How exactly did 15 armed british sailors just get "captured"?

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: Alphathree33

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: UNESC0
two rubber dingheys and 15 soldiers with automatic weapons vs. 7 fast attack boats made out of metal armed with heavy machine guns...

Bingo. Plus the HMS Cornwall radioed in for permission to engage but was denied.

Oh really? What a bunch of pussies then. Why even HAVE a military if you're too scared to use it when your own soldiers are being abducted.

They should've decimated every Iranian ship in the area, even at the cost of their own 15 sailors. It's a loss now, but it would send a message for the future: mess with our people in uniform and get OWNED.

The message they've sent now is: If you want some political bargaining power, abduct our sailors. We won't do jack sh!t all about it.

Agree

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Luthien

Originally posted by: Alphathree33

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: UNESC0
two rubber dingheys and 15 soldiers with automatic weapons vs. 7 fast attack boats made out of metal armed with heavy machine guns...

Bingo. Plus the HMS Cornwall radioed in for permission to engage but was denied.

Oh really? What a bunch of pussies then. Why even HAVE a military if you're too scared to use it when your own soldiers are being abducted.

They should've decimated every Iranian ship in the area, even at the cost of their own 15 sailors. It's a loss now, but it would send a message for the future: mess with our people in uniform and get OWNED.

The message they've sent now is: If you want some political bargaining power, abduct our sailors. We won't do jack sh!t all about it.

Agree

fortunately for the world, Britain employs leaders whose sanity, diplomacy, intelligence and reason far exceed you two.

 

[Alphathree33]

Originally posted by: Dacalo

Originally posted by: Alphathree33
They should've decimated every Iranian ship in the area, even at the cost of their own 15 sailors. It's a loss now, but it would send a message for the future: mess with our people in uniform and get OWNED.

The message they've sent now is: If you want some political bargaining power, abduct our sailors. We won't do jack sh!t all about it.

Wow, just sad. No wonder so many Americans are oblivious to international politics.

Do you mean oblivious to spineless European appeasement strategies that don't work?

EDIT: P.S. I'm a Canadian, born and raised.

 

[Alphathree33]

Originally posted by: fishface313

Originally posted by: Alphathree33

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: UNESC0
two rubber dingheys and 15 soldiers with automatic weapons vs. 7 fast attack boats made out of metal armed with heavy machine guns...

Bingo. Plus the HMS Cornwall radioed in for permission to engage but was denied.

Oh really? What a bunch of pussies then. Why even HAVE a military if you're too scared to use it when your own soldiers are being abducted.

They should've decimated every Iranian ship in the area, even at the cost of their own 15 sailors. It's a loss now, but it would send a message for the future: mess with our people in uniform and get OWNED.

The message they've sent now is: If you want some political bargaining power, abduct our sailors. We won't do jack sh!t all about it.

1. They weren't "abducted".
b. You're an idiot.
III. I bet you wouldn't be calling them pussies if you were in their shoes!

1. ab·duct (ab-dukt') To carry off by force; kidnap.

b. Thank you, that was very insightful and clearly relevant.

III. True, but if I recall correctly the British military is currently all-volunteer. They knew the risks going in. Besides, I'll bet the marines would've fought; the politicians were the pussies, and they weren't even the ones who would be shot at.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

/me bangs head into desk

How many times is this going to be asked?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Luthien

Originally posted by: Alphathree33

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: UNESC0
two rubber dingheys and 15 soldiers with automatic weapons vs. 7 fast attack boats made out of metal armed with heavy machine guns...

Bingo. Plus the HMS Cornwall radioed in for permission to engage but was denied.

Oh really? What a bunch of pussies then. Why even HAVE a military if you're too scared to use it when your own soldiers are being abducted.

They should've decimated every Iranian ship in the area, even at the cost of their own 15 sailors. It's a loss now, but it would send a message for the future: mess with our people in uniform and get OWNED.

The message they've sent now is: If you want some political bargaining power, abduct our sailors. We won't do jack sh!t all about it.

Agree

Triple agree. If you want to score cheap points by looking tough in the arab world, kidnap some Brits. It's safe, effective and fun. England is well on their way to becoming France. If you're unwilling to fight why on earth are you using your military in the first place?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Alphathree33

Originally posted by: Dacalo

Originally posted by: Alphathree33
They should've decimated every Iranian ship in the area, even at the cost of their own 15 sailors. It's a loss now, but it would send a message for the future: mess with our people in uniform and get OWNED.

The message they've sent now is: If you want some political bargaining power, abduct our sailors. We won't do jack sh!t all about it.

Wow, just sad. No wonder so many Americans are oblivious to international politics.

Do you mean oblivious to spineless European appeasement strategies that don't work?

I half agree with you and half agree with everyone else.

On the one hand, Iran will return those captive men and women unharmed - guaranteed. So risking a live fire engagement is a little bit inappopriate.

On the other hand, do you allow other nations to capture and parade around your citizens - worse, members of your armed forces - whenever they feel like giving themselves an ego boost? You don't want to give the impression that you're too toothless (politically speaking, we know the Brits could spank Iran) to protect your own people - it merely invites further trouble.

I'm glad I'm not the one who had to make that call, and it's easy to criticize either way it went down. Personally, I would hope that my nation would go to bat for me and not let me get carted off. Even if it meant a shooting war.

 

[maddogchen]

first...as squad leader in your little bitty rafts, you don't know what the Iranian's intentions were until they took you.

second...their ship has a bigger gun and better protection so resisting would only lead to sure death.

third...once you've been engaged, your mothership can't blow them out of the water or risk killing you.

fourth...british value british lives more than sending some message.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Luthien

Originally posted by: Alphathree33

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: UNESC0
two rubber dingheys and 15 soldiers with automatic weapons vs. 7 fast attack boats made out of metal armed with heavy machine guns...

Bingo. Plus the HMS Cornwall radioed in for permission to engage but was denied.

Oh really? What a bunch of pussies then. Why even HAVE a military if you're too scared to use it when your own soldiers are being abducted.

They should've decimated every Iranian ship in the area, even at the cost of their own 15 sailors. It's a loss now, but it would send a message for the future: mess with our people in uniform and get OWNED.

The message they've sent now is: If you want some political bargaining power, abduct our sailors. We won't do jack sh!t all about it.

Agree

Triple agree. If you want to score cheap points by looking tough in the arab world, kidnap some Brits. It's safe, effective and fun. England is well on their way to becoming France. If you're unwilling to fight why on earth are you using your military in the first place?

Pretty sure we would have done the same thing in that situation... would you want to be the admiral or lower-level officer who started a war with Iran without the president's permission? If they didn't fire first or demonstrate their intention to fire first, I don't think we would have fired a shot. Better to sort it out afterwards.

Edit: And if we thought another country was conducting military operations in our territorial waters as the Iranians apparently thought, we'd probably capture them too!

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Alphathree33
If you're with an armed boarding party of the British navy and you've been trained to use a gun, presumably to shoot and kill enemies... and then armed enemies come aboard... do you just say, "ah, we give up"!?!

I don't understand how this happened. One, two, three sailors... sure, maybe they had no hope of winning.

But FIFTEEN? How many marines did the Iranians have that they just gave up? And where were the British navy ships... not nearby? Why the hell not?

I'm just confused.

Do you think that the Iranians just swam out there and boarded the boats that the Brits were on?

yes

 

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Luthien

Originally posted by: Alphathree33

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: UNESC0
two rubber dingheys and 15 soldiers with automatic weapons vs. 7 fast attack boats made out of metal armed with heavy machine guns...

Bingo. Plus the HMS Cornwall radioed in for permission to engage but was denied.

Oh really? What a bunch of pussies then. Why even HAVE a military if you're too scared to use it when your own soldiers are being abducted.

They should've decimated every Iranian ship in the area, even at the cost of their own 15 sailors. It's a loss now, but it would send a message for the future: mess with our people in uniform and get OWNED.

The message they've sent now is: If you want some political bargaining power, abduct our sailors. We won't do jack sh!t all about it.

Agree

fortunately for the world, Britain employs leaders whose sanity, diplomacy, intelligence and reason far exceed you two.

lol, if you think it is just us then your as dumb as they come. It isnt like the Iranians havent kidnapped americans before, hijacked cruise boats, planes, american students etc. With a leader as beligerent as the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatening isreal and the USA with nuclear anihilation backing it up with a religious zealatry that demands armageddon before Muhammad can return I definately believe we should if possible have prevented them being taken. Now those men are likely going to have their heads cut off while muslims chant allah be praised and we sit back watching it on TV humiliated, enraged yet impotent because of people like YOU who would rather praise allah than allow soldiers to do their jobs.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Luthien
lol, if you think it is just us then your as dumb as they come. It isnt like the Iranians havent kidnapped americans before, hijacked cruise boats, planes, american students etc. With a leader as beligerent as the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatening isreal and the USA with nuclear anihilation backing it up with a religious zealatry that demands armageddon before Muhammad can return I definately believe we should if possible have prevented them being taken. Now those men are likely going to have their heads cut off while muslims chant allah be praised and we sit back watching it on TV humiliated, enraged yet impotent because of people like YOU who would rather praise allah than allow soldiers to do their jobs.

In case you hadn't noticed, we're busy with another war at the moment.

You know, there are muslims who aren't terrorists, right? I don't think we'll see any beheadings here.

 

[FoBoT]

their rules of engagement must not have allowed them to fire on the iranians <shrugs>

dumb war lawyers

 

[Miramonti]

If you listen Iran, they plucked them from Iranian waters.

If you listen to Britain, Iran came to Britain and plucked them from their beds right after they put their children to sleep.

 

[EKKC]

good we need another World War. WW2 games are getting boring these days. maybe this will finally be a breath of fresh air for the War FPS Genre.

/badjoke

 

[nageov3t]

the british sailors were smart enough to try and avoid starting WW3 by attacking iran?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Luthien

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Luthien

Originally posted by: Alphathree33

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: UNESC0
two rubber dingheys and 15 soldiers with automatic weapons vs. 7 fast attack boats made out of metal armed with heavy machine guns...

Bingo. Plus the HMS Cornwall radioed in for permission to engage but was denied.

Oh really? What a bunch of pussies then. Why even HAVE a military if you're too scared to use it when your own soldiers are being abducted.

They should've decimated every Iranian ship in the area, even at the cost of their own 15 sailors. It's a loss now, but it would send a message for the future: mess with our people in uniform and get OWNED.

The message they've sent now is: If you want some political bargaining power, abduct our sailors. We won't do jack sh!t all about it.

Agree

fortunately for the world, Britain employs leaders whose sanity, diplomacy, intelligence and reason far exceed you two.

lol, if you think it is just us then your as dumb as they come. It isnt like the Iranians havent kidnapped americans before, hijacked cruise boats, planes, american students etc. With a leader as beligerent as the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatening isreal and the USA with nuclear anihilation backing it up with a religious zealatry that demands armageddon before Muhammad can return I definately believe we should if possible have prevented them being taken. Now those men are likely going to have their heads cut off while muslims chant allah be praised and we sit back watching it on TV humiliated, enraged yet impotent because of people like YOU who would rather praise allah than allow soldiers to do their jobs.

Iran has threatened the US and Israel with nuclear annihilation? That's news to me.

In fact, there isn't one shred of proof that Iran has nuclear weapons, or even nuclear weapons specific components. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed gives them every legal right to do what they are currently doing: producing fuel for nuclear reactors.

How dumb can Americans be to fall for the same trick twice? First chasing non-existent WMDs in Iraq, and now looking for non-existent nuclear weapons in Iran?

 

[jdoggg12]

Isn't this like asking why 300 soldiers didn't win the war at thermapyle?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: yllus
On the other hand, do you allow other nations to capture and parade around your citizens - worse, members of your armed forces - whenever they feel like giving themselves an ego boost? You don't want to give the impression that you're too toothless (politically speaking, we know the Brits could spank Iran) to protect your own people - it merely invites further trouble.

Not being willing to respond with force only emboldens your attackers. This is fundamentally a matter of national respect. Iran clearly does not respect England in the same way they do the US, that's why they grabbed British sailors instead of US troops. Iran's government may hate us but they certainly respect that we have both the capability and the will to use force to defend our people and sovereignty.

 

[Double Trouble]

Behond, Luthien, one of our resident dimwits.

Lets see. Two scenarios. First scenario, the brits respond with force, blow up some ships, most likely getting their 15 soldiers killed in the process. Possible war with Iran. Scenario two: sailors are kidnapped, but remain alive. No war is triggered. Sailors will most likely come home unharmed. Option to go in with all guns blazing is still on the table if needed, now with legitimate justification. Through their unjustified actions, Iran is further isolated from the civilized world, making future actions against them easier.

Which scenario sounds more beneficial?

 

[bwatson283]

British.

 

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: tagej
Behond, Luthien, one of our resident dimwits.

Lets see. Two scenarios. First scenario, the brits respond with force, blow up some ships, most likely getting their 15 soldiers killed in the process. Possible war with Iran. Scenario two: sailors are kidnapped, but remain alive. No war is triggered. Sailors will most likely come home unharmed. Option to go in with all guns blazing is still on the table if needed, now with legitimate justification. Through their unjustified actions, Iran is further isolated from the civilized world, making future actions against them easier.

Which scenario sounds more beneficial?

Behond? lol You left out a lot of scenarios dimwit.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Luthien

Originally posted by: tagej
Behond, Luthien, one of our resident dimwits.

Lets see. Two scenarios. First scenario, the brits respond with force, blow up some ships, most likely getting their 15 soldiers killed in the process. Possible war with Iran. Scenario two: sailors are kidnapped, but remain alive. No war is triggered. Sailors will most likely come home unharmed. Option to go in with all guns blazing is still on the table if needed, now with legitimate justification. Through their unjustified actions, Iran is further isolated from the civilized world, making future actions against them easier.

Which scenario sounds more beneficial?

Behond? lol You left out a lot of scenarios dimwit.

Such as? Dimwit.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: tagej
Behond, Luthien, one of our resident dimwits.

Lets see. Two scenarios. First scenario, the brits respond with force, blow up some ships, most likely getting their 15 soldiers killed in the process. Possible war with Iran. Scenario two: sailors are kidnapped, but remain alive. No war is triggered. Sailors will most likely come home unharmed. Option to go in with all guns blazing is still on the table if needed, now with legitimate justification. Through their unjustified actions, Iran is further isolated from the civilized world, making future actions against them easier.

Which scenario sounds more beneficial?

Before I answer; Does option-1 result in the change of International hatred from the US to Brittain? :laugh: I keed

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Luthien

Originally posted by: tagej
Behond, Luthien, one of our resident dimwits.

Lets see. Two scenarios. First scenario, the brits respond with force, blow up some ships, most likely getting their 15 soldiers killed in the process. Possible war with Iran. Scenario two: sailors are kidnapped, but remain alive. No war is triggered. Sailors will most likely come home unharmed. Option to go in with all guns blazing is still on the table if needed, now with legitimate justification. Through their unjustified actions, Iran is further isolated from the civilized world, making future actions against them easier.

Which scenario sounds more beneficial?

Behond? lol You left out a lot of scenarios dimwit.

care to elaborate? the two scenarios that tage described are really the only way I see things possibly going down.