What's the navy for?

[Twister_Ken]

English, Toad?

British, surely.

 

[xxyyzz]

I'm pretty sure no Royal Navy vessels have been hijacked off Somalia.

Not yet no, but it sounds like the RFA are taking a chance.
Do you recall the reason they were there in the first place though?

Same as the Iranian thing, they were there on UN business.

 

[alant]

English, Toad?

British, surely.

Hear, Hear!!

 

[ParaHandy]

Why a priest?

... why not get it from the salt horse's mouth

harrumph .. surely the CA could have found a Rear or full Admiral? There's one Admiral per boat, so I believe, which, given the number of boats paid off in the last 10 years, should mean there's .. ooohh .. er ... several dozen available? one of that lot *must* have gone to sea, surely ....

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

English, Toad?

British, surely.

Thanks for pointing that out! Sincere appologies! You are right and I am wrong.

I still retain the right to refer to Andy Murray as British when he wins and Scottish when he loses!

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

We now have to deal with the Iranians nuclear ambitions and we wonder why the only problem they see is Israel. Let's face it they aren't going to back down on the basis of what they've seen so far.

What an intriguing comment. You seem to have got your cause and effect mixed up.

North Korea: Part of Bush's Axis of Evil. Nuclear power. Left well alone by UK and US.

Afghanistan: Includes some of the Pashtun region, possible hiding place for Bin Laden - Non nuclear power - Occupied.

Pakistan: Includes some of the Pashtun region, possible hiding place for Bin Laden -nuclear power - Left well alone by both UK and US.

Iraq: Non nuclear power - Occupied.

So let's look at Iran. Two of her non-nuclear neighbours have been invaded. Naturally they're a bit jumpy. If they were a nuclear power they'd be safe. Is it any wonder they might come to the conclusion that they desperately need a nuclear defence capability?

As it happens the Ayatollah Khomeini denounced nuclear weapons as unIslamic. As it happens Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made a point of reiterating this to his people. Which as far as I can see almost rules out the idea that they have a nuclear weaponry ambition. Why would Ahmadinejad deliberately put hurdles in the way of something he hoped to to?

In addition to that a civilian nuclear program moves you so close to a military nuclear deterrent that they'll get 99 per cent of the advantage on the world stage without breaking their principles and without provoking an attack. Yet another example of Iran utterly outwitting the West. (The best example this being their wisely targeted investment of small sums of money nurturing Shia's in Iraq whereas the US and UK spent billions on totally alienating them.)

So to sum up. It's unlikely that Iran want a Nuclear deterrent but if they do it's because we've put them in a position where they feel they need it. We are the aggressor in the region not Iran.

This is descending to a level of pedantry and false assumptions that make postings pointless.

I agree here. What you said is in this thread for all to see. People can make their own minds up.

If you really think it's important to stand up to Iran in RIBS at sea why don't you buy a RIB and go and attack their border guards. You'd have similar odds to the sailors.

 

[NorthUp]

Sadly

Thanks for pointing that out! Sincere appologies! You are right and I am wrong.

I still retain the right to refer to Andy Murrey as British when he wins and Scottish when he loses!

I fear we may be European now?

( and he is Murray)