British Sailors Surrendered?
 

It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Joe

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

Joe wrote:
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Joe

Problem is that GB's only allies, aside from former British colonies
like Canada and OZ, is us...so once again there would be no world
backing for anything like that...the prevailing sentiment from the rest
of the world is "Why were you there to begin with?" so there won't be
any help that way..and the UN is a joke so you know there won't be any
help there. It would be nice, though, if GB would lob something at
someone as an initial action so they could take the heat instead of us
for a change.

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mar 26, 9:22 am, katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Joe

Problem is that GB's only allies, aside from former British colonies
like Canada and OZ, is us...so once again there would be no world
backing for anything like that...the prevailing sentiment from the rest
of the world is "Why were you there to begin with?" so there won't be
any help that way..and the UN is a joke so you know there won't be any
help there. It would be nice, though, if GB would lob something at
someone as an initial action so they could take the heat instead of us
for a change.

Heat? Well if the rest of the world feels it's wrong to liberate
people from a tyrant like Saddam, and go after mass murders like Al
Queida then thats their problem. We do not need thier approval. Let's
face it, they are jealous of America, so the only way they can feel
good is to imigrate and become American, or find ways to try to
tarnish our accomplishments.

Hopefully theses ********s that bitch about America will some day
move into the modern age and become sufficent enough to not be so
angry and jealous.

Joe

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

Joe wrote:

It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Joe

I wonder what the hell the Capt. of the mother ship was doing. Why
didn't he intercept the Iranians? If indeed the Brits were in Iraqi
waters, then the Iranis must have been in Iraqi waters also, put a few
4" rounds into them and they'd probably slow down right quick.

Cheers
Marty

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mar 26, 9:52 am, Martin Baxter wrote:


I wonder what the hell the Capt. of the mother ship was doing.
Cheers
Marty

Tea and crumpets most likely.

Joe

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Joe

You won't hear this from the Leftist Five - ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and PBS
but you'll hear it from me. Don't any of you remember there were a
couple of links to news articles a week or two on Drudge that said Iran
"planned to kidnap" some American soldiers or civilians from Iraq and
make hostages out of them?

So they got some Brits instead. Probably too stupid to tell the
difference. But not as stupid as the American people for not remembering
the threats or taking said threats seriously. Iran does this to cause a
ruckus every time the heat gets turned up on them about sanctions, etc.
from the UN for their continued nuke development. They know how to
misdirect with best of them and they know how to gain more and more time
to complete their nuclear ambitions. I agree with lobbing cruise
missiles. But, make it on a massive scale and hit their nuke development
facilities with nuclear-tipped earth penetrating bunker busters to wipe
out their underground facilities. Make sure AhKmajerkoffhard is
targeted. And his entire family.

It should be a combined effort with the US, Great Briton and Israel all
bombing the hell out of Iran. Hit every possible military target. Don't
mess with the religious sites.


Wilbur Hubbard

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mar 26, 10:59 am, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

oups.com...

It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Joe

You won't hear this from the Leftist Five - ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and PBS
but you'll hear it from me. Don't any of you remember there were a
couple of links to news articles a week or two on Drudge that said Iran
"planned to kidnap" some American soldiers or civilians from Iraq and
make hostages out of them?

So they got some Brits instead. Probably too stupid to tell the
difference. But not as stupid as the American people for not remembering
the threats or taking said threats seriously. Iran does this to cause a
ruckus every time the heat gets turned up on them about sanctions, etc.
from the UN for their continued nuke development. They know how to
misdirect with best of them and they know how to gain more and more time
to complete their nuclear ambitions. I agree with lobbing cruise
missiles. But, make it on a massive scale and hit their nuke development
facilities with nuclear-tipped earth penetrating bunker busters to wipe
out their underground facilities. Make sure AhKmajerkoffhard is
targeted. And his entire family.

It should be a combined effort with the US, Great Briton and Israel all
bombing the hell out of Iran. Hit every possible military target. Don't
mess with the religious sites.

Wilbur Hubbard

Isn't the current leader if Iran one of the hostage takers back in
1979?
Seems I saw something showing him leading blindfolded Americans
around.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...7388169832.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3Den%26sa%3DG

Joe

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mar 26, 11:24 am, "Joe" wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:59 am, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:





"Joe" wrote in message

roups.com...

It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Joe

You won't hear this from the Leftist Five - ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and PBS
but you'll hear it from me. Don't any of you remember there were a
couple of links to news articles a week or two on Drudge that said Iran
"planned to kidnap" some American soldiers or civilians from Iraq and
make hostages out of them?

So they got some Brits instead. Probably too stupid to tell the
difference. But not as stupid as the American people for not remembering
the threats or taking said threats seriously. Iran does this to cause a
ruckus every time the heat gets turned up on them about sanctions, etc.
from the UN for their continued nuke development. They know how to
misdirect with best of them and they know how to gain more and more time
to complete their nuclear ambitions. I agree with lobbing cruise
missiles. But, make it on a massive scale and hit their nuke development
facilities with nuclear-tipped earth penetrating bunker busters to wipe
out their underground facilities. Make sure AhKmajerkoffhard is
targeted. And his entire family.

It should be a combined effort with the US, Great Briton and Israel all
bombing the hell out of Iran. Hit every possible military target. Don't
mess with the religious sites.

Wilbur Hubbard

Isn't the current leader if Iran one of the hostage takers back in
1979?
Seems I saw something showing him leading blindfolded Americans
around.


Here it is:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object...NGHRDHP4V1.DTL

Up to his old tricks again?
Remember how fast these thugs let the hostages go when they knew Regan
was taking the helm?


Joe

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 26, 11:24 am, "Joe" wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:59 am, "Wilbur Hubbard"

wrote:





"Joe" wrote in message

roups.com...

It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a
boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and
know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they
confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Joe

You won't hear this from the Leftist Five - ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and
PBS
but you'll hear it from me. Don't any of you remember there were a
couple of links to news articles a week or two on Drudge that said
Iran
"planned to kidnap" some American soldiers or civilians from Iraq
and
make hostages out of them?

So they got some Brits instead. Probably too stupid to tell the
difference. But not as stupid as the American people for not
remembering
the threats or taking said threats seriously. Iran does this to
cause a
ruckus every time the heat gets turned up on them about sanctions,
etc.
from the UN for their continued nuke development. They know how to
misdirect with best of them and they know how to gain more and more
time
to complete their nuclear ambitions. I agree with lobbing cruise
missiles. But, make it on a massive scale and hit their nuke
development
facilities with nuclear-tipped earth penetrating bunker busters to
wipe
out their underground facilities. Make sure AhKmajerkoffhard is
targeted. And his entire family.

It should be a combined effort with the US, Great Briton and Israel
all
bombing the hell out of Iran. Hit every possible military target.
Don't
mess with the religious sites.

Wilbur Hubbard

Isn't the current leader if Iran one of the hostage takers back in
1979?
Seems I saw something showing him leading blindfolded Americans
around.


Here it is:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object...NGHRDHP4V1.DTL

Up to his old tricks again?
Remember how fast these thugs let the hostages go when they knew Regan
was taking the helm?

The only thing those cowardly *******s understand is the aggressive use
of lethal force against them and their entire extended families. It's
high time we quit listening to the liberal wimps and go after them. We
don't need to step one foot into their country. Just overfly and bomb
them back into the stone age.

Wilbur Hubbard

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
We
don't need to step one foot into their country. Just overfly and bomb
them back into the stone age.


Unfortunatly, judging by their barbarity, they already are in the stone
age. We just need to waste the lot of them; radical militant muslim =
waste of skin and good air.

Cheers
Marty

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

In article .com,
Joe wrote:

On Mar 26, 9:22 am, katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

It's not strange... you think the Iranians just had sidearms or
something?

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Probably. You don't have to actually hit someone to get a
confession. Everyone knows the "confession" would be coerced, so why
go through the actual beating.

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Typical response from a Bushkin. When Carter tried to freed the
Americans, he was called a wimp. When Ronny Raygun traded arms for
hostages, no one seemed to care.

Heat? Well if the rest of the world feels it's wrong to liberate
people from a tyrant like Saddam, and go after mass murders like Al
Queida then thats their problem. We do not need thier approval. Let's
face it, they are jealous of America, so the only way they can feel
good is to imigrate and become American, or find ways to try to
tarnish our accomplishments.

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different. We should
have gone after the latter. Instead, we went after the former. A war
of choice rather than necessity. 3000 US soldiers dead, 25K wounded,
100s of 1000s of Iraqi innocents dead, and civil war.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

In article . com,
Joe wrote:
Isn't the current leader if Iran one of the hostage takers back in
1979?
Seems I saw something showing him leading blindfolded Americans
around.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...7388169832.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3Den%26sa%3DG

No. It's a different guy... this is very old news.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mar 26, 12:04 pm, Martin Baxter wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
We
don't need to step one foot into their country. Just overfly and bomb
them back into the stone age.

Unfortunatly, judging by their barbarity, they already are in the stone
age. We just need to waste the lot of them; radical militant muslim =
waste of skin and good air.

Cheers
Marty

It would seem with modern tools we could prove it is Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad in the photograph. You can look at the eyes and tell it's
him. No doubt. To bad the statute of limitations is up, we could grab
him at the UN and put him on trail for kidnapping.

Joe

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:33:38 -0700, Joe wrote:


Remember how fast these thugs let the hostages go when they knew Regan
was taking the helm?

Sure, all those arms Reagan sold them must have scared the hell out of
them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

Or, my personal belief, Bill Casey committed treason to get Reagan
elected.

http://consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

In article . com,
Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:04 pm, Martin Baxter wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
We
don't need to step one foot into their country. Just overfly and bomb
them back into the stone age.

Unfortunatly, judging by their barbarity, they already are in the stone
age. We just need to waste the lot of them; radical militant muslim =
waste of skin and good air.

Cheers
Marty

It would seem with modern tools we could prove it is Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad in the photograph. You can look at the eyes and tell it's
him. No doubt. To bad the statute of limitations is up, we could grab
him at the UN and put him on trail for kidnapping.

I guess you just are much better at this than the combined efforts of
the CIA and State Dept. Good for you.




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

In article ,
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:33:38 -0700, Joe wrote:


Remember how fast these thugs let the hostages go when they knew Regan
was taking the helm?

Sure, all those arms Reagan sold them must have scared the hell out of
them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

Or, my personal belief, Bill Casey committed treason to get Reagan
elected.

http://consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

And then suddenly died right before being questioned... ya gotta
wonder.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mar 26, 12:15 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article .com,

Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 9:22 am, katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

It's not strange... you think the Iranians just had sidearms or
something?


And you think the brits were packing pop sicyles & bubble gum?
The team surrendered Jon.... Never mind, you do not have a clue.

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Probably. You don't have to actually hit someone to get a
confession. Everyone knows the "confession" would be coerced, so why
go through the actual beating.


Would you confess to another country if you did no wrong?

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Typical response from a Bushkin. When Carter tried to freed the
Americans, he was called a wimp.

The whole operation was a major cluster F*&K Jon. A totally botched
snatch and grab, when we should have used overwhelming force. Flaten a
few dozen palaces and see how fast they return hostages. You can even
call the assholes and give them enough warning to clear the target
site.

When Ronny Raygun traded arms for
hostages, no one seemed to care.

Heat? Well if the rest of the world feels it's wrong to liberate
people from a tyrant like Saddam, and go after mass murders like Al
Queida then thats their problem. We do not need thier approval. Let's
face it, they are jealous of America, so the only way they can feel
good is to imigrate and become American, or find ways to try to
tarnish our accomplishments.

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different.

Both were terrorist supporters that needed to be delt with.

We should
have gone after the latter. Instead, we went after the former. A war
of choice rather than necessity. 3000 US soldiers dead, 25K wounded,
100s of 1000s of Iraqi innocents dead, and civil war.


You left out the 3000 killed in NY. And the many thousands of kurds
gassed by Saddam.


Joe

--
Capt. JG

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:15 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

It's not strange... you think the Iranians just had sidearms or
something?


And you think the brits were packing pop sicyles & bubble gum?
The team surrendered Jon.... Never mind, you do not have a clue.

Umm... you were making the point that you couldn't understand why they
didn't fight back. I said that the Iranians were probably well-armed.
Now, you say they were surrounded. Sounds like not dying was the right
thing to do. Do you not have a clue?

Probably. You don't have to actually hit someone to get a
confession. Everyone knows the "confession" would be coerced, so why
go through the actual beating.


Would you confess to another country if you did no wrong?

If I was threatened with torture, especially if I knew that no one
would believe it. Would you prefer to have your fingernailed
extracted until you tell them what they want to hear anyway?

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Typical response from a Bushkin. When Carter tried to freed the
Americans, he was called a wimp.

The whole operation was a major cluster F*&K Jon. A totally botched
snatch and grab, when we should have used overwhelming force. Flaten a
few dozen palaces and see how fast they return hostages. You can even
call the assholes and give them enough warning to clear the target
site.

Typical response if you don't value human life. So far, they haven't
killed or likely tortured anyone.

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different.

Both were terrorist supporters that needed to be delt with.

Bush lied about the reasons for attacking Iraq. If he would have said,
because he's a bad guy and he's torturing/killing his own people, then
maybe he wouldn't have 25% support and actually did the right thing
for the right reason. Saddam was contained and not a threat to us.

But, keep telling yourself he was if it makes you feel better.

We should
have gone after the latter. Instead, we went after the former. A war
of choice rather than necessity. 3000 US soldiers dead, 25K wounded,
100s of 1000s of Iraqi innocents dead, and civil war.


You left out the 3000 killed in NY. And the many thousands of kurds
gassed by Saddam.

And, we attacked the Taliban and Al Queda in Afganistan. Nothing to do
with Iraq.

BTW, how come you're not so upset about the 100s of 1000s in Darfur
who are being killed by terrorists there? Or, do they not count
because they have darker skin?

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 26, 9:52 am, Martin Baxter wrote:


I wonder what the hell the Capt. of the mother ship was doing.
Cheers
Marty

Tea and crumpets most likely.

Joe

C'mon Joe, be fair. His hands were tied by the socialists in power in UK.
They have not even been able to find out where the hostages are being held.
What was wanted was quick decisive recovery action while the hostages were
still nearby but the Uk government would have hung theat Captain out to dry
if he had done that on his own initiaive and it was unsuccessful..

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article .com,

Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:15 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

It's not strange... you think the Iranians just had sidearms or
something?

And you think the brits were packing pop sicyles & bubble gum?
The team surrendered Jon.... Never mind, you do not have a clue.

Umm... you were making the point that you couldn't understand why they
didn't fight back. I said that the Iranians were probably well-armed.
Now, you say they were surrounded. Sounds like not dying was the right
thing to do. Do you not have a clue?


Where did I say they were surrounded?
And do you expect to loose every fight?



Probably. You don't have to actually hit someone to get a
confession. Everyone knows the "confession" would be coerced, so why
go through the actual beating.

Would you confess to another country if you did no wrong?

If I was threatened with torture, especially if I knew that no one
would believe it. Would you prefer to have your fingernailed
extracted until you tell them what they want to hear anyway?

Fingernail extraction before dis-honoring my country. Knowing my
commrades in arms are on they way to my rescue.


Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Typical response from a Bushkin. When Carter tried to freed the
Americans, he was called a wimp.

The whole operation was a major cluster F*&K Jon. A totally botched
snatch and grab, when we should have used overwhelming force. Flaten a
few dozen palaces and see how fast they return hostages. You can even
call the assholes and give them enough warning to clear the target
site.

Typical response if you don't value human life. So far, they haven't
killed or likely tortured anyone.

Typical bend over and take it liberal attitude.
If we delt with Iran in 1979 then maybe hostage taking would not be so
popular.
Did you miss the part about calling ahead and letting them know the
targets so they can clear them?

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different.

Both were terrorist supporters that needed to be delt with.

Bush lied about the reasons for attacking Iraq. If he would have said,
because he's a bad guy and he's torturing/killing his own people, then
maybe he wouldn't have 25% support and actually did the right thing
for the right reason. Saddam was contained and not a threat to us.

But, keep telling yourself he was if it makes you feel better.

Keep your blinders on Jon, if you think he was a honest guy willing to
live up the the surrender treaty he signed then go and keep thinking
that if it makes you feel better.


We should
have gone after the latter. Instead, we went after the former. A war
of choice rather than necessity. 3000 US soldiers dead, 25K wounded,
100s of 1000s of Iraqi innocents dead, and civil war.

You left out the 3000 killed in NY. And the many thousands of kurds
gassed by Saddam.

And, we attacked the Taliban and Al Queda in Afganistan. Nothing to do
with Iraq.

BTW, how come you're not so upset about the 100s of 1000s in Darfur
who are being killed by terrorists there? Or, do they not count
because they have darker skin?

I'm waiting for France or Russia, or Germany, China, Japan, Mexico,
Cuba, or Canada to deal with Dufar.

Joe


--
Capt. JG

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
Umm... you were making the point that you couldn't understand why they
didn't fight back. I said that the Iranians were probably well-armed.
Now, you say they were surrounded. Sounds like not dying was the right
thing to do. Do you not have a clue?


Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

And do you expect to loose every fight?

Using the word "every" basically means that you're ignoring what I
said.

Fingernail extraction before dis-honoring my country. Knowing my
commrades in arms are on they way to my rescue.

Easy to say Joe until you're the one in the hot seat.

Typical response if you don't value human life. So far, they haven't
killed or likely tortured anyone.

Typical bend over and take it liberal attitude.

Typical response when you've run out of logic... attack the messenger.

If we delt with Iran in 1979 then maybe hostage taking would not be so
popular.

Carter tried. Raygun attempted to bribe them.

Did you miss the part about calling ahead and letting them know the
targets so they can clear them?

Huh?

But, keep telling yourself he was if it makes you feel better.

Keep your blinders on Jon, if you think he was a honest guy willing to
live up the the surrender treaty he signed then go and keep thinking
that if it makes you feel better.

Never said Saddam was honest or willing to live up to his
commitments. There was never a surrender treaty.

We invaded Iraq based on lies and deception. The President and/or the
Vice-President conspired to out an undercover CIA agent to punish Joe
Wilson for speaking the truth. The Attorney General mislead Congress
about his involvement in the firing of federal prosecuters. Bush lied
about Rumsfeld. 1000s died, were horribly injured all because Bushco
was fixated on Saddam.

And, we attacked the Taliban and Al Queda in Afganistan. Nothing to do
with Iraq.

BTW, how come you're not so upset about the 100s of 1000s in Darfur
who are being killed by terrorists there? Or, do they not count
because they have darker skin?

Why? We didn't wait to invade Iraq because of the Kurds... at least
that's what the right-wing is now saying was the reason.

I'm waiting for France or Russia, or Germany, China, Japan, Mexico,
Cuba, or Canada to deal with Dufar.
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mar 26, 4:30 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

You thought wrong..and should update your crappy internet via boat
connection if you do not want to keep putting your foot in your mouth.



And do you expect to loose every fight?

Using the word "every" basically means that you're ignoring what I
said.

You said surrender, and loose.

Fingernail extraction before dis-honoring my country. Knowing my
commrades in arms are on they way to my rescue.

Easy to say Joe until you're the one in the hot seat.

Typical response if you don't value human life. So far, they haven't
killed or likely tortured anyone.

Typical bend over and take it liberal attitude.

Typical response when you've run out of logic... attack the messenger.

If we delt with Iran in 1979 then maybe hostage taking would not be so
popular.

Carter tried. Raygun attempted to bribe them.

Did you miss the part about calling ahead and letting them know the
targets so they can clear them?

Huh?

Damn Jon, if you can not follow a thread, then wait till you get home.
I said
"The whole operation was a major cluster F*&K Jon. A totally botched
snatch and grab, when we should have used overwhelming force. Flaten
a
few dozen palaces and see how fast they return hostages. You can even
call the assholes and give them enough warning to clear the target
site."



But, keep telling yourself he was if it makes you feel better.

Keep your blinders on Jon, if you think he was a honest guy willing to
live up the the surrender treaty he signed then go and keep thinking
that if it makes you feel better.

Never said Saddam was honest or willing to live up to his
commitments. There was never a surrender treaty.

We invaded Iraq based on lies and deception. The President and/or the
Vice-President conspired to out an undercover CIA agent to punish Joe
Wilson for speaking the truth. The Attorney General mislead Congress
about his involvement in the firing of federal prosecuters. Bush lied
about Rumsfeld. 1000s died, were horribly injured all because Bushco
was fixated on Saddam.

And, we attacked the Taliban and Al Queda in Afganistan. Nothing to do
with Iraq.

BTW, how come you're not so upset about the 100s of 1000s in Darfur
who are being killed by terrorists there? Or, do they not count
because they have darker skin?

Why? We didn't wait to invade Iraq because of the Kurds... at least
that's what the right-wing is now saying was the reason.

Why?, well maybe the folks in Dufar are not shooting missles at our
pilots in the NO FLY ZONE.
Maybe the folks in Dufar are not a clear and present danger to the
USA.

Whats wrong with other countries dealing with Dufar, they know we are
busy.

Joe

I'm waiting for France or Russia, or Germany, China, Japan, Mexico,
Cuba, or Canada to deal with Dufar.

--
Capt. JG

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Joe

You are right ,Joe. This has happened before and it is high time we sorted
them out.
I spent some time in Iran (oilfields) before the religious nutters took
control and it was a quite nice country and the people were very friendly to
me when I spent a whole night in a railway compartment with them going from
south Iran to Teheran.
Some years later I spent a lot of time trying to set up a factory to make
our products in their country. Spoke at length with government officials,
lawyers, you name it, and got quite a long way towards success but it all
came to nothing when the French sent back to Iran the awful Ayotollah
Khomeini whom they had been looking after for years. Been downhill all the
way since then.
Don't blame the people of the country-only the ones who have siezed power.

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On 26 Mar 2007 15:18:55 -0700, "Joe" wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:30 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

You thought wrong..and should update your crappy internet via boat
connection if you do not want to keep putting your foot in your mouth.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1560788.ece
"The incident occurred mid-morning when a boarding party left HMS
Cornwall, the flagship of the multinational task force in the northern
Gulf, in two small craft to inspect an Iranian merchant ship.
When the inspection was completed the British were surrounded by six
larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit. "

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mar 26, 5:37 pm, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:
On 26 Mar 2007 15:18:55 -0700, "Joe" wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:30 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

You thought wrong..and should update your crappy internet via boat
connection if you do not want to keep putting your foot in your mouth.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new.../article156078...
"The incident occurred mid-morning when a boarding party left HMS
Cornwall, the flagship of the multinational task force in the northern
Gulf, in two small craft to inspect an Iranian merchant ship.
When the inspection was completed the British were surrounded by six
larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit. "

Hello Goofball, Hope all is well in Wales

Quick question: When is the last time six large vessels snuck up on
you at sea?

Don't British boarding parties have radios? Air support? Your guys
could have called for American back-up.

Sheeeeze even here on the ship channel our USCG boats all have .50
cal's on the bows.
Your flag ship is sending people out to inspect maybe smugglers and
all they carry is side arms?
Man... if so.... thats screwed-up. I bet if Prince Harry was in charge
of that boarding party he would have taken out all 6 crappy little
revolutionary guard boats.

Joe

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 5:37 pm, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:

On 26 Mar 2007 15:18:55 -0700, "Joe" wrote:


On Mar 26, 4:30 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

You thought wrong..and should update your crappy internet via boat
connection if you do not want to keep putting your foot in your mouth.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new.../article156078...
"The incident occurred mid-morning when a boarding party left HMS
Cornwall, the flagship of the multinational task force in the northern
Gulf, in two small craft to inspect an Iranian merchant ship.
When the inspection was completed the British were surrounded by six
larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit. "


Hello Goofball, Hope all is well in Wales

Quick question: When is the last time six large vessels snuck up on
you at sea?

Don't British boarding parties have radios? Air support? Your guys
could have called for American back-up.

Sheeeeze even here on the ship channel our USCG boats all have .50
cal's on the bows.
Your flag ship is sending people out to inspect maybe smugglers and
all they carry is side arms?
Man... if so.... thats screwed-up. I bet if Prince Harry was in charge
of that boarding party he would have taken out all 6 crappy little
revolutionary guard boats.

Joe

If he wasn't too drunk at the time...
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2...C-RSSFeeds0312

The kid has a real substance abuse problem and should more likely be in
a rehab center than in the armed services...

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mar 26, 7:15 pm, katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 5:37 pm, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:

On 26 Mar 2007 15:18:55 -0700, "Joe" wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:30 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

You thought wrong..and should update your crappy internet via boat
connection if you do not want to keep putting your foot in your mouth.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new.../article156078...
"The incident occurred mid-morning when a boarding party left HMS
Cornwall, the flagship of the multinational task force in the northern
Gulf, in two small craft to inspect an Iranian merchant ship.
When the inspection was completed the British were surrounded by six
larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit. "

Hello Goofball, Hope all is well in Wales

Quick question: When is the last time six large vessels snuck up on
you at sea?

Don't British boarding parties have radios? Air support? Your guys
could have called for American back-up.

Sheeeeze even here on the ship channel our USCG boats all have .50
cal's on the bows.
Your flag ship is sending people out to inspect maybe smugglers and
all they carry is side arms?
Man... if so.... thats screwed-up. I bet if Prince Harry was in charge
of that boarding party he would have taken out all 6 crappy little
revolutionary guard boats.

Joe

If he wasn't too drunk at the time...http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2...C-RSSFeeds0312

The kid has a real substance abuse problem and should more likely be in
a rehab center than in the armed services...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

His only problem is he needs to vent a little steam, a tour of duty
will do him good.
If i had a pack of photographers chasing me around all the time, I'd
stumble on a few of them too.
Might even make it a habit if I were Harry. As he matures he will find
better ways to get even.

Joe

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 7:15 pm, katy wrote:

Joe wrote:

On Mar 26, 5:37 pm, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:

On 26 Mar 2007 15:18:55 -0700, "Joe" wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:30 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

You thought wrong..and should update your crappy internet via boat
connection if you do not want to keep putting your foot in your mouth.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new.../article156078...
"The incident occurred mid-morning when a boarding party left HMS
Cornwall, the flagship of the multinational task force in the northern
Gulf, in two small craft to inspect an Iranian merchant ship.
When the inspection was completed the British were surrounded by six
larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit. "

Hello Goofball, Hope all is well in Wales

Quick question: When is the last time six large vessels snuck up on
you at sea?

Don't British boarding parties have radios? Air support? Your guys
could have called for American back-up.

Sheeeeze even here on the ship channel our USCG boats all have .50
cal's on the bows.
Your flag ship is sending people out to inspect maybe smugglers and
all they carry is side arms?
Man... if so.... thats screwed-up. I bet if Prince Harry was in charge
of that boarding party he would have taken out all 6 crappy little
revolutionary guard boats.

Joe

If he wasn't too drunk at the time...http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2...C-RSSFeeds0312

The kid has a real substance abuse problem and should more likely be in
a rehab center than in the armed services...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


His only problem is he needs to vent a little steam, a tour of duty
will do him good.
If i had a pack of photographers chasing me around all the time, I'd
stumble on a few of them too.
Might even make it a habit if I were Harry. As he matures he will find
better ways to get even.

Joe


Except that he's been at this particular game for about 4-5
years...being a royal does not excuse you from bad behavior...

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mar 26, 8:44 pm, katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 7:15 pm, katy wrote:

Joe wrote:

On Mar 26, 5:37 pm, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:

On 26 Mar 2007 15:18:55 -0700, "Joe" wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:30 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

You thought wrong..and should update your crappy internet via boat
connection if you do not want to keep putting your foot in your mouth.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new.../article156078...
"The incident occurred mid-morning when a boarding party left HMS
Cornwall, the flagship of the multinational task force in the northern
Gulf, in two small craft to inspect an Iranian merchant ship.
When the inspection was completed the British were surrounded by six
larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit. "

Hello Goofball, Hope all is well in Wales

Quick question: When is the last time six large vessels snuck up on
you at sea?

Don't British boarding parties have radios? Air support? Your guys
could have called for American back-up.

Sheeeeze even here on the ship channel our USCG boats all have .50
cal's on the bows.
Your flag ship is sending people out to inspect maybe smugglers and
all they carry is side arms?
Man... if so.... thats screwed-up. I bet if Prince Harry was in charge
of that boarding party he would have taken out all 6 crappy little
revolutionary guard boats.

Joe

If he wasn't too drunk at the time...http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2...C-RSSFeeds0312

The kid has a real substance abuse problem and should more likely be in
a rehab center than in the armed services...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

His only problem is he needs to vent a little steam, a tour of duty
will do him good.
If i had a pack of photographers chasing me around all the time, I'd
stumble on a few of them too.
Might even make it a habit if I were Harry. As he matures he will find
better ways to get even.

Joe

Except that he's been at this particular game for about 4-5
years...being a royal does not excuse you from bad behavior...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I do not consider his behavior "Bad".
He's like any other 20 something year old man, just under a
microscope.
He just graduated boot camp, and he's fixing to be shipped of to war.
I think he deserves a party night or two before heading to Iraq.

Being Royal in his case must be more of a pain in the ass then a
blessing.

Joe

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 4:30 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

You thought wrong..and should update your crappy internet via boat
connection if you do not want to keep putting your foot in your mouth.

What's the matter Joe... so angry about the poor showing both in the
election and morally that you have to lash out?

And do you expect to loose every fight?

Using the word "every" basically means that you're ignoring what I
said.

You said surrender, and loose.

Never said loose... didn't even say lose. Never said EVERY.

Damn Jon, if you can not follow a thread, then wait till you get home.
I said
"The whole operation was a major cluster F*&K Jon. A totally botched
snatch and grab, when we should have used overwhelming force. Flaten
a
few dozen palaces and see how fast they return hostages. You can even
call the assholes and give them enough warning to clear the target
site."

Must have been Hillary's fault..

Why?, well maybe the folks in Dufar are not shooting missles at our
pilots in the NO FLY ZONE.
Maybe the folks in Dufar are not a clear and present danger to the
USA.

So, it's ok to attack a country that wasn't a threat to us, but it's
not ok to attack a country to save 2M lives.... got it.

Whats wrong with other countries dealing with Dufar, they know we are
busy.

Nothing, but they need leadership as you always like to point
out. We're busy because Bushco lied to us. So, not only are 1000s
dying in Iraq for no good reason, millions might die in Darfur. But,
we're busy, so I guess it's ok.
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

In article ,
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

On 26 Mar 2007 15:18:55 -0700, "Joe" wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:30 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

You thought wrong..and should update your crappy internet via boat
connection if you do not want to keep putting your foot in your mouth.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1560788.ece
"The incident occurred mid-morning when a boarding party left HMS
Cornwall, the flagship of the multinational task force in the northern
Gulf, in two small craft to inspect an Iranian merchant ship.
When the inspection was completed the British were surrounded by six
larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit. "

And they decided not to die needlessly. I guess they must be cowards
Joe.



--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mar 26, 9:44 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article ,





Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On 26 Mar 2007 15:18:55 -0700, "Joe" wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:30 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

You thought wrong..and should update your crappy internet via boat
connection if you do not want to keep putting your foot in your mouth.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new.../article156078...
"The incident occurred mid-morning when a boarding party left HMS
Cornwall, the flagship of the multinational task force in the northern
Gulf, in two small craft to inspect an Iranian merchant ship.
When the inspection was completed the British were surrounded by six
larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit. "

And they decided not to die needlessly. I guess they must be cowards
Joe.


See there you go again Jon.
You assumed if they stood their ground they would die.
Why is that?

Joe




--
Capt. JG - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 9:44 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
See there you go again Jon.
You assumed if they stood their ground they would die.
Why is that?

Out-numbered, out-gunned... those two things come to mind, but of
course I actually read about the incident.
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different. We should
have gone after the latter.

Why? If, as you left-wingnuts believe, the whole 9/11 attack scenario was a
ruse by the Bush Administration, what does al Qaeda have to do with
anything, other than taking credit for something they didn't do?

Max

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

In article ink.net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different. We should
have gone after the latter.

Why? If, as you left-wingnuts believe, the whole 9/11 attack scenario was a
ruse by the Bush Administration, what does al Qaeda have to do with
anything, other than taking credit for something they didn't do?

Huh? Do you need meds? When did I say that? Did Michael Moore, your
arch evil whipping boy say that? Who did exactly?
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On 26 Mar 2007 16:42:17 -0700, "Joe" wrote:

On Mar 26, 5:37 pm, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:
On 26 Mar 2007 15:18:55 -0700, "Joe" wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:30 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

You thought wrong..and should update your crappy internet via boat
connection if you do not want to keep putting your foot in your mouth.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new.../article156078...
"The incident occurred mid-morning when a boarding party left HMS
Cornwall, the flagship of the multinational task force in the northern
Gulf, in two small craft to inspect an Iranian merchant ship.
When the inspection was completed the British were surrounded by six
larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit. "

Hello Goofball, Hope all is well in Wales

Quick question: When is the last time six large vessels snuck up on
you at sea?

Not enough information to know what happened.


Don't British boarding parties have radios? Air support? Your guys
could have called for American back-up.

No thanks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV_16PdWnBo

Sheeeeze even here on the ship channel our USCG boats all have .50
cal's on the bows.
Your flag ship is sending people out to inspect maybe smugglers and
all they carry is side arms?
Man... if so.... thats screwed-up. I bet if Prince Harry was in charge
of that boarding party he would have taken out all 6 crappy little
revolutionary guard boats.


The more you learn about the Royal family the more revolting they
appear to be..

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On Mar 27, 8:05 am, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:
On 26 Mar 2007 16:42:17 -0700, "Joe" wrote:





On Mar 26, 5:37 pm, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:
On 26 Mar 2007 15:18:55 -0700, "Joe" wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:30 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

You thought wrong..and should update your crappy internet via boat
connection if you do not want to keep putting your foot in your mouth.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new.../article156078...
"The incident occurred mid-morning when a boarding party left HMS
Cornwall, the flagship of the multinational task force in the northern
Gulf, in two small craft to inspect an Iranian merchant ship.
When the inspection was completed the British were surrounded by six
larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit. "

Hello Goofball, Hope all is well in Wales

Quick question: When is the last time six large vessels snuck up on
you at sea?

Not enough information to know what happened.

I agree, but someone knew they were surrounded by 6 boats, or just
made it up. Something is messed up if you can have 6 boats sneek up on
you. I think the USA learned from the USS Cole not to allow anyone to
sneak up.. or run up at you at high speeds without challenging them.



Don't British boarding parties have radios? Air support? Your guys
could have called for American back-up.

No thanks.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV_16PdWnBo

Tragic. But in a fluid situation such as war, when split seconds
count...accidents happen.

Here read this and think again:

LONDON (USMC, Europe) -- Many movies end with the hero appearing
before the emperor and being recognized for saving the galaxy.

Marine Maj. William D. Chesarek Jr. is no actor, but he did appear
before Queen Elizabeth II March 21 to receive the United Kingdom's
Distinguished Flying Cross at Buckingham Palace for saving lives and
in recognition for his bravery during combat operations in Iraq; the
first time for an American service member since World War II.

Assigned as an exchange officer with the UK's 847 Naval Air Squadron,
Commando Helicopter Force, based at Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton
in Somerset, England, the U.S. Marine didn't fly into combat in a
space craft capable of warp speed or cloaking, but the UK's Lynx Mk7
helicopter; the aircraft he used to dodge insurgent's bullets and
rocket propelled grenades and employ it in unconventional ways.

Through flight school training at Pensacola, Fla. and Corpus Christi,
Texas he mastered the Marine Corps AH-1W Super Cobra helicopter; a two-
seater, rotary-winged aircraft armed with weaponry with names like
Hellfire, Sidewinder and Sidearm missiles.

Joining the UK squadron in 2005, he traded in the Super Cobra for the
Lynx.

"It's a very agile aircraft," said Chesareck, whose call sign is
Punchy. "Its maneuverability is significantly enhanced compared to a
Cobra. It's like comparing a Mustang to a Porsche. They're both great,
but different." Then describing how his stomach turned witnessing an
UK
pilot doing a full 360 degree flip in the Lynx.

Flying the evening of June 10, 2006, Chesarek wasn't doing flips with
his Lynx, but providing radio communication relay for UK ground troops
conducting a company-sized search operation in the vicinity of Al
Amarah, Iraq. Listening to radio transmissions he overheard that a
vehicle involved in the operation had became disabled and a crowd of
insurgents were now firing small arms and rocket propelled grenades at
the company.

According to his award citation, "Chesarek elected to fly low over the
area in an attempt to distract the crowd and if possible, to engage
the insurgents." Because of the close proximity of the crowd to the
ground troops, instead of engaging his onboard Lynx general purpose
machine gun, he "opted instead to provide bold, harassing, very low
level flight over the area in an attempt to disperse the crowd."

However, radio traffic from the ground told Chesarek he was now the
target and drawing small arms fire and a rocket propelled grenade had
just passed the rear of his aircraft.

This was not his first time in combat. He and his wife Christine, a
U.S. Navy nurse, had served simultaneously in Operation Iraqi Freedom
during the initial stages. But now in a different aircraft, with a
different purpose, things were different. Last month, Chesarek's UK
commander and his crew had been shot down flying in the same type of
aircraft.

"I had been in a couple of situations with troops in contact before,"
the 32-year-old Chesarek said. "I had a good idea of the kind of
potential danger involved, but now I was listening to the individual
commander on the ground. Some one was injured what can we do?"

Using his view from above, Chesarek applied his training as an
airborne forward air controller to coordinate, designate and control
fixed-wing assets in conducting close air support, resulting in the
dispersing the insurgents.

Considered an "implied mission," Chesarek made the unconventional move
to conduct a medical evacuation with the Lynx to help a UK soldier
with a life-threatening head injury. As the only aircraft available to
assist, he landed the Lynx in the vicinity of the company in distress
as his door gunner and another crew member jumped out.

"My door gunner jumped out and picked up the injured soldier and put
him in the helicopter," Chesarek said. "My other crewmember had to
stay or we would have been overweight to fly."

Now, nine months later, Chesarek's name echoed throughout the Ballroom
of Buckingham Palace as he was called before the queen to be
recognized and credited for "having a pivotal role in ensuring the
rapid evacuation of [a] badly injured soldier and the safe extraction
of the Company."

Donning his ceremonial uniform, Chesarek stood before the queen and
hundreds in attendance, to include his parents, wife and two-year-old
son, William. After Chesarek bowed, the custom when in front of her
majesty, she placed her Kingdom's level-three award for gallantry in
the air while on active operation against the enemy, upon his chest.
In light of his recognition, Chesarek reflected on his lost comrades
and brothers in arms.

"I am greatly honored and would like to accept this prestigious award
for 847 NAS in memory of Lt. Cmdr. Darren Chapman (Royal Navy), Capt.
David Dobson (Army Air Corps), and Marine Paul Collins (Royal
Marines), who were killed in action over Basrah in May 2006," said
Chesarek. "The awarded actions were only possible due to the combined
effort of my combat crew; Lt. David Williams (Royal Navy) and Lance
Cpl. Max Carter (Royal Marines). My greatest sense of achievement that
day is in knowing the ground troops all made it home."




Sheeeeze even here on the ship channel our USCG boats all have .50
cal's on the bows.
Your flag ship is sending people out to inspect maybe smugglers and
all they carry is side arms?
Man... if so.... thats screwed-up. I bet if Prince Harry was in charge
of that boarding party he would have taken out all 6 crappy little
revolutionary guard boats.

The more you learn about the Royal family the more revolting they
appear to be

I do not consider Harry or his brother revolting, nor your Queen.
Prince Charles is revolting maybe.

Joe

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

"Joe" wrote
: I do not consider Harry or his brother revolting, nor your Queen.
: Prince Charles is revolting maybe.

Their ancestors certainly thot mine were revolting grin.

British Sailors Surrendered?
 

On 27 Mar 2007 09:16:44 -0700, "Joe" wrote:

snip.

Don't British boarding parties have radios? Air support? Your guys
could have called for American back-up.

No thanks.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV_16PdWnBo

Tragic. But in a fluid situation such as war, when split seconds
count...accidents happen.

Sure but that was not an accident.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/s...035714,00.html


Here read this and think again:

LONDON (USMC, Europe) -- Many movies end with the hero appearing
before the emperor and being recognized for saving the galaxy.

Marine Maj. William D. Chesarek Jr. is no actor, but he did appear
before Queen Elizabeth II March 21 to receive the United Kingdom's
Distinguished Flying Cross at Buckingham Palace for saving lives and
in recognition for his bravery during combat operations in Iraq; the
first time for an American service member since World War II.

Ok, we'll take him..
Snip.


I do not consider Harry or his brother revolting, nor your Queen.
Prince Charles is revolting maybe.

Disneyland can have them all.