15 British sailors detained by Iran...

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
141

<p>
[quote]
by the way I do believe Americans are inherently braver and better fighters!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not so fast.</p>

<p>Historically, the British have been one HELL of a bunch of fighters, with experience on the high seas and almost every conceivable kind of climate and terrain. They have mountains of enemy skulls in their wake to prove it, and held their own against Hitler ALONE for quite a while.</p>

<p>If we have had ONE utterly steadfast and committed ally in this miserable world, it's been the British and their former colonies. I can't think of a better bunch of people to have to my right and/or left when taking on the world. Don't be too quick to judge them on one incident. It would be both unfair and inaccurate.</p>

<p>ETA: Wheelah beat me to it. :o</p>

<p>
[quote]
But you did have the crap kicked out of you by the Vietnamese

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Simply because we allowed a bunch of communist sympathizers to undermine the war effort at home. </p>

<p>If you're going to make statements based on history, please try to be accurate. We kicked the crap out of THEM in every major engagement you can cite. The VC ceased to be a viable military force after the Tet Offensive, but that was STILL described as a defeat by the likes of Walter Cronkite. </p>

<p>They didn't defeat us; WE QUIT. We quit because we simply didn't have the will to fight the war like we meant it, or to carry it through. Sadly, we are seeing a replay now in Iraq.</p>

142

<p>I notice the keyboard cowboys conveniently skipped over the Pueblo event. Conveniently restricted their assertion to one of never having surrendered to an Arab nation or in the Persian gulf.</p>

<p>The fact is that most modern naval personnel will never have a gun pointed directly at them. I mean DIRECTLY at them. Service offshore, watching computer screens does not exactly qualify as combat duty in my mind.</p>

<p>If you would be proud to go down in a blaze of glory, giving up your life in a meaningless--and it would be meaningless--act of supposed bravery, then I suppose more power to you. The true mark of a leader is judgment.</p>

<p>If I understand this situation correctly, and I have not spent countless hours researching this, the Brits had nothing more than some 50-cal weapons [same as the Pueblo] on board. Whether the boat was in international waters or not does not amount to a hill of beans--ask Cmdr. Bucher. The Iranians may very well have been wrong, but when you are staring down the barrel of a clearly superior force--again, I just sort of assume the Brits were out-gunned--then you do what you have to do.</p>

<p>I, too, have served my country honorably. I also am mature enough to not judge the actions of others--especiallly life or death actions--unless I was there. Which I wasn't. And neither were any of you. I am simply glad that, regardless of their supposed cowardness, these young people were able to come home alive. </p>

<p>I would rather have my son home alive--call him a coward if you want--than dead and called a hero. I guess MY experience was a little different than some modern-day warriors.</p>

143

<p>dadvet,</p>

<p>Two words come to mind reading your post, arrogant ignorance.</p>

144

<p>Well said USNA69, </p>

<p>dadvet, you claim to have some 'higher understanding' of what is right and wrong, what should be done in a military situation, etc. Yet I know that many, many people on this forum have served in every service honorably for dozens of years, just what have you done that makes your 'keyboard cowboy' attitude better than ours? I see a lot of judgement from your said, but very little real arguement to back it up (besides your one claim of one ship surrending, an act that would have probably drawn the same reaction from this board).</p>

<p>Makes me wonder if you are who you claim to be.</p>

145

<p>
[quote]
The Iranians may very well have been wrong, but when you are staring down the barrel of a clearly superior force...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But, but....</p>

<p>The Iranians aren't at war with the British. What did the British have to fear? Why were the Iranians pointing their weapons at the British? Why did the British feel threatened by the good-natured and peace-loving Iranians? :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Meh. My shipmate USNA69 said it all in two words, so I'll just stop here.</p>

146

<p>Here is the difference between the mentality of a small minority (ZAPHOD) and most the other people posting.</p>

<pre><code> The motivation of the British sailors and the Foreign Ministry was to have 15 healthy sailors back in their post and to avoid the unnecesary confrontation in the Middle East.
</code></pre>

<p>However, Zaphod and his amen crowd could care less about these 15 sailors and wanted to use this as a precept for another war. See the Gulf of Tonkin incident for further details..... Look at the original posts and see how happy many people were with the prospect of another war so they could try screwing up in another war.</p>

147

<p>Peace at any price?</p>

148

<p>Glad you have your facts straight fusiontime, as most of the people ("Zaphods" gang) in this thread have been at least somewhat critical of the British actions, and justifiably so.</p>

<p>Of course by your post we must remember remember the huge 'government conspiracy' which caused all the wars we have ever been in, murdered JFK, made contact with aliens, etc., because the US government is evil, and every other government out there is trying help its people and is simply acting in self-defense to the evil American empire...</p>

<p>/end sarcasm</p>

<p>There is absolutly nothing wrong with standing up for your rights as the Brits were in Iraqi waters under UN authority, thus had the full and legal right to be there. There are two possiblities:</p>

<p>If no state of war exists, how did the Iranians manage to capture the Brits without a shot fired? The only logical conclusion is that the Brits thought deadly force may be applied, which means a state of war does exist. In this case the actions of the Brits in question is somewhat, but by no means, justifiable.</p>

<p>However, if no threat of deadly force was used by the Iranians, then the Brits gave up like cowards (notice how if no deadly threat was used, how could these Brits 'fear' for their lives and thus have the need to comply with the Iranians). I can't fathom how you can possibly reason why these Brits surrendered in 'their' territory for absolutly no reason, which makes this option (and thus labeling them cowards) unlikely, however the officer in charge must be held accoutable if he did indeed surrender so easily.</p>

<p>Thus we are left with a state of war and the sailors accounts (tortured, threatened), or peace with less than brave sailors. The simple fact is that you can't claim to have your sailors threatened with their lives and still claim to have averted a crisis, a crisis which could have only occured because the threat of death was very real. </p>

<p>I hope my reasoning makes sense, I am a little bit rushed for time.</p>

149

<p>That seems to be the "majority mentality". The Iranians were wrong in trespassing into Iraq waters. As they had no right to do so, it was the responsibility of the British officer in charge to not only respond accordingly, but to protect his men. I don't give a damn what they did while the Iranians had them. It was their job to stay alive and they managed to accomplish that. But the British officer who ordered his men to surrender ought to take some heat. This isn't about starting a new war to "screw up", this is about upholding international law and preventing the Iranians from getting ahead of themselves. Now they know they can take any British captive without ANY repercussions or risks.</p>

150

<p>The UN has established a blockade. The HMS Cornwall was enforcing this legally sanctioned blockade. A blockade, by definition, is an act of war. They WERE at war. There seems to be a lot of people here who don't have a clue as to military operations. I am sure there were Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) developed as to the proper execution of boarding party maneuvers. Also, a part of these SOPs would be appropriate Rules of Engagement (ROEs). These SOPs and ROEs would originate in the Admiralty and be passed down to individual units. I am absolutely sure, without a doubt, that they were reviewed and discussed in detail aboard the HMS Cornwall. I am also positive that these ROEs were briefed to the boarding party just prior to embarking in their Zodiacs on this mission. What mind that is capable of spelling the word 'military' actually believes that the SOP stated to stand idly by while the boarding party is captured? Or for that matter, boarding party, do nothing and allow yourself to be captured. I would suspect there would be widespread mutiny of boarding parties expected to operate under these procedures. The blockading warship should position itself close abeam so as to keep the boarding party in sight at all times, a perfect position from which to fire warning, and otherwise, shots at any tresspasser. What did they think? That the Iranians were bringing out Hong Kong tailors to take measurements and orders from the Cornwall sailors? Cornwall had radar, probably either had organic cover aircraft or the capability of requisitioning it. The boarding party was comprised of British commandos. Commandos are not trained to come home alive at all costs. They are trained to fight. They are some of the most professional military personnel with which I have ever had the pleasure to work. I firmly believe this was a colossal screw up from top to bottom. To have a boarding party comprimised in this manner defeats the whole concept of blockade operations. I hope and pray that our country has not become so 'soft' as a few of the posts above would indicate. But someone who thinks that all the Navy does is watch computer screens, probably, by logical conclusion, feels that they are not capable of abiding by the Code of Conduct. We can all thank God that there are sailors going daily into harm's way to protect even such idiotic thinkers as this to their right of free speech.</p>

151

<p>All these posts are under the asuumption that Iranians were in waters they weren't supposed to be. I don't take the confessions of the soldiers as valid, but all we have is the Iranians showing GPS that claims the sailors were in Iranian waters and British GPS showing they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Assuming which is the 'truth' is entirely conjecture.</p>

<p>I find it just as shocking that everyone is bringing up the United Nations Laws when these same people thumbed their nose at the U.N. when the U.N. did not support the initial invasion.</p>

<p>In regards to the Gulf of Tonkin take a look at a report by the National Security Agency ( an anti-American bastion of course)</p>

<p>On 30 November 2005, the NSA released the first installment of previously classified information regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident, including Mr. Hanyok's article, "Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2–4 August 1964" Cryptologic Quarterly, Winter 2000/Spring 2001 Edition, Vol. 19, No. 4 / Vol. 20, No. 1.</p>

<p>The Hanyok article stated that intelligence information was presented to the Johnson administration "in such a manner as to preclude responsible decisionmakers in the Johnson administration from having the complete and objective narrative of events." Instead, "only information that supported the claim that the communists had attacked the two destroyers was given to Johnson administration officials."</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_tonkin_incident#Later_statements%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_tonkin_incident#Later_statements&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

152

<p>
[quote]
However, Zaphod and his amen crowd could care less about these 15 sailors and wanted to use this as a precept for another war.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, that's exactly it. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>
[quote]
All these posts are under the asuumption that Iranians were in waters they weren't supposed to be.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah. Imagine that!</p>

<p>Actually giving the benefit of the doubt to our ALLIES rather than our ENEMIES. What a friggin' concept! :rolleyes:</p>

<p>ETA: First post on CC an attack on me?</p>

<p>Hi, Confused! :D</p>

<p>
[quote]
We can all thank God that there are sailors going daily into harm's way to protect even such idiotic thinkers as this to their right of free speech.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Preach it, Shipmate. I'd rather be in the minority with you than in the majority with the keyboard commandos who have never worn a uniform and are relying on CNN to give them their info.</p>

<p>I really hope they aren't teaching this surrender-without-a-shot-to-come-home crap at USNA. If so, they need to uproot the whole place and relocate it to Marseilles. :mad:</p>

<p>(That's in France, for those of you who went to public school.)</p>

153

<p>Or the keyboard commandos who have worn a uniform and are still relying on CNN for their information.
I don't post much here because circle jerks aren't that much fun for me anymore.<br>
Nonetheless, it seems I need to clarify a few things.</p>

<p>USNA69. About the time you were dressing up in your white uniform to graduate, I was getting shot at on some stupid hill in the middle of Vietnam. I don't know what you ended up doing with your Naval career, but unless you had some assignment that took you in-country--by land, inland river, or in the air--well, let's just say that your Vietnam experience was probably quite a bit different than mine. The truth of the matter is that being in "harm's way" for post-1960s sailors in not the same as it was for John Wayne. There are no more great naval battles. While many navy jobs may be dangerous, there are also many civilian jobs that are just as dangerous. So lets not try to convince everybody that today's Navy is about danger.</p>

<p>Mr. Kavanaugh. I don't know anything about you and you don't know anything about me. When I left Vietnam, I became a policeman. For a few years, I was on a narcotics squad. In fact, I have taken a parital disability form being shot while on a raid. No, I don't guess I have a "higher understanding" of military actions. I was just a grunt tyring to stay alive for a year. I was just a small cog in the war on drugs. I know a thing or two about being shot at. Do you? I also know a thing or two about missions that go wrong; about communicaitons that fail; about backup that doesn't arrive on time; and about all the things that can go wrong in life when somebody is pointing guns at you. Do you?</p>

<p>Zaphod. There is nothing to be said to you. As you have clearly stated: you don't give a damn about what anybody has to say about you or to you. Is that why you seem to move around a lot?</p>

<p>All of you. I speak with some conviction on this matter because I know what it is like to lose a loved one over nothing. My son was killed during military maneuvers leading up to the Somalian excursion. Does anybody remember Somalia? Does anybody care? Did we win something? Even though it has been over 15 years, I think about him daily. Was it worth it? No! Did we spread democracy? Did we make friends? No! Don't give me your crap about it being Clinton's fault for blah, blah, blah. Bush has managed this war just as poorly. Johnson managed his war poorly.
Have you lost a son or daughter to conflict?</p>

<p>I have nothing against the Navy. I am proud that my daughter is at the Academy. I am glad that we have a strong Navy. I am glad of the technological Navy that we have. But the Army/Marines seem to be taking a whole lot more losses than the Navy in this affair. So . . . no, the average sailor [you know, the guy working on the engines, servicing the jets, cooking the food, navigating, and all the other jobs that make up the Navy] is not in as much danger as teh average soldier/marine. Heck, it could be argued that on a per capita basis, the average sailor [excluding pilots, corpsman, eod, seals, and similar] is safer than the average policeman.</p>

<p>You think I am arrogant/igorant? I am one of a few that are attempting to understand that maybe, just maybe, the young sailors on the boat that day did what they was best under the circumstances. You tell me how that is arrogant? I have served in the military. No, I was not some big time naval officer, but at least I have had the taste of dirt in my mouth. I know what it is like to have friends die. It's not a feeling I wish upon anybody for any reason. You tell me how that is arrogant?<br>
Ignorant? Damn right! I have no idea what went on that day. Neighther do any of you. All I know is, sometimes you do what you have to do. Especially when the bullets are flying.</p>

<p>I heard on talk radio today, a caller make a comment that many of you would appreiciate. Regarding teh Virginia Tech shootings. He asked: Where were the men? How come some of the men in the room didn't stand up and take the shooter down? Same kind of guy who has watched too many movies. Same kind of guy who would be pleading for his life if he were in teh room with a shooter.</p>

<p>I don't care of the Brits were right or the Iranians were wrong. As a parent, I am just glad it turned out the way it did. I would hate--absolutely hate--the thought that another child died over nothing. The way my son did. And whether you want to believe it or not, those deaths would have been meaningless. Nobody is going to war over a boat capture unless they want to use it as pretext for a war they intended to start anyway. Gulf of Tonkin v. Pueblo.</p>

<p>You folks make me sick with your bravado and armchair quarterbacking.
Zaphod, you were in the Navy . . . why are you not still there? [Oh, yeah, my baaaackkkk!] Get a life!
Mr. Kavanaugh? What's your story? Why are you so quick to want to fight?
USNA69. Let's see, should we compare the number of US. sumariner deaths in the last 30 years with the number of airline passenger deaths in a like period of time? Both involve transporting passengers in a tube within pressurized environment. Once the Soviet Union crashed, tell me where the danger comes from? In fact, it would be interesting to compare the number of non-pilot, seal, corpsman, eod deaths the Navy has experienced in teh past ten years with some other occupations.</p>

<p>I am no bleeding-hear liberal. I hate this whole middle east b/s. I think we could have done a lot better job of getting this over with. [What a joke, a war czar? I thought that's what generals and admirals and presidents did?] The fact remains tha tyou and I were not there and it is insulting to the British to suggest that they did nto act honorably. Especially when coming from a bunch of no-nothing, second-rate, armchair quarterbacks.</p>

<p>Good night!</p>

154

<p>dadvet,</p>

<p>I have had too many beers tonite to digest your BS post but allow me to state that I spent a year on the Cambodian border in charge of a SWG team monitoring communist infiltration into S Vietnam from Cambodia and setting up ambushes on same. I lived in a bunker in a Vietnamese Ranger Battalion Camp and saw more action than I would care to admit. I then went to flight school, became a helo pilot, and served a tour on Yankee Station. If you were up on your history, you would know that the Navy ran the Delta. I went to flight school, got my wings, and then served on Yankee Station as a Naval Aviator aboard the USS America. Therefore, I take offense at your "bunch of no-nothing, second-rate, armchair quarterbacks." You are truly an igonorant arrogant a$$hole.</p>

155

<p><a href="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/04/ap_british_investigation_070416/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/04/ap_british_investigation_070416/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Should be interesting to read the reports.</p>

156

<p>davdet,
Just read your post. Have you considered therapy? You need it.</p>

157

<p>


</p>

<p>Destroying your misinformation is going to be fun. When approximately half each recent graduating USNA class comprises either Navy/USMC air or EOD/SEAL, why are you discounting them? Every five years I attend a memorial service where the 20% or so of the aviators in my class who died in aviation mishaps are recognized. The numbers haven't changed. Approximately 6 class A mishaps per 10,000 flight hours, wartime or peace. The average aviator accumulates 6000 flight hours over a career. Half a class goes aviaton, two-thirds make it a career, 60 or so will become casulties. Not hardly watching a computer screen. Getting shot off the pointy end of a carrier and coming back aborard the stern at night is probably more life threatening than being a narcotics officer. And the mishap rates for helos is higher. Your daughter must be going surface warfare.</p>

158

<p>


</p>

<p>Hold my mouse while i whack off. Do you think that you have a monopoly on 'pointing guns' and have a right to tarnish the outlook of our youngsters who are getting ready to defend YOUR country. You ARE sick.</p>

159

<p>


</p>

<p>Maybe you ought to wait for the smoke to clear before you start spreading your venimous misinformation. The latest is that at least one prof gave his life keeping a door closed to keep the gunman from entering the classroom. Sir, you are sick. OBTW, in case you haven't the smarts to comprehend it, ignorance such as yours really pi$$es me off. Please quietly crawl back in your hole.</p>

160

<p>A Few Questions for Zahpod.</p>

<ol>
<li>If you're such a high and mighty patriot, why don't you return and fight to help the troops who are on extended tours?</li>
</ol>

<hr>

<p>Actually one is enough.</p>

<p>Oh , and here's some evidence from you from the Navy Website for perspective.
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq,
19 Mar 2003 through 16 Jul 2005. 26 KIA 320 WIA. Now compare that with the rest of U.S. Servicemen.....</p>