US Sailors detained by Iran

Remember the HMS Cornwall incident? You know, when the usual suspects claimed that the US wouldn't have stood for it and would have opened fire?

Yeah, well. About that: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35295766

 

Ooh. Bet that stings like a wet tea-towel, a whip-cracked across a bare ass. Yes-siree.

Spit, *pause*..... ding

 

"Wouldn't have happened in my day" Armchair admirals have finally been silenced. I just hope no of the crew have an iPod.

 

The IA for Kerry was to call the Iranians and apologise, then negotiate the safe return.

Triumph of realpolitik over rhetoric. BZ USA.

 

How much of the media frenzy in 2007 was politically motivated?

 

Anything done by I-ran is politically motivated.

 

No - I meant was UK media manipulated by the like of the victor of Basra Dannet (sp?) and journos such as Max Hastings?

 

Journalists are the UK media. Not sure how they could manipulate themselves?

 

Wot, not suits? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35300019

 

They had a fair bit more than a rib and some SA80s too.

No wonder they didn't get a game of ping pong.

 

Spooky how two boats, toppers with heavily armed 'sailors', simultaneously broke down many miles 'off course'.

Gash fuel perhaps....

 

Certainly shouldn't be a case of not being able to afford to refuel . . .

 

Wouldnt want to the Stoker that did the last maint on them. Get a new ******** reamed at the table?

 

Yep, he/she must've made the same mechanical error on both boats & knackered the navaids too. (Bit like running out of petrol and losing your way in your helicopter and landing in Chile)

I await the Hollywood blockbuster, starring Tom Hanks, which will hopefully make things a little clearer

 

If the boats were travelling together-and it looks as if they were- it would be perfectly reasonable, SOP even, to 'follow the leader', the leader being responsible for navigation. Leader gets it wrong -human or equipment error- both end up off course.

Even allowing for the thaw in relations with Iran, I'm impressed by John Kerry's diplomatic skills in getting 'his' guys back so quickly. He's a Navy man.

 

If you are suggesting that the 'sailors' were 'special' I'm inclined to disagree.
The film of their brief captivity portrayed them as anything but USN 'THEM'. Arthur Batchelor looked more warry.

 

My gut feeling is there are probably enough conspiracy theorists out there to make spurious suggestions without my help, hence the reason for not suggesting it. It does however raise a question mark with regards the cause of an inadvertent incursion by such a large margin with an indisputably heavily armed vessel by indigenous standards.

With regards being lost by several dozen miles; Having seen the comedy of a Brit minesweeper as it managed to "T-bone" an anchored supertanker in the Solent in broad daylight, nothing surprises me when it comes to military navigation prowess.

John Kerry's diplomatic skills, being a Navy man, possibly boils down to saying 'sorry' quick enough, when you know you may have transgressed. This, to me is diplomatically less embarrassing than disputing imaginary lines drawn on charts in contentious seaways, that were never ratified by the countries concerned.

Going off on a tangent with regards recruiting and "what is in a name" -

Given that many wanting to join the RN as a Warfare or Sea Spec as they view boarding ops os 'gung-ho', this USN branch sounds a little more attractive: http://www.navy.com/careers/special-operations/swcc.html#ft-key-responsibilities

 

Quite so. John Kerry's course of action was the diplomatic equivalent of saying 'my bad'. It body swerved discomfort for the captives, anguish for their families, prolonged embarrassment for the USN and US, and a willy waving stand off that may have ended badly. BZ.

 

"Away Seaboat, away Seaboat"

 

Remember it well.
How fit the yanks looked when remembering acting Leading Seaman Faye Turney and Able Seaman Arthur Batchelor and the overweight embarrassment they caused us all.