Friday, April 06, 2007
|
|
"Fighting Back Was Not An Option"
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
10:23 AM
|
|
That’s what the released English marines said. They were outnumbered and outgunned. The Iranians had them surrounded. They don’t regret a thing. They couldn’t have won.
"Fighting back was not an option" - Will those words someday be the epitaph of the Western World?
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
|
That's just pathetic. A small, highly maneuverable boat at sea does not find itself in a "situation" instantaneously. Conditions evolve, and I smell a lack of competent leadership here. How far up the immediate chain of command it goes is not yet apparent from published reports. I hope there is a very thorough after-action investigation conducted by the military and appropriate measures are taken, albeit too little too late. |
|
|
|
I don't think Tennyson could have done much with that brand of fighting spirit.
Just for old times sake:
The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred. |
|
|
Are there any British Officers training personnel? They behaved like this was an class of schoolmates on an outing that went bad. So much for the great British military that held off Hitler. This generation would have just gone home and peeked out the window as jack-booted men raised a foreign flag over there homes. Shocking! |
|
|
Forced viewings of "300" for all British military personnel. Stat! |
|
|
Why didn't their destroyer protect them? |
|
It is hard to say--well they all should have fought and died like the Spartan 300. If doing that was that easy--it wouldn't be special. It is also easy to arm back quarterback this from your computer key board. Show me similar bravery on your part before you throw that one out.
The British sailors and marines were in the right. They were stopped by overwhelming force. Chances are they could have diffused the situation. They probably had rules of engagement not to shoot at Iranian patrols.
I do know this--in the Marines (the USMC) they tell you don't get captured, don't surrender (they have different rules for embassy duty but those are the combat recommendations). It sometimes happens--but it happens far less with the Marine Corps than other services. I suspect if this were a USMC patrol they would have resisted. It is not that Americans are more brave than British service personnel (they are not) but because the USMC has a very special warrior culture. |
|
A better question is why wasn't there an "oversight," armed, flying above said "Dhow" inspection? One report said the Iranians did their deed when the Brits were scrambling down rope ladders into their little boats. If true, then the Iranians did in fact get the drop on them. The HMS Cornwall's Captain is more to blame for the capture of his inspection party that the captured troops themselves.
BTW: Personally, let the men on the scene decide not some REMF and especially not civilian desk-warriors!
Lastly, those 15-Brits were not the Chosin Few, instead, they could have been 15 KIA given the circumstances!
|
|
|
In 1745 Admiral Bing retreated from scene of battle because he was out matched. He came home to London and after a court martial was shot on the quaterdeck of his own ship. |
|
|
was the comment about trying to "reason" with the Iranian military. I mean, the Iranians always seem like such reasonable, level-headed people. With their charming holocaust-denying president and quait songs of "death to America", it's really shocking that the British sailors were unable to reason with them. |
|
|
The real problem for not only Britain but even the USA is that pols put PC rules of engagement to harness our military when dealing with the enemy. It has happened over and again, from Nam on. No bombing here, no bombing there. Don't shoot unless your platoon is killed off! The Dems love these rules even more than the Pubs. It is time , with one year left, for W to simply tell our entire military to shoot to kill. If any admiral held back a ship from protecting our men and women, he should be court martialed and the Sec.Def too! Wait till the Dems take over DC and really hamper the military. We will be negotiating immediately with all terrorists. Mark my word. |
|
There are reports that the British soldiers were ordered not to fire. I don't know if they are accurate reports, but it would explain the actions of the soldiers themselves. It would not, however, explain the actions of their superiors.
Having said that, there is a certain American soldier I am proud to know, who is currently at home recuperating from injuries sustained in the fourth deadly attack on his unit, all of which he survived in a mere 9 months in Iraq. In one earlier such attack, half a dozen armed men shot his Captain in the head, and attempted to kidnap this soldier. He turned around and killed all of the armed men and tended to his Captain, who (it turns out) was already dead. Happily enough, he will survive his injuries of the latest attack, after several surgeries to remove shrapnel. He is chomping at the bit to get back with his unit just as soon as the doctors clear him. He wants to help his unit clear Iraq of bad guys, help stabilize the new fledgling government, and make this world a little bit safer for his countrymen, his friends, and his family. You'll just have to trust me that he's deadly serious about this, as are the remaining living servicemen in his unit.
Now THAT'S A SOLDIER! |
|
Yeah, fighting back isn't an option if you want to sit in the Tehran Hilton the rest of your life. Admirals Nelson and Tovey are spinning in their graves right now.
Can you imagine this happening in May '41, "but sir, the Bismarck is a big scary battleship. Fighting back isn't an option!"
We don't (and won't) know the whole story, but come on!
Sidearms? What about shooting back?
How about REFUSING to be taken prisoner?
Pathetic! |
|
The Times of London (link below) provided this contrast between the US and British military. The difference is resolve and discipline. House Speaker Pelosi's ill-disciplined kowtow to the Syrian despots tells as our resolve and discipline will suffer under Democrats.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1596816.ece
Several months before the current hostage crisis a small group of American and Iraqi soldiers had been patrolling near the Iranian border 75 miles east of Baghdad.
They spotted a single Iranian soldier lurking in Iraqi territory near the town of Balad Ruz and moved forward to question him. The Americans were, according to a US army report obtained by The Sunday Times, promptly ambushed by a much larger platoon of Iranian soldiers who had been hiding across the nearby border.
An Iranian captain warned the Americans that “if they tried to leave their location, the Iranians would fire upon them”. For a few moments the US paratroopers must have felt as helpless as the British sailors in inflatable speedboats who were surprised 10 days ago by more heavily armed Iranian vessels.
The US incident last September ended very differently. Firing broke out. Both sides scattered and a potential hostage crisis was averted as the Americans escaped unhurt.
|
|
The HMS Cornwall destroyer was 10 nautical miles away and not able to negotiate the shallow waters the UK sailors and marines were operating in. If the ship had tried to support, it would have run aground.
That being said, it is ridiculous that the boarding party was operating in a position that was unable to be supported.
They were in the Persian Gulf, not Lake Woebegone. What was the British Navy thinking? |
|
|
I listened to their press brief this morning and my first thought was couldn't they have requested some kind of air support or something? The description of events they gave made it sound like things happened fast, but not that fast. |
|
|
is Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson spinning in his grave! |
|
The West has not been good at fighting back when we do have the advantage so ... yes I fear we have taught them how to treat us. The way we (the west) fight war these days is NO deterrent. War must be waged in a way as to cause anyone who wants to wage it reason to ponder its consequence before engaging. Its like the boss everyone loves to work for but at the same time you know you never want to be on their bad side.
You can be the kind of country who is generous and kind and benevolent and welcoming but at the same time its understood that you DO NOT want to engage us in WAR .... NEVER !! Alas it seems much of the West does not have the will or resolve to show up that way.
Please remember people.... you cant be “generous and kind and benevolent and welcoming” if your DEAD. |
|
|
|
Which is that old men beat the drums of war whilst young men fight that war. Well, too darned many "old men" above and those with a like mindset are beating the drums of war whilst the 15-Brits had to fight it, so to speak.
A better issue might be having ROEs that allow for a force to protect itself, a realization that a force in being needs to know what its task is, and the moral support from the "old men" back home, not their idiotic demands for more charges by the Light Brigade!
While the Kurdistan incident alluded to above was a good result for our troops, it wasn't the same as for the 15-Brits.
Spend your time criticizing the HMS Cornwall's captain and his stupid act of not keeping his oversight flying above the Dhow. Either that or get out from behind your desk and step into the ranks.
As long as the public back home doesn't give a damn about what's happening over there, more crap like the "15-Brits" incident will happen. Support the troops, support the effort, or get out the white flag of France (Oops, I meant of surrender!) and dismantle our military.
|
|
RE: "Fighting back was not an option" - Will those words someday be the epitaph of the Western World?
...Sound like a Democrat campaign slogan
|
|
Not the soldiers
The Royal Marines executed brilliantly against the Argentineans who were stupid enough so as to fight them under a WWII rule set of warfare.
We better stop whining about the Iranians “not playing fair” and learn to beat them at their own game.
Is like we are playing soccer and they are playing basketball, so we complain to the referee (the UN) that they are advancing the ball with their hands. Of course they are; it is the only chance they have to win!
They understand that, we don’t
Is like when a burly cowboy is cut off on the highway by eighty year old lady who then gives him the finger. What can the cowboy do?
Iran is an old lady taking every advantage of their weakness.
These new war requires new rules and new institutions.
Are we ever going to learn?
For those who complain about the Royal Marines behaving less than heroically I have this to say:
IN WAR EVERYBODY BEHAVES LESS THAN GALLANTLY AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER.
Sure; it would have been better ‘to our propaganda’ if the Brits would have behaved like our guys at the Hanoi Hilton.
But heroism is not a requirement of the job. Heroism is so precious because is behavior that contradicts what every other soldier knows is logical and required to survive.
The other soldiers watch in awe and live to tell the story.
A soldier who runs is good to fight again
Besides; we don’t know what they were ordered to do in case of apprehension. We don’t know what orders they received from their senior officer among the captured.
They were a unit. In warfare a soldier who runs away from battle or a soldier who impetuously charges forward when he and his fellows should hold back can be equally dangerous to his own side.
|
|
|
contrary to what one poster wrote above, the british cowards were not outnumbered. six iranians captured these 15 eunuch's without a shot being fired. this is what a PC military looks like and it isn't pretty. i am surprised the iranians didn't make all 15 wear head scarves. |
|
Give me a break!
We soundly beat the Brits on the Concord Bridge because we refused to fight their way.
We fought them like we have learned to fight from the Indians.
While the disciplined Brits fought us like if we were the French.
Tennyson wrote a poem not a Tactical Manual for naval boarding missions.
In warfare the outcome regularly depends more on the later.
|
|
Listen to all these folks, clacking away about "duty," Tennyson, and the 300. You guys are like a bunch of girls, weak-kneed at the prospect of a real man. And "prospect" is the operative word. The reality is that men muddle through life as best they can. When moments arise that test our mettle, we hope and pray that we meet them like a man should. At the same time, it only takes a teeny tiny bit of authenticity and honest insight to recognize that we human beings sometimes fall short.
There are two kinds of people: those who get on their high horse in the face of moral shortcomings and those who think "but for the grace of God go I." In other words, those who are trespassed upon and those who can see their own trespasses. Contemporary conservatism fails as a moral philosophy because the sanctimony is so transparently phony. When it comes to morality, it is better to build on the low sturdy ground of human fallibility than up in the clouds with Tennyson and the 300. |
|
Here's the facts, you decide:
1. The two Iranian patrol ships that seized the Britons were equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns.
2. By contrast, the British go lightly armed on vessels they search in the Gulf. Each man is only issued a rifle or a pistol.
3. The Iranians struck at a vulnerable moment when the Britons were climbing down a ladder to jump back into their inflatables.
4. The helicopter accompanying them in the inspection had returned to the HMS Cornwall.
5. The HMS Cornwall was 11 miles away.
6. The capture occurred in water too shallow for the HMS Cornwall to operate.
So, to me it sounds like surprised, isolated and outgunned and that the capture was well planned by the Iranians to take advantage of tactical mistakes by the British commanders to put their troops in this exposed position.
I can't fault the troops themselves, who would have simply been slaughtered under the circumstances if somebody started firing. They were put in an impossible position.
Would you, hanging from a rope ladder, pulled a pistol out of your pocket and started firing at a heavy maching gun pointed at you. You'd literally be cut to pieces in seconds. |
|
Where is the British version of the Code of Conduct? I am not talking about fighting to keep from being captured? That is only part of it and at some point you may have to surrender, but to fold while in captivity after a week and surrender with your words too, speaking against your own country is reprehensible and a dischargable offense.
The US Code of Conduct is here if you are curious.
http://thedailyblogster.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-is-up-with-this.html |
|
How about Coulter on the air?
Why silence the delusional?
My only quarrel with “The View” is that Elisabeth Hasselbeck sounds like a Republican US Senator.
If is all just about ratings; why not bring Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter to catfight Rosie.
The prospect of a ranting O’Donnell trying to counteract the unmovable logic of any of those three will do for some exhilarating Television.
Plus the spectacle of Rosie’s psychiatrist having to be on the set to administer her with on-demand electroshock would be awesome.
|
|
This is a great example of why you Neo-Cons are over.
You can't even understand that the release of the hostages was a success.
|
|
Sometimes I wish Rosie would shut her yap. Her kooky opinions tarnish every non-Republican. And I agree with Chairman Mao that the Big Three conservative demagoguettes would shred her to pieces.
We are a free-speech country, but it is unfortunate how contrived our marketplace of ideas is--at least in the media. Worst of all is this notion that there are two--and only two--sides to every argument. It benefits the noisy right-wing, the so-called "base" that is relatively united, but it hurts the great silent majority, which may be of several minds on an issue.
And when Rosie starts caking-off like the idiot she is, the "base" will point to her and say: "look, America, the other side is just as kooky as we are." |
|
Haven't been able to find anything in writing on UK's Ministry of Defence site about rules of engagement or code of conduct. Here's the link to MOD site. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Home/
Did find this statement at press conference from Royal Marine Captain Chris Air, the officer commanding, from which you can draw your own conclusions:
"On Friday 23 March I, along with 14 of my colleagues, were part of a routine boarding patrol. We deployed from HMS Cornwall in two Rigid Inflatable Boats and patrolled into an area south of the Shatt Al Arab waterway.
This was meant to be a routine boarding operation and followed approximately 66 similar such boardings over the previous four weeks.
We approached an unidentified merchant vessel that our supporting helicopter had identified as worth investigation...
A short while later two speed boats were spotted approaching rapidly about 400 metres away. I ordered everyone to make their weapons ready and ordered the boarding party to return to the boats.
By the time all were back on board, two Iranian boats had come alongside. One officer spoke good English and I explained that we were conducting a routine operation, as allowed under a United Nations mandate.
But when we tried to leave, they prevented us by blocking us in. By now it was becoming increasingly clear that they had arrived with a planned intent.
Some of the Iranian sailors were becoming deliberately aggressive and unstable.
They rammed our boats and trained their heavy machineguns, RPG (rocket-propelled grenades) and weapons on us. Another six boats were closing in on us.
We realised that our efforts to reason with these people were not making any headway. Nor were we able to calm some of the individuals down.
It was at this point that we realised that had we resisted, there would have been a major fight - one that we could not have won and with consequences that would have major strategic impacts.
We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians and do as they asked."
... "Let me be absolutely clear, from the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was simply not an option. Had we chosen to do so then many of us would not be standing here today. Of that I have no doubts.
The Iranian Navy did not turn up lightly armed; they came with intent, heavy weapons, and very quickly surrounded us.
We were equipped, armed and had rules of engagement for boarding operations within Iraqi water.
We were not prepared to fight a heavily armed force who it is our impression came out deliberately into Iraqi waters to take us prisoner. Reasoning with the Iranians was our only option. We tried.
We did our utmost to de-escalate the situation, but our words fell on deaf ears. They had come with a clear purpose and were never going to leave without us.
The Iranians are not our enemies. We are not at war with them.
Our rules of engagement at that time stated that we could only use lethal force if we felt that we were in imminent danger of a loss of life.
By the time the true intent of the Iranians had become apparent - and we could have legitimately fought back - it was too late for action." |
|
and I -except for the peyoratives- agree with him!?
Am I'm turning into a 'moderate!?'
The horror! The horror!
I may need to recharge the batteries by spending a couple of months in N. Korea.
Only one problem; would they allow me to come back? |
|
|
Thanks for the link I just urged my email list to 'sign the petition.' |
|
|
With one glaring exception: When it comes to building morality, BETTER to build on Tennyson and "the 300" that on the "low sturdy ground of human fallibility." |
|
|
no, they were not "caught on the ladders". they saw the iranian boats approaching while on the deck of the boat they were searching. they were caught trying to run away, after getting back into their inflatable ducks. it isn't surprising that the cowardly left here, applauds cowardice in others. |
|
"We soundly beat the Brits on the Concord Bridge because we refused to fight their way.
We fought them like we have learned to fight from the Indians."
A common myth. In fact, most of the major battles of the Revolution were straight-up classical European linear battles or sieges right out of the pages of Vauban. Most of the battles were in populated, cultivated areas, where there weren't enough trees for Indian-style fighters to hide behind. Bunker Hill, Long Island, King's Bridge, Harlem Heights, White Plains, Hubbardton, Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, Charleston, Camden, Cowpens, Guilford Courthouse, Hobkirk's Hill, Yorktown -- they all could have been fought on a European battlefield. Saratoga was one possible exception, but even it was mostly a line-infantry fight.
Concord Bridge was a face-off between two bodies of infantry in an open field, and the Brits came in second, fair and square. The British retreat back to Boston did involve lots of irregular patriots firing from behind stone walls and trees -- but that firing was hugely ineffective. Ultimately, the vastly-outnumbered British force got away. They lost more men than the colonists -- not surprising, considering the odds -- but the colonists got beaten up badly, too. for example, the supposed experts in Indian-style fighting, firing from behind walls, got butchered numerous times by flanking parties of British light infantry sneaking through the woods behind them.
About the only classic "Indian-style" major battles of the Revolution were King's Mountain, Wyoming (that's Wyoming, Pennsylvania) and Oriskany -- but in those cases, the British forces were mostly Indians and Americans fighting Indian-style themselves. I can't think of any Revolutionary battle (other than the retreat from Concord, which isn't quite fair -- the Brits weren't expecting a war to break out, and hadn't sent enough men for a real battle) in which British line infantry got beat by American Indian-style fighters. The British learned their lesson the hard way at Braddock's defeat. They never made a similar mistake during the Revolution.
The myth of the Revolutionary soldier as a guerrilla endures because it plays into the mythologies of both left and right -- the right, because we liked to think of citizen soldiers taking Pennsylvania rifles down from the mantle and heading off into the woods to outwit the tyrant's hirelings, and the left, because guerrillas are sooo sexy. It's just that the mythology doesn't happen to be true.
As for the Brits surrendering, I can't remember who it was that said "hell hath no fury like a noncombatant." I do suspect that American Marines, even if they hadn't suicidally started shooting, would just have stood fast and perpetuated the standoff until help could arrive. Of course, relying on the self-control of your average hotheaded Persian (sorry for the potential ethnic slur, but there's a reason we don't have stereotypes about hotheaded Norwegians) might not be good for your health. |
|
From The Sunday Times April 1, 2007
“Such is the shambles that senior Royal Navy officers at the fleet’s operational headquarters have been directed to review the rules of engagement for naval boarding parties. If necessary they will recommend changes to ensure Britain’s forces are never again seized so easily without a shot being fired.”
From Reuters April 6, 2007
“He said Britain had halted boarding operations in the Gulf and was reviewing how they are handled in future amid disquiet over how easily the sailors were seized on March 23.”
The Guardian April 1, 2007
The Head of the Navy:
He rejected criticisms they had surrendered too easily to the Iranians and had been too eager to cooperate with their captors.
. . . They appear to have played it by the rules.
Bloomberg, April 6, 2007
The head of Britain's Royal Navy defended the actions of the 15 U.K. sailors and Marines held for two weeks by Iran, saying; ‘I think they acted extremely sensibly.’
The Evening Standard April 6, 2007
“The tough and experienced Royal Marines and sailors offered no resistance. Their Rules of Engagement - strict guidelines governing when they can use force - are believed to have barred them from escalating the confrontation with Iranian troops.”
Belfast Telegraph, April 6, 2007
Official opinion in Tehran is that the crisis ended with an Iranian victory. Iran showed that despite months of Western pressure, it could seize two boatloads of coalition troops and hold them for two weeks without facing serious sanction - a lesson to Britain and the US of the possible consequences of future confrontation.
Although British naval forces are in the Gulf under a United Nations mandate, they are not, despite some reports to the contrary, working under UN rules of engagement which have often been criticised for not being robust enough.
The coalition forces in Iraq have their own rules and the American ones differ from the British. Commander Erik Horner, of the US Navy, said: " Our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation." US personnel, said the commander, faced with the same situation as the British, would have opened fire.
So don't blame the poor chaps they were just doing as they're told. |
|
OK, a case can be made that the Brits were overwhelmed by a superior force and had no choice to surrender.
But consider if this fatalism had been shown in American history:
"Fighting back was not an option" --- John Paul Jones
"Fighting back was not an option" -- Davey Crockett after surrendering at the Alamo
"Fighting back was not an option" --- Sgt. York, after surrendering to hundreds of German soldiers, instead of capturing them single-handedly.
"Fighting back was not an option" --- General Tony McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge ("Nuts!")
"Fighting back was not an option" --- Creighton Abrams, at the Battle of the Bulge ("They've got us surrounded again, the poor bastards.")
You get the drift.
What really galls me is the way the captives behaved and spoke on camera. No hidden "fingers" of defiance, no sullen silence, no military bearing. THAT's where the real scandal lies. These guys didn't know how to behave properly as POWs, as captured marines. They truly dishonored themselves and their country. They should be forced to watch "300" a dozen times until they "get it".
|
|
|
I can't help thinking that as I see all 15 "Brits" alive and well that they must have done the right thing. None of us were there, none of us heard their orders, or can possibly know the exact cercumstances. I believe it is far better that they allowed themselves to be temporary pawns of an unreasonable even insane dictator than to have fought and lost their lives. At least alive they can live to fight another day. And fight we will....this is not nearly over. |
|
First, the Cornwall *could* have moved in closer. It served in a fire support capacity during the initial drive on Basra, and did so in the same area and much closer inshore. So the ship definitely botched it.
Second, there is a distinction between capture and surrender. Capture occurs when a unit is incapable of offering effective resistance; surrender occurs when a unit is capable of effective resistance but chooses not to fight. Capture isn't particularly dishonorable, nor is it usually a result of cowardice. Instead, it is the result of an untenable tactical position. Surrender isn't necessarily cowardly, but it is the result of a lack of will to fight.
Given the reported circumstances, it seems more like the Brits were captured, as opposed to having surrendered. That said, their conduct in captivity appears to have been less than professional in some instances. |
|
**no, they were not "caught on the ladders". they saw the iranian boats approaching while on the deck of the boat they were searching. they were caught trying to run away, after getting back into their inflatable ducks. it isn't surprising that the cowardly left here, applauds cowardice in others.By cjm
_________________
CJM, you're correct, from the later post above, that they weren't on the ladders and had made it back to the boats. How were they trying to run away though?
I was interested also what your military experience was that you are judging the British troops action against. I'll judge your comments on this matter more highly if you've been in harms way somewhere. |
|
have a pilot who was forced to land a very secret plane in China. He was supposed to destroy it but landed instead. I think his reason for not crashing it was that there was a woman on board.
No one knows what they would do in those circumstances so it seems to me the only critics who are justified are those who have been through it.
|
|
|
The NKs would do anything you say. After all, you saved their bacon back in '50. |
|
In my mind, heroic moral narratives are symptomatic of cartoonish morality. Men do reside in a moral universe, and it foists a set of imperatives upon us--at least to the extent we are interested in living as civilized human beings. But the moral universe is a complex and ambiguous place. Good guys become bad guys and bad guys are proven to be good. Men (Osama, for instance) do great evil even while acting, they think, in the service of good.
The pursuit of moral clarity--a hot commodity in right-wing circles--leads to carictature and nonsense. There is such a thing as moral truth, as right and wrong, but it is hard-earned. The rest of humanity runs around with its heroes and villans, as we have since Adam fell from grace, and despite being at each others throats, are different from one another by degrees, not type. |
|
According to our left-wing friends, the smart thing to do in every situation is bend over and surrender. Logically the Al-Qeadas and Iranians and Syrians should quit causing trouble because they are not as powerful as us. But they don't seem to be as enlightened as our friends here behind the safe walls of America. What should we do? If we surrender more often then we can become weaker and surely they will see this and THEN leave us alone! I get it now! It didn't work that way with anyone else in history but, hey, we didn't have the modern American liberals then either did we? Oh those poor suckers in the past. All we had to do was quit and everything would be peachy.
No wonder libs suck at business.
Aheeb: Give me that, infidel pig-dog!
Mike: Now hold on there my friend. Obviously you don't understand how it should be in business. See, I'll sell this hookah to you for $50.
Aheeb: Give me that right now, devil wart, or I'll cut your head off!
Mike: Take it easy Sir. No need to get excited. Here, take it as my gift.
Aheeb: And the woman, monkey baby! Saunters off after punching Mike in the face.
Mike: Geesh! That George Bush! (picks up phone) Yeah, I want to speak to my congressman. Yes, I'd like a federal program started to compensate those of us who feel deeply. Yes, I'm very sensitive which leads to being sensible. Yes. Thank you. |
|
Um, the few soldiers captured by al-Qaida were executed pretty quickly thereafter. There were also a few captured by the Iraqi army during the initial invasion. One was executed shortly after capture, one died of wounds, and the rest did fairly well, despite being videotaped (in some circumstances).
Consider also:
1. Michael Durant in Somalia (beaten and shot [non-fatally] while in captivity, also refused medical treatment for an extended period): did give a bit more than name, rank, and serial number in a video, but held up very well. Notably, he felt considerable remorse about giving even the limited information he did provide.
2. Crew of the surveillance plane held by the PRC. Also held up quite well. |
|
I'm sure you see yourself as a hard bitten realist--nobody's fool--but you are railing against arguments that are not being made. There has to be more to policy than bullying and being bullied. Just because you choose not to fight at a given moment does not mean you are "bending over" and surrendering. One must choose his battles.
Some of us want to fight over our right not to wear scarves in mosques. Others prefer fighting when more meaningful matters are at stake. Some of us think Islam will kill us if we do not kill them. Others have faith in the capacity of human beings to work productively through their differences. Some of us think you cannot earn respect unless you threaten them. Others think that respect can--doesn't always, but can--come via non-intimidating means.
I'm sure such talk is cowering and cowardly. Or maybe it is just civilized and non-barbaric. And the War on Terror is the war to defend civilization. Unfortunately, there are many people who are supposedly in the civilized camp who are willing to advocate--in their rhetoric at least--barbaric behavior. There is a time for fighting, but there is also a time to be stronger than our fears. |
|
"In my mind, heroic moral narratives are symptomatic of cartoonish morality. Men do reside in a moral universe, and it foists a set of imperatives upon us--at least to the extent we are interested in living as civilized human beings. But the moral universe is a complex and ambiguous place. Good guys become bad guys and bad guys are proven to be good. Men (Osama, for instance) do great evil even while acting, they think, in the service of good."
Congratulations, you've gotten past the First Naivete. Now you need to come all the way full circle and learn to appreciate true heroes, warts and all. Start by reading Pericles' funeral oration from Thucydides.
"Complexity" is often the last refuge of someone who wants to avoid decision. By all means, appreciate complexity -- but don't let it paralyze you.
I mean, on one level, a rock is a marvelously complex object, composed of atoms arranged in a dizzying crystalline structure. On another level, it's just a rock. Morality can be like that, too. On one level, there are moral dilemmas and paradoxes and exceptions to every rule -- but on another level, the basic rule accounts for the vast majority of circumstances.
Sure, men can do evil thinking they do good. That's not exactly a new insight (just look to the Bible -- "the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service" -- John 16:2). That doesn't excuse them from the duty to examine their thinking and question whether what they think is good, actually is so. To my way of thinking, intentionally murdering civilians is really hard to justify under any moral worldview, but maybe I'm just too black and white in my thinking.
|
|
"Some of us want to fight over our right not to wear scarves in mosques. Others prefer fighting when more meaningful matters are at stake."
Count me as someone absolutely willing to fight for my right not to have to step inside a mosque, period, if I don't want to. It's not a matter of not liking scarves -- it's a matter of basic liberty. I don't see any way in which conceding to someone the right to order me where to worship could ever fit into any definition of people "work[ing] productively through their differences." |
|
Do you think you should be congratulated for recognizing that intentionally murdering civilians is deeply and detestably immoral? That does not take "clarity" or a "black and white" view of the moral universe. Those kinds of crimes are the easy ones.
Now, how do we solve it when an American soldier, worn and frustrated at seeing his buddies picked off, intentionally murders civilians in retaliation?
But, yes, the War on Terror is precisely our battle against those who condone intentionally murdering civilians. Now, how do we deal with people whose behavior does not "intentionally" murders civilians, but seems to kill a lot of civilians nevertheless? That is the more relevant moral question. We can only fight the terrorists who intentionally kill civilians. But there are some complex moral issues--and consequences--that come with unintentionally killing civilians. |
|
Not only was fighting back not an option at the time the Iranians came upon the scene, fighting back apparently also was not an option as they were interrogated, neither during the camera appearances. They continued not to fight back until they were safe and out of the reach of the Iranians.
They gave up on the high sea, and they continued to give up for the world to see. In this country, that's treason. |
|
The illussion of Moral Clarity works all of the time in the cocktails parlors of Hollywoodland, in Universities the world over and, in United Nations enclaves.
Regular men are often forced to make morally ambiguous decisions and; the value of their cause is never diminished by these actions.
World War Two seems to be a moral war only; because the Left was ordered by Stalin to shut up and support the Soviet Union. There was no argument.
The day before they supported the war, most lefties were applauding the peace brought about by the Stalin-Ribbentrop treaty.
Keep the US out of the Imperialist war!
Was the battle cry, just one day before they applauded the US decision to enter on the same side as the Soviet Union.
In WWII the Left did the opposite than John Kerry in Iraq; they voted against the war, before they voted for it.
FDR defeated Fascism by allying the US with Stalin; a bigger criminal than Hitler.
Because it was best for the long term strategic interest of the US.
And the world is better for it.
I can’t believe any really educated person may think anyone can conduct foreign policy under a code of moral clarity.
Could you apply moral clarity to your encounter with a criminal gang at an alley; or would you do whatever it takes to come out alive?
In therapy people often are told; you are a good person, you did what you have to do to survive.
Why ask more of these sailors? Why ask more of George Bush than we asked from FDR?
|
|
|
Fighting, fighting? Why it was just a misunderstanding over compos readings. |
|
»»the war that so many con luminaries (led by "the decider") ran like little b*tches to avoid.««
George Bush didn't go to Veet Nam, though he served in the military.
I didn't go to Veet Nam, though I served in the military, in Germany, at The American Forces Network, Europe (Frankfurt and Stuttgart).
Did I, too, run "like a little bltch" to avoid the war? No. I joined others who were assigned duty that had to be done, just in another place. My contribution is nothing less than anybody else's and nothing more.
Likewise, Dubya's contribution is nothing less, nor nothing more, than anybody else's.
So, it's about time you get over it. |
|
Again, you're posturing against an argument that is not being made. I will fight to the death--I would hope--for your right never to step foot in a mosque. If you don't want to go there, c'est la vie.
But those of us who are unintimidated by deep religious convictions--even when they do not happen to be our own--we have to show a little respect. A mosque is someone else's house, and the decent thing to do when you are a guest is abide by their rules. Don't go to that house if you don't want to, but don't act as though your obduracy and lack of neighborliness is a virtue. Your right not to visit a mosque is worth fighting for. But if your desire is to obliterate that culture, that religion--that's NOT worth fighting for. |
|
|
|
If a USA soldier kill civilians in revenge he is a criminal
The same US soldier is ordered to incinerate Dresden or, Kyoto, the day before and gets a medal.
My point?
Some civilians are more innocent than others.
In irregular wars.
The civilians are just Camouflage.
The grand jungle in which the irregular army finds support and refuge.
To defeat an irregular army you have to fight an irregular war.
Blank statements about 'innocent civilians' would only get you as defeated as the British sailors.
That is precisely my grudge against the ROE
Civilians need to be allowed to define themselves into friends or foes.
In an irregular war no one is really neutral. |
|
You're smoking crack again. Until Pearl Harbor, our entry into WWII was resisted by the right, not the left. Robert Taft (aka Mr. Republican), for instance, was stridently opposed to the draft. And after we were drawn in, by the way, he argued vigorously for Congressional oversight.
As for who was worse, Stalin or Hitler, I hate that creepy game. How about this? Chairman Mao was worse than the both of them. |
|
»»In my mind, heroic moral narratives are symptomatic of cartoonish morality. Men do reside in a moral universe, and it foists a set of imperatives upon us--at least to the extent we are interested in living as civilized human beings.««
Are you writing an academic piece?
»» But the moral universe is a complex and ambiguous place. Good guys become bad guys and bad guys are proven to be good.««
The wicked relish ambiguity in the moral universe. They can operate so easily in a place where we don't know what is right and what is wrong.
Of course, God tells us, and many of us know the difference at the same time the wicked tell us that no one knows, and that's cuz the wicked want not to know. They're mad cuz we remind them, and their consciences bother them and they become accountable, though they deny it.
»» Men (Osama, for instance) do great evil even while acting, they think, in the service of good. ««
Satan deceives him, and God blinds him from His Mysteries. God leaves bin Laden to Satan until he repents. He won't.
Anyway, "evil" is defined by God, not men. What YOU think is evil may not be evil at all.
Was it evil for nineteen men to crash jetliners into buildings and the ground and kill thousands? Yes.
Was it evil to firebomb Dresden and waste Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No. |
|
My mom would send me to ride with this friend in his little truck.
A pretty innocent group. We will go and visit some other friends in the outskirts of the city. Whenever we will get there they would send me to play with other boys while they talked.
One night I woke up in the middle of the night and saw my father, my mother and the friend loading what Democrats refer to as 'assault rifles' and bullets onto the truck.
They never saw me.
I went back to sleep. I loved the rides into the fields. I loved playing with the other boys.
I killed my first enemy soldier when I was 15
We were some civilians; werent we?
The whole wide world does not conform to the same moral rules as San Francisco or, Seattle.
I don't want my kids to grow up and live in America, like I had to grow up; even if we have to nuke them.
It is not blind fear is first hand knowledge and conviction
|
|
|
if they saw the iranians coming, and were willing to fight, wouldn't they have had better cover by staying on the boat they were searching ? i haven't read any descriptions of that vessel, but they probably weren't checking row-boats. the only reason to go back into the completely unprotected inflatables, was with the hope of making it back to the mother coop (HMS Cornwall). i know of no incident where an American serviceman surrendered with ammo to spare. maybe i was a little hasty in comparing the british cowardice to that of the American left, as there was no mention of soiled trousers. |
|
I did not say we cannot tell the difference between good and evil. It is one thing to affirm the complexity and ambiguity of the moral universe. That is a matter of honesty. It is another thing to throw your hands up and act as though it is beyond us. That is a matter of strength.
As for all your God talk, I for one am not intimidated. There is a difference between what men think they know and what they really know, and the way we reference God is a pretty good indicator of how we much we bamboozle ourselves (and trying to bamboozle others). You can "quote" God all you want, but at the bottom, we are all agnostic--unfortunately, most of us run away from that fact. |
|
|
The question is, are you lawless? Do you have one standard of behavior for you and yours, and another for those you don't like so much? |
|
The history cognisceti will know the story of Private Moyes, who was captured by the Chinese Emperor's forces during the Franco-English Peking Expedition of 1860.
As a result of his refusal to kowtow to his captors he was brutally murdered. His death was avenged by the burinig of the Summer Palace.
Which name(s) will history remember, Pvt. Moyes or the captured British sailors and Marines? |
|
Non-Interventionism of the Left: The Keep America out of the War Congress, 1938-41
Justus D. Doenecke
Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr., 1977), pp. 221-236
American Imperialism Grasps Its Manifest Destiny
Fourth International(Socialist), Volume II, No. 1, January 1941, 1/41, pp. 14-17.
The Yanks are not Coming
A Documentary History of the American Communist Party
Bernard K. Johnpoll (ed.)
Book Code: JAC/06
ISBN: 0-313-28811-9
ISBN-13: 978-0-313-28811-1
DOI: 10.1336/0313288119
1144 pages
Greenwood Press
Publication: 10/30/1994
Smith, Edwin S., Oscar Lange, Stanislaw Orlemanski, Leo Krzycki, Us Senator James M. Tunnell, [and] Corliss Lamont "We will join hands with Russia." On Polish-Soviet relations. Nationalities Division of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, New York. [1943?], 38p.,
Thomas, Norman and Betram D. Wolfe Keep America out of war; a program. Frederick A. Stokes Company, New York. 1939, xiii, 184p., first edition,
Want some more? There is plenty.
I apologize for being more acquainted with Socialist ideas than most Liberals
That is probably were the terms 'useful idiot' and 'fellow traveler' originated.
|
|
This is not on point but I have to ask if you actually understand the reason for Kerry's two votes. Since it is a favorite taunt, I have often wondered if there are any Republicans who actually have insight to that. If they did, perhaps 2004 would have had a different outcome even though, in my opinion, it was already too late.
|
|
Then, how come scoffers can't make a baby from scratch?
»»It is one thing to affirm the complexity and ambiguity of the moral universe. That is a matter of honesty.««
That's what those who want not to recognize that there IS right and wrong say, that they are different, so much so as to be opposites. It's a convenient "truth."
Of course, as Paine said, a long season of thinking a thing right gives it the appearance of being right.
»» It is another thing to throw your hands up and act as though it is beyond us. That is a matter of strength.««
Whose strength?
»»As for all your God talk, I for one am not intimidated.««
God calls this being "stubborn."
»»There is a difference between what men think they know and what they really know, and the way we reference God is a pretty good indicator of how we much we bamboozle ourselves (and trying to bamboozle others).««
Heh. Just what Satan told Eve! Funny how what you say about it coincides with what Satan told Eve.
»» You can "quote" God all you want, but at the bottom, we are all agnostic--unfortunately, most of us run away from that fact.««
I'm not agnostic. I KNOW God and He knows me. He knew me even before He formed me in the womb.
You can say all you ant that we all are agnostic. We are not. Some among us choose to be wicked and go our own way. Those of us truly born again know that we cannot save ourselves.
You, on the other hand, think that we can save ourselves, that we -- men -- are in control.
Well, if we are in control, how come we can't snap our fingers and defeat disease? |
|
»»are you lawless? Do you have one standard of behavior for you and yours, and another for those you don't like so much? ««
No. |
|
Last time I checked war was about killing people and blowing up things.
You kill as many as you can as fast as you can until you break their will to resist you.
I'm surprised you never commented on my mom using me as a prop?
What about the morality of that?
Do you think she never considered the enemy could kill her child?
She did; but she considered her cause just and wanted it to prevail.
In her mind we were all duly obligated to participate in one form of the other.
For an American who thinks American laws are Universal she was committing 'child endangerment'
NEWSFLASH One you leave the USA the same rule set does not apply. |
|
Phew. That's pretty impressive. Now, when you are ready to talk about the old fashioned liberalism that is at the heart of this country's greatness--whether Jefferson or Lincoln or Martin King--when you are ready to stop fulminating against the commies and socialists, and talk to us democratic capitalists who also listen to the better angels of our nature, then put down the word.
By the way, congratulations for being so well-informed about the teachings of Norman Thomas and Earl Browder. Most people, under the stress of other obligations, don't have time to waste with intellectual third-raters. |
|
»»if you actually understand the reason for Kerry's two votes.««
Ooooh, oooooh! Me! Me, me!
Uh, he tried to play on both sides of the fence at the same time.
That's my final answer. |
|
I do understand the reason for Kerry's two votes
The same reason why he slandered his fellow soldiers of committing attrocities during a time of war.
Because is a malignant, opportunistic, no-good weasel, pretending to be a Patrician.
|
|
My goodness, while I'm old and getting more decrepit everyday, I could do as well as the valiant members of the fighting 101st Keyboardists shown above; as long as it doesn't involve my blood, toil, sweat, or tears. It does my leaking, aging heart good to realize that those brave souls shown above are at least as brave as that fellow 'cuit way back in Basic who boasted that he'd "kill any damned commie" he came across; fortunately for him and for our nation, it was the Cold War, not a hot one.
But, while the 15-Brits may well be justly criticized by the likes of Col. J. Jacobs, LTC Peters, and their peers, the rest of us arm-chair generals are merely blowing smoke, mostly up our own a'holes; pardon my french!
Please exhibit the same bravery as you've shown above when "they" come for you and your kind; that's the appropriate time to "Stand to" and man the ramparts. However, I guess the USA is safe because the heroes shown above have said they're heroes!
|
|
It is not my fault that American Socialists elect to cover up their intentions with the "Liberal" loin cloth.
I'll talk about classical Liberalism as soon as you explain its connection to ANSWER, MoveOn.org, Howard Dean, Socialized Everything, and today's 'Liberals' tendency to justify every crime against humanity as long as the perpetrator is non-white. |
|
Are you serious? I can make a baby from scratch. Of course, prior to my wife, it was hard to find a woman who was willing.
And I'm "stubborn" for not vesting your beliefs about the moral order in the universe with the seal of God's approval? In my mind, your Godtalk is a rhetorical device, designed to bring authority to your worldview, since you can't achieve it via reason.
As for the Eden story, you have it all wrong. Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and we fell away from life. We lost our passport to Paradise, but we got a one-way ticket to the moral universe. It is amusing that all you great assayers of the "fight against evil" depend upon the very thing--the knowledge of good and evil--that led to our fall. |
|
Mao! No!!!!
You mean to tell us that Kerry committed ATTROCITIES!!! I'm hurt!!
Tell us it isn't so!!! |
|
»»I can make a baby from scratch. ««
You use the tools made by Somebody Else. You make nothing that you created from scratch.
»»And I'm "stubborn" for not vesting your beliefs...««
They're God's Beliefs, not mine. I only report what He tells you.
See, you're not very empirical. You purposely limit your intake of information, and that skewed left side of the equation naturally skews the outcome side to what you want. How convenient.
»»... about the moral order in the universe with the seal of God's approval««
First you say that it's my belief I'm imposing on you, and, then, in the same sentence, you say it's God's. Which is it?
»» In my mind, your Godtalk is a rhetorical device, designed to bring authority to your worldview, since you can't achieve it via reason. ««
WOW! Again, precisely what the Devil told Eve!!
How come you haven't reasoned your way out of disease and famine? After all, if men are gods, a snap of the fingers ought to do it.
So far, how has Man done with your "reason"? Nto too well, has he.
»»As for the Eden story, you have it all wrong. Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and we fell away from life. We lost our passport to Paradise, but we got a one-way ticket to the moral universe.««
You got it all wrong.
We HAD a Moral Universe before she ate. She created another universe when she ate.
»» It is amusing that all you great assayers of the "fight against evil" depend upon the very thing--the knowledge of good and evil--that led to our fall. ««
How much knowledge of good and evil do YOU have? Does it equal God's Knowledge of good and evil?
If you have as much as God, why can't you end disease with the snap of your fingers?
Why can't you create, with your own tools made by you, a baby from scratch from materials made completely by you? |
|
I don't have to explain the multi-culturalists and the socialists, any more than you have to explain Timothy McVeigh. I am a liberal patriot. I love America. I am pro-Western civ. I do not have a problem with prayer in school or the Pledge to the Flag. I think the Church is a good place for people to spend time. I think America has grown way too litigious. I think new Americans should "melt" up to America rather than America melting down to them. I think a proud and unapologetic Civics should be taught to the children.
Your argument is not with the commies, it is with me. Some of us are not simply useful idiots and fellow travelers for the red state elites. Some of us democratic capitalists honor democracy as much as we do capitalism. Your argument is with us--although I can see why you like to rail against the socialists. Not nearly as hard and so much more gratifying. |
|
»»I can make a baby from scratch. Of course, prior to my wife, it was hard to find a woman who was willing.««
How did you, yourself, create the material and the tools to create a baby from scratch? |
|
In the spirit of Good Friday, I'll not respond any further, in the hope that future readers will understand my point, and see how you failed to understand it.
Have a pleasant Easter, my friend, and I'll see you on other threads. |
|
Liberal Patriot writes:
"Some of us democratic capitalists honor democracy as much as we do capitalism. Your argument is with us--although I can see why you like to rail against the socialists. Not nearly as hard and so much more gratifying."
We'll see, we'll see. |
|
Can we pass the hat and get B-Rob some remedial courses in history, critical thinking and reading comprehension?
Just askin', is all...... |
|
|
More like; "Not with a bang, but with a whimper." Evil's always ready to fight it seems. Good responds back in kind, the rest just whine. |
|
Richard from Kent, WA writes: Friday, April, 06, 2007 11:32 AM
""It's about discipline.and resolve...
The Times of London (link below) provided this contrast between the US and British military. The difference is resolve and discipline. House Speaker Pelosi's ill-disciplined kowtow to the Syrian despots tells as our resolve and discipline will suffer under Democrats.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1596816.ece
Several months before the current hostage crisis a small group of American and Iraqi soldiers had been patrolling near the Iranian border 75 miles east of Baghdad.
They spotted a single Iranian soldier lurking in Iraqi territory near the town of Balad Ruz and moved forward to question him. The Americans were, according to a US army report obtained by The Sunday Times, promptly ambushed by a much larger platoon of Iranian soldiers who had been hiding across the nearby border.
An Iranian captain warned the Americans that “if they tried to leave their location, the Iranians would fire upon them”. For a few moments the US paratroopers must have felt as helpless as the British sailors in inflatable speedboats who were surprised 10 days ago by more heavily armed Iranian vessels.
The US incident last September ended very differently. Firing broke out. Both sides scattered and a potential hostage crisis was averted as the Americans escaped unhurt.""
Richard,
Thanks for the story you posted above. There were 16 American soldiers, and there were exactly 100 of the Iranian/Iraqi attackers. Several Americans were killed in this attack. This story you post is an extremely interesting one, and your timing couldn't have been better. You see, it just happens to be the first attack survived by the VERY SAME SOLDIER I MENTIONED IN MY POST ABOVE, WHICH READS:
Orders
There are reports that the British soldiers were ordered not to fire. I don't know if they are accurate reports, but it would explain the actions of the soldiers themselves. It would not, however, explain the actions of their superiors.
Having said that, there is a certain American soldier I am proud to know, who is currently at home recuperating from injuries sustained in the fourth deadly attack on his unit, all of which he survived in a mere 9 months in Iraq. In one earlier such attack, half a dozen armed men shot his Captain in the head, and attempted to kidnap this soldier. He turned around and killed all of the armed men and tended to his Captain, who (it turns out) was already dead. Happily enough, he will survive his injuries of the latest attack, after several surgeries to remove shrapnel. He is chomping at the bit to get back with his unit just as soon as the doctors clear him. He wants to help his unit clear Iraq of bad guys, help stabilize the new fledgling government, and make this world a little bit safer for his countrymen, his friends, and his family. You'll just have to trust me that he's deadly serious about this, as are the remaining living servicemen in his unit.
Now THAT'S A SOLDIER!
FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW, THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WARS WON AND WARS LOST. AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE THE WILL TO WIN WARS, IF THEIR SUPERIORS WILL ALLOW THEM TO DO SO. SAME GOES FOR THE BRITS. LET THESE COURAGEOUS YOUNG MEN DO WHAT THEY ARE SO WELL TRAINED TO DO, AND QUIT MEDDLING AND MICRO MANAGING THIS WAR. A QUICK AND BLOODY END TO TERRORISTS IS THE MOST HUMANE WAY TO FINISH THE JOB. A DEAD TERRORIST CAN KILL NO MORE INNOCENTS. |
|
|
I dont fault these young people as I dont know exactly what I would have done under the same circumstances. Where was their backup? Where were the big ships and why didn't they blow the Iranians out of the water? |
|
Dustdevil said:
"Richard, Thanks for the story you posted above. There were 16 American soldiers, and there were exactly 100 of the Iranian/Iraqi attackers. Several Americans were killed in this attack."
I'd guess you didn't get this additional information from the MSM, but from some military men or milblogs. Can you share your source?
The difference is resolve and discipline, both of which are determined by the people for whom you labor. This is 2000 year old problem as Paul told the Corinthians: "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-8.htm
With San Fran Nan roaming around Syria violating the Logan act, we American's are not too far behind in when it comes to uncetain trumpets. |
|
Wow! Dean you're such a tough guy and so profound with the civilization stuff.
The truth is coming out and that is not going to be good news for Iran. It will provide needed justification for an Administration with no credibility because of Iraq to deal with the Iranians more effectively. The story being told by the Brits is both chilling and a clear illustration of what we are dealing with concerning Iran. In the "long war" that will in retrospect prove to be a good thing.
|
|
kemojr writes: Friday,
"Where Was The British Navy"
Experts said: "they lacked situational awareness." In the US military this might lead disciplinary action. Read this Times of London story for more:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1596816.ece
Pasrt of what th Times of London said
"HMS Cornwall, was up to 11 miles away, too far to offer immediate cover as the British inflatables searched an Indian freighter in a routine antismuggling check. Despite all the evidence that Iran was looking to capture “blue-eyed officers”, Pike said, “there seems to have been a loss of situational awareness on the part of the folks on Cornwall that their boarding party could be snuck up on like that”.
|
|
TOADT SAY'S "no surrender Our host says that the phrase fighting was not an option could end up being the epitaph of our civilization.
Our host thesis seems to be that if the english marines were more patriotic they would have fought. Even if death were certain, they would have fought. No surrender, EVER. That is what a true patriot would do.
If they had died then Iran would not have had any bargaining chips. Yep, they should have displayed the same patriotism as the Japanese kamikazi pilots showed. They should have died."
AMEN! Can you just see the handwring if the IRANIANS would have killed the BRITS! Would TONY actually taken some advise from WINSTON?! Boy I hope so. I am amazed how many just do not understand how this changes things for IRAN. What wiil be next? Will the US NAVY take a stand if they are in this postition? I PRAY they will do what it takes. Their is just to much at stake here! SOME THINGS ARE WORTH DYING FOR! and this is one of them!
The other shame is that as soon as this happened the Allied Forces should have put a total NAVAL BLOCKADE IN PLACE. Iran would not have made it month with this type of cutoff from the world. And it would have cut them off at the knees which is long over due! But once again IRAN comes out on top just like when they took AMERICANS prisoneers for 444 day's. Or have we forgotten this also?
|
|
»»I'll not respond any further««
That's what I thought. |
|
»»I dont fault these young people as I dont know exactly what I would have done under the same circumstances.««
Yet, you fault a murderer, even though you don't understand his circumstances.
How 'bout a wifebeater? How do YOU know what he's gone through? You can understand that HIS circumstances could be understandable.
The fact is that those sailors were trained in these things, that a soldier NEVER gives the enemy ANYTHING, that he keeps on fighting, and he NEVER makes his country look bad.
In this case, what damage has been done to the UK as the result of the confessions and the friendly howdy-dos with Adolf Ahmadinejad? How will this weakness the UK showed play out tomorrow, or next week, month, year? How will that weakness be focused on America tomorrow, next week, month, year? Maybe Iran is now emboldened to try it out on us. What then? |
|
So, they say they were coerced into confessing.
Anybody can say that AFTER they confessed to something they know they should have confessed to. They wanna say something, then separate themselves from all responsibility for saying it. Fancy, but not fancy enough.
They said it, and they ought to be held accountable for saying what they said. |
|
o, it comes down to this: American soldiers and marines follow a warrior's code of honor and duty, and see their manhood as the size of pickle jars, whilst British marines desperately look for their balls with tweezers and microscopes.
Anyone wanna bet that our Marines will fordver look at the Brits as completely hairless pussies? |
|
|
|
"The credo of Bush, Cheney, DeLay
Gingrich, Guiliani and a whole slew of Viet Nam War avoiders. Shouldn't we punish them first?"
Errr...ummm... what is their "credo" and EXACTLY what should "we" "punish" them for? Who is we?
Pour yourself another cosmopolitan ( the perfectly named drink of the Vacuous Left) and go to sleep.
|
|
»»Gingrich, Guiliani and a whole slew of Viet Nam War avoiders. Shouldn't we punish them first? ««
How about punishing those, like me, who went to Germany? Those who went to Italy should REALLY get it, no?
The point is that many went into the service and did their duty no matter where they were sent and served.
George Bush served where he was sent to do the duty he was assigned.
There were those who ligitimately did civilian work and didn't have to go in because of the importance of their work, or study.
Draft dodging isn't legitimate.
However, these Brits sung like canaries, and they damaged the ability of the UK and, probably, the US in their relations with goofballs like Iran. |
|
That's the question commenter (_I_) asks. He bets I found "fighting not an option." It's true - I copped out and told me Draft board that I was four years old.
The shame of hiding behind my youth stings me still. |
|
ChairmanMao tells us firsthand accounts of what happens in other countries under "true-believers" martialistic regimes and some of our enlightened intellectual libs STILL don't get it! They have the nerve to lecture him on what SHOULD be instead of what is. They then posit scenarios that aren't even close to what he actually lived in real life! Amazing. I guess the Libpacs have to see the turbans in their living rooms before they give up their utopian view of how things SHOULD be.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
This should be the proud motto of libs everywhere to make themselves feel better. I always said that a liberal lifestyle and mindset is the easy way out.
|
|
|
Perhaps a change of scenery.... |
|
I love the 102nd wing of the arm chair relativists who keep asking when all of us normal people are going to put on a uniform. My question is: "When are you going to sign up, put on a uniform and fight against us formally?" Or do you just get to lay there while others provide for you?
Why do we have to fight the enemy alone? Don't you get to wallow in the freedoms of irresponsibility provided by the military? When are you going to do your part? I get it, the U.S. owes you, right? Those terrorists are no worse than misunderstood disenfranchised criminals. They'll never strike here. You can just sit back and taunt us who are trying to keep our Western Civilization strong while you undermine it.
BTW- i am armed and ready so i don't need to join up. The problem will be deciding on whom is the bigger enemy first when the time comes. |
|
I am not a military stratigist and would like some clarification. My understanding is that we have 1.4+ million active duty troups and 1.5 million reserves.
If we have a pool of 2.9 million personel, why are we extending tours of duty and recycling the same guard units back into Iraq. Do we only have 150,000 troups that are combat ready?
It looks to me like the military needs a major overhaul. If we have that many people in uniform why is the "military broken" or on the "verge of collapse"? It sounds like utter political posturing and MSM blather to me.
Would someone who actually understands the current military situation explain these issues?
|
|
Those of you judging the "cowardice" of the captured British sailors disgust me.
How many of you are combat veterans, and have been in that situation yourselves? If the answer is none, then STFU.
In fact, how many of you have exhibited bravery in the face of certain death under ANY circumstances whatsoever? If the answer is none, then STFU.
You morons probably don't know this, but the most successful military effort in this f'd-up war are the joint spec-ops teams like Task Force 145, made up in part by members of the British SAS.
How many of you who have judged these British sailors as cowards have a yellow ribbon on your vehicles announcing that you "Support the Troops"? Probably all of you. What a bunch of hypocrites you are. You collectively make me want to vomit.
Jeffrey
http://www.idolator.net
|
|
No, it had to do with "pay as you go". If congress added an additional expenditure, they were supposed to offset it with cutting another expenditure--it was supposed to lead to a balanced budget. In a way, he was pointing out the Republican hypocrisy about low to no taxes and "smaller" government.
Kennedy and Clinton say they told him not to vote that way--the vote would be mischaracterized and would be used against him and they were right.
Thanks for answering my question. |
|
For the most part I fall into the camp who feel the Brits should be given the benefit of doubt. That said, one can't help but wonder if the situation could have been handled more effectively.
A few thoughts to ponder:
1. Had the Brits remained on board, would the Iranians dared to initiate a fire fight on a civilian ship? Better to spread out in defensive positions on the ship than to cluster as sitting ducks on a RHIB boat. Of course this begs the question; were they in fact trying to run away?
2. Why did the Brit helo abandon her men after sighting the boats? The only answer that makes sense here is: because they were ordered to do so. If true, then it's also logical to assume that the boarding party was also ordered to stand down.
3. If the suppositions above are true, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that the boarding party found themselves in a tactically indefensible position because they were ordered to stand down. By so doing, they got caught with their "pants down".
4. The million dollar question is, who was calling the shots that day? If it was Skipper, you can bet they would have hung him out to dry long ago.
|
|
»»Those of you judging the "cowardice" of the captured British sailors disgust me.««
So what?
»»How many of you are combat veterans, and have been in that situation yourselves? ««
Irrelevant.
I don't have to be hit by a truck to know it hurts.
Those sailors were not in combat. They didn't fire a shot. Nobody shot at them. That submitted to a gang of thugs and, later, sang like canaries to protect themselves instead of their country.
No tellin' how much damage they did to the effort to rid the world of terrorism. No tellin' how ineffective we will now be because our enemies perceive weakness.
»»In fact, how many of you have exhibited bravery in the face of certain death under ANY circumstances whatsoever? ««
Typical "gotcha" questions intended to wrangle, manipulate, the victim into an answer preconceived by the questioner.
»»You morons probably don't know this, but the most successful military effort in this f'd-up war are the joint spec-ops teams like Task Force 145, made up in part by members of the British SAS.««
And YOU probably don't know THIS: namecalling damages your case.
»»How many of you who have judged these British sailors as cowards have a yellow ribbon on your vehicles announcing that you "Support the Troops"?««
Irrelevant.
I can support the troops without a ribbon.
In fact, I live about six miles from Luke Air Force Base, and, whenever I see military, I stop them out of the blue and thank them.
Just the other day, I had to speak up to an Air Force Tech Sargeant 40 feet away and thank him cuz I just couldn't let the opportunity pass. A lot of people heard me, and none of them seconded the motion. Despicable.
When was the last time YOU stopped military, shook his hand and thanked him, or do you feel that yellow ribbons are good enough?
»»What a bunch of hypocrites you are. You collectively make me want to vomit.««
Thanks for the judgment and the stereotype. |
|
...It didn't matter what that TS's job is and where he's assigned. He is on duty, as assigned, and he is serving his country.
Whatever he does, it helps those who are in battlefield danger cuz he supplies SOMETHING to the effort so that those on the battlefield and over it can do their jobs better and feel that at least SOMEBODY is behind them. |
|
Y'know, THAT's a good question, even if I say so myself:
WHAT ARE LIBS DOING TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS?
cuz all I see and hear are complaints, bitchin' and moanin'. I see and hear nothing positive coming from Libs.
So, Libs, tell us what you're doing to support the troops.
Don't tell us THAT you support the troops cuz that and a dollar will buy a cup of coffee. It's worthless.
What we wanna know is precisely WHAT you're doing to support the troops. |
|
»»For the most part I fall into the camp who feel the Brits should be given the benefit of doubt.««
Doubt about what? What their training and love of country tells them to do?
Does "benefit of doubt" translate into, "Well, training is just training, and 'love of country,' is passé"? They mean nothing any more?
If all this is about passifying the enemy, thinking that he is really of a good heart and is generous, why not just give him our country now and get it overwith?
That said, one can't help but wonder if the situation could have been handled more effectively.
»»Had the Brits remained on board, would the Iranians dared to initiate a fire fight on a civilian ship?««
Their brothers -- nineteen of them -- crashed jetliners into buildings and into the ground, killing thousands at almost one time. So, you tell me.
»»The million dollar question is, who was calling the shots that day?««
The officer on the scene has the best look, and he is expected to make the right decision. That decision does not include surrendering without a shot and does not include badmouthing your country to the enemy for your own comfort. |
|
Jeffrey, I've never been in combat, but I did have to talk my way out of an ugly encounter with armed Pathet Lao soldiers a long time ago in Laos, where Howard Dean's brother disappeared a few months after I was there. So if that's your test, I passed it.
But your logic really, really sucks. You act as though ONLY civilians lacking military experience are critical of the Brits. As a corollary you heavily imply that ONLY ex-military, and ONLY ex-military who have been in the position the Brits were, can have valid opinions about the matter. And it appears you think all former soldiers would be sympathetic to the Brits' plight.
I guess you haven't heard the many combat vets (such as MOH winner Col. Jack Jacobs) who are disgusted by the British weenies, err..marines...ESPECIALLY their behavior AFTER they were captured. You want to defend that? If you do, then try explaining why non-military and military alike can make the same arguments, but only the latter group's opinions are valid. Free clue: you've committed the fallacy of CREDENTIALISM.
I notice from your blog that you confess to suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, so here's a poser for you: Have you ever been POTUS and had the duties and responsibilities of a CINC? If not, applying your standard, what the EFF are you doing criticizing GWB's handling of Iraq?
See how easy it is to play your stupid game? |
|
Richard from Kent, Wa writes:
"I'd guess you didn't get this additional information from the MSM, but from some military men or milblogs. Can you share your source?"
Yes, of course. My source is the soldier himself, who happens to be a family friend and a former classmate, water polo teammate, and poker buddy of my two sons. His dad and uncle have known my wife since high school. His dad is also a source.
This soldier has been the survivor of four deadly attacks so far, about 9 months into his tour, and this latest attack almost got him. He will soon be a purple heart recipient, among other medals, for his conduct. He will be returning to Iraq as soon as the doctor clears him and his CO approves his paperwork. He wants to get back and help his unit end this fight.
The attack of which you spoke was the first of the four attacks he has survived, in which a buddy of his was killed, one Captain Rhett Schiller. 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Div. |
|
Any time a military squad, during wartime, decides to board any ship, it is incumbent upon their leadership to provide two things:
1) Sufficient tactical training and discipline to be fully prepared for a deadly firefight with those who may be responsible for the subject of the search. British guns should have been drawn, cocked, and locked.
and
2) Backup consisting of overwhelming force sufficient to engage the very sort of kidnap party that took them hostage in this particular instance.
Failure to provide these two things is a certain recipe for disaster, as we have seen. It is the responsibility of leadership on scene, not simply the soldiers.
One can argue that this could not have been foreseen. But one would have been wrong. Coalition forces, including UN Forces in Afghanistan, are at constant and unrelenting risk of capture and kidnap 24/7. This is a war, but it appears not everyone is aware of the fact. |
|
Sorry, Richard.
I have just been told I have two incidents mixed up. The attack in which Captain Rhett Schiller died was the second attack on my sons' friend. The one of which you spoke was earlier that fall, and it is most likely the same one of which you write. |
|
JayHub
Thanks for posting all that. My question on the code of conduct for Brits is not whether they should give up when they are obviously outnumbered, sometimes that is necessary to save lives, but what their conduct should be once taken captive.
However what the officer said was very telling; "the Iranians are not are enemy, we are not at war with Iran", this shows a complete lack of understanding and naivety for who is fighting us over there.
I think the British Army would disagree that Iran is not our enemy, or should not be treated as such.
This was a propaganda hit piece by Iran that those sailors fell right into. Had they had ANY serious training in this kind of thing, they could have stuck together and not given the Iranians so much free propaganda. |
|
|
|