So, Brits. What ya gonna do?

egslim said:
An interesting link to disprove your claim: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.
Click to expand...

It disproves nothing. These were not armed naval vessels and they were not under orders from the British Empire to not engage hostiles that were threatening their ships. Furthermore, these were raids of pirates on civilian ships, not attacks from foreign military ships on British military ships during a time of supposed peace. And these pirates weren't trying to force an apology from the British empire from a supposed international crime they didn't commit.

Apples and Oranges? Nay. Apples and Pomegranates.

Mmmmm. Pomegranates.
 
So I take it that everyone is just "okay" with these events. No biggie, huh? Yesterdays news. Water off a duck's back.


Wow. Just....wow. :boggled:
 
Bruce said:
It disproves nothing.
Click to expand...
It gives a rather interesting perspective on current events.

These were not armed naval vessels
Click to expand...
I'd be suprised if there weren't any naval supply vessels among those captured, and back then almost all ships were armed to some degree.

and they were not under orders from the British Empire to not engage hostiles that were threatening their ships.
Click to expand...
Without modern communications orders were a lot less stringent, so this difference is meaningless.

Furthermore, these were raids of pirates on civilian ships, not attacks from foreign military ships on British military ships during a time of supposed peace.
Click to expand...
Those pirates were at the very least condoned by the local sultans, and pirates (more accurately privateers) were employed as warships in wartime.

The point is that, contrary to what you claimed, the capture of British personel historically most often didn't lead to war. And the reason is British leaders gave priority to their country's interests, both short and long term, instead of feeling the necessity to prove their country to others. The latter is a sign of insecurity, while the former breeds succes.
 
Cain said:
Could your Dad beat up the other kids' dads?
Click to expand...

So I take it that you would kiss Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ring and put on his clown suit to support his mocking propaganda as these soldier's did? What does dad's beating up dads have to do with this particular incident? :confused:
 
DanishDynamite said:
Huh? The Brits weren't touched at all by this typical third world woo-woo show. It just confirmed once again that Iran is currently run by stoneage people.
Click to expand...

Stone age people that captured a British naval ship without firing a shot. Stone age people that have a working nuclear reactor. Stone aged people that are funding and training suicide bombers and terrorist world-wide. Terrorist that have the world petroleum economy by the balls. Halfway around the world, 15 soldiers were captured and my gas shot up by 50 cents in one day.

Pretty impressive for a bunch of lumbering cavemen, don't you think? :rolleyes:
 
Bruce said:
Stone age people that captured a British naval ship without firing a shot.
Click to expand...

Ummm, no...they captured a group of sailors/marines on a Dhow (which is a wooden ship of a design used in those waters for 800 years offering no protection whatsoever).


Stone age people that have a working nuclear reactor. Stone aged people that are funding and training suicide bombers and terrorist world-wide. Terrorist that have the world petroleum economy by the balls. Halfway around the world, 15 soldiers were captured and my gas shot up by 50 cents in one day.

Pretty impressive for a bunch of lumbering cavemen, don't you think? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And that is why nothing is going to be tried. This ain't the 18th/19th Century anymore Bruce, where a British ManO'War could sail into some Sultans' harbor and threaten to blow his city apart. The Iranians have modern weapons too, and these days (see Falklands War) one missile can equal one sunken ship.

And war costs, as our increasing indebtedness shows, and the Brits still have a few years of North Sea oil left, so their need for a show of force that would at best be risky and would be of questionable help in the long run is not there.

Besides, we put up with the Pubelo, and Israel has had soldiers held by Hizbollah/Hamas for months if not years without full-scale conflicts, so I do not agree with your premise.

Are you going to reply to gurdur: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2498975&postcount=7 I know it does not matter a bit to you, but I lost a fair percentage of my respect for you due to that.
 
I wasn't sure that Bruce was serious at first, but since he's at least kept it going for a few posts I'll assume he was serious.

What a rude bunch of blustering chickenhawks this incident has brought out in the US. The UK stands essentially alone in the world as an ally of the US in this weird and horrible war foisted on us by the necon nutjobs of Bushco.

And in return for their courage and sacrifice the Brits first watched Bushco exploit the war with crony contractors and crony administrators and their unique brand of inept leadership.

And now the Brits find themselves criticized by these same neocon wackos because they didn't turn a minor international event into a mindless war that could have savaged western economies and cost the lives of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people.

Yes, how stupid it was of the British leadership not to show the same kind of gutless, chest pounding, my way or the highway bravado that Bushco has brought us. How stupid it was for the Brits not to realize that their best course of action here was to sacrifice the lives of their sailors so they could use this action as an excuse to attack Iran and show what a brave and powerful people they are to the American lusting for war set.

There are two years left of the Bushco nonsense and it may even be less because it seems that even Bushco is actually beginning to talk to people instead of blowing them up. I guess pretty soon we can expect to see the neocon nut jobs dumping on Bushco because Bushco is turning all mushy and is looking for solutions that don't involve killing people.
 
When this happened to the US it took us 11 months and we never even got the USS Pueblo back, it is still in the hands of North Korea even though still a commissioned US Navy ship. They waggle the ship in front of us every once in a while as a kind of diplomatic joke.
 
Bruce said:
A military ship of a sovereign nation engages a British naval ship and takes 15 hostages.
Click to expand...


Hutch said:
Ummm, no...they captured a group of sailors/marines on a Dhow.
Click to expand...

Bruce, you have completely mischaracterized this event. The Iranians did not engage a British naval ship. They approached the Brits who were working in RIBs with much larger craft with mounted, large caliber machine guns. The Brits were armed with side arms and maybe some small bore rifles. ANY (repeat, ANY) action other than surrender had every liklihood of resulting in the deaths of some or all 15 ... with the obvious dire consequences.

Hutch, I cannot imagine the Brits were in a Dhow. Those things are awkard as hell and not suited for survey or interdiction work AT ALL. Plus, why the hell would the Brits own a Dhow? Well, ok, maybe they could have leased it but why? The RIBs are perfectly suited for the task at hand.
 
It's a weird world when the tiresome machinations of Iranian religious extremists can come across as more reasonable than the ravings of American rightwing nutjobs, seething in their frustrated bloodlust; but then I guess they're just two sides of the same tarnished coin.
 
Bruce said:
So I take it that you would kiss Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ring and put on his clown suit to support his mocking propaganda as these soldier's did?
Click to expand...

Of course not -- don't be ridiculous. I'd challenge him to an armwrestling match.
 
davefoc said:
I wasn't sure that Bruce was serious at first
Click to expand...


Oh, Bruce is certainly serious enough about wanting attention.

Bruce said:
...captured a British naval ship without firing a shot
Click to expand...


Idiotic statement. Which "ship" was captured again?

Small Town Jesus said:
It's a weird world when the tiresome machinations of Iranian religious extremists can come across as more reasonable than the ravings of American rightwing nutjobs, seething in their frustrated bloodlust; but then I guess they're just two sides of the same tarnished coin.
Click to expand...

American rightwing nutjob, or troll; sometimes the issues just don't matter when it comes to an opportunity to troll, you know?
 
Bruce said:
Iran just made you look stupid and weak. What are you going to do about it? Sanctions? Denouncement? Appeasement? Dare I say........war? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

We Brits are happy that the sailors are back. This was never going to make it into a war, it's a border dispute the likes of which happen everywhere.

Yes, the Iranians were cowardly in ambushing two small boats engaged in a patrol and which were away from their ship. The incident has angered plenty of people about the missing air support (the boats were supposed to be watched by a helicopter). But there is nothing at all in this incident that required an escalation in the conflict.

This shows to me that the American right are operating in a parallel world. Macho posturing and sabre rattling would do nothing in this case. The sailors are back, end of story.

I guess that some Americans wanted a casus belli. Sorry, but we're not willing to comply.
 
SezMe said:
Hutch, I cannot imagine the Brits were in a Dhow. Those things are awkard as hell and not suited for survey or interdiction work AT ALL. Plus, why the hell would the Brits own a Dhow? Well, ok, maybe they could have leased it but why? The RIBs are perfectly suited for the task at hand.
Click to expand...

Sez me, the ship they were inspecting was a Dhow, IIRC (I could be wrong) I wasn't sure if they were still on-board her or in their craft when the Iranians came.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom