Montreal Escorts

Did British sailors do the right thing ?

New York

Banned
Dec 19, 2004
245
0
0
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 ? :confused:
 

bumfie

New Member
May 23, 2005
688
0
0
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.
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,164
2,466
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
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.
 

CaptRenault

A poor corrupt official
Jun 29, 2003
2,098
933
113
Casablanca
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.
 

Kepler

Virgin User
May 17, 2006
572
0
0
EagerBeaver said:
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!" )
 

Agrippa

C o n s u l
Aug 22, 2006
583
0
0
www.merb.ca
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?!
 

eastender

New Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,911
0
0
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.
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,164
2,466
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
Kepler said:
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.
 

bond_james_bond

New Member
Apr 24, 2005
1,024
0
0
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?
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,164
2,466
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
bond_james_bond said:
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.
 

eastender

New Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,911
0
0
EagerBeaver said:
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.
 

Kepler

Virgin User
May 17, 2006
572
0
0
EagerBeaver said:
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.
 

Agrippa

C o n s u l
Aug 22, 2006
583
0
0
www.merb.ca
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).
 

metoo4

I am me, too!
Mar 27, 2004
2,183
2
0
If only I knew...
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.
 

Techman

The Grim Reaper
Dec 23, 2004
4,199
0
0
Consider the resources that were expended to rescue Pvt. Jessica Lynch.

This so called 'rescue' was nothing but a propaganda excercise. There was no real rescue involved as there were no enemy troops in the hospital when she was taken out. In fact if I'm not mistaken, a doctor offered to bring her to the US forces and the offer was refused so that it could be shown to be a great rescue for publicity purposes.
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 16, 2003
2,409
2
0
Her Hot Dreams
No-Win Situation.

Kepler said:
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!" )
Hello Kepler,

Thanks for the website information. If we are to believe the testimony as given by the British military personnel that they were just outside the border of Iranian territorial waters, and that the Iranians cornered the British with several boats and enough firepower to make any fight futile and the outcome inevitable, then surrender was the only option and the most politically depolarizing one.

In my estimation, the Iranians must have been looking for an opportunity to impose a politcal power play for propaganda purposes for a long time. When the air support left the British patrol on it's own, the Iranians had the chance they wanted. I believe that once the British were cornered the Iranians were not going to back down. Had the British tried to fight it out it could only had led to their massacre and an irreversible international incident with grave implications that could have polarized tensions in the Persian Gulf to a cycle of military retaliation with unpredictable and extreme consequences at all levels. By surrendering, the British allowed for a political settlement that gave Iran the propaganda advantages it sought while allowing the British government to bring Iran to account for its egregious violation of international treaties without military escaltion and reaffirm international law. It was the best solution in a volatile confrontion that was a "No-Win" for the British patrol. A firefight leading to their deaths would have put the British government and its allies in a position of military retaliation and the prospect of much greater destabilization in a part of the world vital to Western economies and political stature.

As for the armchair generals who think the British should have put up some sort of fight to save face...shame on you. This was not a movie scene. You were not the ones looking down the barrels of heavy machine guns or in front of missiles. You were not the ones under enormous pressure to make a prudent military, political, and personal judgement with the lives of your crew, the prestige of your nation, and possible peace in the region on your conscience. Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris, and Sylvester Stallone were not going to jump out of the water or parachute in to turn the tide and save the day. Then aside from the military disadvantages of the British in this situation, and the politcal issues, there is their God given right to want to see their families again. Nothing would have been gained by the British by rushing headlong into a their own slaughter. Even if some survived the political and military cimplications would have been immense. Nothing vital was lost by surrendering, and overall it was the Iranians who were forced to back down...even if they gained some distorted propaganda advantages within their own country and among Muslim extremists. A firefight could only have made things worse...not better. Let's get over it. :mad:

No Rambos please,

Korbel
 
Last edited:

Turbodick

Member
Mar 28, 2007
615
3
18
Agrippa said:
... I still think Ahmadinejad is totally nuts?! (and standing next to him shaking hands and smiling is fucking creepy).

This will catapult him from a somewhat peripheral figure to centre stage as a dangerous man. People that didn't really know or care who this guy was now do now

It agree that unless we know the full story of what the Brits were doing and their orders it is hard to second guess their actions, but on the surface it looks like they were too easily manipulated.
 

YouVantOption

Recreational User
Nov 5, 2006
1,432
1
0
114
In a house, on a street, duh.
tnaflix.com
Turbodick said:
This will catapult him from a somewhat peripheral figure to centre stage as a dangerous man. People that didn't really know or care who this guy was now do now

It agree that unless we know the full story of what the Brits were doing and their orders it is hard to second guess their actions, but on the surface it looks like they were too easily manipulated.

Manipulated?? They were thrown in stone cells, lined up against a wall, blindfolded while guns were cocked ...

Doing the Hogan's Heros charade so they could get sent home alive was the smartest move they could have made.

What, precisely is the downside to them having play acted while in custody?
 

Agrippa

C o n s u l
Aug 22, 2006
583
0
0
www.merb.ca
Turbodick said:
This will catapult him from a somewhat peripheral figure to centre stage as a dangerous man. People that didn't really know or care who this guy was now do now
I hope people knew that he was dangerous before this particular incident, in fact, I think this time he walks out looking like a diplomatic rational man. He is far from it. He has organized a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran, he calls for Israel to be 'wiped off the map,' he has a fledgling nuclear program, his senior advisor is some Ayatollah...

Creepy!
 
Last edited:
Toronto Escorts