Royal Marines Wimp Out
argos
Tehran.
WHERE'S WINSTON?
By RALPH PETERS
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.
FACE
<no...@volcanomail.com>, wrote
You of course realize that High Lord "into the breach" Hills will castigate
you for this while wearyingly going on about his world travels, high
tete-a-tetes, and generally vast experience. There is an 93.8% possibility
that this will happen as stated or a 99.99% probability that it will happen
in some form though in either case there will be a 100% probability of
comment or comments on "trigger-happy" Americans<with some derogatory term
substituted for, but implying, Americans>.
FACE
Chris Hills
<no...@volcanomail.com> writes
>Here's the ACTUAL source of the present "crisis" between London &
>Tehran.
>
>argos
>
>-----
>http://www.nypost.com/seven/04032007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/wheres_w
>inston__opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
>
>WHERE'S WINSTON?
>
>By RALPH PETERS
>
>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.
So there would have been many dead and a major crisis. Also it would
have moved the whole situation the wrong way for the US into a situation
it was not in control of... OK a lot LESS in control that itis now. And
ind a completely un winnable position
>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.
CRAP. All the brain washing experiments done (Korea, Veietnam etc) who
that the US troops break VERY easily and in larger numbers than any
other "western" military. I have posted all the cite's and references
here before.
>And our Aussie allies would be just as tough.
No parallel between the US and Aussie troops.
>What on earth happened to the Royal Marines? They're members of what
>passes for an elite unit.
They are. They have something the US Gung Ho troops don't have.
Intelligence,.
>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.
Absolutely. As usual the US does not understand the sublties of the
Arab/Persian minds or how to deal with this situation
>Naturally, the European Union has praised Britain's "restraint." We've
>now got another synonym for cowardice.
Now we can see the real lack of intelligence in the US,.
>Heaven, Winston Churchill's puking up premium scotch.
He we go.... misunderstanding the British culture again
If this is what passes for US analysis they have no chance of winning in
the middle east.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch...@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
FACE
Hills <ch...@phaedsys.org>, wrote
>sublties
Hey stupid, you *still* haven't gotten it right, but not for lack of
trying.......
Yes, you *are* low enough for this.
FACE
argos
wrote:
>In message <rfi513pa0s4ckcoej...@4ax.com>, argos
><no...@volcanomail.com> writes
>>Here's the ACTUAL source of the present "crisis" between London &
>>Tehran.
>>
>>argos
>>
>>-----
>>http://www.nypost.com/seven/04032007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/wheres_w
>>inston__opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
>>
>>WHERE'S WINSTON?
>>
>>By RALPH PETERS
>>
>>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.
>
>
>So there would have been many dead and a major crisis. Also it would
>have moved the whole situation the wrong way for the US into a situation
>it was not in control of... OK a lot LESS in control that itis now. And
>ind a completely un winnable position
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard hostage taking team would have been
taken out -- badda bing! -- yes.
And " major crisis"? I don't think so, it is British timidity, with
the accompanying bureaucratic grovelling, that invites crisis here.
Brute force and the will to use it is the only language these thugs
understand. And its not as if your lads WERE over on the Iranian side
sticking your nose where it didn't belong. Right? Your lads were
behaing properly. Right? No no. They came after YOU, in the course
of your UN-sanctioned operations, and bitch-slapped your gals off of
their dingies and straight onto theirs! And not only that, but they
did it RIGHT under their Royale Navee escort's nose! Pathetic.
>>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.
>
>CRAP. All the brain washing experiments done (Korea, Veietnam etc) who
>that the US troops break VERY easily and in larger numbers than any
>other "western" military. I have posted all the cite's and references
>here before.
Do the plump, joke-swapping marines/sailors we've been watching on
t.v. look the least bit put upon to you?
>>And our Aussie allies would be just as tough.
>
>No parallel between the US and Aussie troops.
You can rest assured that the Aussies would have sent that Iranian
hostage-taking force flying for cover.
>>What on earth happened to the Royal Marines? They're members of what
>>passes for an elite unit.
>
>They are. They have something the US Gung Ho troops don't have.
>Intelligence,.
Yeah yeah. They don't look too bright to me. They look like
lumberyard security guards or something.
>>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.
>
>Absolutely. As usual the US does not understand the sublties of the
>Arab/Persian minds or how to deal with this situation
Sob!!! They ARE hostages, you dolt! And despite all of your crybaby
requests, they are hostages that the Mullahs will not allow your
consulate to look in on. They are hostages that the IRG feels quite
free to gad about before the cameras, making them a laughing stock
before the global al Jazeera audience.
>>Naturally, the European Union has praised Britain's "restraint." We've
>>now got another synonym for cowardice.
>
>Now we can see the real lack of intelligence in the US,.
Oh yes. ALL that matters is getting those tender lambs back home to
the security of their mamas.
>>Heaven, Winston Churchill's puking up premium scotch.
>
>He we go.... misunderstanding the British culture again
>
>If this is what passes for US analysis they have no chance of winning in
>the middle east.
Wimps.
argos
FACE
<no...@volcanomail.com>, wrote
>They came after YOU, in the course
>of your UN-sanctioned operations, and bitch-slapped your gals off of
>their dingies and straight onto theirs! And not only that, but they
>did it RIGHT under their Royale Navee escort's nose! Pathetic.
As of late I have wondered why UN "peacekeeping" forces even have the
gun-thingies -- and as of recently, I add the RN to that thought.
And to whoever, damn right I respect the war quotes of Churchill who at
least had the balls to make them and was not part of the cowering King's
Cross crowd.
FACE
Ariadne
> Here's the ACTUAL source of the present "crisis" between London &
> Tehran.
>
> argos
>
>
> WHERE'S WINSTON?
>
> By RALPH PETERS
>
> 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.
>
Nice rhetoric but the responsibility is the government's and the
abductees duty was to keep themselves alive.
Robin T Cox
> 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.
..And by now your Marines would be dead, whereas our people will shortly
be released.
argos
Er, no. It was their duty not to become abductees.
argos
Chris Hills
<nom...@nomail.net> writes
Also with 15 dead US marines what would the Us have "had to do" ? Other
than fall into the trap set for them (and a third un-winnable war)
argos
wrote:
Of course they are! They British Navy surrendered without a fight.
The sailors/marines performed their IRG propaganda duties perfectly.
And now they're coming home to mama Britain, alive and well. WHAT a
pinklet homecoming they will recieve! -- Nazi Bush effigies, Muslim
Death to the Jews floats, festive balloons EVERYWHERE.
argos
George
"Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:7pOQh.199$xT6...@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
Yeah, I'm sure that makes you proud that your people have tucked tail and
run home.
George
Bill Again
"argos" <no...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:s74713hajhis1i85o...@4ax.com...
Perhaps you would care to point out where this super US way of handling
things has benefited us all so much in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
Last time I looked these two places were a complete disaster where US troops
were dying daily in a panic-stricken attempt to merely survive, let alone to
"win".
Do tell me how these bad guys in Iraq, for instance, were "taken out". Far
as I can tell they are still blowing the arms and legs off the US troops.
My, how wet of the GIs to let this happen to them. Don't they have any
pride!
argos
wrote:
>In message <7pOQh.199$xT6...@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>, Robin T Cox
><nom...@nomail.net> writes
>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:49:03 -0500, argos wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>..And by now your Marines would be dead, whereas our people will shortly
>>be released.
>
>Also with 15 dead US marines what would the Us have "had to do" ? Other
>than fall into the trap set for them (and a third un-winnable war)
Wth the doughty Brits by our side, how could we lose?
argos
Chris Hills
<no...@volcanomail.com> writes
Well we are rescuing you in Afghanistan at the moment.
We have also just saved several thousands of US lives in Iraq/Iran
Chris Hills
writes
Actually they won a convincing victory. This will not be apparent for
some time but it was not a military shooting war that was being fought.
This is why no one wanted the US involved ... they have no understanding
of the game being played
argos
wrote:
snip
>Perhaps you would care to point out where this super US way of handling
>things has benefited us all so much in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
Glad you asked, Bill. Are you sad that the Taliban is no longer using
the Kabul soccer stadium as a Roman Coliseum? I mean, where should I
begin?
>Last time I looked these two places were a complete disaster where US troops
>were dying daily in a panic-stricken attempt to merely survive, let alone to
>"win".
The cup's always half empty for you, isn't it? Sure things are a bit
rocky over there. It is no easy mission that British and American
forces (et al.) have set for themselves. And the incessant
undermining of the leftist MSM has not made it any easier. But I
assure you there is no panic -- aside from recent unfortunate events
that occurred beneath the styrofoam cannons of the HMS Cornwall.
>Do tell me how these bad guys in Iraq, for instance, were "taken out". Far
>as I can tell they are still blowing the arms and legs off the US troops.
>My, how wet of the GIs to let this happen to them. Don't they have any
>pride!
Mmmmm, no. American forces do quite well in toe-to-toes -- as do
your lads, when they've allowed to play rough. No, it is mostly the
weakest members of Iraqi society who have been coming under jattack
from the mighty mujahideen. Were you unaware of that? Do you get
all your news from The Guardian? You see, the men whose ideological
water you gladly tote have been pulling out the stops to spill as much
innocent blood as possible in the hopes of returning things to the big
dog staus quo ante -- JUST the way you like them, no?
argos
Bill Again
I suppose the really horrific thing is that you actually believe all this.
argos
wrote:
>In message <i5f71356vmi9um4ee...@4ax.com>, argos
><no...@volcanomail.com> writes
>>On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:40:20 +0100, Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <7pOQh.199$xT6...@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>, Robin T Cox
>>><nom...@nomail.net> writes
>>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:49:03 -0500, argos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jingoism aside, I can't imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in
>>>>> such a shabby, cowardly fashion. Our Marines would have fought to
>>>>> begin with. Taken captive by force, they would've resisted
>>>>> collaboration. To the last man and woman.
>>>>
>>>>..And by now your Marines would be dead, whereas our people will shortly
>>>>be released.
>>>
>>>Also with 15 dead US marines what would the Us have "had to do" ? Other
>>>than fall into the trap set for them (and a third un-winnable war)
>>
>>Wth the doughty Brits by our side, how could we lose?
>>
>>argos
>
>Well we are rescuing you in Afghanistan at the moment.
I *know*! And what a relief it is to know that democracy in
Afghanistan will be saved thanks Britain's brave and determined
efforts.
Way to go, Chris. Tell the fellas "thanks" for me.
>We have also just saved several thousands of US lives in Iraq/Iran
Have you now? Well keep up the good work! What a remarkable people
you are. Tallyho!
argos
argos
wrote:
>In message <eZOQh.20432$B7.5012@bigfe9>, George <geo...@yourservice.com>
>writes
>>
>>"Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
>>news:7pOQh.199$xT6...@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:49:03 -0500, argos wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> ..And by now your Marines would be dead, whereas our people will shortly
>>> be released.
>>
>>Yeah, I'm sure that makes you proud that your people have tucked tail and
>>run home.
>>
>>George
>
>Actually they won a convincing victory.
Oh clearly. Just watch for the rush at the recruiting office. "'ello
'ello 'ello -- how's a gent get into this chickenshit outfit?"
argos
argos
wrote:
Well, some of it anyways.
argos
Ariadne
They had positive duties which they were fulfilling under UN
Mandate. No point in blaming the victims. For coastguards
Iran has licensed pirates. Britain also had some a few
hundred years ago. The pirates in this case are the ones to
blame.
argos
The "pirates" are clearly the bad actors here. But the British
response to the pirate depredation at issue -- both at the time that
the snatch went down and afterwards -- was/is, and I fear probably
will remain, pathetic.
argos
FACE
<no...@volcanomail.com>, wrote
>But I
>assure you there is no panic -- aside from recent unfortunate events
>that occurred beneath the styrofoam cannons of the HMS Cornwall.
Now be fair. The round parts are styrofoam but a parts of it is stout
marine plywood.
FACE
Robin T Cox
However, as Zsa Zsa Gabor was wont to remark, those macho men never really
amounted to mucho.
I guess you'll never understand British sang-froid. Much more effective
than your bluster and posturing.
Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re.
Ariadne
The rumour is that a political decision over-rode what those on the
spot wanted to do.
Roger Dewhurst
"Chris Hills" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:0jInkLFp...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> have moved the whole situation the wrong way for the US into a situation
> it was not in control of... OK a lot LESS in control that itis now. And
> ind a completely un winnable position
If the helicopter had been where it should have been and indicated that it
was ready to attack the Iranian boats with rockets they would have abandoned
any attempt to capture the boat crews. Perhaps it would have had to shoot
up one of the boats to make the point. That is what should have happened.
The question that needs to be answered is "Why was the helicopter not there?
Was it pulled back so that the Iranians should not be threatened or to
remove the political consequences of failure of the helicopter to attack the
Iranian boats?"
It would have been impossibly difficult to justify to the British public why
a helicopter hovering overhead made no attempt to defend the crews. I
wonder whether the helicopter crew identified the Iranian boats leaving port
and guessing their intent made radio contact with HMS Cornwall and were told
to return immediately to HMS Cornwall and not to attack under any
circumstances.
R
Roger Dewhurst
Yes, but all they had were sidearms. The Iranians had machine guns. One
pistol shot and thirty seconds later both crews would have been dead.
R
Roger Dewhurst
"Ariadne" <ariad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175694266.4...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
If they had come to believe that it was official policy not to fire a shot
in their defence their behaviour is somewhat more understandable.
R
>
>
Roger Dewhurst
I have it from a very senior retired naval officer that that is exactly the
form in this environment.
R
Roger Dewhurst
If it was a victory, as Chris Hill suggests, we will not see resignations
from the service.
If, as I believe, the crews reluctantly obeyed orders not to shoot and the
helicopter crew was ordered not to defend them, we can expect to see many
resignations from the armed forces. If this is the case I would expect the
captain of HMS Cornwall to be among the first to resign in disgust.
R
Chris Hills
<dewh...@wave.co.nz> writes
>
>"argos" <no...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
>news:i5j71314h5glqhbre...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:11:22 +0100, Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In message <eZOQh.20432$B7.5012@bigfe9>, George <geo...@yourservice.com>
>> >writes
>> >>
>> >>"Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:7pOQh.199$xT6...@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>> >>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:49:03 -0500, argos wrote:
>> >>>
>> >
>> >Actually they won a convincing victory.
>>
>> Oh clearly. Just watch for the rush at the recruiting office. "'ello
>> 'ello 'ello -- how's a gent get into this chickenshit outfit?"
>
>If it was a victory, as Chris Hill suggests, we will not see resignations
>from the service.
>
>If, as I believe, the crews reluctantly obeyed orders
No they obeyed orders, I don't see where you get the "reluctantly" from
they are professionals not shoot first ammeters like the Americans
> not to shoot and the
>helicopter crew was ordered not to defend them, we can expect to see many
>resignations from the armed forces. If this is the case I would expect the
>captain of HMS Cornwall to be among the first to resign in disgust.
Absolutely not,. You have no idea.
Roger Dewhurst
> In message <ev17i9$51s$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Dewhurst
> <dewh...@wave.co.nz> writes
> >
> >"argos" <no...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
> >news:i5j71314h5glqhbre...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:11:22 +0100, Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In message <eZOQh.20432$B7.5012@bigfe9>, George
<geo...@yourservice.com>
> >> >writes
> >> >>
> >> >>"Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> >> >>news:7pOQh.199$xT6...@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> >If it was a victory, as Chris Hill suggests, we will not see resignations
> >from the service.
> >
> >If, as I believe, the crews reluctantly obeyed orders
>
> No they obeyed orders, I don't see where you get the "reluctantly" from
> they are professionals not shoot first ammeters like the Americans
Ammeters indeed. Are you sure that they are not voltmeters?
Early reports indicate that the captain was seeking permission from
Whitehall brass to shoot. The usual form, according to an officer who has
commanded a ship in the area, is to be in constant touch with Whitehall.
Don't bother to ask who that officer is. You will not be told.
>
> > not to shoot and the
> >helicopter crew was ordered not to defend them, we can expect to see many
> >resignations from the armed forces. If this is the case I would expect
the
> >captain of HMS Cornwall to be among the first to resign in disgust.
>
> Absolutely not,. You have no idea.
I think that I may have a better idea about the attitudes of officers who
are required to fight while underequipped, underresourced and always subject
to meddling from above. This disaster requires a sacrificial goat. If
there is not one we can conclude that the whole thing was a put up job. If
the top brass get the chop it is probably fair to say that they deserve it.
My guess is that the captain will resign in disgust at being forced to
abandon his crew. I guess that a number of ships crew will resign too if
they feel that they cannot rely on their captain to protect them in this
sort of situation.
R
FACE
Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz>, wrote
>I think that I may have a better idea about the attitudes of officers who
>are required to fight while underequipped, underresourced and always subject
>to meddling from above. This disaster requires a sacrificial goat. If
>there is not one we can conclude that the whole thing was a put up job. If
>the top brass get the chop it is probably fair to say that they deserve it.
>My guess is that the captain will resign in disgust at being forced to
>abandon his crew. I guess that a number of ships crew will resign too if
>they feel that they cannot rely on their captain to protect them in this
>sort of situation.
>
>R
I certainly don't think that it could improve confidence and
morale...........
FACE
Chris Hills
You mean you have been one in the UK armed forces?
Otherwise I doubt it.
> This disaster requires a sacrificial goat. If
>there is not one we can conclude that the whole thing was a put up job. If
>the top brass get the chop it is probably fair to say that they deserve it.
>My guess is that the captain will resign in disgust at being forced to
>abandon his crew. I guess that a number of ships crew will resign too if
>they feel that they cannot rely on their captain to protect them in this
>sort of situation.
We shall see.
guv
wrote:
>I suppose the really horrific thing is that you actually believe all this.
Having just returned from 3 weeks in the US whilst this was going on,
I have to say its much worse than it looks!
I watched (and switched off after a while to save a TV screen!) some
complete arsehole on a prime time show, spouting about Britain being
weak and should be invading NOW. He complained about not wanting the
UK watching their backs if this is how they react. He continually
gutter snipped democrat comments, so it was very clear political
propoganda - except that Americans don't think they get fed bullshit!
I just thought "here's a gun and one each for your kids - go for it" -
but we all now dying for "your country" is not for this yellow bellied
son of a bitch or his kind.
I shouldn't of been surprised at the content, but was. Disgraceful is
the only word to describe.
As for toughness of troops. Most British troops joined in part because
they probably like the idea of being in combat. Campared to the US,
where they join to get their education paid for. Hmmm, who do you
think sounds more motivated?
In another program, after being released, they complained about the
personnel being seen smiling and laughing when meeting their families.
Perhaps they would have preferred to seeing those families crying at
their losses? Not sure why they were expected to be sombre after their
release and meeting their families, but there you go.
As far as the "wimping out" goes, every sane person would know any
comment made by those captured would have been made under durress - so
effectively meaningless. I would imagine during the Iranian embassy
crisis way back, it was no different then. I wonder what our brave TV
presenter had to say about that then and the US being wimps for not
invading?
One final comment...
Whilst at Seaworld before the Killer Whale show, they made an
announcememnt to the audience to applaud their brave troops and asked
for members of the audience who had served in the US or UK military to
stand up and be applauded. Luckily, I had a puke bag with me.