Navy unable to board fishing vessels

**oldrider** · 18th January 2015, 08:58

Oh goody a keyboard pissing contest - next one might be - How would you know if you have never had a baby?

(Oops, nah not good)

.

**huff3r** · 18th January 2015, 09:22

There were quite a few cadets and ex lsv people on my Basic. Not many passed, and all of them were shocked at what an Army basic is truly like. Most civilians would be amazed at what recruits are put through.

As everyone has said, if you haven't done it then you truly have no idea.

**R650R** · 18th January 2015, 09:34

Originally Posted by oldrider

Oh goody a keyboard pissing contest - next one might be - How would you know if you have never had a baby?

(Oops, nah not good)

.

Yes indeed. The original point was the Navy, their management and personel are assigned a task and must be able to execute under all conditions. The supplied info about the incident does not read well.
The Americans would have just sunk this boat for non compliuance with orders.
But anyway to degenerate the thread into people aren't qualified to judge is just a silly pissing contest. There are ample credible books out there describing military life and real life operations to say that the navy has not performed as required.
McCullys face said it all, surely if there were genuine reasons for a no go that would have been explained to him and he would have relayed that to the press in a relaxed manner.
Lets see if our Kiwibiker vet's are tough enough to hold fire, bite their tongues and let this thread get back to what it was about...

**unstuck** · 18th January 2015, 09:46

My son found the navy fairly easy compared to being at home he said.

**Akzle** · 18th January 2015, 09:52

everyone in the navy is a hommosexual.

**puddytat** · 18th January 2015, 11:06

and some of them are women too.......

**oldrider** · 18th January 2015, 13:45

Originally Posted by puddytat

and some of them are women too.......

I still haven't had a baby but if some of the messages that I have received come to pass it will not be long before it all begins!

-

- ouch!

**Smifffy** · 18th January 2015, 16:07

Originally Posted by R650R

Yes indeed. The original point was the Navy, their management and personel are assigned a task and must be able to execute under all conditions. The supplied info about the incident does not read well.
The Americans would have just sunk this boat for non compliuance with orders.
But anyway to degenerate the thread into people aren't qualified to judge is just a silly pissing contest. There are ample credible books out there describing military life and real life operations to say that the navy has not performed as required.
McCullys face said it all, surely if there were genuine reasons for a no go that would have been explained to him and he would have relayed that to the press in a relaxed manner.
Lets see if our Kiwibiker vet's are tough enough to hold fire, bite their tongues and let this thread get back to what it was about...

Their task was assigned to them by MFAT, and MFAT called them off. Their orders were to back off and refuel, and they followed those orders. Now you say the American model is a foreign policy method to aspire to?

**R650R** · 18th January 2015, 17:36

Originally Posted by Smifffy

Their task was assigned to them by MFAT, and MFAT called them off. Their orders were to back off and refuel, and they followed those orders. Now you say the American model is a foreign policy method to aspire to?

That's a nice cover story they have come up with since the initial reports. What kind of operator goes out with a full tank of gas in the first place?????
No not their foreign policy just their shoot first and ask questions later operational practices when it comes to dealing with pirates/terrorists/fugitives etc....

**Delerium** · 18th January 2015, 20:06

Originally Posted by R650R

That's a nice cover story they have come up with since the initial reports. What kind of operator goes out with a full tank of gas in the first place?????
No not their foreign policy just their shoot first and ask questions later operational practices when it comes to dealing with pirates/terrorists/fugitives etc....

It's what happened. There is quite a bit more to the situation that hasn't been reported in the press - something that is quite common when it comes to the military - The press either doesn't report all the facts (doesn't want to) or doesn't have all the facts. I suspect the same thing happens with police/fire etc.

**Delerium** · 18th January 2015, 20:09

Originally Posted by R650R

That's a nice cover story they have come up with since the initial reports. What kind of operator goes out with a full tank of gas in the first place?????
No not their foreign policy just their shoot first and ask questions later operational practices when it comes to dealing with pirates/terrorists/fugitives etc....

The Vessel was not assigned specifically to go after these three fishers. It had already been under way for quite some time. Not a case of not going out with ' a full tank'.

The vessel has returned to wellington to refuel, not to Devonport to just give up. Of course if you don't mind the navy pissing away your tax payers money we could send the fleet oiler out to carry out replenishment at sea, but then everybody will be bitching and moaning about how much is being spent.

Always more to a story than is reported.

**oldrider** · 18th January 2015, 20:17

If our land police force don't carry guns why do we expect our fish police to have them? - Send Wellington back out fitted with a giant TAZER!

**skippa1** · 18th January 2015, 20:25

Originally Posted by R650R

That's a nice cover story they have come up with since the initial reports. What kind of operator goes out with a full tank of gas in the first place?????..

Jump to many conclusions lately????