Where the British sailors wrong for what they did?

JaJae · 04-06-2007, 04:42 PM

Apparently many American servicemen feel they should have fought back and shouldn't have responded the way they did in Iranian custody.

YouTube Video

Do you think he has a point? I have heard expert opinions that it's probably the reason Iran took British soldiers over American soldiers is because they knew we'd fight back and we'd be less likely to be their puppets.

The soldiers are now saying that if they had fought back they would have suffered losses and their admissions and apologies were edited. It also doesn't seem that they gave over any important information, very likely because they didn't know anything.

What do you guys think of this? I think it makes British sailors less safe if they start a trend of allowing themselves to be captured without a fight and then paraded in front of national media smiling and apologizing for the behavior of their country. It's very disgraceful... BUT, they did come home.. Alive. All of them. And now that they're home they're telling the story, like how one sailor was kept in solitary confinement because he wouldn't smile for the cameras and partake in the craziness of it all. I think the fact that they made it home without giving up information is great and should be commended, but the bigger picture on global politics with Iran has turned into more of a circus than it was.

Personally I couldn't look at them in the face and say they shouldn't have done what they did and should have been willing to sacrifice themselves to behave honorably. They're home and they're safe and I think that's the most important thing. I don't agree with mocking these guys or calling them names as was done in this video. I'm sure it wasn't easy on them and it's not a position I would ever want to be in. I think we need to cut them some slack here. What say you?

7960 · 04-06-2007, 05:13 PM

Their job was to come back alive. They did. They didn't give up any secrets.

Fuck anyone who says they should have died before being captured. For him to call the brit a meathead for allowing himself to be captured rather than fight back is ridiculous. Their one boat was out gunned and out numbered 6 to 1. What is the point of pulling the trigger when you know that you're going to get a shot off before EVERYONE in your boat dies?

smokie700 · 04-06-2007, 05:22 PM

I can't speak on Brits but as an American soldier you are required to fight and resist aat all costs. If captured you are required to give name, rank, social, branch. That is it. You are required to try and escape at any chance available.

from an american soldier's perspective what they did was wrong but maybe not from a Brit perspective.

kinggovernor · 04-06-2007, 05:43 PM

I completely disagree with the way they handled this from surrendering to the media exposure

kinggovernor · 04-06-2007, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Their job was to come back alive. They did. They didn't give up any secrets.

Fuck anyone who says they should have died before being captured. For him to call the brit a meathead for allowing himself to be captured rather than fight back is ridiculous. Their one boat was out gunned and out numbered 6 to 1. What is the point of pulling the trigger when you know that you're going to get a shot off before EVERYONE in your boat dies?

that is combat is all about. They should have radioed in for air support and well as more naval support, but they should have not surrendered

JaJae · 04-06-2007, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that is combat is all about. They should have radioed in for air support and well as more naval support, but they should have not surrendered

You've been in Iraq and I respect that your opinion is valid. But I can't judge someone looking down the barrel of machine guns with what appeared to be little chance of survival. They did what they had to do to survive. I really can't fault them for that. I'm just glad they made it home to their families in one piece. If they decided to stay and fight I would support that decision and call it honorable and all that. But I can't fault them for surviving.

7960 · 04-06-2007, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that is combat is all about. They should have radioed in for air support and well as more naval support, but they should have not surrendered

It makes more sense to die than to do something that'll leave you alive?

smokie700 · 04-06-2007, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

It makes more sense to die than to do something that'll leave you alive?

You cant make assumptions like that. Everything goes back to training. American soldiers were not trained to surrender. If captured American soldiers are trained to resist and try to escape. The only things you are supposed to say is name, rank, social, branch. What they did goes against most soldiers training and they are assumed to be wrong. In reality the only opinion that counts on the Brits actions is the one from their chain of command.

Diesel66 · 04-06-2007, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

It makes more sense to die than to do something that'll leave you alive?

counter argument is surrendering isn't going to guarantee your safety

kinggovernor · 04-07-2007, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

You've been in Iraq and I respect that your opinion is valid. But I can't judge someone looking down the barrel of machine guns with what appeared to be little chance of survival. They did what they had to do to survive. I really can't fault them for that. I'm just glad they made it home to their families in one piece. If they decided to stay and fight I would support that decision and call it honorable and all that. But I can't fault them for surviving.

they job is not to come home, their job is mission success. And once another force tried to prevent them from doing that mission they should have fought that threat. I used to look up to the british royal marines, but not anymore

kinggovernor · 04-07-2007, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

It makes more sense to die than to do something that'll leave you alive?

giving yourself up to an unknown is not guaranteeing anything

6SpeedTA95 · 04-07-2007, 09:09 AM

What they did with regard to fighting back makes PERFECT sense. Had I been in command of those troops give the circumstances they described I would have done the same thing.

I DO have a problem with them allowing themselves to be used as puppets. Iran would have let them go without that shit, they wanted to humiliate them on the world stage and have them be a part of the Iran propaganda machine.

They did choose soldiers other than american for this reason. We are "name, rank, serial number" almost without exception. Had they not let Americans go in a timely manner they know the consequences would have been dire. Such agressive action could have been seen as an act of war against the UK. If they chose to do this against the US we would have given them 2 maybe 3 weeks to release our boys before facing serious consequences.

six6ftr · 04-07-2007, 10:01 AM

I have spent a lot of time with british royal marines and what they did was not protocol. We trained with them on a regular basis at camp Lejeune. I would never surrender my soldiers or marines to any force. I would not have given up that easy let alone gave statements of any sort other than name rank and serial number.

6SpeedTA95 · 04-07-2007, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by six6ftr

I have spent a lot of time with british royal marines and what they did was not protocol. We trained with them on a regular basis at camp Lejeune. I would never surrender my soldiers or marines to any force. I would not have given up that easy let alone gave statements of any sort other than name rank and serial number.

I would not have fought back for one reason. You know you are wayyy outgunned and surrounded and you risk starting WWIII. But you're spot on with them giving up information.

six6ftr · 04-07-2007, 10:08 AM

First of all there is more to this story, how is it that they had no cover from their ship while boarding another. I know these ships have radar and picked up the approaching vessels.

7960 · 04-07-2007, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

counter argument is surrendering isn't going to guarantee your safety

counter-counter argument is but pulling the trigger was going to guarantee your death.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

giving yourself up to an unknown is not guaranteeing anything

but pulling one trigger once when 6 others are pointed at you is.

Stylerod · 04-07-2007, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by six6ftr

First of all there is more to this story, how is it that they had no cover from their ship while boarding another. I know these ships have radar and picked up the approaching vessels.

Agreed. I said that from day one. What are soldiers in rubber dingies doing without heavy support??? It makes no sense. Someone screwed up in the British Navy, either by policy or by a HUGE tactical mistake.

kinggovernor · 04-07-2007, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

but pulling one trigger once when 6 others are pointed at you is.

they should have called in for support

smokie700 · 04-07-2007, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

counter-counter argument is but pulling the trigger was going to guarantee your death.

but pulling one trigger once when 6 others are pointed at you is.

These types of situations are hard to understand by non-military. It quite simply is just one of those things that you can never grasp unless you serve.

avsp · 04-12-2007, 01:27 PM

Over here any debate into why/how they were captured or into their possible 'co-operation' with the Iranians is now massively overshadowed by the fact that they were given special permission to sell their stories to the press upon their return

Blair has now admited that the decision to alwow them to do so was 'not a good idea' & the defence sec Des Brown has accepted responsibility for the decision

As it was obvious that them making money off getting captured without a fight & then 'co-operating' with the Iranians was going to be seen as in extremely poor taste then the obvious question has to be why were they allowed to do so? Was ot to draw attention away from the issue of the force size being too small at a time when the UK part of the CoW is trying its damnedest to leave ASAP.

The admin wants to leave coz it costs them electorially, the military want to leave coz they feel they can achieve little whilst suffering over-stretch & would rather be in A'stan where some good might be achievable