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.

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:

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.

Huff & Puff.

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....)

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: