Leading Sailor Faye Turney appears to have become the face of the current stand-off between a rogue Iranian regime and what appears to be an increasingly impotent political class in the United Kingdom. In a letter released by Iran Tuesday, Turney asks, “Isn’t it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?”
And as much as it grieves me to say so, perhaps she’s right.
It’s been over 200 years since the Royal Navy placed a frigate and a fighting captain in every part of the world’s oceans deep enough to float one in order to frustrate Napoleon’s imperial ambitions and safeguard the Home Islands. It’s been almost a hundred and forty years since Parliament sent a combined force 0f 13,000 British and Indian soldiers, 26,000 camp followers and 40,000 animals led by General Sir Robert Napier on a 400 mile trek across some of the harshest terrain in Africa to rescue a handful of British diplomats and missionaries held hostage by the mad king of Abyssinia. The flower of a generation was cut down on Flanders fields to safeguard the continent from Prussian militarism, and even at their darkest hour, the bravery and pluck of the British citizen following the debacle at Dunkirk and during the Blitz was never in doubt.
But it appears perhaps that the last of that Britain may have sailed home victorious at the end of the campaign to wrest the Faulkland Islands back from Argentine aggression. The Iron Lady may not have “been for turning,” but the wheel turned on without her. What was Britain seems to have become Europe.
When in times of old the British lion did roar, the world would tremble. Now the commodore of a royal fleet with a 1000-year history, and a man commanding a ship belonging to that fleet - a fleet, by the way, which seems to be evaporating before our very eyes - suffers 15 of his people to be illegally seized without firing a shot. Having placed them in danger in a war zone without, it would appear, having even been in the position to support them. In much the same waters where a previous insult was issued three years ago.
Winston Churchill once thrust the “V” for victory into a sky made dark by the dust, cinders and smoke of fascist bombers, encouraging his people - in the literal sense of the word - to bear up against the almost unbearable. From the same space now - and with the world’s largest attack dog trembling on the leash beside him, but unable or unwilling to ask for assistance there - a politically wounded and lame duck prime minister goes knocking at the door of the United Nations in search of his own deliverance. Only to be stymied there by Russia - an increasingly hostile country wounded by the memories of lost empire, angry at supposed insults and looking to reassert itself on the world stage - a country whose blocking position is a legacy of the world’s political alignment at the end of war that ended 60 years ago, a country with an economic throw-weight, as measured by GDP, just smaller than Mexico’s.
A Eurocentric himself, Tony Blair nevertheless at great political expense defied the will of Eurocenters France and Germany, as well as millions of his own citizens, to take his country to war alongside our own in Iraq. He did this in echoing memory perhaps of the “special relationship” that our two nations enjoyed, in honor of the Anglospheric alliance that quite saved the world from fascism and militarism and communism in the 20th century.
But even as that traditional Anglosphere splintered, with Australia coming on side but Canada - sensing no national interest at stake - taking a pass, he did it because he understood the threat that Saddam represented, and because he still believed that Britain had a place in making the world a better and safer place. He believed in an idea of Britain that was larger than Britain’s own national interest: Old think, to say the least, and at any rate, not very European.
Perhaps, at the end of the day, he shouldn’t have. Perhaps he should have stayed home with the rest of Europe.
I think I know enough about the Royal Marines to say that they would have fought had they been allowed to, had they been properly supported. That they were not was a political pity and military shame. All Britain is enraged by this insult, we are informed. But - in words that no one had ever thought to express before, words around which the English language itself seems to curdle - what can Britain do about it?
It gives me no pleasure to say it, but maybe Mark Steyn was right. I hope not, because small though they might be in numbers, the Brits are doughty fighters, clear-eyed tacticians, steady thinkers.
We will miss them.
57 responses so far ↓
1
Nose
// Mar 30, 2007 at 11:48 am
Unfortunately, if Pelosi, Murtha, and the rest of the moral cowards have their way, someone could pen an equally poignant essay and change “United Kingdom” to “United States.”
Nose
2
Byron Audler
// Mar 30, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Sad, Lex, very sad. I would have never thought that England could be neutered. I guess socialism doesn’t work there either.
3
Babs
// Mar 30, 2007 at 12:40 pm
This is all very disturbing to me Lex. America alone, indeed.
Look on the bright side though. Can we take out Iran’s only gasoline refinery now and embargo all gas tankers coming in to their ports without checking with our “allies”???
4
Jim Collins
// Mar 30, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Sure Babs. If you want to see us paying $4.00 a gallon for gasoline due to panic in the BS oil speculation market.
5
CPT J
// Mar 30, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Remember folks –the Brits always lose every battle but the last one. Capabilities matter, but the will to use what they’ve still got matters even more. It takes a lot to get the British really angry, and the mullahs are starting to piss them off big time.
Yes, the political class ARE professional cowards. But not the real people. Not by a long shot.
?¢‚Ǩ?ìThe Saxon is not like us Normans,
His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious
till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow
with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, ?¢‚ǨÀúThis isn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t fair dealings,?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢
my son, leave the Saxon alone…”
6
JPS
// Mar 30, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Captain Lex’ fine essay reminds me of a George Will column from the early-mid-80s, when widespread attitudes in the UK toward the Cold War led him to conclude that the national attitude
My own opinion is more along the line of CPT J’s. I’d add this: I’m not sure they’re out of the game for the foreseeable future. Rather, like our own Left, it will take more and more extreme provocation to convince them (compared to most of us commenting here) that, yes, they really do need to fight; that they can no longer opt out of a conflict using the proper diplomacy.
7
flatlander
// Mar 30, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I think we should give the Brit sailors a bit of a break here. There are exhibiting classic signs of Stockholm Syndrome. Young, scared, unprepared for this sort of thing. It is unlikely that they have gone through the British equivalent of SERE training.
The culprits here are the Iranians. I don’t think we know what ROE the Brit CO was saddled with.
8
Babs
// Mar 30, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Well Jim, I would be willing to pay $4/gallon for gas. Maybe then our politicians would allow us to drill in the gulf (right next to the Cubans and the Chinese).
And, how about Alaska Jim? Do you think enough yowling would go on that the “environmentalists” would allow us to explore further on our own soil?
And, how about those wind farms? Do you think the Kennedy’s would be able to continue to block wind energy off their summer vacation coast? And how about LNG from Scandinavia? Do you think that all those that don’t want LNG tankers anywhere near our shores might think twice about building platforms to receive LNG 7 miles off our coast?
Yeah, I am all for taking out Iran’s one and only gasoline refinery. It would hurt us in the short run but, help in the long run.
9
Skippy-san
// Mar 30, 2007 at 8:01 pm
There is a silver lining here-just like the Falklands this may save the Royal Navy for a few more years.
I’m not sure what you would have the British do. If they attack wontonly, they risk getting their Sailors killed. A rescue mission-possible, but Iran is a country the size of Europe. You can bet they are being moved around by their captors. Tough job for the SAS and would probably need American help.
Cooperative strike with the US? Again possible but it could be politically untenable in Britain (then again maybe not as the TV broadcasts increase). That will be what will happen if any of the Sailors are killed. I think Iran knows the roof will cave in.
And Blair is supposed to leave office soon. So what ever he does will passed on to his successor.
I think Blair is trying to walk a fine line and get the people released. Whether that is right or wrong only time will tell, but I would submit Britain is not in a strong position to get tough with Iran-not without American help. Which is quite possible.
10
Casca
// Mar 30, 2007 at 9:33 pm
You’re going to make me go back in the stacks and pull out Arthur Hadley’s The Straw Giant. There’s a great quote in there about our perception of ourselves in war, and the reality of initial disasters ultimately compensated by superior firepower, and overwhelming assets.
The Brits have had dark days before. I’m with Capt J and Kipling.
11
Max Damage
// Mar 30, 2007 at 9:35 pm
The Brits lost their stiff upper lip a few decades ago, and having found with their own set of terrorists to the north that negotiations can work, sort of, they seem to think all terrorists operate along the same guidelines. Works pretty well against the Irish, but I don’t recall the IRA ever strapping children into a car to evade checkpoints and then blowing it up with the kids inside. Clearly the lesson Britain has learned are applicable to one set, not another. But the populace has yet to understand that they are fighting a war for survival, particularly given population growth in the Muslim populace.
Be that as it may, blowing up Iran’s refinery will have little effect on the price of oil outside of Iran. The uncertainty it causes will spike oil on the market, but a dead refinery doesn’t hurt the oil market, it hurts gasoline supplies in a region local to that refinery. The supply of oil hasn’t changed, but the uncertainty is if that oil can make it to market.
I’ve been waiting 30 years, since the Arab Oil Embargo, for somebody to declare that energy is a strategic resouce equally as important as mohair and deserving of some exemptions. When I see a nuke plant go up I’ll start to believe that perhaps we’re finally getting serious about it. Proposals of wind farms and bio-fuels are nothing more than stopgap measures intended to make me feel good rather than replace the oil.
And when we don’t need that oil, when they’ve a resource they cannot sell, the mid-east will fade into insignificance once again, the same way it faded when sea power made the overland route to the Orient obsolete.
- Max
12
Steel Turman
// Mar 30, 2007 at 9:41 pm
The blame for this fiasco rests squarely with the CO of that British destroyer.
NOT the British Navy.
We have been known to have some real boneheads and apologists in our own armed forces.
Can you say Gen. Wesley Clark?
And besides, the Brits are still a formidable force - they DO still have those Boomers.
And one nuclear submarine is worth almost as much as CTFG in the grand scheme of things if things get real serious.
Given all the internal ‘opposition’ the Brits, the Aussies and the U.S. face these days, I say we should encourage each other as much possible.
NEVER EVER count the British out.
13
Babs
// Mar 30, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I direct you to the Grouchy Media “Somethings Gotta Give”
It is now an old one but, worth reviewing:
http://music-videos.grouchymedia.com/2001/10/taliban-bodies.html
14
David Curp
// Mar 31, 2007 at 4:53 am
Pan Lex,
But maybe Sobieski’s heirs might help…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5080924.stm
http://britishaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/immigration_to_britain
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/papers/p_DailyMail_10feb_06.asp
There is a tremendous amount of Polish migration to England, and they are being welcomed by Poles who washed up in England after the Second World War. There is a creeping Europeanization in Poland, but there is also a great deal of good sense and social health there.
(Polish academics - yes, the pointy-headed, ivory tower types - often have a very good understanding of their country’s interest. For many of them, a strong Atlantic alliance is essential, hence many of them support Poland’s willingness to pony up in Iraq - along with a sense that they’ve seen acts like Sadaam’s before and are happy to help bring them down - for a sign of the good sense of Poland’s chattering classes see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3923385.stm about the reception of Fahrenheit 9/11 in Poland).
The Polish immigrants are ambitious, hard-working and don’t lose any sleep over their country’s or its allies’ need to use force. A few million Polish immigrants might play a big role in increasing English confidence over the next 10-20 years, and give England options in picking and choosing from which areas of the world they take in immigrants (hint - when choosing between an immigrant from Silesia or the Northwestern frontier of Pakistan there are certain advantages to taking the Pole but I’m sure most Brits can figure out why…)
I know, the Polish factor is not a sure thing, but there are causes for cautious hope that just as England has changed over the past 20-30 years, that the change can run in a different direction for reasons that are below our radar screen right now.
15
Chris Parkes
// Mar 31, 2007 at 5:06 am
I’m sure the Royal Marines would have fought, unless the situation seemed hopeless. Which it probably did, surrounded by heavy machine gun and RPG armed speedboats, and separated from the mothership. Remember Governor Hunt’s Marines surrendering at Port Stanley when the odds were obviously against them. How and why they were left in such a precarious situation is a different question.
This is not the first time Iran has decided to kidnap British Service personnel, the incident in 2004 ended without bloodshed, and no doubt the Foreign Office is hoping for a similar outcome.
This times feels different, though.
The British play a long game - test cricket goes for 5 days and sometimes ends in a draw. Like David Niven said, this might be the time to be walking softly, whilst carrying a large stick.
I also think I’m going to get publicly smacked for this, but maybe it IS time to cut our losses and get out of Iraq?
16
ASM826
// Mar 31, 2007 at 6:00 am
And so, slowly, the darkness grows. Britian may as well surrender now if they will not fight. If America follows, it will be a very long time indeed before any freedom exists in the world. The 5th world war will be between Islam and China, and it will only decide what sort of control people will live under.
Personally, I’m rooting for the Chinese. I know some old vets that would disagree, but I think that some sort of free thought and the idea of personal expression will flower there sooner than it will under our Whabbist masters.
17
Nose
// Mar 31, 2007 at 6:32 am
Flatlander,
I agree with your first paragraph. Those kids are just doing whatever they are told. It would be nice to see some sign of resistance (fingers, malaprops, winks, whatever…)
In your second para, you said “I don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t think we know what ROE the Brit CO was saddled with.”
Are you suggesting it is possible that the Brit ROE prohibits acting in self defense? I’d find that hard to believe and I think the CO is pretty culpable in the loss of his sailors and marines. Immediate action would have had the best chance of saving his people.
Best
Nose
18
badbob
// Mar 31, 2007 at 6:51 am
ASM826- I am rooting for America. I’m not giving up nor am I some gloom & doom futurist. Are you?
When the going gets tough the tough get going.
I smell irony more than a write off in Lex’s entry of the UKs ability to take on the Persians. Another loss of empire vent…
Steel Turman lays out the OOB. The Brits can do the job themselves. Whether they know it or not they are in a state of war. We will help.
C. Parkes- an emphatic NO. For a lot of reasons. Number 1 being-Iraq has little to do with Iran’s dark ambitions.
b2
19
DH
// Mar 31, 2007 at 7:03 am
As an English-born American, it saddens me to see the RN along with the PM parading about with hat in hand. Less we forget however, be it the USS Pueblo, the embassy hostages or the USN EP-3E collision off China, the US has not exhibited a history of exemplary response to similar incidents.
As to the “debacle” of Dunkirk, I believe a closer look at history might reveal that the entire operation should rather fall under the heading of miraculous. How else can one describe the retrieval of 338,000 plus British and French troops, parenthetically enclosed by Hitler?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s inexplicable checking of the Wehrmacht?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s offensive and amenable weather in the channel, by a ragtag flotilla of diverse vessels, in the face of increased shelling and bombing, over a period of several days.
Finally, quoting John Lukacs’ Five Days in London May 1940; “Churchill and Britain could not have won the Second World War; in the end America and Russia did. But in May 1940 Churchill was the one that did not lose it”.
Never one to savor the aroma of cigars, would however that there might be a Churchillian aficionado in the wings today, willing to stand in the gap while communicating a message of resolution, hope and victory.
20
Eagle1
// Mar 31, 2007 at 9:02 am
I’m with DH on this one. The RN is a shadow of its former self, but that shadow has really existed for some time. Without an empire to defend, there are questions about how big force the RN need be. I hope those questions are being asked now. I do know that the RN I worked with was very competent and, as I have said at my site, quite stout if called upon.
As DH notes, the Pueblo, EP-3, Iran embassy, and a few other instances in which the US knew the culprit did not result in much action by us either…
The whole point of Iran’s asymmetric warfare is to annoy, harass and play up to that part of the Gap countries that hate the U.S. and Great Britain and the other free countries. Given the dispute over the Shatt-al-Arab boundary, they get to claim a violation of “their” space which some will believe despite any real evidence to the contrary (Rosie the Useful Idiot, anyone?). Lessons learned, I guess, from the DPRK with the Pueblo and China with the EP-3. If we react to provovation, as in our “Robo Cruiser” incident (was it a set up?) we get pilloried, too.
Given that this relatively minor incident has swept away news of their nuclear program, I would say Iran is playing the game well. We need to play it better.
All that being said, Iran should feel very uncomfortable right now. The is a limit to how long you can sit out a limb you are cutting off behind you. The leash you wrote of could be slipped very easliy.
21
ASM826
// Mar 31, 2007 at 10:18 am
badbob,
If we will not fight, really fight, like it matters, like our grandfathers did in World War II, then yes, I think we it is quite possible we will lose. Internally we have the left and the far left so consumed with destroying the President and winning the next election that they ignore the threat of the worldwide Jihad.
We have a small but growing internal population of Muslims, some of which clearly support the overthrow of the current Constitution in favor of the Imams and Shir’ia Law. Everyone ignores them, because there is no PC way to look clearly at the dangers there. So they recruit, more come every week, and the have children. A small but growing threat.
In spite of the strong rhetoric after 9/11, the current administration has squandered the time it had in a nation building effort that failed to secure victory, failed to recognize how widespread the problem is, and tries to contain the fighting to two small countries, allowing the enemy in Iran, Syria, and other places to safely train and supply the fighters and equipment they are using in Iraq.
When they called it a “War on Terror”, they showed how weak their leadership is. Terror is a tactic, you can’t win fighting against a tactic. It is the ideas that drive the people using those tactics that we are really at war with, and so far at least, no one wants to say it out loud, let alone actually fight against the ideology that drives those that would kill us all if it was in their power to do so.
Demographics alone will doom Europe in a generation or two. France may fall in our lifetime.
One or two nukes, made or purchased, and set off in coastal harbors in the U.S. could devastate the global economy.
It is approaching the time where we will need to be willing to wage all out war for our survival, and so far I don’t see any signs that the majority of America wants to do anything but go to the mall.
Semper Fidelis,
ASM826
22
colagirl
// Mar 31, 2007 at 10:28 am
Eloquent and tragic, Lex.
23
one last chance
// Mar 31, 2007 at 1:39 pm
For those who supported the Gulf war, the justification was that it seemed to be morally correct. There is always ambiguity in war, especially for a non combatant, however having a presence in Iraq was about being right. Having devastated the country, our continued presence should have more to do with what is honest and good rather than trying to maintain a grip on the greasy reins of power or harking back to a bygone age of gunboat diplomacy. The capture of these British sailors is sadly a consequence of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It would not surprise me if Iran had not been waiting for this opportunity for some time. However, please do not delude yourself that these could not just as easily be US or any other countries personnel. The situation is a mess. A timely diversion for Iran who has far greater matters that it would much rather not attend to. The British for their part fight an unpopular war, in a distant land with an ally who has gone strangely quiet in recent days. If you have been paying attention and scan the worlds media, it is the US who have said the least about this latest atrocity, even Russia is more vocal, although it has its own radioactive reasons. Is that a way of helping or a way of avoiding being drawn into something that really has not been planned for yet? Let’s keep this in proportion for now. This is an insult to the British nation, but it is old enough and has tough enough skin to not anger easily. With good diplomacy the hostages will return unharmed. As for it being time for the British to leave Iraq, well maybe. But that would be a decision for the British and I suspect whatever meagre contribution the British forces make, it would be sorely missed once it was gone. Finally a word about empires. They come and go. Those who live in the past will die there. In a hundred years time when India and Chinas economic dreadnoughts are at full steam, this will doubtless be a footnote in a textbook. The Gulf wars a mere paragraph documenting the conflict. That is history. For now I would just wish the hostages continued good health and a speedy and safe return home
24
flatlander
// Mar 31, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Nose - I am certainly in the dark about current ROE, but it would not surprise me at all if either (a) the Brit CO did not have the authority to act when his people were taken, or (b) his available options were extremely limited. This was essentially the capture of a boarding party, as I understand it, which is something different than if the ship had come under attack.
Without knowing the specific ROE in the situation, I think it is unfair to judge the CO of the ship one way or another.
I also expect the Brits are revamping their boarding procedures and/or ROE - at least I hope they are.
25
lex
// Mar 31, 2007 at 2:22 pm
olc, putting aside for now whether the US jumping in between Iran and Britain with both feet at the opening stroke would have been helpful or otherwise (and passing entirely on the subject of ‘greasy reins of power’ and exactly who it is that is ‘devastating Iraq’), your timing is is not particularly good.
Thanks for the rest of it, though.
26
Nose
// Mar 31, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Flatlander,
Unless things have changed, international law ALWAYS allows a person, group, ship, etc, to act in self defense. Response must be proportional and timely and can extend to help others in your group. (I don’t have to personally be attacked to stand up for you if we are together.)
International law, ROE, whatever. If you are in command, you are responsible for you people. This CO failed in his responsibility.
Nose
27
Mike
// Mar 31, 2007 at 7:38 pm
To the best of my knowledge, the British operating in that area do have extremely restricted ROE, much more so than the USN.
The USN still maintains not just the right, but the obligation to self defense, as covered under international law, like you stated, Nose. However, the British operating in the Shatt al-Arab area have much more restricted ROE that are, in the words of a former First Sea Lord, “very much de-escalatory, because we don’t want wars starting.”
While the Captain is still ultimately responsible, I wouldn’t beat up on him too much because it sounds like his hands were pretty tied.
28
badbob
// Apr 1, 2007 at 2:47 pm
ASM826,
My father fought in WWII; my grandfather in WWI.
I am not disagreeing with you on anything you postulate on the future, point by point. It may come to be. Who would have predicted WWII in 1919?
However, I ain’t giving up and neither is anybody I KNOW, including the next b2 generation. It ain’t in me as long as I can say my piece as I see fit, worship a Christian God and pull a trigger if I need to.
Regimes change, administrations change. However, the Islamo-facist threat remains the same this past 1000 years. Of course we didn’t see it coming despite all the I&W. Hard to accept Kipling’s burden and all as truth. We know better now (well, some of us), don’t we? Perhaps IF they do get nuclear weapons the historical on & off concept of total war will make a return based on that inevitable terrorist act happening again in the US homeland.. When it DOES happen, because we have disengaged, finality will be assured for the Terrorists, those who support them and a helluva lot of innocent people from N. Africa to Mindoro.
As crappy as the present situation is, we have been engaged with the enemy since 9-11 and have made many mistakes. If you’ve read anything I’ve commented on here you must remember me advising many times on how an insurgency should be handled from successful examples in history. It will take an iron fist because it always takes an iron fist…
You must admit it’s hard to lead a flock of sheep if
29
badbob
// Apr 1, 2007 at 2:53 pm
**Indignation** Me been truncated!
You must admit it’s hard to lead a flock of sheep if
30
fox
// Apr 2, 2007 at 5:14 am
First of all I am British, I read some comments here with surprise and some with well, lets call it shock. It never ceases to surprise me some of the extreme right wing political views of some Americans - especially worrying when many of these views come from military backgrounds. I struggle to understand how some Americans can be so out of touch with the rest of the views of the world. This does not only include the EU but the majority of the UN. It is a relief to know that not all of the US believes in bombing Iran - and ridiculously for some reason to bomb Irans gas plant as if this will bring down the country. You have no idea what an attack on Iran would do. Can you not see the mess that Iraq is in? It is a civil war. To invade another country in the region would cause an all out middle east conflict. Furthermore, to put it in military terms, the US military are in too weak a position to mount an attack.
Moving onto the situation with my countries sailors and Marines, this is a diplomatic crisis, one which should and is being pursued through the diplomatic channels that Britain has too its disposal - ones which the US does not have. And to answer the question of a contributor above - The US is not involved because this would only put the saliors and marines lifes in danger. We have a history in this region, and we shall get our personell home. Are you not aware that the US holds Iranian personell in prison in Northern Iraq? Do not presume the people of Iran to be uneducated. The Persian empire was massive contributing to many aspects of Western life such as mechanics.
The British Armed Forces is spread all around the world, it is a small extremely professional force. Please do not criticise the Captain of HMS Cornwall - the Flagship of US and UK ships in that area who were acting on a UN mandate. The RIB’s were on a routine objective to search a cargo ship. They were then surrounded by several gun boats, the frigate was not near enough - or fast enough to step in. Besides, they were in Iraqi waters I dont think they expected the Iraqi Navy to attack!
Just think about it before you express your right wing hawkish views - Invading Iran really beneficial to global security? Would it not bring up another generation of anti american Islamic fanatics?
Kevin, UK
31
badbob
// Apr 2, 2007 at 6:46 am
Nose,
I wanted to say (before I was truncated) that at least you would figure one or more of the “prisoners” would pull a Jeff Zaun..just because.
b2
——
fox:
re- “First of all I am British, I read some comments here with surprise and some with well, lets call it shock”
First off, not sure I believe it and oh yeah.. ice water in the face does wake on up doesn’t it?
re- “Furthermore, to put it in military terms, the US military are in too weak a position to mount an attack”
Don’t believe it.
re- “We have a history in this region, and we shall get our personell home.”
Re the former…sure…thanks. re the latter- I truly hope so.
re- “The Persian empire was massive contributing to many aspects of Western life such as mechanics.’
That so? Thank ‘em for me.
re- “Would it not bring up another generation of anti american Islamic fanatics?”
Anti-British too. Wouldn’t you agree? remeber July 2005? Don’t answer that.
b2
32
Jim Collins
// Apr 2, 2007 at 7:35 am
I keep seeing all of the posts here asking why those Marines didn’t put up a fight and the claim that they have the right to self-defence. Let me ask a simple question. What if an element of the Cuban Navy was stopping ships just off of Key West and our Coast Guard responded? Do the Cubans have the right to shoot up a cutter in self-defence? I’m not defending Iran here, I’m just trying to put this into perspective. These people are not POWs, they have been arrested for a so called violation of Iranian waters. I know and you all know what is really going on here, but Iran can make a case that they have arrested some trespassers who just happen to be members of the UK military. Any kind of military response just gives the Iranians more propaganda to spew out to the World’s media.
33
badbob
// Apr 2, 2007 at 7:53 am
“That noise you hear as you pass the crypt at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London is Lord Horatio Nelson spinning in his grave.”
Jack Kelly:
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/07091/773983-373.stm
Our Coast Guard works for the Homeland Security Department..our Navy works for Department of Defense; the Royal Navy works for the same equivalent.
b2
34
unkawill
// Apr 2, 2007 at 2:33 pm
MR. Fox,
You sir, are full of crap! You sir, sound as if you are french.
You had better thank someone, that us extreme right wing Americans with military backgrounds are around to pull your asses out of the fire and back into the frying pan once AGAIN. WW1, WW2, Ring any bells?
“Are you not aware that the US holds Iranian personnel in prison in Northern Iraq?”
Are you referring to members of the Iranian Government that are providing material and financial support to Terrorist’s whom are attacking US troops and Iraqi civilians with the full backing of said Iranian Government.
If these are the people you are referring to they should be stood up against a wall and Executed, as per the Geneva Accords.
I struggle to understand how some Americans can be so out of touch with the rest of the views of the world. This does not only include the EU but the majority of the UN.
I will type s-l-o-w-l-y so you might under stand.
We Americans, for the most part are NOT Socialists, nor are we Klept-o-crats.
What of your Vaunted EU and the UN, Cowards that won’t stand for what’s right and humane in the world. Turn a blind eye to depravity and corruption and Yes “EVIL”.
On second thought, the hell with you. I hope you enjoy your new life either under sharia or dhimmitude.
35
fox
// Apr 2, 2007 at 2:42 pm
badbob:
Regarding your reply to my above post -
1. Yes I am British, and firstly Scottish, and I am training with the Royal Marines at the moment.
2. I’m sorry but the US military is not in a position to start an all out war with Iran. By me saying they are to weak to do so is not in any way putting the US military down - it is just a fact. They are at full stretch at the moment, Reserves being called up left right and centre. Bush now less popular, Democrats calling for the troops to come home, spending through the roof. American people I’m sorry could not and would not let a war happen - do you realise what this would do to destabalise the country - Pakistan, Syria, Palestine, I mean it would be a disaster, governements would not be able to control their citizens. It’s time you recognised the US cannot jump in two feet first.
3. You would be surprised at the similarities between the West and Iran - of all the countries in the region they are sophisticated. Different culture yes, religious beliefs yes, but do not think them to be wearing rags and living in caves. Just a warning - they would not be easily defeated. Of course I’m presuming you are not so right wing that you would believe in using (rather than as a deterrent) nuclear weapons against them now are you….?
4. Now before we wage war against Iran and put our entire fleet in the Persian Gulf Dont you think a bit of diplomacy, communication between the UK and Iran would make sense - latest news is that the situation is calming down. Glad we Brits are still able to ring them up, I believe American foreign policy has been a disaster - you have waded in once again and provoked an entire region and are no longer on communication terms.
5. “Anti-British too. Wouldn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t you agree? remeber July 2005? Don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t answer that”
True, there is a feeling in general of Anti Western views. In fact there is a hige problem. However do not take the middle east to be one whole area. In fact with your comment above are you trying to involve Iran with 7/11? please you already made that mistake with 9/11. I remember seeing a poll where americans believed one of the reasons they were in Iraq was because of 9/11. There has been no connection between Iraq and 9/11 whatsoever. Iraq, yes was a major problem, the reason the British public were given too go to war was because of WMD. Sine the invasion we have not found one - the main reason why Tony Blair is less popular now in the UK. Afghanistan now thats a different story, I believe strongly in this conflict. Letting a regime such as the Taleban back in would be a disaster. You see what I am trying to put across here and underline this: You cannot just wade in on a war aginst Iran - learn from history, it would be utterly disastrous.
There is a time and place for war, one must have more time for Diplomacy.
36
largey
// Apr 2, 2007 at 3:00 pm
i agree with fox. we just cant go to war when we feel like it. We need to talk to countries more.
37
fox
// Apr 2, 2007 at 3:03 pm
WW2 started in 1939 - i believe America was a few years late - Oh yeah you were busy still selling arms to Nazi Germany.
38
lex
// Apr 2, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I understand your anger pard. Hell, I share it. But it wasn’t us who nicked your mates, and it wasn’t us who turned your PM down when he went to the UN, and it wasn’t us who turned your foreign secretary down when he went to the EU looking for something more robust than a, “Gee, isn’t this awful?”
Your government put its faith for the future in the UN and the EU. The pampered princelings from Turtle Bay and Brussels have just given you a preview of what that future is going to look like.
I’d be mad too.
39
badbob
// Apr 3, 2007 at 8:24 am
I think the fox ain’t what he appears to be!
Grammar ain’t right and his logic is almost Palestinian in nature.
Nope, ol’fox ain’t foxxy enough!
re- “Just a warning - they would not be easily defeated..”
Hmmm. Thank for the warning- from a supposed Royal Marine trainee. LOL.
No defeat and democracy insertion called for. Just a little lesson. The lesson?
No water. No electricity. Less infrastructure. No nucs for a while longer. No more Iranian Navy. The US can do that all in less than 3 weeks (with or without the UK…)…Call it well deserved conditioning for the average Iranian up to his ears in hate and B.S. without consequence since 1979…BTW, if (when) we do this how much more can they hate us? I’d say they hate us plenty right now. Hate ain’t exponential. Think about that.
Our ground troops (USA/USMC) have been doing all the heavy lifting for the past 3 years. It’s about time our Navy and Air Force took care of bidness…
b2
40
unkawill
// Apr 3, 2007 at 9:58 am
I call BS along with badbob, I Think that fox is due to wash out of training as morally unfit for service.
To refute 2.Yes we able to go to full scale war with Iran, We have over 150,000 combat seasoned professional warriors right next door.
The “American People” and the dem’s have NO say in foreign policy. it is solely the purview of the Executive branch.
“do you realize what this would do to destabilize the country - Pakistan, Syria, Palestine, I mean it would be a disaster, governments would not be able to control their citizens.”
As if Pakistan, Syria, Palestine weren’t a major part of the problem, what with A.Q.Kahn’s nuclear proliferation to Muslim theocracy’s programme. and iran’s once AGAIN financial and material support of the TERRIOREST regimes in Syria and the land’s around Israel.
The problem in the area is that the governments ARE controlling their so called citizens as a proxy for Iran.
3.”Just a warning - they would not be easily defeated.”
The same wailing and gnashing of teeth, greeted the start of OIF. We took care of that rather handily didn’t we.
So just where is this HARD to defeat Persian/Arab/ Middle Eastern military Force?
Haven’t seen one since Suleiman.
“You cannot just wade in on a war against Iran - learn from history, it would be utterly disastrous.”
Jeez I think I heard the same crap about Afganistan, nobody has Ever conquered afganistan, they kicked the Soviets out, the brit’s couldn’t do it. ect.. ect…
There is a time and place for war, one must have more time for Diplomacy.
Yes there is a time and a place for war.
The Time is when one nation commits an act of WAR against another. The Place is the offender’s front yard.
One has already given “Diplomacy” With IRAN since 1979 time to work. Look where that has us you CESM.
41
unkawill
// Apr 3, 2007 at 9:59 am
Must use spell check!
42
unkawill
// Apr 3, 2007 at 10:03 am
Oh yeah you were busy still selling arms to Nazi Germany.
Would those Arms be the American made junkers or stuka’s or panzers or perhaps the lugers or what Exactly? Fox?
43
unkawill
// Apr 3, 2007 at 10:10 am
Of course I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m presuming you are not so right wing that you would believe in using (rather than as a deterrent) nuclear weapons against them now are you?¢‚Ǩ¬¶.?
If you are not afraid of death, if in fact your aim is to die for your cause, what dererrent factor is there?
Nuclear is but one option.
44
Justthisguy
// Apr 4, 2007 at 2:13 am
Where is Captain Jack Aubrey, now that we really need him? He was a genuine old-fashioned beef-headed simple-minded (but not stupid, he was a Fellow of the Royal Society) earnest Briton.
He said, once, “The man has sound political ideas. He hates a Frenchman as much as I do!”
I do hope that there are still some badass Saxons left over there, and it’s not all nicey-nicey Anglos.
One of the reasons that our people won the battle of Trafalgar was, that they weren’t very nice.
In the English navy, in battle, if you were dead or even fixing to die, you were tossed overboard to get you out of the way of the guns, even if you said something like “I’m not dead yet!”
In the Spanish navy they were much more humane. The sailors’ wives all got pensions if hubby was killed in action, but said wives had to produce the bodies to collect.
That’s why there were so many dead sailors aboard the Spanish ships during the battle, interfering with the working of the guns and depressing the minds of the survivors.
The original badass Saxon attitude was not about right, or wrong, or justice.
It was about *winning*.
They’ve mellowed out a bit in the last millennium or so, but their nasty nature has come out from time to time.
C’mon, ye Sassenachs! We Celts are ahead of you here! Let’s see some of that cold-blooded badassedness for which y’all are justly famed! (and sometimes reviled
45
fox
// Apr 4, 2007 at 3:58 am
Thanks Lex, I know where you are coming from. I am majorly pissed off at the Iranians as well. But you see unlike some of your countrymen, I do not see it as a time to go to all out war and start to tell me that my country is weak, and the navy cant handle themselves - We, and hopefully you, do not want to start an all out middleeastern conflict. It is a delicate tightrope. This time the way to deal with it is by diplomacy.
Ok. I’ve definteley stirred a hornets nest here.
Accused of being French? it may be 1000 miles away from where I live but believe me my red British passport is sitting right next to me.
Accused of being Palestinian, haha. No I don’e believe so. I do not throw rocks at tanks.
Accused of being socialist, no. I dont believe in socialism, and to the contributor above who thought the UK was a socialist country…do a bit more research. I’ve just spent time in Sweden, ha I dont fancy driving a Volvo like everyone else.
Accused of incorrect grammar. Now in his words my, “Grammar ain?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t right”. I hope you see some irony here haha. Now just a mention of the fact you are speaking my language, English.
Badbob believes they will be easily defeated, really. I hope to God you are not working at the Pentagon. Bomb them from the sky, yeah. Listen mate, we are still struggling in Iraq, our troops cant just leave there and cross the border into Iran and then start fighting there. You are off your head. I hope you are ready to fight on your armchair. And yes I am in training in the longest and most difficult training schedule in all of NATO.
I am not anti American. on the contrary, i’ve spent a lot of time there. Its a fantastic place. However, a dishonest President who so regularly fluffs his lines that their are websites dedicated to his blundering rants? The highest obesity rate in the world? High crime rates, disproportionate childhood poverty rates? Insanely expensive and corrupt medical systems? The death penalty? American foreign policy? Sometimes you need to take a step back. Now I’ve mentioned a few things there that you may be upset by, we’re not all perfect - believe me, neither are your miltary. As for the 3 week time limit you gave to topple Iran haha I truly hope that was sarcasm. Both our countries are still in Iraq, yes you have 150,000 troops there -
“combat seasoned professional warriors right next door” unkawill.
You just sent another 20,000 - i know i seen some them in my local airport refueling, i spoke to them, they were not at all looking forward to yet another tour of duty. Neither are the guys I know that have headed out there. They see it as a pointless war. The invasion was successful. The planning after a complete and utter disaster.
In the rest of the world there is anger at the subterfuge and falsehoods the current administration has employed in order to achieve its aims and frustration at the attitudes of everyday Americans for their perceived selfishness and inability to see that they are now fighting self created monsters, their self glorification and one eyed patriotism at the expense of the remainder of the worlds population and perceived ignorance of the world outside the borders of the USA and lack of respect for the history and cultures of world.
Now, perhaps you were not aware “unkawill” the USA sold arms to Nazi Germany, as the largest arms dealer during WW2 while they were still ‘neutral’ and Hitler was waging war on the world. Just look it up. World War 2 in particular.
There are multiple generations of disgruntled citizens in the UK and the Commonwealth who as highlighted by Eldon Andersons recent rant, resent the self glorification of the USA with regard to WW2. If I had a dollar for every American who has told me that we?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢d all be speaking German if not for US intervention in WW2, I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢d be rich! The facts are that it took all the allies to defeat the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in the Pacific.
The Numbers of Military the US put into action pales when compared to the numbers of Russian, French, British and Commonwealth military in action. Russia, France, the UK and former colonies were the principal force against Germany.
There are the block buster movies like U-571, based on the capture of the German Naval Ciphers by BRITISH naval forces, portrayed as an American operation in order to capture an American audience.
Yes America supplied materials and arms, but they weren?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t given, they were sold. Britain finished paying its WW2 loans at the end of 2006.
WW2 wouldn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t have been won without America, BUT, it wouldn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t have been won without any of the other Allied nations that fought. Thats just to clear it up unkawill.
“The ?¢‚Ǩ?ìAmerican People?¢‚Ǩ¬ù and the dem?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s have NO say in foreign policy. it is solely the purview of the Executive branch.” Unkawill.
OK, yeah so your lame duck president can go ahead and do whatever he wants - similar in the way my Queen owns every porpoise and swan in UK teritorial waters. Get real, The Democrats have a say and the people decide though elections.
“?¢‚Ǩ¬ùJust a warning - they would not be easily defeated.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù
The same wailing and gnashing of teeth, greeted the start of OIF. We took care of that rather handily didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t we.” unkawill.
Yes you took care of it rather well, Baghdad is now turing into a top city break destination, a cosmopolitan atmosphere. You could cut the freedom with a butter knife
46
fox
// Apr 4, 2007 at 4:16 am
in reply to ‘justthisguy’:
I never thought i’d see the day when ‘badass’ and saxons would be used in the same sentence. I dont know what you are havering about talking about the saxons and anglos, haha, and the celts?
“One of the reasons that our people won the battle of Trafalgar was, that they weren?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t very nice.”
whose people? are you American or what?
“We celts are ahead of you?”
what? Celts ….Irish, Welsh, Scottish? You my friend are havering.
47
badbob
// Apr 4, 2007 at 4:31 am
fox,
You’ve “lived a lot” for a “recruit in training” (no friggin way…)… Your broad intellect is astounding. If you really are then I say: “God save the Queen”…
I never realized the UK (ha) had sunk so low and that your education system could be so piss-poor. Especially your deficient knowledge of WWII. I would say your education comes from a local Madrrassa, The Discovery Channel and possibly, The View…With a little Guardian thrown in.
re- “we are still struggling in Iraq, our troops cant just leave there and cross the border into Iran and then start fighting there”
No need. When did I mention ground troops above? I don’t want to occupy or to democritize, comphrendo? I want to simply attrite capability, nuc-military-leadership-key infrastruce..If they mass and attempt to attack across the border, our forces will decimate any Persian army, if they even reach the border….That is what we are best at. BTW, the UK are just strap-hangers in such endeavors.
re- “….- i know i seen some them in my local airport refueling,…”
Proves my point again, Troll.
b2
48
fox
// Apr 4, 2007 at 5:44 am
BBC newsflash:
“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf will be freed.
He repeated allegations that the British sailors and marines “invaded” Iranian waters, but said they would be freed as a “gift” to Britain.”
Nay luck badbob and unkawill, you are not going to get your nuclear war, you must be gutted.
In reply, i’m a YO in training and i read history at St.Andrews. Tel me then what part of my WW2 history is incorrect? I certainly do not get history from your side of the pond. haha the Discovery channel, I don’t think so. CNN - utter crap, Fox news - Dont want to even talk about that one its so utterly pathetic. Basically its all censored. You shoould tune into BBC world my friend, you might learn something.
49
badbob
// Apr 4, 2007 at 6:22 am
Good. Once they’re clear we can attack (just kidding o’course)
I’ll tell you what, you phony Limey, I’ll come to Kinloss and you can attempt to “gut” me. After your studies at St. Andrews o’course.
LOL.
Bottom feeding friggin Troll!
b2
50
lex
// Apr 4, 2007 at 7:00 am
Gentlemen, it seems to me that friends of ours have been embarrassed and have, in their anger, lashed out at those who care the most for them.
At this point, the considerate thing for us to do would be to look away.
51
fox
// Apr 4, 2007 at 7:36 am
haha nicely put…..
haha yes you come too RAF Kinloss, tell you what you should come to RM condor. I’ll let you come haggis hunting but remember they have one leg longer than the other for going up hills so they will be difficult to chase in the Highlands.
Dear Lex,
Not embaressed, more pissed off. We get a lot of extra baggage with some of the rumblings across the pond.
52
John of Argghhh!
// Apr 4, 2007 at 8:38 am
Hmmm. The US sold arms to the Nazis? I missed that, but it may hinge on the definition of ‘arms’.
Ford and GM had operations in Germany (GM owned or had a large stake in Opel) but those were nationalized by the Germans (and the Ford operation was partly Brit-owned). IBM had what has been termed a “troubling” relationship with the Nazis, to be sure. And there’s the whole Harriman Banking bit.
Fox, can you provide a bit more to back up your assertion - unless you assertion is covered by the above? I’m just curious.
And yep, the Brits pay their bills, no doubts about that. Lend-lease was the only political way that Roosevelt could get around the Congress on giving aid to Britain. Many people, this side of the war, don’t realize just how much support for Germany there has been in the US. There was large sentiment in the US at times to enter WWI on the side of Germany, and the Bund was active prior to the start of the shooting war on the Continent during WWII.
Such support shouldn’t be surprising, given that the US was oft-times hostile to John Bull between 1776 and 1917 as interests and ideals clashed - and many don’t realize that net German migration to the US, especially after the failed revolutions of 1848 in Germany led to the fact that demographically, german-descended Americans outnumbered english-descended.
Heh. What was the point again?
53
unkawill
// Apr 4, 2007 at 11:27 am
Thanks John,
I, for the life of me, couldn’t conceive of the US selling weapons to the Nazi’s. Being in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, and all
54
unkawill
// Apr 4, 2007 at 11:46 am
B2, I feel badly for our comrades-in-arms across the puddle, IF fox is in anyway an average recruit, mentally that is. What is the use of a military that doesn’t understand “Why we Fight”.
Cap’n I promise to drop it and “look away”
55
John of Argghhh!
// Apr 4, 2007 at 11:47 am
Well, in sooth - money being fungible, banking aid can certainly facilitate arms purchases - hence why I asked Fox to provide some concrete examples, if his point was *other* than what I covered.
I’m just curious. I’m 90% certain we sent no planes, trains, ships or tanks, nor ammunition and small arms, or significant tech transfers (not likely considering at that point the germans were leading us in miltech with the exception of the M1 Garand and especially strategic bombers).
But that doesn’t mean dual-use tech didn’t get sent or sold.
But money is money, even if the assets of Harriman, etc, were frozen after Pearl Harbor.
I’m curious if Fox is purporting direct gov’t to gov’t sales or gov’t approved sales, vice private entities doing what businesses do.
56
badbob
// Apr 4, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Perhaps next September, Fox!
I’ll come for the golf at St. Andrews (not for the history you’ve been “taught”), the salmon, perhaps another red Deer or Roebuck and to hunt my favorite varmint- da Fox! Done all that before in the environs..even et that foul sheep stomach haggis, but I’ve never been after varmint up thar, though..
b2
57
Justthisguy
// Apr 10, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Oh, Fox? I hear tell that Wernher von Braun got his copy of “Astounding” every month, all through the war.
Is that the kind of “weapon” yer talking about?
Leave a Comment