Behavior of the British Captives
-
I've heard people criticizing the British servicemen who were captured recently for giving in to coercion and aiding in the production of obvious propaganda. Given today's statements, do people still think they were cowardly? As understand it, they basically said they were surrounded and outgunned very quickly, realized they would lose any fight, which would then have serious strategic ramifications, ie it could very likely start a new war, and so decided to surrender. And then, once captured, they were definitely put under a lot of psychological pressure, some intense psychological coercion, although not necessarily the most intense coercion (not as bad as the worst accusations against the US Military, for example). My original opinion on the matter was to try to give them the benefit of the doubt, although with a lot of questions to ask. Now that I've heard their story, I'd be inclined to totally let them off the hook. Surrendering in order to prevent a war (they probably expected, like some other group of british servicemen captured in recent memory I've heard about, they would be released after a couple weeks) is a smart move. The 'coalition of the willing' doesn't need to expand the war into a huge regional conflict right now, if at all possible. Beyond that, although I sort of think they could have held out longer against propagandist manipulations, and would like to think I would have had I been in their shoes, I don't really care that they didn't, nor do I hold it against their bravery. They were under significant psychological pressure, and I don't see that there were tons of reasons not to. As expected, now the soldiers have now emphatically stated they were "1.7 nautical miles" from Iranian waters (I do not support the war, but I never felt they were in Iranian waters, and I certainly believe their story now). Who is possibly going to be swayed by their videos? The common Iranian people, maybe, but I don't think we were really expecting ahmadinejad to fall from within anyway. Anyone who already supports TCotW will just believe the British, and anyone who is right on the fence probably won't be pushed more by this than any of the other stuff going on. So what's the opinion from the peanut gallery? Speak now, or forever hold your peace.
Prior to capturing the British sailors, Iran made at least two
attemptsto capture US soldiers. I stress the word attempt, since both tries were, despite large numerical advantages as well as beginning with Iranian ambushes, bloody failures. Farthermore, in regards to the "didn't want to start a war" excuse is pathetic Iran's grab attempts were nothing less even though we haven't obliged them by pulverizing infrastructure and turning their naval assets into artificial reefs.-- CleaKO The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything [about the problem]. Pete O`Hanlon Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about users?
-
Sounds like rationalization, as in, "I would have done the hard thing, but it was hard".
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
More like, just because the hard thing is usually the best thing, doesn't mean it always is. It's tough for me to judge with 20/20 hindsight; I think things worked out for the best, relatively, although I was starting to get antsy several days ago (in an effort to prevent hostility, I figured it would be best to wait a week to see if Iran gave them back). Yes, the noblest thing, the 300-esque purity of purpose (which obviously was the right thing for them -- talking more about the real battle at Thermopolae than the movie version of the comic) is oftentimes the best choice of action. But here, if that meant that when the Iranians came to attack them they fought bravely to the death, or even if they showed up with bruises on television after resisting, something that would have forced our hands, we could potentially be beginning a war with Iran today. Like I said, I can't really judge. But in the end, I think we can all agree that the most important thing is that everyone is home safe and sound. Nevertheless, the choices made and how they relate to the larger picture are interesting, and probably quite important to discuss.
-
I've heard people criticizing the British servicemen who were captured recently for giving in to coercion and aiding in the production of obvious propaganda. Given today's statements, do people still think they were cowardly? As understand it, they basically said they were surrounded and outgunned very quickly, realized they would lose any fight, which would then have serious strategic ramifications, ie it could very likely start a new war, and so decided to surrender. And then, once captured, they were definitely put under a lot of psychological pressure, some intense psychological coercion, although not necessarily the most intense coercion (not as bad as the worst accusations against the US Military, for example). My original opinion on the matter was to try to give them the benefit of the doubt, although with a lot of questions to ask. Now that I've heard their story, I'd be inclined to totally let them off the hook. Surrendering in order to prevent a war (they probably expected, like some other group of british servicemen captured in recent memory I've heard about, they would be released after a couple weeks) is a smart move. The 'coalition of the willing' doesn't need to expand the war into a huge regional conflict right now, if at all possible. Beyond that, although I sort of think they could have held out longer against propagandist manipulations, and would like to think I would have had I been in their shoes, I don't really care that they didn't, nor do I hold it against their bravery. They were under significant psychological pressure, and I don't see that there were tons of reasons not to. As expected, now the soldiers have now emphatically stated they were "1.7 nautical miles" from Iranian waters (I do not support the war, but I never felt they were in Iranian waters, and I certainly believe their story now). Who is possibly going to be swayed by their videos? The common Iranian people, maybe, but I don't think we were really expecting ahmadinejad to fall from within anyway. Anyone who already supports TCotW will just believe the British, and anyone who is right on the fence probably won't be pushed more by this than any of the other stuff going on. So what's the opinion from the peanut gallery? Speak now, or forever hold your peace.
I wonder how many people who criticize the British captives' actions would have been willing to endure torture and/or execution rather than make a false confession that no one with half a brain would take seriously anyway.
-
Prior to capturing the British sailors, Iran made at least two
attemptsto capture US soldiers. I stress the word attempt, since both tries were, despite large numerical advantages as well as beginning with Iranian ambushes, bloody failures. Farthermore, in regards to the "didn't want to start a war" excuse is pathetic Iran's grab attempts were nothing less even though we haven't obliged them by pulverizing infrastructure and turning their naval assets into artificial reefs.-- CleaKO The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything [about the problem]. Pete O`Hanlon Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about users?
Well, I'm certainly not saying, insinuating, or thinking we shouldn't respond to this. Even, again as someone who has really never supported the war, it's obvious that we have to. I don't know much about military tactics, but move a battleship or two near those waters. Tell them that we will continue to patrol, 1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters, and now we're going to do it with some serious support. This time we temporarily surrendered because it would have been a lost battle, next time it won't be lost, and we will fight back. We fight when we choose, when we know we'll tear you up (like in chess, preparing an endgame attack over 20 or so middlegame moves, just slowly countering the enemy and building up your attack until the time is just right) But doing it after the fact like this allows us to be in control. If more military pressure is needed, then do it; today, TCotW is in the drivers seat and can turn the pressure up in a more controlled manner. A few days ago, different actions by those guys could have led to a different outcome (say if they were killed -- US servicemen have escaped the traps, they never fought back and were killed, an action that would have forced the US to take decisive military action, or even if we say the POWs were being abused, where we would *have* to do a rescue op), one where we would be forced to do something, but where anything we did would likely cause war. The US and Iran are currently engaged in a kind of proto-war. It could elevate to outright war, it may be able to be dialed back. But if it comes to war, best to engage at a time of our own choosing, increasing the strength of our position in the meantime. Right now they've got their worthless propaganda tapes, having payed for them at the cost of giving us an opening to squeeze them harder (battleships in those waters, or some big radar ships to detect Iranian movement much better), a tactical advantage that we can likely get more out of in the long run, putting us in a better position either at the bargaining table or should it come to war, than their little saber-rattling masturbation. Basically I think this is somewhat paradoxical. By (with the benefit of the doubt to those British servicemen here) thoughtfully giving up the early loss, I think that in the long run our position can be strengthened in the CotW vs Iranian conflict. RSVP.
-
I wonder how many people who criticize the British captives' actions would have been willing to endure torture and/or execution rather than make a false confession that no one with half a brain would take seriously anyway.
Exactly. It's that "no with with half a brain would take seriously" that hits this right on the head.
-
I've heard people criticizing the British servicemen who were captured recently for giving in to coercion and aiding in the production of obvious propaganda. Given today's statements, do people still think they were cowardly? As understand it, they basically said they were surrounded and outgunned very quickly, realized they would lose any fight, which would then have serious strategic ramifications, ie it could very likely start a new war, and so decided to surrender. And then, once captured, they were definitely put under a lot of psychological pressure, some intense psychological coercion, although not necessarily the most intense coercion (not as bad as the worst accusations against the US Military, for example). My original opinion on the matter was to try to give them the benefit of the doubt, although with a lot of questions to ask. Now that I've heard their story, I'd be inclined to totally let them off the hook. Surrendering in order to prevent a war (they probably expected, like some other group of british servicemen captured in recent memory I've heard about, they would be released after a couple weeks) is a smart move. The 'coalition of the willing' doesn't need to expand the war into a huge regional conflict right now, if at all possible. Beyond that, although I sort of think they could have held out longer against propagandist manipulations, and would like to think I would have had I been in their shoes, I don't really care that they didn't, nor do I hold it against their bravery. They were under significant psychological pressure, and I don't see that there were tons of reasons not to. As expected, now the soldiers have now emphatically stated they were "1.7 nautical miles" from Iranian waters (I do not support the war, but I never felt they were in Iranian waters, and I certainly believe their story now). Who is possibly going to be swayed by their videos? The common Iranian people, maybe, but I don't think we were really expecting ahmadinejad to fall from within anyway. Anyone who already supports TCotW will just believe the British, and anyone who is right on the fence probably won't be pushed more by this than any of the other stuff going on. So what's the opinion from the peanut gallery? Speak now, or forever hold your peace.
Did you see them? One was a 250 pound girl while another was a 4'11 guy. I don't blame them for surrendering. That's not necessarily an act of cowardice, but a calculation (and they may have been told not to engage). The US military code of conduct, however, says that American captured soldiers are not allowed to give any aid to the enemy (just name, rank and serial number). So I don't think that, once captured, they should have helped Iran the way they did. But at the same time, who can blame them? We're all aware of the numerous decapitation videos. And we also know that the coalition forces have been so weakened by the left that no military action is possible, so I'm sure they knew there would be no rescue.
-
I wonder how many people who criticize the British captives' actions would have been willing to endure torture and/or execution rather than make a false confession that no one with half a brain would take seriously anyway.
There're coerced confessions and then there are coerced "confessions". The difference is that the latter include things that can be demonstrably be proved false after the fact, for ex if allowed to send a message to your family at the same time include something about being sorry about hearing that your sisters dog died when in fact she's a cat person and can't stand dogs. Obviously it has to be little things that the captors won't pick up on, and your family can't be full of submorons who'd goto equally stupid members of the press and claim the false statements are proof that the confessions were staged with actors, but you can taint the confession in a way that demonstrates after the fact that you were deliberately lieing..
-- CleaKO The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything [about the problem]. Pete O`Hanlon Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about users?
-
I've heard people criticizing the British servicemen who were captured recently for giving in to coercion and aiding in the production of obvious propaganda. Given today's statements, do people still think they were cowardly? As understand it, they basically said they were surrounded and outgunned very quickly, realized they would lose any fight, which would then have serious strategic ramifications, ie it could very likely start a new war, and so decided to surrender. And then, once captured, they were definitely put under a lot of psychological pressure, some intense psychological coercion, although not necessarily the most intense coercion (not as bad as the worst accusations against the US Military, for example). My original opinion on the matter was to try to give them the benefit of the doubt, although with a lot of questions to ask. Now that I've heard their story, I'd be inclined to totally let them off the hook. Surrendering in order to prevent a war (they probably expected, like some other group of british servicemen captured in recent memory I've heard about, they would be released after a couple weeks) is a smart move. The 'coalition of the willing' doesn't need to expand the war into a huge regional conflict right now, if at all possible. Beyond that, although I sort of think they could have held out longer against propagandist manipulations, and would like to think I would have had I been in their shoes, I don't really care that they didn't, nor do I hold it against their bravery. They were under significant psychological pressure, and I don't see that there were tons of reasons not to. As expected, now the soldiers have now emphatically stated they were "1.7 nautical miles" from Iranian waters (I do not support the war, but I never felt they were in Iranian waters, and I certainly believe their story now). Who is possibly going to be swayed by their videos? The common Iranian people, maybe, but I don't think we were really expecting ahmadinejad to fall from within anyway. Anyone who already supports TCotW will just believe the British, and anyone who is right on the fence probably won't be pushed more by this than any of the other stuff going on. So what's the opinion from the peanut gallery? Speak now, or forever hold your peace.
It would have only been bad military behavior if they had been captured by an enemy they were engaged in combat operations against. In this case they were not endangering an ongoing military campaign by cooperating with the enemy. They did what they needed to do ensure their own safety and there is no harm and no shame in that.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
I've heard people criticizing the British servicemen who were captured recently for giving in to coercion and aiding in the production of obvious propaganda. Given today's statements, do people still think they were cowardly? As understand it, they basically said they were surrounded and outgunned very quickly, realized they would lose any fight, which would then have serious strategic ramifications, ie it could very likely start a new war, and so decided to surrender. And then, once captured, they were definitely put under a lot of psychological pressure, some intense psychological coercion, although not necessarily the most intense coercion (not as bad as the worst accusations against the US Military, for example). My original opinion on the matter was to try to give them the benefit of the doubt, although with a lot of questions to ask. Now that I've heard their story, I'd be inclined to totally let them off the hook. Surrendering in order to prevent a war (they probably expected, like some other group of british servicemen captured in recent memory I've heard about, they would be released after a couple weeks) is a smart move. The 'coalition of the willing' doesn't need to expand the war into a huge regional conflict right now, if at all possible. Beyond that, although I sort of think they could have held out longer against propagandist manipulations, and would like to think I would have had I been in their shoes, I don't really care that they didn't, nor do I hold it against their bravery. They were under significant psychological pressure, and I don't see that there were tons of reasons not to. As expected, now the soldiers have now emphatically stated they were "1.7 nautical miles" from Iranian waters (I do not support the war, but I never felt they were in Iranian waters, and I certainly believe their story now). Who is possibly going to be swayed by their videos? The common Iranian people, maybe, but I don't think we were really expecting ahmadinejad to fall from within anyway. Anyone who already supports TCotW will just believe the British, and anyone who is right on the fence probably won't be pushed more by this than any of the other stuff going on. So what's the opinion from the peanut gallery? Speak now, or forever hold your peace.
Man, I know it's only been an hour since I posted this, but I thought this would be crashing the cp servers by now. :) How is it possible, that after ONE ENTIRE HOUR, the Berkeley liberal, who has never supported the war, can't stand the prez, and who is arguing that surrender and going along with making propaganda for the enemy was the right choice has not been incinerated by the flaming yet? Don't tell me all you true believers are going to let me get away with all my faux Sun Tzu crap about how great surrendering to increase long term advantages is. :-D
-
Man, I know it's only been an hour since I posted this, but I thought this would be crashing the cp servers by now. :) How is it possible, that after ONE ENTIRE HOUR, the Berkeley liberal, who has never supported the war, can't stand the prez, and who is arguing that surrender and going along with making propaganda for the enemy was the right choice has not been incinerated by the flaming yet? Don't tell me all you true believers are going to let me get away with all my faux Sun Tzu crap about how great surrendering to increase long term advantages is. :-D
Nathan Addy wrote:
Berkeley liberal,
Is that PC for Communist these days?
-
Man, I know it's only been an hour since I posted this, but I thought this would be crashing the cp servers by now. :) How is it possible, that after ONE ENTIRE HOUR, the Berkeley liberal, who has never supported the war, can't stand the prez, and who is arguing that surrender and going along with making propaganda for the enemy was the right choice has not been incinerated by the flaming yet? Don't tell me all you true believers are going to let me get away with all my faux Sun Tzu crap about how great surrendering to increase long term advantages is. :-D
Hush, you deep purple communist!
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
It would have only been bad military behavior if they had been captured by an enemy they were engaged in combat operations against. In this case they were not endangering an ongoing military campaign by cooperating with the enemy. They did what they needed to do ensure their own safety and there is no harm and no shame in that.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Nathan Addy wrote:
Berkeley liberal,
Is that PC for Communist these days?
Rob Graham wrote:
Is that PC for Communist these days?
Doesn't mean that for me. I tend to be pretty socially liberal, which really just means socially libertarian. If you tell me that smoking a little pot on the weekends and practicing the new Scientology/Buddhism mashup you just invented between hard core make out sessions with your gay lover makes you a better and more charitable person in your community, and that corresponds with my observations about you, then who am i to judge you personally? I think people should not hurt others all the time, and help others some of the time. Whatever you want to do in between that, be my guest. Rights-wise, I tend to take a pretty strong stand that rights are quite inviolate. Although about 99% of them really should have had their asses kicked more as children, I'll defend loud abortion haters on soapboxes, loud abortion lovers on soapboxes, and Maddox on a soapbox, who happens to be against abortion, but for killing babies. And I generally never have any problem whatsoever with people who hold any of those positions, as long as they are willing to discuss it rationally, quietly, and in some combination of listening/taking turns. And though it's not really my thing, as long as you don't mind doing a little spot check to make sure you want that gun in order to "bear arms" and not "commit crimes", be my guest on that one too. And to anyone who doesn't necessarily feel that rights are something that must be always, always, always be vigorously defended, I heartily invite you to look up and read article 50 of the soviet constitution; it'll tell you exactly how much nice words on paper can be worth if you don't defend to the death the meanings of those worlds. I feel pretty strongly that increasing security at the expense of giving up privacy is a bad thing, not really understanding how people who feel that government is the problem and hate the idea of giving them money, lest they cause trouble with it, are fine with the idea of these same people watching everything you do 24/7, always trawling for suspicious behaviors. I really like the ideas behind the basic social programs. I think that the idea of "social securities", where a society makes a guarantee that so long as you're always trying your best, we collectively will ensure you can live outside of squalor and otherwise try to get you a leg up (the ideas behind SS, affirmative action, ideas of national healthcare coverage guarantees, low cost
-
Hush, you deep purple communist!
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Seriously, it's not a good debate unless someone gets called a "cheese eating surrender monkey", and if offering myself as chum can be that catalyst, I'm happy to do it. :laugh: (Although check out a cousin post of mine for a much longer, Bull Durham-style rant about what I actually believe, a rant I'd like to see someone seriously argue they disagree with.)
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Is that PC for Communist these days?
Doesn't mean that for me. I tend to be pretty socially liberal, which really just means socially libertarian. If you tell me that smoking a little pot on the weekends and practicing the new Scientology/Buddhism mashup you just invented between hard core make out sessions with your gay lover makes you a better and more charitable person in your community, and that corresponds with my observations about you, then who am i to judge you personally? I think people should not hurt others all the time, and help others some of the time. Whatever you want to do in between that, be my guest. Rights-wise, I tend to take a pretty strong stand that rights are quite inviolate. Although about 99% of them really should have had their asses kicked more as children, I'll defend loud abortion haters on soapboxes, loud abortion lovers on soapboxes, and Maddox on a soapbox, who happens to be against abortion, but for killing babies. And I generally never have any problem whatsoever with people who hold any of those positions, as long as they are willing to discuss it rationally, quietly, and in some combination of listening/taking turns. And though it's not really my thing, as long as you don't mind doing a little spot check to make sure you want that gun in order to "bear arms" and not "commit crimes", be my guest on that one too. And to anyone who doesn't necessarily feel that rights are something that must be always, always, always be vigorously defended, I heartily invite you to look up and read article 50 of the soviet constitution; it'll tell you exactly how much nice words on paper can be worth if you don't defend to the death the meanings of those worlds. I feel pretty strongly that increasing security at the expense of giving up privacy is a bad thing, not really understanding how people who feel that government is the problem and hate the idea of giving them money, lest they cause trouble with it, are fine with the idea of these same people watching everything you do 24/7, always trawling for suspicious behaviors. I really like the ideas behind the basic social programs. I think that the idea of "social securities", where a society makes a guarantee that so long as you're always trying your best, we collectively will ensure you can live outside of squalor and otherwise try to get you a leg up (the ideas behind SS, affirmative action, ideas of national healthcare coverage guarantees, low cost
Nathan Addy wrote:
Call me whatever the hell you want to call me.
Fuck'n commie.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Hush, you deep purple communist!
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Actually, as a follow up, my joke about lack of responses does get at a problem I think about sometimes. American politics obviously is and has been particularly contentious for a while now (last 12 years to a first approximation), and everyone says they hate it, that these bastards all ought to be lined up against the wall and shot so real citizens can forget all the superficial political bickering and partisan power grubbing for the sake of itself and really get back to good politics: high level philosophical and sociological discussions about what it means to be a country, how should we try to balance individual rights vs group rights in order to be a strong and good country (determining what in fact it even means to be a strong and good country), and then, once the country has been structured, how do we point that out into the world and act as a responsible and distinguished country amongst a world of several hundred countries? The problem is that no one ever really seems to want to do that! As soon as the debate gets elevated above the reality show in which officials behave badly in some terrible, terrible approximation of what I just described, the people who are normally so vocal, the true believers you'd hope you could engage more constructivly by trying to take the discussion away from settings that encourages name calling, they all grow silent. It's like how everyone always reports to the media they have no interest whatsoever in celebrity news and want more accurate, intelligent news, but whenever a media company tries to do that they lose all their readership out of a sudden lack of interest. The biggest problem with current American government is that people actually like it they way it is, in spite of all their words. Apparently people found honest intellectual debate too challenging, and decided they want titillation (with incredible examples on both sides of the aisle).
-
Nathan Addy wrote:
Call me whatever the hell you want to call me.
Fuck'n commie.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
You caught me!!!
-
Actually, as a follow up, my joke about lack of responses does get at a problem I think about sometimes. American politics obviously is and has been particularly contentious for a while now (last 12 years to a first approximation), and everyone says they hate it, that these bastards all ought to be lined up against the wall and shot so real citizens can forget all the superficial political bickering and partisan power grubbing for the sake of itself and really get back to good politics: high level philosophical and sociological discussions about what it means to be a country, how should we try to balance individual rights vs group rights in order to be a strong and good country (determining what in fact it even means to be a strong and good country), and then, once the country has been structured, how do we point that out into the world and act as a responsible and distinguished country amongst a world of several hundred countries? The problem is that no one ever really seems to want to do that! As soon as the debate gets elevated above the reality show in which officials behave badly in some terrible, terrible approximation of what I just described, the people who are normally so vocal, the true believers you'd hope you could engage more constructivly by trying to take the discussion away from settings that encourages name calling, they all grow silent. It's like how everyone always reports to the media they have no interest whatsoever in celebrity news and want more accurate, intelligent news, but whenever a media company tries to do that they lose all their readership out of a sudden lack of interest. The biggest problem with current American government is that people actually like it they way it is, in spite of all their words. Apparently people found honest intellectual debate too challenging, and decided they want titillation (with incredible examples on both sides of the aisle).
-
...or maybe it's cuz' we have the attention span of fleas? :doh:
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
attention span of fleas
Well it *is* an hour to go to the weekend here on the west coast, and parts east will already be out the door, so I don't blame anyone here today. It's just that it that idea that we periodically ought to work to find common ground, as opposed to always focusing on differences (it is of course much easier for me to find differences with a fundamentalist Christian neocon than similarieties) seems to be getting lost, on average, over time. That's something I think can't help but think will cause big problems down the line. Again, I don't want to use any single example of any discussion, especially this one, which occurs during a time everyone wants to take off, to illustrate this, it's just a general thought I have about where I see American political discourse headed these days.
-
Did you see them? One was a 250 pound girl while another was a 4'11 guy. I don't blame them for surrendering. That's not necessarily an act of cowardice, but a calculation (and they may have been told not to engage). The US military code of conduct, however, says that American captured soldiers are not allowed to give any aid to the enemy (just name, rank and serial number). So I don't think that, once captured, they should have helped Iran the way they did. But at the same time, who can blame them? We're all aware of the numerous decapitation videos. And we also know that the coalition forces have been so weakened by the left that no military action is possible, so I'm sure they knew there would be no rescue.
According to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,823871,00.html?iid=chix-sphere[^] "A line of resistance must be drawn somewhere, and initially as far forward as possible," the Defense Department's Advisory Committee on Prisoners of War reported to the President. "The name, rank and service number provisions of the Geneva conventions is accepted as this line of resistance. However, in the face of experience, it is recognized that the P.W. may be subjected to an extreme of coercion beyond his ability to resist. If in his battle with the interrogator he is driven from his first line of resistance, he must be trained for resistance in successive positions. And, to stand on the final line to the end - no disclosure of vital military information, and above all no disloyalty in word or deed to his country, his service or his comrades." President Eisenhower appended his own soldierly footnote: "Every member of the armed forces of the U.S. is expected to measure up . . ." Espeir, I would suggest that these British Servicepersons recognised the extent of their positions whilst under capture and behaved in a way not dissimilar to the passage quoted above. I do not believe that any vital military information was surrendered and no disloyalties to the UK or UK forces happened. If push comes to shove, then military action might be the only solution, however, although the politicians may not always be trusted, you can be assured the UK citizens will always support the UK armed forces in time of conflict.