• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

UK's Response to Iran: Discuss

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Barriebazg
    Ha ha, you make me laugh. You would last all of 5mins out in the Middle East with that attitude. For fear of repeating myself - ROE's!!! You have no clue what they are so just leave it at that. Your just so narrow minded its unbelieveable.
    I must say I side with the Americans in this:

    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2393337.ece
    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."

    The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: " The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"

    His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines - including one young mother - will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain's determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected.

    Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team from HMS Cornwall were seized on Friday after completing a UN-authorised inspection of a merchant dhow in what they insist were clearly Iraqi waters. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy appeared in half a dozen attack speedboats mounted with machine guns..

    Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."
    So "very much de-escalatory" in this case means rolling over and putting your hands up without a shot been fired.

    That's what happens when you let the services be swamped with pooftas

    The MOD's take says it all really
    we know our helicopter reported that they saw the boats being moved up the Shatt-al-Arab waterway towards an Iranian base up there and we know that there was no fighting, there was no engagement, no weapons or anything like that; it was entirely peaceful
    so much for our much vaunted Marines!
    How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Troll
      I must say I side with the Americans in this:

      http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2393337.ece

      So "very much de-escalatory" in this case means rolling over and putting your hands up without a shot been fired.

      That's what happens when you let the services be swamped with pooftas

      The MOD's take says it all really
      so much for our much vaunted Marines!
      Let's be thankful you're not in a position of power.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Diestl
        Let's be thankful you're not in a position of power.
        Why? are you a poofta?

        Let's see how it plays out

        The worst result would be a trial and execution of the captives for espionage - and if they carried it through what would you do then?

        The damage to British forces credibility has already been done - best we pack our bags and come home - out of harms way. Then the soldiers can spend all day attending 'diversity' lectures and apologising for past atrocities
        How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by Troll
          Why? are you a poofta?

          Let's see how it plays out

          The worst result would be a trial and execution of the captives for espionage - and if they carried it through what would you do then?

          The damage to British forces credibility has already been done - best we pack our bags and come home - out of harms way. Then the soldiers can spend all day attending 'diversity' lectures and apologising for past atrocities

          How the **** do you have any opinion on the armed forces of this country??? So what your saying is that the 15 captured should have shot all the Iraninan's that were trying to capture them and thats that????? Of course there would have been no fallout over that at all!!! You think that just because they are over there in the middle east that they should kill everything and anything that moves?? Your a joke.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Troll
            Why? are you a poofta?

            Let's see how it plays out

            The worst result would be a trial and execution of the captives for espionage - and if they carried it through what would you do then?

            The damage to British forces credibility has already been done - best we pack our bags and come home - out of harms way. Then the soldiers can spend all day attending 'diversity' lectures and apologising for past atrocities
            You're worst case would be a war, thousands dead, mine a few troops in prision for a week or two.

            Comment


              #36
              Altough I did mention that in theory espionage carries the Death Penalty in Iran they would be unlikely to exercise this - more likely they would trade these hostages for the Iranians diplomats detained by the US in Iraq.

              However given the abysmal record of torture abuse bu coalition forces in Iraq I could imagine that the UK soldiers may well be tortured and humiliated publically prior to their release.

              A UK commando group was captured in Iran about three years ago and were later released .

              As for the Iranian millitary's capablity if attacked - I would not underestimate their capablity to carate havoc in the Gulf.


              A former British diplomat says it is Iran's legal right to protect its sovereignty and the detained Britons should not have entered Iranian waters.


              The UK's former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, told the Daily Mirror on Monday, "In international law the Iranian government were not out of order in detaining foreign military personnel in waters to which they have a legitimate claim."

              For the Royal Navy to be interdicting shipping within the twelve mile limit of territorial seas, in a region they know full well is subject to a maritime boundary dispute, is unnecessarily provocative, he added.

              Murray noted that, "This is especially true as apparently they were not looking for weapons but for smuggled vehicles attempting to evade car duty. What has the evasion of Iranian or Iraqi taxes got to do with the Royal Navy? The ridiculous illogic of the Blair mess gets us further into trouble."

              Murray then requested "the Iranian authorities" to "now hand the men back immediately," arguing that "Plainly they were not engaged in piracy or in hostilities against Iran."

              He said the Iranians well demonstrated the ability to exercise effective sovereignty over their waters.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Barriebazg
                How the **** do you have any opinion on the armed forces of this country??? So what your saying is that the 15 captured should have shot all the Iraninan's that were trying to capture them and thats that????? Of course there would have been no fallout over that at all!!! You think that just because they are over there in the middle east that they should kill everything and anything that moves?? Your a joke.
                1: 'Cos I pay for it
                2:Yup...that's what (every other nations) soldiers do when they are under threat
                3: If they were acting in self defence then it would be justified

                You're

                HTH
                How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Barriebazg
                  How the **** do you have any opinion on the armed forces of this country??? So what your saying is that the 15 captured should have shot all the Iraninan's that were trying to capture them and thats that????? Of course there would have been no fallout over that at all!!! You think that just because they are over there in the middle east that they should kill everything and anything that moves?? Your a joke.
                  If they were in Iraqi waters then they could have shot killed and sunk the Iranian boat stating that thye were under attack from insurgents.
                  It would then have been up to Iran to prove otherwise. If they did we could apologise and everything would have been OK.

                  BTW. his handle is TROLL does that mean anything to you?
                  I am not qualified to give the above advice!

                  The original point and click interface by
                  Smith and Wesson.

                  Step back, have a think and adjust my own own attitude from time to time

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by The Lone Gunman
                    If they were in Iraqi waters then they could have shot killed and sunk the Iranian boat stating that thye were under attack from insurgents.
                    It would then have been up to Iran to prove otherwise. If they did we could apologise and everything would have been OK.

                    BTW. his handle is TROLL does that mean anything to you?
                    Hold on - if they were in Iraqi waters then shouldnt the Iraqis have captured them rather than the Iranians ?

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by Troll
                      1: 'Cos I pay for it
                      2:Yup...that's what (every other nations) soldiers do when they are under threat
                      3: If they were acting in self defence then it would be justified

                      You're

                      HTH
                      So if they acted in self defence, shot at them and maybe killed a few of them it would be ok and nothing would happen to them?? Is that what your implying??

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X