British sailors taken by Iran

[geoguy]

I was in the Canadian military and it's a myth re the name, rank, etc. What is the reality is that soldiers obey orders. The chain of command is not dissolved or diminished because of captivity. If the senior rank in the situation tells the others to co-operate then that's what they have to do. I'm guessing that the senior rank weighed the siituation and made the judgment that there was no vital information that could be revealed and told the troops to go along with what was asked of them. His/her concern was for the safety of the troops and this trumped keeping silent for the sake of it. It's called leadership.

[Haezed]

Like the author, I have a hard time saying this because I have not faced anything remotely like the situation the Brits faced. FWIW:

 

Jacobs won the Medal of Honor for his heroism in Vietnam. According to his Medal of Honor citation, Jacobs received the Medal “For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.”

 

With his company under intense enemy fire and the command group having suffered heavy casualties, “Capt. Jacobs assumed command of the allied company, ordered a withdrawal from the exposed position and established a defensive perimeter. Despite profuse bleeding from head wounds which impaired his vision, Capt. Jacobs, with complete disregard for his safety, returned under intense fire to evacuate a seriously wounded advisor to the safety of a wooded area where he administered lifesaving first aid. He then returned through heavy automatic weapons fire to evacuate the wounded company commander. Capt. Jacobs made repeated trips across the fire-swept open rice paddies evacuating wounded and their weapons. On 3 separate occasions, Capt. Jacobs contacted and drove off Viet Cong squads who were searching for allied wounded and weapons, single-handedly killing 3 and wounding several others. His gallant actions and extraordinary heroism saved the lives of 1 U.S. advisor and 13 allied soldiers.”

 

I had the pleasure of meeting Captain Jacobs for a few minutes about a year ago. He’s a small man, and you don’t look at him and instantly think “war hero.” It’s precisely for this reason that his valor is so poignant. For a nation to be great and its military to be great, it needs ordinary men to do extraordinary things. It also needs ordinary men who are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices.

 

Jack Jacobs watched the English press conference where the soldiers’ Captain declared that “fighting back was simply not an option.” Like me, Jacobs was horrified. Because of his military experience, Jacobs was personally outraged as well.

 

Asked by an MSNBC hostess for his feelings about the released soldiers and their press conference, Jacobs inveighed on-air, “That was the most disgusting, disreputable, dishonorable performance I can remember in more than 40 years of my relationship with the military service. I think every man every woman, who wears the uniform or has ever worn the uniform of his country, no matter what country it is, ought to be disgusted by this…Words can’t express my disgust.”

 

To some, the returning British soldiers may be heroes. If we have so defined heroism down, woe be unto us all.

[Kailassa]

Like the author, I have a hard time saying this because I have not faced anything remotely like the situation the Brits faced.

Jack Jacobs was in the midst of a war, and protecting his mates, so of course he did the right thing in fighting back. The English sailors, by fighting back, would have almost certainly precipitated a war, achieving nothing but getting themselves and a great many other people killed. Having been a hero apparently does not prevent arrogant judgemental stupidity.

 

Lieutenant Carman said they were in inflatable boats when they boarded a merchant vessel in an area south of the Shatt al-Arab waterway. Captain Air said they saw two speedboats approaching rapidly and returned to their boats.

 

"Two Iranian boats had come alongside. I explained that we were conducting a routine operation, as allowed under a UN mandate. But when we tried to leave, they prevented us by blocking us in."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/04/07/1175366534526.html

 

This shows that there was no way those sailors could fight back. You do not attack armed speedboats which could presumably call a whole navy to their aid from two inflatables.

 

I'm very glad these sailors made it home safely, and that their commanding officer did not get them killed in useless "heroics".

[Haezed]

Jack Jacobs was in the midst of a war, and protecting his mates, so of course he did the right thing in fighting back. The English sailors, by fighting back, would have almost certainly precipitated a war, achieving nothing but getting themselves and a great many other people killed. Having been a hero apparently does not prevent arrogant judgemental stupidity.

 

 

That's not really a fair critique of Jacob's reaction. He was appalled by the quick confessions not so much that they didn't take on the entire Iranian navy. I think he wanted a little more resistance in that area.

 

I could never make that judgment but I think Jacobs has earned the right to comment and wouldn't be so quick to scourge him for doing so.

[Bettina]

This shows that there was no way those sailors could fight back. You do not attack armed speedboats which could presumably call a whole navy to their aid from two inflatables.

 

I'm very glad these sailors made it home safely, and that their commanding officer did not get them killed in useless "heroics".

 

I don't quite believe that. From what I read, the HMS Cornwall is not only fully capable of attacking targets in the air or on the surface, but its a well defended ship. Its height alone would have prevented a forced boarding.

 

Don't get me wrong, the British sailors should be commended for their handling once taken to Iran, and no one believes the "admission of guilt" by the sailors to be genuine, except Iran. Once surrendered, they did exactly what I would have done but since the mideast is full of butchers, it could have gone badly leading to their demise. I'm glad their home.

 

However, if the GPS electronic gear aboard that ship showed me to be in Iraqi waters like the British have said, I would never have let them or anyone else set foot on a British naval vessel which leads me to believe that the Cornwall had orders already in place to surrender if challanged instead of defend.

 

That weakness gave Iran a political victory which will reverberate for months to come. You stand up to evil, not cower down to it. No one would ever take my ship...

 

Bettina

 

 

 

Bettina

[Pangloss]

Incidentally, I was just watching one of the weekend politics shows and they mentioned that Rosie O'Donnell made the claim on her daytime entertainment program that the British sailors were in Iranian waters and implied that this was done deliberately in order to incite war with Iran. She also promulgates 9/11 conspiracy theories on her show, which is broadcast to millions in a daily daytime audience aimed mostly at stay-at-home moms. One of her co-hosts is the much more famous Barbara Walters.

 

Quite embarassing, really.

[Kailassa]

I don't quite believe that. From what I read, the HMS Cornwall is not only fully capable of attacking targets in the air or on the surface, but its a well defended ship. Its height alone would have prevented a forced boarding.

 

Don't get me wrong, the British sailors should be commended for their handling once taken to Iran, and no one believes the "admission of guilt" by the sailors to be genuine, except Iran. Once surrendered, they did exactly what I would have done but since the mideast is full of butchers, it could have gone badly leading to their demise. I'm glad their home.

 

However, if the GPS electronic gear aboard that ship showed me to be in Iraqi waters like the British have said, I would never have let them or anyone else set foot on a British naval vessel which leads me to believe that the Cornwall had orders already in place to surrender if challanged instead of defend.

 

That weakness gave Iran a political victory which will reverberate for months to come. You stand up to evil, not cower down to it. No one would ever take my ship...

 

Bettina, The HMS Cornwall never surrendered. It had no immediate involvement in the confrontation, and was not taken by Iran. The sailors were from the HMS Cornwall, but they were in two rubber inflatables, at a long distance from the Cornwall. The ship could not come to their aid because of the shallowness of the sea-bed between them.

 

The sailors were carrying out surveillance on local shipping, and were on board a merchant ship at the time, checking it out. If anyone had made plans for that eventuality it was Iran, not England. Seeing the Iranians coming out in two armed motor boats the English sailors disembarked from the merchant ship and attempted to get back to the Cornwall. However they were prevented from doing so, and soon 6 more military speed boats had them surrounded.

 

Shooting the Iranian boats from the Cornwall was not an option when their own sailors were inbetween on inflatables, and would have disastrous for those sailors once Iran had them surrounded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/06/wiran506.xml

[hypertilly]

The strange story rumbles on.

It seems the woman, (and I forget her name) apologies.

Is doing a deal with itv television for her story.

I didn't think military personel were permitted to do this?

[Pangloss]

You mean she apologized? For what? Selling her story to the press?

[hypertilly]

Sorry, crap writing on my part.

I was apologing for not being able to remember her name

[Klaynos]

The strange story rumbles on.

It seems the woman, (and I forget her name) apologies.

Is doing a deal with itv television for her story.

I didn't think military personel were permitted to do this?

 

The MOD have made an exception in this case allowing them to do so... Who can should "propaganda"?

[Haezed]

Incidentally, I was just watching one of the weekend politics shows and they mentioned that Rosie O'Donnell made the claim on her daytime entertainment program that the British sailors were in Iranian waters and implied that this was done deliberately in order to incite war with Iran. She also promulgates 9/11 conspiracy theories on her show, which is broadcast to millions in a daily daytime audience aimed mostly at stay-at-home moms. One of her co-hosts is the much more famous Barbara Walters.

 

Quite embarassing, really.

 

If Rush Limbaugh had said something similiarly idiotic, the press would have him tarred and feathered by now.

 

Incidentally, here's Popular Mechanics take on the WTC 7 conspiracy theory:

 

WTC 7 Collapse

CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

 

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

 

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

 

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

 

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

 

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

 

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

[Dak]

However, if the GPS electronic gear aboard that ship showed me to be in Iraqi waters like the British have said, I would never have let them or anyone else set foot on a British naval vessel which leads me to believe that the Cornwall had orders already in place to surrender if challanged instead of defend.

 

afaik, all british troops have permission to surrender if the only alternative is death. as in this case.

 

would you honestly have prefered them martyred?

[hypertilly]

The MOD have made an exception in this case allowing them to do so... Who can should "propaganda"?

 

 

But why? Surely this is completely out of character for the MOD?

 

Me thinks the whole thing has been conceived mischievously

from start to finish. - But I'm sure I'm wrong.

[bombus]

We are not controlled by Halliburton or any other rich dude gang you've got fabricated in your mind. Geez, I've heard this conspiracy crap so many times I'm starting to wonder if facts mean anything to people anymore.

 

Anyway, that's pre-packaged single level thought kind of stuff. Things are a little more complicated than your underdog vs "the man" fantasies...

 

Oh yes you are! It's no conspiracy, it's just plain fact! The companies rule the USA. They own your president, all your services and your media. Your government is nothing more than the standing committee for the companies, and your military is the armed wing of the companies.

 

You have such poor democracy in the USA that you have only two parties to vote for, and they are both virtually identical albeit with a few frilly fringes of difference. And even when elections are lost, they can be won by manipulating the results!

 

The USA is a good example of why totalitarian regimes needn't bother! Just set up a sham democracy and the public will never realise they have no say, except in the most trivial of issues!

 

Not that the UK is much different mind you, but as we are less powerful the effects are much less.

 

Don't you know what the the current Iraq war is all about? And don't say 'oil' - its far more worrying than that!

[bombus]

Use of force is a failure in diplomacy. Diplomacy takes two. Both sides win and lose. Look at WWII. We won that war, but we've lost so much as a result of it as well. Some of the problems we are dealing with today can be traced back to it. This is the case with all wars. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Hitler would talk to you all you wanted, while his army rolled over your country.

 

If diplomacy, restraint and mutual respect had been in place after WW1, Hitler would never have risen to power. Once he was in power, war was invevitable. What the West is doing in the middle east is creating the conditions for extremist leaders to thrive. We are creating the conditions for War. Why would any sane Government want to do this? Well, the answer is PROFIT

 

In case you weren't covered in American history, we had a civil war too. The slaves were freed, the union preserved and the federal government had its way. It solved quite a few problems actually. I know you don't like it, but violence is human nature for a reason - it works. Sucks huh?

 

There was a lot more going on than just slavery issues that caused the American Civil War, as I'm sure you know. And what is slavery anyway? - A manifestation of a lack of respect for other people. Also, it was a war that could actually be won (like WW2) involving essentially two 'states' with armies, generals etc etc etc. The current wars we are involved with can never be won (unless we kill all the civilians as well!) because they create new recruits on the enemy side faster than they are killed. But, of course, that suits the war profiteers just fine!

[Kailassa]

Hi 5, Bombus. Good to see someone else here with their eyes open.

 

We in Australia are now in the same predicament. We have a right-wing party who pretends to be left-wing, and a right-wing party becoming ever more fascist to differentiate themselves from their rivals.

 

It seems to me our countries are sandboxes for testing dictatorial policies before they are implemented in America.

[bombus]

Sorry to differ, but I have eyes. I saw the Iranian president looking very strong and in full control. He dominated the "event" and made the U.K. look weak. Did you see Tony? His head was down most of the time and with few words to say he looked a beaten man.

 

I didn't miss a thing.

 

 

 

I stand by the statement I made. As a girl, the last place I would want to live is in the middle east. The oppression of women and young girls in the mideast, which includes Iran, is well documented. It is a pet peeve of mine and I have many links if you want to see them. I won't comment further since others have done it for me.

 

Again, as a girl, I have no love for the middle east.

 

Bettina

 

Some would argue that women in the West are victims of their own oppression. I can't be bothered to explain to you why, find out yourself. To say you have no love for the middle east when you know so little about it shows just how niaive you are. I assume you have been brought up on a diet of anti Iranian news, and you probably aren't aware of the other side of the story. Did you know (for example) that in the 80's the USA shot down an Iranian civilian airliner killing all passengers - and never apologised? I think you are a good example of why scientists should stay out of politics! Sorry if I sound a little irrate - I am!

[bombus]

Hi 5, Bombus. Good to see someone else here with their eyes open.

 

We in Australia are now in the same predicament. We have a right-wing party who pretends to be left-wing, and a right-wing party becoming ever more fascist to differentiate themselves from their rivals.

 

It seems to me our countries are sandboxes for testing dictatorial policies before they are implemented in America.

 

That makes two of us in this mad world. I think we are copying the USA though, they've had this system for years!

[bombus]

Like the author, I have a hard time saying this because I have not faced anything remotely like the situation the Brits faced.

 

They are in no way heroes! They weren't even in any danger, and were bound to be released, I can't understand what the fuss was all about. The Western public are just being buttered up for war agaist Iran, in about 10 years time, once sanctions bite and their army is to weak to fight - just like what happened in Iraq.

[bombus]

You stand up to evil, not cower down to it.

 

Evil? This isn't Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings!

[ecoli]

They are in no way heroes! They weren't even in any danger, and were bound to be released, I can't understand what the fuss was all about. The Western public are just being buttered up for war agaist Iran, in about 10 years time, once sanctions bite and their army is to weak to fight - just like what happened in Iraq.

 

I think your trust for Iran is going a little too far when you say they weren't in any danger. They were being held captive in a hostile country... the potential for danger had to have been there.

 

Also, I don't think Western nations have the ability to think 10 years in advances. Most politicians don't think past the next election. The government is planning an Iranian invasion in ten years? That's an unfounded statement. And the only thing you have to support it is your irrational distrust and fear of our own government, and your strange love for our enemy.

 

These are truly strange times, if you look at the anti-War left.

 

If diplomacy, restraint and mutual respect had been in place after WW1, Hitler would never have risen to power. Once he was in power, war was invevitable. What the West is doing in the middle east is creating the conditions for extremist leaders to thrive. We are creating the conditions for War. Why would any sane Government want to do this? Well, the answer is PROFIT

They used diplomatic options instead of fighting. Appeasement. I think we know where that lead.

 

Not that it has any relevance to the current war.

[GutZ]

I just don't understand the obsession or fear of looking weak. There is a big difference in looking weak and being weak. If it's the best solution that will have the best end results...why the *%(@ not?

 

Do you really think Iran feels that they can do anything they want just because we didn't nuke them into the ground yet...

 

This is the consequence of having nationals....There are dangerous nations....

 

and Invasion should not be the number one answer to every god damn international dispute....This isn't 300 BC anymore....

 

FFS when you run out of fresh water and Canada says no to giving you some of there.....are we going to get invaded? You wouldn't want to look weak?!?!

 

My point is ....looking weak has nothing to do with issue. This whole thing is about hatred for a specific country, justified or not, has no rational place in solving these issues.

[ecoli]

Do you really think Iran feels that they can do anything they want just because we didn't nuke them into the ground yet...

 

I do think that Iran, or at least the government, feels empowered due to the influence of the anti-war left on western politics. Whether this is a weakeness or not remains to be seen.

 

But let's say that we pull out of Iraq and let Iranian influence spill into the middle east... what will happen there. Do we trust Iran to bring peace into the region? And peace at what cost? Do we also muslim extremists to take over, and allow peace to trump what we hold as western freedoms?

 

Or would Iran just allow secretarian violence to spread as Shia and Sunni, Persian and Arab, Muslim and Jew continue to fight each other.

 

I don't understand how negotiating with Iran will solve anything longterm... in terms of upholding our western ideals, that we beleive all people should be able to have.

[Sisyphus]

I still haven't heard what you think should be done, ecoli. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Do you think the UK should have declared war on Iran? What would not be "appeasement?" Actually, that goes for all of you complaining about looking "weak." What's the plan, guys?