British Sailors seized by Iran.

Hunter368 · 03-30-2007, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigZ

The Iranians know they have f$%ked up. I think they will foolishly persist in their present course of action in order to try and save face.

We tried appeasement to are eternal same in 38 and looked what happened. These guys need to know we won't be walked over.

Oh really ? I think they are doing a pretty good job making the West like morons and wimps.

The West has to show them we don't have marbles.......we have grapefruits.

Toughen up West!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-30-2007, 05:15 PM

I agree. The response has not been strong eneogh. Negotiations only go so far. You negotiate once. No more than a week or two, after that you give them an ultimatum of say 48 hours and if that does not work you go forth with the ultimatum and kick some ass.

Hunter368 · 03-30-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I agree. The response has not been strong eneogh. Negotiations only go so far. You negotiate once. No more than a week or two, after that you give them an ultimatum of say 48 hours and if that does not work you go forth with the ultimatum and kick some ass.

Agreed. If all you do is talk then you get no respect. You have to show that you will talk first, if that fails then you will beat the living crap out of them.

"Walk quitely and carry a big stick" and be prepared to use it when needed.

The West does not scare anyone anymore b/c they know the West will do nothing unless put in extremely bad spot (see 9/11 USA had to act).

renrich · 03-30-2007, 05:27 PM

Yesterday I thought that Matt308's idea of an ultimatum and if no results an escalating response was a good one. Sort of like taking off one finger at a time. Now I realise it ain't going to happen. What is going to happen is that the Iranians are going to milk this situation for every drop of propaganda edge they can and when the British do some sort of mea culpa the sailors will be released. The Brits don't have the political will to do otherwise and frankly I am not sure the US has either in a similar situation. I think that Bush would get tough if need be but he probably would be impeached and convicted if he did so. Blair has paid a huge political price for his siding with Bush(and Bush has paid his price also) and Blair has looked at the tea leaves and realised he can do nothing except negotiate. I agree with the member who said that the government of Iran doesn't necessarily reflect the attitude of all the Iranians. This episode will do nothing except strengthen that regime's power in Iran. Britain is going to come off looking like a toothless lion and the US will lose face with a lot of the muslim world. One thing that needs to happen with all of our military if it hasn't already happened is that the ROE need to be clear in a situation like this. My inclination is to follow the rule, "never give up the ship." we should never send any unit into a area where this type of situation could take place without that unit knowing that if they are faced with capture they must resist with every means possible and we should try and make sure that we have the ability to timely come to the aid of a unit that is about to be captured. Either that or instruct them that they are expendable and they must go down fighting rather than be captured. Anyway we are the losers in this and the Islamic radicals will be rejoicing.

pbfoot · 03-30-2007, 05:48 PM

I happen to agree with Bigz the Brits usually stand up when confronted and will not lay down this time .We have the cajones but you must pick your spots and you certainly don't announce what your plans are .
Did the US react with weaponary when their EP3 aircraft was forced to land in China . Maybe if the CIA had not installed the Shah in 1953 over a democratically elected Iranian gov't and backed his regime this situation would not have occured . Remember the UK and USSR invaded Iran in 41 Some people hold grudges for a long time and we don't have to look far as there are people on this site holding grudges dating back to the same time frame

mkloby · 03-30-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I happen to agree with Bigz the Brits usually stand up when confronted and will not lay down this time .We have the cajones but you must pick your spots and you certainly don't announce what your plans are .
Did the US react with weaponary when their EP3 aircraft was forced to land in China . Maybe if the CIA had not installed the Shah in 1953 over a democratically elected Iranian gov't and backed his regime this situation would not have occured . Remember the UK and USSR invaded Iran in 41 Some people hold grudges for a long time and we don't have to look far as there are people on this site holding grudges dating back to the same time frame

Maybe it would have, and maybe it would not have. However, that sort of apologist attitude doesn't resolve the situation.

Renrich - if Bush did decide to commit US forces in engaging Iran, that's not something he can be impeached for. As C-in-C, he has that power.

pbfoot · 03-30-2007, 06:38 PM

It isn't apologist its a real take as mr churchill once stated " if you don't know your history you don't know your future " I think somebody should smack the Iranians but it had better be more competent then the Iraq fiasco

mkloby · 03-30-2007, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

It isn't apologist its a real take as mr churchill once stated " if you don't know your history you don't know your future " I think somebody should smack the Iranians but it had better be more competent then the Iraq fiasco

Who says you need to rebuild the damn place? Just level it.

renrich · 03-30-2007, 07:10 PM

Mk loby, I know technically you are right about Bush having certain powers but the Dems don't necessarily have to have the law on their side, all they need is the votes.

mkloby · 03-30-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

Mk loby, I know technically you are right about Bush having certain powers but the Dems don't necessarily have to have the law on their side, all they need is the votes.

US Constitution Section II

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

you just cant vote the president out because you dislike/disagree.

pbfoot · 03-30-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkloby

Who says you need to rebuild the damn place? Just level it.

Read what I said it should be a more competent and i'll add comprehensive strategy. Meaning have a plan in place for after the end because the E4's and 5's are paying for that lack of plan right now

mkloby · 03-30-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Read what I said it should be a more competent and i'll add comprehensive strategy. Meaning have a plan in place for after the end because the E4's and 5's are paying for that lack of plan right now

A couple reactions to your comment.

#1 - If we did not rebuild the country, then a situation such as that present in Iraq would not occur.

#2 - Actually Privates, PFCs, and LCpls form the bulk of the USMC, and the equivalent ranks in the US Army. Not Corporals and Sergeants.

Perhaps your right. All western countries shall have citizens and legislatures debate and pass conjecture on what is the proper course of action. Meanwhile, no action will be taken because that is "more safe." You form that competent and comprehensive strategy, because all of the General and Flag officers are obviously not qualified to do so.

pbfoot · 03-30-2007, 08:05 PM

Your military performed beautifully in Iraq as a military force but having to perform civilian type tasks that is probably not included in the training sylabus and its hard to learn on the fly . There was no civilian authority after the ground offensive and it looked like the planners never even thought about it which is something the leaders or planners should be forced to own up to.
You can't tell me that not having a plan to police or provide civil services after the offensive was a good one . The coalition barred Ba'ath party guys from holding any position well the whole civil service was Ba'ath you had to be to work there.
In Canada a the equivilant of an an E4 is a private an E5 a Cpl

mkloby · 03-30-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Your military performed beautifully in Iraq as a military force but having to perform civilian type tasks that is probably not included in the training sylabus and its hard to learn on the fly . There was no civilian authority after the ground offensive and it looked like the planners never even thought about it which is something the leaders or planners should be forced to own up to.
You can't tell me that not having a plan to police or provide civil services after the offensive was a good one . The coalition barred Ba'ath party guys from holding any position well the whole civil service was Ba'ath you had to be to work there.
In Canada a the equivilant of an an E4 is a private an E5 a Cpl

I'm not going to say that Iraq couldn't have gone any better. However, the conflict is bigger than Iraq. It's bigger than just Afghanistan. It's an all encompassing conflict, rightfully termed the Long War. We may not know how things could have turned out if Iraq was seperated into 3 individual states, or if the US entered the ground war with 800,000 MPs stateside waiting for the ground war to end.

I think it's unfair to say that the US military had "no plan" regarding the conclusion of the conventional war. I'm not sure what kind of results that many throughout the world that look harshly upon the US expected. What I wonder more is what kind of results could have been had if the rest of the world took a stand with the US, and contributed substantial forces. This "it's not our problem" attitude is dangerous. The longer the western world allows militant islam to run unchecked - the bigger the mess it will be for our children and grandchildren. It's going to be a hell of a world we pass on to them.

I honestly have no idea what the Canadian rank structures are. I've only bumped into Canadian troops once back in Quantico. Loved their cammies! So - what's E1-3?

pbfoot · 03-30-2007, 09:32 PM

The rest of the world was behind you 100% for Afghanistan and the war on terrorism and joined you , but most of the world cannot connect the war on terrorism to Iraq be it right or wrong.
If its still the same E1 is recruit , E2 trained recruit, E3 would be basic MOC qualified , E4 you get your first "hook" after 3 yrs , E5 is basic Cpl or "master private" after 4 yrs
We don't use E so I translated it the best I could as we don't zip up the ranks as fast Sgt after 6-7 years would be exceptional