasonable assumption on that date.

[STEED]

I, for one, am growing extremely impatient with this situation especially, and the Iraninan government in general. What length of time is required before we start talking about ultimatums? :nope:

If you got the UN running the show say about 50 years if your lucky.

[Tchocky]

I think the slow pace of progress is a function of the volatility of the region, and neither side's willingness to start a war. Tony Blair said he was going to move into more aggressive negotiations today, thats good news, seeing as how reluctant Iran has been about more or less everything. And now there's one being released in the next few days. things are moving, but not as fast as they should.

[STEED]

I Tony Blair said he was going to move into more aggressive negotiations today

As if :rotfl: :rotfl:

What's he going to do? Send them a letter in bold type?

[Tchocky]

I Tony Blair said he was going to move into more aggressive negotiations today

As if :rotfl: :rotfl:

What's he going to do? Send them a letter in bold type?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6503211.stm

[STEED]

Iran is shacking in there boots,not.

[Enigma]

Thats exactly Iran's problem. They are NOT shaking in those boots. They have become way to big for said boots. And they could get a healthy number of their population killed for it.

[The Avon Lady]

Thats exactly Iran's problem. They are NOT shaking in those boots.
Why should they?

Recommended model: Pavolov's dog. :yep:

[waste gate]

Does this sound like propoganda?
From the female British hostage.

Dear Mum & Dad,
I am writing to you from Iran (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=iran&sid=breitbart.com) where I am being held. I will try to explain to you the best what has happened. We were out in the boats when we were arrested by Iranian forces as we had apparently gone into Iranian waters. I wish we hadn't because then I'd be home with you all right now. I am so sorry we did, because I know we wouldn't be here now if we hadn't. I want you all to know that I am well and safe. I am being well looked after. I am fed three meals a day and have a constant supply of fluids.
The people are friendly and hospitable, very compassionate and warm. I have written a letter to the Iranian people (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Iranian+people%22&sid=breitbart.com) to apologize for us entering into their waters. Please don't worry about me, I am staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long until I am home to get ready for Molly's birthday party with a present from the Iranian people.
Look after everyone for me, especially Adam and Molly.
I love you all more than you will ever know.
All my love, Faye

[Tchocky]

Does this sound like propoganda?
From the female British hostage.

Dear Mum & Dad,
I am writing to you from Iran (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=iran&sid=breitbart.com) where I am being held. I will try to explain to you the best what has happened. We were out in the boats when we were arrested by Iranian forces as we had apparently gone into Iranian waters. I wish we hadn't because then I'd be home with you all right now. I am so sorry we did, because I know we wouldn't be here now if we hadn't. I want you all to know that I am well and safe. I am being well looked after. I am fed three meals a day and have a constant supply of fluids.
The people are friendly and hospitable, very compassionate and warm. I have written a letter to the Iranian people (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Iranian+people%22&sid=breitbart.com) to apologize for us entering into their waters. Please don't worry about me, I am staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long until I am home to get ready for Molly's birthday party with a present from the Iranian people.
Look after everyone for me, especially Adam and Molly.
I love you all more than you will ever know.
All my love, Faye

Eugh, I really don't like it that that's been made public. Source?

[Oberon]

Providing it IS actually from her, it's not exactly difficult to get details about her, it's been plastered all over the BBC and ITN News reports. :damn:

[Skybird]

Eugh, I really don't like it that that's been made public. Source?
It was, for example, to be seen on CNN. In kind of an endless-loop.

[The Avon Lady]

Interesting read from someone who's been there: Iran's Terror Navy (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/27/irans-terror-navy/).

[waste gate]

Providing it IS actually from her, it's not exactly difficult to get details about her, it's been plastered all over the BBC and ITN News reports. :damn:The reason I asked is there are some issues that she raises in this letter which don't ring true.

'We were out in the boats when we were arrested'
Does she really think that she was arrested?

'I wish we hadn't because then I'd be home with you all right now
Was HMS Cornwall scheduled to be back to Britain now? 28 MAR 07

we had apparently gone into Iranian waters'
Using GPS would they had strayed into Iranian waters given the ROE?

'Hopefully it won't be long until I am home to get ready for Molly's birthday party with a present from the Iranian people'.
This one is way over the top.

[Enigma]

Yeah, I believe the industry/proffesional term for this letter is "complete crock of ****".

[Skybird]

Interesting read from someone who's been there: Iran's Terror Navy (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/27/irans-terror-navy/).

Special attention to this...:

"Iran is likely to respond to any attack on its nuclear facilities, or any attempt to free the 15 British hostages, with strikes on the ABOT as well as proxy attacks inside Iraq. Lebanon might flare up again with Iranian support. I’m sure our planners are factoring that into their thinking, but it’s probably a good idea if the rest of us do too."

... and this:

"But with all of the danger to coalition forces in the area that the Lt describes, why are the UK’s rules of engagement there so weak (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/03/rules-of-engagement.html)"


And in the linked text, this:


"Even though faced with Iranian Revolutionary Guards, every one of the Party knew that to fire a weapon (even a warning shot) would have ensured their personal Court Martial."

Nice find, AL.

[waste gate]

I think I mentioned, HMS Cornwall should have steamed at full speed in the direction of the Iranians. Based on the arctical that would not have violated the ROE. It certainly would have put the Iranians on a let's get out of here position.

[Tchocky]

I think I mentioned, HMS Cornwall should have steamed at full speed in the direction of the Iranians. Based on the arctical that would not have violated the ROE. It certainly would have put the Iranians on a let's get out of here position.
Cornwall was too far away, and the water in which the boarding ocurred was too shallow for the ship to safely steam in.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=470170&postcount=21

[Enigma]

I think I mentioned, HMS Cornwall should have steamed at full speed in the direction of the Iranians. Based on the arctical that would not have violated the ROE. It certainly would have put the Iranians on a let's get out of here position

Indeed. But ya know, it sounds like the were heavily outgunned...I can only assume they wanted to avoid provocation....

Cornwall was too far away, and the water in which the boarding ocurred was too shallow for the ship to safely steam in.

Ahh, yes...that too.

[waste gate]

I think I mentioned, HMS Cornwall should have steamed at full speed in the direction of the Iranians. Based on the arctical that would not have violated the ROE. It certainly would have put the Iranians on a let's get out of here position

Indeed. But ya know, it sounds like the were heavily outgunned...I can only assume they wanted to avoid provocation....

Cornwall was too far away, and the water in which the boarding ocurred was too shallow for the ship to safely steam in.

Ahh, yes...that too.

Was Cornwall out gunned or the boarding party? If it was Cornwall, I have to ask why were they there.
If the water was too shallow that brings another question as to where was the air cover?

Is this just a matter of old thinking in a new reality? I cannot believe that commanders in the area, with all their schooling, would allow this to happen without being complicet. The same thing happened in 2004, did it not?

Is this a ploy to let Iran show its hand and bring itself closer to the brink?

[Enigma]

Is this a ploy to let Iran show its hand and bring itself closer to the brink?

I think thats a stretch. But, hey man, its a crazy world right now. Who knows.

I think I recall Tchocky's article stating the air cover had reported to another area at the time....or something. hehe.

[Enigma]

Some new info....



RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Iran's foreign minister backed off a prediction that a detained British servicewoman could be freed Wednesday or Thursday but said Tehran agreed to allow British officials to meet with 15 sailors and Marines in Iranian custody.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in an interview with the Associated Press that Britain must admit that its sailors entered Iranian waters for the standoff to be resolved.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17827481/

[fatty]

I think thats a stretch. But, hey man, its a crazy world right now. Who knows.

That's my biggest worry re: Iran. I am never able to confidently tell whether they are following some sort of internally rationalized agenda or are just acting in the spur of the moment.

[waste gate]

I think thats a stretch. But, hey man, its a crazy world right now. Who knows.

That's my biggest worry re: Iran. I am never able to confidently tell whether they are following some sort of internally rationalized agenda or are just acting in the spur of the moment.

Its not spur of the moment. Its the Iranian agenda.

[gnirtS]

we had apparently gone into Iranian waters'
Using GPS would they had strayed into Iranian waters given the ROE?
Certainly wouldn't be the first time a unit despite GPS and radar support has blundered into somewhere it shouldn't have. Its something that shouldn't happen but does. The royal marines invading a holiday beach in spain instead of training beach in gibralter is one rather more comical example of it. Last month i believe austria invaded switzerland but nobody noticed, the swiss only found out when the austrians informed them and apologised. Modern technology is not infallable as it relies on humans who are a very unreliable link in the chain.

The MoD didnt exactly cover itself in glory today by doing a press release showing video and "evidence" then having some of it proven incorrect nearly immediately. Claimed video footage of the vessel wasn't the same one and so on.

One side made a navigational error here, quite which one remains to be seen.

Given the USAs insistence on trying to provoke iran at all costs to get the excuse it needs to bomb its not amazing this incident has happened and unlikely to be the last. Could also be revenge for the iranian diplomats that were kidnapped in Iraq by coalition forces and remain so. The parallels are there, america claims they were soldiers, iran claims diplomats. Could be direct revenge for that.

Nothing will come of this anyway. They'll be out in at most a week or two. Nothing to worry about.

[Enigma]

Its not spur of the moment. Its the Iranian agenda.

Maybe the Iranian agenda IS spur of the moment! :lol:

[Ark]

I'm not sure how or why just yet, but there is a liberal somewhere trying to connect this incident to Bush. lol

[The Avon Lady]

Reports in of developing showdown of Brit troops surrounding Iranian consulate in Basra.

[STEED]

Blair is cracking and there is talk of the UN to help out. :doh:


http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/3458/homer6xl.png
Kick ass Blair and give me a doughnut

[PeriscopeDepth]

Reports in of developing showdown of Brit troops surrounding Iranian consulate in Basra.

Source? Don't doubt you, just can't find it myself.

thanks,
PD

[Skybird]

Reports in of developing showdown of Brit troops surrounding Iranian consulate in Basra.

!? If so, I would say that move is... witty, original.

Iraqi Shias have stromed the building and attacked Iranians in summer 2006, so the place is well-choosen yb the British. Not that they should countforever on lacking sympathy of the residents for Iran, but it may help.

Can't find any info myself on it, AL. Any source?

[The Avon Lady]

Most likely a false alarm (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_iran_britain_1).

Pity. :roll:

[Skybird]

Pity. Taking an Iranian embassy as hostage really tastes well on my tongue. :D

[The Avon Lady]

Pity. Taking an Iranian embassy as hostage really tastes well on my tongue. :D
I meant if it would have been true, there must have been a legitimate reason for it.

[STEED]

Iran says sailor will not be freed if Britain creates a 'fuss'

Britain was gathering suppport tonight for a UN Security Council statement condemning Iran's seizure of 15 Royal Navy personnel in the Gulf, even after Tehran warned that it would hold on to a female sailor if the UK created a "fuss".
Iran stepped up its rhetoric in the war of words as Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, joined the diplomatic drive to win the release of the eight sailors and seven Royal Marines taken prisoner in the Shatt al-Arab waterway last Friday.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1585838.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1585838.ece)


This is a cop out by Tony Blair if he asks the UN, sorry I meant to say Tony Blair begs help from the UN. Once those paper pushing morons get involved it's time for a big cup of coco and keep them coming.

[The Avon Lady]

Once those paper pushing morons get involved it's time for a big cup of coco and keep them coming.
Doughnuts and cocoa?

Woohoo!

[STEED]

Hey Tony, forget the UN it's time for the A-Team
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1219/theateam6ro.jpg

[Enigma]

I say bringk back "Demo" Dick, Snake, The Golddust twins, Pooster, and the rest of the old school mob six shooters. These guys are probably chomping at the bit to get another shot at a hostage rescue in Iran after Eagle Claw. :cry:

[The Avon Lady]

Hey Tony, forget the UN it's time for the A-Team
Iran doesn't like your attitude (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=444500&in_page_id=1811&ct=5). :nope:

[Enigma]

Iran doesn't like your attitude (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=444500&in_page_id=1811&ct=5)

I really wish I didnt read that article. :nope:

Tick...tick...tick....

[Tchocky]

I say bringk back "Demo" Dick, Snake, The Golddust twins, Pooster, and the rest of the old school mob six shooters. These guys are probably chomping at the bit to get another shot at a hostage rescue in Iran after Eagle Claw. :cry:

Nah, call The Comedian :D

[Enigma]

The Iranian embassy in London has released a second letter it says is from British captive Faye Turney in which she calls on Britain to start withdrawing troops from Iraq. "Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?" said the letter, addressed to the British parliament.


:o

Tick...tick...tick...

[geetrue]

Just a matter of time before England lets Iran in on the secret that they are bigger they are ... and always have been.

[ASWnut101]

Ok, there is only one thing I don't get about the Brits on this forum. You keep saying "48 more hours," yet they've been held for SEVEN (7) days. How many more "48 hours" will you give them?


(no offense intended, just want to know)

[Tchocky]

Ok, there is only one thing I don't get about the Brits on this forum. You keep saying "48 more hours," yet they've been held for SEVEN (7) days. How many more "48 hours" will you give them?


(no offense intended, just want to know)
Um, simple really. Because no one on this forums makes policy, or is on the negotiating team.

If Letum says "another 72 hours, then we hit them!", and the Iranian Governemtn holds on to the sailors for another week, Letum won't be strapping on a Harrier and hitting Bandar Abbas with a lo-hi-lo.

[ASWnut101]

I was basing the "majority comment" as the media normally does.



I want a harrier...:|\\

[Tchocky]

They'd be free in no time :up:

and then maybe war in the Middle East. but that's nothing new :p

topic - anyone here "giving" Iran another x hours is talking out of their arse

[The Avon Lady]

Here's the latest (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070330/ts_nm/iran_britain_dc;_ylt=Ak0OZmv3wRq.yeX6SJStwYus0NUE) . Note that France continues to uphold its historic reputation. Spit.

[1mPHUNit0]

Well done Iran.
Brithish go home!

[The Avon Lady]

Well done Iran.
Brithish go home!
Wow! A supporter of barbarian pirates at SubSim! :arrgh!:

For the rest of you (except for Cobalt & Co., who don't like "dribble"), here's a sharp editorial from Jihad Watch's Hugh FitzGerald: Blaming England (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015855.php). Don't let the title mislead you.

[1mPHUNit0]

Dear sionist lady
I'm Palestinian
And i don't take lessons from you or from Brithish Army

[The Avon Lady]

Dear sionist lady
I'm Palestinian
And i don't take lessons from you or from Brithish Army
Not even spelling lessons? :88)

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Dear sionist lady
I'm Palestinian
And i don't take lessons from you or from Brithish Army
Not even spelling lessons? :88)

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Maybe he was too busy chanting and throwing rocks.

[Skybird]

I wasn't aware that we have a lady around here :smug:

Only plate-armoured battle-matrons armed with a giant hornet's sting in their fingertips! :lol:

[1mPHUNit0]

Maybe he was too busy chanting and throwing rocks. And i don't take lessons from Us Army too indeed

Not even spelling lessons?
No, thanks, i like baklava and pizza

[Dowly]

Dear sionist lady
I'm Palestinian
And i don't take lessons from you or from Brithish Army

You should. :yep:

[Skybird]

Maybe he was too busy chanting and throwing rocks. And i don't take lessons from Us Army too indeed

Not even spelling lessons?
No, thanks

Wowh, that's what I call consequent behavior!
Well done, proud little man!

One question though: do you plan to make yourself any friends here? You must not share our opinions for that. Just giving up those silly catch-phrases and replace them with your opinion and argument would be - helpful.

[1mPHUNit0]

You should.
I dont' think so
and i'm not alone

[Skybird]

I dont't tink so
and i'm not alone
Fine. I don't want to hold you up, then.

[melnibonian]

I dont't tink so
and i'm not alone
The sad thing is that with this kind of answers even those who do share your opinions will not support you. Look mate I do agree in some degree with what you imply. My view though is that in here it's a forum. There are a number of people from all over the world with different views, experiences and opinions. The only way to communicate with each other is via a helpful and respectful discussion. If you give either Yes/No answers or you're being provocative and rude people will just ignore you. So what do you really want? Do you want to say your opinion and engage in a discussion or you just want to shout slogans and go on your way? It's your choice really, think about it ;)

[1mPHUNit0]

Perfect, I agree, tell it to others
And if you quote quote mine not others comments
I dont' think so
and i'm not alone
I don't think that British Go Home it's just a slogan.

[melnibonian]

Perfect, I agree, tell it to others
And if you quote quote mine not others comments
I dont' think so
and i'm not alone
I think you're missing the point here, and I have a feeling you're doing it intentionally. It's a shame you know. There are so many things we can discuss and learn from each other.

[danlisa]

This....
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1525/800lo0.jpg

Plus, this.....
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7448/wormcs3.jpg

= BAIT

:arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!:

[1mPHUNit0]

Dear, you know that Jerusalem is still occupied territory under international law?!?
Who is a barbarian pirate?

[PeriscopeDepth]

I sense moderator intervention in the near future...

PD

[The Avon Lady]

Dear, you know that Jerusalem is still occupied?!?
Of course but we're working on getting the terrorists out of the east side of town.

Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people. Love it or leave it. Bye!

[melnibonian]

Dear, you know that Jerusalem is still occupied?!?
Do you actually plan to liberate it by insulting everyone in this forum? If this is the plan please let me know as there are a couple of other occupied or "occupied" (depending on how you see it) places around the world. mabye you can insult them to liberty as well :D

[Dowly]

Imp, (Can I call you Imp? Easier to write than that name monster), Mel was just trying to cool it down, saying that you ( not only you, I know, but in this case) should be a bit less rude & provocative in your comments. No puns intended, just a friendly advice.

PS. How much did it cost to get an internet to the cave you are living? Or are you using wireless?

With love, Dowly http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7060/wubkz6.gif

[melnibonian]

Of course but we're working on getting the terrorists out of the east side of town.

Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people. Love it or leave it. Bye!
That's not very helpful or polite as well you know.

[Dowly]

I sense moderator intervention in the near future...

PD

Young Jedi, the Force is strong in you. :yep:

[melnibonian]

I sense moderator intervention in the near future...

PD

Young Jedi, the Force is strong in you. :yep:
Oh yes I feel there will be a fight between the Jedi Masters and the Dark Side of the Force (and that does NOT include STEED, Danlisa and myself :rotfl: )

[mr chris]

Right look here you rock throwing raghead chanting P****. Please could you ******* off.. Your type of people make me sick you always are trying to lay the blame of your state or where you live and your own missfortune on other countrys and people. Now crawl back under the rock for which you came a die a slow painful death. No one here will miss you.

[1mPHUNit0]

Dowly i live in Milan,
39 Euro Flat,
But my homeland is Palestine
ow crawl back under the rock for which you came a die a slow painful death
I's not so easy ...you know

[Dowly]

I sense moderator intervention in the near future...

PD
Young Jedi, the Force is strong in you. :yep: Oh yes I feel there will be a fight between the Jedi Masters and the Dark Side of the Force (and that does NOT include STEED, Danlisa and myself :rotfl: )

Bring it on! http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/9839/chairzk4.gif

[Dowly]

Dowly i live in Milan,
39 Euro Flat,
But my homeland is Palestine
I am terribly sorry about that..... NOT! :roll:

ow crawl back under the rock for which you came a die a slow painful death

I's not so easy ...you know


I can gladly help you doing that. :)

[1mPHUNit0]

Inshallah....:up::up::up:

[Dowly]

Inshallah....:up::up::up:

Hopefully? Hehe, no problems, I come by Milan on Sunday? Is that fine with you? ;)

[HunterICX]

Well done Iran.
Brithish go home!

Tell us why, they have to go home. this isnt really contributing, this just a bite

Dear sionist lady
I'm Palestinian
And i don't take lessons from you or from Brithish Army

Ok, fine you are a palestinian,
but what has that to do with Iran and the captured UK soldier?


Quote:
Maybe he was too busy chanting and throwing rocks.
And i don't take lessons from Us Army too indeed


Quote:
Not even spelling lessons?
No, thanks, i like baklava and pizza

this is offtopic wasnt neccesary to post this. or are you calling out a fight? just mention that in the next post you make. its easier to just to tell it straight so we know that we just can ignore you.

I dont' think so
and i'm not alone

where? what? who? make up your mind on this one and explain what you are trying to say.

Perfect, I agree, tell it to others
And if you quote quote mine not others comments

Quote:
I dont' think so
and i'm not alone
I don't think that British Go Home it's just a slogan.

then why did you bother posting on this thread? no-one needs a slogan here. if you dont respect life of a soldier and his family then dont even waste your effort of making it worse then it already is.

Dear, you know that Jerusalem is still occupied territory under international law?!?
Who is a barbarian pirate?


tell us something new,
this is old news....


thank you for Non-contributing posts on this thread, just tell us if you continue this nonsense then we know that we can ignore you, or we can just call a Moderator in to see what will happen.


just in the future people , just ignore his small baiting attemps just ignore him and he will stop eventually.

[The Avon Lady]

Of course but we're working on getting the terrorists out of the east side of town.

Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people. Love it or leave it. Bye!
That's not very helpful or polite as well you know.
I won't shy from the truth. Sorry for not being politically correct to your liking.

[mr chris]

Of course but we're working on getting the terrorists out of the east side of town.

Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people. Love it or leave it. Bye! That's not very helpful or polite as well you know. I won't shy from the truth. Sorry for not being politically correct to your liking.

Avon Lady please speak your mind i really hate the way that the whole world is so PC at the moment. :up::up:

[melnibonian]

I won't shy from the truth. Sorry for not being politically correct to your liking.
It has nothing to do with political correctness. If you expect respect from one party you have to show respect as well. Also don't forget that your truth is not necessarily his. We're trying to have a dialogue here not "who's going to shout louder" competition.

[1mPHUNit0]

Jerusalem is still occupied territory under international law!
This is the truth

[melnibonian]

Jerusalem is still occupied territory under international law!
This is the truth
You two people just cannot let go and have a civilised discussion. You deserve each other. Thanks a lot for the lesson :damn: :damn:

[stabiz]

Bah, another Israel vs Palestine-thingy. Both sides are equally crazy IMO.

USS Liberty, anyone?

Oh, and I totally agree 1mPhunito is baiting. As always.

[mr chris]

Mel a guy called Kofi is on the phone. :lol:

[danlisa]

Mel a guy called Kofi is on the phone. :lol:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Jimbuna]

Hey!! 1mPHUNit0

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/4018/stfuoo6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[melnibonian]

Mel a guy called Kofi is on the phone. :lol:
Who where why :o OK hang on there I'm on my way :oops: No don't hang up I'm comming :p :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Jimbuna]

Mel a guy called Kofi is on the phone. :lol:
Who where why :o OK hang on there I'm on my way :oops: No don't hang up I'm comming :p :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Well don't hurry back!! :arrgh!:

[1mPHUNit0]

I respect only who is respectable
Is not a news but its quite easy to understand

HunterICX (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=225575)
Stop to bite dear

Wow! A supporter of barbarian pirates at SubSim! Not even spelling lessons? Of course but we're working on getting the terrorists out of the east side of town.
Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people. Love it or leave it. Bye! And so on
Those importants contributing posts whow????
And i never was offensive
Quote or bite again

Do you actually plan to liberate it by insulting everyone in this forum? Quote you too

[HunterICX]

I respect only who is respectable
Is not a news but its quite easy to understand

HunterICX (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=225575)
Stop to bite dear

Wow! A supporter of barbarian pirates at SubSim! Not even spelling lessons? Of course but we're working on getting the terrorists out of the east side of town.
Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people. Love it or leave it. Bye! And so on
Those importants contributing posts whow????
And i never was offensive
Quote or bite again

Do you actually plan to liberate it by insulting everyone in this forum? Quote you too


FYI you started it all by posting the small comment at start you should have made it a contstructed post by explain more then just what you posted. you are not going to get a decent debate by just posting ''Good job iran, British Go Home''

you just triggered the response of the others so well , they should just ignore you like I do at this moment well at least I wont turn into any baiting action or did I insult you see my post again. and also after the first post you took the thread offtopic by digging up the hot heated subject Jeruzalem. next time if you want to discuss about something like that create a new thread or dig up a old one via the search function.

HunterICX

[1mPHUNit0]

Nonsense.....

[Dowly]

Nonsense.....

Why?

[mr chris]

1mPHUNit0 your contuined existance is Nonsense. You are a oxgyen thief of the highest order.

[1mPHUNit0]

Well done Iran.
Brithish go home! This is not so provocative.
They are making war with terror...against who they call terrorists.
They make rape of civilians and torture of they....then
again
Brithish go home!
1mPHUNit0 your contuined existance is Nonsense. You are a oxgyen thief of the highest order. Thanks again dear

[The Avon Lady]

Another Iranian TV broadcast (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain;_ylt=AvcHmJchebLKWv336S.SKUes0NUE).

What would Admiral Nelson say (http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=498)?

[1mPHUNit0]

Iran it's not doing war against Iraq
Is not occupying Iraq
You know this.
But you are right ...only others are terrorists
You are making propaganda..only propaganda
the same that do Iran
But you are much more dangerous, you want war against Iran
War" Against Syria and Iran of course, and again Lubnan
or Lebanon i dont't know how you call it.
Of course, you are democratic

Nothing against the sionist State.
They have nuclear bombs and all it's ok?
Correct?
They are occupyng Palestine, Surya, Lubnan,
and all it' ok
Correct?
They make terror and all it's ok ok and again ok.
Correct?
Of topic, i dont think so.
Then ------->nonsense

[STEED]

Iran is winning the propaganda war hands down with another broadcast of a second sailor confessing, wow Iran really is looking great in the eyes of the Arab world. Stop farting around Blair and get those sailors home.

[Onkel Neal]

People, don't feed the trolls.

[Jimbuna]

People, don't feed the trolls.

Couldn't agree more matey :arrgh!:

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6655/trollsrc2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[1mPHUNit0]

And don't support occupation and terror
please
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h254/RS42/greatbrE.gifhttp://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h254/RS42/israelC3.gifhttp://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h254/RS42/usaCa.gif

[Dowly]

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8128/imp2oc5.jpg


Have a nice day. Bye! :cool:

[danlisa]

And don't support occupation and terror
please
It's not wise to argue with Neal.

I don't think anyone here is supporting occupation & terror. Subsim certainly is not.

Quoting someone's personal signature is no kind of argument.:doh:

Maybe STEED likes flags, DUH!:rotfl::rotfl:

[1mPHUNit0]

ASWnut101 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=228055)
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h254/RS42/greatbrE.gifhttp://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h254/RS42/israelC3.gifhttp://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h254/RS42/usaCa.gif
Maybe STEED likes flags, DUH!
Maybe not

[1mPHUNit0]

The sailors....
I'm very sorry for they.
Im serious
But not only for they

[Skybird]

Neal, must this thing really go on forever?

[DaMaGe007]

I think Britan and America should start dropping Bikini's and mini skirts from high altitude over Iran.
That will make those hard liners see the light.
If that doesnt work, nuke em, I have no time for them.

DaMaGe

[down and out]

(http://imageshack.us/)

[1mPHUNit0]

An english boot ...i suppose

[ASWnut101]

ASWnut101 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=228055)
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h254/RS42/greatbrE.gifhttp://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h254/RS42/israelC3.gifhttp://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h254/RS42/usaCa.gif
Maybe STEED likes flags, DUH!
Maybe not


Thanks! They are pretty, aren't they?;) P.S. You DID copy STEED's flags. Mine are in a different order.



P.S. Nice pic, Dowly!:rotfl:

[ASWnut101]

[Smartass on]


One more thing:


http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h254/RS42/greatbrE.gif http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h254/RS42/israelC3.gif http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h254/RS42/usaCa.gif
LET . .. . . . Freedom. . .. . Ring!



http://www.ringdang.com/sigs/iwillnotsubmit.jpg



[Smartass off]


Have a nice day, everyone!:up:

[Iceman]

Dear sionist lady
I'm Palestinian
And i don't take lessons from you or from Brithish Army
Not even spelling lessons? :88)

I'm sorry that was good AL lmao....:doh:

but back to the topic ignoring the children....this is one hell of a situation.WTF is going on with this country?
A quote from Red October..."Having your ships and our ships in such close proximity is inheritantly dangerous....wars have begun this way"...o wait does Iran even have a Navy....lol.. maybe some target practice is what the Navy has in mind.

Seriously FUBAR situation.

[Dowly]

Dear sionist lady
I'm Palestinian
And i don't take lessons from you or from Brithish Army Not even spelling lessons? :88)
I'm sorry that was good AL lmao....:doh:

but back to the topic ignoring the children....this is one hell of a situation.WTF is going on with this country?
A quote from Red October..."Having your ships and our ships in such close proximity is inheritantly dangerous....wars have begun this way"...o wait does Iran even have a Navy....lol.. maybe some target practice is what the Navy has in mind.

Seriously FUBAR situation.

Either Iran is crazy enough to actually think that they could win the war (not saying that the US & UK etc. would won it either, it would be the same as Afghanistan and Iraq, another battlefield for the terrorists) or they have a hidden agenda. But what it is? A fully working nuke that has been kept secret, that they will launch as a "defensive measure" if attacked? Turn the public against the western "attackers"? :hmm:

[August]

I wasn't aware that we have a lady around here :smug:

Only plate-armoured battle-matrons armed with a giant hornet's sting in their fingertips! :lol:

Stop talking about my mother like that. She keeps her stinger in her purse like all good German ladies do.

[1mPHUNit0]

Dear, we never walk alone,
the war is still won
Time and patch...time and patch
And i remember friends...
Tiochfaid ar là

[Dowly]

Dear, we never walk alone,
the war is still won
Time and patch...time and patch
And i remember friends...
Tiochfaid ar là

Mate, could you quote the one you are answering to in the future? Would make it easier to read the thread. Thank you. :up:

[1mPHUNit0]

Either Iran is crazy enough to actually think that they could win the war :up::up::lol::lol:
Lubnan won
war...stupid thing for stupid peoples
.... .... ....

[Dowly]

war...stupid thing for stupid peoples

indeed. :yep:

[ASWnut101]

war...stupid thing for stupid peoples
.... .... ....

Depends on where you're coming from. (no, not in the "Your from palisine" way, but in your beliefs)

[Dowly]

war...stupid thing for stupid peoples
.... .... ....
Depends on where you're coming from. (no, not in the "Your from palisine" way, but in your beliefs)

Also true, but then again, in what case would be a good thing to start a war? Because there´s 15 british troops held captive by Iran? They are there because of the war in Iraq, which I still can understand. ;)

[1mPHUNit0]

Depends on where you're coming from
No not depends....
war it's stupid...and civilian pay always
Oh yes rich get aloot of....
But war its stupid

[ASWnut101]

war...stupid thing for stupid peoples
.... .... ....
Depends on where you're coming from. (no, not in the "Your from palisine" way, but in your beliefs)

Also true, but then again, in what case would be a good thing to start a war? Because there´s 15 british troops held captive by Iran? They are there because of the war in Iraq, which I still can understand. ;)


No, your missing my point. All I was trying to point out is that's his opinion and not mine.


No not depends....
war it's stupid...and civilian pay always

...ok...



Oh yes rich get aloot of....
But war its stupid


Trust me, I'm not rich.

[Yahoshua]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif

[1mPHUNit0]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif Yes, i agree with you
Two peoples, same State

[ASWnut101]

Wait, what?:doh:

He just likes to watch, that's all.

[1mPHUNit0]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif Yes, i agree with you
Two peoples, same State
He just likes to watch, that's all. Hheheeeheheh
:lol::lol::lol:

[Takeda Shingen]

Alright, this one seems to have wrapped up with everybody making nice, and I like to see it. At the same time, it has gone on for thirteen pages, and it is time to let it rest. I am sure it will return soon, and in some other form, especially once the issue is resolved.