U.S. Would Have Fired on The Iranians

UK Independent via. Hot Air ^

[Weight of Glory]

The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: “The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, ‘Why didn’t your guys defend themselves?’”…

[grey_whiskers]

It is my understanding that there were up to six Iranian boats that had surrounded the Brits. If the Cornwall had openned fire on them, there would have been many Iranian casualties plus 15 dead Brits. The Cornwall would not have been able to extinguish all six boats. The Iranians were heavily armed and would have taken out the Brits after the first shots were fired by HMS Cornwall.

I don't know if you realize it, but that remark doesn't look too good when taken together with your tagline.

Cheers!

[Hoodat]

American forces in Iraq now hold some 300 prisoners tied to Iran’s intelligence agencies, Pajamas Media learned from both diplomatic and military sources.

I am sick of this 'prisoner exchange' game these islamofascists play. In the past, they have dared to admit that one dead Israeli soldier is worth several hundred live Palestinian terrorists. It is time to put an end to it right now.

We should execute one of the 300 each day until they decide to let the 15 go. That should give them roughly ten months to decide what to do.

[Doohickey]

USS Underwood

Holy crap! We decommissioned the entire Spruance class of destroyers, but we've kept Perry class frigates around?

[casino66]

Well let's say 'we won't quit, but we won't commit suicide either'. You can tell that is what I think would have happened had the Brits opened fire. Just MHO, mainly H.

[Salem]

"If we find this is going to be a standard practice we need to think very carefully about what rules of engagement we want and how we operate. One can't allow as a standard practice nations to capture a nation's servicemen. That is clearly wrong." "

Puke!

---

Right you are, Fred. This guy is talking about locking the barn door after the horses have been stolen. I can't imagine what their families are thinking. "Rules of engagement" like this by active participants in a war zone as tense as the Persian Gulf is incredible and the results, as we have seen, predictable.

The British need to get their people out of harm's way if they aren't going to fight back.

Or get some new Admirals.

[M. Espinola]

"This is a direct act of war by the Iranians. They ought to be retaliated against."

I fully agree. The Tehran dictatorship coupled with the Assad clan in Syria have already plotting what each rouge state shall do once attacked. The answer is simply, they will both surrender or face the fate of Saddam.

Oil nears $63 as Iran tensions intensify

[SevenofNine]

Salem I be honest

There are some in Brit society who don't give rat*** or think that kidnap soldiers should be rescue I am serious or their fault they got kidnap

So put that In WTF Catagory

[Salem]

   !!!

[jveritas]

After the shocking "cold reaction" of the British, both politicians and people, at the terrorist attacks in London in July 2005, I lost a lot of respect for them. They looked at the act as if it was a crime in the train stations " the tube" rather than an act of war by the terrorists against them.

I think the British, and for sure the Europeans, are not willing to fight any war anymore and therefore they deny that an act of terrorism is an act of war such as the attacks in London or Madrid or this terrorist attack by Iran terrorist regime on the British sailors.

I expected this with the French, Germans, Italians, and almost of Europe but not from the British, but now I think Britain is no different surrender monkey than other EU nations.

[Kozak]

Allowing 15 sailors to be taken prisoner is HOW wars do get started.

[jveritas]

One can't allow as a standard practice nations to capture a nation's servicemen. That is clearly wrong."

Oh really, just "wrong"?!! How about that this is a declaration of war by the Iranian terrorist regime that the British are not willing to admit, accept, or face. Very disappointing indeed the spinless reaction of Great Britain.

[Salem]

"After the shocking "cold reaction" of the British..."

Very appropriate way to put it. I found America's reaction "hot" after 9/11.

Reminds me of the quote:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

[Paulus Invictus]

So now will the Brits call in Carter and have him negotiate for months for the release of the Brit captives and when that fails will Britain then do a nationwide ankle grab and cave to all the imans demands?

[jveritas]

Great quote.

[reardensteel]

The British and U.S. should blockade Iran until the sailors are freed. No oil shipments out, no food or gas shipments in. No air travel in or out. Period.

[PzLdr]

I wonder what Nelson would have thought of Admiral West's ROEs? Napoleon would have LOVED them! - for the Royal Navy.

[BIGLOOK]

The command was on the phone to London, and put on hold while tactics were debated. Here endth the lesson....a bad one but a lesson none the less.

[laotzu]

Appreciate your humoring my ignorance, but;
what is that a picture of?

[laotzu]

He's cutting the fleet to 22..

I'm truly stunned, and slack-jawed to hear this.

I do not doubt you, but would very much appreciate a source where I may confirm this.

[MARTIAL MONK]

U.S.S. Pueblo