15 British sailors detained by Iran...

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
121

<p>
[quote]
Well, I guess we should have thrown in the towel early at Pearl Harbor. (After all, we weren't at war with them yet.)
I recon the Marines on Guam should have just given up when the Japanese first arrived.
I guess the 4 SEALS who held off dozens of Al Qaeda terrorists despite being surrounded and outgunned, and held on so only one could escape, just threw their lives away.
I guess the folks at the Alamo were just fools.
I suppose the Marines at Chosin and Khe Sahn were fools, too.
Maybe the 101st Airborne should have just surrendered at Bastogne?
Maybe the Spartans at Thermopolaye should have just let the Persians through?</p>

<p>Just saying....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Every example you use is irrelevant and moronic hyperbole, most of it drawn from watching Hollywood action movies most likely... </p>

<p>
[quote]
Wow. I bet his troops are SO confident in him that he'll bring them home.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>He did bring his troops home. If you'd been Lt (something which, thankfully, it is evident will never happen) they would be corpses floating in the Persian Gulf. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And I dearly hope anyone who thinks that surrender is the best option never wears the uniform at all. Just stay home on your comfy little sofa and let the adults do the dirty work.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Strange that you're not in Iraq right now, isn't it? Every army in the history of warfare has surrendered, including the US forces on several occasions. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, let's see....</p>

<p>The British Navy and the Royal Marines are a laughingstock in the Arab world.
The British military has a nice big black eye at home.
British military forces in-theater now have a message that they are fair game for capture and nothing will happen.
Iran continues to thumb its nose at the free world.</p>

<p>How is ANY of that in line with their "operational goals"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you know what an operational goal is? Thought not. Soldiers aren't PR agents, they are their to do what they're told, not look tough on TV for armchair-warriors like you.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Excuse me, but ROYAL MARINES were among the ones captured, and training or no, behavior standards among POW's are age-old and include resisting the desire of your enemy to use you for propaganda purposes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>********. Senior British military officials gave statements to the BBC saying that the servicemen and woman were advised to comply with all demands.</p>

122

<p>
[quote]
can you just tell me, quite simply, what would be the point of firing back when it will lead to certain death of 15 British troops, for absolutely nothing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For absolutely nothing? :( </p>

<p>Zaphod, excellent post!</p>

123

<p>yes sheepdog, their lives could be better spent than as martyrs to an Iranian power-play.</p>

124

<p>haha lol, let me clarify my earlier post that even I can barely make sense of, I was still on some medication for my wisdom teeth at that time and must have been caught up in the moment. </p>

<p>My thoughts were more along the line that for these sailors to be featured acting so 'happily' was obviously intended for propaganda by the Iranians and I believe more of a resistence should have been made by the sailors against being used as so. As to the 'state of the British army', I'm referring to what their training is for their soldiers, for instance how to resist interogations, rules of engagement, etc.</p>

<p>Pointedly, no one will EVER know exactly what happened here, and while we can make conjectures (one way or another), nothing is for certain. The more important issue at stake here is the current Iranian actions, which have effectively made it clear to Iran that its actions will not be acted upon, an alarming thing at any rate. </p>

<p>As to Wheelah's comments earlier, I agree that the Brits have been superb allies in the War on Terror, however questioning their actions is hardely sacriledge, you can bet the same is done for every American policy decision. I would also point out that you too, sit at your computer and defend their actions, without actually "being in the situation" to know the truth, thus I respect that we both are making our fair conjectures as to the situation. As to your last point, the actions and legacy of the generations who have gone before you will not automatically 'rub off on you', its up to each person to earn that respect, valour, and loyalty on their own, nothing is handed to you in this world. </p>

<p>Once again I commend the Brits for being one of the most dedicated in our current conflict, but it doesn't give them impunity from critiscism on mistakes. It is only through public debate that changes can be made (or not) as to how a situation like this can be prevented or lessened in overall impact.</p>

125

<p>Octafish that was a very rude post. Zaphod is an officer of the United States Navy, not only the strongest sea force in the world, but also one that has never had its forces surrender to Iran or any other Persian/Arab nation. The military of the United States is full of dedicated, proud, and brave men and women. Americans do not surrender easily and constantly fight against all odds. Case in Point: The two Delta Force soldiers who won the Medal of Honor for their heroic actions defending the downed Army aviator, CWO Michael Durant. These soldiers were outnumbered and outgunned by practically the entire populous of Mogadishu yet they held their ground until their deaths. CWO Durant did not surrender. With a broken back he fought the Somalis with alll of his available ammo. The Somalis captured CWO Durant only after the two Delta Force soldiers were killed and the CWO had run out of ammo.</p>

126

<p>by the way I do believe Americans are inherently braver and better fighters! ;)</p>

127

<p>National pride is hardly racist. Now given that your British I expect some of that same national pride you just displayed, but is that racist to?</p>

<p>That said, I believe the TRAINING is what we are discussing here, whether the Brits in questioned 1) did what their training specificed and 2) if they did, is that the right course of action in a situation like this?</p>

128

<p>Octafish my post was not at all intended to be racist. All I meant is that we have never surrendered to a country in that regoin of the globe. A region which has no country possessing a Navy nearly the strength of the RN or USN. Also, I am sure there are a number of people on this board that would disagree with you on your Vietnamese point. When casualties are compared please tell me who had the better fighting force. I am all for having outside opinions but please to not get defensive or rude. This is an open post allowing for the sharing of the opinions.</p>

129

<p>
[quote]
National pride is hardly racist. Now given that your British I expect some of that same national pride you just displayed, but is that racist to?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While the poster did not deny that the US has surrendered on numerous occasions, he stated that they have not surrendered to an 'Arab' nation, implying that surrendering to Arabs is inherently more shameful. This is commonly known as racism.</p>

<p>My position is based on military knowledge, not national pride. The British sailors did what their superiors expected of them (fact, verified by press releases). As Britain does not intend to declare war on Iran (a decision that is political not military and has no scope for discussion here), this was the correct decision on the part of their superiors.</p>

130

<p>I only narrowed it down to that region because UK forces surrendered there, if I had said we had not surrendered to a European nation i would have been wrong, or an Asian nation I would have been wrong.You didn't surrender to an Arab nation either. It was Iran, they're Persian.</p>

131

<p>Many Iranians are not Persian... I used Arab merely as you had used the word.</p>

<p>The overall size of the Iranian forces is not in any way relevant to the particular situation.</p>

132

<p>Your claim that the US has never surrendered in that region is also erroneous:</p>

<p>[url=<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/27/sprj.irq.pows.executed/index.html%5DHere%5B/url"&gt;http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/27/sprj.irq.pows.executed/index.html]Here[/url&lt;/a&gt;]. I chose an American media outlet you will note...</p>

133

<p>Sorry. I meant Naval forces. my mistake. Please explain to me how many Iranians are not Persian..Was the former title of Iran while under the Shahs not Persia?</p>

134

<p>and also another bad choice of words, I meant strength of forces, and that military's ability to reinforce their units, not size. Which sparks a question in my mind..was it poor planning on the part of the RN to be unable to reinforce their sailors and marines? I wonder if any admirals will get in trouble.</p>

135

<p>^Including marines?</p>

<p>Persians are a separate racial group within Iran/Persia. In the same way not all Kazakhstanis are Kazakhs (to give a contemporary example of this nomenclature). You can probably find out about it by Googling 'Persian culture'.</p>

136

<p>Well, marines were amongst those captured. I do not know much about the RN, but I know the USMC often operates in coordination with the USN.</p>

137

<p>HMS Cornwall was unable to backup her sailors because they were operating in shallow waters. I was trained for the infantry, so I have no idea if extra measures should have been taken but surely if the sailors needed to examine a ship, within Iraqi territorial waters, they shouldn't have called off the operation just because they didn't have backup. (Especially as Iran is not as war with Britain.)</p>

138

<p>not to be argumentative but this is what I thought:
of or pertaining to ancient and recent Persia (now Iran), its people, or their language.<br>
–noun 2. a member of the native peoples of Iran, descended in part from the ancient Iranians.</p>

139

<p>50% of Iranians are not Persians (many emigrant Persians would be very offended if you called them Iranian), it's not really relevant to British sailors, but there you go...</p>

140

<p>I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist.</p>

<p>Yeah, I learned the hyper-sexist non-PC version. Sue me. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Notice that it doesn't say "until there is no chance for victory" or "until there is no chance of a zero friendly bodycount" or "until the parents among us are going to lose their chance of going home". It means that as long as your men have weapons and can fight, you FIGHT. You fight until it's utterly hopeless. </p>

<p>Were these guys hopeless? </p>

<p>They were in functioning boats. They were armed. They were being supported by a warship. They were performing lawful operations in Iraqi waters. Not a single shot was fired in anger by either side. </p>

<p>This qualifies as HOPELESS? :confused:</p>

<p>During the Cold War, the Soviets and the Americans blatantly invaded each other's airspace with bombers. The invaded party sent up fighters and escorted the intruder out. Did they shoot? Did the intruder surrender? Nope.</p>

<p>What are the options here? Either the Brits were in Iraqi waters or they weren't. If they were, then the IRANIANS were wrong, and the Brits should have gone right on with their mission. If they WERE in Iranian waters, then all they would have to do is turn west and leave.</p>

<p>Did the Iranians fire across their bow? If they did, the Brits should have kept right on going out of Iranian waters. Did the Iranians fire in anger? If so, they committed an act of war and the surrender is doubly worse because the Brits never fired back. </p>

<p>Have we gotten to the point that only the bad guys can shoot, now?</p>

<p>This surrender stinks to high heaven. Either the commander of this little band was an incompetent coward, or some other coward (military or civilian) gave them orders to surrender. Either one is disgraceful. </p>

<p>What about the behavior of Iran? I find it fascinating that no one seems compelled to question THEM in all this. They claim the Brits were in their waters and it's taken as gospel because Lord knows the Iranians NEVER lie, right? :rolleyes:</p>

<p>I am still waiting for the hysterical outcry from the human-rights crowd at the treatment of these captives (can't call them "hostages", of course, because we don't want to offend the Iranians). The troops have told stories of humiliation, death threats, etc., etc. Where are those who were beating the Hague war drums after Abu Grahib and Gitmo? Are they afraid the Iranians will blow up their offices if they speak out, or do they simply hate the Allies more than the enemy? :rolleyes:</p>

<p>At any rate, I really couldn't POSSIBLY give less of a damn what some of you think of me or of what I think. I wore the uniform and served honorably in my time, despite the beliefs of some and much to the chagrin of others. In my day, we were taught that warriors don't surrender unless it is their only possible resort to remain alive when all hope of defeating the enemy, or holding out until help comes, has vanished. We certainly were not told to consider surrendering without firing a shot. The last time that happened was in....... Oh, wait! TEHRAN in 1979! We all know how well THAT turned out. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>But then again, we spent more of our time studying history, tactics, and platforms rather than sensitivity training and alcoholism avoidance, so maybe my perspective is a bit skewed. We didn't consider history to be hyperbole, either.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Zaphod is an officer of the United States Navy

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Correction: I WAS an officer in the Navy. :)</p>