Thread: Britain Appeals To UN In Sailors' Case

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Why yes I did , why did you put them in parenthesis then?

Well, look: here's the line, addressed to Bluesman

Originally Posted by bandwagon

I reckon this is partly grounded in your perverse sense of morality, which makes you act knee-jerk style to a “wrong” irregardless of the consequences.

It's generic, not specific to the 15. As Bluesman is doing the judging in the line the parenthesis are simply to denote a quotation.

a military strike of any nature endangers the prisoners lives, should this influence government actions, or is it a risk of service?

I would have thought it would have to factor in the decision, -to not allow it to would be unforgivable-, but it would not necessarily be an overriding factor. Other factors would be the objective of the strikes, incl the number of other lives saved as a direct consequence, and, yes, the big picture.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Yes it does when those unstable emotional people are encouraged by the Theocracy itself because it represents their policy, if it didn't, those unstable emotional people wouldn't be allowed to chant it.

However, you made out that these chanting folk caught on camera represented the feelings of the population, which they don't.

Originally Posted by xerxes

Mr Pari, I agree with all your point except this one:

I happily bow to your knowledge on this.

Originally Posted by bandwagon

However, you made out that these chanting folk caught on camera represented the feelings of the population, which they don't.

I'm happy for Xerxes to tell me that it is not the feeling of the general populace: I still maintain it is the feeling of the ruling cadre, and is a deliberate expression on their part.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

I'm happy for Xerxes to tell me that it is not the feeling of the general populace: I still maintain it is the feeling of the ruling cadre, and is a deliberate expression on their part.

Yes

Originally Posted by Parihaka;360870[B

I'd like to illicit the opinions of the soldiers we do have here[/B]:
if you were held captive would you rather your country try to rescue you, only bargain for you, or some portion in between?[/COLOR]

Though I would love my gov't do everything they can to get me out of this crap, I still have a job to do as a soldier under captivity and that is to deny the enemy and occupy his resources to the full. The leaders would be damned busy trying to keep morale up and some sort of cohesiveness and communications going. More than that, they are the only source of hope for the rest of the section.

The answer is just because you're captured does not mean your job as a soldier ends.

[QUOTE=Parihaka;360870].

if you were held captive would you rather your country try to rescue you, only bargain for you, or some portion in between?

Maybe I am of the old shool of thinking, I did not join the military to get away from my home life, work enviroment or because I was unemployable elsewhere, my career I saw as a vocation not a job, whilst I know my government would negociate for me if held captive, I sure as hell hope they would come for me, because as a soldier I would be obligated to try and escape, and I would be doing everything I could to hinder/learn of there future intentions, I know this, everyone has a breaking point but they would never get me to read a script on TV to be aired to the world, if they did break me what you saw would leave you in no doubt I had been "cohearsed"

Absolutely correct, OoE and Tigger. When I went through POW training during aircrew survival skool, one phase was for situations JUST LIKE THIS. When no war is going on, but you find yourself in 'enemy' hands just the same, you don't even have the largely-useless protections of the Geneva Conventions to hang onto.

When you put your right hand in the air and swear to God, you've committed your entire self, your very life if needs be, to the accomplishment of the MISSION, and you are in your country's service up to and including death.

We were given three priority-ordered missions to accomplish, if captured:
1. SURVIVE. This is Job #1, and NOTHING trumps it.
2. RETURN. Escape if you can; be repatriated after hostilities end if you can't. Part of the Code of Conduct states that you must have faith that your country will not abandon you.
3. WITH YOUR HONOR INTACT. You cannot accept parole nor special favors from the enemy. You cannot make a deal for your freedom. You cannot break faith with your fellow prisoners, and you must follow all lawful orders of your superiors.

Our enemies consider the POW camp as an extension of the battlefield, and when you're a POW, you must accept that, also, and OoE is completely accurate: you ARE still obligated by your oath, even as you're a POW (actually, ESPECIALLY as a POW).

What my government does to secure my release will be the very best thing they can do, whether it is to risk my life and others in a rescue mission, make a promise to the enemy in bad faith, or accept a humiliation to buy me back. I've got to have faith that they'll do whatever they must without the country paying a price that exceeds my worth. And keep in mind that the US has a long, tragically heroic history of spending MANY lives to save ONE, which tells me beyond a shadow of a doubt that no matter were I am, no matter what the circumstances are, if I've been taken or are about to be, my country will do ANYthing to come and get me, even if my comrades will be at mortal risk doing it.

But do I expect my country to crawl to get me back? I should dam' well hope they would NOT. Easy to say while I'm posting from my nice warm bed, you may say, and I sure would long for home and family if held by an enemy. But John McCain, while desperately wounded and lying in a rancid cot in a North Vietnamese prison, declined repatriation for five years, and as far as I'm concerned, that's the standard: I'll come home when I can accomplsh ALL THREE of my missions.

I wonder if any nation would say 'Down with the Brits'.

They always go for the head honcho - the US!

The truth of the matter is that it is more forceful and impressive for the domestic audience to burn a US Flag and let loose on the US.

I too have seen enough of ridiculous and impossible ideas of Nuking A or B etc and I have always asked if it were possible or was it just letting off steam and frustration.

Americans wonder why the people "hate" the US and are surprised that people say that they don't hate Americans but the US Administration's policies. Likewise, I hate the way Ahmedinejad is going about his agenda. I sure do. But do I hate the Iranians? I don't think so. I have met many an Iranian, soldiers and also academicians. I will say that they are quite sane and not terribly odious.

Originally Posted by Ray

I too have seen enough of ridiculous and impossible ideas of Nuking A or B etc and I have always asked if it were possible or was it just letting off steam and frustration.

Sir, as a Soldier, do you believe the British should mount either a rescue mission or take punitive military action against the Iranians to force them to release the prisoners?

Originally Posted by Parihaka

I'm still at a loss to understand how Iran pushing Britain around is cause for America to be berated?

You are not reading the issue in the right context.

Ho Boy! That's a disconcerting echo of the "You are either with us or against us" speech.

Why is it that the US seems unable to understand that people and nations don't like being pushed around?


I'm not sure what I'm more surprised at : That the current administration is so inept at diplomacy or that practically all the previous administrations seems in hindsight to actually have done a very good job of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
LOL, so who is pushing YOU around. From what I understand, Iran has kidnapped British citizens and is demanding that Britian apologise for this So how exactly are YOU being pushed around?

It is a collective sentiment of the third world, which has no Anglo Saxon affinity that can be aroused when help is required to salvage one! Or to close ranks on non Anglo Saxons!

Such countries and their population therefore are chary about any pushing around, no matter who is being pushed.

This idea would not be pleasant for Anglo Saxons to digest, but then it is the Gospel Truth, even if it not found within the covers of the Bible

The reply was in context with the the first post quoted above and your reply thereof. Apparently, you misread and brought in Britain when the 'pushing around' was stated in context with the US!

There is no hidden agenda, as is being implied by Tigger, to divide the Britain and the US. It is a well known fact that they will stick together for various obvious reasons. Like Tigger, I would refrain from mentioning them since the obvious would unnecessarily ruin the goodwill.

While I am no fan of the Arabs or of the Middle East nations, it requires no rocket science to note how the US pushes around everyone. It is only the blind who do not see it or those who have not experienced the humiliation of having to acquiesce inspite of being sovereign nations! It is for one to also observe if the the US pushes any Anglo Saxon country, when they have no hesitation to push the French, the Slavs and the Germans!!! So, it is not the issue of colour either, in case someone skewed enough comments on that to obfuscate. It is merely genetic affinity!

That notwithstanding, I am possibly the only one who is of the firm (as all my posts on this and allied issues are concerned) that the British will with their astute diplomacy come out smelling of roses and not with the smell of rotting dead flesh that is signatured by the gung ho hell for leather philosophy.

May I also point out that posters from the so called allies have not been kind to Britain. My view does not emanate from kindness, it is prompted by history wherein the British even when the chips are down, surface to finally win!

And even after that if someone feels I have a 'hidden agenda', it is extraordinary, unfortunate and base.

I thought I wrote workable English for comprehension and not of the Billingsgate variety. I am sure the workable English that I write is better for comprehension than that of the Billingsgate variety.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Sir, as a Soldier, do you believe the British should mount either a rescue mission or take punitive military action against the Iranians to force them to release the prisoners?

Good question.

As a soldier do you not think that we should send Pakistan to Kingdom Come for all the terrorism that they are perpetuating in India?

But as a thinking man, I go along with my govt to neutralise Pakistan with diplomacy since it is not feasible, given the western and Arab support to ensure that it does not become feasible.

Likewise, should you not think that the US and NATO send Pakistan to Kingdom Come for sending the Taleban to kill the US and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. And yet, they (the US and NATO) panders to every whim of Pakistan including arming her to the teeth!

In both the cases, India and Pakistan and US and NATO and Pakistan, pragmatism rules and not the heart!

Likewise, if one expects Britain to go gung ho hell for leather, then such people are divorced of reality that govern the international polity as also what is feasible and what is not.

I am of the opinion that the indirect approach, of which there is no master greater than Great Britain, is the only answer.

Let us adopt the grace, astuteness and firmness of the Queen. She has weathered many a storm and yet she is without blemish.

Let us not go bonkers with witless jingoism!

Note the real British on ARRSE. They have deleted the thread so as to not skew the works. Yet, they are confident that things will work out in GB's favour!

I will say again - Do not underestimate the British and I don't think I will have to eat crow having had faith in the British! The odds are non existent!

Originally Posted by Ray

You are not reading the issue in the right context.



The reply was in context with the the first post quoted above and your reply thereof. Apparently, you misread and brought in Britain when the 'pushing around' was stated in context with the US!

There is no hidden agenda, as is being implied by Tigger, to divide the Britain and the US. It is a well known fact that they will stick together for various obvious reasons. Like Tigger, I would refrain from mentioning them since the obvious would unnecessarily ruin the goodwill.

While I am no fan of the Arabs or of the Middle East nations, it requires no rocket science to note how the US pushes around everyone. It is only the blind who do not see it or those who have not experienced the humiliation of having to acquiesce inspite of being sovereign nations! It is for one to also observe if the the US pushes any Anglo Saxon country, when they have no hesitation to push the French, the Slavs and the Germans!!! So, it is not the issue of colour either, in case someone skewed enough comments on that to obfuscate. It is merely genetic affinity!

That notwithstanding, I am possibly the only one who is of the firm (as all my posts on this and allied issues are concerned) that the British will with their astute diplomacy come out smelling of roses and not with the smell of rotting dead flesh that is signatured by the gung ho hell for leather philosophy.

May I also point out that posters from the so called allies have not been kind to Britain. My view does not emanate from kindness, it is prompted by history wherein the British even when the chips are down, surface to finally win!

And even after that if someone feels I have a 'hidden agenda', it is extraordinary, unfortunate and base.

I thought I wrote workable English for comprehension and not of the Billingsgate variety. I am sure the workable English that I write is better for comprehension than that of the Billingsgate variety.

Ray, I for one am certainly not accusing you of having a hidden agenda.

My question directed at chankya was to query why Bluesmans positing of Britain having two basic choices would mean that America was pushing someone around, this when America had made no statement over the taking of the British hostages. I simply don't understand how he could derive this line of thought from what was said.



As for the idea that America doesn't 'push around' Anglo-Saxon countries, I know you are a keen student of New Zealand history, and will remember when we declared ourselves nuclear free, both America and Britain broke off virtually all military contact, and this remains until this day.
Our only allowed participation is as auxiliaries of the Australians, and observer status at ABCA.
We may not participate in direct military exercises with any anglo-Saxon countries apart from Australia, and while continuing to record and pass on data from echelon are not allowed to receive any of the information gleaned from that.
When the French committed a terrorist act in our country, none of the Anglo-Saxon nations would call it terrorism or condemn it, and Britain actively supported the French when they blockaded our goods on route to Europe until we released the two murderers we caught, despite them pleading guilty to murder.
Even in the last 5 years when New Zealand prime ministers are once again allowed meetings with the American President and British Prime Minister, we are still described as 'very good friends', rather than allies, a description happily allowed to Pakistan as you point out.
I'm certainly not saying that there is an ongoing bond between the peoples of the various Anglo-Saxon nations, but this doesn't apply to the governments of those countries, and being an Anglo-Saxon nation does not confer special rights or shield you from humiliation from the other nations.


Oh, I forgot to mention, Australia has preferential access for its goods via an FTA with the States, something we are specifically told we may not have.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

My question directed at chankya was to query why Bluesmans positing of Britain having two basic choices would mean that America was pushing someone around, this when America had made no statement over the taking of the British hostages. I simply don't understand how he could derive this line of thought from what was said.

Since you're really determined to make out that I'm hatching some kind of evil minded conspiracy let's see if i can oblige.

Given everything you said, why is it that you still think that the US does not push other nations around. Sure looks like NZ was pushed around to me. The only way to be in their good books is to toady around.

Now Iran. Let's see. The US eventually took Afghanistan( Still remember Afghanistan? Where the terrorists really are from ? And while we're at that subject lets just say it. Terrorists the US funded and created practically from scratch. So let's dispense with the holier than thou crap about islamic terrorism and who's doing what to fight it. ) with the help of the NA. The NA was funded and supported by three countries. Let's see... they were Russia, India and oh yes.... IRAN. So what do you do in return? You declare them to be part of an axis of evil. Sheesh..... Unless you grew up with cowboy movies as your sole sense of education you got to realize you can't just go around shooting people up and expect things will be fine. The Iranians today sound paranoid. Trust me I'd be frickking paranoid too if the US army was sitting in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan not to forget the rest of the gulf and with two carriers in my back yard.

Since you reiterated the fact that this was a "World" affairs board not an American board let me ask you this. How many people here in this nice long thread asked what Iran's side of the story was. You want to drop bombs and wipe them out. Fine. Understandable. US national interests. I understand that all nations are motivated by that, and act accordingly.

Just hold on though. What about Iranian national interests? Ummm... let's see interest no 1: Don't get invaded and occupied. Till you see people who are willing to put that line out and not be shouted out and abused by the rest of you then yes... it bloody well isn't a "world" affairs board.

And finally i find that the greatest defenders of this administration on this board fling this title of a "gentle superpower" around all the time. Let's be clear. It wasn't gifted or bought. It was earned in the blood of US soldiers and the wisdom and restraint of a lot of presidents. Good will that was lost in less than a decade while they were busy renaming french fries.(democrats included)

This little diatribe of mine had nothing to do with the sailors. For that I apologize to anyone who actually read it thinking i had something to offer on that count. It's 5 an night and I've just finished watching "Flags of our fathers". That might account for my more than usual cynicism and atrocious spelling. Gnite!