Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Joahob





Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 403
Reputation: 75.3Reputation: 75.3
votes: 2
Location: Spaceship Earth

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:41 am    Post subject: WHERE'S WINSTON? Reply with quote

WHERE'S WINSTON?
IT'S IRAN 15, BRITS 0 IN THE GULF

April 3, 2007 -- THE greatest shock from the Middle East this year hasn't been terrorist ruthlessness or the latest Iranian tantrum. It's that members of Britain's Royal Marines wimped out in a matter of days and acquiesced in propaganda broadcasts for their captors.

Jingoism aside, I can't imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in such a shabby, cowardly fashion. Our Marines would have fought to begin with. Taken captive by force, they would've resisted collaboration. To the last man and woman.

You could put a U.S. Marine in a dungeon and knock out his teeth, but you wouldn't knock out his pride in his country and the Corps. "Semper fi" means something.

And our Aussie allies would be just as tough.

What on earth happened to the Royal Marines? They're members of what passes for an elite unit. Has the Labor government's program to gut the U.K. military - grounding planes, taking ships out of service and deactivating army units - also ripped the courage from the breasts of those in uniform?

The female sailor who broke down first and begged for her government to surrender was pathetic enough. But when Royal Marines started pleading for tea and sympathy . . . Ma, say it ain't so!

Meanwhile, back at No. 10 "Downer" Street, British politicians are more upset that President Bush described their sailors and Marines as "hostages" than they are with the Iranians.

Okay, Lord Spanker and Lady Fanny - what exactly are those sailors and Marines? Package tourists?

Naturally, the European Union has praised Britain's "restraint." We've now got another synonym for cowardice.

I've always respected the Brits and quite liked those I worked with when in uniform . . . but I'm starting to wonder if I bought into a legend. While criticizing our military's approach to everything, the Brits made an utter balls of it in Basra - now they're bailing out, claiming "Mission accomplished!" (OK, they had a role model . . .) In Heaven, Winston Churchill's puking up premium scotch.

The once-proud Brit military has collapsed to a sorry state when its Royal Marines surrender without a fight, then apologize to their captors (praising their gentle natures!) while criticizing their own country. Pretty sad to think that the last real warriors fighting under the Union Jack are soccer hooligans.

Of course, bravery isn't equally distributed. One or even two collaborators might be explicable. But not all 15.

Yes, journalists and other civilian captives routinely make embarrassing statements on videos, chiding their governments and begging to be swapped for a battalion of mass murderers. One expects nothing better. But military men and women in the English-speaking tradition historically maintained high standards over long years in brutal captivity - and this hostage situation has barely lasted long enough to microwave a bag of popcorn.

Think about Sen. John McCain with his broken limbs undergoing torture in that Hanoi prison - and refusing an early chance to be repatriated because he wouldn't leave his comrades behind. Think he'd do a Tokyo Rose for Tehran?

The Iranians judged their victims well: The British boat crews didn't make even a token effort at defending themselves. Now their boo-hoo-we-quit government isn't defending them, either. Was Margaret Thatcher the last real man in Britain?

The correct response to the seizure of 15 British military hostages - if not released promptly - would've been to hit 15 Revolutionary Guards facilities or vessels along the Iranian coast, then threaten to hit 30 deeper inland the next day.

By hammering the now-degenerate Revolutionary Guards, the Coalition would've strengthened the less-nutty and less-vicious regular military and emboldened President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's growing number of opponents within the government. (It was telling that the Revolutionary Guards could only muster about 200 demonstrators to harass the British embassy - it didn't look much like 1979.)

Instead, we allowed the Iranian hardliners to humiliate a once-great military and encourage hostage-takers everywhere.

At the very least, the British naval officer commanding in the zone of operations and the vocal collaborators among the hostages should be court-martialed. And the Royal Marine company to which those wankers belong should be disbanded and stricken from the rolls.

John Bull has been cowed. By a pack of unshaven thugs. And the Britannia that ruled the waves is waving goodbye.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04.....peters.htm
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep, pretty much. These are the last days of anything resembling a British Empire. The Falklands will soon belong to Argentina, I can't imagine any other British holdings around the world staying long after that.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay you are not in the position of those British who are being held. It is very easy for you to judge what they should or should not do from Canada but the fact is we do not have enough evidence about their situation to say that they "wimped out". I agree it is shocking and very sad that British military personel are making these statements but the situation you are in and how you are treated will heavily influence how you act.
Do not forget that if a war starts over this it is very likely that these people will be killed! I hope if i was in that situation I would not be a pawn for the Camera and my last words would be something heroic like "this is how a Canadian dies" but unless you have been in a similar situation you shouldnt judge them!
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is likely they will be killed, war or no. How many hostages held by the government of Iran have actually lived to tell the tale? A captured soldier is still a soldier, part of their duty is to not pull this kind of surrender monkey crap.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
It is likely they will be killed, war or no. How many hostages held by the government of Iran have actually lived to tell the tale? A captured soldier is still a soldier, part of their duty is to not pull this kind of surrender monkey crap.



I wrote about this very thing on my blog a couple days ago... Those soldiers have a duty to their country, and I don't think they should be going on TV and pushing along the Iranian propoganda machine, even if they do have a gun to their head.

I'd take a bullet before you'de ever have me on TV saying things like that - and you can take that to the bank.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joahob wrote:
Quote:
Jingoism aside, I can't imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in such a shabby, cowardly fashion. Our Marines would have fought to begin with. Taken captive by force, they would've resisted collaboration. To the last man and woman.

You could put a U.S. Marine in a dungeon and knock out his teeth, but you wouldn't knock out his pride in his country and the Corps. "Semper fi" means something.


You are right. I read Flags of our Fathers. The U.S. Marines heroism made me cry.

I just wonder if the Iranians had a gun to the head of a fellow soldier when they were making those statements. You might call their bluff once but if it would be very hard to not give in if they followed thru on their threat. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Marines are already dead.
The women looked under extreme duress when she was saying those things.
ebolablue





Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 139
Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They won't torture any of them because they're enjoying having the moral highground on the Bush and Blair regimes. Thanks, secret CIA prisons, now we're being mocked by theocratic thugs because we wasted all our soft power ignoring the Geneva convention.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So you really think the Geneva convention, followed to the letter, would have prevented all this? It is more likely our misguided attempts at following the GC, when we are fighting barbarians without honor, that led to this moment. If we were fighting real men, the GC would be entirely appropriate. When we are fighting murderers of women and children, people who love death and hate life, I think the GC is a hindrance.
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm here! :lol:

but seriously I wonder what Maggie had done if she was PM
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, what in the wild blue yonder are you talking about with Iran having the moral high ground? That statement bobbles the mind. they invaded Iraqi waters, of that there can be no doubt. That makes their seizure of the British personnel illegal. So illegal actions are getting people the moral high ground now? Please explain your reasoning.
ebolablue





Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 139
Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm saying, in the eyes of 90% of the world (obviously not including BloggingTories), the Iranians have the 'moral' highground because of the Geneva violations that the Americans have been tossing around, and the 'illegal' occupation of Iraq. Losing your ability to clearly say "we're the good guys" is a massive impediment towards being able to implement effective soft power.

Hezbollah invaded Israel, and yet 90% of the world fell on Israel. Occasionally, the entire world loses its senses. This is another one of those situations.
Guelphfirst





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 56
Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2
Location: Guelph

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfair to the servicemen and women serving in any of our Allied forces.

It’s so damn easy to claim I’d do this or that, but in the situation, who the hell knows?

Iran will not physically torture their “guests”, they will however use other means to break them down. Sleep deprivation, malnutrition, marathon questioning, drugs and threats etc.etc.

What I learned in the military was that no matter how strong you are, no matter how determined, 99% of people will breakdown under professional torture. Lets be honest, the Persians are experts with torture.

You need to be very careful to not overreact in your response to a situation like this, blowing the hell out of multiple targets in Iran would escalate what is really a minor disagreement. Attacking a nation state polarizes the population. Even when the government and the system is unpopular as it is in Iran. The west is pouring millions of dollars in intelligence and weapons into the Iranian opposition parties, attacking Iran would throw all those years of hard work out the window.

After some sabre rattling the fifteen will be released.
Joahob





Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 403
Reputation: 75.3Reputation: 75.3
votes: 2
Location: Spaceship Earth

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This could easily escalate into a full-blown war, and I don't think the west would lose much in such a war. US troops are already fighting Iranians along the Iran-Iraq border. And we've known Iran has been supplying the insurgency for over a year already.

The US just sent another carrier group to the Persian Gulf, ostensibly to replace a departing carrier. But if hostilities break out, the US will have three carriers in the region. The French have also sent a carrier to the Gulf as well. That's four carriers. More than what was present leading up to the Iraq war. And they will need more, because in a war with Iran they would have to hit a great number of targets to effectively disable Iran's nuclear program, which is spread across the country.

There is no question of Europe not getting involved in this conflict. The British have hostages in Iran, and the French have a carrier in the region. Europe will not back down if things escalate and if the US takes an aggressive lead. Russia will wave its hands in the air, and China too probably, but they're not going to do anything. They can't

If a war does break out, it would primarily be an air-war, but I've also heard reports that the US may intend to occupy the southern oil-rich provinces of Iran. If that's the case, the rest of the country would be left to its own demise, in which case the regime would probably collapse as a rebellious population takes control. Some have said that a war would create resentment for the US among the Iranian people who are generally favorably disposed to Americans. But the US would never occupy all of Iran. It might occupy a small part. I think what would primarily be an air war would be the catalyst for a homegrown regime change in Iran. The Iranians, if you will, just need a little bit of a push.
Guelphfirst





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 56
Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2
Location: Guelph

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A war over this? Nope. Crap like this is not uncommon, it’s just with Iran being who they are, this is getting a great deal of attention.

Iran is a mountainous country, a bitch to fight a war in, (Korea). Iran also has a well-developed, well-trained military, yes not to the level of the west but a good military none the less. Knocking the hell outta a few targets will get us what? 40 million pissed off Persians. Western casualties would be very high in a ground war, not something any political leader will want to pursue. We may want an air war…but the Iranians will escalate it 10 fold on the ground.

Why invade Iran?? For oil? It’s cheaper to buy it then to take it. To free the people? They’ll free themselves, many tell the religious police to go to Hell now, give it more time. To stop it’s nuclear program? That is actually a good one, but Israel will take care of that one in short order. Israel will never allow a country rules by crack-pots to posses nuclear arms. Iran makes most of its electricity through burning oil and natural gas…they want to sell that stuff on the world markets, not use it up at home.

Iran is the most westernized nation in the Middle East, the Persians are not Arabs, they will throw off the shackles of the Mullahs in short order. Covert operations are always the best, cheapest, most reliable choice for regime changes….
Guelphfirst





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 56
Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2
Location: Guelph

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm

Iranians release British sailors

Iranian media said the British crew 'shouted for joy' at the news
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.
He repeated Iran's view that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a "gift" to Britain.

He said they would be taken to Tehran airport and flown home within hours.

Downing Street welcomed news of the release, while Iranian state media said the British crew members "shouted for joy" on hearing the news.

Television pictures showed the Iranian president smiling and chatting with the crew.

HAVE YOUR SAY
Of course diplomacy worked, it was a diplomatic incident

Colin Campbell, Stockholm, Sweden


Send us your comments
Excerpts: Ahmadinejad speech
He joked to one: "How are you? So you came on a mandatory vacation?"

The Britons were wearing suits, rather than the military uniform and tracksuits they wore in previous pictures. The one female crew member, Faye Turney, wore a blue headscarf with dark pink shirt.

An unidentified crew member said: "I'd like to say that myself and my whole team are very grateful for your forgiveness. I'd like to thank yourself and the Iranian people... Thank you very much, sir."

Mr Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi: "You are welcome."

'Theatrical gesture'

Mr Ahmadinejad announced the decision to release the Britons at a news conference marking Persian New Year.

UK VERSION OF EVENTS
1 Crew boards merchant ship 1.7NM inside Iraqi waters
2 HMS Cornwall was south-east of this, and inside Iraqi waters
3 Iran tells UK that merchant ship was at a different point, still within Iraqi waters
4 After UK points this out, Iran provides alternative position, now within Iranian waters



Both versions in more detail
Dividing lines of Shatt al-Arab

He spoke at length, attacking the West over its policy in the Middle East, and it was more than an hour before he even mentioned the captives issue.

He repeated allegations that the Britons were captured in Iranian waters, and awarded medals to the Iranian commanders responsible for detaining them.

It was all part of the build up to his extraordinary theatrical gesture, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins.

"We have every right to put these people on trial," Mr Ahmadinejad asserted.

"But I want to give them as a present to the British people to say they are all free."


The British government was not even brave enough to tell their people the truth

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"I'm asking Mr Blair to not put these 15 personnel on trial because they admitted they came to Iranian territorial water," he added, referring to taped "confessions" made by the British sailors and marines.

Britain says the 15 were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate when they were captured nearly two weeks ago. It says the confessions were extracted under duress.

"I ask Mr Blair: Instead of occupying the other countries, I ask Mr Blair to think about the justice, to think about the truth and work for the British people not for himself," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

"Unfortunately the British government was not even brave enough to tell their people the truth, that it made a mistake."

The Iranian leader said no concessions had been made by the British government to secure the releases, but that Britain had pledged "that the incident would not be repeated".

IRANIAN VERSION OF EVENTS
1 Royal Navy crew stray 0.5km inside Iranian waters
2 Iran gives set of co-ordinates to back up their claims
3 According to seized GPS equipment, the Royal Navy crew had previously entered Iranian waters at several other points
4 Iran informs Britain of the position where the crew were seized, inside Iranian waters



Iran's centres of power
'Access' to Iraq detainees

The solution to the crisis - freeing the Britons while rewarding the Iranian commanders of the operation - appears to be a face-saving compromise, says the BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran.

She says speculation is likely to continue over whether it had anything to do with developments in Iraq, where an Iranian envoy has reportedly been given access to five Iranians captured by US forces, and where a kidnapped diplomat was released on Tuesday.

Earlier on Wednesday Syria revealed that it had been mediating between Iran and the UK over the sailors and marines.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "We welcome what the president has said about the release of our 15 personnel. We are now establishing exactly what this means in terms of the method and timing of their release."

The family of one of the captives, Royal Marine Adam Sperry, hailed the announcement as "the best present imaginable".

"Whoever has been in the right or wrong, the whole thing has been a political mess, so let's just get them home," said his uncle, Ray Cooper.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


WHERE'S WINSTON?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB