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


[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."

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.

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.

god save the queen
 

arm her torps ,send em away

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.

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.