Go get your people. Don't let them rot there for a year.
honestly, if the war in iraq wasnt going on, there would be a war. But right now, the militaries of the US and UK are stretched thin and they cant handle a conflict with Iran. There will be a negotiation, and they sailors will be returned safely.
I wonder how many of you would be patient if you were locked in a prison inside Iran.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-03-28 21:29:19)
you cant send a carrier on its own. most of those mothballed have been support ships and destroyers, whilst a lot are now under full compliment due to the cut backs in personnel. my point is Britain should realise without proper backing the navy is a lame duck, and the last 10 labour years have been a time of idleness and cutting costs for the navy in particular.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6505453.stm
this is taking longer than it should, its over a week and we haven't even met our troops. it took Blair 4 days to even say anything publicly, such a weak government its embarrassing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6505453.stm
this is taking longer than it should, its over a week and we haven't even met our troops. it took Blair 4 days to even say anything publicly, such a weak government its embarrassing
Iran are backing down even further today, looks like they're going to let the British visit and inspect the captives.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 … 33,00.html (Sky news ran this this morning too but I can't find a link from them).
They're still going to act tough until the whole thing plays out but their stance is definitely softening. They kind of blew it when they gave the British those dumb ass first set of co-ordinates!
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 … 33,00.html (Sky news ran this this morning too but I can't find a link from them).
They're still going to act tough until the whole thing plays out but their stance is definitely softening. They kind of blew it when they gave the British those dumb ass first set of co-ordinates!
So now Britain must acknowledge their mistake in order to get their sailors back...
Britain says:
Britain says:
I think that kid is Dutch, he's wearing a Feyenoord top!superfly_cox wrote:
So now Britain must acknowledge their mistake in order to get their sailors back...
Britain says:
No they don't. They currently have 1 in service. Much bigger navy overall though.Pubic wrote:
Minor correction here, Russia has three carriers also.
I just can't agree with that. We easily have a sufficient support fleet for both our carriers, 4 destroyers to each carrier is plenty, especially considering we are in a transitional phase with the Type 45s nearing completion so older Sheffield class destroyers are being decommissioned. We also have the 2 largest ever carriers the British navy has ever had under construction and entering service in about 5 years time. At that point we will probably have the most technologically advanced navy in the world. I don't see how you can fault the government for their naval spending. There is plenty to do the jobs at hand and plenty more on the way, spending any more on it would be foolish.Toxicseagull wrote:
you cant send a carrier on its own. most of those mothballed have been support ships and destroyers, whilst a lot are now under full compliment due to the cut backs in personnel. my point is Britain should realise without proper backing the navy is a lame duck, and the last 10 labour years have been a time of idleness and cutting costs for the navy in particular.
What mistake?superfly_cox wrote:
So now Britain must acknowledge their mistake in order to get their sailors back...
Britain says:
http://www.myspacecomedy.com/images/fun … finger.jpg
I was wondering the same.Bertster7 wrote:
What mistake?superfly_cox wrote:
So now Britain must acknowledge their mistake in order to get their sailors back...
Britain says:
http://www.myspacecomedy.com/images/fun … finger.jpg
That they were in Iranian territorial waters (as they claim)Stingray24 wrote:
I was wondering the same.Bertster7 wrote:
What mistake?superfly_cox wrote:
So now Britain must acknowledge their mistake in order to get their sailors back...
Britain says:
http://www.myspacecomedy.com/images/fun … finger.jpg
What annoys me is that if we were in Iraqi waters how the hell did they manage to arrest some of our troops. Sneaky Iranian tactics or Incompetence by our Navy (Which has let the people who got arrested down). I'm hoping it's the first one. It's easier to swallow then thinking our guys messed up and didn't notice Iranian gunboats 1.7Nm into Iraqi waters...
They weren't though, quite clearly.IG-Calibre wrote:
That they were in Iranian territorial waters (as they claim)Stingray24 wrote:
I was wondering the same.Bertster7 wrote:
What mistake?
Not really either.Mekstizzle wrote:
What annoys me is that if we were in Iraqi waters how the hell did they manage to arrest some of our troops. Sneaky Iranian tactics or Incompetence by our Navy (Which has let the people who got arrested down). I'm hoping it's the first one. It's easier to swallow then thinking our guys messed up and didn't notice Iranian gunboats 1.7Nm into Iraqi waters...
They were well out of visual range and radar would be useless in such a busy waterway (for such a large country Iraqs coastline is tiny and gets very busy).
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-03-29 08:01:25)
Ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident?Mekstizzle wrote:
What annoys me is that if we were in Iraqi waters how the hell did they manage to arrest some of our troops. Sneaky Iranian tactics or Incompetence by our Navy (Which has let the people who got arrested down). I'm hoping it's the first one. It's easier to swallow then thinking our guys messed up and didn't notice Iranian gunboats 1.7Nm into Iraqi waters...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
Mek, apparently the cumberland asked for permission to fire. MoD said no.
Update =
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/6506361.stm
release in doubt due to "bad attitude" by Britain, and consular visit never happened.
@bert, those large carriers are to replace the current ones. and are in doubt due to budget restrictions, long term funding has been cut. thus why less of the type 45 are being built as well. its just my opinion labour have done bad in respect to long term funding for projects, reduction of personnel and reduction of size of the forces whilst simultaneously engaging us in more conflict around the world. i also think mothballing is a appalling idea as we know how quickly things like this can go down the shitter.
Update =
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/6506361.stm
release in doubt due to "bad attitude" by Britain, and consular visit never happened.
@bert, those large carriers are to replace the current ones. and are in doubt due to budget restrictions, long term funding has been cut. thus why less of the type 45 are being built as well. its just my opinion labour have done bad in respect to long term funding for projects, reduction of personnel and reduction of size of the forces whilst simultaneously engaging us in more conflict around the world. i also think mothballing is a appalling idea as we know how quickly things like this can go down the shitter.
our Milliatary is not streached thin we could deal with this easy. Handle Iran ? please. ! its not our problem and GB may be handleing it Through Diplomacy. Who knows. they don't exactly keep us posted do they ?Eugefunk84 wrote:
honestly, if the war in iraq wasnt going on, there would be a war. But right now, the militaries of the US and UK are stretched thin and they cant handle a conflict with Iran. There will be a negotiation, and they sailors will be returned safely.
Oh, yes. Of course it is.usmarine2007 wrote:
No No. The nukes are for peaceful power production.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Everyone that's saying we should send the SAS in: Do you want to think about what you're saying for one moment here. You're suggesting we send troops in (which is an act of war) to a country that openly admits to having a nuke program?
Go get your fucking people. Tony said today he would not negotiate with Iran. So what is the point of all this BS? Kick the tires and light the fires my UK friends.
I was thinking this is ridiculous and that this is dragging on now and that we should do military action (preferabley the SAS - infact they're probably already somewhere in Iran)
Then i thought "hang on, what if the roles were reversed". The Iranian marines or w/e we would capture in our waters would never see daylight again. They'd be shipped off to Guantanamo faster than you could say America's bitch. Still, wasn't it worse when UK soldiers were arrested in 2004? I swear that was barely televised or even mentioned. Read it up, Iran took the piss more that time imo.
Then i thought "hang on, what if the roles were reversed". The Iranian marines or w/e we would capture in our waters would never see daylight again. They'd be shipped off to Guantanamo faster than you could say America's bitch. Still, wasn't it worse when UK soldiers were arrested in 2004? I swear that was barely televised or even mentioned. Read it up, Iran took the piss more that time imo.
Nobody likes war.usmarine2007 wrote:
Go get your fucking people. Tony said today he would not negotiate with Iran. So what is the point of all this BS? Kick the tires and light the fires my UK friends.
I reckon it's got to go on at least a few weeks because as we learnt from Gitmo, sleep deprivation, extreme noise and heat, and 24 hour confinement are all legitimate and non-torturous tactics which are fully allowed and even encouraged under international law....apparently... or international law doesn't matter if you accuse someone of spying or terrorising people or something.... never quite did clear that one up....Mekstizzle wrote:
Then i thought "hang on, what if the roles were reversed". The Iranian marines or w/e we would capture in our waters would never see daylight again. They'd be shipped off to Guantanamo faster than you could say America's bitch.
Anyway, unfortunately these tactics take longer to effectively extract a full confession than the more traditional methods of power tools, bamboo slivers and car batteries.... so it might be a little while yet....
Nobody has been harmed yet, why be so hasty to rush into conflict? Once again I shall mention Israel's ultimately disastrous campaign against Lebanon as a comparison ...they 'kicked ass' yes but it cost a shitload of cash, they lost men and they never got their original hostage back.usmarine2007 wrote:
Go get your fucking people. Tony said today he would not negotiate with Iran. So what is the point of all this BS? Kick the tires and light the fires my UK friends.
Tony said he would not negotiate. Well, what else is there?Braddock wrote:
Nobody has been harmed yet, why be so hasty to rush into conflict? Once again I shall mention Israel's ultimately disastrous campaign against Lebanon as a comparison ...they 'kicked ass' yes but it cost a shitload of cash, they lost men and they never got their original hostage back.usmarine2007 wrote:
Go get your fucking people. Tony said today he would not negotiate with Iran. So what is the point of all this BS? Kick the tires and light the fires my UK friends.
Tony's just acting tough, same as the Iranians. The US are still very quiet on this, my guess is as soon as the US come out with a definitive view on the situation that will be the green light for tough action if it's needed in the end.usmarine2007 wrote:
Tony said he would not negotiate. Well, what else is there?
By 'not negotiating' I presume Tony means first cutting off Iran on a trading and economic level and then applying increasing pressure on the international stage to do likewise as he seems to be doing. Not negotiating doesn't mean war ...the US have been 'not negotiating' with Cuba for years.
Wrong! Alot of Yanks on this forum do. They bum guns for a living,Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Nobody likes war.usmarine2007 wrote:
Go get your fucking people. Tony said today he would not negotiate with Iran. So what is the point of all this BS? Kick the tires and light the fires my UK friends.