You guys know more about current ops than I ... especially since I don't know too much .... but why, why, why were two RHIB's or whatever the Brits were floating in "up there" -- and seemingly unsupported??? At least unsupported in the sense that no naval entity bigger and badder was closely covering their back and able to thump or at least intimidate the Iranians into backing off??? Reminds me a lot of the Pueblo, amongst other less than sterling moments in naval history.
I believe the RHIB's were in the Shatt-El-Arab waterway, whch is not the easiest place for a bigger ship to go. http://lexicorient.com/e.o/shatt_ar.htm
I know where ABOT/KAAOT are (at least on a map). I guess my point about the Straits was more in terms of the Iranians retaliating by closing them and shutting down oil trade/trapping our ships.
Roger that ... thanks for the link; I'm familiar with the geography ... but then, you see why it reminds me of the Pueblo?? Helo's/air cover would not have done it. They can only shoot or watch. Something big and grey might have.... Putting guys "out there" without an appropriate backup (with teeth) does not seem like an example of "lessons learned" .... ???
Bigger boats, as in Freighter can go up the SAA. I've seen it. Wether it is a good idea, is for the powers that be to decide. They should have had helo support, as US forces often do while conducting similar operations.
I know they can go up there but they have little if any room to manuever, that is what I was trying to say.
I agree wholeheartedly on that one, but I don't know the full story either. It does make you wonder though........
Seized sailors 'taken to Tehran' The 15 Royal Navy personnel seized at gunpoint in the Gulf by Iran are reportedly being questioned in Tehran.
Not only did they get moved to Teheran, but they're being charged with espionage...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece It's still early, but it looks like Iran might be trying to go the distance with this thing (of course, they say if we give back 5 or so of their Revolutionary Guards, they'll deal). Is Ahmadinejad just begging for a beat-down or what?
You need to reread the article. They "may" be charged and the statement was by a website run by "associates" of the president, not an official release...highly likely as it appears they may be playing this to get back some of their people, BUT that is condition espoused by a student group, not the government and they don't make the deals. You seem way too ready to rattle your sword. They know we won't start shooting as long as the sailors are safe or even threaten that unless they are harmed.
heyjoe--yeah, I did skim too quickly. Re: my "begging for a beatdown" comment, I think it's apparent that Ahmadinejad has a penchant for the provocative...It's not for the likes of myself to say, but how far do you let a man like this go? Right now it's 15 British sailors and Marines and possibly a "show trial" in Teheran. What's his next move going to be, and if it's against our guys, then, what would be our own?
What many have failed to see is that Ahmadinejad is a smart man. For one, he's run CIRCLES around us in the diplomatic arena. He's missing some men, and so happen to capture some Brits. Will that make him lose face? Maybe. But if he treats these Brits well, takes care of them, etc... the point is, they're not as isolated and nuts as North Korea.
What's his next move going to be? Anything said here would be pure speculation. Nobody saw the last move coming, what makes you think we'll know the next one? He likely feels he has a certain amount of power right now as long as he doesn't go too far so just watch how he plays it to extract max attention to torture the Brits politically to appease his countrymen and religious hierarchy. He doesn't want to give US or UK or anyone an excuse to thrump him, but he likes the stage and is a bit of a cowboy so he'll play this for all he can get without risking a clash of arms. if it's against our guys, then, what would be our own? You'll have to wait until you're in the service and assigned to appropriate command to be privvy to contingency plans. As Schnugg will tell you (he just got back last year from a ringside seat over there), there are Plans and ROE for just about everything imaginable, but those in the know aren't authorized to chat about it in an open forum.
Blair makes some comments: "It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters," "I want to get it resolved in as easy and diplomatic a way as possible," he said, but added he hoped the Iranians "understood how fundamental an issue this is for the British government."
Now that I've thought more about it, I think there would be a response only if they crossed the Iranian border and started shooting at American Soldiers... oh wait the Iranians have already done that...
Article on the Seizure Here is an article from a reporter who was on the HMS Cornwall with more detail on what happened: Marines 'confess' to Iranian captors Tehran said yesterday that 15 British sailors taken hostage had confessed to straying into Iranian waters. Terri Judd, the only newspaper journalist on HMS 'Cornwall', reports http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2390872.ece
Iranian TV Broadcasts images of captives: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/28/iran.uk.sailors/index.html Apparently they are also claiming the woman who was captured wrote a letter to her parents apologizing for being in Iranian waters, although it sounds pretty fake if you ask me. As for broadcasting images of the soldiers: classless.
The letter is a fake. The British don't use an 's' instead of a 'z' in apologize. A complete amateur mistake. "I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologize for us entering into their waters" http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/28/british.letter/index.html
