Mornin';
...I thought some of the "previous" military members of the forum might like to read this article. I had been wondering the same thing during this "ordeal". Hopefully I don't step on anyone's toes here. :lol:
New York Post
April 3, 2007
Where's Winston?
By Ralph Peters
THE greatest shock from the Middle East this year hasn't been terrorist ruthlessness or the latest Iranian tantrum. It's that members of
Britain's Royal Marines wimped out in a matter of days and acquiesced in
propaganda broadcasts for their captors. Jingoism aside, I can't Imagine
any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in such a shabby, cowardly fashion.
Our Marines would have fought to begin with. Taken captive by force,
they would've resisted collaboration. To the last man and woman.
You could put a U.S. Marine in a dungeon and knock out his teeth, but
you wouldn't knock out his pride in his country and the Corps. "Semper
fi" means something. And our Aussie allies would be just as tough.
What on earth happened to the Royal Marines? They're members of what
passes for an elite unit. Has the Labor government's program to gut the
U.K. military - grounding planes, taking ships out of service and
deactivating army units - also ripped the courage from the breasts of
those in uniform?
The female sailor who broke down first and begged for her government to
surrender was pathetic enough. But when Royal Marines started pleading
for tea and sympathy . . . Ma, say it ain't so!
Meanwhile, back at No. 10 "Downer" Street, British politicians are more
upset that President Bush described their sailors and Marines as
"hostages" than they are with the Iranians.
Okay, Lord Spanker and Lady Fanny - what exactly are those sailors and
Marines? Package tourists?
Naturally, the European Union has praised Britain's "restraint." We've
now got another synonym for cowardice.
I've always respected the Brits and quite liked those I worked with when
in uniform . . . but I'm starting to wonder if I bought into a legend.
While criticizing our military's approach to everything, the Brits made
an utter balls of it in Basra - now they're bailing out, claiming
"Mission accomplished!" (OK, they had a role model . . .) In Heaven,
Winston Churchill's puking up premium scotch.
The once-proud Brit military has collapsed to a sorry state when its
Royal Marines surrender without a fight, then apologize to their captors
(praising their gentle natures!) while criticizing their own country.
Pretty sad to think that the last real warriors fighting under the Union
Jack are soccer hooligans.
Of course, bravery isn't equally distributed. One or even two
collaborators might be explicable. But not all 15.
Yes, journalists and other civilian captives routinely make embarrassing
statements on videos, chiding their governments and begging to be
swapped for a battalion of mass murderers. One expects nothing better.
But military men and women in the English-speaking tradition
historically maintained high standards over long years in brutal
captivity - and this hostage situation has barely lasted long enough to
microwave a bag of popcorn.
Think about Sen. John McCain with his broken limbs undergoing torture in
that Hanoi prison - and refusing an early chance to be repatriated
because he wouldn't leave his comrades behind. Think he'd do a Tokyo
Rose for Tehran?
The Iranians judged their victims well: The British boat crews didn't
make even a token effort at defending themselves. Now their
boo-hoo-we-quit government isn't defending them, either. Was Margaret
Thatcher the last real man in Britain?
The correct response to the seizure of 15 British military hostages - if
not released promptly - would've been to hit 15 Revolutionary Guards
facilities or vessels along the Iranian coast, then threaten to hit 30
deeper inland the next day.
By hammering the now-degenerate Revolutionary Guards, the Coalition
would've strengthened the less-nutty and less-vicious regular military
and emboldened President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's growing number of
opponents within the government. (It was telling that the Revolutionary
Guards could only muster about 200 demonstrators to harass the British
embassy - it didn't look much like 1979.)
Instead, we allowed the Iranian hardliners to humiliate a once-great
military and encourage hostage-takers everywhere.
At the very least, the British naval officer commanding in the zone of
operations and the vocal collaborators among the hostages should be
court-martialed. And the Royal Marine company to which those wankers
belong should be disbanded and stricken from the rolls.
John Bull has been cowed. By a pack of unshaven thugs. And the Britannia
that ruled the waves is waving goodbye.
...I thought some of the "previous" military members of the forum might like to read this article. I had been wondering the same thing during this "ordeal". Hopefully I don't step on anyone's toes here. :lol:
New York Post
April 3, 2007
Where's Winston?
By Ralph Peters
THE greatest shock from the Middle East this year hasn't been terrorist ruthlessness or the latest Iranian tantrum. It's that members of
Britain's Royal Marines wimped out in a matter of days and acquiesced in
propaganda broadcasts for their captors. Jingoism aside, I can't Imagine
any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in such a shabby, cowardly fashion.
Our Marines would have fought to begin with. Taken captive by force,
they would've resisted collaboration. To the last man and woman.
You could put a U.S. Marine in a dungeon and knock out his teeth, but
you wouldn't knock out his pride in his country and the Corps. "Semper
fi" means something. And our Aussie allies would be just as tough.
What on earth happened to the Royal Marines? They're members of what
passes for an elite unit. Has the Labor government's program to gut the
U.K. military - grounding planes, taking ships out of service and
deactivating army units - also ripped the courage from the breasts of
those in uniform?
The female sailor who broke down first and begged for her government to
surrender was pathetic enough. But when Royal Marines started pleading
for tea and sympathy . . . Ma, say it ain't so!
Meanwhile, back at No. 10 "Downer" Street, British politicians are more
upset that President Bush described their sailors and Marines as
"hostages" than they are with the Iranians.
Okay, Lord Spanker and Lady Fanny - what exactly are those sailors and
Marines? Package tourists?
Naturally, the European Union has praised Britain's "restraint." We've
now got another synonym for cowardice.
I've always respected the Brits and quite liked those I worked with when
in uniform . . . but I'm starting to wonder if I bought into a legend.
While criticizing our military's approach to everything, the Brits made
an utter balls of it in Basra - now they're bailing out, claiming
"Mission accomplished!" (OK, they had a role model . . .) In Heaven,
Winston Churchill's puking up premium scotch.
The once-proud Brit military has collapsed to a sorry state when its
Royal Marines surrender without a fight, then apologize to their captors
(praising their gentle natures!) while criticizing their own country.
Pretty sad to think that the last real warriors fighting under the Union
Jack are soccer hooligans.
Of course, bravery isn't equally distributed. One or even two
collaborators might be explicable. But not all 15.
Yes, journalists and other civilian captives routinely make embarrassing
statements on videos, chiding their governments and begging to be
swapped for a battalion of mass murderers. One expects nothing better.
But military men and women in the English-speaking tradition
historically maintained high standards over long years in brutal
captivity - and this hostage situation has barely lasted long enough to
microwave a bag of popcorn.
Think about Sen. John McCain with his broken limbs undergoing torture in
that Hanoi prison - and refusing an early chance to be repatriated
because he wouldn't leave his comrades behind. Think he'd do a Tokyo
Rose for Tehran?
The Iranians judged their victims well: The British boat crews didn't
make even a token effort at defending themselves. Now their
boo-hoo-we-quit government isn't defending them, either. Was Margaret
Thatcher the last real man in Britain?
The correct response to the seizure of 15 British military hostages - if
not released promptly - would've been to hit 15 Revolutionary Guards
facilities or vessels along the Iranian coast, then threaten to hit 30
deeper inland the next day.
By hammering the now-degenerate Revolutionary Guards, the Coalition
would've strengthened the less-nutty and less-vicious regular military
and emboldened President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's growing number of
opponents within the government. (It was telling that the Revolutionary
Guards could only muster about 200 demonstrators to harass the British
embassy - it didn't look much like 1979.)
Instead, we allowed the Iranian hardliners to humiliate a once-great
military and encourage hostage-takers everywhere.
At the very least, the British naval officer commanding in the zone of
operations and the vocal collaborators among the hostages should be
court-martialed. And the Royal Marine company to which those wankers
belong should be disbanded and stricken from the rolls.
John Bull has been cowed. By a pack of unshaven thugs. And the Britannia
that ruled the waves is waving goodbye.