An old mate of mine who is ex USMC has been asking questions:



I replied (half heartedly) ...




He replied


[quote]Here's the 'arrogant American' take on their conduct:
Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army officer, said the American code of conduct is clear: Troops and officers will never surrender if they still have the means to resist.

“Had the captured sailors and marines been Americans, they should have fought and, if necessary, died resisting,â€

He replied


[quote]Here's the 'arrogant American' take on their conduct:
Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army officer, said the American code of conduct is clear: Troops and officers will never surrender if they still have the means to resist.

“Had the captured sailors and marines been Americans, they should have fought and, if necessary, died resisting,â€

He replied


[quote]Here's the 'arrogant American' take on their conduct:
Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army officer, said the American code of conduct is clear: Troops and officers will never surrender if they still have the means to resist.

“Had the captured sailors and marines been Americans, they should have fought and, if necessary, died resisting,â€

Yes, best to shoot the fuckers and start a third world war
Isnt it?
I mean, surely pride should come before actually saving lives? I'm sure their mothers would understand.
Gawd Bless America

Personally, I think surrounded by 9 heavily armed gunboats and with several RPG's pointed at me, I would seriously consider not dying for Tony Blair this day.

Fuck Tony Blair
Thats not an order or anything mind, dont take it literally
I'm all for fighting for your country if need be and for peace keeping missions etc abroad but I dont believe in dying for tony and his american chum.

Unlike any previous leaders of this country who all told the Americans to welcome to the board

Looking at it logically, they are safe and well (complete with a new wardrobe) and available to fight another day.

I did find it distasteful to see the way they meekly surrendered but I know from personal experience not to judge a situation unless you are there.

Looking at the pictures, some of them got fitted suits, the others just grabbed what they could!

You're right. Difficult to assess the situation unless you're there.

WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID TO HIM WAS

DONT JUDGE IF YOU HAVE NOT WALKED THE WALK

I'm not bothered about them surrendering ... I am bothered at their actions in front of the cameras. That was embarassing.

To be honest, yes it was. Very.

They looked like a bunch of 'meeja' studies students role playing members of the armed forces.

What do you expect them to do like? Not co-operate and get their heads blown off.....?

I take you point Ian but he has walked that road; Beiruit 1983.

dont tell me
he shot his way out

No but then he didn't go on TV licking the captors collective arses either.

We all like to think we are hard and stubborn as fook but faced with a situation like that you would(unless you were seriously stupid)keep your mouth shut and do as your told.

Personally i'd have told them to get fooked

Thats why i never joined the forces.

Going slightly off subject here, but I have just read an article in the Daily Mail, written by a former Army Major, Judith Webb. In 1982 she was the first female officer to lead men into the field. The title of the piece is 'No place for us women', putting forward the arguments for why Faye Turney shouldn't have been in the position she was, which handed the opportunity to the Iranian to make an even bigger propoganda coup out of the situation, than they would otherwise have had.

I would be interested in your views on the 'fairer sex' being involved in front line action Mr I.

I worked with front line women in Ireland and the few that were involved were spectacularly effective. Generally however I am not in favour. The problem is that male soldiers will always try to protect a woman in such a way as they wouldn't with a male colleague. The physiological argument is still valid but less relevant in modern warfare but my main issue is that of aggression. War is simply extremely violence without rules, of course there are exceptions but I don't believe that women are as naturally aggressive as men and if you accept that fact then by definition they are less effective.

Depends on the take though doesn't it?? We aren't actually at war with Iran, the issue was over whether we were armed aggressors in their territorial waters. Effectively piracy. They weren't prisoners of war, they weren't hostages, they were potentially armed criminals caught red handed. I mean, since when did we appoint ourselves the police for those waters anyway?? Apparently they were looking for smugglers not terrorists, and not finding them. Like most things organised by this Government it's half arsed and not thought through and then blew up in their faces.

On a personal note if they'd wanted me to sing Happy Birthday to the Ayatollah live on telly I'd have struck up the band and when I got home I'd have stuck my notice straight in. I note the lovely Mrs Becket 'wrote a strong letter to her counterpart.....'

That would have done it then. If I was him I'd have wiped me arse on it and sent it back DHL.

We didn't appoint ourselves world policeman or anything else .....it was a UN mandate they were operating under... and please understand Kev that if the navy can do nothing else right, it always knows where it's at .......
....funny how the Iranians are now demanding help from us to get the Yanks to release some of the Iranians 'diplomats' in view of thier 'help' in freeing the hostages...a bit like someone kidnapping your kids and then releasing them and asking for the reward.....
The Iranians aint dumb and this was pure theatre for another audience ...

dont forget the Iraqi input
they might be at each others throats but when the infidel is involved all bets are off

I'm not so sure about the world policeman bit. Monsieur Niege. What did Saddam do again?? Oh yes, he's a bad, bad man. Bit like Mugabe but Mugabe's got no oil. And didn't the UN stipulate a diplomatic solution to Iraq?? Which we promptly trod all over?? So how much notice do we take of the UN anyway?? I'm also hearing that the boundaries of that bit of sea haven't really ever been agreed, the Iranians say one thing and we say another and act on ours without further consultation. So where the fence is says which side of it you're on.

I'm sure it was theatre, but we built the stage and threw the actors at them.

Would these be the same US Marines that cried like a baby in Columbia when they got caught by the big nasty drug barons, the ones that got so scared when we rescued them they could not / would not take point when we led them to safty?.
In my many years in the RM we went on many missions with the "super US Marines Corp" and they barring the special forces just wanted to get lashed, get high and get home.
They don't seem to understand that the whole world looks on the Americans as jokes and without the vast numbers and top noch equipment they are nothing.

Agreed. All 'wind and piss', rather than 'shock and awe'.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, away from the debating society of how the world should be run..... life goes on and so it shall always be.

Was this a Poole thing? I know there were a few guys from there involved in Columbia.