It just strikes me as odd that a warship presumably with binoculars and radar on board would let this happen and either be unaware of what was going on or would deliberately let members of their crew get captured. Surely they have the clout to stop small boats.
2007-03-27 06:02:05 · 10 answers · asked by orurt 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The question still won't lie down. Firstly, unless the Iranians came by submarine they did not come out of nowhere. I wonder why the ship allowed the bording party to go ahead considering that there was an incoming threat. Secondly the answer that pointed out that the ship could not start or manuever quickly makes me wonder if the Admiralty has plans to use something more appropriate than a warship that can probably dealt with incoming missiles and still did not put anything in place to adaquately suppport these courageous sailore and marines.
2007-03-27 08:43:20 · update #1
For several reasons.
1) Any armed intervention on the part of the British ship would have only escalated a peaceful incident into a shooting crisis, and that would have made matters 1000% worse than they already are.
2) At that distance, there's no way that the British ship could open fire and NOT hit their own people.
3) A warship is NOT like your car - you can't just step on the gas and go. The ship was not under way at the time (which meant it was not moving), and to get it under way would have required more time than they had available. Plus, to maneuver over to the spot and then stop the ship...again, it's not like the Family Truckster! You don't just hit the brakes and the ship stops on a dime.
I think the captain of the British warship did the only thing he could - he observed and reported what was going on. To take any other kind of action, especially when dealing with a radical Islamic nation like Iran, would only have made matters worse.
The only wrongdoing here is on the part of the Iranians, and I hope the British pound them into oblivion for it.
And I hope Tony Blair invites us to help!
2007-03-27 07:54:54 · answer #1 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the stretch of water is in dispute between Iran & Iraq,each claiming it is theirs.Therefore the RN were in Iraqi waters as far as they were concerned but the Iranians say they were in theres.
Secondly,as the Iranians did not,as far as we know,open fire,due to the ROE the RN could not open fire.
2007-03-27 06:15:11 · answer #2 · answered by mervyn m 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
that's a very good question. they should have sunk those Iranian A holes before they could reach those marines. with this incident that Iranian madman has yet another victory against the the allied.
2007-03-27 06:14:25 · answer #3 · answered by tankbuff, 19 violations so far 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Brits were afraid of hurting the Iranians feelings...
2007-03-27 06:06:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Political correctness,rears it's ugly head again
2007-03-27 06:24:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We may never know,we only get one side,they must of known they was coming they do have radar.Maybe they wanted them captured.
2007-03-27 06:12:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
They did not want to engage in Iranian waters and get sunk by Iranian missiles.
2007-03-27 06:05:20 · answer #7 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 2⤊ 7⤋
It was tea time?
2007-03-27 06:08:52 · answer #8 · answered by h h 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
talk first; you can always enter into a shooting war.
2007-03-27 06:11:23 · answer #9 · answered by wizjp 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
because they were in iranian water that is why
2007-03-27 06:06:27 · answer #10 · answered by George Davis 1 · 1⤊ 6⤋