Iran attacks british forces

[Ziggurat]

Let's watch it again in slow motion.

Ah, I see. I misunderstood your reference (I thought the "no such thing" refered to the "Interesting rant" part).

So apparently now you do not claim that Darth said that BPSCG's question implied anything about the US's support for the UK. Which means that you ARE alone in that assesment (ala my posts #22 and #30), and bringing up Darth possibly understanding other aspects of your initial response to BPSCG was merely a distraction. Congratulations: you didn't lie about Darth's post, you just tried to bring up irrelevant aspects of it in defense of your own untennable position.

 

[fuelair]

Dr. A.

While I agree with an second your sentiments, BPSCG has a point. WTF are we going to do? Nuke Tehran? And then what......

The truth is that this government has squandered the billions that should have been used to maintain our capability of independent global force projection. There isnt anything we could do. By the governments own admission, they have cut our armed forces to the degree that independent military action is simply no longer viable- this in order to play sidekick to the global playground bully.

While the posts of some Americans here warms the cockles of my heart, the truth is we are playing a game of naughty wheelbarrow with a US administration that views us very much as the mummy and themselves very much as the dadddy. GWB will not spend a single dollar or shed a drop of American blood to save the life of any given number of UK servicemen or women.

"Or else, what?" Well, if the US wont support us then "or else" we go and sulk in the corner for a while.

Sad but true.

I hope you are wrong about Shrub - but he is a full scale rectum - and anyone who puts their faith in him is likely to find themselves over a rail getting Shrubbed the wrong way.

 

[Mike B.]

We are your allies. Honor requires that you guys should side with us against Iran, rather than sitting on the sidelines and asking us what we're going to do about it. If you won't, we shall draw our own conclusions.

Don't worry, we will always support you in the Middle East, just ask Anthony Eden...er, no...

 

[fishbob]

Only if there's an implied threat. At this stage, what is the implied threat? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm asking what it is.



They've got time and don't need to commit to anything particular at this moment, and I don't doubt it will get worked out. But a demand must have a threat of some sort, be it explicit or implicit, or it simply isn't a demand.

The demand itself, as stated, IS an implied threat.

 

[fishbob]

What are you thinking of fishbob?

Doesn't matter what I am thinking. What are the Iranians thinking?
The UK has all manner of troops and weapons, some pretty close to the neighborhood - as does the US, and that guy from Palau is probably still around.

 

[Art Vandelay]

You people are trying to discuss the issue rationally with Dr A? Good luck. This is the guy who presented a list of claims that I hadn't supported, and then, when I pointed out that I hadn't made those claims and he was attacking a strawman, claimed that presenting a list of claims and saying that I hadn't supported them in no way implied that I had made the claims.

And yet asking what Britain's plans are is somehow saying that we don't plan on supporting them.

 

[Art Vandelay]

And if all Britons were as dishonest, rude, conceited, intolerant, sanctimonious, self-righteous, immature, and all-around poor excuse for a human being as Dr A, I wouldn't want the US spending effort helping them.

 

[fuelair]

And if all Britons were as dishonest, rude, conceited, intolerant, sanctimonious, self-righteous, immature, and all-around poor excuse for a human being as Dr A, I wouldn't want the US spending effort helping them.

And imagine what he would have said if he didn't admire and respect Dr. A!!!!

 

[Darth Rotor]

Uh, guys?

I just got back from the ball game, and I am a bit pissed, in two ways. One is the tequila, the other is that our side lost 6-3.

When people are arguing over something I posted on a JREF forum, the chances are that the discussion has long since passed the "value added" stage.

As much as I'd like to be imminently quotable, this is not an occasion where I have been. No TLA for me.

Let's all trust Mr Blair's government in the UK to do as they did in 2004, and get this all sorted out. I have every confidence that they will, and no bombs, no missiles, no nukes will fly over this bit of skullduggery in the warm and nasty waters of the Persian Gulf.

DR

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Perhaps this will touch a nerve with veterans, and if so I apologise in advance, but why would soldiers surrender to clearly unstable hostile militaries?

I can't speak from personal experience, of course, but I just don't think I'd trust the current Iranian regime to be humane. They're not humane to their own citizens, why would they treat foreign soldiers with any respect? I think I'd take the easier death by gunfire or explosion than whatever tortures might await. I often wondered the same thing about the civilians taken hostage and then brutally executed on camera by the various factions. At some point, I'd make a grab for the rifle, make them shoot me.

And then again, I've never been in the situation. And I'm no psychologist, so I don't know how people think under mortal duress.

 

[Ziggurat]

I can't speak from personal experience, of course, but I just don't think I'd trust the current Iranian regime to be humane. They're not humane to their own citizens, why would they treat foreign soldiers with any respect?

Because it's bad PR, and it gains them little (unlike torturing their own people, which keeps them in line and gets mostly ignored by the rest of the world).

I think I'd take the easier death by gunfire or explosion than whatever tortures might await.

Judging by the last group of brits to be held by Iranians, they probably won't be tortured or even treated all that badly, though I doubt they're having fun.

 

[Ziggurat]

The demand itself, as stated, IS an implied threat.

That's quite possible, but what threat is implied?

 

[The Atheist]

Someone forget to take his pills this morning? Hmmm?

Making a mountain out of a molehill would be a mild metaphor by comparison.

 

[The Atheist]

Also, I would like to insert something else. I'd do Posh Spice. There. I said it. Carry on.

You, on the other hand, sir, are unwell!

Victoria Beckham????

You'd have more fun with a medical skeleton! And it would probably have more meat on its bones. Surely, you mean any of the other Spices? Even Scary, you ask? Posh is bloody scary!

 

[fishbob]

That's quite possible, but what threat is implied?

The unstated threat is an advantage to UK. Why screw up the deal at this stage?

 

[Dr Adequate]

You people are trying to discuss the issue rationally with Dr A? Good luck. This is the guy who presented a list of claims that I hadn't supported, and then, when I pointed out that I hadn't made those claims and he was attacking a strawman, claimed that presenting a list of claims and saying that I hadn't supported them in no way implied that I had made the claims.

This is, of course, not true, which is why you are completely unable to substantiate it.

Just for that, I'm going to bump your "liar" thread in FC again.

Do you ever get tired of humilliating yourself in public?

 

[my_wan]

The unstated threat is an advantage to UK. Why screw up the deal at this stage?

I agree. I would never state the threat. When the time comes I would just do it. Just like when the time comes the UK will have our support. No need to state that either.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And if all Britons were as dishonest, rude, conceited, intolerant, sanctimonious, self-righteous, immature, and all-around poor excuse for a human being as Dr A, I wouldn't want the US spending effort helping them.

But since your childish fantasies apply neither to me nor my countrymen, why do you mention this?

I think you will find that few people will understand the relevance of the disgusting fantasy world in your head to any actual situation that happens in the real world.

 

[rikzilla]

Chill out Dr. A Heal thyself with this:

Now that your BP has receded and stroke is no longer imminent; please realize that there are many, many people in the USA who would support sinking the Iranian Navy just to see a smile cross old Maggie's face. Are 15 squaddies worth going to war for? My short answer is: yes.

Fear not, the Iranians have much to lose and little to gain by harming these guys in any way. There will be negotiations and compromises demanded and made. Diplomats will blow smoke up each others arses. The Iranians will make the best deal they can, but they are not stupid. They have far more to lose than a group like Hezbollah or AQ, and nothing to gain by going all jihadi on these guys.

-z

 

[Darth Rotor]

Perhaps this will touch a nerve with veterans, and if so I apologise in advance, but why would soldiers surrender to clearly unstable hostile militaries?

I can't speak from personal experience, of course, but I just don't think I'd trust the current Iranian regime to be humane. They're not humane to their own citizens, why would they treat foreign soldiers with any respect? I think I'd take the easier death by gunfire or explosion than whatever tortures might await. I often wondered the same thing about the civilians taken hostage and then brutally executed on camera by the various factions. At some point, I'd make a grab for the rifle, make them shoot me.

And then again, I've never been in the situation. And I'm no psychologist, so I don't know how people think under mortal duress.

Most likely, a firefight did not erupt due to the Brits' discipline in following their RoE when trouble arose.

I'd give a case of beer to have been with the captain on the Cornwall and see how he handled this situation.

I imagine he aged about a year in an afternoon. He's got 15 of his men taken, and he was probably, due to the RoE, powerless to do what his seafarer's gut demanded of him: kill any jackanape who messes with his sailors and marines.

DR