US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors'

a senior american comander in the gulf has said his men would have fired on the iranian republican guard rather than let theselves be taken captive and expressed suprise that british marines and sailors had not been more agressive

is this yet another example of america's distructive approach to international relations or have 'our boys' let the side down...?

Who us?



news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article320004.ece

the ira - trained and funded by america - the original sponsors of terrorism...

I though it may be Budweiser

We must be tough suns of biotches then....training all of these terrorists.

The British have always been the smarter people when talking about West.

Or perhaps a stupid mistake by the Brits for possilbly going into Iranian waters.....or a stupid ploy by Iran to try and affect the U.N. vote for sanctions against them! But no, wait.....everything wrong in the world is to blame on America......sorry, I forgot!

dont think you understood my question sweetheart... never mind, ay?

And this surprises you WHY, BW?

Understood perfectly.......also understand the brits must be a bunch of pu**ies to let themselves get caught!

Oh SNAP!

yeah, sooo true... only americans would be smart enough to open fire on iranian gun boats whilst out for a jaunt in inflatable dingies...

i think the expression is not able to think past the end of their nose...

No my friend. The Brits have shown decency. Let us just accept that.

More importantly they showed smartness . Firing Iranians at their territory would not be a wise move . I really respect their brains these British ... no really! ... they are smart people.

That's what happens when you're raised on videogames and Platoon

true... and firing at iranians in heavily armed metal gunboats whilst in inflatable dingies would have been fukin stoopid... guess thats what makes british soldiers the best in the world...

yup... an army of rambos... frightening, huh?

Standards have slipped then. In days gone by nobody would have been captured in the first place. Well maybe some of the Navy boys would have been but the Marines - no freakin way

I really can't be @rsed with the Gung Ho attitude.
Iraq - coalition casualties so far
3500 dead
23500 wounded
Iraqi casualties - nobody really cares

Tomorrow three coaltion troops will be dead that were alive today.

if you are talking about civilian casualties, then people do care. the number is thousand time far greater then the coalition forces

The whole bloody war is a farce !!

you can say that again

Sorry Razz - I was being flippant to make a point.
Iraqi civilian casualties estimates vary from 50 - 500 000.
Refugees - reported 2 million in Jordan alone.
The war is becoming so passe that they dont even bother reporting half the stuff.

icasualties.org/oif/

South Georgia 1982. Way.

The Brits acted within the rules of engagement. The Yanks as usual make up the rules as they are going along or choose to disregard them.
What would the Brits have gained had they fought back?........an early grave.

here here, no benefit of shooting a 'friendly' back for goodness sake. it makes it MORE unproffessional as it is that yanks cant control themselves!!!

I presume you refer to the events leading up to 2 April 82 rather than those leading up to 25 April. If so this is rather different than the situation in Iraq/Iran IMHO.

True enough. I was just making a point.

Hell I would have fired. Nothing against the Brits though, great soldiers.

I'd just rather go out giving them all I've got rather than be caught.

aint bein funny or nuffin like artur... but youre a cat wif a melon on your head... innit...

i can feel another vietnam coming on!!!

You can take me seriously when I say:



Melon cat or not.....I'm going out with a fight