English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The way I understand it:
1. The destroyer was far away, it could not draw close to the freighter without running aground, yet the freighter did not.
2. The Iranians were less than 3 minutes away via high speed boat, legally in their own territory. Everyone knew this.
3. The heliocopter flew away leaving them unprotected.

2007-03-30 17:13:53 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events Current Events

5 answers

I think you can pretty much guarantee that when Iranians boarded the ship that was the clear signal that they needed protection. I get confused on what the hell the ships captain and the Marines were doing when the Iranians approached, they should have been running for their SA80's and killing their asses

2007-03-30 20:33:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The larger ships draw attention. For smuggling interdiction, small is better plus they can get to the areas smugglers use that a major warship would find too shallow. Secondly, there was no suspicion that Iran would kidnap the sailors in international waters and budget decisions are a part of everyday command. My bet was that it was close to Iranian waters and there are no fences or paint in the water to mark a border so a lot of guesswork is involved. The Iranian skipper could have just been a hot head like their Prez. Iran disputes the international border anyway. In the event of trouble, multiple helicopters could have been there quickly - however - that would have probably been more dangerous for the sailors. When Israel attacked the USS Liberty out of fear that the US would provide intel to their enemies, carrier aircraft could have reacted but often less action is better (rather then fanning a fire, let it burn out). The British military is professional - they would not act in that sort of situation without instructions. It is also likely that the fast patrol boat had anti-aircraft protection and helicopters are extremely vulnerable. Really, international relations are not cut and dry and the British have more and better experience with the likes of Iran then anyone.

2007-03-30 18:27:11 · answer #2 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0 0

There was no reason to suppose that protection might be needed.

2007-03-30 18:32:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I wondered the same thing. Why did they not shoot their way out of it?

2007-03-30 17:17:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

they are the protectors.

2007-03-31 16:46:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers