Who thinks the royal marines of the UK should have fired on Iran?

Question

I think they should have fired them up myself

This is for PS DRUMM your an idiot too your just gonna let someone take you hostage without a fight i`m glad your not in the military

Answer 1

The US Marines were told that Iwo Jima could not be taken. The Japs said it would take 10 years and 500,000 lives if we tried. The Marines took it in weeks at the cost of 4,907 KIA, 3,114 WIA. I'm glad we didn't think that it was foolhardy to shoot if we were out gunned and out numbered!!! Please don't associate the cowardly British Marines with us!!!

Answer 2

Allen....

Do you mean that the Royal Marines should have fired on the entire country of Iran? I don't think Briton has that many Marines....I know the US doesn't.

But of course you must mean should the Marines have fired upon the Iranians during the abduction. Yes I think they should have defended themselves, continuously called for naval and air support....and the closest UK ship or aircraft to prosecute the defense and retrieval of the 15 until they were either safe or...........

But that's just me.......

Answer 3

Yeah right , get cut down to pieces & be mentioned in dispatches.....9 gun salute & all that ****....
When you are overpowered & outgunned (the Iranians had heavy machine guns compared to the small arms the UK marines had) ,if you've got an iota of common sense
you wouldn't engage in combat....
The UK is not at war with Iran.
Live to fight another day.
Besides, the UK now has valuable information obtained from the captives about the Iranian armed forces & methods of interrogation.
There's always another day to be gung-ho & brave the way you suggest.

Answer 4

I guess it all depends on the Rules of Engagement (ROE) that those Royal Marines were ordered to operate under...

However - if I was in the situation of those Royal Marines, and the Rules of Engagement allowed me to fire on the Iranians then perhaps I would have fired on the Iranian 'aggressors' (depending on the local tactical situation).

Answer 5

Sure, start a war that would kill hunderds of thousands of people, that would solve exactly what...except propagate more hatred toward the western civilization. (that is what Bush did, I think the Brit's may have learned something)
I suggest you leave the trailer park, get an education then join the military and put your own dumbass on the line, in that order because we do not need retarded soldiers.

Answer 6

they would be comin back in coffins if they thought they should have fired they were heavily under equipped for battle against iranian heavy weapons and plus they were outnumbered and isolated
say if they had the right guns for a fight they would gladly do so but this wasnt the case

Answer 7

Hi I don't know what their specific ROE was at the time but I promise you that I sure as hell would not have surrendered second I would have put up one hell of a fight and not been taken alive. God forbid I was taken alive I sure as hell would not have been a pussy given into non existent torture and committed treason. If I had I hope that my buddies would have shot me dead for being a traitor. And before you say well what would you have done in that situation.... You don't know where I have been or what I have done and I have not just been to SERE school but had to apply the skills in a real world environment. ................ Shadow Stalker

Answer 8

I think that not only they should have fired on the Iranians but also the helicopter giving them air support and their base ship should have blasted them out of the water. time we start standing up for ourselves.

Answer 9

I would've fought like a mad man. Bring people down with you. they might torture u or somethin like that so hurt them to!

Answer 10

Yeah thats the spirit, bomb first, and f%$# the consequences. Now that really is clever. Idiot.