Iran Holds Two U.S. Navy Boats After Mechanical Problems

For those criticizing how this was handled, how should it have been handled differently?

 

That time U.S. servicemen were detained overseas by a hostile power, and America said sorry twice

On April 1, 2001, a U.S. EP-3 surveillance and reconnaissance plan carrying 24 servicemen collided with a Chinese fighter jet operating off the coast of China's Hainan island. The Chinese plane crashed into the sea, killing its pilot. The damaged American aircraft made an emergency landing in Hainan island and its crew, while unscathed, were summarily detained.

What followed was a tense 11-day standoff. Bush administration officials — for whom this was the first big foreign policy test — initially struggled to gain access to the detained crew and fended off angry Chinese demands for a formal apology.

 

I think the smart play would have been to invade, whip out our dicks and show how tough we are and then prepare to fight their version of ISIS in 10 years.

If Obama really had balls, he would fire every member of the military that was part of us getting caught or being there in the first place.

We can rescue anyone from any spot on this planet, but we can't stop a boat from drifting?

 

The ships might have had navigational error, but I'm confident that the ships had GPS-type tracking devices in multiple locations on the vessel and were tracked by a number of command locations. I'm also confident that a few F-18s could have made contact with the approaching Iranian warships in quick time. CVN-75 Harry S Truman and carrier group is in the Gulf at or near the UAE. A short flight at Mach to Iranian ports.

Not actively interested in armed conflict against the Iranians, but it is not better to have the sailors and ships captured and repatriated then preventing capture, even at the cost of an armed confrontation. Bad form and policy to surrender without a fight. It only encourages future hostile and aggressive action.

 

I eagerly look forward to the answers provided by SJ's CC&R club.

 

Stop talking about the past. Nothing bad ever happened to this country prior to Jan. 20,2009.

 

So, in your view, it's always better for the U.S. to initiate hostile and aggressive action to prevent the possibility of future hostile and aggressive action.

 

Kerry looks like he's sizing up the distance between he and the White House fence to see how close he needs to be to throw them over.

 

Either way, can we agree to just blame Bush and move on?

 

Always? I never believe in absolutes!

The hostile act in this case was in capturing US Naval vessels and treating the Sailors as prisoners. As opposed to helping a lost vessel and treating its crew as guests. Reacting to that treatment with force and strength would not be initiating aggressive action, but a response. It would show resolve and strength.

 

Oh, burn.

 

We would have gotten our guys out quickly and safely without escalating tension your way?