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?)

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?

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

: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. ;)

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

And now we enter Part 2.

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

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?

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:

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.

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.

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'!

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 ^_^

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.

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 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.

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.

Ager-2 and the Occurance Near Yo Do Island

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.