UK sailors captured at gunpoint

[Rich]

This was no "game of chance". It was a premeditated attack! One planned at the highest levels of Irans Govt. and carried out with military precision. Iran has been planning this ever since we nabbed their Intel operatives for arming Shiite insurgents. Or, maybe I took your "game of chance" comment in the wrong meaning.

Either way this is an old game in that region. Hostage taking has always been accepted in the mideast. Iran wants to bluff its way to becoming a nuclear power. And maybe there will be more then bluff to it. Remember, there's only a small cadre of men in that country that hold all the power. One in particular, Ali Khomeini, the Supreme Leader. A guy that's never seen by the west.

Let's hope with Eisenhower & Stennis both in the Gulf that we see an expedited diplomatic release of the hostages. Granted, US carriers don't necessarily add to the Brits' clout, but ...

We all look like a bunch of gelded weaklings. Call it what it is.

 

[drjn]

I was listening to the radio and heard the female sailor give her "statement". I was struck by her naming of her ship as "Foxtrot nine nine" rather than HMS XXX. Is it usual for RN sailors to refer to their ships by the hull number rather than its name? Or was she trying to confer that the statement was being made under duress?

 

[Tasman]

Oh and next time allied sailors or soldiers are close to the border I sure hope they'll be armed to the teeth and ready to react !!!

cheers

I agree completely with this, but it is also important that the rules of engagement are made crystal clear and are understood by everyone, including the Iranians! I can understand the British Government being careful not to inflame the situation whilst they are seeking ways to free the sailors but I hope appropriate instructions and rules of engagement have now been issued to the commanding officers of all ships engaged in this operation.

Before any boarding party is despatched in future I would expect at least the cover of a helicopter able to provide warning of any potentially hostile force and able to provide fire support if necessary. I worry that some of the helicopters presently attached to the force, like the Seahawk on the Australian frigate HMAS Toowoomba, for example, are not well equipped for ASuW.

It seems to me that we have two options with the naval force.

Option one is to ensure that it is ready to protect itself at all times. If this requires the destruction of Iranian ships interfering with the operation then it should be made clear to Iran that there will be no hesitation in carrying this out. Commanding officers should also be very clear as to what action will be expected from them in such a scenario.

Option two, IMO, is that we issue instructions that our ships and personnel are to withdraw as soon as an Iranian combat vessel appears on the scene. Personally, I'd rather see the force withdrawn completely than go down that path!

Cheers

 

[Manfred]

The Shat-al-Arab ought to be an international waterway. Any border that runs down the middle of a river like that is a joke. Ocean-going ships cannot turn around without wandering into both countries.

Rich- cool it. A war is what Iranian President Ach!mydirtyjob wants, so its better not to give him one. I think he skipped the trip to New York because he thought he would be overthrown while out of the office.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

They are the same things. They failed the world "because" they are a toothless debating society.

What? you think that the UN was supposed to have teeth? Take a look at its charter It cannot be anything more than what it is because that the way the membership, or to be exact the five veto holding nations wanted it to be. If the UN is toothless, complain to your government for making it that way.

Boy another fine contribution to the forum discussion. "Snort"!

Right you seem to think that those sailors would have fought to the death if ordered,{as if any commander would be so stupid to give such an order in those circumstances} despite being in a totally defenceless position, in rubber boats at sea, with limited ammunition like latter day Rambo's; you have no idea what the UN is and is not able to do, and you think I am making a useless post?
nfloorl:

 

[Big-E]

Before I have to run I just wanted to weigh in on this. I understand why the pommes didn't fight back, they had this happen a couple years back and got their lads in three days. it doesn't look it will be so easy this time. The stakes are much higher this time, we are out here rattling our sabers pretty hard. I hope we can settle this peacefully, I hate it when we have to break things.

 

[swerve]

...Rich- cool it. A war is what Iranian President Ach!mydirtyjob wants, so its better not to give him one. I think he skipped the trip to New York because he thought he would be overthrown while out of the office.

He isn't the sort of president who can be overthrown because he's out of the country. Iran doesn't work like that. He's not a dictator, he's not in command of the military, & he has a boss, so he's no more vulnerable to being overthrown when out of the country than when he's at home. He's only the head of the civil administration, operating subject to laws passed by the Majlis (which he has no authority) & oversight by the Supreme Leader (who has no say in day-to-day administration, but, among other things, appoints the heads of the armed forces & is nominally commander-in-chief).

There is a widespread misunderstanding of Ahmedinejads role & powers. "President" doesn't mean the same in Iran as in the USA. It's a less powerful, less important, role, in a very different system. There is no equivalent in it to the US president.

 

[contedicavour]

He isn't the sort of president who can be overthrown because he's out of the country. Iran doesn't work like that. He's not a dictator, he's not in command of the military, & he has a boss, so he's no more vulnerable to being overthrown when out of the country than when he's at home. He's only the head of the civil administration, operating subject to laws passed by the Majlis (which he has no authority) & oversight by the Supreme Leader (who has no say in day-to-day administration, but, among other things, appoints the heads of the armed forces & is nominally commander-in-chief).

There is a widespread misunderstanding of Ahmedinejads role & powers. "President" doesn't mean the same in Iran as in the USA. It's a less powerful, less important, role, in a very different system. There is no equivalent in it to the US president.

Yes, all this is true. Though we also need to take into account who is behind this President : he does have quite a lot of support from the working classes who resent the middle classes' growing revenues and their pro-Western culture attitude. He also has the support of the most conservative part of the establishment, including a majority of the clerics in the council who oversees the government's decisions. Last but not least, the Pasdaran are a paramilitary force which reminds me of our "black shirts" in fascist days and are almost as well equipped as the regular army.
So overthrowing this fellow risks provoking civil war and the outcome is all but assured.

cheers

 

[Rich]

Rich- cool it. A war is what Iranian President Ach!mydirtyjob wants, so its better not to give him one. I think he skipped the trip to New York because he thought he would be overthrown while out of the office.

I'm cool. Are you cool? Sorry but what I stated is fact. Most of all we Yanks, with those carrier wheeling around launching planes. When in the same moment everyone knows we arent going to use them.

We've been thru this before. Hostages, putting them on TVs, sending carriers to make a show. Your statement about the Iranian President shows you dont know anything about Iranian Politics. You somehow equate them to EuroPolitics, or Yanks ones, where a President is actually behold-ant to the people. Ive already explained how all the power in Iran is held by one man, The Supreme Leader.

I think its a mistake to declare those carriers operating an exercise. We may not think we are "gelded weaklings" but the people in that region, and most of the world, do!

The last thing Iran wants is a war with America. They have competent commanders there also, I'm sure, who would tell their assortment of theocratic Dictators that things wouldn't shape up to well for them. What they want is to rub our noses in manure on the world stage, even better when they can also be sure of not being attacked for it.

Thats my assessment of Iranian intentions. I'm sorry if anyone's pride is hurt.

 

[Scott]

In my previous post I made the mistake of taking the Iranians at their word that they would release the female sailor. A local radio commentator reminded us that truthfulness isn't a trait they are known for, especially when dealing with us infidels. He also pointed out how Hezbollah blamed Israel for the hostage they (Hezbollah) took and then for responding with force.

News item today says ruskie intel reporting US military buildup on Iranian border in preparation for attack with additional naval forces entering the gulf. http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...tary_Buildup_Near_Iranian_Borders30011148.php

Have to wonder who the ruskies are cooperating with, but they could easily be playing both sides.

Rochambeaux? :nutkick

 

[Dae JoYoung]

Dangerous Game

In chess, this would be considered a doubled-edged opening, something akin to Sicilian defense. I think they want the US to show the cards here, see if we're bluffing. Of course, as we have already scene, Bush is no gambler.

'Difficult to say who's really calling the shots here, how high does it go up in the food chain? All the way to Supreme Leader?

 

[Rich]

What? you think that the UN was supposed to have teeth? Take a look at its charter It cannot be anything more than what it is because that the way the membership, or to be exact the five veto holding nations wanted it to be. If the UN is toothless, complain to your government for making it that way.

We already pay 1/2 the bills for the thing.

I guess this guy needs me to do his research that not only "can" the UN authorize the use of force they have done so on several occasions. Here read it yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security". The most famous article of the UN Charter is Article 42[1]:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Chapter VII also gives the Military Staff Committee responsibility for strategic coordination of forces placed at the disposal of the UN Security Council. It is made up of the chiefs of staff of the five permanent members of the Council.

The UN Charter's prohibition of member states of the UN attacking other UN member states is central to the purpose for which the UN was founded in the wake of the destruction of WWII: to prevent war. This overriding concern is also reflected in the Nuremberg Trials' concept of a crime against peace "starting or waging a war against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of a state, or in violation of international treaties or agreements..." (crime against peace), which was held to be the crime that makes all war crimes possible.

No doubt you'll come back with some witticism, flanked by some smilie, which means several different things, and the same thing, at once. My advice is to research your posts before you share them, that is if your intent is to make a contribution in the first place.

Right you seem to think that those sailors would have fought to the death if ordered,{as if any commander would be so stupid to give such an order in those circumstances} despite being in a totally defenceless position, in rubber boats at sea, with limited ammunition like latter day Rambo's; you have no idea what the UN is and is not able to do, and you think I am making a useless post?

Yeah I do, "were you ever in military service"? I think they were bushwhacked and surprised by a superior force of trained Militiamen.

 

[Dr Phobus]

I feel very strongly on this matter:

1- the saliors were to vunerable, lack support, firepower for such a contested area where other personal had been taken before. This is a total failure to appericate the tactical situation by the British.

2- i do believe the iranian would in no way would have done this too a group of american personal.

3- I do feel the personal will be return, but not for 1-3 months.

4- The british are somewhat humiliated by this conduct, (in that it emphasises our lack of capability) and an inability too react in any way save dipolmatically. Albeit diplomacy is the first and right action too take

 

[windscorpion]

Yes the RN really need to look at this gap in their capabilities, they need something that can act in those shallow waters and has some decent firepower. The RN used to have a fair bit of experience of the old gunboats in Mesopotamia of course.

 

[Land-Man]

Assuming the location of the hostages is known, does the SAS have the ability to attempt a rescue?

 

[swerve]

Assuming the location of the hostages is known, does the SAS have the ability to attempt a rescue?

The location of the hostages is almost certainly unknown. But the answer is, if known, yes: attempt. And fail.

I don't see how it would be possible unless they're in the sort of place the Iranians are clever enough not to put them, and all in the same place.

 

[harryriedl]

in my opinion the britsh are in a simlar position to the USA when the Amricans were kidnapped Irain and held hostage [i can't rember for how long].

 

[swerve]

We already pay 1/2 the bills for the thing....

Nowhere near. Agreed to pay 22% of the regular budget (the running cost of the organisation), 27% of the peacekeeping budget, but the USA consistently fails to pay in full. Funding of voluntary programmes pushes the US share of UN & UN-associated spending up a bit, but still nowhere near half. Not even a third. In absolute terms, significantly less than the combined EU countries.

Every time a survey is done in the USA in which there are questions about this topic, almost everyone questioned grossly overestimates the US contribution to the UN, so you're not alone.

 

[ssmoore]

Nowhere near. Agreed to pay 22% of the regular budget (the running cost of the organisation), 27% of the peacekeeping budget, but the USA consistently fails to pay in full. Funding of voluntary programmes pushes the US share of UN & UN-associated spending up a bit, but still nowhere near half. Not even a third. In absolute terms, significantly less than the combined EU countries.

Every time a survey is done in the USA in which there are questions about this topic, almost everyone questioned grossly overestimates the US contribution to the UN, so you're not alone.

Well if you want to combine them to show there contribution thats fine as it reflects almost 650 million people. So I guess they should be paying more. As a matter of fact I would prefer they pay it all and we just get out .

Then I may get a tax reduction on my paycheck

 

[Thumper]

US has been stealing lots of Iranian spies "illegally" all over that region recently.

Do you care to equate how Iranian agents caught in the act inside another nation actively fomenting civil war is the same as a handful of British sailors perfomring legitimate, UN sanctioned searching for insurgents in international waters. The fact that they may or may not have inadvertantly crossed in to Iranian territorial waters is irrelevant. If they where in Iranian waters the Iranians should have told them to leave. You don't just take hostages like that and them keep them for days and parade them on TV. That is a gross overeaction by the Iranians. All this does is deflect attention from all the other trouble they are causing as well as keep the price of oil high.

Of course it's hard to sit by and do nothing but right now taking this matter to the UN is the best thing to do.

Every time a survey is done in the USA in which there are questions about this topic, almost everyone questioned grossly overestimates the US contribution to the UN, so you're not alone.

Sorry Swerve you are wrong. When you add up the US contribution to the UNs operating budget (which is where you get your 22% from) add in the US contribution to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world and add the additional interagency funds given to the various UN organizations the number comes to about 50%. It's only 22% when you use the usual Euro fact twisting and conveniently leave the rest out.

As for not paying in full that again is a stretch. It happens rarely and usually a token amount when there is disagreement of how the UN should be run. I think if you pay the largest percentage of the bill you should have a say in how it is run don't you think thats fair?

Here, facts to enlighten you.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060630-121948-5466r_page2.htm