Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35

Thread: Did British sailors do the right thing ?

  1. #1

    Did British sailors do the right thing ?

    Hello my neighbors,

    The released British sailors were released recently and held a press conference.

    There is an outburst of comments about their conducts before, during and after the release.

    Generally, the comments were about their coward behaviors in not putting a fight before the capture. Comments like a shame, disgrace, treason to their ancestors.
    Had their ancestors behaved that way, they would not be here today.

    Personally, I would behave exatly like they did, but boy oh boy, what a disgrace, coward, shameful conduct they bring to the British military honor and name and country.

    I would love to see a fight first before surrender.

    What do you think ?

  2. #2
    I served in the American military. We were instructed not to behave in the manner the British soldiers did.

    However, the training is different in every country, and I do not feel it would be right of me to judge what they did. They were representing their country, not mine, and I do not have the right to criticize them.

  3. #3
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,163
    bumfie,

    For those who were not in the American military, can you explain what the response would have been in that situation by US naval personnel? I did find it odd that if the British really thought themselves to be in international waters, that they would not have defended themselves.

  4. #4
    A poor corrupt official
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Casablanca
    Posts
    1,240
    I can understand them surrendering if they were surprised and outnumbered, especially since they apparently had no air cover (which must have been someone else's fault).

    However, I do think their behavior while in captivity was less than admirable. It seems like they were too easily intimidated by the Iranians into making public statements that they should not have made. It looks to me that their training in how to act in captivity was either nonexistent or woefully inadequate. It was not a proud moment for the British navy and marines.
    Strasser: By the way, the murder of the couriers, what has been done?
    Renault: Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the usual number of suspects.
    Heinze: We already know who the murderer is.
    Strasser: Good. Is he in custody?
    Renault: Oh, there's no hurry. Tonight he'll be at Rick's. Everybody comes to Rick's.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver
    I did find it odd that if the British really thought themselves to be in international waters, that they would not have defended themselves.

    They explain it here: http://tinyurl.com/39clrc

    I tend to agree that if they had fought back, we would be facing a major international incident. (and leftists would be screaming "Tokin!" )

  6. #6
    I haven't followed this story very carefully, so I don't know, aside from the 'confessions,' what else the British soldiers did that was incorrect. I am writing though to say that I was truly baffled when I saw them chatting away, laughing and shaking hands with Ahmadinejad?!
    Amantes sunt amentes.

  7. #7

    Smile Orders Going In

    Unless we know what their complete orders were going in and to what extent they were prepared for various scenarios we will never approach the truth.

  8. #8
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler
    I tend to agree that if they had fought back, we would be facing a major international incident.
    Kepler,

    It was a major international incident. This sentence does not fully give an answer:

    "It was at this point that we realized that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won with consequences that would have had major strategic impact."

    As far as I am concerned the Iranians have now been emboldened, if not outright licensed to behave very aggressively towards any foreign ships encountered in international waters based on this ridiculous precedent.

  9. #9
    If I'm not mistaken, the British sailors are not combat marines. Their job is probably to sit on a ship miles away from combat, and press buttons on a computer.

    Regardless, they are military personnel and I respect that. I think it's presumptuous for us, sitting in our plush office chairs in North America, to second guess their actions in a combat zone surrounded by hostile enemy forces.

    Their actions were not so different from the Allied airman who were captured during the first Gulf War. The same propaganda tactic was also used by the Iraqis who captured US Pvt. Jessica Lynch's platoon.

    Which brings to mind another issue. The men may have capitulated because of what they feared would happen to the sole female sailor in captivity. The Iranians did isolate her from the others, and led her to believe that the others were released, and she was the only one remaining.

    With all due respect to women in uniform, this is why I am against women in combat. Western women are, quite frankly, walking bullseyes in the 3rd world. Consider the resources that were expended to rescue Pvt. Jessica Lynch. Honestly, would there have been a rescue mission if Pvt. Lynch had been a man or an African-American woman?

  10. #10
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,163
    Quote Originally Posted by bond_james_bond
    If I'm not mistaken, the British sailors are not combat marines. Their job is probably to sit on a ship miles away from combat, and press buttons on a computer.
    This conclusion is refuted by the statement the British sailors gave, which is cited in my post above.

  11. #11

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver
    As far as I am concerned the Iranians have now been emboldened, if not outright licensed to behave very aggressively towards any foreign ships encountered in international waters based on this ridiculous precedent.
    Conversely the Iranian navy has been exposed for what it is and we are not talking major battleships,submarines, etc and if a foreign ship is properly equiped
    we may see the end of Iranian sea power.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver
    It was a major international incident.

    Of course. But I think that if we had 4 dead Iranians and 10 dead Britons, it would have been much worse.

  13. #13
    I retract my earlier statement of surprise.

    We watched the president's statement live on TV, and it was only then that we realized we were to be sent home.

    It goes without saying that there was a huge moment of elation. We were made to line up to meet the president, one at a time. My advice to everyone was not to mess this up now -- we all wanted to get home.
    If they were told not to mess things up and were feeling elated, then great. I still think Ahmadinejad is totally nuts?! (and standing next to him shaking hands and smiling is fucking creepy).
    Amantes sunt amentes.

  14. #14
    They did okay.

  15. #15
    I am me, too!
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    If only I knew...
    Posts
    2,214
    Mr. Bond, what in hell does the fact of having a woman in the group have to do with this? I just can't believe somebody can still be that sexist today!

    Besides, the Brits had no choice, in term of reasonable intelligent one, than what they did. Of course, American are so brave they would have gone fighting and if captured, would have spit in the face of their captors... But some might think it would have been plain stupidity, with nothing to do with being brave. The soldiers had nothing to gain by fighting, nothing to gain by being arrogant with their captors. They stayed alive and it didn't degenerate. A USA type of behavior would have only contributed to increase hostilities and maybe today we would have a new war in our face.

    Will the Brit's action undermine the authority of the international community? I don't think so. Proof is, the Brits were released. The international community won. No blood was spilled and we don't have a new war in our face.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •