"We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians."

[sabra]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-04-06-britain-iran_N.htm

<snip>

Royal Marine Capt. Chris Air said the crew of 15, which was out on a routine operation on March 23, was confronted by members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

"They rammed our boats, and trained their heavy machine guns, RPGs, and weapons on us. Another six boats were closing in on us," Air said. "We realized that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won, with consequences that would have major strategic impacts. We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians."

Flashback...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2393337.ece

US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors'

A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.

Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."

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

[SoFlaJet]

1. damn COWARDS

why Sean Hannity would have fought them to the death-man isn't it amazing how badly the RWers want to start another war? Isn't like one enough anymore for these people?

[whistle]

3. Sean Hannity would have engaged the Iranians from the safety and security

...of his studio stage prop while American marines and navy personal took the hits. The courage of chicken hawks.

[jobycom]

4. One war enough? Remember Clark's comments?

"Winning Modern Wars" (page 130) General Clark states the following:

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

--------------

Bush is way behind schedule, you know. That's why he stayed out of the Israeli/Lebanon massacre, and was so pissed at Pelosi, and why he thumped his chest over the Iranian situation. He's trying to bait all these countries, and they aren't biting.

[Taverner]

2. "Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"

Ummmm it would have started WW3 for example?

[jobycom]

5. The British were probably well aware of what Bush would do with such an attack.

I wonder if the orders for non-engagement came from above, and how high up, or whether they were decided by the crew.

Not to mention, America just has less respect for life than civilized nations. A few dead brown-ish people just doesn't matter to our jackasses in charge.

[sandnsea]

6. These guys are heroes

They're being trashed so Bush isn't forced to make some grand gesture to retaliate against Iran. These guys are cowards, don't deserve any of our troops coming to their defense, to hell with them.

Trash troops to provide Bush cover.

What else makes any sense.

You really want to embarrass Bush - we should launch a campaign to challenge him to defend Britain's honor against Iran. Are we going to let Iran get away with this? Bla bla bla - then Bush would look like the weak dick he really is.

[ToeBot]

7. "self-preservation" "Casus Belli" Whats in a name! n/t

[uppityperson]

8. I am glad they did. The did what they needed to do for the world.

[leveymg]

9. The 15 must've known they were being thrown out as bait.

Deciding not to get killed was the only sound decision made during the whole operation. Everyone who planned this operation should be court-martialled, including the CIC.

[UTUSN]

10. Brit swabbies should say, "Hey!!1 What do expect when the pretend-leader of the Western World threw

OUT the Geneva Conventions? Eh??!!1"

[LeftishBrit]

11. Yes, that's what supporting the troops is all about...

wanting them to get themselves killed, so that their leaders can look macho.

We're NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE AT WAR with Iran, FFS!

Unfortunately, there are a few British tabloid writers who are spewing similar stuff.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. They behaved sensibly. A dangerous trait to politicians and generals.

It would have been much better for the warmongers to have dead "heroes" to weep over and use as examples for the next slaughter.

What a waste. They could have arranged to have the bodies returned for lavish funerals, movies made about their ordeal and noble deaths, a monument erected to their memory, endless speeches given in their praise, stickers manufactured to put on cars, little flags for antennae, all the trappings of glorious death..for nothing.

[peacetalksforall]

13. This sentence by jobycom (above) important: " He's trying to bait all these countries, and they

aren't biting" Referring to Bush.