UK sailors captured at gunpoint

[BearInBunnySuit]

Question for those monitoring this in the UK: How is the govt and the media interpreting this development? Are they worried? Are they hawkish? Would appreciate insight. Thanks.

[jameshr4]

The incident is being covered as very matter of fact at the moment I haven't heard any hawkish comments yet. Ex 1st Sea Lord has said ROE's may need to be changed but that is a political decision. I think eveything is up in the air at the mo as its a weekend and we haven't got much firm news from Iran or the MOD it seems very sketchy but things may change next week when the tabloids get their teeth into it.

[Zerodivider]

Pretty much business as usual, emphasis seems to be that it has all happened before...

[Fade]

In addition to the blurb on the tube about being taken to the capital -

The agency said the 15 included “some women.” In Britain, officials told the Press Association news agency that at least one woman was among the group. (http://www.canada.com/globaltv/bc/news/story.html?id=6f4e8311-22d2-43ba-8198-bcc3a9eeda83&k=83132)

[Primus Severus Aemilianus]

N-G-F-O, I respect your point of view but if you meant to hint at Type 22's Outboard ELINT suite (AN/SSQ-108) - or whatever they might have got in its place - that's not quite that secret anymore.

[N-G-F-O]

N-G-F-O, I respect your point of view but if you meant to hint at Type 22's Outboard ELINT suite (AN/SSQ-108) - or whatever they might have got in its place - that's not quite that secret anymore.

I was simply erring on the side of caution. You'll understand if i'm reluctant to gob off about the CESM capability of our ships. Though in the public domain i wouldn't say COBLU is common knowledge.

[MARK.TIGGER]

Type 22 Batch 3's are in my humble opinion the most capable ships that the RN can put to sea and is the only ship that can do the job properly. It's a command platform for flag-staff, has stacks of manpower, and is absolutely armed to the teeth compared to other platforms in our fleet and has "other uses".
Won't go into ROE as that's opsec territory.
Cornwall would have had both a radar watch and GPOD visual cover on the boats as mother (almost always) stays close, and without doubt close range weapons crews would have been closed up on the 20mm, GPMG's and Miniguns with the 4.5 as a back up and if the cab was up that would have had a .50 machine gun mounted. If there had been a drama the iranians would have been left wanting.
Cornwall would have had very strict instructions not to go anywhere near boundry of iranian waters as it probably could have been misconstrued as an act of agression.

Agree'd the Type 22/III is the best the RN has. And I would hope that she was in a position to support its boarding party certainly the Lynx should have been and any approaching Iranian craft detected and their intentions found out or them warned off. Now how far of were they 4.5 range or the quicker firing light weapon ranges.
If warning not headed then they should have been engaged well before they got anywhere near the boarding parties.

[Primus Severus Aemilianus]

Agreed, it's not common knowledge. I just considered that wasn't something to be shy about either.

[Stu B]

I read somewhere earlier that an Iranian General or commander said that the GPS navigation systems the sailors had will prove they crossed into Iranian waters, and that it has been happening often.

[-DarthMaul-]

Why Iran Seized the British Marines
Because they're hostage-taking terrorists, and they believe they can get what the want by doing it?




Terrorism doesnt count when its done towards military units :rolleyes:

[Snoshi]

hope they come back safe.

They will, but at what price.

[Molli]

BBC reports the servicemen have 'admitted' they were in Iranian waters.

[schwarz]

A gun pointed at your head will make you say a lot of things. I guess only time will tell what will happen(ed)

[Molli]

This happened during the last event as well; RMs 'confessing' on Iranian television.

[spin]

They will, but at what price.

They will trade them for not getting a sanctions.

[Molli]

I believe the United Nations have just (today) agreed on yet tougher sanctions.

[Little J]

Terrorism doesnt count when its done towards military units :rolleyes:


Erm... What about the IRA, PIRA, etc in Northern Ireland?

[MARK.TIGGER]

The GPS will say they were in Iranian territorial waters if the maps the Iranians are using are the ones that show what the Iranians want to be there territorial waters no what is internationally agreed.
BTW under international law do the Revolutionary guard class as part of the Iranian armed forces?

[Moledet]

They want a formal apology for passing into their territorial waters...I suggest you apologize.

[Banzai!]

BTW has Tony Blair's popularity skyrocketed as a result of this?

[sinophile]

Iran said it was going to kidnap soldiers. It said it would retaliate for the disappearance of its senior military/intel commander. Its tit-for-tat.

My guess is the Iranians are trying to bargain for information or the release of one of their guys.

[Switek]

Iran wants war but becouse its predicts to be attacked, so want to take some scores to be declared as a victim in muslim world.

They know that most Sunnis want Iran to be destroyed even by US/NATO or whoever... You must gous know that alternative is simple. Or US would stop Iran's nuke program or we'd have plenty of such programs in muslim world in the next 5-10 years...

[Bam-Bam]

I really don't understand why these navy ships do not have machine gun mounts to deal with speed boats? You look at all these warships and there are no defenses against these silly speedboats.

[JoaMei]

Actually they have Machinegun mounts to defend against that threats. What makes you think they dont have?

After what happened to the USS Cole they take this very serious now.

[schwarz]

I really don't understand why these navy ships do not have machine gun mounts to deal with speed boats? You look at all these warships and there are no defenses against these silly speedboats.


Wow and now comes the ban stick.

[charliepage]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece

Iran ‘to try Britons for espionage’

"FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.

The penalty for espionage in Iran is death. However, similar accusations of spying were made when eight British servicemen were detained in the same area in 2004. They were paraded blindfolded on television but did not appear in court and were freed after three nights in detention.

Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper based in London, quoted an Iranian military source as saying that the aim was to trade the Royal Marines and sailors for these Guards.

The claim was backed by other sources in Tehran. “As soon as the corps’s five members are released, the Britons can go home,” said one source close to the Guards.

He said the tactic had been approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, who warned last week that Tehran would take “illegal actions” if necessary to maintain its right to develop a nuclear programme.

Iran denounced a tightening of sanctions which the United Nations security council was expected to agree last night in protest at Tehran’s insistence on enriching uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons.

Lord Triesman, the Foreign Office minister, met the Iranian ambassador in London yesterday to demand that consular staff be allowed access to the Britons, one of whom is a woman. His intervention came as a senior Iranian general alleged that the Britons had confessed under interrogation to “aggression into Iran’s waters”.

Intelligence sources said any advance order for the arrests was likely to have come from Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards.

Subhi Sadek, the Guards’ weekly newspaper, warned last weekend that the force had “the ability to capture a bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks”.

Safavi is known to be furious about the recent defections to the West of three senior Guards officers, including a general, and the effect of UN sanctions on his own finances.

A senior Iraqi officer appeared to back Tehran’s claim that the British had entered Iranian waters. “We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control,” said Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, who is in charge of Iraq’s territorial waters. “We don’t know why they were there.”

Admiral Sir Alan West, the former head of the Royal Navy, dismissed suggestions that the British boats might have been in Iranian waters. West, who was first sea lord when the previous arrests took place in June 2004, said satellite tracking systems had shown then that the Iranians were lying and the same was certain to be true now."

[schwarz]

^^^^^May god help us all if they go through with it because the **** will hit the fan......

[Banzai!]

I don't understand. Why are the Iranians begging to get blown up into tiny little pieces. Even Kim Jong Il isn't as whacked as these guys are.

[PPSH41]

I don't understand. Why are the Iranians begging to get blown up into tiny little pieces. Even Kim Jong Il isn't as whacked as these guys are.



President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Shi'ite creed has convinced him lesser mortals can not only influence but hasten the awaited return of the 12th Imam, known as the Mahdi. Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect holds this will be Muhammad ibn Hasan, the righteous descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the 9th century, at age 5. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war, bloodshed and pestilence. After this cataclysmic confrontation between the forces of good and evil, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.
"The ultimate promise of all Divine religions," says Ahmadinejad, "will be fulfilled with the emergence of a perfect human being [the 12th Imam], who is heir to all prophets. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace. Oh mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one." He reckons the return of the Imam, AWOL for 11 centuries, is only two years away.
Mr. Ahmadinejad is close to the messianic Hojjatieh Society, which is governed by the conviction the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by "the creation of chaos on Earth." He has fired Iran's most experienced diplomats and scores of other officials, presumably those who don't share his belief in apocalyptic conflagration


http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060205-100341-6320r.htm

[schwarz]

Thank you PPSH41 I have been looking for this all day.

[Invisigoth]

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060205-100341-6320r.htm

Resurrection? Armageddon? In which religion did I hear this one before...hmm.....:o

[PPSH41]

Resurrection? Armageddon? In which religion did I hear this one before...hmm.....:o

Haha eerily similar in some respects.

[BearInBunnySuit]

I don't understand. Why are the Iranians begging to get blown up into tiny little pieces. Even Kim Jong Il isn't as whacked as these guys are.

I think someone already pointed it out but dare I say because the two pillars of Kim's religious belief are Chivas Regals and luxury Benz? Can't have those in kingdom come.

[sinophile]

Iran said it was going to kidnap soldiers. It said it would retaliate for the disappearance of its senior military/intel commander. Its tit-for-tat.

My guess is the Iranians are trying to bargain for information or the release of one of their guys.

Last person I want to be right now: member of Iranian ruling elite. Top choice (ethical considerations aside): Russian arms dealer to the Iranian ruiling elite.

Fascinating the Iranians chose to take British prisoners and not attempt the capture of Americans. Frankly, its darn interesting (and very sad for the soldiers involved) they chose to do this at all.

Iran has to be thinking this is going to put a strain on the UK/EU/US alliance, and must be betting UK public opinion is going to question why the UK is a participant to the conflict in the first place. Perhaps they think its going to cause economic panic? They may also have reason to believe the West doesn't have the stomache to respond to this in any forceful way. When the best you can do is kidnap 15 rank and file soldiers and put them on trial for espionage either you really have nothing of any value with which to combat Western pressure/interests; or you know with some certainty the West is too weak to respond to brinksmanship. Which is it, I don't know.

No specialized knowledge of internal Iranian politics here, but I have to bet part of the ruiling elite is questioning how this path is going to affect their pocketbook, hold on power and the future of their families. Most men in their 50' and 60's forsake fantacism for pragmatism. Its not worth the stress and aggravation. I'll make an exception for the insane, who usually meet their demise at the hands of the pragmatists around them. So where is the pragmatic long-term gain in doing this? I just don't think it strengthens their position in all but the most remote of conceptual endgames - where:


a. The West simply folds in the face of brinksmanship.
b. China (possibly Russia) stands ready to ally with Iran.
c. The Iranians are willing to go past the brink and fight it out.

Barring those options the more they resist the tighter the noose gets around their neck (ie. EU solidarity).

[MG 3]

Boom Boom is one step closer now.

This is probabaly an act of gathering capital for the comming conflict.

[Coop]

Last person I want to be right now: member of Iranian ruling elite. Top choice (ethical considerations aside): Russian arms dealer to the Iranian ruiling elite....A fascinating conclusion, really....

The only problem is: wars do not hit any kind of èlite. No Iranian "èlite" is going to suffer in the case the USA attack, just like the Iraqi or Serbian èlites did not suffer either. It's always "the others" that do that.


Fascinating the Iranians chose to take British prisoners and not attempt the capture of Americans.Frankly, when a group of heavily armed men move inside your territorial waters, you do not care to check what kind of a flag they carry on their left shoulders first.

Especially if people allied to that group of armed men are hijacking your officials (foremost because they are so clueless about you, they are desperate for any kind of HUMINT)...


Iran has to be thinking this is going to put a strain on the UK/EU/US alliance...No. Iran cares about its borders and territorial integrity. The US or the UK wouldn't let the Iranian troops play within their borders either. After all, the US military is flying UAVs into Iranian airspace since two years; the US specforces are operating on Iranian soil since almost the same time. The USA protect, support, arm and finance groups conducting terrorist attacks on Iranian soil. Hell, the SOF is even publishing articles by people who go into Iran with help of Kurdish "Peshmergas".

Do you seriously think anybody of involved has got a stamp from Iranian immigration authorities?


When the best you can do is kidnap 15 rank and file soldiers and put them on trial for espionage either you really have nothing of any value with which to combat Western pressure/interests; or you know with some certainty the West is too weak to respond to brinksmanship. Which is it, I don't know.No intention to offend you, but this is an extremely naive and underinformed point of view.

Right now, Iran practically controls the public life in all of Iraq east of Tigris. The Mehdi Army is meanwhile active even in areas close to the Syrian border. Their officials in the Sadr City have been safely evacuated well in advance of the US "security offensive". As a matter of fact, even their heavy and medium weapons have been evacuated from there. No wonder, considering the extensions of corruption within the US (and other) military authorities in Iraq....

The authorities, power- and food-supply, the whole economy in that part of Iraq are all under Iranian control. They are even successful in steering inter-Suni rivalries and fighting. All of this without any kind of a direct military intervention, or anything that could be compared with some kind of military operation - and inspite of the US military presence.

So, a) if you are looking at something that Iran could use as a bargain, 15 British troops are nothing at all; b) this should tell you something about the ways the Iranians actually operate, and c) this clearly shows that the matter with British troops was rather the British playing into Iranian hands, than the other way around.

That is, of course, you don't know about this all... ?


No specialized knowledge of internal Iranian politics here...Then better stay out of the matter.

This all is about Tehran resisting to play on Bush's rock and roll, and playing its own music. Nothing else.

[charliepage]

Frankly, when a group of heavily armed men move inside your territorial waters

So right now, you are believing Iran over the UK, US and an Iraqi Sailor witness?

[Coop]

Hey, please, wake up!

This is not about which side one "believes", but the facts are speaking for themselves.

The war in Iraq is such a mess of a quagmire, it is endlessly stupid to decide to believe only one side, and buy whatever it says.

If anybody here is that way, I'd have a garage full of Ferraris to sell.

Price? Very cheap, "believe" me....

[Weasel]

So right now, you are believing Iran over the UK, US and an Iraqi Sailor witness?

Oh, the irony. :)

[Snoshi]

UK is acting in a strange manner.. A hostile state have kidnapped its soldiers.. UK does not even make any comments towards Iran...

[DeltaWhisky58]

UK is acting in a strange manner.. A hostile state have kidnapped its soldiers.. UK does not even make any comments towards Iran...

It's called diplomacy, that's how we do things, and only if that fails do we kick ass!

[LazyLob]

UK is acting in a strange manner.. A hostile state have kidnapped its soldiers.. UK does not even make any comments towards Iran...

Cos we can do sweet FA about it without US help.

[PPSH41]

I would imagine the "behind the scenes" channels between the UK and Iran are buzzing at the moment.

[Snoshi]

I would imagine the "behind the scenes" channels between the UK and Iran are buzzing at the moment.

Yeah. But i cant imagine what will happen if the troops will be sentenced for spying...

[PPSH41]

Yeah. But i cant imagine what will happen if the troops will be sentenced for spying...

Apparently Iran did the same thing in 2004, paraded them around a bit and released them 3 days later. I think its just a threat and I hope to god they aren't dumb enough to actually put them on trial for espionage. We shall see in the days to come I suppose.

[Kant]

I hope they are returned safe and sound as quickly as possible.

For those of you using this event to further propulgate your political cause, whatever it may be, you're an idiot.

[variable]

It's called dimplomacy, that's how we do things, and only if that fails do we kick ass!

Regarding this there's a German saying that fits pretty good: "Diplomatie ist die Kunst den Hund so lange zu tätscheln, bis der Maulkorb fertig ist."

Free translation would be: "Diplomacy is the art to stroke the dog until its muzzle is ready."

Looks like that's the Brit's tactics:)

[A_V_8_R]

The Iranians will play this up a bit with threats of dire consequences, spying charges etc. Just for effect. Then they will release them to show the world what good guys they are. Always the outcome of games like these.

[Invisigoth]

The Iranians will play this up a bit with threats of dire consequences, spying charges etc. Just for effect. Then they will release them to show the world what good guys they are. Always the outcome of games like these.

Always? 1979...lest we forget. This has the potential for something very ugly.
The only problem is: wars do not hit any kind of èlite. No Iranian "èlite" is going to suffer in the case the USA attack, just like the Iraqi or Serbian èlites did not suffer either. It's always "the others" that do that. I think Saddam's corpse begs to differ..

[Hawkeye4077]

It's called diplomacy, that's how we do things, and only if that fails do we kick ass!

It's called appeasement, and look what happened last time you guys tried that.

[DeltaWhisky58]

It's called appeasement, and look what happened last time you guys tried that.

Would you care to explain?

[Fade]

For anyone wondering what the ROE is like, here is an excerpt from what Sir Alan West as to say about it. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6491581.stm) He was First Sea Lord in 2004 when 8 British servicemen were detained by Iran:



What are the rules of engagement in this type of situation?
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.

There is a discussion thread in regards to this already at http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=108154 if anyone wishes to join in.

[frenchy]

So when do UK send a Trident on Natanz ? :roll:
Just joking.

[Argyll]

It's called appeasement, and look what happened last time you guys tried that.

Yeah last time the guys were released unharmed, your comment are inapropriate.

For those of you who question why the Brits never shot their way out, well here's my question, why did the US Civil Affairs unit not do the same at Karbala?

We're not at war with Iran, so there was no need to start blasting away, why risk EVERYONE, including the female on that boarding party, lives, they were outnumbered and out gunned, there was no reason to risk everyones lives if it wasn't neccesary............and in this case it wasn't.

Had this been on the ground, and it was Insurgents , then there may have been a different outcome.....

The Senior Officer present would have made the decision and weighed up the risks, everyone out alive, or a bloodbath where a rash move resulted in dozens of fatalities, nobody should be questioning the moral issues here, this isn't the movies, this is a real life incident, dropping bombs on Iran will not silve anything either, the outcome will be dead hostages, and a Political Shytstorm........Britain is not the United States, and our Servicemen and Women don't have the same "mindset".....

[sferrin]

then maybe a proper procedure for dealing with such an incidence was not developed after the first kidnapping in 2004.

Eitherway, I think the Royal Navy and to some extent, the US Navy should shoulder the blame over this. It is rather embarassing IMHO.

Exactly why should it be the US Navy's fault? Or perhaps you meant to say "It George Bush's fault!!" :roll:

[sferrin]

One question I have is how is it the British warship didn't notice Iranian warships headed towards a ship it had sailors investigating? Or was it likely the Brits had the choice of firing on the Iranian ships and certainly escelating things or doing nothing and seeing how it played out? You'd think they could have at least radiod their men and said "Iranian warships on the way, get back to the ship".

[Argyll]

because small ships are hard to spot on radar screens, they can look like normal "sea clutter".

What makes you think that the Iranians didn't have cut off's that would have prevented the RIB's from leaving the area?

[sferrin]

because small ships are hard to spot on radar screens, they can look like normal "sea clutter".

What makes you think that the Iranians didn't have cut off's that would have prevented the RIB's from leaving the area?



I don't. I'm just wondering how Iranian warships just drove right on by without being noticed. I wasn't under the impression that the "mothership" was standing off 10 or 20 miles while the sailors were doing the inspection. I'd have thought they'd have been nearby to prevent exactly this kind of thing.

[Sabre]

Well, I for one am willing to accept that the Royal Navy has sufficient experience in conducting counter-smuggling operations to hae know exactly what they were doing. After all, it's been doing them for 400 years.

[enfant_terrible]

I saw on the BBC news last night that Iran is going to try them for espionage.

Not cool.

[Argyll]

The Iranian warships, I believe were small fast vessels, and not along the line of sizeable crewed ships......the line of sight on the Sea is also about 8 Nautical Miles before the curvature of the earth distorts viewing....The Mothership would only Operate in Deeper waters, and wouldn't enter the Shat-Al-Arab waterway.....however the Lynx should have been airborne covering the VBSS ops anyway!!

[LazyLob]

True. But that’s 3.5 minutes flying time for an airborne Lynx. Some media reports (yes I know) say there was a Lynx observing the situation unfold. The Navy personnel more than likely had long range comms and they must have seen what was coming.

There is no doubt about our Navy’s professionalism but we don’t have the economic or political will to stand up to Iran long term, even short term. We now have to rely on the Yanks’ big stick to get us out of this mess.

There are obviously experienced people dealing with this but twice in a row?

3rd time lucky? Whatever that may mean.

Blair’s starting to talk tough. A bit late in the day and I think that’s all he does…..

[usa320]

just in:


Iranian spokesman says Tehran is partially suspending cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, because of the latest U.N. Security sanctions imposed on it, AP reports.

What is Iran doing?

Their leaders are completely and utterly irrational.

[JoaMei]

No, they are acting completely rational from their point of view.

They want the Bomb at all possible cost and if they succed they are pretty much untouchable.

Bombing the nuclear facillities wouldnt stop them, everything military important is too deep in the Gound for bunker busters.
The Reactor can be destroyed very easily, but its not necessary for the enrichment process to build a Bomb.

The only option to stop them would be an Invasion, but the following Insurgency and the size of the country, population would make an occupation impossible.

[FillTheVoid]

What is Iran doing?

They're trying to pick a fight.

[Stolly]

It's called appeasement, and look what happened last time you guys tried that.


Why don't you enlighten us on the details of the armed conflict the US initiated to free the US servicemen held by the Chinese a few years ago.

Wasn't that even more people ?

Because I do seem to remember them all coming home safe, i suppose they could have all gone down in a blaze of glory.

That would have been worth it, if only to stop people on the internet claiming the US appeased the Chinese. Because thats the important thing isn't it ?

[JoaMei]

They're trying to pick a fight.

And the most important part on this is: They cant loose.

They cant win too, but it isnt neccessary for them.

[Zarathustra]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/25/iran.uk.sailors.ap/index.html


Blair: Seizure of UK troops by Iran 'very serious'


• NEW: Prime Minister Tony Blair says seizure of British troops 'very serious'
• Iran claims 15 British sailors and marines confess to being in Iranian waters
• Iran claims UK sailors entered Iranian waters in "suspicious act"

BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Sunday that the 15 British sailors and Royal Marines captured by Iran were not in Iranian waters and warned Tehran that Britain viewed their fate as a "fundamental" issue.

"It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters," Blair said at a news conference in Berlin, calling the situation "very serious."
"I want to get it resolved in as easy and diplomatic a way as possible," he said, but added he hoped the Iranians "understood how fundamental an issue this is for the British government." (Watch Blair react to seizure (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:cnnVideo%28%27play%27,%27/video/world/2007/03/25/oakley.uk.sailors.blair.reax.ap%27,%272007/04/08%27%29;) [/URL])
Blair's comment, at celebrations for the 50th birthday of the European Union, follows British and European Union demands for Iran to release the 15 naval personnel seized at gunpoint in disputed waters between Iran and Iraq on Friday. (Watch how British sailors and marines were seized (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:cnnVideo%28%27play%27,%27javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:cnnVideo%28%27play%27,%27/video/world/2007/03/25/oakley.uk.sailors.blair.reax.ap%27,%272007/04/08%27%29;%27,%272007/03/25%27%29;) )
Britain and the United States have said the sailors had just completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al Arab waterway when they were intercepted by the Iranian navy. (Location of incident (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:cnnVideo%28%27play%27,%27javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:cnnVideo%28%27play%27,%27/video/world/2007/03/23/oakley.uk.marines.seized.cnn%27,%272007/04/07%27%29;%27,%272007/03/25%27%29;))
Iran, however, says they illegally entered Iranian waters. Iran's Foreign Ministry called in British Ambassador Geoffrey Adams "to protest the illegal entry," state TV reported. It gave no details about the meeting.
The capture and detention of the British service personnel risks escalating an already fraught relationship between Iran and the West.
The U.N. Security Council of Saturday agreed to moderately tougher sanctions against Iran for its refusal to meet U.N. demands that it halt uranium enrichment. (Full story (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/24/iran.nuclear/index.html))

Many in the West fear Tehran's nuclear program is not for power generation but for arms making, a claim Iran denies.

The approved sanctions included ban on Iranian arms exports and freezing the assets of 28 additional people and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. About a third of those are linked to the Revolutionary Guard, an elite corps whose navy seized the British sailors and marines.

The British Foreign Office said their requests for access to the 15 Britons had been denied and officials did not know where they were being held.
Iran's Gen. Ali Reza Afshar said Saturday that the seized Britons had been taken to Tehran for questioning where they "confessed" to illegally entering Iranian waters. (Watch reports on UK troops 'confessing' to being in Iran waters (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:cnnVideo%28%27play%27,%27/video/world/2007/03/24/raman.iraq.brit.marines.admit.cnn%27,%272007/04/07%27%29;) [URL="http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:cnnVideo%28%27play%27,%27javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:cnnVideo%28%27play%27,%27/video/world/2007/03/24/raman.iraq.brit.marines.admit.cnn%27,%272007/04/07%27%29;%27,%272007/03/25%27%29;"])

French President Jacques Chirac expressed support for Britain's position.
"We all affirmed our total solidarity with Great Britain," Chirac said. "It appears clear that these soldiers were not in the Iranian zone at the time."

[Banzai!]

Haven't you heard? The marines have confessed to being illegally in Iranian waters.

Pfft, and to think I was initially sympathetic to the British side. Looks like Chirach and Blair have lied ... again.

[Alex-L]

Haven't you heard? The marines have confessed to being illegally in Iranian waters.

Pfft, and to think I was initially sympathetic to the British side. Looks like Chirach and Blair have lied ... again.

Your joking right? So since IRAN has said the soldiers have confessed then that means its true?

In addition, in the off chance that Iran has tortured these soldiers in some way, and then they confessed, does that make it true?

[Kippari]

Torture would be bad. It would have the same result as if they had killed them. I hope this can be resolved peacefully.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Haven't you heard? The marines have confessed to being illegally in Iranian waters.

Pfft, and to think I was initially sympathetic to the British side. Looks like Chirach and Blair have lied ... again.

You are clearly on a different planet to the rest of us. Any confession will be coerced, just as it was in 2004.

If you can't make a reasoned and worthwhile contribution to this thread, please do not contribute.

There are plenty other boards where morons with your views will be welcomed with open arms - this is not one of them.

[BadKarma26]

arent there protests or vigilante threats or anything going on in the UK???

everyone seems so complacent about this. I think if such an incident occured for our troops Bush would flip out. (or atleast I would hope so)

I'm not even British and I'm pissed off. this is ****ing bull****

[bruiserau]

Haven't you heard? The marines have confessed to being illegally in Iranian waters.

Pfft, and to think I was initially sympathetic to the British side. Looks like Chirach and Blair have lied ... again.


Is this guy serious??

[schwarz]

arent there protests or vigilante threats or anything going on in the UK???

everyone seems so complacent about this. I think if such an incident occured for our troops Bush would flip out. (or atleast I would hope so)

I'm not even British and I'm pissed off. this is ****ing bull****


x2 the only reason Iran would do this is to stir **** they know tensions are high and this will only make thins worse.

[oldsoak]

Haven't you heard? The marines have confessed to being illegally in Iranian waters.

Pfft, and to think I was initially sympathetic to the British side. Looks like Chirach and Blair have lied ... again.

Eh ? Get outta here ! Right now we're being told to avoid doing anything that would provoke a conflict or loose the moral high ground. Why do you think there wasnt a firefight or an attempt to escape ?

[Argyll]

arent there protests or vigilante threats or anything going on in the UK???

everyone seems so complacent about this. I think if such an incident occured for our troops Bush would flip out. (or atleast I would hope so)

I'm not even British and I'm pissed off. this is ****ing bull****

What would that achieve mate?.........The war in Iraq was never a war the people wanted in the first place, unlike the USof A, the British public from my dealings with them don't give a toss about their Armed services.

What can an ordinary Briton thousands of Miles away do that would affect the rational thinking of an Iranian hardliner?.......sweet fcuk all!!

[oldsoak]

Sad but true. But what do you expect from a country that teaches you that being jack is ok ?

[BadKarma26]

I see the futility in it, but at the same time in America I think our blood boils faster and harder. When we don't like something we hit the streets.

Ya'll riot pretty much exlusively for soccer (football) games p-)


Thinking about those sailors and marines being held against their will by those revolutionary nutjobs makes me furious. I know its irrelevant and kind of cheesy, but everyone in the UK should know that we are behind you guys 100%

[Hydro]

What on earth would protesting or "vigilante threats" achieve?

Go and chuck a brick through the Iranian newsagents window?

"Oi, Iran, release our blokes or me an' Tony from the pub's gonna come and nut ya!"

Play the game. All the relevant agencies are making the relevant moves. A hot headed kneejerk reaction is NOT what is needed.

[Banzai!]

I think that even with American on your side you could not defeat Iran militarily. You simply do not have the manpower. Your 100,000 or so soldiers are already stretched thin in Iraq.

Unless you redeployed the entire German and Korean garrisons (which would take many, many months) I guess you'll just have to take it like a man, and leave your marines in Iranian hands.

Even then it'd be a close run thing. The Iranians have the deadly HUMAN WAVE doctrine + Tomcats.

[IraGlacialis]

Ya'll riot pretty much exlusively for soccer (football) games p-)
Except for France. Rioting there is a recreational activity. ;-)

International powder-keg with a guy (President of Iran (I am not going to try and spell the name out)) who likes to play with fire. That's what I am seeing right now. Let's hope the flame doesn't hit the powder.

[BadKarma26]

holy hell. can we please ban this idiot???

[Fenna]

What Korean garrison would that be?

[schwarz]

I think that even with American on your side you could not defeat Iraq militarily. You simply do not have the manpower. Your 100,000 or so soldiers are already stretched thin in Iraq.

Unless you redeployed the entire German and Korean garrisons (which would take many, many months) I guess you'll just have to take it like a man, and leave your marines in Iranian hands.

Even then it'd be a close run thing. The Iranians have the deadly HUMAN WAVE doctrine + Tomcats.


GEt lost asshole you make no sense.

[IraGlacialis]

Even then it'd be a close run thing. The Iranians have the deadly HUMAN WAVE doctrine + Tomcats.
Human wave? I think Iran is a lot more sophisticated than that, and I don't think it has the population to have that kind of strategy.
And those Tomcats are tad outdated.

[Hydro]

I think that even with American on your side you could not defeat Iran militarily. You simply do not have the manpower. Your 100,000 or so soldiers are already stretched thin in Iraq.

Unless you redeployed the entire German and Korean garrisons (which would take many, many months) I guess you'll just have to take it like a man, and leave your marines in Iranian hands.

Even then it'd be a close run thing. The Iranians have the deadly HUMAN WAVE doctrine + Tomcats.


We've got a Korean garrison now? And 100,000 troops in Iraq? That's like the entire land force ;)

[Banzai!]

We've got a Korean garrison now? And 100,000 troops in Iraq? That's like the entire land force ;)

America+Britain

[Hydro]

I'm sure 30 year old bastardised Tomcats held together with good intentions and black tape aren't the number one obstacle for Typhoon, F22 and T-LAM.


I'd be more worried about the good stuff Russia's exporting over there, like TOR-M1, Not to mention Iranian tactical missiles capable of hitting Allied bases in Iraq.

[MARK.TIGGER]

because small ships are hard to spot on radar screens, they can look like normal "sea clutter".

What makes you think that the Iranians didn't have cut off's that would have prevented the RIB's from leaving the area?

In Daylight with mother close by with visual and radar watch and a Lynx in the air allegedelly covering the boarding party?

[MARK.TIGGER]

I read somewhere earlier that an Iranian General or commander said that the GPS navigation systems the sailors had will prove they crossed into Iranian waters, and that it has been happening often.

Depends very much on who's charts you plot the GPS coordinates if its Iranian it will be in "their" waters if its on the rest of the worlds charts it may show Iraqi or international waters

[11bravo soldier]

When are we gonna stop screwing around with these ****heads? It's like having a 3 year old kid who throws fits and tantrums and worse. We keep scolding them and threatining to smack if they don't settle down, but then they do it again and do something worse and we still continue to point our finger and try to reason with them.

The taking of these marines can only mean one of two things. Either they have their nuke and our ready to get this **** on, therefore they want to provoke an action to say they were just defending themselves or they will release them in a couple days and are just doing this to show they are in control. Either way I think its time they started to play the game our way.

A war with Iran would be messy but they could never defeat us. This problem has to be dealt with at some point and the longer we wait the messier it will be.

[Fade]

Depends very much on who's charts you plot the GPS coordinates if its Iranian it will be in "their" waters if its on the rest of the worlds charts it may show Iraqi or international waters

So true, that part of the waterway has been in dispute for years....

[schwarz]

A war with Iran would be messy but they could never defeat us. This problem has to be dealt with at some point and the longer we wait the messier it will be.


Exactly, the problem in the ME is not going to get any better its only going to get worse unless we step up and finish job once and for all. Were already in a postion where no matter what we do with Iran its going to turn out bad( let them have nukes/or we stop them because everyone in their right mind knows diplomacy will not work with these people all it does is give them more time).

[Argyll]

In Daylight with mother close by with visual and radar watch and a Lynx in the air allegedelly covering the boarding party?

10-20 Nautical Miles for mother ship isn't close at all mate, you can only see around 8 miles at sea before refraction takes place.

The Lynx is the real question though

[tumbler]

we have plenty of assets in the area. I am sure Iran have been given a time & date to release.

i wonder if they're talking to the West Side boys (or whats left of them) about how to defend against the wrath of the british when holding their personnel.........

this is outside of any other political issues. the brits don't need the help of any other country - they are more than able to stand and fight alone (1982 for example).

lets hope Iran realise their errors and hand back ASAP without any further esculation(s)

[gaz]

arent there protests or vigilante threats or anything going on in the UK???

everyone seems so complacent about this. I think if such an incident occured for our troops Bush would flip out. (or atleast I would hope so)

I'm not even British and I'm pissed off. this is ****ing bull****

So what exactly should I do? My friend Sara has an Iranian father though I believe he left just before the revolution, am I personally obligated to burn down his house or should I raise a posse first?

[BadKarma26]

So what exactly should I do? My friend Sara has an Iranian father though I believe he left just before the revolution, am I personally obligated to burn down his house or should I raise a posse first?

how bout grow a pair, march on down to your local recruiting office and enlist?

[MARK.TIGGER]

10-20 Nautical Miles for mother ship isn't close at all mate, you can only see around 8 miles at sea before refraction takes place.

The Lynx is the real question though


10-20 miles is far to far away it should be within light weapon range to provide cover. And certainly within Visual range

I did hear 1 report saying the Lynx was being refueled but not heard that again.

[gaz]

how bout grow a pair, march on down to your local recruiting office and enlist?

I have to be in the Army before I can arrange a good old fashioned lynching? That seems like it could take a while and this crisis could well be over within a few days, have you got any ideas that could speed the process up? I don't want to miss out on the opportunity of terrorising and harassing innocents.

[MARK.TIGGER]

the results of the board of enquirey will be interesting I wonder will they be career limiting for some?

[California Joe]

I see the futility in it, but at the same time in America I think our blood boils faster and harder. When we don't like something we hit the streets.

Ya'll riot pretty much exlusively for soccer (football) games p-)


Who is this "we"? Cause when I'm told there are riots in this country they mostly have something to do with OJ, Rodney King, someone winning the NBA or NCAA championship or a bunch of hippies without jobs that are pissed off because they don't like the way the World Bank does business.

[BadKarma26]

You're saying there aren't riots about US foreign policy here?

point is, the reaction here would be drastically different

[Ezekiel25:17]

Riots due to foreign policy? I don't remember any.

[schwarz]

Riots due to foreign policy? I don't remember any.


Anti-war protests???

[BadKarma26]

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Iraq+war+riot&search=Search

[Ezekiel25:17]

Anti-war protests???

But is anti-war protest really about our foreign policy or about the war.



^^^Riots? C'mon.

[BadKarma26]

war is the State's physical extension of foreign policy

[BadKarma26]

Id say that any situation where public property is destroyed and police officers and protestors are injured or killed is considered a riot

[saigonsmuggler]

Exactly why should it be the US Navy's fault? Or perhaps you meant to say "It George Bush's fault!!" :roll:
because both the US Navy and Royal Navy patrol this water.

[California Joe]

Retarded argument. They patrol it for a reason.

[Ezekiel25:17]

war is the State's physical extension of foreign policy

When we are not at war then why the the people not riot about foreign policy? There are many Americans that are not happy with the country's foreign policy and I have yet to see them burn/ riot over coffee prices or our policies regarding China or Taiwan and it goes on and on.

[Macs.]

Who doesn't remember the Riots back in 2001 when a US Aircrew was hold in China ?

[gaz]

Id say that any situation where public property is destroyed and police officers and protestors are injured or killed is considered a riot

I'm sure those things have happened in the States in regards to your troops being in Iraq and they don't seem to have had an effect because your troops are still there, so I'm not really sure why you're confused that Britons aren't out torching cars and looting shops.

[BadKarma26]

So youre complacent and reluctant to voice your opinion publicly because you don't think it will accomplish anything?

hmm

[tumbler]

forget about the US here - fact remains that Iran has seizes 15 UK citizens. US has nothing to do with it.

Our thoughts should be on how to get these people home...

[California Joe]

You're saying there aren't riots about US foreign policy here?

point is, the reaction here would be drastically different

How?
Billy Bob and Jimbo pounding a few beers and railing against the sand n*ggers?
A fresh printing of even bigger yellow ribbon stickers to magnetically afix to our pickup trucks?
Maybe Toby Keith could write a song?

Even when the Iranian Embassy was taken over, which was during my actual lifetime, I don't remember Americans taking to the streets in the manner you describe. Did people run into the streets when Daniel Pearl was taken, When the Blackwater PMCs were burned and hung? Did every Somali in the country get an ass beating when they dragged the bodies through the streets in Mogadishu? No.

[gaz]

So youre complacent and reluctant to voice your opinion publicly because you don't think it will accomplish anything?

hmm

That's not what I said, what I said was that stealing a tv from my local shop because the owner has a Persian name and giving a kicking to a police officer isn't going to make Ahmadinejad return those troops.

[BadKarma26]

I never advocated violence or riots. there were peaceful protests when daniel pearl was killed as well as when the soldiers were dragged through the streets in Mog. I dont recall any BW protests, but for obvious reasons. (ie they were private contractors that a portion of the country probably considers mercenaries, assisting in an unpopular war)

[schwarz]

I'm sure those things have happened in the States in regards to your troops being in Iraq and they don't seem to have had an effect because your troops are still there, so I'm not really sure why you're confused that Britons aren't out torching cars and looting shops.


No but it does have an effect on their moral.


Just throwing out an idea but wouldnt the nuclear disarmarment protests back in the 70's 80's fall under the category of foreign policy?

[Fade]

Back on topic, here's a little info on Shatt-Al-Arab and some of the history of the area. Sounds like dangerous waters.



SHATT AL ARAB (http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/shatt_al_arab.jsp)




shU+00E4t U+00E4l U+00E4U+02C8rU+00E4b, tidal river, 120 mi (193 km) long, formed by the confluence of the Tigris (http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/101274591) and Euphrates (http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/101243272) rivers, flowing SE to the Persian Gulf, forming part of the Iraq-Iran border; the Karun (http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/101252713) is its chief tributary. The Shatt al Arab flowed through a broad, swampy delta, but the marshlands in Iraq was drained in the early 1990s in order to increase government control over the Arab Shiites (Marsh Arabs) who lived there. Restoration of the marshlands began in 2003, following the invasion of Iraq by Anglo-American forces. The river supplies fresh water to S Iraq and Kuwait and is navigable for oceangoing vessels as far as Basra (http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/101231656), Iraq's chief port.

Iraq and Iran have disputed navigation rights on the Shatt al Arab since 1935, when an international commission gave Iraq total control of the Shatt al Arab, leaving Iran with control only of the approaches to Abadan (http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/101227210) and Khorramshahr (http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/101253150), its chief ports, and unable to develop new port facilities in the delta. To preclude Iraqi political pressure and interference with its oil and freight shipments on the Shatt al Arab, Iran built ports on the Persian Gulf to handle foreign trade. Iran and Iraq negotiated territorial agreements over the Shatt al Arab waterway in 1975, but by the end of the decade skirmishes in the area became prevalent. Full-scale war between the two countries broke out in Sept., 1980, leading to eight years of attacks on coastal areas (see Iran-Iraq War (http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/101250991)). The Shatt al Arab remains a source of conflict, as limited water access and unresolved maritime boundaries in the region persist.

[annihilation]

Who doesn't remember the Riots back in 2001 when a US Aircrew was hold in China ?


Still don't understand why they even landed in china.

[Macs.]

Still don't understand why they even landed in china.

Because they had a midair collision and were forced to land ?

[annihilation]

Because they had a midair collision and were forced to land ?


Wasn't protocol to ditch the plane in the ocean?

[Mastermind]

Well, it is my opinion these things often happen in a very orchestrated manner...things are made to happen in certain ways. Wether Iran crossed the lineor not, in my book it matters for nothing. In my book, they take my soldiers/sailors/embassies...no matter what...they get their f()cking asses kicked damn hard...and then we see how safe the soldiers/sailors/embassies are in the future.MM

[phoebus]

Still don't understand why they even landed in china.

It wasn't as if they had a choice where to land. It was either the sea or Hainan iirc.

[California Joe]

I agree this was orchestrated. If the Iranians wanted them dead they'd have killed them not captured them. Now we and the British are talking to them. Not shooting back.

[phoebus]

I'm going to be a fool here and say this. What if SAS/SBS goes ahead and abducts some 15 IRGC members? Would that be an escalation, or a balancing act? They could arrange an exchange, like in Cold War.

I'd assume that such a responce is within the doable list of Great Britain.


edit: of course now it's the turn of diplomacy, but if a week passes by, things will get into such a level imo.

[tumbler]

i think that would be a fairly immature thing to do and wouldnt really solve anything and make us as bad as the Iranians.

i think a 'grab and snatch' is the only non-political option open.....

[sinophile]

That is, of course, you don't know about this all... ?


Dear Coop:

As you say, I really am ignorant about it all, so don't take me too seriously as I speculate that US capitulation on the IPI pipeline was in exchange for Russian cooperation against Iran's nuclear production. India is left paying far more than $100 per mil. btu for a time, but Gazprom's near monopoly on Turkemistan oil is intact. Ironically, this leaves Turkmenistan, Pakistan and even India somewhat hostile to Iranian economic interests.

Presuming the Chinese succeed in building a pipeline from Turkmenistan through the Stans and into China it will be a small thing to route to its oil through Pakistan and into India (bypassing Afghanistan). The Iranian pipeline may be destined to be an expensive redundancy.

Business favors stability and pragmatism over issues like territorial integrity and religious zeal. Iran's pragmatic neighboors plan for a future that considers Iran may cease to exist, or be too radioactive to make drilling possible.

Perhaps Iran would simply take a leadership role in making peace with the US and Israel, assist in bringing stability to Iraq and Afghanistan and open to foreign investment by placing all power back in the hands of a fairly elected assembly.

Yes, I'm being naive again. I apologize.

[phoebus]

i think that would be a fairly immature thing to do and wouldnt really solve anything and make us as bad as the Iranians.

Well they've started these games. Imo if Iran doesn't back down on this, through diplomacy, GB has the right to respond equally. And it wouldnt make you look bad, since the whole situation was escalated on their behalf.

I agree that this week it's diplomacy time, but after that you should consider such an "eye for an eye" option.

[BearInBunnySuit]

Because they had a midair collision and were forced to land ?

Yeah, I remember that. I was in Asia at the time and I believe the Chinese fighter plane's wing clipped them in what was described as an unnecessary aggressive move or something. The Chinese pilot went down with the plane.

[Group9]

I'm going to be a fool here and say this. What if SAS/SBS goes ahead and abducts some 15 IRGC members? .

For that to work, Iran would have to place the same value on their soldiers' lives that Britian does?

Does anybody here, even those with strong pro-Arab feelings, really think Ahmadinejad would care?

[phoebus]

Whoever is pro-Arab, definitely wouldn't have a favourable opinion towards iranians*.


*unless he's a lebanese or iraqi shia arab.

[Chops]

holy hell. can we please ban this idiot???

Done like a dinner mate

[chuckster]

Well they've started these games. Imo if Iran doesn't back down on this, through diplomacy, GB has the right to respond equally. And it wouldnt make you look bad, since the whole situation was escalated on their behalf.

I agree that this week it's diplomacy time, but after that you should consider such an "eye for an eye" option.

Two points:

1) The IRG does not place the same value on humanity as the Western World does. Fifteen Iranians as hostages would have almost no value to them.

2) Everything bad that happens concerning the Muslim world is America's fault, and thus Britain's fault for being our stooge. American policies toward the Muslim world prompted the 9/11 attacks. American support of the Shah forced the Iranians to take over the US embassey in Iran in 1979. American support of Isreal forced Hezbollah to kidnap the two Isreali soldiers last summer and triggered the war. And British involvement with America in Iraq forced the Iranians to kidnap the 15 British marines and sailors last week. Thus, any action Mr. Blair takes will be his fault for associating himself with the US.

[DeltaWhisky58]

holy hell. can we please ban this idiot???

Hello pot, this is kettle, colour check - Over ... ... ...



Ya'll riot pretty much exlusively for soccer (football) games p-)


Are you really as ignorant as you appear in your posts? :bash:

[BadKarma26]

Hello pot, this is kettle, colour check - Over ... ... ...



Are you really as ignorant as you appear in your posts? :bash:

p-) = kidding

[DeltaWhisky58]

p-) = kidding

So they always say - afterwards. This is a very serious matter, your asinine posts seem to treat it in the same casual manner you appear to treat everything else. Better not to post than to continually insert foot into mouth.

To claim you were kidding does not justify what were totally ridiculous posts in the first place, and you know it!

[BadKarma26]

So they always say - afterwards. This is a very serious matter, your asinine posts seem to treat it in the same casual manner you appear to treat everything else. Better not to post than to continually insert foot into mouth.

To claim you were kidding does not justify what were totally ridiculous posts in the first place, and you know it!

casual??? I'm the one that's up in arms about the situation. I legitimately care about the plight of those sailors/marines and the fact that they have a possibly perilous fate because of a bunch of radical Islamists pisses me off!

just because my opinion differs from yours doesnt mean im sticking my foot in my mouth. which posts of mine do you find ridiculous? maybe emotional...but ridiculous?

[lifetimetd]

Who cares? If you dont like what he is saying then ban him. Your just getting further off-topic. :petting:

[BadKarma26]

i dont want to get off topic and I respect DW58 as a moderator.

[DeltaWhisky58]

I'm not talking about being off topic, I'm talking about spouting rubbish. Now leave this before you make another stupid comment which gets you infracted or worse.

[n4292936]

my brief and horribly illinformed take is as follows:

This may or may not have been orchistrated, but it seems likely that Iran has calculated that in can benefit in a number of ways by taking this action. It establishes some measure of influence, grants itself a strategic bargaining chip which it can use in tit for tat negotiations, and it influences the broader inter-state dynamics at play on the world stage. Out of all those factors I wager that the second is most pressing in their minds. There is a simple utility in saying something to the effect that "you have A and I have B, and we both want what the other has". Iran has a number of interests that in can protect by securing the bargaining chip sthey have. It seems that they have concluded that those interests are important enough, and deserving of enough protection that they have taken this action and escalated things in the manner and to the extent that they have. I'll let you use your imagination as to what those interests are, but I would expect the soldiers to be returned and for knowone in the public domain to know the finer details of how that transaction was acheived.

[Argyll]

Yeah this is all very well indeed, but what if the Sailors and Marines DID cross into Iranians waters, what then?.......

My mate is going to get pelters for this, as Marines once again held their hands up in the air for the third time....By the way, this is an old rivalry thing between Bootnecks and the Army, which implies that the Royal Marines like to Surrender, it's banter, and forum members shouldn't read anything else into it......so please don't jump to the wrong conclusions!!

[Moledet]

US troops would have fought Iranians captors, officer says

Senior American commander stationed in Gulf tells The Independent he was 'surprised' British marines, sailors captured by Iranian forces were not more aggressive

A senior American commander has said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors captured by Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf over the weekend had not been more aggressive.



Lt-Cdr Erik Horner, who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged, told The Independent that his men would have fired on the Iranian Republican Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.

"I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact, but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation," he said.



"The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defense, but also an obligation to self-defense. They (the British) had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'" he added.



It was also reported that British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts.

According to The Independent, in a telephone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Sunday night Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett "expressed concern regarding the detention of the British soldiers".



An Iranian official later confirmed that Iran may give consular access to the British sailors once an investigation into the incident is completed.


The more interesting part is the second one about the alert level being raised by the US forces but not by UK forces.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3381148,00.html

[Snoshi]

BAGHDAD, March 26 (Reuters) - Iraq's foreign minister called on Iran to free 15 detained British sailors and marines in a telephone call with his Iranian counterpart on Sunday evening, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Iran says the military personnel entered Iranian waters illegally, while Britain says they were conducting a routine search of shipping in Iraqi waters in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that forms the southern border between Iran and Iraq.

The ministry said Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari told his counterpart that "according to the information available to the Iraqi authorities those soldiers were detained inside Iraqi waters". It added: "The minister called for the release of the detainees and to deal with this case in a wise way."
I dont really trust Iran when they are saying that Brits were inside Iran

[Zerodivider]

Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'" he added.


Because the ROE take into account strategic aspects - ie we are trying to see the bigger picture...

[InetWarrior]

Lt-Cdr Erik Horner, who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged, told The Independent that his men would have fired on the Iranian Republican Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage....

Yep, they would fight to the last one... like SPARTANS. How clever is that?


Something tells me that Iranian have numerical advantage and more firepower, but who cares. FIRE!!!
Lt-Cdr Erik Horner would be next general Custer...

[Nrjetix]

Because the ROE take into account strategic aspects - ie we are trying to see the bigger picture...

A sensible post, well done.

The availabilty of Cornwalls weapons systems, including the Lynx, is neither here nor there really. Given the nature of this incident (no shots fired, on a disputed border etc etc) it is highly unlikely that they would engage anyway.

I suppose the issue may be, would the Iranians have attempted this in the first place had the boarding parties been visibly better protected.

[Kant]

A gung-ho Lt.Cdr, whilst being within his rights to have an opinion, isn't really in a position to judge others who were involved in a situation about which very few of us , and he, know anything about.

[Pille1234]

Yep, they would fight to the last one... like SPARTANS. How clever is that?


Something tells me that Iranian have numerical advantage and more firepower, but who cares. FIRE!!!
Lt-Cdr Erik Horner would be next general Custer...
Then they were all dead, but Steven Spielberg could have made a good recruiting video out of that. I already hear the heroic music...

[MARK.TIGGER]

This is one thing the Board of inquiry will have to look at sending roops in with the heaviest weapon being a shotgun and the Mother ship standing off to far away to deter the iranians.
Personally I think the Cyclone class would be better for this type of op they could come closer and have suficient firepower to deter small boat actions with a Frigate or destroyer further back to deter larger ships.
But then the RN hasn't this type of ship and due to budget cuts is likley to loose the T22/III's. This is going to happen again and again until some realistic money is spent on the Navy and defence as a whole. And I would say our European allies need to do the same.

[InetWarrior]

Then they were all dead, but Steven Spielberg could have made a good recruiting video out of that. I already hear the heroic music...

And we would have another RIP thread... Im pretty optimistic about this incident In two weeks sailors will return home

[DeltaWhisky58]

Personally I think the Cyclone class would be better for this type of op they could come closer and have suficient firepower to deter small boat actions with a Frigate or destroyer further back to deter larger ships.
But then the RN hasn't this type of ship and due to budget cuts is likley to loose the T22/III's. This is going to happen again and again until some realistic money is spent on the Navy and defence as a whole. And I would say our European allies need to do the same.

I'm sure the First Sea Lord will be overjoyed at your recommendations.

[Royal]

Lt-Cdr Erik Horner, who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged, told The Independent that his men would have fired on the Iranian Republican Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage....


Good and helpful :roll:

A two and a half ringer should know better than gobbing off above his paygrade.

A bunch of guys with sidearms and a 12 gauge are going to play '300' with a 6 RIBs all toteing HMGs. Fukwit.

[California Joe]

Rather unfortunate that Lt Cdr Horner felt the need to run his mouth. and since when is a Lt Cdr a "senior" anything.....

[DeltaWhisky58]

Clearly Lt. Cdr. Horner commanding a Cyclone class patrol vessel would have shot the Iranians out of the water thus starting another war - problem solved (not).

I think doing it the Brit way is prefereble - Slowly, slowly catchee monkey.

[joshfox0]

I think doing it the Brit way is prefereble - Slowly, slowly catchee monkey.

I wanna monkey :(...... anyway that said lets hope these boys come back safe and well soon. Its not good having soldiers being used as political chips on the proverbial poker table.

[Robbee]

It's more likely than not the Lt. Cmdr. was misquoted, but he shouldn't have put himself in that position in the first place. Considering his current assignment, he may have just permanently derailed his career.
I'm sure he's been busy explaining himself since the report was published.

[szr]

Let's try not to sound like impassioned children, here. There won't be any 'monkey catchee', etc. The best resolution is one that mirrors the last time this happened. Assuming that happens, which we all hope happens sooner rather than later, we'll return to an uneasy status quo with the growingly emboldened Iranians. They did this a second time because they were successful the first time. They've been successful playing this game twice now. That's the undesirable truth we have to work with.

[saigonsmuggler]

A gung-ho Lt.Cdr, whilst being within his rights to have an opinion, isn't really in a position to judge others who were involved in a situation about which very few of us , and he, know anything about.

The article said that Lt-Cdr Erik Horner was working alongside that same British task force, so yes he was there.

The Brits with shotguns and sidearms, it would have been absolutely suicidal for them to defend themselves. The Americans, with raised threat level, may have been there with heavier weapons thus the Lt Commander's inappropriate comments about self defence?

But I wouldn't take his comments at face value - maybe it was done to deter the Iranians from planning the same ploy against the Americans, whom must be higher on their grab list?

[Argyll]

Is it better to go down fighting risking massive casualties and possible capture anyway..........or using common sense and avoiding bloodshed where ALL your men and women come home safely?......even though that may be some time?

The Patrol Commander has a responsibility to the men and women under him, first and foremost, some people need to remember this......
By making a decision that involved fighting to the last man(Holywood bullshyt), would have been the wrong one, if the Cops come to your door and detain you, even though you've done nothing wrong, do you protest violently and resist arrest, or do you go along with them, in the hope there is a misunderstanding?

[annihilation]

Is it better to go down fighting risking massive casualties and possible capture anyway..........or using common sense and avoiding bloodshed where ALL your men and women come home safely?......even though that may be some time?

The Patrol Commander has a responsibility to the men and women under him, first and foremost, some people need to remember this......
By making a decision that involved fighting to the last man(Holywood bullshyt), would have been the wrong one, if the Cops come to your door and detain you, even though you've done nothing wrong, do you protest violently and resist arrest, or do you go along with them, in the hope there is a misunderstanding?

I agree, in this situation I think they did the right thing and no one had to die. By going with the iranians I think a much worse international situation was defused. If a fire fight broke out it could have lead to much worse. I do hope they get released soon.

[HOLLiS]

It is a difficult call. Part is reading what the Irani's intention was.

Maybe Iran wants the general, who defected, back?

One of those events, that the "hind sighters" will have a field day if it goes very sour.

I hope, that Iran does the right thing and release those Soldiers.

[Argyll]

If the Iranians wanted to, they could have brassed up the RIB's and killed everyone, what it sounds like is that the Marines and Sailors were occupied doing the VBSS routine, and that the RIB's were tendered alongside, if they were on the Irainians blind side, then they possible never seen them coming until it was too late, and this is why they never fled themselves, what's also interesting is that there is no mention of the Iraqi's who were part of the crew either, there is also the possibility, that the Iraqi's themselves played an part of the abductions, by siding with the Iranians?...

[F-14A]

couple news items with related info .............


http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0703268043161944.htm

Today: Monday March 26, 2007

British, Iranian FMs talk on phone

New York, March 26, IRNA
Britain-Iran-Talks

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and his British counterpart Margaret Beckett Sunday evening discussed over the phone the recent arrest in the Iranian territorial waters of 15 British sailors.

During the conversation, Beckett expressed her concern over the arrest of the British sailors by Iranian border guards and called for immediate consular access to the sailors.

For his part, Mottaki protested violation of Iranian territory and the illegal entry into Iranian territorial waters in Arvand River of British forces.

He stressed that the case is under study and that the sailors will be allowed to meet their country's diplomats after the investigation was concluded.

Fifteen British sailors of a naval fleet were arrested by Iranian forces in Arvand River in the northern part of the Persian Gulf waters Friday morning.




http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0703262774160737.htm

Today: Monday March 26, 2007

Tehran is legally examining case of British sailors: FM

New York, March 26, IRNA

Iran-Britain-Mottaki

Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Sunday that the charge against the British sailors arrested in Iran is illegal entry into Iranian waters and that the issue is being examined legally.

Talking to reporters at the United Nations in New York, he added that the British charge d'affaires in Tehran was summoned to the Foreign Ministry to be informed of Tehran's protest regarding the illegal entry of British forces into the Iranian territory.

"Iranian authorities detained the sailors in Iranian waters. This issue is not unprecedented and is being examined legally," Mottaki said.

[Snoshi]

The ball is in Irans court right now. If they want they can resolve this situation peacefully by releasing these soldiers and everyone will forget this.

Or they can hold them in Iran and sentence them to prison, this option how ever will isolate Iran from the rest of the world and may start a war.

[daily666]

The more interesting part is the second one about the alert level being raised by the US forces but not by UK forces.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3381148,00.html

Good God, reading this, it seems it's good these were British soldiers that got captured, not Americans. With this attitude there would have been a major incident. This 'murrican "let's shoot first, than talk" way of sorting things out is becoming disturbing.

Hope they get released soon.

[annihilation]

Good God, reading this, it seems it's good these were British soldiers that got captured, not Americans. With this attitude there would have been a major incident. This 'murrican "let's shoot first, than talk" way of sorting things out is becoming disturbing.

Hope they get released soon.

Iran fully knew what they were doing. If it was Americans on that ship they would have never done this. Not because of the fire fight or the capturing of marines but the fact that our current administration is looking for anything of an excuse to attack Iran. Cheney would have been all over this, demanding not the release of the troops but of a military action against Iran.

When I heard the news I was thankful it was brits and not the americans too.

[Snoshi]

Iran fully knew what they were doing. If it was Americans on that ship they would have never done this. Not because of the fire fight or the capturing of marines but the fact that our current administration is looking for anything of an excuse to attack Iran. Cheney would have been all over this, demanding not the release of the troops but of a military action against Iran.

When I heard the news I was thankful it was brits and not the americans too.

Yep.. Iranians arent that dumb

[Fade]

Good news is, they're all ok sofar


The 15 Royal Navy personnel who were seized four days ago are fit and well, Iran has told the Foreign Office.

A senior Iranian official told the UK's ambassador in Tehran that the Britons were being held in Iran but would not disclose their exact location.

He said Iran was "working to resolve the matter as soon as possible".
Iran says the Britons could be charged with illegally entering Iranian waters, although both Iraq and the UK insist they were in an Iraqi area.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6494289.stm

[brad 1]

He said Iran was "working to resolve the matter as soon as possible".

quite simple let them go end of story.
bunch of muppets :bash:

[Fade]

He said Iran was "working to resolve the matter as soon as possible".

quite simple let them go end of story.
bunch of muppets :bash:

I agree! Smacks of numptiness...

[drgamtd]

US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors'

By Terri Judd in Bahrain

Published: 26 March 2007

A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.

Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."

The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: " The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"

His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines - including one young mother - will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain's determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected.
Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team from HMS Cornwall were seized on Friday after completing a UN-authorised inspection of a merchant dhow in what they insist were clearly Iraqi waters. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy appeared in half a dozen attack speedboats mounted with machine guns..

Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

Three days after the team were taken hostage, Tony Blair publicly spoke about the diplomatic crisis for the first time. "I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," he said

"We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong," he added, speaking from Berlin.

In a telephone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki last night the Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett "expressed concern regarding the detention of the British soldiers". An Iranian official later confirmed that Iran may give consular access to the British sailors once an investigation into the incident is completed.

Yesterday, the armed forces spokesman General Ali Reza Afshar said the crew were in "sterling health" and were being interrogated in Tehran, where the Iranians claim they have "confessed" to straying into Iranian waters.

The Foreign Office minister, Lord Triesman, held "frank" discussions with the Iranian ambassador yesterday .

URL: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2393337.ece

It's official US Forces would have defended themselves under their existing ROE.

How about this line:
'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'

[Hydro]

'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'




Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team


THIS IS NOT SPARTA!!



Not much you can do when you're staring down the barrel of a DShK armed only with a 9mm. Add in the WTF factor when you're approached by 6 HMG toting fast craft bearing Iranian colours in Iraqi waters....

[BadKarma26]

Has anyone talked about running away? I don't think it would be considered a cowardly act considering the circumstances. Run back to waters where there is CLEARLY no despute. I agree that the lt cmdr. was out of line. it doesn't sound like engaging the Iranians would be a good idea.

whats the full story with the Lynx CAS in the area we've heard about?

[Laworkerbee]

The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines - including one young mother -

Ah come again? a pregnant sailor?

[variable]

You do aquire the status of a mother after having given birth. Meaning pregnacy is over.

[Laworkerbee]

You do aquire the status of a mother after having given birth. Meaning pregnacy is over.

Ha-ha yes, yes that makes sense rofl

Thanks forgive me its early

[Argyll]

A Lt Cmdr isn't a senior rank in the Navy!!.....
Doesn't any one read the entire thread before jumping in with both feet?

[Fenna]

Surely announcing that this female sailor has a young child would not be a good idea?

[Argyll]

I'm pretty sure that she would make her captors aware of this.

[Fenna]

Well I would have thought it would be a nice bit of information for any Iranian interrogators to have

[Scottie]

It will be interesting to find out what methods of interrogation they have sustained or if any torture methods have been applied.

[Alex-L]

keep in mind fellas, one soldiers ideas of events doesnt represent every unit or commander in the US army.

Given the situation the Brits might have made a very good choice in being taken and doing their damndest to withhold whatever they know.

US soldiers have been taken at gun point by insurgents even though they KNEW they would be killed.

[Alex-L]

It will be interesting to find out what methods of interrogation they have sustained or if any torture methods have been applied.

interesting.....no....tragic....yes

[Anthony91]

God I hope those Royal Marines are alright.

[Gothjod]

Any new developments?

[Fade]

Any new developments?

They're apparently being interrogated in an IRCG base in Tehran now according to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6494289.stm) but there is little doubt in my mind that they've been under interrogation most of the time already.

[Laworkerbee]

They're apparently being interrogated now according to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6494289.stm) but there is little doubt in my mind that they've been under interrogation most of the time already.

I wonder how long until the press conference is started where the prisoners get to show off the confessions they signed :roll:

[LazyLob]

Nope. Notice how all MP.nets Iranian members are not posting? They're all having Sabzi Polo.

[toki]

keep in mind fellas, one soldiers ideas of events doesnt represent every unit or commander in the US army.

Given the situation the Brits might have made a very good choice in being taken and doing their damndest to withhold whatever they know.

US soldiers have been taken at gun point by insurgents even though they KNEW they would be killed.
I think that's undisputable.

And none of the trigger happy here considered, what would have happened if they would have shot and then possible survivors fell into captivity. The whole incident would have been on another level.

[Fade]

I wonder how long until the press conference is started where the prisoners get to show off the confessions they signed :roll:

Oh I'm sure they're having rehearsals for that, too...I say fine put them on camera...least then we know they're alive and can assess their condition.

Might even do the families and public good seeing them alive. If nothing else, seeing them in those circumstances will forge an even higher resolve to get them back!

[szr]

keep in mind fellas, one soldiers ideas of events doesnt represent every unit or commander in the US army.

Given the situation the Brits might have made a very good choice in being taken and doing their damndest to withhold whatever they know.

US soldiers have been taken at gun point by insurgents even though they KNEW they would be killed.
Absolutely. But the issue that everyone is skirting around is the fact that they were in such a situation to begin with.

Because of the kind of ROE the Iranians know the British saddle themselves with, and maybe even some familiarity with the "Be British" demeanor of the British (as opposed to the American Get Some! mentality as an example), the Iranians have come to see these Royal Marine waterway patrols as soft targets and a safe bet for this kind of stunt. That's unacceptable. People want to look at this and say "oh look how professional those Marines were" and in their set of circumstances they absolutely were, but there should be no doubt that those were some crappy circumstances to begin with.

Whether it's the ROE that the Iranians have become comfortable with, or an observation by the Iranians that the Marines operate in such a way that it would be difficult for them to receive help in a timely manner, all the wrong signals have been sent to the Iranians that they even think they can get away with such brazen acts. And we find ourselves in the same bad situation all over again.

[LazyLob]

Absolutely. But the issue that everyone is skirting around is the fact that they were in such a situation to begin with.

Because of the kind of ROE the Iranians know the British saddle themselves with, and maybe even some familiarity with the "Be British" demeanor of the British (as opposed to the American Get Some! mentality as an example), the Iranians have come to see these Royal Marine waterway patrols as soft targets and a safe bet for this kind of stunt. That's unacceptable. People want to look at this and say "oh look how professional those Marines were" and in their set of circumstances they absolutely were, but there should be no doubt that those were some crappy circumstances to begin with.

Whether it's the ROE that the Iranians have become comfortable with, or an observation by the Iranians that the Marines operate in such a way that it would be difficult for them to receive help in a timely manner, all the wrong signals have been sent to the Iranians that they even think they can get away with such brazen acts. And we find ourselves in the same bad situation all over again.

Well put.....

[MARK.TIGGER]

Yes but with the UK approach we're likley to get 15 People not 15 Body Bags!

[WKD]

Absolutely. But the issue that everyone is skirting around is the fact that they were in such a situation to begin with.

Because of the kind of ROE the Iranians know the British saddle themselves with, and maybe even some familiarity with the "Be British" demeanor of the British (as opposed to the American Get Some! mentality as an example), the Iranians have come to see these Royal Marine waterway patrols as soft targets and a safe bet for this kind of stunt. That's unacceptable. People want to look at this and say "oh look how professional those Marines were" and in their set of circumstances they absolutely were, but there should be no doubt that those were some crappy circumstances to begin with.

Whether it's the ROE that the Iranians have become comfortable with, or an observation by the Iranians that the Marines operate in such a way that it would be difficult for them to receive help in a timely manner, all the wrong signals have been sent to the Iranians that they even think they can get away with such brazen acts. And we find ourselves in the same bad situation all over again.

Can't say I'd ever consider Royal Marines a soft target personally. And that goes for British sailors as well.

[szr]

Yes but with the UK approach we're likley to get 15 People not 15 Body Bags!
You missed the entire point. Those are false alternatives. The real alternatives you should be contemplating are the present reality where the Iranians have no fear of snatching a dozen Royal Marines and sailors or a reality where the Iranians don't think for a second that they're capable of pulling-off such an attack and consequently steer well clear of the Royal Navy and Marines in the Shatt al-Arab. Either reality begins with the message you send them through your posture.

[SBL]

Can't say I'd ever consider Royal Marines a soft target personally. And that goes for British sailors as well.


Then you missed the point. It aint the guys, or the training, or the weapons they carry. It's the manner in which they're allowed to operate. The rules and preconceptions, and proclivities they're subject to.

-edit- See above. I think szr's hit the nail on the head.

[saigonsmuggler]

@szr - well put sir.

[MARK.TIGGER]

Quick Question do the Americans here realise that your Governements haste to find a reason to start a war with Iran has backed the Iranians into a corner and lead to this?

[BearInBunnySuit]

Quick Question do the Americans here realise that your Governements haste to find a reason to start a war with Iran has backed the Iranians into a corner and lead to this?

With all due respect, don't go there!! Let's not turn this into a lefty or a righty issue.

[Argyll]

You mean why did they allow themselves to get captured ,along the same lines as the US Civil Affairs guys did at Karbala......Correct me if I'm wrong here Gents, but they didn't shoot their way out of that situation either did they?.........They were caught on the hop, with their guard down, just like our boarding party......NOBODY knows how this happened, other than the fact that a much superior force arrived un noticed and was able to detain the entire team, which includes a female.
So blasting away without knowing who, or what they're up against only belongs in holywood movies, you'll be surprised just how strong the will to live is, when faced with overwhelming numbers.....
The situation is precarious as it is, there's no need to jump to conclusions, whether they be accurate or not, it's not going to make any difference, this is a Political dick measuring contest, and the priority is to get our people back, alive and in good health, and if that means allowing the Iranians to have the bigger dick, then so be it, because size is irrelevant, it's the education behind it that counts!!

[California Joe]

You missed the entire point. Those are false alternatives. The real alternatives you should be contemplating are the present reality where the Iranians have no fear of snatching a dozen Royal Marines and sailors or a reality where the Iranians don't think for a second that they're capable of pulling-off such an attack and consequently steer well clear of the Royal Navy and Marines in the Shatt al-Arab. Either reality begins with the message you send them through your posture.

There were only 2 realities here. Either the British surrendered or they all died in a hail of heavy machine gun bullets while taking maybe a few Iranians with them. The Iranians will continue to think that they can take people prisoner or kill them if they outnumber them 10 to 1 and substantially outgun them. As would anyone in that frigging position. The only "posture" dead bodies have is laying down bleeding. All this talk of this incident like it was the Alamo or some sort of Rorkes Drift scenario is retarded.

[Robbee]

A Lt Cmdr isn't a senior rank in the Navy!!.....
Doesn't any one read the entire thread before jumping in with both feet?

Agreed, Lt. Cmdr is not a senior rank, but he's been in long enough to know better than to make such a comment.

[I_hate_posers]

I'm pretty sure that she would make her captors aware of this.
If the Iranian's are torturing these Marines and sailors, I'd hate to so what they are doing to her!
Why does everyone keep saying,"Well my country would have fought to the death or whatever". For the us posting here, we're that, safe at our PC's! Those troops did whatever they did, that's that, AND lets hope for they're safe return! No ones boarding party or light patrol is one better than anyone else's!

[SBL]

There were only 2 realities here. Either the British surrendered or they all died in a hail of heavy machine gun bullets while taking maybe a few Iranians with them. The Iranians will continue to think that they can take people prisoner or kill them if they outnumber them 10 to 1 and substantially outgun them. As would anyone in that frigging position. The only "posture" dead bodies have is laying down bleeding. All this talk of this incident like it was the Alamo or some sort of Rorkes Drift scenario is retarded.


He's talking strictly politics. Or at least, that's what I took from his comments. I really don't think anyone is arguing that the Marines/Sailors made the wrong decision in opting to surrender.

[Macs.]

I really don't think anyone is arguing that the Marines/Sailors made the wrong decision in opting to surrender.

From what we know so far: What should they have done ?

Shoot and get killed, just because ? They were outnumbered/outgunned...

[SBL]

From what we know so far: What should they have done ?

Shoot and get killed, just because ? They were outnumbered/outgunned...

I don't really think they had a choice. What's your point?

[Banshee]

They will not be tortured!.Why should they be?. Iran has already made it plain as to why they have been detaned. It serves no purpose!!.

There will however, be no quick release, since Tehran has Blair by the Bollocks,and they will not let go until they have milked every last dime from it.

Unless of course, people start remmebering we are supposed to be part of a coalition working together, to try and stabilise Iraq?

[aedmon640]

Quick Question do the Americans here realise that your Governements haste to find a reason to start a war with Iran has backed the Iranians into a corner and lead to this?


Personally, I blame Halliburton and Blackwater for this kidnapping


It was their fault in 2004 as well



:roll: :cantbeli:

[Robbee]

They will not be tortured!.Why should they be?. Iran has already made it plain as to why they have been detaned. It serves no purpose!!.

There will however, be no quick release, since Tehran has Blair by the Bollocks,and they will not let go until they have milked every last dime from it.

Unless of course, people start remmebering we are supposed to be part of a coalition working together, to try and stabilise Iraq?

According to one of the Royal Marines captured in 2004, the Iranians conducted mock executions. “They take one of you out of the room and you hear shots. You’ve no idea if your mate has been killed.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007130852,00.html

[Macs.]

I don't really think they had a choice. What's your point?

But you said they made the wrong decision with surrendering ?

[SBL]

But you said they made the wrong decision with surrendering ?


No, I said I don't think anyone is saying they made the wrong decsion (or that they even had much of a choice).

[WKD]

You missed the entire point. Those are false alternatives. The real alternatives you should be contemplating are the present reality where the Iranians have no fear of snatching a dozen Royal Marines and sailors or a reality where the Iranians don't think for a second that they're capable of pulling-off such an attack and consequently steer well clear of the Royal Navy and Marines in the Shatt al-Arab. Either reality begins with the message you send them through your posture.

So you think alternative realities are the real alternatives?

Someone commented that if these troops were American it would never have happened, because the Americans have a different attitude, which I assume means that they would shoot their way out. Would 15 US marines try and fight their way out against 6 gunboats?

As for posture, I assume you mean ROE. I'd hazard, as counter-factually as your alternate realities, that such ROEs would have started hot border war with Iran a long time ago.

[schwarz]

Think about the consequences if the borading party choose to shoot their way out. Their lives would have been wasted, maybe taken out some Iranians but the incident would be much worse. British boarding party killed in shoot out with Iranian gunboats< IMO that headline along with the repercussions is far worse.

Hope they are released back safely to their families soon, they are in my prayers.

[ElHombre]

They're being 'interrogated'? Let's hope the Iranians aren't following the standard set by Cheney. :-(

[LazyLob]

Few are disputing the Marines/Navy personnel decision to surrender to a much larger force. The more pressing question is why has it happened again to us Brits? Why were military personnel put in this position of having to give up arms to the same foe…again?

Sh!t happens at times. We have no idea of the sequence of events. But we now know that the Iranians are willing to cross into Iraq and kidnap military personnel.

I may be mistaken but this time around they’ve been taken straight to Tehran. In June 2004 they were only taken to the capital on their release. I don’t know what to read into this. It may be to avoid local Iranian units playing silly buggers with our service men and woman or it could mean they have other plans for them.

[F-14A]

latest update


http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/27/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-British-Seized.php

Iran says British sailors being treated humanely

The Associated PressPublished: March 27, 2007

TEHRAN, Iran: Iran said Tuesday the 15 detained British sailors and marines it holds are healthy and are being treated in a humane fashion. It said the one woman sailor had been given privacy.

"They are in completely good health. Rest assured that they have been treated with humanitarian and moral behavior," Mohammad Ali Hosseini, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, told The Associated Press.

Hosseini said the only woman sailor among the group enjoyed complete privacy. "Definitely all ethics have been observed," he said.

The official did not say where the marines were being kept and reiterated that their case is under investigation.

"The case should follow procedures," Hosseini said. "Media hyperbole will not help (speed things up)."

[Cdt.Hawkins]

If a bullet was fired...

[DeltaWhisky58]

If a bullet was fired...

What an utterly pointless post! Silly little boy ... .... ...

[Cdt.Hawkins]

I was just trying to say it would be a completely different story if a shot was fired

[DeltaWhisky58]

I was just trying to say it would be a completely different story if a shot was fired

But you didn't say that, you just made a pointless comment.

[Cdt.Hawkins]

it implied that

[Robbee]

Don't continue to answer back Cdt. Hawkins or I believe you won't be here very long.

[Ironsight06]

it implied that
Pull your head in while you can.

[Cdt.Hawkins]

sorry.This is the first forum site I've been on and I got carried away.
Sorry.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Don't continue to answer back Cdt. Hawkins or I believe you won't be here very long.

Allow the mods to do their job please.

[variable]

Why let him run in an open knife, DW?
He's already running for dumbarse of the week, that's enough..

[Robbee]

Allow the mods to do their job please.

Roger that.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Why let him run in an open knife, DW?
He's already running for dumbarse of the week, that's enough..

As I said to rob_e_bee, allow the mods to keep matters under control.

[variable]

So be it..

[F-14A]

Below article by ABCNews contained a few interesting related items to this subject thats worth thinking about.

FIRST a good question, if U.S. officials know the GPS coordinates of the ship that was being searched at the time the incident occurred, and it was as claimed in Iraq territorial waters why are the info \ coordinates not being released publicly ?

SECOND, contrary to some misinformation being spread around, the Iran - Iraq joint border across Arvand (where shat-Al-Arab joins by Iranian "Karun river" at Khorramshahr and down to Persian Gulf) is not disputed and as per 1975 treaty between Iran and Iraq the border is set so as:

* It runs down the centre of deepest parts of the waterway (call it Arvand or Shat-Al-Arab) using "Thalweg" principle i.e. a line drawn through the lowest points of a streambed in its downward slope.

* Historically in Sept 1980 Saddam Hussein Iraq unilaterally cancelled the 1975 treaty, before accepting it again in 1990/91 after 8 years of war and much post war ceasefire negotiations etc...


IMPORTANT NOTES - Why is border along centre of deepest parts of the waterway ?

Well in section two of 1975 agreement this was described so as:

* the agreed border and the shipping from both sides who have major ports lay along same water way are not affected by natures constant changes in costal land pattern with shifting sands and mud in the waterway's extensive delta.

* The agreement was set to accommodate the known constant problem of changing \ moving border due to Force of nature. The border otherwise could not be changed for any other reasons.


Above is reality of maritime life of region, hence the extra care that needs to be shown in sensitive region so as one avoids crossing the line (just trusting GPS can be tricky, as your data may be out of date and on the day your in wrong place at wrong time)



http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2984264&page=1

Iran: Sailors Being Treated Humanely

By NASSER KARIMI

TEHRAN, Iran Mar 27, 2007 (AP)— Iran said Tuesday the 15 British sailors and marines it detained last week are healthy, have been treated in a humane manner and that the only female sailor among them had been given privacy.

"They are in completely good health. Rest assured that they have been treated with humanitarian and moral behavior," Mohammad Ali Hosseini, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, told The Associated Press.

Hosseini said the 26-year-old female sailor, Faye Turney, had complete privacy. "Definitely, all ethics have been observed," he said.

Hosseini would not say where the Britons were being kept and reiterated that their case is under investigation.

"The case should follow procedures," Hosseini said. "Media hyperbole will not help" speed resolution of the case.

Iran has said it is questioning the British sailors and marines to determine if their alleged entry into Iranian waters was "intentional or unintentional" before deciding what to do with them the first sign it could be seeking a way out of the standoff.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday he hopes diplomacy will win their release but is prepared to move to a "different phase" if not.

Britain and the United States have said the sailors and marines were intercepted Friday just after they completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the border between Iran and Iraq has been disputed for centuries.

"I hope we manage to get them (the Iranian government) to realize they have to release them," Blair said in an interview with GMTV. "If not, then this will move into a different phase."

Asked what that meant, Blair replied: "Well, we will just have to see, but what they should understand is that we cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized when actually they are in Iraqi waters under a U.N. mandate."

The exact path of the dividing line in the Shatt al-Arab waterway has long been disputed, in part because of shifting sands and mud in the waterway's extensive delta as it empties into the Persian Gulf.

The 125-mile waterway is formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and provides Iraq with its only access to the sea.

U.S. officials said the crisis began when British sailors boarded an Indian-flagged commercial ship suspected of carrying smuggled cars through the waterway, which the Iranians call the Arvand River.

"It was an Indian-flagged vessel. It was suspected of being involved in automobile smuggling (into Iraq)," Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl, a spokesman for the U.S. Fifth Fleet, told The Associated Press by telephone from fleet headquarters in Manama, Bahrain.

"It matched a profile of something we had told to be on the lookout for. It turned out to be not what we suspected and it was let go," he said.

Aandahl said the captain of the Indian ship had provided a statement that his vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time it was stopped by the British.

He said U.S. officials knew the GPS coordinates of the ship at the time the incident occurred, but would not release them publicly.

With the precise border line in dispute, the fate of the 15 Britons may depend on Iran's interpretation of their intent and whether they strayed across the frontier by accident.

On Saturday, Iran's military chief, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar had said the 15 confessed to "aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters."

But Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi took a softer line Monday.

"It should become clear whether their entry was intentional or unintentional. After that is clarified, the necessary decision will be made," Mostafavi said.

Iran has refused to allow British officials to speak with the service members. But the official Iranian news agency said Iranian officials have told the British that their diplomats can see the 15 after the investigation is concluded.

There were fears in Britain that the fate of the 15 could get caught up in the political tensions between Tehran and the West, including the dispute over Iran's nuclear program and accusations of Iranian help to Shiite militants in Iraq.

In particular, there were worries Iran might seek to use the prisoners as leverage in trying to get the U.S. to free at least five Iranians detained in Iraq for allegedly being part of a Revolutionary Guard force.

Mostafavi denied Iran was seeking a trade, but there were calls from elsewhere within Iran's leadership for the government to hold out for a swap.

A Web site run by Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the influential Expediency Council and a former Revolutionary Guard commander, quoted an unidentified lawmaker as saying, "If Iranian diplomats in Iraq have no security, there's no reason why we should forgive and turn a blind eye to aggressors into Iranian territories."

Some members of the Iranian public also called for the British sailors and marines to be held and tried. Hundreds of Iranian students demonstrated near the coast to urge a tough stand.

Calls for the release of the Britons also came from the European Union, Iraq and the United States, under whose command the military search team was serving. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the personnel were seized in Iraqi waters and should be released.

Iran's ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Baghdad there was no connection between the capture and other disputes.

A 1975 treaty between Iran and Iraq set their border as running down the center of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, but Saddam Hussein canceled the treaty before invading Iran in 1980 and setting off a devastating eight-year war.

Iran claims the border runs along the deepest parts of the river.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Navy began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with two aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.

U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the U.S. maneuvers were not organized in response to the capture of the British sailors nor were they meant to threaten the Islamic Republic, whose navy operates in the same waters.

Associated Press writers Jim Krane, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates; David Stringer in London; and Carley Petesch in New York contributed to this report.

[n4292936]

As I said to rob_e_bee, allow the mods to keep matters under control.

In addition to DW's point I would add that anyone who is reading this thread and knows the finer points and details of what has transpired, and continues to transpire, should probably not be posting that information. It for this reason, DW's point, and a few more points the mods have discussed that this thread is being closely watched.

If it is close in the future it is unlikely we will allow another one on the subject to be opened while events continue to develop. I suggest this thread henceforth be used purely for posting news item and only information that has been reported in established media.


btw, good post F-14A - I did wonder about the border details. It clears up a few things.

[Banshee]

Dont know if any of you have seen this snippet from the Sun today.

"Military chiefs lost sight of the seized sailors and Marines when bad weather blocked satellite tracking,it was revealed yesterday.

Commanders aboard HMS Cornwall were following the 15 for "some hours" before they were taken hostage in two speed boats.

But hopes of pinpointing where they were snatched died when poor weather knocked out the Global Positioning System.The navigation device is part of an onboard computer linked to the bridge of HMS Cornwall.

Iran insists the boats strayed into their waters, but British naval chiefs deny it."


Looks like we need to upgrade our kit:roll:

[Sabre]

What rank is 'Military Chief' again?

Scum's abso-bloody-lutely useless. Is there a MoD press release confirming this?

[Banshee]

What rank is 'Military Chief' again?

Scum's abso-bloody-lutely useless. Is there a MoD press release confirming this?


I think its a case of watch this space. But there has been some rather public criticism aimed in the direction of Her Majestys Goverment lately from senior Defence chiefs.

Another well placed leak?.

[Royal]

Another well placed leak?.

No. Another dick head journo making shyte up to sell fish and chip wrappers.

[playtym]

Sending a message?



2007-3-27 14:56
Manama - The US navy said on Tuesday it is staging major war games in the Gulf with two aircraft carriers for the first time since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, at a time of heightened tension with Iran.

The manoeuvres involve the USS John C Stennis, the USS Dwight D Eisenhower and their battle groups.

They are being held as tensions run high between the West and the Islamic republic over Tehran's nuclear drive and the capture last week of 15 British marines and sailors in a waterway between Iran and Iraq in the northern Gulf.


http://www.24.com/news/?p=tsa&i=465280

[Banshee]

No. Another dick head journo making shyte up to sell fish and chip wrappers.


It would not be the first time!p-)

[phoebus]

It's interesting to see what stance will France take, considering they have their Carrier deployed in the region.

[toki]

Dont know if any of you have seen this snippet from the Sun today.

"Military chiefs lost sight of the seized sailors and Marines when bad weather blocked satellite tracking,it was revealed yesterday.

Commanders aboard HMS Cornwall were following the 15 for "some hours" before they were taken hostage in two speed boats.

But hopes of pinpointing where they were snatched died when poor weather knocked out the Global Positioning System.The navigation device is part of an onboard computer linked to the bridge of HMS Cornwall.

Iran insists the boats strayed into their waters, but British naval chiefs deny it."


Looks like we need to upgrade our kit:roll:

I mean, it's the Sun, but that's a bit strange. Do they admit they lost them and had no clue where they were, before they were captured???
And then deny they crossed an imaginary line?

Journalism at it's best. :roll: It's just not clever to publish such half baked "infos".

[Argyll]

GPS doesn't track other units unless it's Blue Force or something equivalent.....If this is true, the minute they lost "contact" is the minute the Mission should have been aborted.

[Fade]

"Oi, Iran, release our blokes or me an' Tony from the pub's gonna come and nut ya!"


Quoted for hilarity....:)

[Snoshi]

This situation is getting hotter. I am not even sure that Iran will back off. Hardline elements inside Iran will kill Ahmadinejad if he will release British sailors after thereat that Tony issued...

Both UK and Iran have to much to lose now i am afraid.

[Deminer from Sarajevo]

Probably Iran wanted release their four agents in Iraq who had been arrested by US Army. With help of these good British sailors Iranians will successful ,but is good reason for a few air strikes on Iran ,about that Mr. Blear probably ask Mr. Bush with good help of guys from Iran also to do, or he will asks about guys from Israel, or they will not waiting for it. In the end it will be caused more chaos in Iraq, Turkey and Azerbaijan and good guys from all world would be earn good money, or their family would be get good insurance, if they signed insurance of course

[Argyll]

No they haven't........and it would work to our advantage if they were released, and let the hardliners kill the President......

[Deminer from Sarajevo]

Before a few weeks I saw on TV about British film about killing of US president. I forgot name of film. Before it I thought that UK had been satellite of USA

[EsoognomEhT]

Death of a President? From More4

Anyone see the interview with the female rating captured? Recorded a few days before they were taken, she said basically that there's a chance she'll be sent to war and she's ready for that etc.. Good stuff