Zipp0 1
Recommended Posts
Michele 1
QuoteTo support your uninformed argument you're making assumptions and coming to conclusions of military type situations you have no experience of.
So like I asked earlier, what would you know?
Having never been in the military, I know fuck all. So don't worry about my knowledge base here, Vring.
What I wonder about is this.
What are the rules of engagement about meeting a "non" enemy in international waters? Are there any? What are the guidelines? Does anyone know?
And I'd add this thought to the conversation about why the Iranians were not "massacred" right off the bat.
It was an Indian ship that was boarded. Lots of innocents there (even if it were only 1 sailor on that ship, that sailor is indeed innocent). One reason to not have a firefight, I'd think.
Another reason to not have a firefight is that the Iranians are itching for a confrontation. They've been pushing buttons for a while now, and doing everything they can do to encourage some sort of retaliation. If indeed the Brits did open fire, you can bet the headline would read "Iranians attacked by UK in International Waters." And the fight would be on. The Brits showed amazing composure and willingness to not have a battle that would be unwinnable, even if the combatants were dead. The Iranians had a win-win situation there...and they exploited it completely. And they continue to exploit it totally.
And lastly, the thought that perhaps the Brits, while knowing the Iranians were not exactly friendly, didn't want to start a war by shooting at a country's soldiers that we are not at war with...
In my "fuck all" opinion, I think that given the very intricate circumstances, the Brits did the right thing...and because of that, all of the responsibility rests solely on Iran.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Sorry Michele, but if you think the captured lads and lady done the right thing to allow themselves to be captured and used as powerful political tools in favour of the Iranians.....what can I say without sounding insulting towards you?
Not a lot.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
Not a lot.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
beowulf 1
QuoteSorry Michele, but if you think the captured lads and lady done the right thing to allow themselves to be captured and used as powerful political tools in favour of the Iranians.....what can I say without sounding insulting towards you?
Not a lot.
You sound like an over amped teenager. Talking shit about what you would have done and second guessing what someone actually did.
I sound like a teenager!?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
QuoteSorry Michele, but if you think the captured lads and lady done the right thing to allow themselves to be captured and used as powerful political tools in favour of the Iranians.....what can I say without sounding insulting towards you?
Not a lot.
If their rules of engagement precluded them from acting until the situation was badly stacked against them, what more could they do? The line between posturing and seizure is pretty thin.
I'm sure it's no coincidence that Iran is not allowing consular visits. Too many facts might get out.
Michele 1
QuoteSorry Michele, but if you think the captured lads and lady done the right thing to allow themselves to be captured and used as powerful political tools in favour of the Iranians.....what can I say without sounding insulting towards you?
Not a lot.
That's cool; I appreciate your restraint.
However, I don't think they did "the right thing" necessarily, but rather did the proper thing for that given situation. It's far more dicey over there than some people apparently think, and like I said, the fuel for the international fire would be enormous if the Iranians were killed, irrespective of anything else. I'd bet a dollar that we'd see evidence then from the Iranian side that the Brits were indeed in international waters...
It was a no-win situation for the Brits, and they managed to stay alive so far. Who knows what's happening to them right now, and I hope and pray that they all make it through this unscathed (or no more so than already), but I do think they probably did the best they could in a situation not one of us here on these boards have faced.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Zipp0 1
QuoteI sound like a teenager!?
I'm not sure how comforting this will be, but you BOTH do.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
beowulf 1
Thanks I feel much better now.
Michele, I'm just about finished with gobbing off with all this, but you mention 'the fuel for the international fire would be enormous if the Iranians were killed, irrespective of anything else.'
What happened when the US warship shot down the Iranian airliner in 1988?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
What happened when the US warship shot down the Iranian airliner in 1988?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
QuoteQuoteI sound like a teenager!?
I'm not sure how comforting this will be, but you BOTH do.
Well, I am 19!
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
QuoteMichele, I'm just about finished with gobbing off with all this, but you mention 'the fuel for the international fire would be enormous if the Iranians were killed, irrespective of anything else.'
What happened when the US warship shot down the Iranian airliner in 1988?
the difference is back then, we (and the UK) weren't occupying countries in the Middle East. Since then, we've camped a significant portion of our armies there on a continuous basis.
How big the outrage would be might depend on if there were survivors. Right now we only hear the Iranian side of the story since they have denied any access. Had the Brits destoyed the Iranian forces, they would be able to define the 'facts' of the encounter as well.
Oh, one more point - you also said; 'but I do think they probably did the best they could in a situation not one of us here on these boards have faced.'
You really need to learn more about your fellow posters - you may well be rather surprised. I'm not saying loads have been captured by the Iranians, but either way, I'm sure you get my drift.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
You really need to learn more about your fellow posters - you may well be rather surprised. I'm not saying loads have been captured by the Iranians, but either way, I'm sure you get my drift.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
'the difference is back then, we (and the UK) weren't occupying countries in the Middle East. Since then, we've camped a significant portion of our armies there on a continuous basis.'
Well, what was the US ship doing there then?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
Well, what was the US ship doing there then?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
Michele 1
QuoteWhat happened when the US warship shot down the Iranian airliner in 1988?
Directly? Not too much. Long term is a whole different story, though.
I would mention that we were not in Iraq, and weren't in Afghanistan at the time. I'd also add that Iran wasn't agitating quite as much, and weren't looking quite as hard for a fight at the time. Iran was just finishing up fighting with Iraq, after an 8 year confrontation. I'd also mention that it was an accident, rather than a deliberate firefight.
Very different situation, and one that just doesn't really compare. Sorry, Vring, but it just doesn't compare. Totally different scenarios, totally different political positions, and totally different energy/intention.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Michele 1
QuoteYou really need to learn more about your fellow posters - you may well be rather surprised. I'm not saying loads have been captured by the Iranians, but either way, I'm sure you get my drift.
If you are only 19, and not lying, then I'd say I'm pretty darned accurate saying you haven't been in the situation that the Brits were in a week ago.
As for learning more about my fellow posters, I know plenty, and know who is just spouting off and know who has the experience to back what they're saying. I would bet that I'm pretty accurate in my assessment about you, too.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Christ - I'm not 19. Saaaaaaaaaaaarcasm.
edit: wish I was though.
further edit: If you know your fellow posters so well, are you going to retract your earlier statement/assumption?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
edit: wish I was though.
further edit: If you know your fellow posters so well, are you going to retract your earlier statement/assumption?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
Michele 1
Good lord, I'm glad I'm not 19.
In any event, I stand by my statements.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
In any event, I stand by my statements.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Now, concerning the Iranian airbus shot down, it fucking doesn't compare, like you said. 300 odd innocent civilians flying to another Arab country, shot down by an American warship over Arabic waters.
Iranians killed by British forces trying to capture them.
Yeah, your right, the latter scenario would be far,far worse and have much more significant implications in your grand scheme of things.
Wouldn't it?
edit: Regarding what I've experienced and what I've not, I was probably in Bahgdad when you were in your Dad's bag.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
Iranians killed by British forces trying to capture them.
Yeah, your right, the latter scenario would be far,far worse and have much more significant implications in your grand scheme of things.
Wouldn't it?
edit: Regarding what I've experienced and what I've not, I was probably in Bahgdad when you were in your Dad's bag.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
Remember that the U.S. captured 5 Iranian "Intelligence Officers" inside Iraq several months ago so this may be an attempt to use the 15 Brits as bargaining chips to get them back. Very likely IMO.
It's also very likely this is an attempt by the Revolutionary Guard to sabotage negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. Keep in mind that Condeleeza Rice is due to meet with Iranian representative in Istanbul in a few weeks to discuss Irans nuclear program. A meeting which the R.G. opposes. There is a lot of support for these meetings that have been conveyed to the U.S. through back channels from many sources inside Iran. These talks will certainly be put on hold until this incident is resolved.
It's also possible that the R.G. is attempting to pressure European Govts. for the return of Gen Ali Reza Asgari who disappeared in Istanbul in Feb. It is unknown whether he defected or was kidnapped. What is known is that he had very detailed knowledge of the R.G. and was a keystone in their communications with Hezbollah.
Whatever the R.G's. reasons, I'm pretty sure it isn't as simple as their claim that the Brits were in Iranian waters.
.
It's also very likely this is an attempt by the Revolutionary Guard to sabotage negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. Keep in mind that Condeleeza Rice is due to meet with Iranian representative in Istanbul in a few weeks to discuss Irans nuclear program. A meeting which the R.G. opposes. There is a lot of support for these meetings that have been conveyed to the U.S. through back channels from many sources inside Iran. These talks will certainly be put on hold until this incident is resolved.
It's also possible that the R.G. is attempting to pressure European Govts. for the return of Gen Ali Reza Asgari who disappeared in Istanbul in Feb. It is unknown whether he defected or was kidnapped. What is known is that he had very detailed knowledge of the R.G. and was a keystone in their communications with Hezbollah.
Whatever the R.G's. reasons, I'm pretty sure it isn't as simple as their claim that the Brits were in Iranian waters.
.
One thing is for certain - these people needed better suppor(air support or gunship support nearby)t, and much bigger guns.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites