# What next for the former captives? (BBC News)



## SN NewsCaster

As the 15 sailors and marines held in Iran return to British soil, what lessons can the forces learn from the crew?

More from BBC News...


----------



## Santos

To keep a better lookout for possible trouble and give them more backup next time they do similar operations.


----------



## rbruce20

*British Code of Conduct*

I boarded ships for years in the USCG for a variety of reasons (safety, drugs, former soviet bloc intel, illegal immigration). I was armed for all except for a few benign small boat safety inspections. During boardings our ship was at modified general quarters with deck guns manned and ready. Our crews received many hours of instructions in the Code of Conduct if taken prisoner or held hostage. We studied former POW testimonies and argued the Geneva Convention for days. In preparation for a TV interview in a Vietnam POW camp, the guards treated well many prisoners by feeding them well and giving them time to bathe and stay together in a common cell. A senior officer did not want to give the Viet Cong a political victory by going on the air. Minutes before his turn to speak, this American intentionally pulled out chunks of air and hit and cut himself in the face to make himself unpresentable. He never went on the air and was tortured immediately afterwards.

Before every boarding, I asked my team if they were willing to kill someone if needed. If they said "no", then I wouldn't take them. Thankfully, I never pulled my sidearm. I did fire warning shots with our 5" and fired disabling 50 cal rounds into a drug boat (200 tons of marijuana aboard).

From what I saw, the sailors and marines had a good time. They even took gifts. The female sailor looked like she gained weight in the before and after pictures. No public reports mentioned any mistreatment other than being isolated at times. American veterans are not happy with the sailor's behavior and worry about what our sailors will do if in a similar incident. 

Questions are; What guidance did these sailors and marine recieved in case of hostile action? Were they armed? What is the British Code of Conduct if taken prisoner?


----------



## oldbosun

I have a question regarding this event.

What was the mother ship doing when this capture was going on? Surely the situation could have been sized up immediately, and as the RN was operating in Iraqi waters and Iranians would have no reason to take belligerent action, there was no reason why the mother ship could not have blown the Iranians out of the water.

Or..............._were_ the Brits in Iraqi waters?.


----------



## Brian Twyman

rbuce20.... Good to hear from an expert at boarding.....the ship had done over 60 boardings in March, but I don't know any more details. 

oldbosun: the ship was 10 miles away and could not close into shallow water.
(see previous thread, now closed)

Brian


----------



## billyboy

so the ship was 10 miles away. That would ,make for a 20 mile round trip for the RIB's. Anyone know the range of a RIB? Heard them big outboard motors were thirsty things.


----------



## dom

*dom*

one question has to be asked, What would you or myself do in the same situation


----------



## billyboy

in a nutshell, at my age Dom. hope i were wearing brown trousers mate.


----------



## cboots

dom said:


> one question has to be asked, What would you or myself do in the same situation


That has got to be a hell of an interesting question. One thing I wouldn't do is scream Rule Britannia in their faces, or in my case, Advance Australia Fair. I think one just would have to focus on survival and do, say, sign anything they want you to. What does it matter? No one is going to take anything extracted from you under duress seriously anyway, so why not let them have any propaganda coup they want at the minimum pain to yourself. I for one am not going to believe anything those people "confessed" to the Iranian authorities anymore than I believe David Hick's supposed confessions. Dead heroes are just that, dead.
CBoots


----------



## Keltic Star

rbruce20 said:


> I boarded ships for years in the USCG for a variety of reasons (safety, drugs, former soviet bloc intel, illegal immigration). I was armed for all except for a few benign small boat safety inspections. During boardings our ship was at modified general quarters with deck guns manned and ready. Our crews received many hours of instructions in the Code of Conduct if taken prisoner or held hostage. We studied former POW testimonies and argued the Geneva Convention for days. In preparation for a TV interview in a Vietnam POW camp, the guards treated well many prisoners by feeding them well and giving them time to bathe and stay together in a common cell. A senior officer did not want to give the Viet Cong a political victory by going on the air. Minutes before his turn to speak, this American intentionally pulled out chunks of air and hit and cut himself in the face to make himself unpresentable. He never went on the air and was tortured immediately afterwards.
> 
> Before every boarding, I asked my team if they were willing to kill someone if needed. If they said "no", then I wouldn't take them. Thankfully, I never pulled my sidearm. I did fire warning shots with our 5" and fired disabling 50 cal rounds into a drug boat (200 tons of marijuana aboard).
> 
> From what I saw, the sailors and marines had a good time. They even took gifts. The female sailor looked like she gained weight in the before and after pictures. No public reports mentioned any mistreatment other than being isolated at times. American veterans are not happy with the sailor's behavior and worry about what our sailors will do if in a similar incident.
> 
> Questions are; What guidance did these sailors and marine recieved in case of hostile action? Were they armed? What is the British Code of Conduct if taken prisoner?



Bear in mind that these sub-humans of questionable parentage do not abide by the Geneva Convention and as more details are coming forward, the hostages were certainly not treated under the convention. 

As for Code of Combat, the sailors returned in Biz Class on a BA flight not in the cargo hold of an AA flight. To put it simply, they and the British government (not that I'm a supporter) did the right thing. 

_American veterans are not happy with the sailor's behavior_ 
With due respect, living above the 49th. Parallel and being inundated with such smart a--sed comments beamed across the border on the tabloid TV networks; they can always go fight their own war, their way, without the few allies they have left.

As for U.S.C.G., great organization, spoiled by a few red-necked. sunglass clad, trigger happy matelots, even on small boat safety inspections and I talk from experience, once illegally in international waters. Similar to the Iran situation, but with my soogie brush as the only weapon aboard, I did the same thing as the Brit sailors had to do, be nice.


----------



## OLD STRAWBERRY

I just wonder for how much longer the hostage personnel will remain in the services. Will Their Lordships decide that there will be too much Publicity following these individuals and that inevitably They will be quietly pensioned off. Rgds.


----------



## Brian Twyman

This Kiwi (and British) veteran is just delighted that the guys are home and that everyone did what they had to in the cir***stances. Nobody can say with certainty what they would do in that situation ..... we can only say what we would like to do .... in real 'fight or flee' situations the most unlikely persons rise or fall . 
Brian


----------



## Binnacle

*Truth out Cheques In*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6536203.stm


----------



## Keltic Star

Binnacle said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6536203.stm


Hmmm!


----------



## George.GM

*What next for the former captives*

In my opinion they should have been taken straight back to HMS Cornwall where they would have been charged with being absent without leave. With lack of moral fibre in the face of the enemy. With giving information useful to a prospective enemy. With losing MOD property - to wit - one Rigid inflatable boat, two 70 HP outboard motors, as least fifteen automatic weapons and various other items of boat equipment - GPS etc.
Plus be charged with the cost of their clothing that was on loan from the MOD(N). And the cost of their Business Class flights on BA.
Any payment they receive from the media for their stories should be used to offset these costs which is being borne by the British taxpayer.


----------



## Santos

George.GM said:


> In my opinion they should have been taken straight back to HMS Cornwall where they would have been charged with being absent without leave. With lack of moral fibre in the face of the enemy. With giving information useful to a prospective enemy. With losing MOD property - to wit - one Rigid inflatable boat, two 70 HP outboard motors, as least fifteen automatic weapons and various other items of boat equipment - GPS etc.
> Plus be charged with the cost of their clothing that was on loan from the MOD(N). And the cost of their Business Class flights on BA.
> Any payment they receive from the media for their stories should be used to offset these costs which is being borne by the British taxpayer.


*I take it you are joking ? *


----------



## George.GM

*What next for the former captives*

No I'm not and given time I will think of a few more charges to bring against them.


----------



## Lindsay Bremner

George.GM said:


> No I'm not and given time I will think of a few more charges to bring against them.


I trust you would rather they were all dead? Read the words of an American Naval Officer http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/


----------



## Santos

George.GM said:


> No I'm not and given time I will think of a few more charges to bring against them.


We have 15 service personnel ( a mother, fathers and sons, ) alive and safe in their home country, going by your ideas we would now be mourning 15 more dead service personnel.

Had one of those 15 been a member of your family would your views be the same, I think not. Your opinion belongs to the outdated views of those responsible for the carnage of WW1 and look at the wastefull loss of life there.

Who made the decision to let them sell their stories the MOD ( the Government ) thats who, the recipients of all tax payers money. 

As far as I am concerned, if they experienced the treatment that they are supposed to have received then good luck to them they deserve the recognition. 

I dont agree with the money side of things, but I dispise your views and what you represent, you make me sick. Those people were serving their country in a war zone not sitting in front of a computer safe at home like you.

Get a life. (Cloud)


----------



## billyboy

I have to agree, if were one of my kinfolk i would be very happy they came out of it like they did. I would be saying a different story if they had gone in with all guns blazing to a certain death. I would be baying for blood at the admiralty.
this is 2007 and things have changed dramaticaly in the war zones. weapons and tactics are different from the way they used to be. the old death or glory boys of the battle of the Somme dont exist anymore. the modern day fighter is Hi-tech. no more are men ordered in to sure suicide.


----------



## LEEJ

The media is reporting that they had a "horrific ordeal". I spent 3 months at anchor off Bander Abbas during the Iran - Iraq war, now that was an ordeal!Lets keep things in perspective chaps. It was not a clear breach of international law as it happened in DISPUTED waters. Is not the British government giving them special treatment for political motives? They should have returned to their ship and finished their tour.


----------



## George.GM

It must be plainly obvious, even to a wooly minded liberal like Mr A, that these people are being used by the government for political purposes. If our forefathers had all had his attitude we would all be speaking German now and the Falkland Islanders Spanish. Mrs Thatcher would be horrified and Douglas Bader would turn in his grave.
Further charges that should be brought are breaching the Official Secrets Act and failing in their duty to attempt to escape.
I have not always been stuck in front of a computer - in a previous life I spent time standing up for people like Mr A in the Far East, Aden, Iceland and the Falklands. I trust he was being sick during those periods.


----------



## cboots

As George clearly wanted these service people to commit suicide I am deeply curious to know exactly what purpose he feels would have been achieved by this and what great principle or British interest they were defending in this cir***stance.
CBoots


----------



## flyer682

George.GM said:


> It must be plainly obvious, even to a wooly minded liberal like Mr A, that these people are being used by the government for political purposes. If our forefathers had all had his attitude we would all be speaking German now and the Falkland Islanders Spanish. Mrs Thatcher would be horrified and Douglas Bader would turn in his grave.
> Further charges that should be brought are breaching the Official Secrets Act and failing in their duty to attempt to escape.
> I have not always been stuck in front of a computer - in a previous life I spent time standing up for people like Mr A in the Far East, Aden, Iceland and the Falklands. I trust he was being sick during those periods.


I assume here George that the Mr A. you are referring to is Santos. Whilst debate is tolerated, personal insults are NOT. It is the quickest way to find a thread closed.


----------



## Santos

Thank you David.

I am proud to be British as anyone and proud of the younger people of today who are willing to risk their lives serving in our armed forces, we are very lucky that there are still people who are willing to serve. What I dont demand of them is that they sacrifice their lives needlessly like George obviously required them to do.

I have broad shoulders and stick and stones etc George. I take it from your veiled remarks about sticking up for me you refer to your service in the RFA.
If your attitude then is the same as now then I feel very sorry for the personnel who had to serve under you and with you in those theatres.

Mrs Thatcher and indeed Winston Churchill never looked for senseless death among the services nor Douglas Bader, what they looked for and fought for was freedom, freedom from war, oppression and useless death.

Just keep on George - you are digging yourself a nice little hole and just demonstarting how times have moved on and the old ideas are often not now the best ones.

By the way the sailors and marines are returning to Cornwall in two weeks to continue their tour, but they will be welcomed back on board not arrested like you want. As I stated previously I disagree with the money matter but that is the government's fault not theirs.

Mr A.


----------



## George.GM

If, as you say, they are returning to Cornwall (although the Leiut on the news last night would not admit it), can you imagine what their mates will think of working alongide someone with £100,000 in their back pockets ? Not the best morale booster in the world is it ?
I imagine that the trend now, for sailors in the Gulf, will be to give themselves up to the nearest Iranian warship, spend a couple of weeks in an Iranian holiday camp, fly home club class BA, sell their stories to the Daily Mirror for six figures and retire.
By the way, absolutely nothing personal - you can tell the Marines.


----------



## gdynia

Here Guys something to Chill out with

I must down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky,
And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by,
And the wheel's kick and the wind's song and the white sail's shaking,
And a grey mist on the sea's face and a grey dawn breaking.

I must down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide
Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied;
And all I ask is a windy day with the white clouds flying,
And the flung spray and the blown spume, and the sea-gulls crying.

I must down to the seas again to the vagrant gypsy life.
To the gull's way and the whale's way where the wind's like a whetted knife;
And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover,
And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick's over.


----------



## danube4

George, are you for real. After what you have just said, to think like that, I hope you are never in charge of anybody, or have to make any serious decisions
Barney.


----------



## George.GM

Yes, I'm quite real and stand by everthing I have said.
How about some of you answering my question about working alongside someone with a hundred grand hanging out of their pocket ?


----------



## johnalderman

I think they should be made to donate any profits to the underprivileged children of Iran.


----------



## gdynia

Money pays for alot of things but in this case I cannot see it being happiness


----------



## Ian

shows how thick our M.O.D. are sends a chill down the spine, what are they trying to do????


----------



## Santos

*Stable door closed after horse has bolted*

The Ministry of Defence has now banned personnel from selling their stories to the media until a review of the rules covering the issue is completed.


----------



## benjidog

Whilst SN members have a major difference of opinion about how the returning service people should be treated (praise them or arrest them), there seems to have been general agreement about the inappropriateness of decision made by the MOD to allow them to sell their stories to the media.

At last (and probably because the public backlash is hardly an election-winner!) they have realised what an amazing own goal they have scored and pulled the plug.

Too little and too late! Defence Secretary Des Brown will resign if he has any integrity - which I doubt.

Brian


----------



## Santos

Well said Brian (Applause)


----------



## R.Philip Griffin

According to todays Daily Telegraph, no more stories for cash and people seem to be wondering what happened to our warriors. I guess a wife and mother in the crew would inhibit things a bit. What on earth was she doing there?


----------



## cboots

Being as George seems keen on people answering his questions how about him answering the ones I posed in my last post which he appears to have ignored.
CBoots


----------



## dom

*dom*

not taking sides,but todays armed forces to some is just a job,if you sign up for Gov.money you will be called on to fight or be put in awkward places, there have been newsreel photos of service personell crying on the wharf before going on a tour of duty,as i said before what would i do ,dont know till it happens


----------



## Keltic Star

Putting aside the polictical leanings of particular media, I did find this article well written and to the point. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...n/2007/04/10/do1001.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_10042007


----------



## Keltic Star

R.Philip Griffin said:


> According to todays Daily Telegraph, no more stories for cash and people seem to be wondering what happened to our warriors. I guess a wife and mother in the crew would inhibit things a bit. What on earth was she doing there?


She joined up and was happy to take the pay cheque and fringe benefits, so get out there and do the job just like any other seaman.


----------



## Brian Twyman

At last (and probably because the public backlash is hardly an election-winner!) they have realised what an amazing own goal they have scored and pulled the plug. (benjidog above )

Which makes it Iran 3 UK 0 ?


----------



## George.GM

Hi Mr CBoots
Sorry, I mssed your last post. But I don't really uderstand the question. I don't think I ever mentioned suicide did I ? Fighting for your life against a bunch of kidnappers is hardly that is it ? And I don't think I advocated that either. Just a little more "stiff upper lip" perhaps and name rank and number only. I would still really like to know how you think the chaps on Cornwall will feel when/if she goes back with a hundred grand. At least now she is the only one of them that will be allowed to receive anything.
Also I wonder what was in the goody bags they all received. I bet they wern't getting their weapons back.


----------



## bobarr

I am amazed at some of the responses to the capture of 'Famous 15'. It seems that a lot of people miss the point completely. This episode will rank in the fullness of time as one of the most humilating in the history of British seafaring. How dare anybody attempt to cash in on such a sordid incident.
Especially within days of their fighting brothers losing their lives on the streets of Basra.
In view of the cir***stances I would expect a Public Inquiry, and an answer to the following questions. (1) Will the Captain of the 'mother' ship face court-martial for allowing the boarding inflatables to remain on station when the covering helicopter support had been withdrawn.(2) Why did we not anticipate the possibility of such an event in view of the fact that the Americans are holding 5 Iranians in the north of the country. Is our intelligence really that bad?
Finally, and it gets worse, listening to BBC Radio 4 on Sunday I heard an interview with a former US Ambassador to the UN who was highly critical of the British (mis)handling of the episode. When told that we have had to discontinue patrols in the Shatt al Arab waterway because the Iranians had our boats and wont give them back, he said in dis-belief 'You have only TWO inflatables to cover such a vital task. I'm lost for words' So am I.
Bobarr


----------



## Lindsay Bremner

bobarr said:


> I am amazed at some of the responses to the capture of 'Famous 15'. It seems that a lot of people miss the point completely. This episode will rank in the fullness of time as one of the most humilating in the history of British seafaring. How dare anybody attempt to cash in on such a sordid incident.
> Especially within days of their fighting brothers losing their lives on the streets of Basra.
> In view of the cir***stances I would expect a Public Inquiry, and an answer to the following questions. (1) Will the Captain of the 'mother' ship face court-martial for allowing the boarding inflatables to remain on station when the covering helicopter support had been withdrawn.(2) Why did we not anticipate the possibility of such an event in view of the fact that the Americans are holding 5 Iranians in the north of the country. Is our intelligence really that bad?
> Finally, and it gets worse, listening to BBC Radio 4 on Sunday I heard an interview with a former US Ambassador to the UN who was highly critical of the British (mis)handling of the episode. When told that we have had to discontinue patrols in the Shatt al Arab waterway because the Iranians had our boats and wont give them back, he said in dis-belief 'You have only TWO inflatables to cover such a vital task. I'm lost for words' So am I.
> Bobarr


Bobarr
I agree with some of the things you said above, and can't answer questions 1 & 2 but I do take offence at the way you call them the 'Famous 15' they were 15 ordinary members of the Royal Navy carrying out the orders given to them by command, if anybody is to blame for them selling there stories it has to be the MOD. As for the former US Ambassador bumping his gums he should remember that the British Government (not the Royal Navy) has hacked the Navy to the bone. We are not a super power, we do not have unlimited supplies of spare boats. However I could be wrong but I am sure the reason the Navy is not doing boardings is because of a review of procedures and not because a big boy and his gang came along and stole our boats.
Lindsay


----------



## bobarr

Sorry, Linsay,
No offence intended to the sailors, but you must agree that they are now either famous, infamous, or very naive depending on your point of view. Although a retired Merchant Navy man myself, I have always had the greatest respect for the Royal Navy.
I know, of course, where the blame for our depleted Navy lies. Lets hope the whole sorry saga will act as a wake-up call to our 'prudent' Chancellor, Mr. Brown if and when he becomes Prime Minister.
Bobarr


----------



## Lindsay Bremner

bobarr said:


> Sorry, Linsay,
> No offence intended to the sailors, but you must agree that they are now either famous, infamous, or very naive depending on your point of view. Although a retired Merchant Navy man myself, I have always had the greatest respect for the Royal Navy.
> I know, of course, where the blame for our depleted Navy lies. Lets hope the whole sorry saga will act as a wake-up call to our 'prudent' Chancellor, Mr. Brown if and when he becomes Prime Minister.
> Bobarr


We can but hope.
Lindsay


----------



## Peter4447

bobarr said:


> Lets hope the whole sorry saga will act as a wake-up call to our 'prudent' Chancellor, Mr. Brown if and when he becomes Prime Minister.
> Bobarr


I've just seen a squadron of pigs flying over Devon!

Peter4447(Thumb)


----------



## Lindsay Bremner

Peter4447 said:


> I've just seen a squadron of pigs flying over Devon!
> 
> Peter4447(Thumb)


What colour of pigs were they? I just saw some tartan ones over Aberdeen.(Jester)


----------



## Peter4447

Lindsay Bremner said:


> What colour of pigs were they? I just saw some tartan ones over Aberdeen.(Jester)


Bright Red!

Peter4447(Jester)


----------



## benjidog

Keltic Star said:


> Putting aside the polictical leanings of particular media, I did find this article well written and to the point.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...n/2007/04/10/do1001.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_10042007


I am deeply disturbed. I never thought I would agree with a leading article in the Telegraph but this one hits the nail on the head!

Thanks for posting it Keltic.

Brian


----------



## cboots

I can't understand the objections to the "famous fifteen" quip; afterall, if one forgets that vast numbers of innocent people have lost their lives and countless millions more have had their's disrupted, and an entire geographical region has been de-stabilised as a result of this wider affair, then it does take on an uncanny likeness to a jolly good Enid Blyton adventure tale does it not?
CBoots


----------



## billyboy

bright red? like the faces in admiralty then.


----------



## johnalderman

I think if you go back to conflicts of yesteryear, people who for one reason or another were shoved by cir***stances to the fore have cashed in and made a good living out of their situation. They were not always vilified for this as these people seem to be. Some people seem to want to overlook the fact that we are not at war with Iran, they say we trespassed into their territory they arrested these naval personnel for trespass then released them unharmed. Some on here expect these individuals to sacrifice their lives in these cir***stances. Put yourselves in the position of their parents, would you have preferred a gun fight then.


----------



## JoK

A lot of vitriol directed at 15 people who are esentially pawns in whatever game the politicos are really playing.


----------



## cboots

Jonalderman makes an interesting point above. Believe it or not, Lord Cardigan, leader of the "Charge of the Light Brigade", an utterly incompetent buffoon, the like of which only the English upper classes can produce, came home to a hero's welcome, thanks to some judicious spin. He proceded to do the rounds giving his version of events. He did not need to sell his story as such as he was stinking rich anyway, he'd bought his command after all.
CBoots


----------



## Pompeyfan

Reading through all the posts, and just biding my time, I cannot see what any of the 15 sailors and marines did wrong. They were put in a hopeless position by our leaders who could not organize a crap in a lavatory let alone run a country or armed service.

Rather than charge them as some have suggested, they should be praised for acting correctly at all times. They clearly saw that fighting back would have been suicidal. As Jack said, we are not at war with Iran so fighting back was not an option. Doing so, even against the odds would have almost certainly have started a conflict that others seem hell bent on starting. These people did everything by the book when captured. Like Jok said, they were political pawns.

Yes, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth when they were offered money for their stories which some accepted before the plug was pulled, but who would turn down that kind of money if offered with the blessing of your bosses. Those who would turn down a £100,000 is either a liar or a fool.

Lets get one thing clear here. Nobody died. Despite their ordeal, they all came home safe. Had they fought back when captured, not only our people, but some Iranian's would have been killed as well putting an entirely different complextion on the situation. Iran would certainly have had reason to take issue had we killed their people. But nobody died on either side, so rejoice at that if nothing else. 

So for all those who thought they should have fought back, or be charged for not doing so, be very thankful indeed that they did what they did without a single person being hurt.

This is a mind game, politicians and others on both sides playing like bullying kids in the playground. Again, for the time being at least lets be thankful that these dangerous games has not turned into World War 3. And we have those 15 sailors and marines to thank for that whatever others may think as to what they should or shouldn't have done. David


----------



## Lindsay Bremner

Pompeyfan said:


> Reading through all the posts, and just biding my time, I cannot see what any of the 15 sailors and marines did wrong. They were put in a hopeless position by our leaders who could not organize a crap in a lavatory let alone run a country or armed service.
> 
> Rather than charge them as some have suggested, they should be praised for acting correctly at all times. They clearly saw that fighting back would have been suicidal. As Jack said, we are not at war with Iran so fighting back was not an option. Doing so, even against the odds would have almost certainly have started a conflict that others seem hell bent on starting. These people did everything by the book when captured. Like Jok said, they were political pawns.
> 
> Yes, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth when they were offered money for their stories which some accepted before the plug was pulled, but who would turn down that kind of money if offered with the blessing of your bosses. Those who would turn down a £100,000 is either a liar or a fool.
> 
> Lets get one thing clear here. Nobody died. Despite their ordeal, they all came home safe. Had they fought back when captured, not only our people, but some Iranian's would have been killed as well putting an entirely different complextion on the situation. Iran would certainly have had reason to take issue had we killed their people. But nobody died on either side, so rejoice at that if nothing else.
> 
> So for all those who thought they should have fought back, or be charged for not doing so, be very thankful indeed that they did what they did without a single person being hurt.
> 
> This is a mind game, politicians and others on both sides playing like bullying kids in the playground. Again, for the time being at least lets be thankful that these dangerous games has not turned into World War 3. And we have those 15 sailors and marines to thank for that whatever others may think as to what they should or shouldn't have done. David


very well put David.


----------



## James_C

I can sympathise with GeorgeGM, questions have to be asked as to what went on.
In the UK we have this peculiar habit of making a complete bloody cock up and disaster look like a Victory (one of the more well known being the retreat to Dunkirk and the subsequent fall of France). No matter which way you look at it, it's obvious some serious mistakes have been made here.
Was nobody amongst the 15 actually keeping a proper lookout whilst the party was aboard the cargo ship? I don't think the Iranians have managed to perfect Tesla technology yet, so why weren't they seen?
Were there warnings via VHF to the Iranians, did Cornwall identify a hostile threat early on, or was she too far away to be of any use? 
Why didn't the boarding party leg it when they had the chance?
Apologies if these questions have been answered, but I've been at sea and am still trying to catch up.


----------



## Lindsay Bremner

James_C said:


> I can sympathise with GeorgeGM, questions have to be asked as to what went on.
> In the UK we have this peculiar habit of making a complete bloody cock up and disaster look like a Victory (one of the more well known being the retreat to Dunkirk and the subsequent fall of France). No matter which way you look at it, it's obvious some serious mistakes have been made here.
> Was nobody amongst the 15 actually keeping a proper lookout whilst the party was aboard the cargo ship? I don't think the Iranians have managed to perfect Tesla technology yet, so why weren't they seen?
> Were there warnings via VHF to the Iranians, did Cornwall identify a hostile threat early on, or was she too far away to be of any use?
> Why didn't the boarding party leg it when they had the chance?
> Apologies if these questions have been answered, but I've been at sea and am still trying to catch up.


Hi Jim

From what I have heard on the subject, I believe the boarding party did spot the Iranians coming, but by the time they got back onboard the ribs the Iranians were on top of them. I have been told that the boats the bad guys were using have a top speed of 45 knots. The big question in my book is why did HMS Cornwall order the Lynx back to ship.

Regards
Lindsay


----------



## johnalderman

I know this sounds strange but I read it was for refueling Lindsay, I would have thought they would have been fueled up before the exercise, but I'm not sure of the exact cir***stances, was this their first boarding? These boardings seem to be routine maybe they didn't anticipate trouble boarding a Indian ship in Iraq (They say) waters. Surely the commander of the boarding party was in touch with the ops room on HMS Cornwall at all times, maybe the order to surrender came from there, its no good hanging and court marshaling people on hearsay and political mischief.


----------



## Lindsay Bremner

johnalderman said:


> I know this sounds strange but I read it was for refueling Lindsay, I would have thought they would have been fueled up before the exercise, but I'm not sure of the exact cir***stances, was this their first boarding? These boardings seem to be routine maybe they didn't anticipate trouble boarding a Indian ship in Iraq (They say) waters. Surely the commander of the boarding party was in touch with the ops room on HMS Cornwall at all times, maybe the order to surrender came from there, its no good hanging and court marshaling people on hearsay and political mischief.


Hi Jack
You could be correct as far as the refuelling goes, and would agree that common sense would say to fuel the aircraft before commencing the boarding. I did read somewhere that HMS Cornwall had conducted over 60 boarding’s, possibly some complacency had set in. I guess we will have to wait for the official government whitewash before we find out some of the truth. I could be wrong but was there some official Iranian TV footage of the crew being abducted with the helicopter in the background flying.
Regards
Lindsay


----------



## johnalderman

Hi Lindsay, 
My main concern in the whole sorry affair was to see the 15 young people returned safely back to this country, which has now been achieved. I hope they can now get on with leading their lives without a witch hunt. There are one or two posters on here I wouldn't like to see on a jury if I was ever accused of anything.


----------



## Lindsay Bremner

Hi Jack
We are in total agreement, our people are home and safe, nothing is more important. One or two people seem to want them keel hauled. What is more worrying is the MOD giving them the big OK to speak to the media and when they do the MOD immediately bans them from talking and announces an inquiry, is this not a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has legged it. It just might be my cynical nature but I feel the 15 sailors and marines are going to be hung out to dry in order to make politicians look good. 

Rant over.

Regards
Lindsay


----------



## George.GM

I suggest that you all have a look at www.rumration.co.uk and (more so) the unofficial Army site to see what their mates really think of them.


----------



## Coastie

Umm, some sort of link would be nice, George. GM. Are we to look in the RN side or the RM side and what is the title of the thread we are looking for?


----------



## Lindsay Bremner

You really want your pound of flesh don’t you George. The guys and girls on Rum Ration supported the 15 sailors and marines all the way, what they have taken exception to is the MoD allowing stories to be sold and the young sailor and the wren for taking the money, the crew of HMS Cornwall will no doubt have a word in their ears when they return onboard. They don’t have a problem with the other 13 members only you have. What would you like to see happen to them all? Thrown in the brig? Thrown out of the service? Shot or sent to Siberia.
Lindsay


----------



## Santos

Take no notice of him Lindsay, he sounds a very bitter person.


----------



## Lindsay Bremner

MoD have something to hide?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/13/navy13.xml

Lindsay


----------



## George.GM

Not bitter, Chris, just realistic. A letter in the DT today suggests "that the modern young person in the services does not have the commitment, pride and belief of their forebears and that their values and priorities are elsewhere. They regard the Armed Forces as just another job and a useful step towards a more rewarding career in civilian life, so why take risks ?
Granting permission for serving personnel to sell their stories was the next step on the road to transforming Britain's wars into reality TV shows. I was embarrassed by the excruciating performance on the Cornwall 15 in the Iranian "Big Brother House", but it took the tacky sale of stories, sactioned at the higest lesvel, to complete my shame."
I tend to agree with every word of that and can't resist quoting one of the posters on the Army site who said " what on earth would Mr Bean have done if they had threatened to shoot his Teddy Bear ?


----------



## King Ratt

It seems that the boarding party from HMS Cornwall had an Ipod on board during their adventure. Lets hope it was not the comms bod who was plugged into it.


----------



## johnalderman

My only reaction to the footage of the 15 in captivity was one of relief that they were apparently well and were unharmed. As a Father and Grandfather I'm glad they are safe the sight of four young men and women coming home in coffins yesterday brought me to tears, how many more must die in this stupid conflict? As for young people today being uncommitted to the cause, can you blame them? What is the cause? What is the objective?


----------



## ddraigmor

At the risk of being blasted by some individuals, might I just chance my view?

I think that we should be glad the 15 are back but we should be asking major questions as to which loon suddenly decided that compensation was an OK thing. The UK Military has always prided itself on its traditions and its own values - this is not a part of it and many ex-servicemen I know (as well as those serving) all say the same thing: It was pretty bad to use these 15 as kudos after what they'd been through.

It all doesn't add up and it will be interesting to see what happens now. 

Meanwhile, four serving soldiers were brought back home after being killed in action. Seeing that, and then hearing the rather sordid debate about rights or wrongs of the money issue, made me feel sick. The dead four got less coverage than the 15. 

Something wrong with that, I think. Something very wrong with that indeed.

Jonty


----------



## Santos

There are three subjects here ddraigmor :-

*1. Conduct of the 15 during capture and detention

2. Conduct of the Government allowing payment for stories.

3. Conduct of 15 selling stories.*

Conduct of the 15 during capture and detention.

I believe that their conduct was very good under the cir***stances. They bowed to superior ( firepower ) forces and did not committ suicide which would have been a senseless and pointless loss of life. They remain members of our armed forces and live to fight another day once again aboard Cornwall.

I seem to remember a contingent of Royal Marines on the Falklands doing the same sensible thing, bowing to superior firepower and then returning to fight to recapture the islands and to raise the flag again. *Nobody castigated them for their actions, purely the opposite they were very brave people.*

As prisoners the 15 did what they had to if they were to hold any hope of release. They went along to a point with what their captors wanted of them but in such a manner as it was obvious to us they were under duress. They played the game and as a result gained their lives and their release, without disclosing anything that the Iranians didnt already know. They also did it as we now know under considerable mental torture. Do prisoners have to undergo physical torture to be heros, does mental torture not matter. I think not.


*Conduct of the Government allowing payment for stories.*

Now we come to the cause of all the fuss and the castigation of the 15. If the Government had not done what they had done would the 15 have been castigated as they have been. NO. 

The government saw a vote catcher or thought they saw a vote catcher in demonstrating how kind they were to the 15. Lets be popular and let them tell their stories and get money for them. Arnt we the greatest. NO you have just played an ace card in favour of the Iranians and turned all their fellow servicemen and women against the 15 and caused total unrest and grievances amongest all your armed service personnel. Well done Mr Blairs Government.


*Conduct of 15 selling stories*

Our Armed Force get paid a pittance. Would you in receipt of a pittance and given the opportunity to earn a 5 or 6 figure ammount by telling what happened to you with your governments' blessing ( and thinking everyone else would be doing the same thing ) turn that offer down, I think not. Only two sold their stories, one bitterly regrets it, saying if he had known the others wouldnt be doing it, he wouldnt have done it. I cant speak for the other one as I have heard nothing of what she has said.

The whole crux of the matter revolves around the Government handling of the incident and the fact that Tony Blair took us into a war that should never have happened in the first place and a war that has killed and will continue to kill too many of our soldiers sailors and airmen. I could go on forever but I wont. Suffice it to say, I blame only one person in all this, he who has made us a target of hate throughout the world and we all know who he is and where he lives.

Blame him and be thankful that there are people who are still willing to stand up and fight for this country and if necessary lose their lives in the process.
I notice there are very few politicians sons and daughters in uniform if any but there are a number of Royal Family sons who have stood and are standing for their country. I know where my loyalties lie and I am proud of it.

Lets stop ****ging these people off, they dont deserve it, its easy to sit behind a computer, television etc and pontificate about what is right and what is wrong and what we would have done 50 years ago, its a different thing today to carry arms in a far off land where everyone wants to kill you, have some gratitude and respect for those who are willing to serve, I have.

Chris.


----------



## JoK

Well Said Sir.


----------



## cboots

George above seems to take exception to recruits regarding the armed forces as just another job. I would suggest he takes a close look at the advertising that is placed for forces recruitment. It is all about learning trades, developing leadership skills, access to foreign travel and so forth. Killing people, and putting oneself in a position where others want to kill you, never gets a mention. Also take a look at current conflicts; expecting young people to "die for their country" when the foreign hordes are swarming up the beaches may well get a positive response. But who is going to lay down their life for UN Resolution xxxx? 
On a more general note, this thread is getting very repetitive; I would suggest it is time to wind it up.
CBoots


----------



## ddraigmor

Chris,

The Marines on the Falklands fought - they did not 'bow down to superior forces'. They only stopped when the Govenor of the islands, Rex Hunt, told them to stop. A number of islanders also opposed the invasion. They all behaved in the way they were trained to behave. Let's look at facts:

*Battle for Grytviken, Saturday 3rd April* - That morning "Guerrico" and the "Bahia Paraiso" under the command of Captain Trombeta and by now with many of the Argentinian marines re-embarked from Leith, arrived off Grytviken. The Magistrate was called on to surrender by radio, but he passed authority for the island to Lt Mills RM, and at mid-day, with the Alouette going ahead to reconnoitre, "Guerrico" laying out in the Bay and the Puma about to land the first twenty troops near King Edward Point, *battle commenced*. As the troop-carrying Puma made her second trip in from "Bahia Paraiso" she was hit by small arms fire and badly damaged just off the Point with two Marines killed. Barely managing to lift off, she made it to the other side of King Edward Cove before crashing [first Argentine aircraft loss ]. The Alouette was also hit, but only lightly damaged and continued to bring in more Marines across from the base. Now "Guerrico" sailed in to support the landings and opened fire on the British positions, but it was her turn to be hit by hundreds of rounds of small arms fire as well as 66mm LAW and 84mm Carl Gustav anti-tank weapons before heading back out into the Bay. 

*Surrender *- From there, she used her 100mm gun against Lt Mill's men as the Argentine Marines moved around the Cove, through the whaling station at Grytviken and closed in. Trapped, with one man wounded and having *convincingly defended British sovereignty*, he decided to surrender. All 22 Royal Marines as well as the 13 civilians at Grytviken were taken prisoner. 

*Falkland Islands Attacks *- From 6.00am the main attacks and supporting landings got underway. The larger body of Buzo Tactico hit Moody Brook and then headed east for Government House which by then was under fire from a smaller group. Around 6.30am, the first of some 20 LVTP-7 Amtraks with 20 Marines each inside were landing from "Cabo San Antonio" and by 6.45am more troops were coming into the airfield by helicopter. As the off-balanced Royal Marine defenders fell back on Government House, one of the sections on the Stanley road stopped an Amtrak with anti-armour weapons.

*British Surrender *- With daybreak and Government House surrounded, under sniper fire and the Amtraks approaching, Governor Hunt attempted to negotiate. Faced with the overwhelming forces at Adm Busser's disposal, he ordered the Marines to lay down their arms, which they did at 9.30am without having suffered any casualties. 

Now that shows that even in the face of overwhelming odds, with superior firepower and numbers against them, the Royal Marines did not ' bow down' to anyone. They did not give in and lay down their weapons. They did what they were trained to do; they stood and fought and gave the Argentinians a taste of what was to come.

Yes, blame Tony Blair and his government for the war in Iraq. That's his job, to be blamed. However, I seem to recall an outcry about the way Saddam Hussein was treating his people and when we went in with the intention of deposing him, there was general support for the removal of a dictator. As the war progressed, the words 'oil', 'greed' and so on began to circulate and with mounting casualties, it became an unpopular option. It is made even more unpopular by the lack of support for our military who are working under extreme pressure and with lack of national support back home. 

You say that the prisoners did what they had to under the cir***stances. I believe 'doing what you have to ' involves the Geneva Convention 'Name, rabnk and serial number' - but these people were captured by a hostile, evil regime with a reputation for doing awful things to people while the world stands by with its hands in its pockets and does SFA most of the time. Their conduct (or lack of it) will be determined by a board and then we may know what really went on. We can - and we are doing on here - pontificate and surmise to our heart's content. That's debate and we are allowed that.

Would I have taken take the money? No, I would not. I belong to a time when you quit whingeing and moaning and got your head down to do what you are supposed to do. I also belong to a generation who still believes in sacrifice and duty and honour. I have never sold out and never will - but then, the way I was brought up is different to the selfish, 'human rights' led nanny state we live in today. Believe that or not, I stand by my convictions. Those who sold their story will have to be further judged by their shipmates when they get back aboard the ship. Will it have been worth it then? 

Paid a pittance? Maybe the lower ranks are. More senior ranks are paid equal to or above their civilian counterparts. They also get an excellent pension scheme and benefits if they complete their service. That's not a good arguing point. Chris. When you enlist you are told about what you are getting in to and with the media coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan in your face daily, you also know that you will likely serve in a combat zone. It's another weak point you made.

As for gratitude to those who have and still serve. Maybe you misread me; I have the utmost gratitude and am fiercely supportive of our military. Do with that what you will but I am also proud of my country - *right or wrong*. You also said: _its a different thing today to carry arms in a far off land where everyone wants to kill you, have some gratitude and respect for those who are willing to serve, I have_. Northern Ireland saw British troops engaged in a bloody, violent civil war on our doorstep. Many troops and civilians were killed - our own countrymen. There was little outcry about that compared to this. Or is it because there was less media coverage? Was it because it was not as 'politically popular' a conflict as this? NI was not a 'far off land' but troops were always being targetted. Why no passion for that situation? Iraq is a media war - and we are all experts, and I include myself in that number. Like you, I sit behind a PC screen and pontificate. Unlike you, I lend my support not for anti-government concern but because our military are once again being asked to do a job they are not being supported to carry out due to bleeding heart liberalism. I am grateful, Chris. I have a brother, a sister in law and two cousins who serve and have served in those conflicts. I admire, and am thankful for, their service and devotion to duty. 


C-boots want the thread stoopped now. I don't. I believe that there is lots more to say on this and, as the whole sorry debacle unwinds, we will get a better picture. I'd leave it open. 

I'll end by saying that I am glad the 15 were returned safe and well. I am also, however, disturbed by the voice of opinion for their conduct when, a few days after, four coffins were brought to RAF Lyneham and the only thing the media latched on to was that the families asked Des Brown not to come. 

It's as I said in my last post: wrong.

Jonty


----------



## Lindsay Bremner

Hi Jonty

It's not really possible to compare the Royal Marines in the Falklands to the boarding party from Cornwall. The Marines in South Georgia were well dug in and as such had plenty cover they were also well trained commandos (the very best) The boarding party were onboard ribs with no protection whatsoever, I’m sure if they had some cover they would have put up a fight. I do agree with what you say about accepting money for stories, which should not have been given the green light from the MoD. That seems to me the government passing the buck, putting public opinion against the sailors and marines and deflecting any criticism away from them.
Like you I am also fiercely supportive of our military. 
I also agree this thread should not be closed, like you said there is a long way to go with this.

Regards
Lindsay


----------



## bobarr

I agree that it is time to wind up the thread. All points of view now seem to have been aired. It was always one of those occasions that invited diverse and opposing viewpoints. Lets hope the service people involved can get on with their lives and careers, and those responsible for putting so many lives on the line answer at the ballot box.
bobarr


----------



## Hugh Ferguson

bobarr said:


> I agree that it is time to wind up the thread. All points of view now seem to have been aired. It was always one of those occasions that invited diverse and opposing viewpoints. Lets hope the service people involved can get on with their lives and careers, and those responsible for putting so many lives on the line answer at the ballot box.
> bobarr


 I do so agree, it is all becoming too politicised. It reminds me so much of a Burma Star Assoc. memorial service I attended in Truro cathedral some years back. Whoever was in the pulpit used the occasion to make some political points about war. It was evident this was causing some disquiet in the congregation. I heard an old 14th Army soldier, and others, muttering that this association was non-political, and we were there, specifically, to remember those who never came home. A bit like the loss of the British Merchant Navy which surely is what this splendid web-site is all about.


----------



## benjidog

There is no reason to close this thread - this case continues to be a matter of great public interest and, as someone else has already said, the story has some way to go.

Members are politely reminded that while you are free to state your own opinions on this matter and counter the arguments of other people, we will not put up with personal attacks or insults of those with views other than your own.

Regards,

Brian


----------



## ddraigmor

Lindsay,

Many thanks for the post. The point I was making was that knowing they were facing superior (numerical) odds, the marines put up a stiff resistance. It was also my view that Chris elected to use that occasion to draw parallels and indicated that the Marines did not make a stand. I was hopefully trying to draw out that whilst the situations were very different, there was indeed a fight - Chris's post made no mention of it but used it to try and illustrate that they 'bowed down'. They did - but not until they'd done their duty. I believe the thread on the 15 is about that very issue. Duty. 

I am also wholly behind Hugh's comments - politics bedamned; we should be supporting our forces. The rights and wrongs of the money angle and the treatment the 15 received are now in the public domain and, as such, deserve comment. However, the 'rights' and 'wrongs' (sic) of the war and whether Mr. Blair dragged us into it ilegally or not are not the issue. The 15 and their conduct is.

Benjidog. many thanks - I'm all for a lively debate and if we can do that in the best traditions of 'yarning', then it's in the spirit of the site!

Jonty


----------



## Santos

ddraigmor,

You state I make weak points, are you an expert on the armed services then? I make points which I believe in based on what I see, hear, read and have been involved in.

I did not say the marines in the Falklands did not make a stand - I said that they surrendered which they did -- you say that Governer Hunt ordered them to - from what I have read the officers in charge of the ribs agreed the surrender of the navy personnel faced with similar cir***stances - whether they were ordered to or not the marines still surrendered to superior firepower and lived to fight another day just as these 15 have.

You profess to admire and be thankful for your relatives armed service, yet you accuse the 15 of not doing their duty. What more could they have done when confronted by superior firepower, in open water without any form of cover. Your point is they should have done their duty -- what pray was that, open fire and literally committ suicide -- ah Yes that must be it, then they would be dead heros and have done their duty or probably criminals for breaking the rules of engagement or committing murder as we are not at war with Iran. My question, would you be advocating that they had not done their duty had one of your relatives been amongst the 15 and castigating them as you do these unfortunate ones.

With regard to the name rank and number routine -- they were not prisoners of war they were hostages.

You agree the lower ranks are paid a pittance - you then go on to talk about senior ranks - none of the senior ranks sold their stories - oh and dont talk to me about pensions, I have relatives ex services lower ranks, who would be so very grateful for a pension you talk about and Yes they did their full term. 

I quote you " Unlike you, I lend my support not for anti-government concern but because our military are once again being asked to do a job they are not being supported to carry out due to bleeding heart liberalism. " Where have I said I dont support the military --- I have never not supported the military, what am I saying in this thread consistantly is " have some gratitude and respect for those who are willing to serve in the military, I have. " is that not supporting the military.

Yes I think the war is wrong and that Tony Blair is responsible, but where does that make me anti military, I have consistantly supported the military. I think an apology is in order there.

I remind you of benjidogs' comments -- we will not put up with personal attacks or insults of those with views other than your own.

To sum up my views - During the capture and detention I do not see that the 15 did anything other than be brave and sensible in very difficult cir***stances and I am personally delighted that they all survived the ordeal without injury and are now home safe again. Any castigation of them on the facts currently known will be totally unfair and unwarranted. They will all no doubt return to the war in either Iraq or Afganistan and may their Gods go with them ALONG WITH MY SUPPORT when they do.

In relation to the money for stories issue - there is only one blameworthy body there and that is the Government for allowing it. The fact that two did in fact sell their stories is human nature and only they can tell you and their shipmates why they did it, even though they had permission and the Governments blessing to do so.

Chris.


----------



## Nairda59

I agree with George.GM
If the mother ship couldnt cover them then they should have fired all their weapons at the Iranians.
Who was keeping watch while the boarding party were checking out the craft.
Why wasnt the mother ship radioing the RIB's to tell them they were getting visitors.
The Captain of the mother ship should be Court Martialled and the senior officer of the boarding party should join him.
They should donate all their ill gotten earnings to the soldiers sailors and airmens fund and the British Legion equally and dismissed the service.
In future no boarding party should be let loose further than 1nm from mother ship, if this is the best we can do.
One last thing, maybe we shouldnt be there, but we are and we used to have what were called standards in my day, and this isnt up to standard.
Oy you lad - get fell in !!!


----------



## ddraigmor

Chris,

Let's not throw hissy fits here. I responded and you ensure that you state I am bordering on a personal attack. I believe not and view this as constructive criticism. I digress, let me analyse your responses and, I hope, counter them in as balanced way as I am able to. Your quotes, by the way, are in italics.

_" I seem to remember a contingent of Royal Marines on the Falklands doing the same sensible thing, bowing to superior firepower "_ The terminology you used in that quote is flawed and *that *is what I picked up on. They did not 'Bow down', which means they surrendered willingly - check the dictionary or look up ther expression in Roget's Thesaurus for the most literal explanation. Instead, they fought and only surrendered when ordered to do so by Rex Hunt or, in Lt. keith Mills's case, when he ran out of ammo and had an injured man in his party - but only after he had weighed the situation up and determined that his tactical action had given the invaders something to think about. He had also to consider the further welfare of his men. Thus my point in response was about duty. In the case of the 15, they must have decided that what they did was the best course of action. I am not disputing that. I never have. What I am disputing is their behaviour in taking money - government sanctioned or not.

Duty, by the way, is the issue for me. There are protocols in place within the military for conduct during capture. Duty, however, is a larger issue. It involves behaviour - when the marines were captured by the Argies in the Falklands, not one of them gave anything to the enemy in the manner these 15 did. None of them were ever given huge payouts by the media either. Why? because they have a tradition within the service of behaving 'in a soldierly manner'. Also the late Captain Robert Nairac, captured by the IRA, gave nothing away to his captors - even when they fed him slowly through an industrial mincing machine. Two undercover army troopers murdered on TV by the IRA in a taxi in Belfast did not return fire even though they knew the situation was lost because they knew there were civilians around. They were shot down in cold blood and that was televised. That, Chris, is duty. That is 'conduct becoming'. Selfless, courageous behaviour over and above the expected call of duty. That is my issue. History is filled with stories of men and women performing their duty with honour and nobility. I am afraid I have not seen that same honour displayed here. Survival yes - duty? Alas, no. The media circus showed the obvious highlights and this is what we are debating - what happened behind closed doors will come out eventually and we could all be proven wrong - but the facts speak as they are currently displayed, and we comment on that sliver of exposure.

_You profess to admire and be thankful for your relatives armed service, yet you accuse the 15 of not doing their duty._ Duty is duty. there are codes of conduct for behaviour in warfare (or combat situations). That is to adhere to The Geneva Convention. One of the captured 15 more or less wrote their life story out in public, thereby giving information out to the hostage takers. What else did they glean via this psychological game? Transmission of useful information to an enemy is not recommended. So my argument was that somewhere in that situation, duty - the sense of it - failed. No more, no less. 

For an excellent example of duty, look at the story of HMS 'Jervis Bay' and her taking on of one of the most modern, well equipped surface units of the Kriegsmarine during World War 2. Outgunned, out classed - she gave herself up for the benefit of the convoy she ws charged with protecting. They faced hopless odds. That is a fine exaple of duty. Some definitions: *1 *- something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation. *2.* the binding or obligatory force of something that is morally or legally right; moral or legal obligation. * 3*. an action or task required by a person's position or occupation; function 

_they were not prisoners of war they were hostages._ They were combattants enforcing a UN resolution, armed and behaving as maritime constabulary. They were on duty as members of the UK Armed Forces, and in Iraqi waters. Iran entered those waters - which must constitute an open act of aggression - but the why and wherefore of that has yet to be opened out.

I did not say you did not support the military, Chris. I said that you tended to go political and blame the in power government, hence my response per 'bleeding heart liberal'. You also called the war illegal - that does not show support - it is an open attack on policy and, as such, a questioning of the role of the UK Military in that operation. So, it cannot be a supportive statement. You did so in the last post you wrote. _Yes I think the war is wrong and that Tony Blair is responsible_

You mention that the sale of the stories is human nature. I would dispute that. They were very quick indeed to strike a deal with the media which leads me to believe it is seen as compensation. Most of them did not take that offer up - the two who did did so extremely quickly. Isn't that self-preservation? I hold by my view. They were thinking of themselves and not of anyone else, whether government sanctioned or not. It would be a noble gesture if they were to give some of that money to the families of those killed in Iraq; unlikely.

_are you an expert on the armed services then?_ Thjs could be construed as a personal attack on me and what I have written. However, I am not about to go public and all shock and horror on it and bleat to the mods. Tut, as if!

_You profess to admire and be thankful for your relatives armed service,_ I am indeed. Very much so. Are you perhaps using that point in some sort of rearguard, sniping action as it reads somewhat disdainfully to me? I would hope not. I would be extremely upset if I thought you were attempting anything as cheap as that.

_are you an expert on the armed services then?_ Am I an expert? With four articles written for the BBC on specific military subjects, two thesis length commisions for a military history website I leave you to draw your own conclusion.

I trust that the broadsides are now over and the matter resolved in as gentlemanly a way as we can muster? If not, do feel free to take the floor further. Either that or pistols at dawn; I leave you to decide.

Jonty


----------



## Santos

Jonty

I reserve the right to disagree with you and I do so. I will comment no further on the matter. I have made my views and ideas more than clear which is my entitlement.

You obiviously deem yourself to be the authoriative expert on the incident and worldly issues so I will leave you to think of yourself as that. Happy days.

Chris.


----------



## Hugh MacLean

This is a war zone and we were caught cold we shouldn't have but we were.

There should be questions asked about the way we conducted ourselves but mostly that should be asked of those who were in overall command on the warship and those who drew up the rules of engagement. Why should the senior officer of the boarding party be court martialled. He did all he could except sacrafice his men in a hopeless situation. He never sold his story, ok the whole tv affair was embarrasing but they did what they had to do to get out. 

I hope the Navy can learn lessons here - when in a war zone these boardings have to be taken seriously. I have heard it said that these were routine boardings...lets get this straight, it's not routine, it's never routine when there is a war going on. Oh yes, there is a war going on, and we are very much in it, whether we like it or not, and sadly we have our fallen countrymen coming home all too regularly.

I am glad our sailors/marines are all home safe....I regret the fact that money was received by some for their stories....this should never have been allowed.....MOD/Sec of State for Defence at fault here without a doubt.

For Chris and Jonty... you both have your own points of view and very good you are at putting them across....lets not fall out over it....we should be able to air our views without falling out here.

Regards


----------



## Santos

Thank you Hugh, a very balenced view. 

Chris.


----------



## cboots

As it is quite obvious that opposing positions are refusing to surrender or compromise here it seems to me that what is required is a more balanced approach. To that end I propose that the UN should give the Iranian Navy authority to stop and search merchant vessels in the Solent and all of us on this thread should observe very carefully what the British authorities do. We can then return to this site and re-open hostilities from where we left off before.
CBoots


----------



## ddraigmor

Chris,

Points taken and I concur with the main thrust of your responding post - but really, you do need to keep your feelings under some control. _You obiviously deem yourself to be the authoriative expert on the incident and worldly issues so I will leave you to think of yourself as that. Happy days._ is both an inflammatory remark and the last response of a bitter man. I never said I was an 'expert'; *you *gave me that badge. 

I find it quite annoying that whenever we step up a gear in this debate (and others), when the going gets somewhat tough, some people revert to innuendo and attempts at cheap humour. Tsk, tsk. Whatever happened to constructive criticism and the right to debate?

I asked you to draw a conclusion from the answer I gave to your direct question and you then go on to attempt mockery and sarcasm. It doesn't _quite_ work but I shall let it slip and not ask for a mod to come in and slap your wrists. I have a generous nature and am not easily hurt.

C-Boots - (Sigh). Not funny, not clever and basically a sneering attempt at being witty. The issue is about reality - that drives the thread - and your _balanced approach_ is clearly not. Iranians up the Solent? Do grow up, there's a good chap. After all, you do cite yourself on your profile as 'gentleman'. 

Here's to returning to the debate with its wide view of thoughts, commentary and opinions. I agree with Hugh that we should not fall into a slanging matchg so as far as I am concerned, can we move on?

BTW, If mods want me to desist from posting - as I appear to be hurting people's feelings - then PM me and I will withdraw from this thread. No hard feelings. I don't fret over the issue and word slinging but please note, I enjoy a challenge and will respond..........! 

Jonty


----------



## cboots

Ah, I do take note of Jonty's request that I grow up; big boys advocate mass murder; war to you. Big people think that it is perfectly okay for our chaps to invade other people's countries and position our armed forces in their areas, but it is stupid and childish to suggest that perhaps we should consider what might happen should the roles be reversed. Just for the record I was not attempting to be humourous I was trying to extract some explanation as to what principle lies behind all this gungho, give them a jolly old broadside stuff that the "bombs away" lobby have been advocating, and that they seem totally incapable of providing. I do remain, as Jonty so kindly points out, a gentleman.
CBoots


----------



## johnalderman

What amazes me reading this, is that some posters seem to think supporting our forces means encouraging them to commit suicide!!!!!!
Wake up folks, we are not at war with Iran, our armed forces alegedly strayed into their territorial waters and were arrested, treat seemingly quiet well, then released unharmed. Good result I would say, if I was the parent one one of these sailors. The alternative scenario would be 15 more body bags returning home, surely no one wants that?


----------



## cboots

Thank you Johnalderman, that puts the thing into perspective very nicely, you have my 100% aggreement on that.
CBoots


----------



## ddraigmor

Oh dear........looks like we have the bleeding ehearts out today in force. 

I *did not advocate anything gung-ho*. I am making a point about duty. As for invading other people's countries. Well, they can't do that by themselves now can they? They need to be ordered to do such a thing by the Prime Minister - and they take those orders (unpopular though they may be) and do their duty - as the poet said: 'my country, right or wrong'. So how can they be viewed as the bad guys in this, which is what you are advocating in your comments regarding the illegality of the situation? Tommy Atkins and his oppos in the other services don't have a choice - but when they have to go, they go and they do the job better than 99.9% of the world's military because they are professional. I fail to see what attempting to do the impossible - sending Iraqi gunboats up the Solent - has to do with it. It wont happen. The roles could not be reversed as Iran does not have the military muscle to mount that sort of op. Read their listings in Janes, if you want an up to date picture. So mentioning it was a bit silly, wasn't it? Why, therefore mention it? BTW, we are part of the UN and we did agree, many years ago, to support UN directives. Blame Blair as much as you like - who signed us up to the UN?

When did I ever advocate suicide in my posts? I believe I never did. When did I say that the 15 should have fought their way out? Reading back through my posts, I believe I never once said anything like that. Supporting them, yes. Supporting them to commit suicide - nope. Not me, guv.

As for the principle of what lies behind all of this jingoism - where have you been? The war in Iraq has been going on for years. The reason was initially the invasion of Kuwait, many moons ago, then the deposing of a dictator and the bringing in of democracy. Our troops do not go in willy-nilly and slaughter innocents - they are there to try and bring stability to the region. The Iraqis and Iranians are well able to provide carnage a-plenty amongst themselves; they don't need us to add to it. To quote a song written by Harvey Andrews ('The British Soldier') 

'The priests they stand on both sides, the priests they stand behind. 
Bloody fighting Jesus leads the blind against the blind. 
The soldier stands between them between their whistling stones, between their broken bottles that lead to broken bones, 
the petrol bombs that burn him and the nails that pierce his skin 
- the lonely British Soldiers wish they were back home again. ' 

Wrong era, right sentiment.

So, those were the reasons we are there and the case for all the rumours about oil (etc) has not been proven because when I fill up, it costs more. Surely if we had raped Iraq (as the bleeding heart ant-war lobby would have us believe) then my petrol would be cheaper. Quid pro quo. Another smokescreen by the humanist lobby. Look for a reason to say we are in the wrong and shout it from the rooftops - when the plain and simple fact is that no-one would willingly be out there but they have no choice; the government direct - it is to the government that we should remonstrate.

If Blair acted illegally, then - as someone pointed out - those of us *who reside in the UK *have a chance to demonstrate our feelings via the ballot box. Unless they have a proxy, of course. However, permanently living, oh half the world away and trying to influence the political dictat of the 'old counrty' sounds a bit like 'Angry of Manchester'. You can't have your cake and eat it!

As for body bags. No, this incident did not produce any and be grateful for that. Again, that was not my point. Yet body bags continue to be returned to the UK and I have not heard any single one of you tree hugging liberals orating about the sacrifices made recently by men and women who were killed in the line of duty and whose families never received offers of blood money from the media. Yet two service personnel who were captured, well treated and then released get massive payouts and take them. (I do note some of those did not.) _That_ is the issue. That they stretched their hands out in the spirit of blame culture and took it when there are squaddies being killed in places like Basra who have absolutely no chance of that at all, and who daily face the wrath of an unquiet population - and get SFA in return. 

So the thread start was about how we felt about it. Not about using cluster bombs or cruise missiles against Iran. Against the Iranians who perpetuated this debacle, yes. I was all for going in and whuppin' some bottom - I still am - because they have won, however you look at it, and that makes me feel pretty bad because all it has done is show the fanatics in the Arab world that we can be stung.

Like many ordinary folk, I am appalled that the money was ever allowed to change hands, appalled that there were those who could see no further than their pockets - and bugger their mates - becausse they felt it was adequatre compensation for their hardship. Apalled at the way the government handled this and appalled that we have allowed Iran to cock a snoot at us, thus making the jobs of ordinary service personnel that much harder.

Keep it coming. Debate is the sincerest form of apoplexy!

Jonty


----------



## johnalderman

You are in danger of sliding into insult once more my friend, I for one wish we had never gone to war in the Gulf region, as for Blair, yes I blame him for hanging onto the coat tails of Bush, but as for changing things with the ballet box, the Tory's would have gone to war sooner than even Blair, they backed his decision 100% while some of Blair's own party did not.
I support the lads and lasses who we sent to do a dirty job, I will never sit at home safe behind a computer and ask them to commit suicide, I was moved to tears the other day to see two young men and two young women come home in coffins, I must be getting old because I was also moved to tears to see the young people of Iraq sitting in filthy hospital wards with no drugs to easy the pain after being blown to pieces by modern technology in the name of God knows what. Huminist? yes and it means little to me what colour persons skin is or whether they are Arab or Jew.


----------



## Pompeyfan

All this is straying away from the original thread: What now for the former captives.

We could go on forever as to whether we should or should not be in the area. It is all ifs and buts, each with their own opinion. If the dog hadn't stopped to crap, he would have caught the rabbit. 

My own opinion is that unless our country is attacked directly, we should keep out of it. Poking your nose into other people(countries) affairs has never worked, and never will. Nosey neighbours are the same. They poke their nose in causing nothing but trouble.

The Falklands were different. We owned them, so it was like attacking us back home. So we defended ourselves like any country would. 

However, rightly or wrongly, we are in Irac, and pulling out would no doubt cause more problems that could affect us directly, and possibly already has.

As for the 15, they did nothing wrong as I said in another post. It is beyond me how anybody can criticise them for acting as they did. They should not have been put in that position, but when they were they acted correctly to save their own lives, and not start a conflict. They responded with dignity which is not only a feather in their cap, but ours as a country as well. Nobody on either side was hurt. So in the name of sanity, what is wrong with that?. As long as nobody is hurt, let the politics sort itself out. We know nothing about it, and neither does most politicians?!!. 

Yet rather than praise the 15 for not reacting thus putting us, their country at risk, some of us are blaming them. We really are a fickle lot at times?!. 

As for the money, if temptation is put in your way, most people take it. We live in a dog eat dog world, each jealous of the other if one gets something the other has not got or offered. The hypocracy in this case has been stunning. Newspapers condemming others after being turned down themselves. And I understand that former naval officers who criticised the sailors who accpeted money, was paid themselves. We live in a world of hypocracy. 

I hope the 15 go back to their ship, and get on with normal duties whatever they are. At least they are doing more than the armchair generals sitting comfortably in front of their computers doing nothing but criticise. David


----------



## ddraigmor

David, 

Well said. Like you, I find it hurts when I see the waste on both sides of the line. I wish I could do more for both - UK service personnel (another three who were killed this afternnoon ina helo accident) and the many civilians caught up in what is a religious and sectarian 'civil war' that they are often caught up in, murdered by their own countrymen. One more bomb this afternoon in a crowded place, mortars included.

John,

I value your comments and appreciate your point of view. However, sliding into insult? Hardly. If individuals cannot accept criticism and try to pass it off as insult, then they should look to their own posts. I have been 'insulted' more than once on here and I don't give a monkey's for the thrust of it because it shows that the perpetrator needs to resort to it in order to make a point. That's poor debating skill. Insult is basic, it is derogatory and it is invariably direct. You read what you read and you interpret what you want.

As I said in an earlier post, if the mods want me to close my thread contribution down, then PM me and I will withdraw without question, bowing down to their reasons. 

However, I will not defer my opinion on this matter nor have it twisted simply because someone takes umbrage at my point of view. This is, I am proud to say, a democracy. Live and let live.

Jonty


----------



## ddraigmor

My last word on this. Promise. I've had enough of the in-fighting but feel that this conveys my feelings exactly.

I am taking the liberty of reproducing three messages from *serving* personnel which were sent to me from my sister-in-law, who is a Flt Sgt in the RAF on this issue. Her gen comes from one of the many military forums she is on This does not show the full feeling and is selective to a certain degree - but it does show how ordinary members of the forces - some serving out in Iraq - feel and there was *not one single supporter *of what went on! It all reads very much like these:

_" Fully agree with you. I heard it on the late night news last night and sent off an E Mail to the 10 Downing Street E Mail address to Mr T Blair. NOT that it will make 1 iota of difference but it got my anger out at such a cretinous move on the part of the MoD. 
I GIVE UP, I SURRENDER. This country’s Govt are now worse than that of a banana Republic. HOW BL**DY DARE THEY make ANY kind of comparison between this crew and the winner of a VC. Please please please can we have a NEW Govt and new leaders with b*lls enough to LEAD this great country and to tell people like the press barons to get stuffed. IF it had been me and this request had come before me I would have had the redcaps round their houses so fast and they could have finished their leave in Qatar waiting for the Cornwall to dock and rejoin their ship. Next plane out would have been my responce.All I can say is if the majority of todays forces are anything like this these guys could be in for a rough ride on RTU. Only saving grace for them would be IF they donated 100% of what they are paid to the forces welfare for the families of those that have been killed or wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. "_ WO1 RAF

_" Ian I have a Gripe with both. I have nothing against women serving in the front line but I do not beleive that once they have children they can serve in the forces. The two roles are just not combatable. I wonder how often that little girl longs to be able to tell her Mum about things that have happened to her but cant because she is not there. Why have children if you are not going to bring them up. 
As for this government, they havent a clue about the forces and dont care about them. We wont even have a navy left soon if the cuts that they are talking about come in.
I will also raise a previous point what happened to the official secrets act that we all signed when we served? "_ S/Sgt (female) Army (based in Basra.

_" All the victims of the two great wars and others must be turning in their graves right now. What were the exceptional cir***stances that warranted the fifteen service personnel getting six figure payments when putting in context with what the former did and gave.From what I could see it was Butlins compared to the Japanese prisoner of war camps.

I stand corrected on the next if wrong but I was under the impression that the official secrets act prevented anyone serving in the Colours discussing or revealing anything in relation to Crown issues for 30 years.

I salute Maj.General Sir Richard Dannett on his views on this issue. 
Perhaps the 15 involved should take a look at the big picture instead of themselves in isolation. " _Unnamed RN person.

So, if that is the concensus of opinion _within_ the military (and my sister-in-law feels exactly the same ), why are we arguing on here about the rights and wrongs of it? We can express our opinions - and believe me, we have - but I think this groundswell of opinion from serving membvers of HM Armed Forces closes the debate neatly.

BTW, no-one had a good word to say about the captain of HMS Cornwall, Des Brown, The Government of the UK, the Media or of one of the two officers in the party who admitted - publicly - that they were spying (having been prompted by the Iraqis....)

It also closed with one member asking what anyone captured by the Iraqis could expect now.........a sobering note to end on.

Jonty


----------



## Santos

ddraigmor said:


> John,
> 
> *If individuals cannot accept criticism......................
> 
> However, I will not defer my opinion on this matter nor have it twisted simply because someone takes umbrage at my point of view. Jonty*




I said I was not going to comment again Jonty but feel I must comment on your remarks above. 

It is very apparant throughout this thread that when people put their views forward and they dont agree with yours, you heavily criticise those peoples views ( in the interest of good debate ) and go to great lengths to put them down describing them as weak points etc, and then you appear surprised that they get upset. 

However it would appear by your remarks above, that you wont stand for any criticism of any of *your* opinions or points of view. 

Very one sided that. You obviously cant see any point of view which differs to your own and yet criticise people for not being able to accept criticism. I dont see how that can be ' good debate '.

Chris.


----------



## ddraigmor

Chris,

I agree - but would like to point out that it is aimed at those individuals who continue to make refernce to my posts in a derogatory and I would sugggest critical way for whatever reasons. Perhaps personality comes into it?

I did say " _However, I will not defer my opinion on this matter nor have it twisted simply because someone takes umbrage at my point of view."_ and stand by that but perhaps an explanation is in order? By it I mean that my opinion is my own. The 'twist' comes when individuals associate me with another lobby, to which I had no allegiance, and to which I take umbrage. My opinion is just that, my own. If others want to cross swords, I am more than willing to fight it out. 

Certain portions of this thread have been defamatory, almost amounting to 'personal atrtack' by two members on my posts. I did not cry havoc and ask that the mods let slip their dogs of war. I gave back as good as I got. That, Chris, is debate. Asking for a mod to intervene because one feels slighted within a thread like this is, at best, seeking allegiances. There have been some well do***ented personal attacks on people in the forum and the mods have - quite rightly - stepped in. I cannot see any of that here - but that is my view.

One sided is amatter of opinion, Chris. And no, I will not stand idly by whilst certain individuals take a swipe at me and if I give back - as I have done - in the way I have, then, in my estimation, justice has been served.

The members in question know who they are and have also clashed with me on other threads. From here on in, I will make a studied point of not responding to them in any thread and that way, the peace can be kept.

Thank you for pointing out my faults. I value contructive criticism when it is not levelled personally.

Jonty


----------



## Pompeyfan

Once again this thread is straying. As Brian says(Benjidog)says, the story has some way to go. So please listen to our moderators. Politely disagree with others who do not share your view, but without personal attack. The quicker other members realize the latter will not be tolerated, the better it will be for the rest of us when discussing topics current or otherwise. David.


----------



## johnalderman

Serving personnel from many conflicts went on to make a living out of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I'm with Pompeyfan 100% when he says if we as a nation are attacked we should of course respond to defend ourselves. But what we are doing out in the gulf I don't know, we overthrow the leadership of Iraq then install a puppet government and say we are here at the Iraqi governments invitation!!!!! To give them democracy, the same democracy we seem ridicule and despise here in our own country. Bring them home, let the Middle East sort out it own problems, we have enough to occupy us here at home.


----------



## benjidog

*Enough Already!*



benjidog said:


> There is no reason to close this thread - this case continues to be a matter of great public interest and, as someone else has already said, the story has some way to go.
> 
> Members are politely reminded that while you are free to state your own opinions on this matter and counter the arguments of other people, we will not put up with personal attacks or insults of those with views other than your own.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Brian


Gentlemen,

My plea appears to have fallen on deaf ears!

Let's keep the personal attacks off the agenda or we will have to start deleting posts which I really prefer not to do.

Brian


----------



## ddraigmor

Benjidog,

Thanks for the timely intervention but I am withdrawing from the thread forthwith. I appear to be in great danger of running out of patience as I am being accused of personal attacks. Having just read through from page 3 - where I joined - I cannot see that I have. Others have made slights against me and I have responded. I have not then gone looking for support to make my point!

It does seem that there is a very small contingent on here who, when backed up, lash out by making quite wild accusations. I think I am qualified to say that I understand the English language, and if anyone can find a spot where I made a personal attack, please tell me. I have retaliated against the views of others - some of whom were wrong and tied me in with another set of people with different opinions to my own - but hey ho. This is about a news item and not about how we write - although it quickly went that way!

I apologise if I have been guilty of dragging this off thread. I can't see how as some of my questions and quotes were not responded to - but my writing and communication skills were. Go figure.

It's a funny old world. Amen.

Jonty

Jonty


----------



## JohnMac068

Nairda59 said:


> I agree with George.GM
> If the mother ship couldnt cover them then they should have fired all their weapons at the Iranians.
> Who was keeping watch while the boarding party were checking out the craft.
> Why wasnt the mother ship radioing the RIB's to tell them they were getting visitors.
> The Captain of the mother ship should be Court Martialled and the senior officer of the boarding party should join him.
> They should donate all their ill gotten earnings to the soldiers sailors and airmens fund and the British Legion equally and dismissed the service.
> In future no boarding party should be let loose further than 1nm from mother ship, if this is the best we can do.
> One last thing, maybe we shouldnt be there, but we are and we used to have what were called standards in my day, and this isnt up to standard.
> Oy you lad - get fell in !!!


Here is a thought, call me cynical if you must. Perhaps someone in the spin dept. at MOD thought that it might be a good idea to let the detainees sell their story, in order to distract attention from the fact that the MOD had failed,yet again, in its duty of care for our service personnel. Perhaps some of you ranting gladiators could explain why these young people were trying to do their tasks, using RIBs, with no protection, armed with light weapons, in an area where the MOD knows full well that the Iranians have fast (45 kt ) heavily armed gunboats. Rifles and side arms don't stand a chance against heavy calibre mounted MGs and RPGs. Instead of kicking each other, question the philosophy of under arming our personnel, asking them to do hazardous missions with inadequate equipment, without adequate backup. Why was the helicopter not there, probably saving fuel !!! The same argument can apply to the troops in Iraq, a history of equipment shortages, boots, uniforms,body armour, radios, patrols in Land Rovers. Give the guys (and girls) a break.


----------



## James_C

John,
Its the way the British armed forces have been since time began - the Worlds best training, but crap equipment.


----------



## Santos

Jonty,

If you are reading this, we debated we agreed to disagree, we, I hope are still pals.

Chris.


----------



## cboots

I am utterly amazed at the audacity of Ddraigmor objecting to personal attacks against him, and what is more challenging others to quote where he has been derogatory to them. I shall not rise to that challenge due to lack of time and respect for the space that it would occupy. I shall, however, point out one or two verbatim: refering to one of my posts above as childish, a feeble attempt at being funny, this being made in a clearly condescending manner. Opening another post with the statement that the bleeding heart mob are at it again and, in the same post refering to "tree-hugging liberals." Now I happily stand accused of using terms that could be similarly interpretted as a put down, but I am not making sanctimonious statements complaining about it in others. At the risk of being accused of being personal Ddraigmor, your problems are threefold: you seem to be totally incapable of seeing a situation through the eyes of another people, despite being repeatedly asked to do so. You seem to totally miss other people's points; and you mistake filibuster for debate.
By simply calling something by a different name we do not make it go away. Of course our guys do not go around willy nilly killing innocents, we call it collateral damage. Unless, of course, you are seriously suggesting that the estimated 650,000 Iraquis, men, women and children, who have been killed as a direct consequence of the invasion died of old age. At the time of the Falklands crisis a friend of mine remarked that what he objected to was the media reporting of the whole affair as if it were an extension of the World Cup, which was happening at the same time. This is a problem that I have with the comments of Ddraigmor and those of a similar frame of mind. It is all treated as if it were some kind of a game wherein all that matters is the honour of your team, not giving ground etc. War is an abbreviation for state sanctioned mass murder and in my view it should be avoided at all costs; the honour of the Royal Navy is not worth a single body bag on anyone's side in my view. Of course one cannot blame the individual service person for anything other than joining in the first place; the proverbial, "poor bloody foot soldier," does what he is told. For that reason I most strongly advise any young people I talk to, including my own teenage son, not to join up.
So, we have strayed from the original point of this thread too much and for too long. Let us be grateful that the people involved are back on their side of the fence, apparently unharmed and no casualties occurred on either side.
Let me say that I find myself in agreement with Pompeyfan when he says that when attacked by others we must defend, otherwise we should keep out of it all.
CBoots


----------



## wigger

The Sunday Mail ran an article yesterday showing 3 Hunt class minehunters mothballed at Portsmouth. A Hunt class Captain reckoned they would be fantastic as inshore patrol vessels instead of a large frigate such as the Cornwall. The MOD disagree because as they correctly state....you can't carry a helicopter on a Hunt class. Funny because there was no helicopter at the Iranian incident (for whatever reason) either.
Much as hate the Sunday Mail they may have a point on this one. The 3 Hunt class did well as Northern Ireland patrol vessels and I cannot see why they would not off the Iraqi/Iranian coast. Obviously not as well armed as a Type 22 but a whold lot better that a dinghy?


----------



## Nairda59

I do hope I wasnt either "ranting" or a "gladiator".
I have a point of view, Benji has despite some attempts to close it, kept the thread going, well done.
Thats what originally put the Great in Great Britain, and I remind everyone that this free and frank discussion ISNT taking place in Iran.
I hold to every single phrase in my original posting.
Another more practical thought is that the ships we want to board, could be boarded much further down the gulf without any hassle at all, why arnt we doing just that.


----------



## Split

Yes, I put that point some time ago. It seems to me as if someone was trying to cause trouble by boarding ships in an area where problems could be caused. Either deliberately or in ignorance. 

When I was at sea I found that problems were best avoided, when possible. This problem was possible to avoid.

Split


----------



## ddraigmor

I did say I was going to withdraw but.......

Santos - Thank you for the PM and I responded. For the benefit of others I said that this was a debate and I was not going to fall out over it. I mean that.

C-Boots. I take your points and your opinion and believe you are entitled to that - as I am to mine. I will just add your last thread message: (quote) _Let me say that I find myself in agreement with Pompeyfan when he says that *when attacked by others we must defend*, otherwise we should keep out of it all._ (close quote) My points, I believe, exactly! I rest my case.

Filibuster - for your records: " to make a long speech in order to delay or prevent a new law being made ". Am I acting to prevent a law being made?

Debate - for your records: " serious discussion of a subject in which many people take part " Which I believe we have been doing.

I withdraw.

Jonty


----------



## johnalderman

Aye but........(Smoke)


----------



## ddraigmor

Jack,

Aye but? 

BTW, my daughter went to the Air Force Career Office today. She has now decided that she is definitelty 'joining up'. I am so proud she was able to reach her decision - on her own as she lives on Merseyside and I live in Oxford - after having spoken with my brother and sister-in-law (both serving) and having spent a week up at RAF Kinloss where she was shown around the whole base and generally given the low down on life on the inside.

It makes me so proud that a 19 year old can make a decision - university or life in the services - and come into her own as to where her future lies.

Now, I will sit quietly on the touchline and await responses.........back to the thread, I say! Gladiator? I look nothing like Rusell Crowe.......

Jonty


----------



## cboots

Okay, everyone has now had their rant and rave and we've had a bit of pedagoguery (one for your dictionery Jonty) may I again suggest that in order to avoid yet more repetition, let's wind this thing up and find something new to discuss.
CBoots


----------



## ddraigmor

CBoots.

From ITN:

Defence Secretary Des Browne has admitted he 'made a mistake' by not stopping the former Iran detainees from selling their stories. 

In the House of Commons, Mr Browne told MPs he 'profoundly regretted' any questions his decision had raised about the reputation of Britain's armed forces.

Mr Browne added that an inquiry into their capture will be led by the Governor General of Gibraltar, Lieutenant General Sir Rob Fulton, Royal Marines.

Yesterday, Home Secretary John Reid accepted Mr Brown's job was on the line, but praised his 'courage and character' for admitting the decision to authorise Iran detainees to sell their stories was a mistake.

'We got them back without any deal at all, and we got them back safe. That was the priority we had throughout.' (ITN)

Public opinion says he should resign. How can we close the thread when we haven't heard the last of it?

BTW, yes thank you. I am aware of what you were trying to say. I have to point out, however, that _Pedagogery _ is not in either the Oxford nor Cambridge dictionary. However, _pedagogue_ is. It means: _a teacher who gives too much attention to formal rules and is not interesting_.

I think what you were trying to say was defined at the latter end of your, alas, non-word. That I am not interesting. I deduce this by the single use of the term 'pedagogue' . My dear chap, spit it out! Don't hide behind words - especially when they are mispelled. Say it as it is! Alas, that's your opinion again. However, if you used the word correctly, you will see that it does not apply. I am not a teacher; I was expressing an opinion. That makes me opionionated. I am happy with that.

Do try to keep up.

Jonty


----------



## Peter4447

Whilst I have followed this thread with great interest I have no wish to join in the discussion itself. Several times in the thread, however, the question has been asked as to why the helicopter cover had been withdrawn. Whilst there is to be a full enquiry, I watched the debate live on TV yesterday and in his statement Des Browne referred briefly to the helicopter.

He basically said that once the boarding of the vessel had been reported as being secure, the helicopter then simply returned to and landed back on HMS Cornwall where it was placed _on 30 minute standby_. The Iranian gunboats then suddenly appeared and the rest as they say is history........

I cannot but help wondering that because the boardings were being done regularly and without incident, as to whether an element of complacency had set in....it happens!

Peter4447(Thumb)


----------



## cboots

DDraigmor - try Chamber's. By the way, do you actually miss the point on purpose? And why did you address that last ITN quote to me, it bears no relation to anything I've posted.
CBoots


----------



## ddraigmor

CBoots,

Must be a pirate copy of Chambers then. Nor does that word appear in My Cambridge, Oxford or Rogets - and Chambers online dictionary says: " Sorry, no entries for _pedagoguery_ were found." Perhaps you purchased it cut price? It may even be an Antipodean Book Club version? If so, send it back; It's obviously not right and certainly not English. Forgive my barbed intro - it is my wont.

I addressed the quote to you as I thought it might have been of some interest as we both appear to be shifting off the thread and it was an attempt to get us back on course, so to speak. I apologise if you failed to see it that way. Now, on to two of your points within this debate:

_This is a problem that I have with the comments of Ddraigmor and those of a similar frame of mind. It is all treated as if it were some kind of a game wherein all that matters is the honour of your team, not giving ground etc. War is an abbreviation for state sanctioned mass murder _ Game? I hardly think so. Our comments on this thread were about the conduct of the 15, the dismissing of loyalty and duty in return for reward. Where have I mentioned anything in this thread about 'games'? Duty, yes. I have written countless words on duty and what is - in my opinion - a derilection of that. How dare you try to turn my point into something juvenile. Not once have I ever stated that the purpose of duty was as shallow as to be able to be likened to football fan type mentality.I find that throw away commentary / interpretation of what I said to be low and uncalled for. It shows no pride nor support for those within HM Forces who take their roles seriously and do their duty without recourse to a 'fast buck' from the glitterati of the media. I would also go as far to say that your comments (above) on war being state sanctioned murder is something from the Stalin era. This war was fought to depose a cruel and inhumane dictator and to bring democracy to the region. It has been accused of being a war for oil (no proof), expansionism (no proof) a Third Crusade (no proof). Also tell me, how can it be 'state sanctioned' when it was brought in under a UN Security Council mandate? 

_Of course our guys do not go around willy nilly killing innocents, we call it collateral damage. Unless, of course, you are seriously suggesting that the estimated 650,000 Iraquis, men, women and children, who have been killed as a direct consequence of the invasion died of old age._ I am suggesting nothing of the sort but your statement can be interpreted as apportioning the blame for those 650,000 Iraqis on the coalition. How many of those were murdered by their own side? By their so-called allies? By the fundamentalists and religious bigots? By pro-Saddam forces? Or are you seriously suggesting that those 650,000 individuals died as a result of coalition action? Proof, please of Iraqi's killed in the conflict via coalition action.

Also, I take serious umbrage in your caustic reference to the term 'collateral damage'. Your points in this thread - and I paraphrase them here for brevity - have been to state your view that the war is not worth the effort, that it is illegal, that our young should be discouraged from joining the military as a career. I believe that succintly puts your points across? Your opinions have been noted via this thread.

In any other age, sir, you would be branded a pacifist. Your patriotism would also be called into question. We appear to be sniping across the ether at each other on this and I believe we shall never see eye to eye. I accept that, as I freely accept your gauntlet each and every time you throw it down. However, I will state my case again:

I support, *without reservation*, our military. My patriotism is apolitical.

I support the views of both serving and ex-serving personnel who believe that *the taking of money *was wrong and that it throws into some doubt the professionalism of the UK Armed Services as well as questioning the issue of duty and tradition.

I believe that Iran was out of order by taking our military in Iraqi waters.

I believe the UK MoD made a serious faux pas here.

I await the results of the enquiry into the whole debacle with great interest.




Jonty


----------



## Pompeyfan

I hope this thread is not closed yet because very important information has come direct the the government following Defence Secretary Des Brown's address to the House of Commons yesterday. Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox cleverly forced Mr Browne to say sorry after failing to do so in his address.

I watched the whole thing live. The great thing about this debate on SN regarding this is that all the opinions for and against have all got some substance. Members may have disgreed with each other, often heated, but each had good and valid reason to say what they said.

In other words, as most of us have known from the begining, or at least suspected that this was an almighty cock up.

I still don't blame the 15 involved. As suspected, they were put in an impossible postion. Fighting back would have been crazy. And when sent back having been offered life changing money, you can't blame those who accepted.

The blame here lies fairly and squarely with the buffoons in charge who as I said in an earlier post could not organize a crap in a lavatory. The Defence Secretary says the bucks stops with him, but this whole sorry affair goes all the way down the line. 

An enquiry is welcome. But I reckon that most of us can already predict the outcome, and some poor sod lower down the line will cop it. David


----------



## non descript

Pompeyfan said:


> I hope this thread is not close yet because .. David


David,

There is no intention to close the thread – the only reason for that unfortunate course of action, would be if for some extraordinary reason the discussions strayed into the unwelcome territory of personal abuse, instead of the normal, well mannered discussion which is the hallmark of SN. - Please take heart in the fact that unlike certain operations, the peace-keeping (moderating) _helicopter_ that over-flies this thread has not been withdrawn and if or when it needs refueling, one of the other_ helicopters_ is on hand, so peace should be a normal condition.(Jester) 

Mark


----------



## Peter4447

Tonga said:


> David,
> 
> There is no intention to close the thread – the only reason for that unfortunate course of action, would be if for some extraordinary reason the discussions strayed into the unwelcome territory of personal abuse, instead of the normal, well mannered discussion which is the hallmark of SN. - Please take heart in the fact that unlike certain operations, the peace-keepinng _helicopter_ that over-flies this thread has not been withdrawn and if or when it needs refueling, one of the other_ helicopters_ is on hand, so peace should be a normal condition.(Jester)
> 
> Mark


Hi Mark

Please see my post No 116 regarding the helicopter - its whereabouts at the crucial time makes interesting reading!

Peter4447(Thumb)


----------



## Binnacle

*Pedagoguery*

The Wordsworth Concise Dictionary - schoolmastering
Chambers 20th Century Dictionary - a school, schoolmastering, pedagoguishness.


----------



## ddraigmor

Binnacle,

Trivia time - a short respite from the thread (I'm saying that in case anyone tries to say I am deliberately shoving the thread off course....!)

_DISCLAIMER: The following is intended as reference, written in a self-effacing way and not intended to cause purple apoplexy in anyone or any one individual._

My own three (Oxford, Cambridge and Little Oxford dictionaries), my Rogets, the Websters Online, Merriam-Websters Online, Cambridge Online and so on do not list either _pedagoguishness _ nor _schoolmastering _. I even tried to look it up in Brewster's 'Dictionary of Phrase and Fable' but alas, no luck. Schoolmaster I could find - but schoolmastering, no. School _mastering,_ on the other hand, came up as a modern term of reference pertaining to getting to grips with the education system.....

However, the adjective pedagoguish is an _Americanisation_ found in the American Heritage dictionary. It means the same thing. adding 'ness' to it in all cases returned false positives.

On reflection, I think what certain people are trying to say is that I am a _pedant_, rather than a pedagogue. Pedant being _" someone who pays too much attention to rules or to small unimportant details, especially someone who criticizes other people in an extremely annoying way "_ I do believe that can be paraphrased, in a certain case, to also read ' in the opinion of another'.....

_tu ne cede malis sed contra audenitor ito_ 

Jonty


----------



## JoK

When in doubt:
GOOGLE


----------



## benjidog

Scientists split atoms, SN members are splitting hairs! 

Let's keep to the topic at hand which is far more important - I am wating to see whether Des Browne will be kicked out of office. If he had any humility he would just resign and people would think the more of him in the long term!

Brian


----------



## cboots

Ddraigmor, nobody doubts your ability to look up dictionaries, I am sure you are very good at it. I could comment further but I do not wish to trade in petty insults; that I shall leave to others. I have tried to wade through your penultimate post but found it rather confused and confusing, I shall endeavour to address a couple of the points made though. The United States, along with a substantial force from Britain, and more or less token forces from a number of other nations, including Australia, invaded Iraq on the stated pretext that Iraq possessed certain weapons of mass destruction. This despite reports from the UN inspections teams that there was no evidence of this, and the invasion itself lacking the appropriate resolution of the UN, thus making it clearly illegal in terms of international law. It was only when the invading forces failed totally to find any of these weapons, and after going through a couple of other excuses, likewise discredited, that the excuse of removing Sadaam was settled upon. Now it happens that I have a rather long political memory and can recall when Amnesty International produced its report into human rights abuses by the Iraqi regime, including massive gas attacks on, amongst others, the Kurds. That was in the late eighties, and do you know what the reaction of the US government was? They did not want to know; why not? That was when he was filling up those mass graves that the occupation forces "found" and expressed all the shock and horror about. You are extremely presumptious on the subject of my views; how do you know that I am a pacifist? I have not expressed any such views on this thread. Yes I am opposed to this invasion and occupation, but so are the vast majority of the people of both your country and mine, as are an increasingly large portion of the US population. And, incidentally, no one is supposed to be at war with Iran. I have already stated perfectly clearly that I am glad that these service people have been returned, apparently relatively unharmed, and without any recourse to violence. I have also stated that, unless they wished to commit suicide, I do not see how they could have conducted themselves other than as they did. Quite frankly I couldn't give a tinker's cuss whether they sell their stories to the rag media or not. As to your "apolitical patriotism" I am still trying to decide if that is a contradiction in terms or not. For my part, should I consider the government of my country to be wrong, then I hope that I shall always have the intellectual and moral courage to say so loudly and clearly.
Now I think that I have aired my views sufficiently well on these matters and I have no wish to indulge in name calling with anyone. I thank those other posters who have offered support to my stance in part or in the whole. It is now my intention to withdraw from this exchange unless someone has some new and genuine point or points to raise.
CBoots


----------



## billyboy

like i said many posts ago, someone on the ladder of authority has a red face. But, and I agree with the comment made by another member,Pompeyfan, It will be some poor chap further down the ladder who had nothing to with it who will get the blame as usual.


----------



## ddraigmor

CBoots,

I agree with you on the reasons for the war. The facts are not in any doubt and you put them across succinctly. I was 'looking up dictionaries as I beleive it was the use of the word that jarred in the structure of the post that made me seek it out - no more. That is what being a pedant is all about....

I am aware of the reactions of the International Community regarding what happened prior to the WMD issue. However, it does go back further in time. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, initiating an eight year war that cost about a million casualties. During the war, Saddam used chemical warfare against Iran as well as in suppressing internal revolts by the Kurds in the north. The Iranians used gas warfare as well. Saddam's suppression of Kurds, known as the anfal, began in 1987 and killed an estimated 182,000, destroying thousands of villages and creating about 400,000 refugees. The United States and Western powers supported Iraq with arms and Western companies helped Saddam build chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities. Our 'finger' in Iraq's pie was - putting it mildly - deeper than we are led to believe.

After Desert Storm in 1991, Hussein was supposed to have destroyed his stockpile of weapons - he did not. Inspections by UNSCOM and reports by defectors did disclose stockpiles of VX and other agents. In 1998, after the discovery that Iraq was weaponizing VX (a potent chemical weapon), Iraq halted cooperation with inspectors.

Following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre, the United States began making it successively more clear that it intended to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein, and toward the end of 2002, it became increasingly apparent that the US intended to launch a renewed invasion of Iraq. Despite mass opposition, Bush made a speech giving Iraq 48 hours to prove that it was disarming, and when they failed to comply, the US claimed it had assembled a "coalition" of over countries that supported. In fact only the UK supported it and it was only UK and US troops that invaded.

No evidence of WMD has been found. However, human rights violations and evidence of mass murders have been - continue to do so - so the reason fior the war was moved from WMD to the installation of democracy - it has been 'spun' to make it acceptable and to justify the reason for its being. I also agree that the war is unpopular in most of the world. 

My 'apolitical patriotism' is simply that I support the military in their difficult role. I do not support any expressed political reasons as to why they are there. If anything, they have a job to do - onerous though it may be - and I support them in that. I am not interested in anything else.

The use of the term pacifist was a counter to your allegation the war is illegal. Without labouring a point, it possibly is - but that is not what the troops on the ground want to hear. They are there and I support them in the execution of their duties.

I, likewise, do not wish to engage in name calling and I am glad that we have agreed to disagree with our respective views and stances on this issue. I did enjoy the debate - I mean that -and thank you for it. It's always good to know that there is opposition.

Like yourself, I believe the matter closed and now await new developments in the thread.

Regards,

Jonty


----------



## non descript

Jonty,

Your text is carefully and well written – that is appreciated, as is your style.
(Thumb) 
Regards
Mark


----------



## ddraigmor

Mark,

manty thanks. I appreciate it.

Jonty


----------



## JohnMac068

ddraigmoor & cboots.

Glad you two have kissed and made up, perhaps we can get back to the original thread, "What next for the former captives?" and get away from the semantics about the rights and wrongs of the invasion of Iraq, the point is, that Iran carried out a well planned, fast moving, overpowerng snatch operation, against two, underpowered, underprotected RIBs, whose occupants appear to have been over confident and complacent. As I said before, it would not surprise me, if the cash for their stories episode was allowed as a red herring, to divert attention from all the things that went wrong. (In fact last Monday's Daily Mail, hinted at the same thing.) What next for the prisoners ? Back to HMS Cornwall, I presume, although it might be prudent for those who took the money, to seek another billet.
As to the Hunt Class minehunters currently laid up, I agree with *******, they would have been ideal for this work in shallow water. However, I doubt that the Navy have enough personnel to operate them.


----------



## Pompeyfan

Well said John, my very point in post 95 regarding "What next for the former captives".

I don't think that anybody will blame them for taking the money when they get back to their ship. I think they will all realize that it could have been them, and still could be them. They are not exactly on a cruise. There may be a bit of resentment for a while, but I doubt it. They are all professionals trained for the next mission rather than harping on the past. They will hopefully learn from it, but not blame each other as to how they acted including the money.

As I have said before, anybody that turns that kind of money down is either a fool or a liar. Lets face it, the money offered is life changing money, the prize so many people aim for when playing the pools, the lottery or going on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, Deal or No Deal or any other quiz show specifically to win money often far less than offered to the sailors. And because it was stopped so quickly, we simply do not know how many others would have been tempted. Some may have very rich parents and didn't need the money to ensure their future, but when you open up an alladdins cave to ordinary people there are not many who would not walk in. 

The Hunt Class minehunters is another story. The navy is being run down whatever ones political views. And we have just lost a naval hospital at Gosport. An absolutely crazy decision both from a service and medical point of view due entirely to the same people who could not organize that crap in a toilet?!.

By the way, I understand a Daily Mail source offered a huge amount for the story and were turned down in favour of a paper with more readers. Not long after the Daily Mail were said to be against such payments. A touch of hypocrisy don't you think?!. David


----------



## ddraigmor

John,

_Glad you two have kissed and made up_ Steady on!

_the point is, that Iran carried out a well planned, fast moving, overpowerng snatch operation, against two, underpowered, underprotected RIBs, whose occupants appear to have been over confident and complacent_. I couldn't agree more. I still find it hard to believe that with all our regional intelligence, sea search radars, radio intercepts (etc) we did not see this coming - nor did we train for such an event.

_What next for the prisoners ? Back to HMS Cornwall, I presume, although it might be prudent for those who took the money, to seek another billet._ I stick by my original saying that the issue will be along the lines of 'selfish' and that they wll be in for a hard time. Always presuming they get posted back there, of course. The Board of Enquiry may request they do not. I don't think the issue of the amount will enter into their shipmate's heads; they wil feel let down as they were out there as well, under operational stress - and no-one offered them any cash for their stories! 

_As to the Hunt Class minehunters currently laid up, I agree with *******, they would have been ideal for this work in shallow water. However, I doubt that the Navy have enough personnel to operate them_ These ships would have been ideal for patrolling the esturial waters here. They have a RIB aboard, they are armed, they are very manouverable and - with the right access to air cover from land bases - would have been the perfect choice. As for manning, I doubt the Navy has - even if they were used with Reserve crews making up the bulk of Ops staff.

We are building more ships for the Navy - but I wonder how they will man these with the massive civilianisation of the forces going on under Options For Change. Perhaps now would be a good time to bring back National Service......or at least make a career in the forces more attractive?

Jonty


----------



## wigger

Hypocrisy at the The Daily Mail ........Surely some mistake! 
To be fair though I don't suppose any of the other tabloids would have acted any differently.


----------



## bobarr

Hello ******,
I like your little jest about the Daily Mail although I do not think it is any more hypocritical than the rest of the popular press. (Heaven forbid you were suggesting that in the first place, of course!!) However, the Mail is generally very supportive to our armed forces, and has been instrumental in highlighting the rapid decline in the Merchant fleet.
And columnist Littlejohn seems to have the knack of putting his finger on all that is absurd and unfair in our society.
Bobarr


----------



## ddraigmor

Here are the UK ROE - Rules of Engagement - currently in force. Courtesy of Wikpedia via MoD. Someone earlier in the thread asked for them and by the Great Lord harry, it has been a labour of love to find them!

The British Ministry of Defence officially defines ROE as:

"Directives issued by competent military authority which delineate the cir***stances and limitations under which UK forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered." [1 source - USDOD. DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms: NATO Only Terms. United States of America: Joint Doctrine Division, J-7, Joint Staff, Department of Defense. December 17, 2003. ]

The ROE deal with four issues [2 source - Sagan, Scott D., Rules of Engagement, pp 443 - 470 in: George, A., Avoiding War: Problems of Crisis Management, ISBN 0-8133-1232-9.]

When military force may be used, 

Where military force may be used, 

Against whom force should be used in the cir***stances described above, and 

How military force should be used to achieve the desired ends. 

The ROE take two forms: Actions a soldier may take without consulting a higher authority, unless explicitly forbidden (sometimes called 'command by negation') and second, actions that may only be taken if explicitly ordered by a higher authority (sometimes called 'positive command').

In addition to a typically large set of standing orders, military personnel will be given additional rules of engagement before performing any mission or military operation. These can cover cir***stances such as how to retaliate after an attack, how to treat captured targets, which territories the soldier is bound to fight into, and how the force should be used during the operation.

The ROE are extremely important:

They provide a consistent, understandable and repeatable standard on how forces act. Typically they are carefully thought out in detail well in advance of an engagement and may cover a number of scenarios, with different rules for each. 

They assist in the synchronization of political-diplomatic and military components of a strategy by allowing political commanders to better understand, forecast and tailor the actions of a force. 

*The first rule of engagement for British Armed Forces is always the right to use force in self-defense.*

Having said that, the ROE applies _*only in combat conditions*_ - this being defined as a declared state of warfare. Interestingly - and no-one on here has picked this up - as the crew members were surrounded in their RIB's, the Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, frantically radioed back to his own top brass for instructions. 

The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, *was to hold fire.*

Note also, that excessively loose ROE can facilitate the escalation of a conflict which "....while being tactically effective, negates the political objectives that the use of force was meant to achieve. This isknown as a Type II error or "escalatory" error. "

BTW, It is believed that Faye Turney sold her story for over £100,000. None of which she is on record as satying she will donate to Forces Charities on behalf of those who engaged - and were returned to their loved ones in body bags. There is no price you can put on duty, is there? I ask as a question - not as the throwing down of a gauntlet.

Those are the background details. 

Jonty


----------

