• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Iran attacks british forces

Darth Rotor said:
HMS Cornwall isn't a rubber boat, Kerberos. Since I don't have a plot on where Cornwall was relative to the rubber boats, I'll stop there. It's not as though lone rubber boats were patrolling the area, they were from a British Warship.

DR
Click to expand...

My bad, apparently I didn't read the article as well as I should have, though it's still a distinct possibility that they were outgunned.
 
corplinx said:
Why a full blown war? Just bomb some government buildings, take out the nuclear capabilities, some munitions plants, and a list of suspected terrorist training camps.

Don't bother trying to invade and change the regime. Just cripple them. This is your moment to fix the Iranian situation.
Click to expand...

That could be the most poorly-thought post I've yet seen.

Well played.
 
Kerberos said:
My bad, apparently I didn't read the article as well as I should have, though it's still a distinct possibility that they were outgunned.
Click to expand...

Lemme see. If you have a look at what we know, I think we can work this out.

If the boats were in close proximity to the HMS Cornwall, then the Revolutionary Guard would have been seen coming and the RN would have been rightly prepared to kick them to touch.

The Navy sure as hell wasn't outgunned, but the 15 certainly were.

Nice to see the damyankees offerring advice to the Poms on this one.
 
Darth Rotor said:
I am content to let the Brits muddle through this latest problem. They'll manage. DR
Click to expand...

As I just noted, it appears that the "incident" would already be far more serious if it weren't the Poms at the table. My suspicion is that under Erik Horner (any relation to "The Red"?) the situation could well have been this:

15 sailors armed with light, fully-automatic weapons, and little more, cruising around in rubber boats. After all, they're backed by a Royal Navy vessel capable of taking out San Francisco.

Large force of well-armed, including [presumably] at least one heavy, mounted machine-gun, Iranians arrive and call out "Give up".

15 bring up weapons and futilely open fire, only to be wiped out by the heavy machine-gun/s inside the first 30 seconds.

Time enough though to alert HMS Cornwall which goes to full speed and rounds on the attackers, sinking them. By this time, the Iranians are certainly in home waters.

The Revolutionary Guard, seeing their own men blasted out of their own waters open fire on Cornwall with missile attack from shore, sinking her.

Doesn't do it for me.

Thank god Margaret Thatcher isn't PM.

What happens next? Again, Darth has it right, I think. Fortunately, the PM is a spineless wanker and without US pressure to pull any triggers, he won't.

Iran puts them on trial as a showpiece, finds them guilty of violating Iranian waters and sentences them to 50 years' jail each.

Prisoner exchange takes place.

The world continues rotating.

While that won't please the "Nuke all ragheads" brigade, there wouldn't seem to be a better answer anywhere. I find it just a little ironic that despite Iraq still being an issue - for the people getting shot at anyway - the downside of opening another front in the war on [strikle]islam[/strike] isn't obviously apparent.

And a quick question of my good friend, the First Sea Lord:

WHERE, exactly - to the nearest millimetre or two, did this incident take place?
 
The Atheist said:
The Navy sure as hell wasn't outgunned, but the 15 certainly were.

Nice to see the damyankees offerring advice to the Poms on this one.
Click to expand...
The American LCDR was probably right. It is likely Americans would have fought and shot.

A few reasons.

USS Pueblo is one of them
Possibly a more permissive RoE and standing orders from Washington.
The tendency of Americans to be abused in captivity. Who needs that crap?
Earnest Will and Praying Mantis.

We have a history of shooting to and fro with the Rev Guards in the Persian Gulf.
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."
Click to expand...
By the way, I'd like a nice, long talk with Horner. That sumbitch just disclosed RoE details, and a possible seam between US and UK RoE.

Way to backstab the Brits, numbnuts. :(

WHERE, exactly - to the nearest millimetre or two, did this incident take place?
Click to expand...
That, sir, is the key question underlying this entire incident. It will inform the legal matter, under maritime law, of 'on the high seas' or "in Iranian waters" or "in Iraqi Waters." That in turn informs the diplomatic matter. Or, I hope not, other matters.

DR
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
What do you do?
Click to expand...

I'm a consultant in International development, with a focus on post-conflict governance / institutional reform. My forte is taxation and customs policy and administration.

I've worked in a variety of countries, most recently Afghanistan for the past three years. Prior to here I was in East Timor long term and have worked short term in Kosovo and Papua New Guinea.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Or else ... we have all the military options that the US has, including nukes.

---

But apart from that, think about what you just said, you ******* lump of ****.

When your country came under attack on 9/11, we didn't stand about saying "so what are you going to do about it?" We pledged ourselves as your allies. Tony Blair stood on the steps of 10 Downing Street and said that we stood "shoulder to shoulder" with you --- and I wept.

And now, you ******* ****, you see that a member of the "axis of evil" has taken military action against British servicemen, we issue an ultimatum, and your response, as an American, is "or else what"?

You stupid whining ungrateful son of a bitch --- or else you and your country can **** off and die, do I make myself clear?

If you want to have allies, you should be allied to them. We are still fighting "shoulder to shoulder" with you in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have given our money and the blood of our children for your cause --- and you, it seems, have no gratitude, no decency, and no honor.

If I thought that every American was so personally stunted and morally crippled as you are, then on 9/11 I'd have gone out into the streets and danced the Palestinian Fandango.

Do I make myself clear?


Dr. Adequate; You have an obligation under your membership agreement to remain civil toward other members of the forum. In the future, please refrain from posting in a way that personalizes the argument.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
Click to expand...

I have to say that you are linking 9/11 with Iraq, so your credibility is shot. Blair stood with us rightly, because as far as I know 9/11 was an unprovoked attack, and we were going after Osama bin Laden.

I don't support the war. I don't think our troops should be there. but we are warring in or with Iraq. If our troops started going into Iran, or Iranian waters, and they got captured, while I wouldn't like it I really couldn't say anything about it.

If Iranian military ships entered British waters, what do you think would happen? Right. So how can you expect anything different when the situation is reversed?
 
Should you expect anything different?

What does Britain do if the sailors are murdered?
 
Azure said:
Should you expect anything different?

What does Britain do if the sailors are murdered?
Click to expand...

No chance, why bother even speculating? I'd lay good odds that they're being reasonably well treated, as well. Almost certainly better treated than a US base or two treats its prisoners.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Or else:

(1) The British have all the military options available to Americans. We have everything from nukes to the SAS. We can do military stuff. That's one answer to "or else what?" That's why you wanted us as allies.

(2) Apparently you Americans love us Limeys and fully support us. You said so in your post. And you are the world's only super power. That also is, surely, an answer to the question "or else what?" As we are your allies, surely you are on our side? "Or else what?" Or else, at least, the US will back us up, rather than saying "or else what?"

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.
Click to expand...
Someone turn off this pinhead's microphone, to paraphrase Bill O'Reilly.

It's a HUGE overstatement to try to compare 9/11 where 3000 people died and huge buildings were knocked down to this incident where 15 people in rubber dinghies were captured and will likely be released. It's also ridiculous to get all blustery and crazed over what is essentially a diplomatic situation, one that has happened before and been successfully rectified all by your widdle selves.

Furthermore, AS allies we expect you Brits not to do anything stupid like entering Iran's waters during a war with two of its neighbors! Why make a mistake like that? NOT TO MENTION, there IS a military precedent for going to war over the capture of a few soldiers - Israel going into southern Lebanon vs. Hezbollah - and look what happened there!

And finally, you are doing both of the above even as your troops are pulling out of Iraq, signifying that gee, you don't quite support us as much as you used to.

Meditate on that before opening your foolish mouth next time.
 
Antiquehunter said:
I'm a consultant in International development, with a focus on post-conflict governance / institutional reform. My forte is taxation and customs policy and administration.

I've worked in a variety of countries, most recently Afghanistan for the past three years. Prior to here I was in East Timor long term and have worked short term in Kosovo and Papua New Guinea.
Click to expand...

Wow, that sounds like fun, plus you get to go to some interesting spots. I know a few people who've lived in Port Moresby - big ex-pat Kiwi community there, and I know a couple in East Timor right now.

I'll keep your details for a trip to NZ for when I've overthrown the government.
 
BPSCG said:
You're right; one of them is an oppressive, unstable-fanatic-run totalitarian state increasingly flexing its muscles while attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. The other is a small country just west of Japan.
Click to expand...
:D
 
Dorian Gray said:
...snip...

And finally, you are doing both of the above even as your troops are pulling out of Iraq, signifying that gee, you don't quite support us as much as you used to.

...snip...
Click to expand...

The withdrawal of UK troops is as was planned for at least the last couple of years. UK troops were to assume security responsibilities for certain regions in Iraq and as the Iraqis are able to take over those responsibilities the UK forces are withdrawn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom