British Sailors in Iranian hands ...

I think that's a bit harsh. I guess from this response Philbert, that you are saying that you used to be in the military.

At the end of the day it is very easy for members of this board to make quick judgements on the actions of others when they have not been in the same situation themselves

I wouldn't say those Brit troops have particularly covered themselves in glory but - having heard more explanations since their return ( eg mock executions, solitary confinement (particularly of the female prisoner) etc ) i think it's easier to understand their actions
- the controversy in the UK now is at the government's decision to allow them, contrary to standard British military rules, to sell their stories to the press

Last point is kinda connected to my first - again its easy to advocate war against Iran on here - are those doing that currently in the military - i doubt it

the thing with iran ( and other muslim countries in that neck of the woods ) is that the have far younger ( relatively speaking ) population than countries in the west, and one that is growing faster

yes - we have superiority in technology and armnaments ( at the moment) but the countries that it appears ( to me ) some members consider to be their "enemies" have younger and larger populations - so if any initial western attack snowballed into a regional or global war then US, UK or whoever else might be involved would be at a disadvantage in regard to raising enough troops
( although some might argue that it is unlikely US will ever be involved in that type of war utilising massive amounts of infantry again )


(remember Nazi Germany was technologically far superior to Soviet Russia, but the size of that country and its seemingly endless natural resourcesn eg men eventually defeated adolph - remember Stalingrad )
( or Vietnam )
:2 cents:

Valid point concerning the age and size of the Arab populations. Its a prime example of how the Western World has sunk in terms of its Military capability since the decision to start downsizing after the Cold War, which I maintain was a mistake that will cost us dearly. And when WW3 breaks out it will involve more man power and Infantry then the World has ever seen mobilized through out history up to now I'm quite sure. We in the West must rapidly return to our Cold War readiness capability immediately if we are to survive.
 
Valid point concerning the age and size of the Arab populations. Its a prime example of how the Western World has sunk in terms of its Military capability since the decision to start downsizing after the Cold War, which I maintain was a mistake that will cost us dearly. And when WW3 breaks out it will involve more man power and Infantry then the World has ever seen mobilized through out history up to now I'm quite sure. We in the West must rapidly return to our Cold War readiness capability immediately if we are to survive.


Good point captain on post cold war troop levels -

it really pisses me off that in the UK troops were massively cut after the cold war - understandably so - and have gradually declined since then

now Tony B is putting UK armed forces all over the globe - & on this post i'm not going into the rights and wrongs of that - and there is no sign, or even discussion, of a big increase in the defence budget needed to effectively pay for all of this

( this is because any politician in the UK advocating more military spending for further adventures abroad would be commiting political suicide )

this means there aren't enough troops, and those troops there are have poor / insufficient arms & supplies

if the UK is going to have increasing military commitments in the 21st century then the least the government can do is to ensure there is enough of a defence budget to pay for sufficient troops and the other resources required to be effective
 
Did't Ahmadinejhad publicy claim he released the sailors as an "Easter gift" to the British people? What a fishbowl, why the hell capture them then in the first place?
 
Good point captain on post cold war troop levels -

it really pisses me off that in the UK troops were massively cut after the cold war - understandably so - and have gradually declined since then

now Tony B is putting UK armed forces all over the globe - & on this post i'm not going into the rights and wrongs of that - and there is no sign, or even discussion, of a big increase in the defence budget needed to effectively pay for all of this

( this is because any politician in the UK advocating more military spending for further adventures abroad would be commiting political suicide )

this means there aren't enough troops, and those troops there are have poor / insufficient arms & supplies

if the UK is going to have increasing military commitments in the 21st century then the least the government can do is to ensure there is enough of a defence budget to pay for sufficient troops and the other resources required to be effective

The U.K. Government will have to fund it's Military using a trick the U.S. Government/Military/Pentagon have down to a science: The Black Budget.
 
The U.K. Government will have to fund it's Military using a trick the U.S. Government/Military/Pentagon have down to a science: The Black Budget.


I know what you mean - black ops etc - but, to be honest, i'd rather they didn't

i'm more in the "make love, not war" minority on freeones :)
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
The other way of making Ahmadinejhad quite is using the largest nuclear submarines of the ohio class and launching ICBMs on Iran's nuclear plants as well as naval and air bases. Advanced technology with proper intelligence can beat down any ennemy. See how Israel defeated its ennemies in 1956, 1967 and 1973. Israel didn't had and still doesn't have stealth bombers at that time but the intelligence of its generals and of its pilots allowed these significant victories. Of course there is an important matter of tactics. If you are a fine tactician and you can evaluate risks properly you can defeat anyone. But weaponry is also important. Why do you think that Reagan put the emphasis of developping and making advanced weapons? To be sure USA will be able to have the dominance against its ennemies. Israel also started to make advanced weaponry in the 60's and today with Raphael, Elbit and IMI they have reached the very best in terms of technology in terms of weaponry.
 
The other way of making Ahmadinejhad quite is using the largest nuclear submarines of the ohio class and launching ICBMs on Iran's nuclear plants as well as naval and air bases. Advanced technology with proper intelligence can beat down any ennemy. See how Israel defeated its ennemies in 1956, 1967 and 1973. Israel didn't had and still doesn't have stealth bombers at that time but the intelligence of its generals and of its pilots allowed these significant victories. Of course there is an important matter of tactics. If you are a fine tactician and you can evaluate risks properly you can defeat anyone. But weaponry is also important. Why do you think that Reagan put the emphasis of developping and making advanced weapons? To be sure USA will be able to have the dominance against its ennemies. Israel also started to make advanced weaponry in the 60's and today with Raphael, Elbit and IMI they have reached the very best in terms of technology in terms of weaponry.

Many of the Ohio's Georges have had their ICBMs removed and replaced with 156+ Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. I suppose with the nuclear tip on them they would work just as well.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Many of the Ohio's Georges have had their ICBMs removed and replaced with 156+ Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. I suppose with the nuclear tip on them they would work just as well.

Not all have their ICBMs removed because the Trident 2 D5 version has been in the works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile and it is the base armament of the UK vanguard class submarines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_class_submarine as well as the following US submarines of the Ohio class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine:
USS Henry M Jackson, USS ALABAMA, USS Alaska, USS Nevada, USS Pennsylvannia, USS West Virginia, USS Kentucky, USS Maryland, USS Nebraska, USS Rhode Island, USS Wyoming and USS Louisana.
The Trident 2 D5 launched on Iran will make Ahmadinehad pissing his pants.
 
I agree with Georges. We need to beat Down Ahmadinejhad's ego a little bit.

Good point we have here :rolleyes:

Yes why not lets go out start another war that could damage the world even more. After all we haven't even repaired the damage from the last one. You know that one that seems the only reason it was started was because they wanted the leader out of power because they didn't like the way he ran his country.

Are we going to start to do this with every country we don't like the leader of. If so I'll start here with Blair and whoever follows him when he steps down. As no matter who it is in the Labour party they will be a bad choice.


*SHOCK*
There are even some places in this world that are still suffering from WWII.

So shouldn't we actually try to mend some of this before we start again. Or are we going to hand over a destroyed lump of rock over to our kids or their kids. Global Warming won't have a chance to be a problem at this rate. We'll have blown the planet to pieces long before that gets the chance to finish the world.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Good point we have here :rolleyes:

Yes why not lets go out start another war that could damage the world even more. After all we haven't even repaired the damage from the last one. You know that one that seems the only reason it was started was because they wanted the leader out of power because they didn't like the way he ran his country.

Are we going to start to do this with every country we don't like the leader of. If so I'll start here with Blair and whoever follows him when he steps down. As no matter who it is in the Labour party they will be a bad choice.


*SHOCK*
There are even some places in this world that are still suffering from WWII.

So shouldn't we actually try to mend some of this before we start again. Or are we going to hand over a destroyed lump of rock over to our kids or their kids. Global Warming won't have a chance to be a problem at this rate. We'll have blown the planet to pieces long before that gets the chance to finish the world.

Saddam was killing innocents and threatening his neighbours. But Ahmadinejad is worse than Saddam. He is as bad as l'ayatollah Kohmeini and Kamenei as well. I don't like the fact that Iran has nuclear power plants. Iran is already having a military industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_military_industry
I don't like Iran. I prefer pre emptive action than to have to suffer from Nuclear warheads fired by some crazy fool like Ahmadinejhad. Iran isn't better than North Korea.

just my :2 cents:

regards

georges
 
Saddam was killing innocents and threatening his neighbours. But Ahmadinejad is worse than Saddam. He is as bad as l'ayatollah Kohmeini and Kamenei as well. I don't like the fact that Iran has nuclear power plants. Iran is already having a military industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_military_industry
I don't like Iran. I prefer pre emptive action than to have to suffer from Nuclear warheads fired by some crazy fool like Ahmadinejhad. Iran isn't better than North Korea.

just my :2 cents:

regards

georges

I agree with Georges 100%.
 
Good point we have here :rolleyes:

Yes why not lets go out start another war that could damage the world even more. After all we haven't even repaired the damage from the last one. You know that one that seems the only reason it was started was because they wanted the leader out of power because they didn't like the way he ran his country.

Are we going to start to do this with every country we don't like the leader of. If so I'll start here with Blair and whoever follows him when he steps down. As no matter who it is in the Labour party they will be a bad choice.


*SHOCK*
There are even some places in this world that are still suffering from WWII.

So shouldn't we actually try to mend some of this before we start again. Or are we going to hand over a destroyed lump of rock over to our kids or their kids. Global Warming won't have a chance to be a problem at this rate. We'll have blown the planet to pieces long before that gets the chance to finish the world.


Great post poggy - i've been waiting for a post that is, even a bit, in accordance with my views

unfortunately, in my opinion, there are too many ultra-hawk posts on here

newsflash - war is bad - it kills people, & just coz the people dying don't live in your country it doesn't mean their lives are worth any less
 

dick van cock

Closed Account
newsflash - war is bad - it kills people, & just coz the people dying don't live in your country it doesn't mean their lives are worth any less
Well, I do know that! But does Ahmadinejad know? :(

Pre-emptive action against Iran is out of the question. It would not only be a breach of international law but the US lack the resources to start a third war after Afghanistan and Iraq.

My prior concern is that Iran might strike first.
 
Well, I do know that! But does Ahmadinejad know? :(

Pre-emptive action against Iran is out of the question. It would not only be a breach of international law but the US lack the resources to start a third war after Afghanistan and Iraq.

My prior concern is that Iran might strike first.

Cool dick - i think we're on the same page :glugglug:
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Well, I do know that! But does Ahmadinejad know? :(

Pre-emptive action against Iran is out of the question. It would not only be a breach of international law but the US lack the resources to start a third war after Afghanistan and Iraq.

My prior concern is that Iran might strike first.

Ahmadinejhad has no consideration for his own people, he uses them as martyrs to show the rest of the arab neighbours that the western countries are evil. The laws in Iran are insane and people live like in the middle ages. US has the full capacities to throw another war with its ohio class submarines fitted with the Trident 2d5 ICBM. As far as I know no ohio class submarine has fired an ICBM on Iran. Perhaps letting Ahmadinejhad being equipped with nuclear warheads is a better option? Not really.:nono: If you let Ahmadinejhad go too far, he will cause irreversible dommage that can't be repaired.
 

dick van cock

Closed Account
Perhaps letting Ahmadinejhad being equipped with nuclear warheads is a better option? Not really.:nono: If you let Ahmadinejhad go too far, he will cause irreversible dommage that can't be repaired.
True. This damage would mean the destruction of Israel.

We must ensure two things:

1) If Iran starts a war, it will be bombed to the stone age.
2) To get this message out to the Iranian people. Regime change must come from the inside of Iran. The mullahs have to be toppled the same way the Shah was ousted - by a popular uprising.

After all, the people who are really in charge, the clerical elite may be more clever than the ranting Ahmadinejad. He's worrisome, but he's not a dictator. They might pull the plug on him when election time comes 'round again. We do not really understand the mechanisms of Persian politics.

Israel never struck first, but it always made sure that the hand that hit it would be severed immediately. :)
 
Saddam was killing innocents and threatening his neighbours. But Ahmadinejad is worse than Saddam. He is as bad as l'ayatollah Kohmeini and Kamenei as well. I don't like the fact that Iran has nuclear power plants. Iran is already having a military industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_military_industry
I don't like Iran. I prefer pre emptive action than to have to suffer from Nuclear warheads fired by some crazy fool like Ahmadinejhad. Iran isn't better than North Korea.

just my :2 cents:

regards

georges

I agree with Georges 100%.

Why stop there. No doubt there at least another 20-30 or more countries we can just walk into and kill a lot more of them innocents just to remove the leader. After all this is what has happened in Iraq. The saving force has killed more than the person they removed just about. Or will have by the time they've finished. Suicide bombing, etc kill the innocent too or haven't you noticed. The saving forces was the ones who started these. Not the person that was removed from power.

Also are we going to hang him too and make him into a martar. As this is what has happened to Sadam. Hanging him was the worst thing you could do. It made him into a even bigger idol to his supporters than he was before. Or even a god now to some.

I'm not anti war. But bullets and missiles don't always solve problems. In fact most of the time they create more.

If we are going to remove everyone who has killed innocents and a lot of them. No country in the world will have a leader.

What gives one country the right to tell another how it should be run. If were going to go down this road. Why did we stop Hitler. After all this is all he was trying to do in the long run.

All we seem to be doing now days is looking around to see which country we can go into to start another war. The world is in a big mess as it is. There are people staving, poverty, etc all over. But this comes second to spending millions on removing one person from power and putting another country into turmoil.

Who shall we pick on after him then. Maybe we should have another go at Russia. After all people freeze to death there in winter without there leader giving them money to keep warm.

PS
Wasn't Iran a ally during the Gulf war. Well it was to the British.
 
Good post again poggy

I can't believe how belligerent some of the posts are - as he says there are loads of dodgy regimes out there - do you want to take them all on ? or is it just muslim or certain middle eastern countries ?

saudi arabia is one of the west's biggest allies in the middle east - but it's the cradle of Islam and a fundamentalist dictatorship with basically no human rights, run in accordance with Sharia law and the tenets of wahhabism

it also has , i think, the world's largest oil reserves with a great proportion of the revenues from said oil going to a ruling elite of the royal family and the princes

and don't get me started on woman's rights - they can't go outside without a chaperone, can't drive a car, men can have more than one wife ... etc etc etc ad infinitum

should that regime be changed - or should we leave it because they are friends with America and the UK ?


( oh, i forgot, it's also where Osama is from < his family own the biggest private company there > :) )
 

Philbert

Banned
So which is it...the West (or the US) should leave everyone alone, to decide for themselves which part of their population to oppress and kill...or we should take charge and nail all the blatant bad guys? Seems like a rather child-like view of things, given that in our own lives we avoid most difficult choices until we have no choice but to deal with them.
Iraq was becoming way belligerant, and was going farther afield in it's delusions of grandeur. When it finally forced the oil dependent West to save it's allies/sources of life supporting oil, we acted from world wide self interest.
Since Saddam wasn't kept in any sort of check by a government of more than one controlling power, when he was seen as going for mass destruction weapons, and was obviously out of any control, I completely see the need to shut the egomanic down.
Same for any other immediate threat..eventually, it'd be great when most of the world's population can develop how they want, Muslim women running giant corporations and going out with their gfs for a fun night on the town; when gay bishops can preside over Easter Services, and any Muslim can choose to be a Christian or a buddist without a death sentence.
'Til then, any serious and immediate threat must be dealt with, and the less immediate dangers can be put off for later, using economic incentives and diplomatic avenues.
Things don't require an all or none strategy, they require to be dealt with on the level of their threat potential and their real time development.
When Saudi Arabia becomes an immediate danger, shit will happen. 'Til then, we keep the lid on as much as can be done,and play the age old chess game nations have been playing for the last several thousand years.
So, yeah, there are assholes who get to do business with the West, and noble leaders who lose their power. Any country who loses the game for survival wasn't playing hard or well enough to win, and let their population down. Egos shouldn't play such a large part in world politics, but they do. And people suffer the consequences.
I only hope reason and self interest combine in your own personal lives, those who espouse nothing or everything; in the greater scheme of things, survival is the main point, not approval.
:2 cents:
 
Top