british soldiers cowards

[Super Pancake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42ACKzW_GQ8

and

John Derbyshire, National Review online

Once again, it's me and Ralph Peters on the same wavelength, deploring the cowardice of the British sailors and marines kidnapped by Iran. When it happened, I said I hoped the ones who'd shamed their country would be court-martialed on return to Blighty, and given dishonorable discharges after a couple years breaking rocks in the Outer Hebrides (which, believe me—I've been there—have a LOT of rocks). Now, I confess, I wouldn't shed a tear if some worse fate befell them.

The only coherent response I get to these sentiments is: "How do you know what they've been through? How would YOU stand up?" To which the obvious reply is the one Dr. Johnson gave in some similar case: "I may criticize a carpenter who makes me a bad table, though I cannot make a table myself. It is not my job to make tables." It is the job of a Royal Marine to fight, and if necessary suffer and die, for his country. They know that when they go in. It's what they are told! I nurse a quiet hope that if put to the test, I would stand up as well as any Marine. Whether or not I would, however, is irrelevant. Whether or not I could stand up well to torture, I expect Marines to.

And in any case, there was no evidence of torture or mistreatment in any of the filmed cases I have seen. They look just fine. You can't fake that. The girl sailor had that headscarf on within hours. From what I've heard of torture, even weaker cases can hold out for a few days.

As for the argument that these people might have buckled under threats to hurt their comrades, I should think a soldier's answer would be: "They are soldiers, same as me. They know the risks of service, and they'll answer for themselves."

In any case, a trained soldier will have been instructed that these Iranian fanatics are without any scruples. They practice what Lenin called "revolutionary morality"—i.e. whatever advances the revolution is good, whatever does not, is bad. It should be assumed that everything the Iranians say is a lie. If they say: "Do this, and we won't harm your mates," and you do it, they will harm your mates anyway. Of course, this kind of truth is much harder to get across to young people who have been brainwashed from elementary school to believe that their own culture is corrupt, evil, and false, while the cultures of Third World barbarians are morally superior...

I got that quote on another site but can't find the source for it on National Review online so not sure if its true but i found some other interesting blogs and articles questioning the actions of the soldiers and the pride of the British

Does anybody else feel they were cowards. I thought they did things alright but yeah playing into Iranian propaganda is pretty messed up.

[Devendra]

bull, so how these young sailors with their little machina gun on their rubber boat would take on Iranian Revolutionary Guards which consists of many war veterans and best iranian fighters?

Human life is not worth some bullets.

Edited April 7, 2007 by Devendra

[Aztec Warrior]

Despite the fact that the British sailors and marines looked like children, the real culprit here is the British Navy. They certainly didn't train their people if they become captured. They lost sight of the zodiacs, which they were supposed to protect and of the Iranians approaching.

Now the Royal Navy is licking its wounds and has suspended all boarding inspections.

CNN interviewed an American naval captain.......who said that could never have happened to US sailors, who are now doing the vacated job left behind by the British.

Edited April 7, 2007 by Aztec Warrior

[Dr. Strangelove]

Despite the fact that the British sailors and marines looked like children, the real culprit here is the British Navy. They certainly didn't train their people if they become captured. They lost sight of the zodiacs, which they were supposed to protect and of the Iranians approaching.

Now the Royal Navy is licking its wounds and has suspended all boarding inspections.

CNN interviewed an American naval captain.......who said that could never have happened to US sailors, who are now doing the vacated job left behind by the British.

Suuuure it wouldn't happen to the uber US Soldiers..

IF anything, the Brits have got better training than we do. Now, I *know* the soldiers who have families back here...wouldn't do something as stupid as stand up to them for being captured, and possibly, you know, DIE.

[Aztec Warrior]

Suuuure it wouldn't happen to the uber US Soldiers..

IF anything, the Brits have got better training than we do. Now, I *know* the soldiers who have families back here...wouldn't do something as stupid as stand up to them for being captured, and possibly, you know, DIE.

I didn't call the UK soldiers cowards, I said they looked like children. Which they did, fooling around, joking and giving eachother nuggies. And the female.........man is she fat. How can someone that overweight be in the Royal Navy or Marines in the first place. They don't give the appearance of fierce warriors........and that was backed up by their actions. Go figure.

[hippi]

Why would they have agreed to be boarded if they weren't in Iranian waters? Seems the Iranians would have had no right to do this, and the British would have been justified in refusing to be boarded. If the Iranians had fired on a British ship without cause, it would be considered an act of war. The British sailors should have known this, so even if they were no match for the Iranians, they should have known that the Iranians don't want to give George Bush and Tony Blair a good excuse for going to war with Iran.

[Raptor]

Because they decided not to risk their lives by kicking off a completely unnecessary battle with the Iranians, but instead tried to get out of the situation civilly, they're cowards?

[IronGhost]

I didn't call the UK soldiers cowards, I said they looked like children. Which they did, fooling around, joking and giving eachother nuggies. And the female.........man is she fat. How can someone that overweight be in the Royal Navy or Marines in the first place. They don't give the appearance of fierce warriors........and that was backed up by their actions. Go figure.

Ha! Ha! Not only is she fat, I found it amazing that she was smoking a cigarette while reading her "confession." An amazing bit of propaganda, I think that was. As we know, Muslims forbid the use of tobacco products -- maybe the Iranians wanted to portray the British as pudgy nicotine addicts, full of "western decadence."

But, anyway, I can't decide how I feel about how the Brits acted in this situation. They were in a difficult situation, for sure ... but ... I just don't know ...

[IamsSon]

Suuuure it wouldn't happen to the uber US Soldiers..

IF anything, the Brits have got better training than we do. Now, I *know* the soldiers who have families back here...wouldn't do something as stupid as stand up to them for being captured, and possibly, you know, DIE.

It's not that U.S. Military men are ubermen, it's just that they are well-trained and their tactics would make an encounter like the one that resulted in the capture of the 15 Brits highly unlikely. I do not consider these British military men cowards, but they certainly made some mistakes and did not seem to be well trained. And I am also surprised by the weight of the female. I think the lowering of physical standards to allow females into the military are partially to blame for this fiasco, and I think we are seeing that to some degree in our own military. I also believe this is one of the reasons why this war is being fought using so many special operations units... there are no females allowed, therefore, the standards have been maintained. I apologize for how condescending and insulting this may sound to any females reading this post, but it is the reality, a reality I experienced for myself while leading a unit composed of both males and females. Other than a very few exceptions, females are just not physically capable of meeting the standards which were developed based on real-life, combat experience, and so the military has had to change standards, reduce goals, and waive requirements which were instituted to promote the success of men in battle.

[Adam2006]

The Marines Profiles

The video with the press conference in the UK where they go through what happened and the conditions (wait for the advert to play and it will then play)

[Aztec Warrior]

Ha! Ha! Not only is she fat, I found it amazing that she was smoking a cigarette while reading her "confession." An amazing bit of propaganda, I think that was. As we know, Muslims forbid the use of tobacco products -- maybe the Iranians wanted to portray the British as pudgy nicotine addicts, full of "western decadence."

But, anyway, I can't decide how I feel about how the Brits acted in this situation. They were in a difficult situation, for sure ... but ... I just don't know ...

She apparently had that head scraf on within a few hours.

Don't the British have some on-going military training, or they just let their people ballon up? She is not a poster child for the Royal Navy. A far cry from this British photo.

Brrrr...now I'm frightened. She sure scared those Revolutionary Guards.

I totally agree with your cigarette analysis Iron.

[Bob26003]

Republicans and Conservatives view anything rational and not driven by rabid aggressive us verses them BS to be weak.

They view things such as logic, reason, sympathy, compassion.................. as weakness.

They view anything "intellectual" as evil...........

[ships-cat]

Hee hee - Either you are Stupid "super Pancake" or... more likely... you are being mischeivous...

The Royal Marines contingent could probably have fought off their attackers....

Sadly, they operate under "Rules of Engagement" mandated by the UK Government.

Now... if there ARE cowards here, I would suggest they are the aforementioned government. They - effectively - prevented the Marine party (and it's supporting Frigate... HMS Cornwall) from defending themselves.

There is no question of 'cowardice' on behalf of the Marines... once captured, they did whatever necessary (without compromising national security, or the safety of their colleagues) to get themselves out of the situation... hence the aquisence to those silly posed Iranian propoganda video's.

I would suggest that - had it not been for the timidity, perhaps treason, of the UK government, then

a) The marines would have fought off the Iranian Fejhadeen gunboats, but had this failed...

HMS Cornwall would have crossed territorial lines, and shelled Iran in retribution. (perhaps capturing the Abadan refinary as a warning).. and if THAT wasn't enough...

c) The cruise missles currently obliterating your inland refineries, oilfields and military bases are called "storm shadow"... and

d) The much-maligned Royal Navy (by Super-Pancake) have - at any time - at least TWO vanguard-class submarines within ICBM launch range of any target in Iran you might care to mention. Are you SURE you want to go through with this Mr Achmedinnerjacket ?

In summary- even our declining Royal Navy is more than capable of dealing with Iranian Republican Guard rabble... if ONLY the government would allow them to do it.

Meow Purr.

[Bill Hill]

I didn't call the UK soldiers cowards, I said they looked like children. Which they did, fooling around, joking and giving eachother nuggies. And the female.........man is she fat. How can someone that overweight be in the Royal Navy or Marines in the first place. They don't give the appearance of fierce warriors........and that was backed up by their actions. Go figure.

your post made me laugh. You're right.. when I first heard the news..I was expecting to see battle hardened royal Marines. Instead, they did look a bit 'gay' er I mean/meant young. young..cough that's right.

Edited April 7, 2007 by billyhill

[chaoszerg]

The soldiers did look young. But for people going on about them being cowards I don't think any of us would have done anything different in that situation and for those who are probably about to jump out and post I WOULD HAVE GONE DOWN FIGHTING...........bull. lol

[knott]

So they complied under duress and everyone know this. So what? They live to fight, with better odds, another day. IMO, that was the smartest thing to do. No sense going to a gun fight with a knife.

[Thanato]

They were out numbered and out gunned. Their mother ship couldn't get to them because of the Shallow Water and the Iranians had re-enforcements coming in. They did what they should of done surrender. It is either that or start a war which would of consumed many nations.

~Thanato

[ships-cat]

Nooo... I don't think so....

The sailors where captured because of the failure of the UK government.

The marines COULD have defended themselves, if the Rules of Engagement (set by UK government) had permitted it.

HMS Cornwall COULD have intervened with Force Majeure (dunno about shallow waters, but they had a Helicopter armed with anti-ship missles, and machine-guns, for gawds sake.. and even then, their Canon has a range of MANY miles) .. but where subject to the ROE...see above.

Regardless of the above, the Navy and the RAF together could have turned the Iranian gunboats' harbours/bases into ASH ... but the ROE prevented it.

Shame on my government... you sold our Marines into humiliation. Hey... not in MY name you didn't.

Elections are coming.... be afraid Tony.

Meow Hiss Growl (vote) Purr.

[Lee Harvey Oswald]

I felt they did as they had to do to get themselves home..

If they acted aggressively and did'nt comply with demands..we could have be looking at a whole different situation round about now..

I have no probem with how they conducted themselves..

[ships-cat]

Lee Harvey Oswald... I agree entirely with your opinion that the Marines made the best out of an impossible situation.

However, I re-iterate my previous comment... they should have been ALLOWED to defend themsevles..and HMS Cornwall's captain should have been ALLOWED to support them by all (violent) means available to his Type 22 Frigate.

However, the UK (my) government set the "rules of engagement" that castrated all of them... and allowed the Iranians to capture the marines, and make fools of all of us.

We learned in 1939 that Appeasment in the face of a violent, determined, expansionist fascist state DOES NOT WORK.

We seem to have forgotten this.

Meow "hiss growl" Purr.

[knott]

Nooo... I don't think so....

The sailors where captured because of the failure of the UK government.

The marines COULD have defended themselves, if the Rules of Engagement (set by UK government) had permitted it.

How about - the circumstances did not permit.

How about - they could have committed suicide being seriously out gunned

A defense and subsequent death of all the sailors would have sparked an international "crisis" - One that is best left for another day.

Edited April 7, 2007 by knott

[Super Pancake]

Hee hee - Either you are Stupid "super Pancake" or... more likely... you are being mischeivous...

Yo its not my opinion read my post I thought they handled the situation o.k., the only actions I disagreed with was them admitting they did wrong doing for Iranian tv.

[Bill Hill]

Yep, you’ve got to be careful in situations like these. Could’ve been the catalysis for world war III.

[Lee Harvey Oswald]

Lee Harvey Oswald... I agree entirely with your opinion that the Marines made the best out of an impossible situation.

However, I re-iterate my previous comment... they should have been ALLOWED to defend themsevles..and HMS Cornwall's captain should have been ALLOWED to support them by all (violent) means available to his Type 22 Frigate.

However, the UK (my) government set the "rules of engagement" that castrated all of them... and allowed the Iranians to capture the marines, and make fools of all of us.

We learned in 1939 that Appeasment in the face of a violent, determined, expansionist fascist state DOES NOT WORK.

We seem to have forgotten this.

Meow "hiss growl" Purr.

It seems we agree about a lot. The UK's rules of engagement are sometimes very obscure and vague. The troops are often poorly equipped to do the job in hand. I still think UK troops are among the finest and best led in the world. It seems to me burocracy and politics often tie their hands, when it would be better to back them to the hilt and unleash them.

[ships-cat]

Yep, you’ve got to be careful in situations like these. Could’ve been the catalysis for world war III.

Ohhh gosh - several posters have made similar comments, or danced around the topic.

I'm going to be deliberatly mischievous here.... just to see what happens....

"Nevil Chaimberland was RIGHT to negotiate with Hitler in 1938, and agree to (effectively) the invasion of Checkoslovakia, against an on-going background of Naze military expansion, after all.. had he OBJECTED.. we MIGHT have gone to war with Germany. "

"Tony was RIGHT not to allow the British Navy to be aggressive in protecting the Iraq coastal borders , against a background of continous Iranian probes and raides into international waters....... otherwise we MIGHT have gone to war with Iran"

Discuss

Meow Purr.