Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Dean Barnett :: Townhall.com Columnist
What ever happened to "Let's Roll"
by Dean Barnett
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



On 9/11, the passengers aboard United Flight 93 had an option – they could rely on the good intentions of their captors or they could fight back. When presented with this Hobson’s choice, they responded with the words “Let’s roll.” Their ensuing actions were the very definition of heroism.

A few weeks ago, 15 British seamen and marines, soldiers of the Royal Navy, found themselves in a similar quandary. Belligerent Iranians had surrounded them and threatened them with both words and actions. Just as the passengers on Flight 93 had a choice, so too did the British seamen who ultimately spent a couple of weeks as hostages of the Iranian regime. Why did these soldiers, the products of military training and representatives of Her Majesty’s flag, make the decision to surrender themselves? Because, according to their Captain at a Friday press conference, “Fighting back was simply not an option.”

What a strange and dismal trip it has been for the Western world, going from “Let’s Roll” to “Fighting Back Was Not An Option” in scarcely more than five years. One can only hope that when the history of our era is written, the former will turn out to be the immortal quote, not the latter.

IT MAY SEEM EASY AND UNSEEMLY FOR A KEYBOARD WARRIOR like me to criticize the conduct of the British troops. Perhaps it is too easy; I have never been in a situation comparable to the one these men (and woman) were in. I can’t say with any confidence how I would respond.

But I can say with some confidence how I would hope to respond; I hope my response would be nothing like that of the British seamen. And I’d like to think my life experience has helped me arrive at this worldview. A half-decade of serious illness has forced me to accustom myself to looking death squarely in the eye on an ongoing basis. At some point, you come to a realization that death is inevitable. And you also come to appreciate that there are things worse than death. Just as there are things worth living for, there are things worth dying for. One’s own honor and especially the honor of one’s country must be among those things if you don the uniform of your country’s military.

In spite of the foregoing, I understand and acknowledge that my résumé for discussing such matters is slight. But MSNBC military analyst Jack Jacobs’ is not.

Jacobs won the Medal of Honor for his heroism in Vietnam. According to his Medal of Honor citation, Jacobs received the Medal “For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.”

With his company under intense enemy fire and the command group having suffered heavy casualties, “Capt. Jacobs assumed command of the allied company, ordered a withdrawal from the exposed position and established a defensive perimeter. Despite profuse bleeding from head wounds which impaired his vision, Capt. Jacobs, with complete disregard for his safety, returned under intense fire to evacuate a seriously wounded advisor to the safety of a wooded area where he administered lifesaving first aid. He then returned through heavy automatic weapons fire to evacuate the wounded company commander. Capt. Jacobs made repeated trips across the fire-swept open rice paddies evacuating wounded and their weapons. On 3 separate occasions, Capt. Jacobs contacted and drove off Viet Cong squads who were searching for allied wounded and weapons, single-handedly killing 3 and wounding several others. His gallant actions and extraordinary heroism saved the lives of 1 U.S. advisor and 13 allied soldiers.”

I had the pleasure of meeting Captain Jacobs for a few minutes about a year ago. He’s a small man, and you don’t look at him and instantly think “war hero.” It’s precisely for this reason that his valor is so poignant. For a nation to be great and its military to be great, it needs ordinary men to do extraordinary things. It also needs ordinary men who are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices.

Jack Jacobs watched the English press conference where the soldiers’ Captain declared that “fighting back was simply not an option.” Like me, Jacobs was horrified. Because of his military experience, Jacobs was personally outraged as well.

Asked by an MSNBC hostess for his feelings about the released soldiers and their press conference, Jacobs inveighed on-air, “That was the most disgusting, disreputable, dishonorable performance I can remember in more than 40 years of my relationship with the military service. I think every man every woman, who wears the uniform or has ever worn the uniform of his country, no matter what country it is, ought to be disgusted by this…Words can’t express my disgust.”

To some, the returning British soldiers may be heroes. If we have so defined heroism down, woe be unto us all.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Dean Barnett blogs almost daily at HughHewitt.com. He has also been a frequent contributor to the Weekly Standard's online edition, The Daily Standard. He can be reached for comment at soxblog@aol.com.

Be the first to read Dean Barnett's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Re:What ever happened to "Let's Roll"
Dean Barnett is comparring apples and oranges.

1. Britain is not at war with Iran.
2. The boat was not going to be used as a missle against innocent civilians as the plane in Flight 93 was.
3. Fighting back may well have escalated tensions into war unnecessarily.
4. Their situation was much like the U.S. Navy ship that was seized by the North Koreans quite some time ago for allegedly being in North Korea's territorial waters.
5. Anyone in uniform who puts themselves in harms way for their country is a hero by definition.

JP
Great story on the Marines in Tehran.

As I've stated before, I served with one of them in the early 80's and his hatred for Jimma Karter nkew no limits. He often gave classes on the situation and how the quisling libstain's prevented the Marines from doing what they were trained to do...protecting the Embassy!

Libscum should reference Pvt Dan Daly and his defense of the US Embassy during the Boxer Rebellion before you whine and mewl about Carter.

Lastly, check my blog from AZZKICKING pics. INCLUDING a nice collection of the HILDABEAST HERSELF!

baseballdoc
In keeping with their fine liberal traditions of warriorhood, the Dhimmicratic Party has changed "Let's Roll," into, "Let's BEND OVER!"

I guess they can't change their Francois Kerry nature.

The Captive Brits
... are getting book "deals" with the approval of their government.

I guess that's the reward for being "captured" these days.

Dean

to answer your question:

Holywood made a movie out of "Let's Roll".

Amen to that
I'm as big a coward as the next person, but there is no way I would allow myself to be filmed wearing a head scarf. They wouldn't be able to get it on me, and if they did hold me down and tie it on my head? They'd have to tie both my hands to a chair to keep me from ripping it off my head.

And smoking a cigarette? She obviously had one hand free, didn't she?

I'd die before I gave them the satisfaction. And I'm a chain smoker! I can't imagine torture worse than not being able to smoke.

I'd rather have my fingernails ripped out.

But I still would not have smoked on camera. And if I had one hand free? Yeah, I'd have one drag on that cigarette and then I'd fling it at them and rip the scarf off my head.

Good luck with that visual.

dyerje
your wisdom and insight is to be applauded. I hope to encourage you to continue to post on TH as you help to enlighten and educate myself and I am sure many others who are not as grounded and articulate as yourself. thank you.

JP's questions
Regarding your 12:33 post, you might want to check out my 3:01 and 4:35 posts from yesterday. They're long but include some answers that are either known from reporting on the incident, or known from my experience.

We'll see where all this goes. The urge to be incremental is overwhelming at all times; people can rarely overcome it, and I don't expect our leaders to in this instance.

I appreciate your comments, though, because they take the emphasis off of ROE (most people here don't even know what ROE are), and put it where it belongs: on political objectives, strategy, and operations. ROE can't save us when we've made stupid strategic and operational choices, which are what led to the British hostage incident.

The bottom line is that it's taking us too long to serve an ultimatum on Iran, and put the face-off with Tehran back on OUR terms. The longer we wait, and continue to merely detain Iranians in Iraq, the longer we will be vulnerable to Iran's signature counter-hostage-taking methods.

Comments from a Marine
Taken Hostage in Iran in 1979:

Commenter FormerHostage wrote a response to my question. Given his first hand experience of the 444 days Americans were held hostage by Iranian radicals from November 4th, 1979, to January 20th, 1981, I think everyone should give this a read:

As my screenname indicates, I can speak with Complete Moral Authority (tm) on this issue.

On the day of the takeover, the Marines were outnumbered at least 1000 to 1. We held the consulate and the communications vault for over 12 hours, helping to destroy equipment and classified material. We were under STRICT orders not to fire our weapons or pop gas grenades (too late for that last one..hee, hee, hee). We were eventually told that we were on or own and to make a break for it. The monkeys even put one of the diplomats in front of the comm vault peep eye with a pistol to their head and threatened to kill them unless the door was opened. It wasn't and they didn't. Once all the material was destroyed the doors were opened and they all got the crap beat out of them.

When we were first taken, the Iranians took us into a room individually and asked us to sign a statement denouncing the US policy in Iran, Israel, the Shah, etc. The Marines signed with names such as Michael Mouse, Chesty Puller, Dan Daly (google the last two...Marine Corps legends), Harry Butz, etc.

During the ordeal they would try to tape us for propaganda purposes. Personally, I would keep looking down to the ground or hide behind others so that my face wouldn't show (in fact, after a couple of months of not seeing me in any of the videos my records I was classified as MIA). Another Marine and I shared the same cell and when they came in with cameras we'd strip down. I heard a rumor that one of the other Marines smeared ketchup on his face and started howling.

They day before they released us, we were taken to a room with a camera and Mary the Terrorist who was going to interview us. We were threatened that if we didn't say the right things we wouldn't be released. Some Marines gave only name rank and SSN, others sang (Marine Corps Hymn or God Bless America), others just said nothing.

On the day they let us go, I was being herded towards the airplane by a couple of those monkeys. I pulled my arm out of their grasp and let them know that "We're number one"...but used the wrong finger.

For our troubles we were isolated, thumped, went through two mock executions, starved, threatened, and had to put up with useful idiots from Amnesty International showing up just to let the world know how humane we were being treated.

We resisted at each opportunity, except for Army Sgt Joe Subic who collaborated from day 1 and was later snubbed by the rest of us (and was the only one not to receive a citation). We refused to cooperate, stole keys, plugged toilets, pissed in their rations, blew circuit breakers, laughed in their face when they threatened us and cursed them when they beat us. Steve Kirtley even told one of them to pull his finger! The monkey did and Steve was beaten for the inevitable result.

We did this because we were first and foremost, MARINES! Our honor and loyalty to the United States gave us the courage. We would rather die (and that was a definite possibility) than to shame ourselves, our Corps, or our Country. We had to live up to our history and got to measure ourselves and our actions against those of greater men.

Yes, we broke now and then. But would immediately pick ourselves back up and go back to fighting. Which, by the way, confused the hell out of the monkeys!

Pity the poor Brits. All they had was the history of the E.U. and the U.N. as examples.

Semper Fi


The DeGaulle Task Force
joined the 2 Naval task forces already in the Gulf. With 2 more Carrier Battle Groups on the way to the Persian Gulf, it is no wonder the Iranians are acting this way. What does surprise me is that French are joining the Americans is this effort to control the Iranian Nuclear threat. Rumour has it that 4 US bomber groups are on stand by to fly to destinations unknown (probably Diego Garcia).

The Iranians know thier little gambit with the Brits went too far. Tony Blair, besides being horribly embarrased, is extremely angry not only at his own Navy, but at the Iranians. Could it be that the EU is finally waking up?

Iran, depsite having some of the largest reserves of crude oil, cannot pay its bills; the Russians pulled thier technicians out last month due to the Iranians being several billions in arrears. Iran must import 100% of its refined gasoline, and it subsidizes its own domestic petrol programs (Iranians only pay 50 cents per gallon for gas).

If the US decides to get tough and begins to hit Iran's strategic facilities, not only will its nuclear program go up in smoke, but probably its oil distribution facilities as well. Every nickel it puts into developing nukes, as well as funding for Hamas and Hezbollah comes from thier oil exports. The price of oil is sure to sky rocket temporairily, but the long term benefits of a weaker Iran are hard to overlook. Our bombing may just trigger a civil war against the Mullahs themselves.

In the long run, the actions of a few British sailors could actually work in our favor. There may be just enough pride left in the Europeans to end this charade. BTW, the Charles DeGaulle itself has enought fire power to destroy the Iranian Navy in about 10 minutes.


I take back my earlier comments
Mark Steyn on the bidding war over the 15 sailors

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/331879,CST-EDT-STEYN08.article

Check out Scott Johnson's take "Britannia Waive the Rules" at

http://www.powerlineblog.com/ too:

Clearly, some of us, especially me have cut these sailors too much slack. These guys clearly don't understand "Semper fidelis". I'm going to be sick.

Questions That Need Answers
1)The exact location of the HMS Cornwall has changed at least 3 times. Where was the Cornwall in relation to the gunboats? The gunboats were outfitted with high speed motors, how did they allow themselves to get surrounded by the Iranians?

2)The Cornwall had 2 attack helos, why weren't the helos flying support for the Marines? Why were the Marines sent out to patrol an area so close to Iranian waters? This isn't the first time the Iranians attempted such a stunt.

3)What were the exact Rules of Engagement given to the Marines and sailors prior to thier patrol?Where were the helos?

4)The Cornwall had to have the 4 Iranian gunboats on radar before the incident occured. Why wasn't the British sailors alerted to the Iranian encirclement, again where was the air support?

5)Did the Marines ask for a "clairification" on the rules of engagement. The first day of the crisis, the captain of the Cornwall admitted that it was his fault that the sailors never put up a fight. As a matter of fact, the initial reports were that the Cornwall was actually boarded.

6)Why didn't the Cornwall open fire with its 5 inch canons, Borfors or Harpoons once the Iranian boats intentions became obvious (between the time the Iranians went into Iraqi waters and the time they surrounded the Brits?

Any liberal who defended the captain on account of creating a "war incident between Iran and Great Britain" are mistaken. Iran's navy is quite small and useless. The Iranians essientially committed an act of war at worst, or an act of piracy at best. This incicdent indicated that the British commander on the scene was more interested in his own career than the welfare of his sailors, the honor of his service, or the security of his nation. The navy commander's actions should be investigated. If he was receiving direct orders from his Admiral not to engage, than it should be brought to light; an Admiral cannot order a navy commander from defending his own sailors.

This incident is a disgrace to the once proud Royal Navy. Nelson and Collingsworth must be turining in thier graves.

Let's Roll

.....has morphed into "Roll Over" (Roll me over in the clover and do it again) .....COLOSSUS

US Military Code of Conduct
Article I
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Article II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

Article III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

Article IV
Should I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Article V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

Article VI
I will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

Happy Easter!

NOT RESPONDING is Not an Option
Ignoring the but-you-can't-do-that crowd for the moment, I would like to think forward to what the US would do in the future in a similar skirmish. Assuming the sailors get captured in the first place instead of going down in an effort to defend themselves, I would like to think that the American military would begin military action the next day. After the Iranians ignored the demand for release that the US would issue later that day; after President Bush showed the world satellite photos proving our claims to be in neutral waters; after Iran came up empty with any proof to the contrary: I would like to think the American military machine would direct decisive, devastating, and brief arms fire against a known Iranian military facility, then declare that such retaliation would continue sporadically, incessantly, and without warning on other targets until the prisoners were unconditionally released.

That's what I would like to think would happen.

(BTW, great article, Dean)

Is Object to Die or To Return Home?
John McCain says that when his captors demanded to know the names of his military group he gave them the starting lineup of the Green Bay Packers. This sounds to me like he was doing what he needed to do to stay alive. Would it have been better for him to say, "Kill me if you will, but I won't tell you what you are asking" ?

The 15 British sailors got themselves released from captivity in two weeks with nobody getting beheaded. They're home safe. Does that count at all with you blood-thirsty townhall folks?

You wanted them to have a shootout with their captors. I remember how delighted you were when the report came that Jessica Lynch had fought and fought and shot until she ran out of ammo. Then it came to light that the whole story was a White House PR lie invented because it would play so well in Peoria---she went just as quietly as the Brits did.

Lets Roll....no Worries
No Worries, there will be another chance for full out war any day now. The Blood letting is delayed for a bit, but it will come. Lets send the message that we will suffer a bit of humiliation to avoid killing . We should congratulate the Iranians on still having, a navy, an airforce, that they realize how close they came to loosing both. Roll and Roll we will before Iran goes nuclear, if there is to be an Iran after the dust settles. I’ll suffer a little humiliation, I think it is a better feeling than the victory feeling of knowing that most of a country has been reduced to ash.

Cheap suits
Sorry to say these 15 brits folded like cheap suits. Fighting not an option my butt, they were scared and cowardly, seeing them with their little "gift bags" and cheap new suits all smiles shaking hands with the midget dictator holocoust denier made me sick.

I would have had a mind to reach over and gouge out his eyes rather than shake hands with him.

15 days, tell that to John McCain, tell that to all the brave men who with stood years of torture before breaking, tell that to the U.S.Marines tell that to the millions of men who fought the Nazis to the death.

The Grand Gift of The Brits
Watching the Brits deal with their hostage situation brought back memories of Jimmy Carter asking his 9 year old daughter what to do.

No difference between the GOP and the Dems huh?

To all the absolutist who insist on putting the Islamic threat on the back burner and joining the Dems in bashing the only man the terrorists fear...count the months when Bush will be gone and you'll have Queen Hil or Brother Obama to face the hostage takers.

Will we also apologize and wring our hands in frustration?

Don't worry...you may not have your pride--but you'll still have your "principles".


Goshawk, you're amazing ...
Goshawk writes: "An observation..
I would say it's amazing, but not surprising. How the Liberals posting here turn even this "British Incident" into America's and Bush's fault! God how I hate the Liberal mind-set. Those that think like them are far more dangerous to our country than any external enemy could possibly be!"

I couldn't agree with you more. The Neo-Nazis on here just can't see beyond their pointy noses, can they? When the Islamofascists monitor these sites, they are licking their flea-bitten chops over the rancor and idiocy of the citizens of this country. In fact, some of them pose as one of "us" to try and sway our thinking. If any of you don't believe that, try reading AmericanCongressForTruth.com sometime. From reading all of this diatribe, I've not only got a major headache, but I think we've even got a few on this board. Not mentioning any names, but those who have Neo-Nazi Kool-Aid in their cups know WHO they are, and their aim at insult and hatred makes them strong suspects.

I remember my country as being the "United" States, not the Un-united States. We already fought that war, and we'd better be pulling together now before its too late. The enemy we face today is dedicated to our destruction and anyone who doesn't realize that is a fool.

BTW, karen, the ayatollah thingy - Your party Dimwit Jimmy-the-Peanut is the wiseguy who authored the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, and guess what he got in place of...that's RIIIIGHT...the good ol' ayatollah, and we've had nothing but trouble with Iran ever since. At least the Shah could be worked with!

Jimmy-the-Peanut also GAVE back the Panama Canal to Panama instead of keeping it as a US property SINCE WE BUILT THE DAMN THING! This country has gotten a royal screwing alright, but MOST of it has been at the hands of the dimwit Demoncrap party. So don't give me this Neo-Con crap. If it wasn't for us, you Neo-Nazis would be speaking German right now and as it is, you may even be speaking Farsi and wearing burkhas if you don't decide which side of the road is the right side.

Let's roll?
There's, "Let's Roll!!" and "Let's Roll...over." That was the line I was expecting from you, Dean.

Jimbo.

JayHub
Yeah, it does seem to be two different conversations.

I have no opinion on the capture. I don't know the circumstances, and normally one has to defer to the commander on the ground (or water, I guess).

My whole issue is with their deplorable conduct as POWs.


Man with the Big Iron
Duty, Honor, Country, words that seemed to be so consistent years ago and were taken in one form or another from our British brothers of old. Many of us would and did risk our lives for them. The Brits seem to have lost them, whether it be their high command or the 15 involved. If their mission were to simply inspect cargo, then why did they have any weapons at all, save perhaps a personal sidearm? If their orders were to immediately surrender when confronted, wherever, whenever or by whomever and thereafter, in captivity to act as though a constant "party's goin' on" and to make cordial, happy public statements (albeit with secret code words, so secret that my Buck Rodgers decoder ring didn't figure them out), then my apologies to all for my posts, but I wonder in that case, if all their boats come with white flags-just a thought.
If that were not the case, then the Brits need to take a long look at their military from the top down and cashier the babies in the Zodiacs. Come to think about it, the Greenpeace, Save the Whales nuts, put these guys and a gal to shame.
Grip Hands.
Wolfhound, 1/27th Inf, VN

Doug: No sweat
I AM an Old Timer, and apparently it's official.

LOL


brianr
didnt mean to push the old timer issue. I just think these Brits are getting the royal shaft here in this article, and in the comments.

Brian R
Yes, I agree that there appear to have been real problems with the troops reaction in captivity.

There are two different discussions here. The capture and the captivity. I've been flying all day so got in this discussion late and was reacting to Dean's column, which was mostly about the capture and "fighting back not being an option." He's been harping on it, this is maybe the fourth column, and I think he's way off base on the capture.

I spent some time a few days ago trying to find regs for the RM's on the Ministry of Defense website about what they're supposed to do in captivity. No luck, and I haven't seen any other posts that have been specific on that point. We do know the ROE's the troops were operating under in the capture situation, but after that it's still a blank as far as I've seen.

JayHub
I don't think the issue is about the surrender itself. There is such a thing as an honorable surrender, and certainly circumstances under which it's warranted.

I think the real issue, at least it is for me, is the conduct of the captives, and their toadying and sucking up to their captors. They were virtually fawning, and it was a pretty disgusting display. They maintained not one vestige of martial attitude. They acted like a bunch of high school kids caught drinking behind the gym.

That's the problem.


Doug, Thank you
I appreciate the update. That's why I qualified my era of experience. I didn't realize it was so out of date. Of course, Fred Flintstone was the First Sergeant, so I guess that should have clued me in.

Anyway.

Frankly, I don't think it sounds like the change was a good one.

But again, I also think the M-14 was the best battle rifle ever made.

Man, I've finally officially become an Old Timer!




Oh, BS, Dean
BS, Dean. The choice of the passengers on Flight 93 was not between trusting the good intentions of the hijackers and fighting back. The choice of the passengers on Flight 93 was between dying passively and fighting back. The passengers and crew had became aware, through cell phone calls, of what had happened to the other three planes. They knew they were going to die if they did not fight, they fought back and we rightly honor them for that.

There is simply no analogy between Flight 93 and the British marines.

The point here is that the UK is NOT at war with Iran. This is not Viet Nam, WWII, Korea, the 300, or any other or any other situation where the Rules of Engagement say you see an enemy soldier, you shoot him.

The Iranians were not enemy soldiers. The Iranian soldiers were not even "enemy combatants." They were simply soldiers of another country who were arresting them, claiming that the British were in their territorial waters, a right any country has.

The British officer may have thought they were wrong, he may have known they were wrong, but they were still just representatives of another government that his country was NOT AT WAR with. The only rule he had to follow was that he could fire if he was fired upon, or it was evident that the Iranians would fire.

Firing on enemy soldiers is always the first resort, firing on soldiers of a country you are not at war with is always a last resort.

The British officer made absolutely the right professional decision to accept capture, let the diplomats handle it, and not create a incident right then and there that could start a war.

I have watched Col Jacobs response, and I honor his service and his Medal of Honor. I have a Medal of Honor winner in my family from the Civil War.

But I still have questions. He's mostly talking about the British troops response in captivity and I have a lot of questions about that too, but I simply do not understand based on the above that as a professional military officer himself he would say that the British officer's decision was incorrect in the situation.

As I said, this was not a combat situation in war. This was not about saying "OK, I give up," rather than "Aw, Nuts" at Bastogne. This was not Viet Nam. This was not about honor in combat. This was about making a reasoned and professional decision in a political and diplomatic situation.

If the British officer's decision was between getting his people out of the situation safely or starting a war, he clearly did the right thing.

If, however, like the folks on the Flight 93 did, he knew that the Iranians were going to kill them all, then he should of opened fire, as his rules of engagement permitted. But he did not have that expectation, and rightfully so, and so his good judgment, and his services rules of engagement, kept him from firing.

Absolutely right.

The kettle is black!
What is worth fighting and dying for?

Since that traitor FDR sold our nation out to the socialist ideal the American people have rolled over and refused to fight for their freedom. When the ATF imprison law abiding citizens for petty "violations" of illegal gun laws who among us has fought back? When jack-booted thugs murdered innocent women and children at Waco who among us had the courage to fight back? When Randy Weavers wife was shot in the head while nursing a child and his son was shot in the back running for his life from camouflage wearing intruders who fought back? When that traitor Bush 41 declared Americans have no need for "military looking" semi-automatic rifles, in blatant violation of the second amendment, who among us fought back? Instead of fighting for our rights our "leaders" stood up and APPLAUDED when he made his illegal declaration. When the federal government makes tax laws so complicated that no two IRS agents can agree what is legal and what is not who among us stood up and said ENOUGH!

It's easy to blame those British soldiers for refusing to fight back when faced with illegal actions. However, America has refused to fight back for decades when faced with blatant violations of our rights. Rights our soldiers fought and died for since 1775.

We are more guilty of inaction that those British soldiers because we know what freedom is and we let our politicians take it from us for a perceived feeling of security.

Ronald Reagan once said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction."

Was he right?




sorry for spellin
my mental spell check not so good

brianr
Youre interpretation of prisoner conduct seems to be a bit out dated I was in the Navy from 84-99 and there were explicit courses as to how far you had to resist interigation one of the limits was definatley the life of fellow prisoners. My understanding is that the requirements for resistence were much reduced after studing the overall benefits to torture resistence during vietnam.

What ever happened to "Let's Roll.."
Wow! What a compelling article. Captain Jacobs, a man of men. It would be an honor to meet you.

In the 7 years I served in the USN (started under Ronaldus Magnus, ended under Bill the Philanderer), I have never encountered such levels of incompetence and cowardliness.

My boss stated the other day that money was being spent for the war, and there was no return here at home. My GOD, have we forgotten what this is all about?! 1938 - 1939 all over again. Failure to learn from history. The funny part, my boss is Jewish, ethnically so. I'll remind him of this when the Islamfascists are here to kill him and his children that this was the "return here at home", preventing the arrival of the Islamfascists.

What will it take? 3,000 killed in a single day on our own soil. Those who have any doubts have experience too much luxury in their life.

I pray for my children and will be prepare them for the worse...

But speaking of moonbattery
Who is this foul-mouthed b1t@h, kansas karen?

And how can any of you give her the time or credibility of even wasting space responding to her rubbish?

Vespanat: You are a gentleman, sir
You've apparently signed off, as you wished all a Happy Easter. And to you.

I appreciate your tip o' the hat. That takes real class. If you drop back by, I hope you see this.

And at some point when you're back around, I'd love to debate the gun issue further with you. It does seem you're able to discuss without flying off into hyperbolic moonbattery.

Take care.

krennkc
You say your nephew is a U. S. Marine. You say you are planning to start you life with a National Guardsmen. You say they’ve both been there. You say you nephew is over there now and has reenlisted. But then you say that you don’t want them to “go back for the likes of [us]” and you continue by saying that we here on TH “are so obsessed with politics [we] don’t even care about the troops.” Nothing, could be more further from the truth.

Many of us here have served in combat and many of us would return if we could but we’re too old. All of us on the right support our troops. Town Hall is but one means of doing what we can to right the left’s lies and other crap. Right now it’s the only way we can fight. But, all of us on the right will fight them here in the streets of our cities if the left gets it way and they come here.

Rein in your fangs woman, your biting the hands that supports your loved ones.

Your facing HIV isn't the same as war
Dean, You talk about having learned bravery from facing death over the last 5 years. It's NOT the same. These sailors lived to fight another day rather than take an easy and meaningless death.
Keep up your own fight, but don't compare the two situations.

karennkc
I have seen war go badly from close up. This one is not at that point yet despite what you see on the nightly news. Losing a war means being driven from the field. If despair over not being successful by a certain date drives you from the field then the you have not been beaten, you have surrendered.

God bless your loved ones and bring them home safe.

Sonny
What price Duty? What price Honor? What price County?

See above.


Buy early, buy often and avoid the rush.

Let's Roll
I feel one of the main reasons Let's Roll isn't in common use is liberalism's war on words. To undermine American exceptionalism and to weaken right action, they are in open, take no prisoners war with definitive, victory based dictum. I have posted a poem called A War With No Name, to help expose the absolute insanity of dropping the name War On Terror. Tim Schieferecke

Gunner
Please leave karen alone. You have been lied to in school (if you went). She is writing her own history and should not be interfered with (it's like waking up someone that is sleepwalking)

karennkc
The pictures we were shown on the news of Saddam's air force being destroyed during Operation Iraqi Freedom were apparently faked. Also thank God you are here to balance all those good things I learned about myself in school.

karennkc
Yo, let's try to get some history straight. Jews have been in the Holy Land for millenia. They were NOT all sent out by the Romans in 70AD/CE(The Diaspora). The Balfour Declaration in 1917 viewed "with favour" the establishment of a Jewish homeland. The UN partition plan in 1948 provided for both a Jewish and Arab (Palestinian) states, which the surrounding Arab states rejected. After the Israeli War of Independence ended in 1948, the Egyptians and Jordanians had Gaza and the West Bank, respectively. Neither set up a Palestinian state IAW the UN mandate, which they could have done at any time, solving the problem. The PLO didn't come into existance until the 1960s and Arafat was an Egyptian who served in the Egyptian Army in 1948.

The Palestinians are fools who listen to liars and get suckered every time.

Invertebrate Revelry
What a fabulous story. I've never seen and heard a more feckless and pathetic display of military failure than the Brit sailors and their supposed leadership in Britain. Tony Blair, for all his oratorial flair, was a teet-suckling ninnie with all his apologies and side-stepping. "Diplomacy worked?" Amandinejad played them like dime store whistles and they marched right along in rythm. The tinpot dictator was the puppet master for a day and the Brits made it all possible.

Happy Easter....
...to you all 'across the pond' from the soon to be 'Islamic State of Britain'!!!
Seriously though, I do enjoy our banter and hope you all have a good easter holiday however you decide to spend it.
All the best!!!

Happy Easter xpressit & Everyone!
Hope the Easter Bunny is good to you all.

karennkc
From all that action that Clinton was taking against the Iraqis I guess you think that maybe there was a danger there or was Clinton as evil as Bush so obviously is?

(sorry guys, it's like watching a slow motion train wreck)

Myopine
What's the life expentencey of a liberal ideologue guerilla? Actually they need little encouragement, its a random process of evolution and can't be prevented.

BrianR
Touche on the masculinity jibe, you answered me with a great deal more panache than I have come to expect on this site and I take my hat off to you for that.
However I do have to take issue with you on the whole gun thing. You say crime has risen greatly since the hand gun ban. This may be true but there has also been an increase in the sales of tortillas in the UK. THe two things are of no consequence to each other. Guns have never been prolific in this country apart from in rural areas where shotguns are used by farmers in the carrying out of their job. Therefore taking handguns off people who in many cases shouldn't be allowed to handle sharp impliments has had no real bearing on the British way of life. The rise in petty crime is for a variety of reasons but nothing to do with gun laws I can assure you
For a superb commentary on our respective countries' gun laws I refer you to one of your countries greatest exports, the late great Bill Hicks.

Karenkc Duh and getting deeper
I thought you guys never want to compare or mix Iraq with terrorism responses? Remember, one was terrorism and one wasn't????

Yes we are feeding a stray moonbat.
I should have seen it right away.

To anybody who
desires to look at the real history of Israel aquiring land here is a link. Note, this is for rational people only.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_zionists_land.php

Karenkc In never never land
Yea Karen I beleive it was right around 98 that Bin Laden and company declared their jihad on all things western icluding us. Yea right, one would have had to be a fool or a rock not to know about it, being well informed by Clarke etc.
The ONLY thing you said that makes Any sense.

vic
You are probably also responsible for karen being irrational. You fiend.

To trulib
I think this individual is one of those that is best ignored. When I first posted I didn't realize what insanity I was incouraging.

Karenkc
That there is some incovenient truth.

To karennkc
Pardon me, when I initially posted I thought you were rational. I was mistaken, I'll no longer trouble with your posts.

karennkc
Faith in liberal delusions is no justification for stupidy and has no place in foreign policy.

karenkc
Check that "Bullwinkle" link I gave you and you will see statements with sources proving trulib right.

You are not a Communist?
You are being led around by the nose by Communists.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44701

These kind of Communists, the ones allied with NAMBLA.
Yes the ones who attack the Boy Scouts of America and constantly persecute them and anyone who supports them because they refuse to let NAMBLA take over as Scout Masters.
http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/does-nancy-pelosi-condone-manboy-sex-if-the-man-is-a-democrat.html

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10450

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=162196

If you are not one of these dispicable Communists then you are a real DUPE to let them USE you!

karennkc
I'm sure I have many mental blocks although I don't think religion is one of them. I am speaking of the way to peace in that area. It sounds to me like your solution is for all the Jews to just cut their own throats. The final solution a la Karen. Hasn't that been thought of before?

Vic
So you are not only ignorant but also responsible for Anne Frank and stealing land from the noble red man. You probably also have a long black mustache and tie pretty girls to railraod tracks.

Myopine
AH Oh, probably more documents that clumsy Berger failed to remove. His inadvertent removal.
I wonder if Bush will ever be able to say he inadvertently removed Saddam? Their dreams are really pretty entertaining, once you get past the graphics. Of course that was an "honest mistake" as Berger recollected.


karennkc
Get a grip. Then go back to the Clinton presidency and read the administration pronouncements on the dangers of the Iraqi regime. If you are of the opinion that conservatives think George Bush walks on water you are deranged.

karennkc Moonbat
I am sure you do not understand what I am trying to tell you.
I am also sure you do not know what you are writing.

You are a typical Bush hateing Moonbat.
You treasonous Communists are responsible for Bush being President.
Did you think ANY sane person would vote for this?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41106

Fools like YOU elected Bush and you haven't stopped whimpering since.
You inflicted Bush upon yourself, quit whinning!
All you Communist cry babies can do is mess your own diaper and complain to Republicans about it.
What will you do in 08 when Bush is gone?
Your life is over, ended! Nothing to cry about!

karennkc
Having a state of Palestine is not the roadblock to peace in that area. The reason there will be no peace is that the Arabs can not allow the state of Israel to exist. If the Palestinians were able to accept the existance of Israel then that conflict would end tomorrow and the lives of the Palestinians would immediately begin to improve.

It is my understanding that an Arab state was created when Palestine was partitioned. That state is Jordan.


Rule Britannia?
I was saddened beyond words during the recent episode involving the Iranians and the British sailors and marines. The precipitous surrender of the Brits without a shot being fired was pathetic, as was their participation in the obvious propaganda spectacles put on by the Iranians and their ready acceptance of those hideous pink gift bags upon their release. During their two weeks in captivity, I thought often of the stark contrast between their behavior and that of the 300 Spartans under Leonidas at Thermopylae; the 101st Airborne under MG McAuliffe at the Battle of Bastogne; the courage of the POWs imprisoned at the ‘Hanoi Hilton’; and perhaps most apropos, the unwavering courage and determination of the people of Great Britain during the Battle of Britain during WWII. I am sure that, were he alive today, Winston Churchill would be hanging his head in shame.

Karennkc
"You people are obsessed. America can do no wrong. Bushie can do no wrong."

Why is the left's view that America can do no right?

"Let's roll"
Don't fault the British military personnel; they did as they were trained. The old name, rank and serial # is outdated. Military personnel are now trained to protect the Queens goods (themselves) while revealing as little as humanely possible. Please pay close attention to the statements made by these personnel while in captivity. Their statements were not absolute, but contained qualifiers that allowed us to understand that they were not admitting guilt, but merely re-stating accusations made by the Iranians.
As far as surrendering, one only surrenders when fighting will result in certain death AND your dying efforts will not hurt the enemy AND there is a high probability that your captivity will not be worse than your death. This situation met all three of those circumstances.

To karennkc
They were in fact compensated for their land. This entire issue would have been over 50 years ago if the Arab countries surrounding Israel had not been pushing it and maintaining the refugee camps instead of assimilating the people.

karennkc
"From all accounts?"
Do you expect anyone here to believe an arrogant Communist liar based on that?

Ignore the site name and notice each entry is sourced.
If you bother to learn something and know what you are writing about you won't look quite so stupid.
http://www.bullwinkleblog.com/?page_id=3287

AND TH is not a daycare center.
Go back to DailyKos to get your diaper changed.

From my own experience.
Serving in Vietnam as a grunt with the 101st Airborne (1st Brigade) in 67-68, I learned that when the enemy wanted to fight you, you would always be outnumbered and that, heavily. Surrendering was absolutely never an option, regardless the appearance of hopelessness, and we shot our way out of many a seemingly "hopeless" fight.

I also learned that regardless the caliber of the enemy weapons, a well placed M-16 round took out even the most determined enemy gunner. Several fired in terror does the same thing.

Fighting back in war is always the right decision.

Political correctness...
...is a fraud committed on the American people. Think about it; people chafe at being forced to turn the other cheek -- so to speak -- when being accused of "insulting" any minority. Well, it's time to lighten up; it was discovered lomg ago that if people can be kept fighting each other then they won't look around to see what government is doing behind their backs. All the PC [male bovine fecal matter] being rammed down our throats is intended to **exacerbate** the fabricated "problem" rather than resolve it. And our politicians want us to "kowtow" to those who want to kill us; mustn't "offend" them, you know.

I think I'll vomit.

Another thing: in the event that we have terrorists in our cities -- and considering that there are those who would surrender in a heartbeat -- we need to be sure of our **friends** as well as our enemies.



great work DB !
outstanding...

thank you.

Sonny: To answer your question
And it's one someone else raised earlier, too, stating the Brits were supposed to act the way they did in order to save their lives; you phrased it as cooperation to save other sailors' lives.

Here's how the American Code of Conduct goes, at least when I was in the Army.

Name, rank, service number, DOB, and that's it, under any circumstances, and make all attempts possible to escape.

You are NOT ALLOWED to cooperate. If I had to watch other troops get shot while I was witholding info, then so be it. Tough to do, but do it one must.

If you want a safe job, don't go into the military. In the military it's your job to be ready to get shot at and maybe DIE.

I have contempt for all involved in the cowardly fiasco.

My bad
I typed the Kipling stanza from a memory from the early 60's and accuracy suffered; here is the link to the actual poem:

http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/verse/volumeXI/youngbritishsoldier.html


Questions

I was wondering if honor and valor were going to be discussed at all on this post. I was happy to see it mentioned in the last couple of posts.

A lot of posts were referring to the ROE at the point of the Iranians confronting the British boats. If the British felt they were outnumbered and chose to "surrender", fine. Soldiers have done that in all wars.

But this is what bothers me. The British were in military uniforms. Someone inferred that the type of work they were engaged in might have called for a different type of uniform; say like a police officer instead of a military one.

Yes, the military can do "police work" and if that is what they were doing, the fact they were acting as sailors caused the Iranians to do as they did.

Were the Iranians considering the British military personnel or enforcement officers under the auspices of the UN?

If under the UN, then, as far as I am concerned, they can "wimp out" and act any way they want to save themselves. However, if they were acting as British military personnel, I thought all they were required to reveal was their name, rank and serial number.

To go one step further, they problem I have been pondering is if the Iranians considered them military personnel and all they gave was name, rank and serial number, suppose this happened.

Suppose one of the British seaman were told to say they were captured in Iranian waters and he refused. Suppose further he was told if he did not say they were in Iranian waters, that one of his fellow sailors would be shot.

The dilemna: how many of his fellow sailors is that British seaman going give up before providing more information than just name, rank and serial number?

Suppose further that the remaining sailors were freed, for whatever reason, and upon returning home, how would that sailor be treated for remaining silent while his fellow seaman were being shot?

What price honor and valor?

Peppermint
I mentioned this leftist inconsistency yesterday.

For example:

1. now they tell us we should have concentrated on Afghanistan. Two weeks after we started fighting there, the MSM and leftist talking heads told it us it was the "new Vietnam" and a "quagmire"
2. We invaded Iraq, and it became a "quagmire" and we should ahve stayed in Afghanistan. And the left claims they always supported Afghanistan
3. Then they claim Iran is the real threat and we should ahve attacked them. Until Iran pulls this, now we must do nothing to "provoke" them. (Seems they already acted, a bit late to "provoke" someone after they act...)

I just don't get it.

Well, unless I accept as a rule "Whatever Bush does is wrong", then it makes sense. Sadly, it says nothing good about the left that their entire policy is based on irrational hatred for one man.



typo
Impression, not inpression.

And I will just offer a blanket apology for all my other typos. The hands are not working properly today, so the typing is worse than usual. Sorry about all the stray letters and transpositions.

That was the point
And I doubt Red Tooth would object to that misinterpretation, which is why I mentiooned it. His number for Iraqis is one of the figures the left uses for Iraqi fatalities, while he chooses the US "casualty" rate rather than "fatality" rate, which is much smaller. by mixing the numbers for Iraqi fatalities and US casualties, and given the tendency for many confuse casualty and fatality, I have the feeling the point was to create an inpression of more US dead than there are. I may be wrong, but the choice of numbers and the mixing of the two figures leads me to think otherwise.

Tanabear
I am aware "casualties" is used to include any incapacitating injury. But much of the media and many posters mis-use it to mean war dead. Which is why a post of 20K+ casualties can be misleading, as some will take it to mean "dead" not "incapacitating injuries". Which you would understand if you actually read even the part you quoted. I aske dif he was using it in the correct technical sense or the loose sense of "dead", as it is often misused in that way.

Nothing New
Of course, I skipped the obvious point inb my last post:

I ran declared war on us in 1979. By that act, all of NATO should now be at war with Iran. So, Britain doesn't need to "start a war", they should ahve been at war with the mullahs for almost 3 decades now.

Of course, ol' Jimmuh had no nerve and backed down from a declaration of war and let NATO off the hook as well, but if there had been anyone with any courage in power in the late 70's, Iran would not be under the mullahs now.

andrews
Yeah, what you say has me puzzled too by the left.
I always thought what Iran did, taking the Brits hostage, was an act of war.

That's why it bewilders me to hear the libs on here crying,..."oh, my god, let's not start a war with Iran..."

Also, I was thinking earlier that one of the left's talking points on Iraq, was that Bush attacked the wrong country, that he should have gone after Iran.

Now, we hear the left saying, "oh, no Bush is going after Iran".

Which way do they want it?

I wouldn't change a thing.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

UK Start a War?
By the way, several have stated it would have been bad for the Marines to fight back, as the "UK would have started a war". Come again?

I think the illegitimate capture of the Marines by the Iranians was "starting a war". Defending themselves is not starting a war, it is fighting back once the war has started.

Same Dems I guess who accuse Israel of a "cycle of violence" and "aggression" when they shoot back at terrorists (who magically turn into "civilian casualties", because they don't have the guts to wear a uniform and proclaim their status.)

SteveL
I think your question is the core of the matter. The left has no honor, no valor, no pride. I really don't think there is anything they feel is worthy to fight for. That's the big problem we face today, the enemy within.

karennkc
Why don't you join RedNanny in Damascus with Assad.
You and she would make a good pair to replace Tokyo Rose. Besides, Syria would be such a good place for America hating people like yourself. Have a good beheading.

for Obama/Edwards, Tanabear, etc.
Obama/Edwards wrote: "As for co-operating after capture, they were merely following the guidelines for post-capture situations. They are there to help ensure their safe return." [IOW, personal and national honor don't matter anyway]

And then there was Tanabear who said that "idealism has been lost" by Bush, neo-cons, Iraq, whatever.

OK then! I have a SERIOUS question for Obama/Edwards, Tanabear, and ALL OTHER liberals and leftists in America:

Is there anything or anyone that YOU PERSONALLY would be willing to give your life for?

For example, if your wife or your child were about to be shot by a marauder, would you step in front to protect them with your body and take that bullet?

Would you go to a totalitarian or anarchic country and try to provide humanitarian aid to the poor people there, knowing that the local dictator or warlord has a history of executing Western aid workers?

I understand that you don't think the Iraq War, or "imperialism," or whatever other bugaboo you have, is worth fighting for.

But I wonder if you believe ANYTHING is worth putting your life on the line for.

Because if you don't--if you don't think anything could be more important to you than your own personal life--then you will never understand the issue of honor that everyone is discussing here in the context of the captured Iranian Brits.

And then there's really no point in arguing with you about anything else either--war (if you personally are never in danger of being killed), or terrorism (if it never happens to you), or even global warming (if that crisis were to hit long after you're dead and buried). You're just hopelessly sunk in ennui, and need to consult a qualified mental health professional.

Red Tooth
20,000+ US casualties? Are you referring to anyone whose injuries removed them from combat? Because that certainly is rather high for combat fatalities, unless you are using Lancet mathematics (the math that gives us 600,000 Iraqi deaths).

Then again, I have never seen you say anything even close to believable on this site, so why should I be surprised.

Of course, if you are using a figure for anyone who was removed from combat, then be careful of that number. In WWII for example, we put people back in combat who would never be returned to combat today. So our "casualty" numbers come out much higher in modern times than they do for past combats.

Not saying our present warriors are any less brave or willing to sacrifice, just that WWII produced a different mindset, in addition to having a much larger theater with a lot fewer citizens available for combat. (Talking total population, not military personnel, as WWII military was many times the size of today's military). With a more restricted theater and a larger population pool, we don't need to return to combat some we would have in WWII.

Anyway, just wanted to point out injury stats, as opposed to fatalities, always produce slighlty distorted numbers compared to past injury numbers.

Fighting back!!
Some have opined their opinion of the British Marines’ capitulation. Some have opined their opinion of our brave solders. Other have contemplated their resolve in a similar situation. Reality! None of us know how we would react. But, I now relate to an event far more grave than that of the British Marines, kept brief of course.

In 1970, a unit was totally surrounded and came under fire by the North Vietnamese army. With no way out, they had two options fight or surrender. “Fighting back was simply not an option”? Now what do you think they did? Well, they fought back, until they were overrun. Retreating to the CP, bunkers etc. they called in Arty and Puff, the big Puff. And, I might add, “on themselves!!! All but five are “On the Wall,” people. That, ladies and gentleman (used loosely for some posting here), is what the American Soldier is about. Duty! Honor! Country!

Obama/Edwards 08: “[M]assivly (sic) outnumbered (6:1)? You have no idea what it is to be “massivly (sic) outnumbered.” Want one? See above! Want another? Check out the Rangers’ history in both the Pacific and European theaters.

Dissenter57: This was “another staged Gulf of Tonkin incident”? Right, fire can’t melt steel and Rosie leaps tall buildings in a single bound.

Red Tooth: I suggest you and your ilk start translating the Koran into Spanish. “The Islamic world is … poor”? Where did you learn to count?

Vespanat: BrianR is going to reassert his masculinity by busting caps. I’m going to reassert mine by polishing my Paladin. Several year ago a left wing attorney researched Australia’s laws regarding gun control. He found crime had risen 300%. Get my point. Here in America, we have the 2nd Amendment. We have the inalienable right to defend ourselves, our property, and others. You do not.

You people are as weak-willed as the French.

Armchair warriors?
I think I have the right to speak, though the left would deny it. I was beaten unconscious and left for dead rather than give up my wallet, so, my argument is, how much more of a fight would I put up to defend my honor and that of my country?

Sure, the UK is not at war with iran, which is all the more reason they should ahve resisted capture. The Iranians had no right to capture them if there is no state of war. Resisting an illegitimate imprisonment seems more of a military duty than not surrendering in wartime. In a war, I could understand surrendering to overwhelming odds. When it is a bunch of people who have no right to imprison you, just as a free citizen you should fight to the death, much more so for soldiers.

I was unarmed and I was willing to die before submitting to senseless agression. I find it disgraceful that armed and trained marines would do any less.

Ok, leftists, go ahead and tear me apart now.


What happen to Honor and Valor?
The point is that there used to be real men who would rather die than lose their honor.

Islam has men who kill themselves in their attempt kill other innocent men woman and children.
The President of Iran is not innocent, and the question is; does the west have any men that would give their lives for the good of civilization?

Aren’t Royal Marines are trained to kill with their bare hands if they have to? These fourteen men (the woman should not have been in this role to begin with) had the perfect opportunity to kill Ahmadenijad with a sharp blow to his throat but choose not to. Of course if one of them had they would most likely be dead now, but much of the world would not be questioning their courage, but would be hailing them as heroes!

The point is that nineteen deranged men loyal to the pseudo god Allah committed suicide for what they believed in during the 9/11 attacks. Deranged and misguided as they were they were; in their minds (and in the mind of others of like thinking) their acts were a matter of honor. Yes they were evil men and Ahmadenijad being more evil (has we don’t see him wearing a suicide vest) hailed these lunatics hero’s.

Has the west lost any sense of Valor, and Honor? I hope not, but at the moment it looks like we have. Honor and Valor are qualities that the heroes of World War II, Korea, Viet Nam, The Gulf War, and those that have given life and limb in the War on Terror, and those still in harms way have! With the exception of those serving now and those of us that support them and their mission, the generation of the 1960’ and 70’s are a shameful and despicable generation!

What is most scary is if 9/11 hasn’t instilled the qualities of Honor, Valor, and that dreaded word Patriotism in the “Me first; if it feels good do it;” generation, what catasphore will it take instill these qualities in this generation?

dyerije
Things like ROE do change.
In Truman's day the traffic in that area, hostile or otherwise would have vanished the instant the red dovetail pennant went up.

TruLib
True enough -- much of the GOP bears political blame with the Democrats.

AMR also has a valid point about the behavior of the British hostages after they were captured. Several have made that point here, including BrianR. The Code of Conduct Americans serve under would have required US personnel to avoid cooperating with the Iranians as the Brits appear to have done.

That said, taking their behavior in captivity as evidence of the Brits' effectiveness as a fighting force would be INvalid.

What it all boils down to is that it takes real political guts to put a nation like Iran out of position to snipe at us. British fighting forces, like ours, are well capable of doing that -- IF our political leaders give them the opportunity, by engaging Iran on OUR terms, not Iran's.

As I've said before, no amount of being willing to die will defeat an enemy. You have to be prepared to kill.

Too much time?
There are a lot of thoughtful, reasoned posts here, regrettably mixed more than our share of raving lunatics, many of whom feel the need to post in all caps with multiple exclamation points. (Little bit of a clue -- there is no sound volume on a typewritten message.) Some people say "judge not" and I agree, but I would also add my own particular interpretation of that scripture, which is: "Judge not -- just fix the problem." This incident raised a lot of questions regarding rules of engagement, methods of conducting operations, and POW code of conduct. It also raised questions regarding Whitehall, the United Nations, the European Union, and (I am deeply saddened to say) the will of the British people. Perhaps the lack of outrage we Americans see is due to media filtering or that marvelous "stiff upper lip" cultural reserve that we admire but never really understood. At the same time, some are wondering if, on both sides of the Atlantic, too much time has passed since our "Greatest Generation" and Britain's "Finest Hour."

karennkc
You Communist anti-American Collaborators are well aware that it is the enemy, not America that is caught in a quagmire.
I know you are aware the enemy monitors this site because you do all you can to bolster their morale and tell them to keep fighting and you Democrats will give them a political victory.

I know you have seen our troops post here and thus you write anything you can spin into dispair to distract American troops.

Why don't you just go join the insurgeant Jihadi so you can shoot at American soldiers?
You hate America so much you want us to loose this WAR OF SURVIVAL!
I know it is hard for someone of your low mentality to understand that Iraq is a very important BATTLEFIELD in the GWOT.
A World War is not like your school football game. You can't just pack up and go home and it is over.
Your idiot carping gets a little tiresome.

Options
I was surprised how quickly the Brits capitulated. I kept looking for a reaction like the middle finger signal the USS Pueblo crew gave in their public photograph taken by the North Koreans; something to say “what we are saying is BS”. But we saw the opposite; the grins, the smiles and the other friendly gestures. As ex-US Navy, I can’t understand how they can be treated as returning heroes after their behavior. I have yet to hear what the British equivalent to the UCMJ calls out for resistance when captured. Apparently, to be a hero in Britain no longer requires honor in the opinion of the British MoD. Let's roll, is still operative in the US military, as the September Iranian attempt to have surrender and take hostage the US patrol on the east Iraq/Iran border. Our guys opened up and escaped. Yes, there was an option in both incidents.

karennkc
The first ayatollah came to power on Jimmy Carter's watch. A lot of the blame for that fiasco can be blamed on bad intel from the CIA. Our non response to events then have led us to this point. When a mushroom cloud appears over Tel Aviv what should be our respoanse?

karennkc
I guess you missed the 1998 statements made by "the Zipperman" and mad madline alldim and the swimmer Teddybaby,and billery about taking out Sadumm and his WMDs...before Bush ever was in office,my how tight a moonbats memory is...but of course they were miss led on their watch in 1998,but Bush lied...what a lot of crap...

dyerje
The lack of fortitude I see is on the Republican side. Pelosi showing up in Damascus tells me the Dems will do anything to help the enemy of their enemy (Bush). That there were Republicans lurking about Damascus is disheartening.

capture
The capture of the Brit troops. I wonder if those who agree with them surrendering was good,if you would say the same thing if the Iranians had cut off thier heads? and showed it off on a video ? and don't say they are not capable of it,or all hell would break loose,its already happened to several Americans and we didn't nuke them...darnit !
Yeh if we have them use them,or what the hell are they good for,nuke a diaper head save an American,now go right ahead and call me a radical and neocon or what ever the hell you want but thats the way i feel,i'm one American who is very tired of kissing the worlds back side,and screw all PC freaks,and the UN,all Dumocrats and Libmoonbats,I hope that scares the hell out of all you peaseniks and whatevers...kill them all and let God sort them out...remember Hiroshima,Dresden,Hamburg...do it again get this crap over with the right way,wipe out the enemy forget colateral damage...and i'm a vet and very proud of it,and know my 4 family members serving right now feel the same way..

Why are the lefties going
nuts on here today? Iran has been at war with us since 1979. Iran has committed numerous terrorists attacks on Americans. Iran causes terrorism all over the place.

Yet, I don't see any country doing anything to fight back. But, the libs are on here talking about us/and/or the Brits (who knows who they mean) starting a war with Iran.

News Flash: Iran declared war on us a long time ago! Iran is trying to dominate the ME. Even the other Arab countries don't want that.

Where do the libs live, in underground cells without TVs, radios, phone? How can they be so uninformed?

MyOpine
Military concern about potential resentment by the Foreign Ministry waxes and wanes with the political leadership of the nation -- as it does with ours.

During the Clinton years, the US military --particularly the Navy, which routinely comes in contact with other nations' forces in a way other services don't -- was more ROE-whipped than I saw us at any other time in my 20 years of service (1983-2004). Commanders too often did have a sense that they would be left hanging in the breeze no matter what they did. That changed significantly, for the better, when the Bush administration looked to seriously engage the military after 9/11.

So I do understand where you're coming from. Having worked closely with the Brits during my years in the Navy, I can say that their ROE (and usually Australia's) are more like ours than any other nation's -- and that they've had what we would call robust ROE for the naval side of the Iraq operation since its inception. Without commenting on specific details of ROE, I can note that when the invasion started, the Brits were one of only four other nations that joined the US in the naval operations against Iraq as combatants (the others being Australia, the Netherlands, and gutsy Poland).

(Again, can't discuss specifics of ROE, but for absolute accuracy, one can say that some decisions the Brits reserve for a higher level of command than we do. A quasi-NATO-ish approach. This is a very limited set, and didn't apply to this situation anyway.)

The thoughts of the Lieutenant on-scene probably had little to do with how the Foreign Ministry would react. His concern would have been the fast-moving situation confronting him: guns pointing at his people before they could take any action at all. To give the order to fire in that situation would have been to order everyone in his unit to die.

It's not a shallow, leftist rebuke of critics as "chickenhawks," to observe that they may not fully understand he purpose and nature of ROE. It isn't standard for any military to be committed to dying in a blaze of gunfire rather than embarrass its nation by being captured. That's never an element of ROE. That's why POWs happen in the first place, even on unambiguous battlefields. Very few of them are captured in a situation in which they literally didn't even have the option to commit suicide.

Avoiding capture, in a situation where the only option is getting everyone killed, is to be distinguished from achieving a tactical objective regardless of the cost. Fighting to achieve an objective would be a matter of positive orders, to begin with, rather than a commander's spot decision about a situation created by the enemy. When you're told to achieve an objective in combat, friendly deaths may indeed result, and that doesn't stop you. But there was no military objective in the Brits' situation that would have merited the deaths of the 15 Marines and sailors.

Cornwall shouldn't have been in this situation in the first place, but I've tried to help others see why she was. Not because the Brits are weak-minded or wimpy, but because both we and they have become complacent about the regular, 24/365 proximity of Iranian speedboats, after more than 16 years of performing the same mission only yards away from them.

Should we "all" -- the Coalition navies' chains of command -- have seen this coming? Very possibly. We certainly see the conditions clearly now, and I'm sure both our navies are taking better precautions for the boarding and inspection mission. Proper precautions will virtually eliminate any further opportunities for Iran to take us by surprise this way.

One other note: those who think the British Lieutenant should have ordered his crew to open fire might consider that Tony Blair had that same option, at the national strategic level. He could very well have demonstrated his nation's will by attacking Iran in some "proportional" way, no doubt getting his navy's 15 personnel executed in the process. No one in this scenario was in a political corner he couldn't get out of by getting the 15 killed.

Has Iran been emboldened? Somewhat, I would say, in a general sense. But the effective result of that emboldening will, for the medium term, be focused -- indirectly -- on land infiltration of Iraq. Iran will have little opportunity to seize Coalition hostages at sea again.

I say the result will come indirectly because US troops are already rooting out Iranian infiltrators in Iraq, and we won't stop doing that. The fact that we have decided, in the wake of the British hostage incident, to negotiate release of Iranian detainees, is where the rubber meets the road. That won't prevent us from continuing to detain Iranians, but it could weaken our overall posture on Iran's infiltration.

It doesn't have to. We need to learn from the hostage incident and toughen our political stance with Iran. Iran will back down -- shrieking wildly, but Iran WILL back down -- if we give Tehran a serious ultimatum. Iran can't hang with us at OUR level of warfare. Only if we let Iran set the terms of engagement in her favor -- i.e., an endless series of hostage incidents -- will we offer our short hairs up to be gripped by the insane mullahs.

The real lack of intestinal fortitude that we have to worry about is the one in the US Congress.

Pepp, My Opine, and Vespanat
Pepp, MO, thanks for the support while I was out proving my masculinity. It's always good to know someone's got my six.

Now, Vespanat, let me turn my attention to you.

Always easy to snipe at someone when you know they're not around. There's actually a word for that, and I don't think I need to use it now. Unfortunately for you, I came back.

Your criticism of my masculinity is as a flea bite to an elephant, so I'll move on to other issues you mentioned.

Unfortunately, as to winning wars, you fail to cite ANY military actions you guys have successfully prosecuted that I may have forgotten when I mentioned the Falklands. So here's your chance. Name them. If there are some, I'll be more than happy to apologize. Otherwise, I'll stand by my assessment that in this country the Falklands would not have qualified as a war. We don't call our small military excursions, which I named, wars.

As to guns! Ah, one of my favorite subjects. And here you raised it. How foruitous.

First, I found this quote of yours interesting: "A price worth paying for you to keep something long and hard in your hands though I'm sure you would agree." You seem obssesed with other people's sexuality. My masculinity, "something long and hard". What is up with that? Suffering a little p-envy, are we?

As to the efficacy of your draconian gun laws: do you have any idea how high the rate of home invasion robberies, assaults, and other person-on-person crimes has risen in your country as you've imposed all your gun laws? It has shot through the roof. Your violent crime rate nowadays is one of the highest in the industrialized world. It's far higher than ours, bud. Now THERE'S something you can really be proud of.

The libs here used to quote your low crime stats when making their anti-gun pitches; no longer. You guys are now conspicuously absent from the gun debate over here. You've become an embarrassment to the anti-gunners -- and a real boon to my side of the debate.

I guess I should thank you for that.

Well, thanks.



DavidMac
Rest assured, if a big smoking hole appears where New York was it will get blamed on Bush.

karennkc
The Brits were in inflatables, but they were not out there alone. There is a lot of Navy in that area and that is why so many do not understand how this was allowed to happen. Also, for your information, I did sign up and spent a year in combat.

jetpilot
Please explain the course change in Iraq that you propose. I gather from your post that you would agree a democratic Iraq would be a bullwork against the more radical elements in the Middle East. Or am I reading into your words something that is not there?

Cato
posted, "the sailors were not about to do a suicide mission against the jihadis just to fulfill your neo-con fantasies."


Darn! Just when I thought the Persian Gulf was going to run red with Iranian blood . . . that the sands of the Middle East would be littered with the body parts of the evil Iranians . . . (you talkin' 'bout fantasies like that, Cato?)

The fascists in Iran are our enemies. Eventually, we'll end up fighting them or surrendering to them. It may be 10 - 20 years (who knows?)

Hitler and Tojo were our enemies in 1934. The USA chose to ignore that and instead made sure we had a skeleton military and a socialist regime in place in 1941.

Speaking of fantasies, Cato, what's your fanatasy? Seeing the Big Apple disappear in a nuclear mushroom cloud?

Jim
You are right about Hannity. I watch his show every night and never has he said anything about bombing Iran.
Red Tooth is flat out lying.

jetpilot
Get a blog! Writing comments longer than the original article is rude. Plus with your own blog no one has to be blinded by your caps unless they choose to go there.

Still Disgusted, but not by the British
What's more disgusting than the perceived lack of courage by the British sailors is the rush to judgment by armchair generals, and not just armchair generals, but other military veterans who've never seen combat. In fact, by anyone who's never been in that extreme experience, including you, Dean - your illness not withstanding.

What we each individually think we MIGHT do in a similar situation means exactly ZERO. That's been proven so many times in so many different situations that I'd be at a loss to quantify it. Furthermore, picking on a group of 15 sailors, 14 of whom where under command discipline to follow the orders of their captain (incorrect or not) isn't fair to them. Any responsibility for a potentially poor decision falls solely on the commanding officer.

Furthermore, we don't judge our own military by this standard. The marines who participated in the killing of innocent civilians don't reflect on the entire USMC. Neither should this one captain's behavior reflect on the entire British military.

Medal of Honor winner Jack Jacobs can say what he wants. He's more than earned that right. Other combat veterans who've been in a similar situation may have their own opinions, and they've earned that right as well. You haven't, nor have any of your judgmental commentors.

For the record, I think the captain made a bad decision. But that's as far as I feel I can go ethically, never having had to make a comparable decision myself.

Jeffrey
http://www.idolator.net

Jeffrey
http://www.idolator.net

Redtooth
"If by terrorists, you mean the Neocons, then I agree. Neocons not only should be run out of US neighborhoods, but out of the country, and across the sea."

Wow, and here I thought you lefties were supposed to be tolerant. I guess all that talk about tolerance was BS, just like your supposed determination to win the GWOT.

"Hannity has been gun-ho for the war in Iraq -- 20,000+ U.S. casualties and ten of thousands of dead Iraqis -- and was ranting about the need for the United States to level Iran with missiles. This is blood lust. Joe Stalin didn't personally kill anyone, but does that imply he didn't get off on it? Hannity also displayed a rather peculiar delight in showing the video of Saddam's execution, and especially the video with Saddam's blood soaked neck. He said it was important for Americans to see this? Why? Hannity must have a thing for snuff films. He's a real sicko."

20,000 US casualties? I think maybe you should recheck your facts. In fact, US dead in Iraq only number in the neighborhood of 3,000. Each death diminishes us as a country. But, these men and women knew (unlike you apparently) that there are some things worth fighting and dieing for.

That you would compare Sean Hannity to Joe Stalin just further confirms my suspicions that you are indeed either a lunatic or disingenuous in your criticisms. Either that or your just looking for attention... By the way, when did Hannity ever say that it was important for Americans to see Saddam's death video? I routinely watch H&C and don't recall ever hearing him say such a thing. Even if he did say it, I suppose you could make a case that he's correct in saying that. One could say that it's important for the American people to have some sort of closure, and seeing that that cruel dictator is dead provides it.

I also have never heard Hannity say that Iran had to be leveled with missiles. I've heard him advocate a strong response against the illegal kidnapping of the Brits, but never leveling Iran with missiles. I think people like you either hear what you want to hear, or you make it up out of nowhere.

Jim C
Thinking Right
http://thinking-right.com

Too long
My post at 3:07 pm was way too long and I should have scrapped the personal examples. Sorry.

Have to add this: The options for the Brits involved not only the “fight or surrender” scenario. That was only part of it. Beyond that—and the point with as great or greater implications—is that their bubbly admissions in the company of their benevolent captors and their subsequent justification that the mean Iranians lied to them (what a surprise) and threatened them (uh, okay) is what has many of us left dismayed about the situation.

Protecting Your Country?
For a while...I thought I was the only one who was outraged by the British Marines lack of response. The fact that they didn't fight when attacked and how they allowed themselves to be puppets of the Iraqi government. If that's whats called protecting your country...then we're in serious trouble. As Dennis Prager recently stated...the primary goal or job of a soldier is not to be safe or come home...first and foremost the goal is to win.

As bad as their actions were and how pathetic response was...it pales in comparison to the British and American publics lake of response. Worse yet...it only increase the chance of this occurring in the future and with more frequency.

I agree with Goshawk
Goshawk writes: Saturday, April, 07, 2007 2:57 AM
Marc of CA, Peppermint
I did see a very brief spot on the BBS where several Royal Marines were expressing disgust with the gr