Posted on 03/25/2007 5:30:55 PM PDT by 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?’”…
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Sinking the whole Iranian Navy might prevent this from happening again in the forseeable future.
We should also take over their oil fields. hehe
"I don't blame the Captain or crew. I blame the president of the US who called off the two F4C's that were enroute."
More than a few of us felt the Crew of the Pueblo had been set up to justify the call up of over 14,000 Air Force reservists and guard members by one of the worse presidents in history, LBJ.
http://www.usspueblo.org/v2f/incident/incidentframe.html
I'm with you. First thing I said to my wife, was put up the fighter jets, fully armed and give them a small taste of the destruction that awaits them.
They will only recognize force. This wait,and wish diplomacy only emboldens them.
You are right. I believe War with Iran is not only inevitable it is a nessecity. They are the head of the snake and will not negotiate. That is why I am waiting for Bush to wake up and start selling this because it aint going to be easy convincing the public when the drive by media is already running stories on how bloody a war with Iran would be.
Yep. In a perfect world. In the world we live in... maybe the Brits can offer the Iranians to keep the boat in exchange for the sailors...
bttt
Sinking the whole Iranian Navy might prevent this from happening again in the forseeable future.
Hearing now that both a US and GB helicopter were above the scene when the Iranians took the sailors and marine.
Were they videotaping for a future documentary or were they realizing it's WAR!
Slick willie actually honored the Commander of the USS Cole.
A US helicopter and a British helicopter is reported to have been monitoring the scene.
I was hoping that Bush would do it better than LBJ.
LBJ was terrible in so many ways.
Second : Was this an American or a British decision ?
After the Cole and all the other attacks, I thought that the local commanders did not have to get permission to defend themselves immediately.
Our boys would have raised shields and executed evasive manuver Picard Beta 3, sent a volley of photo torpedoes at the interlopers and showed them their humanity by picking up any survivors that had managed to crawl into an escape pod
The title of michael moore's new movie : How we surrendered to a few gun boats ?
"I was hoping that Bush would do it better than LBJ."
These are Brit Sailors and Marines, and they are not under the command nor responsibility of President Bush, and our Sailors and Marines are not under the command nor responsibility of the UK.
"LBJ was terrible in so many ways."
Only Carter made LBJ look a little better.
"Second : Was this an American or a British decision ?"
Again, these are British Sailors and Marines. All decisions related to this crime come from the UK. All we can do is support them along the way.
"After the Cole and all the other attacks, I thought that the local commanders did not have to get permission to defend themselves immediately."
This was changed after 9/11 and probably before this. Again the Rules of Engagement are decided by the country where the ships, sailors and marines come from, not allies. The Iranians knew that if they tried to kidnap any of our sailors/marines, there would have been a response from our ships at the scene and probably our Naval Air Jocks.
Damn, Your plan has my vote but who would implement?
Why is there an Iranian Navy this morning ?
There is likely some diplomatic reason but the Iranians could not harass the shipping lanes if all their boats were sunk ?
Thanks.
That was an interesting article.
"...If the Brits were unwilling to defend their personnel, those sailors and Marines should never have been sent out. That was their fist mistake..."
Bingo!
Looks like we're being done in by deescalation and our new rules will be in the form of guidelines for swapping prisoners.
Just think of all the money we'll save by switching to rubber replicas that don't shoot.
The Brits should have seen the warships from Iran coming and tried to sweep up the 15 members ASAP while fending off the Iran navy.
Rules of engagement. The British commander on the scene called headquarters and was refused permission to fire.
I hadn't heard about the US helicopter, but my reading of the situation is that this was a British operation, and British hostages, so the US could not very well intervene unless the British requested or agreed to it.
I think this would be the case even though the Americans are in command in the war theater. It's one of the complications when you fight with allies and they have their own rules of engagement.
There were American and British helicopters apparently watching the Iranian boats come out from their bases and then attack.
Apparently permission was never granted from London for the navy to commence defending fire ?
Winston Churchill must be spinning is his grave!
Thanks.
It seems that the British commanders did little more than to call London for permission to do something.
Same on Clinton when the Cole was attacked.
If we are going into harms way, it seems that the commanders should have more freedom to respond ?
I remember the D-day stories of the German Generals were afraid to do anything until Hitler awoke that afternoon.
Sounds similar ?
Thats because they can see that there is no end after leaving Iraq.
Iran exposes the foolishness of a Vietnam like retreat.
Watched Hannity last night, and Juan Williams and another lib were scared of this discussion when Shaun and Mark Levin pressed the issue.
Iranian heavy cruiser?
Oh yes, the Iranian airliner loaded with dead corpses which would taken out a US Navy Ship if it hadn't been downed.
Our navy has more danger from Islamo Kazi airliners filled with dead civilians than from the Iranian navy.
c.f. USS Pueblo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uss_pueblo
I don't believe clinton was ever called for permission to fire on the small boat approaching the USS Cole.
Can you provide more details?
thanx
Winston Churchill would never have sent off his military with a no shoot ROE.
I always wondered if the Iranians were planning a 9-11 type civilian airliner crash into a naval war ship ?
The Iranians would not care if a few hundred civilians died ?
I thought that the Cole did not have permission to fire their weapons in port and that their guns were not loaded.
My recollection ( could be wrong ) is that the DOD had given orders to the Captain to not post armed guards in port. Also that the Captain was not aware of the attack until after the explosion.
Please help me if I am wrong.
The crew of the Cole were basically unarmed thanks to the Clintoons and the Goron.
Now we have President Bush, and things have changed.
However, most of us, who served in the Cold War in potentially hot areas, know that we often had PC ROEs, that placed us in danger if the commies decided to take us out or make an issue of us. It has been a problem since the Korean War, thanks to Truman and the UN.
Roger that!!
Humm hadn't seen that part. Well now we wait.
The Cole incident never would have happened had the Clinton administration not denied UNREPS and left the Cole to replenish in a foreign port.
As the crew members were surrounded in their two rubber dinghies, the Cornwall’s commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, frantically radioed back to his own top brass for instructions.
The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire.
The order to show restraint has been observed throughout the forces and the British government in the 48 hours since, but it is unclear how long both sides will be able to maintain control.
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=462812007
The British navy has suspended all boarding operations of cargo vessels in the northern Gulf while a complete review of the practice is under way following the capture - and release - of 15 navy personnel by Iran, it was confirmed Friday. The head of the British Navy, Admiral Jonathon Band, said in a BBC interview that the boarding operations of merchant vessels suspected of illegal cargo had been suspended while a “complete review” of the incident which led to the sailors being seized is carried out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813593/posts
Just wondering?
Which “he” are you asking about?
I remember 3 US soldiers taken without a shot fired in Kosovo in, what? 97?
Just a friendly inquiry.
Actually we do know what the US would have done. US Soldiers have already fired upon Iranians trying to capture them. Been there done that...kicked ass and they came home.
The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, the main U.S. military outpost in Iraq's eastern Diyala Province bordering Iran, U.S. troops recount events reluctantly, offering details only on condition that they remain nameless. Everyone seems to sense the possible consequences of revealing that a clash between U.S. and Iranian forces had turned deadly. And although the Pentagon has acknowledged that a firefight took place, it says it cannot say anything more. "For that level of detail, you're going to have to ask the [U.S.] military in Baghdad," says Army Lieut. Col. Mark Ballesteros. "We don't know anything about it."
Duh...thats what you do when you are fired upon by crazy Muslims...you fire back and kill the btards. Then you deny...hehe. Everyone gets the message...especially the soldiers under your command. They get the message that they are NOT expendable...contrary to the British wussies who now have gotten the message loud and clear that if you stray away from something too large to surrender peacefully, HMS Cromwell, you are done for...
As long as John Howard is PM - Australia would come to our side. By the time the Brits appeased their muslims, it would be all over with.
Consider the diffences in “rules of engagement” under the various presidents.
Under ANY clinton presidency we would have Carter-esque surrender style rules. A paper tiger which holds all conflice is a “police matter”.
I think the British military is going to pay a serious price for their weakness for many years to come.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.