Agree.
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.

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 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?

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.

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:

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.

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!

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

:yep: :yep: :yep:

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:

Seriously!

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

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?

I have no idea.
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.
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.