http://www.nypost.com/seven/04032007/po ... htm?page=0
Bloody Jounos.
(no offence intended to Jacko)
british marines and sailors surrender to the iranians.
Moderators: Aladinsaneuk, MartDude, D-Rider, Moderators
What a tosser!
yeah mate - why don't we just career in gung-ho, inflame the situation and set middle east relations back even further ....... and maybe send christmas cards to the still-unreleased captives a couple of years down the line.
Trouble is, we've seen his nation do this time after time ......
yeah mate - why don't we just career in gung-ho, inflame the situation and set middle east relations back even further ....... and maybe send christmas cards to the still-unreleased captives a couple of years down the line.
Trouble is, we've seen his nation do this time after time ......
-
fastasfcuk
- SuperBike Racer
- Posts: 1424
- Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:57 pm
- Location: Mansfield, Nottinghamshire
And the Royal Marine company to which those wankers belong should be disbanded and stricken from the rolls.
I think that point was where He crossed the line, the rest was just standard BS from a journo with no clue.
Ferry ticket to Lympstone? Im sure a few of my webfooted mates'd like a chat with him
Never ride faster than your guardian angel can fly
-
Samray
- Double World Champion
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:36 pm
- Location: Riding round with Sheene and Simoncelli
He is a prime example of US military 'intelligence'. 
Peters was born in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, but grew up in Schuylkill Haven. His father was a coal miner and unsuccessful businessman. Peters has written "I am a miner's son, and my father was a self-made man who unmade himself in my youth."
Peters enlisted in the Army as a private, and spent ten years in Germany working in military intelligence. Years later, during the 2004 Killian documents controversy, Peters pointed out that in his front-line division in 1977, five years after the memos in question were allegedly written, only the general's secretary had an electric typewriter. It was, he says, too primitive to produce the documents in question, and moreover, National Guard units "…got the junk we didn't want."
After returning from Germany, Peters attended Officer Candidate School and received his commission, eventually attending the Command and General Staff College. His last assignment was to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. He retired in 1998 with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
Peters has appeared on PBS, FOX News, CNN and other networks with commentary on military issues and current affairs.
Peters's first novel was Bravo Romeo, a spy thriller set in former West Germany. His novels progressed from futuristic scenarios involving the Red Army to contemporary terrorism and failed state issues. His characters are often presented as military mavericks who have the clairvoyance and courage to tackle problems others can't or won't.
They certainly seemed very happy to tell the Iranians what they wanted to hear but maybe they would be a bit more up for it in their own barracks!Kwackerz wrote:
Ferry ticket to Lympstone? Im sure a few of my webfooted mates'd like a chat with him
Like it or not Kwaks, most British people seem to think that the Marine's behaviour in captivity was sycophanitc at best.
The Falklands war started as much as anything because the Argentinians thought that we were a nation of poofs and cowards - and this was literally the info fed back from their military attache prior to the invasion. They were astonished when we fought back. Sadly, the result of this recent farce is that conflict is made more likely not less - the average man in the souk is likely to regard our low key response as cowardice on our part.
According to a Navy officer I spoke to today, the likely culprit is the rules of engagement combined with a feeling that they would not be backed up back home had they fought back, and would have been thrown to the lawyers. Seems likely to me when soldiers in Iraq get investigated for unlawful killings yet nothing whatever happens when plod kills an unarmed man yet again.
You have to contrast all this with the much more robust approach of the yanks. Would they have allowed the men to be captured? And when they do nothing about friendly fire incidents by their forces, how likely are they to worry about a few dead Iranians if their soldiers fought back.
Finally got round to reading what he has written and I agree with him.. But perhaps more to the point, thats what a foreigner thinks of what has happened. Do you believe that he is the only one to think like that? Do you think that the French would have a different idea. Or the Germans? Or the Iranians? Or do you think that is an increasingly common view of us abroad.D-Rider wrote:What a tosser!
yeah mate - why don't we just career in gung-ho, inflame the situation and set middle east relations back even further ....... and maybe send christmas cards to the still-unreleased captives a couple of years down the line.
Trouble is, we've seen his nation do this time after time ......
Got to remember that the US military didnt want us along during the Iraq invasion because they thought we were badly equipped and nothing like tough enough. Bush over ruled them - but we were still allocated the easier option down south.
You might not like to read what a foreigner says but that doesnt make it incorrect.
lazarus wrote:They certainly seemed very happy to tell the Iranians what they wanted to hear but maybe they would be a bit more up for it in their own barracks!Kwackerz wrote:
Ferry ticket to Lympstone? Im sure a few of my webfooted mates'd like a chat with him
Like it or not Kwaks, most British people seem to think that the Marine's behaviour in captivity was sycophanitc at best.
The Falklands war started as much as anything because the Argentinians thought that we were a nation of poofs and cowards - and this was literally the info fed back from their military attache prior to the invasion. They were astonished when we fought back. Sadly, the result of this recent farce is that conflict is made more likely not less - the average man in the souk is likely to regard our low key response as cowardice on our part.
According to a Navy officer I spoke to today, the likely culprit is the rules of engagement combined with a feeling that they would not be backed up back home had they fought back, and would have been thrown to the lawyers. Seems likely to me when soldiers in Iraq get investigated for unlawful killings yet nothing whatever happens when plod kills an unarmed man yet again.
You have to contrast all this with the much more robust approach of the yanks. Would they have allowed the men to be captured? And when they do nothing about friendly fire incidents by their forces, how likely are they to worry about a few dead Iranians if their soldiers fought back.
Thing is, we're not in conflict with Iran. Hence our ROE are going to be very low key when dealing with the likes of Iran.
They couldnt fire against the approaching vessels from the merchantman, that was running under a different flag. That on it's own wouldve caused an international incident (seeing as the iranians didnt open fire on approach, so the moral high ground of defending innocent civilians couldnt be used))
On returning to the RIB's which are under our Union Jack, theyre then outnumbered, outgunned and still on the edge of the ROE. More international incident waiting to rear it's head (Not to mention a suicidal act.. Bravery walks a fine line with Stupidity)
The heli had bugged out by then to avoid being shot down I believe. Ive yet to hear them being criticised.
Unlawful killing if they had opened fire? Most probably it wouldve stuck too with the fact that the Iranians arent currently 'at war' with us. The ROE mentions being under threat of loss of life. As they hadnt spoken to the Iranians as they approached, they were hardly in a position to say they were under threat. a few scary unshaven armed ragheads from Iran doesnt make for reason to shoot them.
The only people in a position to make that call are those guys amongst the 15. I think they did pretty well considering.
The Yanks do tend to have a more 'robust' approach as you put it.
The fact is that they have the manpower to support this, we sadly do not. -look at the size of our operation compared to them, then look at the results. They get 15 slotted in a skirmish? Pah. Throw in another 30 with bigger guns. We are but a small fish in a huge pond compared to the yanks, but we're still the ones out there in it (and winning it)
Question: 15 bods in a couple of dinghys taking on those gunships wouldve achieved what? Would you feel we'd spent your tax money better? Would the deaths of servicemen in action make you feel more British or something?
I cant see what them taking on those Iranians couldve proved, apart from a severe lack of understanding of the gravity of the situation.As another Question and an aside.. why didnt the two Cyclone-class fast patrol boats (USS Chinook and USS Whirlwind who ARE shallow hulled enough to have accompanied the RIBs or provide assistance and who were all under the same command) come to the aide of the RIBs? They were in the area. Presumably under the same ROE and couldve engaged the gunships in order recover the 15, surely?
I suppose the press interviews will give theme something to fill their fortnight's compassionate leave.
.... if I remember correctly the company I work for give 3 days compassionate for the death of a spouse, parent or child. Although I think this is rather un-generous, it's quite a contrast against a fortnight for coping with one of the hazzards of the job as part of HM forces - in a situation where no-one died (I'm pleased to say).
..... Discuss .....
.... if I remember correctly the company I work for give 3 days compassionate for the death of a spouse, parent or child. Although I think this is rather un-generous, it's quite a contrast against a fortnight for coping with one of the hazzards of the job as part of HM forces - in a situation where no-one died (I'm pleased to say).
..... Discuss .....