[QUOTE=TV time]
Who do they think they are, FOX News?
[/QUOTE]
Hee, no. If the Iranians were Fox News, the British sailors would have appeared on TV with a caption reading “British are scum?”
You know, the famous Fox question mark.
[QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic]
Hello and welcome to “shades of gray” world, where things are not black and white.
How about - The British were wrong about international boundries and initial provocation, while IN ADDITION, the Iranians were wrong in how they handled the subsequent events.
Ya know, not EVERY Der Trihs post deserves a knee jerk response. Just sayin’
[/QUOTE]
But…if the international boundary on those waters was never agreed upon between the governments of Iraq and Iran, then…what boundary was there?
It sounds like it’s a watery Kashmir.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
First of all, being outgunned only matters if the other side starts shooting. Would the Iranins have risked an actual gunfight with the British navy? I doubt it.
Second of all, I asume the 14 sailors had a radio. All they had to do was refuse to surrender for 15 minutes, and reinforcements would have arrived. The fat that they *didn’t * wait for reinforcements is pretty damning in my eyes.
One thing I never understood about the event - who, exactly, gave the order to surrender? Was it the commander at the scene, or did they receive instructions from above? And if so, who was it?
[/QUOTE]
What if there were no ready reinforcements available within 15 minutes, an hour, or more? We have no way of knowing what British naval assets were present in the immediate area of the captured gunboat.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
I’m sorry, but “violent incidents” are what militaries do. If they weren’t prepared to fight then why did they even bother to show up?
I don’t think you realize the damage this little incident did to the UK.
[/QUOTE]
Umm, because it was a little gunboat doing reconnaisance and didn’t expect Iranian intervention in disputed waters?
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Umm, because it was a little gunboat doing reconnaisance and didn’t expect Iranian intervention in disputed waters?
[/QUOTE]
I’d rather suspect that an Iranian intervention had been envisionned (I can’t think this possibility could have been excluded by anybody with an ounce of common sense) and that they were not supposed to fight if it were to happen (this also seems to me to fall in the realm of common sense)
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
It sounds like it’s a watery Kashmir.
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t it be shrinking, then?
[QUOTE=Alessan]
I’m sorry, but “violent incidents” are what militaries do. If they weren’t prepared to fight then why did they even bother to show up?
[/quote]
And reconnaissance missions in a potentially hostile area is also what militaries do. Doesn’t mean they’re allowed to start an international incident in a very volatile political environment just to show that british militaries have balls.
Can you elaborate? Indeed, I don’t see what kind of damage has been done.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Can you elaborate? Indeed, I don’t see what kind of damage has been done.
[/QUOTE]
British ping-pong performance has become a laughingstock.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Can you elaborate? Indeed, I don’t see what kind of damage has been done.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. The damage that would have been done had they started firing at each other would have been much, much worse.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Indeed. The damage that would have been done had they started firing at each other would have been much, much worse.
[/QUOTE]
Worse for the Brits in that instance. Unless there was a capable allied Naval force nearby, they were fucked if they fought, and they knew it, hence, surrender and subsequent parading of British military on TV.
Propaganda is a bitch.