Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Bunch of Pussies!!
NotUkOnly    4/7/2007 4:25:44 PM
Hey Im British and Im ashamed to admit that!! After this Iranian situation and the way the Rn & Marines admitted they were in Iranian waters even though we know they werent and the way the just gave in makes me feel that we have now have a bunch of Pussies in our Amed Forces The French would be proud!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
sofa       4/15/2007 12:50:36 AM




Before I put the Rn & Marines down I would like to know what there orders were. If they were obeying orders then I would go after the person who gave the orders, not the Rn & Marines.




They were following the United Nations rules of engagement e.g., shoot only when shot at ...

 


So British forces are Blue hats?
UK has surrendered it's sovereignty to corrupt international bureacracy?
I thought Mr Blair was the final word on British ROE?
 
 
Also, "shoot only when shot at" is not UN ROE, in general, or within this specific theater.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Jimme       4/15/2007 5:09:56 AM





Here in NY we had a soldier who threw himself on top of a grenade to save the rest of his buddies for crying out loud. Thats a soldier, thats a warrior, thats the type of service men i hear day in and out being berated by many UK posters as being incompetent louses. so don't talk to me about them having been scared, if they couldn't stand the heat they shouldn't have been in the kitchen.

It all boils down to there behavior being fine for an average Joe, not a trained soldier in what many of yous consider the "best trained military in the world".


This is an extraordinarily unproductive discussion.

Seems pretty plain that some of you American contributors really don't want the British in Iraq...perhaps best therefore if the allies pack up and leave it to the good ole US of A.....after all it's going so well isn't it?

 

I've got to say I'm discomforted by the actions of the naval personnel and the marines, but this slanging match seems just an opportunity for some aggrieved Americans (and the odd half witted Frenchman) to try settle to a few old scores. Nothing is said that is helpful, nothing is said that is insightful, just hysterical nonsense.

 

In the circumstances,  time for that Bex and a good lie down.

 

Trev

Its not that I or any other US posters have a bone to pick or that we don't appreciate and value the support the UK has given us through out the years. Its mainly that we are a team, the US UK OZ and even the Canadians, and if you haven't noticed , its pretty much us against the world. Much like in life were you have plenty of acquaintances but only a few true friends. You and your comrades form a crew, and when one in your crew appears weak your whole crew looks weak. not a good situation.

Now say one of my friends has a very cool sister. Now this friends sister gets raped, should my friend be the only one who is upset? No we all feel the pain. But if my friend acts like its no big deal and doesn't care to much about apprehending the perp saying "well at least she's alive". I would have to wonder what the hell is wrong with him and natural be concerned.

The UK military was raped by a bunch of low lives and from what it seems not many over there appear to care. So long as we got them back unharmed thats what counts right? WRONG, you were at Iran's mercy and it was because of there "kindness" they decided to let the hostages go.

To add insult to injury the elite RM hostages portrayed themselves as a bunch of pansies. These weren't supply line escorts they were a boarding party! they should have been prepared for such situations and at least been of better stock then what we seen on display. Honestly i think the US Coast Guard would have performed better. Your forces are supposed to be legendary, i had always believed the hype, now I can only view it as just that, hype.


Now the worst part is that instead of being outraged, it seems most of the Brits including those on this site think things happened just as they should have. The few  like NotUKOnly seem to me in the minority, not a good sign.



Now about the procedures.

What exactly do these supposed UN RoE have to do with O.I.F.? worrying about UN procedures should have went out the door the minute the unsanctioned (by the UN) war started.

Now what if the incident had happened over land on Iraqi territory, would they have not been engaged regardless what flag flew on their trucks? They knew they were in the right and that they had the authority and should have acted as such. The Marines may have been immediately outnumbered but in the big picture the Iranians  were not only out  numbered, but out gunned and out classed.  Its the very concept correction officers face every day as they maintain order in the prison systems, they may be out numbered by the inmates yet the officers still hold all the cards and act accordingly.

 
Quote    Reply

Padfoot       4/15/2007 6:04:12 AM
"What exactly do these supposed UN RoE have to do with O.I.F.? worrying about UN procedures should have went out the door the minute the unsanctioned (by the UN) war started."

I didn't know we were at war with Iran. lol

So when is the US going to react to all those American troops that have died at the hands of Iran?





 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       4/15/2007 7:31:19 AM
I totally fail to see the relevance of analogies on the lines of 'what if someone raped your neighbour's wife'.  Reducing complex international relations to fifth rate tabloidism is not worth wasting time on, suffice to say if such stupidity had been offered at my school the offender would have been laughed to death.
 
I still note that amongst all the hot air no one has yet explained how it would have been in UK's national interest to have started shooting at Iranians (or at what point they should have started shooting).
 
There is, of course, one interesting question about the RoE, why were the 'do not shoot unless shot at' rules being applied in Iraqi territorial waters?  However, even then since the Iranians were clearly identifiable as such, that there is no war between UK and Iran, and that there was no reason to consider the Iranians a lethal threat (and they've proved themselves not to be) its an academic point. 
 
I also still want to know why the RN/RM should be criticised for acting in a way that they hoped and judged would get them out of Iran ASAP.  My view is that their first duty was to get out, since a prison break wasn't a realistic option (I doubt they even knew exactly where they were and and I suspect that not even the UK has an escape line operating in Iran), clearly a bit of cooperation was going to be the price. 
 
Some might argue that they should have had guidelines on the limits to acceptable cooperation in case of seizure by a neutral party.  The problem is you have to assume that the holding party would have a good idea on those limits and may then work hard to have the captives break them if they were so minded and how ever long it takes (but, of course, the Iranians may not have wanted to go that far).  Apart from the sado-masochists on this list I can't see people thinking that's a very clever idea.   The normal key principle in resistance to enemy methods of interrogation is to hold out long enough to outdate any tactical information that you may have.  It's a bit difficult to apply this principle when taken by a legally neutral party. 
 
Of course it might also be argued that they should have copied the RAF PW in GW1 - bashed their faces against the wall to make it look as if they'd been done over.  However, I suspect the Iranians are much more media savvy and would merely have held them incommunicado until the damage had healed.
 
The key questions in the whole saga are the most difficult ones - what were the Iranians trying to achieve and was it an action agreed by all key parties in the Iranian govt or was it a stunt by one group.
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym       4/15/2007 11:07:37 AM
"What exactly do these supposed UN RoE have to do with O.I.F.? worrying about UN procedures should have went out the door the minute the unsanctioned (by the UN) war started."

Actually according to the numerous resolutions and sanctions placed upon Iraq this war was sanctioned by his violation of all of them.  The only reason you think this isn't UN approved is because no one cares to read the fine print.

The moment Saddam violated the Sanctions he became a UN approved target for war.
 
Quote    Reply

tjkhan    Pseudonym    4/16/2007 5:04:56 AM

"What exactly do these
supposed UN RoE have to do with O.I.F.? worrying about UN procedures
should have went out the door the minute the unsanctioned (by the UN)
war started."

Actually according to the numerous resolutions and sanctions placed upon Iraq this war was sanctioned by his violation of all of them.  The only reason you think this isn't UN approved is because no one cares to read the fine print.

The moment Saddam violated the Sanctions he became a UN approved target for war.


 
Alright, let's deal with two issues.
 
Firstly, the RoEs in the Gulf.
 
At least as far as Australia is concerned, the commitment tio the Gulf is quite different from the comjmitment to Iraq...they are separated by geography and time.
 
My recollection (and it of course could prove to be wrong) is that the commitment of forces to the Gulf receeded by some time the invasion of Iraq. My recollection also is that the inteception of craft in the Gulf had everything to do with the enfocement of the blockade. In thsoe circumstances the presence of ships in the Gulf, and the interception of vessels may well be dependent upon quite separate UN resolutions.
 
The further matter to keep in mind is that the presence of ships in the Gulf had evrything to tdoith the "Oil for Food" Programme, it had nothing to do with the Iranians....to that extent the RoEs may well hav never envisaged what occurred to the RN/Marine boarding party.
 
Second thing, and let's call a spade a spade....the issue for some of us is tyhe Americamna approach of "shoot first and ask questions later".
 
At the end off the day the issue is not as to the amount of training, it is attitudinal......
 
So, let's look at a sdtory out of Afghanistan and consider whether this reflects a mode of conduct which is "satisfactory.
 
Read on, Trev:
 

US troops in Afghan rampage

A PLATOON of US marine special forces went on a shooting rampage in Afghanistan last month, killing 12 civilians - including a four-year-old girl and a one-year-old boy - and wounding at least 33 others, according to a US military inquiry and a report by the Afghan human rights commission.

A convoy of marines in six Humvees responded to a suicide bomber's roadside ambush in Nangarhar province by shooting at passers-by on a 16km stretch of road near Jalalabad.

Citing a US commander who ordered an investigation into the killings, The Washington Post said there was no evidence the marine special operations platoon came under small-arms fire after the bombing, although the marines reported taking enemy fire and seeing people with weapons. The troops continued shooting at perceived threats as they travelled along the road from the site of the March4 attack, said Major General Frank Kearney, head of US Special Operations Command Central, the report found.

The marines hit several vehicles, killing at least 10 people and wounding 33, among them children and elderly villagers.

"We found ... no (evidence) we can confirm that small-arms fire came at them," General Kearney is quoted by the paper as saying. "We have testimony from marines that is in conflict with unanimous testimony from civilians at the sites."

According to a BBC report, US military spokesman Major William Mitchell said in Afghanistan immediately after the March 4 attack: "We certainly believe it's possible that the incoming fire from the ambush was wholly or partly responsible for the civilian casualties."

But at the weekend, General Kearney said of the casualties: "My investigating officer believes those folks were innocent ... we were unable to find evidence those were fighters."

On General Kearney's orders, the US Naval Criminal Investigative Service is conducting an investigation that could lead to courts-martial of those involved, the Post said.

The results of the preliminary US investigation are similar to the findings of an official Afghan human-rights inquiry and contradict initial reports that the civilians might have been killed in a small-arms attack that followed the suicide bombing.

 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym       4/16/2007 10:43:48 PM
"On General Kearney's orders, the US Naval Criminal Investigative Service is conducting an investigation that could lead to courts-martial of those involved, the Post said."

...

No offense, but of any war in known history, I would have to say this one has the least civilian impact ever.

Then again you ask for a level of perfection Jesus Christ alone is able to achieve.

Us mere mortals must take the inevitable mistakes and criminal actions and proceed from there, like normal, with an investigation.

Anyways, your message is getting across.  Most Americans want nothing to do with foreign entanglements now.

I am going to laugh when a nuclear Iran shuts down the straits and the USA with our oil coming from the America's says no thank you, you get your own oil your damned selves.

I expect people to be paying tribute, or "tolls", in the Med eventually.
 
Quote    Reply

tjkhan    Pseudonym   4/17/2007 6:58:59 AM


No offense, but of any war in known history, I would have to say this one has the least civilian impact ever.

Then again you ask for a level of perfection Jesus Christ alone is able to achieve.

Us mere mortals must take the inevitable mistakes and criminal actions and proceed from there, like normal, with an investigation.

Anyways, your message is getting across.  Most Americans want nothing to do with foreign entanglements now.




I am not quite sure what message you say is getting across, but let's get some things straight...
 
Firstly, it was various American posters who have attacked the British....as I said, I am discomforted by what happened, however, some American posters have sought to cast their net far wider than this particular incident.
 
Secondly, the suggestion that the British are/were "faint hearted" has been a oft repeated theme. The alternative to that is the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach.
 
The incident to which I refer, regrettably, symptomatic of the latter approach. 
 
Trev
 
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym       4/17/2007 10:04:38 AM
"Firstly, it was various American posters who have attacked the British....as I said, I am discomforted by what happened, however, some American posters have sought to cast their net far wider than this particular incident."

As I have pointed out, I am sure it had nothing to do with the courage of the RN servicemen and woman.  I have watched UK ROE's in effect and even the Iranians knew what the reaction would be.  That is why they chose them.  Putting those sailors so close to Iranian waters with inadequate protection was a political decision designed to minimize the footprint so close to Iran.  Apparently the Iranians do not respect your respect for them, and consider it instead a weakness to be exploited.

Needless to say TJ, why are you all of a sudden mad that Americans dare to respond with the same condemnation that you and the UK and EU posters have heaped upon us?

I'm not sure if it was this thread or the other, but allow me to repeat my observation on this fact.

Shoe, meet other foot.
 
"Secondly, the suggestion that the British are/were "faint hearted" has been a oft repeated theme. The alternative to that is the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach."

Better then the stuck in Iran as hostages used against your government theme.

We already had our Iranian Hostage Crisis, a small boat incident with some dead on both sides is much better then the War Iran would start if it took Americans hostage.  And trust me, it would start a war.  Then again considering Iran's nuclear ambitions and stated aims perhaps a war with them right now would be in the worlds best interest.

Unfortunately for you, I think the USA is going to end up letting the EU deal with Iran.

"The incident to which I refer, regrettably, symptomatic of the latter approach."

Wrong, the incident to which you refer was caused by the Marines using the WRONG ROE's.  The UK used the right ROE's in their incident.  Which is why the Marines in question are going to get investigated and any wrongdoing will be subject to courtmartial.  By giving them the right to defend themselves we have put alot of responsibility on them, and when they make a mistake like this they are punished.

Anyways, we have 10 times the people involved of everyone else combined.

Statistically where do you think most mistakes will end up under those circumstances?

Also remember there have been plenty of allied screwups, it is just that they usually don't make the news.  The only country with a big kick me sign taped on by the media is the USA.  Every one of our allies including the UK gets an almost free pass.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    How laughable   4/17/2007 1:49:37 PM
People who have never been in a similar situation passing judgement on men and a woman.  They were out of supporting distance of their ship and it was shear suicide to resist. 
 
To resist would not have been courageous but in fact foolhardy, and any officer who would have needlessly gotten his sailors and Marines killed for no good should be court martialed.  This is not a case of holding a position at all costs. 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics