–George W Bush

Sir Winston Churchill

–Thomas Paine

p.s. I also support the souths right to sucede in 1861. I’m a regular trotsky-ite warmonger!

John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher 1806 – 1873

And I wonder how high the crane offloading the cars was….

Because:

Standing on a hill or tower of 100 ft height, the horizon is at a distance of 12.25 miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

Yeah too far…..

Here is the original Royal Navy graphic – very different to the one you reference. Cornwall looks to be 5.5NM from the intercept point.

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/img/navy/ConMediaFile/enlarge.php?id=27810

The graphic you reference shows a navigation plot. It does not show the accompanying time line. What it does illustrate is a course from a given position to another position 10 NM away. It does not state the launch point of the sea boats, nor does it show the Cornwall hove to at a position 10 NM from the merchantman. I read the chart differently. The statement, “They investigated this vessel after witnessing her unloading cars into two barges secured alongside.” Would indicate that the Cornwall was closer: one cannot witness something from 10NM away; it’s over the horizon.

You would point a weapon that you would have no intention of using – a weapon that your opponent of the moment knows you will not use? Well, there’s a massive amount of sense in that, now isn’t there?

excuse me…..ssbn04 … the Royal Navy shows exactly this on the graphics they posted on their website. I offered the link to my diary w/MOD cites as documentation, which you have ignored, you have ignored the Royal Navy source. It is what it is.

I have never seen a 4.5 inch gun in action…correct, but I never said to use it, certainly not in the evironment you paint a picture of, which is contrary to the picture I painted, so I must assume you were not referencing my post. But you did not address anyone, or any post. SO it is unclear.

I would offer that if the 5300 ton Frigate was close by (1/8th mile), and she spyed Iranian speedboats approaching, the Cornwall would have had perhaps 20 minutes or more to prepare, as the merchant vessel was 7.5 NM from shore.

On the otherhand, if the Cornwall was that close, I doubt the Iranians would have showed

Well sourced and cited:

http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2007/03/hms-cornwall-never-contested-capturing.html

The more important point is:

The UK offered a pawn & the Iranians took it.

Whomever suggested that the Cornwall use her 4.5 inch gun to dissuade the Iranians from closing on the boat crews has never seen one of those guns in action – damn near impossible to guarantee a hit on a close-to Iranian craft without the possibility of hitting one’s own boats or the merchantman – doubly so if the Iranian approach was visually masked by the merchantman….and can you imagine the furor if the merchantman had been hit? No doubt an experienced Iranian commander would realize this fact. Maneuvering the Cornwall to a point between the merchantman and the Iranians sounds fine, but 4800-ton frigates do not maneuver in a manner consistent with that particular tactic; even getting them up to the required speed takes several minutes – and then one would have to stop in very short order.

I, however, do not understand why a lynx was not ordered to shoreward of the boarding party prior to the actual boarding. The lynx would have detected the approaching Iranian craft and could have positioned itself between the boarding party’s boats and the Iranians.

http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2007/03/hms-cornwall-never-contested-capturing.html

If I was the CO of the Cornwall I would have been sitting an 1/8 mile off the merchant vessel with my 4.5 inch main gun pointed right at him.

And when I saw the Iranian gunboats coming up, I would’ve manuevered to put the Cornwall between the gunboats and my people in the Zodiacs. I would have gone to battle stations, just so folks could hear the claxons blaring. Both my Lynx mk 8 gunship helo’s would have been air borne. I would have told Lt. Chekov to ready photon torpedoes.

I would have swiveled both my Quad Harpoon missile launchers, my 4.5 inch main gun just to make sure the Iranians noticed them, which delivers a message, “My boys got their finger on the trigger pal, you better watch it”.

And what do you observe about the claims that the frigate was 12 miles away. It would appear that there was negligence OR intentional neglect: neither one speaks well for your ex-colleagues.
That radar, radio, the helos, the sailors on the anchored vessel aren’t reported to have reacted as the SIX Iranian vessels arrived is highly suspicious and questionable.
The news reports act as if they appeared out of thin air, rather than as six vessels coming from Iranian waters for at least four miles away at probably less than 20 knots. ( the ‘routine’ theory says that would be why the lookouts didn’t call for help, cause it’s ‘routine’.)
There would be lookouts in the UK sailor’s patrol I’d have to assume. There would be radar monitoring of the area I’d also presume.
The helo, if on the frigate can be airborne in less than 15 minutes, it would be on standby and warmed and ready, while a patrol is away and on board a suspect vessel, is that correct?
The only explanation I’ve been able to come up with is that there was just such an agreement as I described, perhaps a tacit agreement, that allowed each side to be present in the region without any ruckus.
That would explain the lack of response until the helo flew over, well after the sailors were reported to be well into Iranian waters and the helo stood down and let them go.
The soonest I’d say that could have happened is 45 minutes: 15 to get there, 15 to ‘arrest’ the sailors, and 15 to get away to at least UK defined Iranian waters…and that would be really fast.
Why didn’t the helo stay in the air near the anchored vessel, or the frigate stay close?
Why didn’t they steam close when the Iranian vessels appeared. The top speed of the frigate is probably almost that of any of the other vessels, while slower to start, not by much.
Why didn’t the sailors in the inspection party radio for help sooner, or maybe they did. It just seems so negligent, unless this was a routine experience, that the Iranian patrols were always nearby and never apprehended or threatened before, so everybody was calm. This I wonder about.
The second explanation if you accept the ‘routine’ theory, is that the Rev Guards took over or decided to act then as they hadn’t before.
……
To compare the US arresting and holding various Iranians, apprehended in Iraq, not in military uniforms is then a comparison which can be made, but not supported legally I’d guess.
Emotionally: fairness, sure, and it’s easy to see the Rev Guards frustration at their own leaders’ seeming deliberateness.
The Iranian government is thus caught between the embarrassment of returning the hostages and admitting they aren’t in control of parts of their military apparatus. Not good.
And then there’s Blair…another set of idiots.

Since Iran and Iraq have no agreement regarding this border, it falls to simple geometry to determine where it lies, and it must of necessity consist of a set of points equidistant from the land masses of Iraq and Iran.

No matter how much I measure and squint and compare, I come up with the same conclusion every time: the sailors were in Iranian waters. The coordinates the UK gives as the position of the sailors, and the merchant vessel, are closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. So was the Cornwall for that matter.

Am I missing something here? Anybody have any insight on how the UK came up with the border they drew?