Bonesy Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Look, I'm not just defending a Sailor because GO NAVY.I'm saying let's not conclude he's an asshole without the info we need to attempt that castigation. You and I and a few others here know what he was supposed to do. And what it would take for him to do otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 It's not a matter of being at war. You're missing the point here. It's like getting arrested and asking for lawyer. He knows what is supposed to do, his rights for that, and how is supposed to conduct himself. He did the wrong thing. No matter how you feel about it, he has a way in which he is expected to act. He didn't do so. In the end this will be investigated.If anything happens to the officer then it will just be an example that doing what is the right does not always have the best outcome. The officer may of have a full understanding of his action and decided to do act for his crew safety knowing that risk. He got his crew out of harms way and helped out others in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Look, I'm not just defending a Sailor because GO NAVY. I'm saying let's not conclude he's an asshole without the info we need to attempt that castigation. You and I and a few others here know what he was supposed to do. And what it would take for him to do otherwise.I"m not saying he was an asshole. He was probably scared shitless, and trying to the best thing for his troops. Thats why we have basic training for this kind of stuff though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Agreed. Nonetheless, let's let it play out. We know it will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Arthur Hightower Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 In 2007, the same thing happened to some British sailors -- mechanical difficulties, drift into Iranian waters, get taken in. The Iranians held them for 13 days, and put them in all sorts of promotional photos and videos. Some of the British sailors claim to have been tortured. Getting these sailors back, unharmed, in less than 24 hours is due to diplomacy.But in the GOP Presidential candidate fever dream, anyone so much as pointing a middle finger at an American abroad without getting carpet bombed in response is evidence of the appalling weakness of a nation that spends more on its military than the next umpteen countries combined, so they fell all over themselves to wail and moan about American weakness, a few hours before American diplomacy got the sailors back. It must be exhausting and terrifying to live in the world of a Republican politician.I have never seen any claims that the sailors involved were severely mistreated, if you have a (reliable) source then please share it.It is important to note that the differences are: America admits it was in Iran's water, whereas at the time NATO forces were basically assuming Iraq waters were implausibly large, also Ahmadinejad was a major factor in bad relations. Though that's not to dismiss the diplomatic progress made with Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 They look pretty comfortable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I don't see how that's news - it seems an obvious thing to do until you disarm your prisoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebble thats Stubby Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 4 minutes ago, Maltaran said: I don't see how that's news - it seems an obvious thing to do until you disarm your prisoners. I think the shock here is that some unarmed freedom loving Americans where in the presence of other people carrying guns. We all know that the only correct solution to someone maybe having a gun is for everyone to have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 16 hours ago, Commodore said: You, uh, do know that armed members of the United States military entered the sovereign territory of another country without permission, yeah? Pretty much everyone acted appropriately (except maybe that officer peterbound was screaming about debateably depending on stuff we don't know). What are you mad about here? e: The US doesn't somehow lose international standing or whatever by admitting they were wrong in this instance. If you accidentally stumble into the wrong house coming home, you don't get to freak out when the owner points a gun at you and tells you to get out, especially if you're armed and have been raving about how you're going to kill him for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin of Ice Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Commodore, don't gun loving conservatives like yourself like to say that a well armed society is a polite society. (Despite, y'know, the evidence to the contrary provided by folks like the militia in Oregon and their friends.) But if armed = polite, then what's wrong with the Iranians politely showing that they're armed to further encourage politeness, and then politely returning the sailors to the US within a day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 the NRA heavy armament is peace principle was only always intended to apply to light complected persons and to states without funny foreign names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I think the complaint is that the captured U.S. soldiers were not suffering enough to justify... something. I guess people like Commodore would like to see our captured soldiers shackled in a dark cell and treated harshly, like an Abu Ghraib-lite, to prove... something? Now that I think it out loud, his reaction really doesn't make a lick of sense does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted January 19, 2016 Author Share Posted January 19, 2016 I guess my only concern about the incident is the appropriateness of the commander participating in a video. I don’t have enough information to assess whether it was appropriate or not. It could be that he was given the green light by his leadership to participate but it is too early to know. I actually think this is the most likely scenario. If the commander made the decision on his own to give that apology on tape it seems like that could be a violation. If it turns out it was decided by the commander on his own it seems like one of two things could be in play: He made a poor decision and should have refused to participate or he was made sufficiently fearful of the safety of his sailors that he thought it was prudent to participate. I'm not completely ready to conclude that there is nothing to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 2 hours ago, TerraPrime said: I think the complaint is that the captured U.S. soldiers were not suffering enough to justify... something. I guess people like Commodore would like to see our captured soldiers shackled in a dark cell and treated harshly, like an Abu Ghraib-lite, to prove... something? Now that I think it out loud, his reaction really doesn't make a lick of sense does it? It still doesn't make any sense. This isn't an issue of what seems right or wrong to you. Or even justified. He, because of his profession and rank, should not have done it. I'm not sure how you can't see that, or make that distinction. I might have been the right thing to do (within your worldview), but it wasn't something he was /allowed/ to do based on his training and military profession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Does the military not recognise extenuating circumstances for that sort of thing? If so, surely we should wait until they've finished their investigation before we proclaim that he was definitely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Maltaran said: Does the military not recognise extenuating circumstances for that sort of thing? If so, surely we should wait until they've finished their investigation before we proclaim that he was definitely wrong. There wasn't really any extenuating circumstances here. Had they been in the hanoi hilton, I'd say yes, but this was hardly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Arise!!! The navy has finished it's investigation.... and surprise surprise, they found the officer to be in violation of the Code of Conduct. Can't make propaganda videos folks... it is known. "The investigation also found some crewmembers did not meet code of conduct standards while in custody," Vice Adm. John Aquilino said in the Pentagon press briefing with CNO. The lieutenant in charge of the transit was quoted in an Iranian propaganda video apologizing for the errors that led them into Iranian waters when he was told that it was a condition of their release. In total, the sailors were in captivity for 16 hours. http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/06/30/navy-investigation-released-farsi-island-riverines/86545612/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.