iranian sailors ultimatum

[badboy4life]

is not time to give the iranians an ultimatum, 24 hours to hand over the sailors or we take "action". i dont want another iraq war but if i was one of those sailors id want something done NOW!

[MrsT]

What do you expect when you have bunch of pansies running the country, what you need is me the Iron lady, I'd have sent Lewis Collins in mate, and wooped there ar5es.

[suffragette]

Sadly, I don't believe it will be possible to rescue these sailors militarily and diplomatic discussions must continue to free them safely, regardless of the time it takes to do this. Iran is three times the size of Iraq and not a place for ill conceived rescue operations, as the Americans discovered some years ago.

The Iranian zealots would love us to launch a rescue attempt as it would give them the media coup they desire and bolster their political strength internally. The more level headed members of their political leadership already view this incident as an own goal politically and economically and will no doubt be doing their utmost to limit the fallout from this situation.

My concern is why the sailors did not defend themselves adequately at the time of their capture, why their support ship was not in a position to 'cover' their actions militarily and why the sailors are talking to the Iranians and writing letters. Whatever happened to the principle of giving only your name, rank and number?

The Iranians are not Arabs by the way and do not speak Arabic, flip-flop.

[Loosehead]

They didn't defend themselves because of the Rules of engagement.

[IggyB]

what "action" could possibly be taken - a military option would be impossible, can you even imagine the SAS or such trying to sneak into built up iran? simply impossible to operate in though circumstances without a full scale military support both from the air and the arm e.g. not going to happen.
a diplomatic solution is needed here - though i doubt it will be easy

[suffragette]

The problem with the rules of engagement Loosehead is their contradictory nature. Apparently, the first rule for British forces is the right to use force to defend yourself. Does this mean to defend yourself only from death or does it include capture?

There is also a ruling that states one needs to use force effectively to accomplish one's objective, but one must avoid unnecessary force. How can one accomplish one's objective if taken prisoner and how does one resist capture without opening fire?

I accept the British do not like to be blamed for escalating a given sittuation, but if one is not prepared to resist, our military will have to accept they are liable to be subject to more embarrassing incidents like the one in the Gulf, unlike their American allies who are less likely to be inadequately armed or supported in such a task.

[anotheoldgit]

There's a whole lot of questions that need some answers.

On sky news it showed Faye Turney being interviewed on board her ship. Was this simply a coinsidence? How did a news correspondent happen to be aboard that Navy ship, prior to these hostages being taken?

Should a female be allowed to take part in patrols such as these, especially she also happens to be a mother?
Why was she wearing a scarf over her head, was it to show respect to her captives religion?

Today we have also seen Nathan Summers making a confession, and he did not look a bit under stress.
As suffrajette has already said what has happened to the need to just give out your name, rank and number?

It would seem that Gromit is not far wrong when he states that it could all have been engineered.

And I agree with Loosehead over our ridiculous Rules of Engagement. These stupid rules are daily putting the lives of our forces at risk both in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have to fight on equal terms as the insurgents, when in most cases it would just be a matter of sending in jets or gun ships to quell the attacks. They say the reason they do not do this, is because it could cause collatreral damage. A pity but a reallity of war, you cannot expect our troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

[Beria]

I'd drop a nuclear bomb on all their major cities. That would show them.

[don1]

Mrs T what would a homosexual do exactly?

[Gromit]

Teach them to be very bad actors presumably.

[Loosehead]

Suffragette, I was offering no opinion about the ROE, I was just reiterating what the reasons for not fighting where. I do not know the rules myself.

[MrsT]

So what are you saying don1 a gay SAS man isn't as good as a straight one? tut tut, homophobia, oh dear! Steady you'll get thrown out of the Guardianistas for that one! So is Lewis Collins gay then? never knew that, still he sorted out the baddies in Who Dares Wins. Better get the yanks to send in Rambo just in case, oh and Chuck Norris!

[stokeace]

loosehead you ought to look up your facts before shooting your mouth off the us didnt back us up with any military muscle during the falklands war and thats where it counts on the ground not letting us use their satellites to pinpoint ground movements which is all they did.

[Loosehead]

They didn't send troops but they made equipment available if needed up to and including aircraft carriers. That's what I was talking about, I know they didn't send troops etc and I said that in my original post to you.

[Gromit]

The US supplied valuable satellite images of troop and ship positions, which could clear up one or to anomalies in the present stand-off. The Americans will undoubtedly have proof either way of whose territorial waters the British captives were picked up in. The whole gulf is contantly surveyed 24/7. Strangely the US haven't come to our defence, which could mean the Iranians are correct, or the present situation suits the US.

[youngmafbog]

Don't know about you, but the sailors kidnapped by Iran turn my stomach. If you are captured by enemy you should give name, rank and serial number and nothing else. You don't make bleating videos asking for apology from your captors or criticising your own government's actions. They should face court martial on return to UK for cowardice in the face of the enemy.

There should be no negotiation with these lunatics. My parents always taught me, wisely, never argue with a fool.

Good old UN up to usual standards then !!

[MrBen5]

Hmmm, the government wont send any rescue team in yet as they are scared they upset the east. Iran are just seeing how far they can push the west. If they were american troops that had been kidnapped, (which is something Iran dare not do) george would have given them the ultimatum, like britain has, then stuck to his word and not backed down. He would have been in that country and done all his best to retrieve his fellow citizens.
This country wont do anything, through fear of all the do-gooders complaining. i think Tony should make a last stand and pass one more motion before he steps down.
Send in the cavalry and get our guys back...

[MrBen5]

Hmmm, gromit, i dont think the americans want to release that info in public just yet, as it isnt in their best interests. Iran are playing right into their hands at the moment.
Just like it is of no use to find Osama bin laden. If they did, then they would have to leave Afghanistan. In this day and age, it is all political. Countries will only release the info they want you to see...

[Gromit]

MrBen5

My point exactly when I said

"...the present situation suits the US. "

[BigDogsWang]

Apologise to Iran. Get the troops home. Then make them go public and tell the world what really happened. If they really were in the wrong, we did the right thing. If they weren't in the wrong, the truth will come out for the whole world to see, and judge, Iran.

[stokeace]

loosehead i do not wish to argue with you on this issue but we didnt need any assistance from the u.s in a military hardware sense the government asked them to send in troops to assist us liberate the islands and they flatly refused.whatever help they offered the british was purely minimal.