Nam was a local brush fire! But the US went in cack handed and screwed up! The US has never won a war (real or not) on its own (apart from the US Civil war!)!
British Sailors in Iranian hands ...
- Thread starter Member2019
- Start date
Nam was a local brush fire! But the US went in cack handed and screwed up! The US has never won a war (real or not) on its own (apart from the US Civil war!)!
Let me tell you a little story on the Gulf.
Some years ago when a certain little man came to power in a country called Iraq. Who went by the name of Sadam, he decided he wanted to rid the world of a place called Iran. But he had a problem, he didn't have the arms to do it. So he appealed to other countries to provide the arms. The main two countries to respond was a certain UK and US and gladly gave the arms to do it. Only problem was he failed!
Then a little later when the same Sadam invaded a place called Kuwait to take over there oil. A little country called Iran couldn't help quick enough to help the allied force with airbases and army camps. They hoped to death that the allies including the same UK and US countries would destroy Iraq. Funny thing was the UK and US was actually fighting against their own weapons.
At a second attempt some years later on a trumped up story of Iraq doing this and that. Which was proven not so afterwards they managed to do which they couldn't the first time. Leaving little Iraq in a worse state than when they started.
Now that they've done one the pair seem to want to do the same to the other. So will do the same again by making up stories to attack and make a country into a bigger mess than it was before.
So basically it's all about saving face. From something they screwed up many years ago by taking both sides and failing on both.
Now as for the British forces. They still are the best trained in the world. The problem we have is the Labour goverment. Since they took over. They seem to think the force can fight without equipment or bullets.
(I tend to stay out of these threads, as most of you know. But when I saw all this rubbished been talked in here. I thought I just had to put it straight a little.)
Some years ago when a certain little man came to power in a country called Iraq. Who went by the name of Sadam, he decided he wanted to rid the world of a place called Iran. But he had a problem, he didn't have the arms to do it. So he appealed to other countries to provide the arms. The main two countries to respond was a certain UK and US and gladly gave the arms to do it. Only problem was he failed!
Then a little later when the same Sadam invaded a place called Kuwait to take over there oil. A little country called Iran couldn't help quick enough to help the allied force with airbases and army camps. They hoped to death that the allies including the same UK and US countries would destroy Iraq. Funny thing was the UK and US was actually fighting against their own weapons.
At a second attempt some years later on a trumped up story of Iraq doing this and that. Which was proven not so afterwards they managed to do which they couldn't the first time. Leaving little Iraq in a worse state than when they started.
Now that they've done one the pair seem to want to do the same to the other. So will do the same again by making up stories to attack and make a country into a bigger mess than it was before.
So basically it's all about saving face. From something they screwed up many years ago by taking both sides and failing on both.
Now as for the British forces. They still are the best trained in the world. The problem we have is the Labour goverment. Since they took over. They seem to think the force can fight without equipment or bullets.
(I tend to stay out of these threads, as most of you know. But when I saw all this rubbished been talked in here. I thought I just had to put it straight a little.)
Philbert
Banned
Great job, Poggy1...fairy tales are hard to just come up with!
For those who believe we shouldn't fight an enemy before he becomes one, but definately after; here's a story that, unfortunately, isn't a story:
"In 2006, the Pentagon spent $1.4 bn to develop sophisticated counter measures for roadside bombs, which account for more US deaths in Iraq than any other weapon. They were designed to locate and detonate the improvised explosive devices IEDs from afar, before American convoys drove past the spot where they are planted.
One such system has a sense of smell which sniffs out the presence of explosives; another uses radio beams to jam the IED’s electronic signals.
Soon after they were fitted on US military vehicles and went into successful use, al Qaeda came up with a device capable of jamming and disarming both US electronic measures by radio signals. The Islamist terrorists thus escalated their challenge to the US military by introducing electronic warfare.
Their success has boosted the US and British death toll in Iraq. Of the 50 US and UK soldiers who died in Iraq in the first 9 days of April, 30 were killed by IEDs. Al Qaeda’s mystery device is believed by military experts to account for the soaring rate of effective roadside bomb hits on American vehicles, even those fitted with the new counter-measures.
The Pentagon department entrusted with finding a new solution, the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, is working day and night to produce a new counter-measure which is not susceptible to the al Qaeda blocker.
The Israeli high command is anxiously watching this turn in the Iraq war for two reasons:
Firstly, operational innovations appearing on one terror warfront tend to spread with the speed of a contagion to the other fronts.
Secondly, al Qaeda is suspected of acquiring its advanced electronic warfare technology from Iran, which also supplies the IEDs to Iraq’s Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. Tehran owns an interest in the successful performance of its weaponry on Iraq’s battlefields and, most of all, in proving its technology is superior to American systems. If Iran is indeed the source of al Qaeda’s blocking device, then it is only a matter of time before this advanced electronic technology reaches Hizballah in Lebanon and is smuggled to the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad Islam in the Gaza Strip.
According to some military experts, the system is already in the hands of one or more of these terrorist groups, but is being held in reserve to catch the Israeli military unawares at the right moment. The device could expose an advancing tank column in Lebanon or the Gaza Strip to mass casualties.
But there are other possible sources:
1. Al Qaeda developed the technology on its own. The problem with this hypothesis is that the Pentagon, to produce the US anti-IED jammers, activated America’s most advanced and best-equipped scientific and technological infrastructure, a network of test laboratories and hundreds of the finest scientific and electronic engineering brains. Where would al Qaeda find these resources?
2. Some private military-scientific element outside Iran, unknown to the US, contracted to develop al Qaeda’s counter-jammers for a price running into hundreds of millions of dollars. This is not entirely far-fetched. An enterprise of this kind, headed by the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, A.Q. Khan, once ran a black market which illegally flogged nuclear wares to North Korea, Libya, Iran and China."
Those rascally Iranians!:eek:
For those who believe we shouldn't fight an enemy before he becomes one, but definately after; here's a story that, unfortunately, isn't a story:
"In 2006, the Pentagon spent $1.4 bn to develop sophisticated counter measures for roadside bombs, which account for more US deaths in Iraq than any other weapon. They were designed to locate and detonate the improvised explosive devices IEDs from afar, before American convoys drove past the spot where they are planted.
One such system has a sense of smell which sniffs out the presence of explosives; another uses radio beams to jam the IED’s electronic signals.
Soon after they were fitted on US military vehicles and went into successful use, al Qaeda came up with a device capable of jamming and disarming both US electronic measures by radio signals. The Islamist terrorists thus escalated their challenge to the US military by introducing electronic warfare.
Their success has boosted the US and British death toll in Iraq. Of the 50 US and UK soldiers who died in Iraq in the first 9 days of April, 30 were killed by IEDs. Al Qaeda’s mystery device is believed by military experts to account for the soaring rate of effective roadside bomb hits on American vehicles, even those fitted with the new counter-measures.
The Pentagon department entrusted with finding a new solution, the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, is working day and night to produce a new counter-measure which is not susceptible to the al Qaeda blocker.
The Israeli high command is anxiously watching this turn in the Iraq war for two reasons:
Firstly, operational innovations appearing on one terror warfront tend to spread with the speed of a contagion to the other fronts.
Secondly, al Qaeda is suspected of acquiring its advanced electronic warfare technology from Iran, which also supplies the IEDs to Iraq’s Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. Tehran owns an interest in the successful performance of its weaponry on Iraq’s battlefields and, most of all, in proving its technology is superior to American systems. If Iran is indeed the source of al Qaeda’s blocking device, then it is only a matter of time before this advanced electronic technology reaches Hizballah in Lebanon and is smuggled to the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad Islam in the Gaza Strip.
According to some military experts, the system is already in the hands of one or more of these terrorist groups, but is being held in reserve to catch the Israeli military unawares at the right moment. The device could expose an advancing tank column in Lebanon or the Gaza Strip to mass casualties.
But there are other possible sources:
1. Al Qaeda developed the technology on its own. The problem with this hypothesis is that the Pentagon, to produce the US anti-IED jammers, activated America’s most advanced and best-equipped scientific and technological infrastructure, a network of test laboratories and hundreds of the finest scientific and electronic engineering brains. Where would al Qaeda find these resources?
2. Some private military-scientific element outside Iran, unknown to the US, contracted to develop al Qaeda’s counter-jammers for a price running into hundreds of millions of dollars. This is not entirely far-fetched. An enterprise of this kind, headed by the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, A.Q. Khan, once ran a black market which illegally flogged nuclear wares to North Korea, Libya, Iran and China."
Those rascally Iranians!:eek:
Yeah some fairy tails take 30 years to make and are true :eek:
None of that is a fairy tail. Some is covered up in the US. But Britain it's all recorded and we mean all.
The problem with the US and UK now the USSR is gone. Is they think they should rule the world. No countries has that right. All they keep trying to do now is crush down the smaller countries. So they can keep some sort of power over them. Or just think they have the right to tell other countries how they should be run.
No, not all countries, just the ones that want to blow us up first!:1orglaugh
Seriously folks, all that was said above is true (the chess game of international politics and playing off the lesser of 2 evils always seems to back fire), and the damage has been done. Right now we are trying to correct/contain it before it gets any worse.:eek:
Um, no, you have so much factually incorrect here, it's not even funny ...
And Saddam was already a Stalinist headed towards the Iraqi Presidency a good decade before the late '70s. It's actually a really interesting study. The US, like most of the west, held a non-secretarian Iraq in high regard until the Bathists took over completely, largely thanx to Saddam well before he became President.
Yes, in the '80s, the "enemy of Iran" was someone we supported, as well as the British. But you are greatly mistaken if you think the US/UK armed and supported them as much as the Soviet. And that includes the French and Germans giving them materials for their chemical weapons programs as much as the Soviets, before the US and UK came in in the '80s.
You need to check your facts there on the involvement of the Soviets (both pre and post-Shah downfall), as well as the French and Germans after the Shah fell as well.
And Saddam was already a Stalinist headed towards the Iraqi Presidency a good decade before the late '70s. It's actually a really interesting study. The US, like most of the west, held a non-secretarian Iraq in high regard until the Bathists took over completely, largely thanx to Saddam well before he became President.
Yes, in the '80s, the "enemy of Iran" was someone we supported, as well as the British. But you are greatly mistaken if you think the US/UK armed and supported them as much as the Soviet. And that includes the French and Germans giving them materials for their chemical weapons programs as much as the Soviets, before the US and UK came in in the '80s.
Ah, no, that is very incorrect! Iraq had overwhelmingly Soviet hardware, with some French where the Soviet hardware was deficient. Iran has far more western, including US, hardware from the era of the Shah.
That's why ...
The idea is to take out an installation, without killing the innocent, completely eliminating the airburst effect, and localizing any isotopes to just a few hundred yards.
But most people are ignorant fucks, and think any nuke is a bad nuke.
They don't stop to think that nukes exist for a reason, and we need nukes that are actually the most applicable for the job.
My favorite example are all the ignorant fucks in Germany that protested the deployment of Pershing II.
It was designed to disarm Europe, which is exactly what it did, faster than the US believed possible.
You design a weapon that scares the fuck out of your enemy, so it is never used.
That's why W. pushed (along with many people, myself included) to develop a new age of tactical nuke designs.
The idea is to take out an installation, without killing the innocent, completely eliminating the airburst effect, and localizing any isotopes to just a few hundred yards.
But most people are ignorant fucks, and think any nuke is a bad nuke.
They don't stop to think that nukes exist for a reason, and we need nukes that are actually the most applicable for the job.
My favorite example are all the ignorant fucks in Germany that protested the deployment of Pershing II.
It was designed to disarm Europe, which is exactly what it did, faster than the US believed possible.
You design a weapon that scares the fuck out of your enemy, so it is never used.
The British said the same thing ...
The thing is that an enemy will find a way to win if it is willing to go to the level required to do so.
In the case of modern day terrorism, combatants will actually not only use civilians for cover, but use them politically too.
Hezbolla is a perfect example, and it sickens me to hear people bitch about Israel's actions in comparison.
The British said the same thing about the American Revolution too.
The thing is that an enemy will find a way to win if it is willing to go to the level required to do so.
In the case of modern day terrorism, combatants will actually not only use civilians for cover, but use them politically too.
Hezbolla is a perfect example, and it sickens me to hear people bitch about Israel's actions in comparison.
Re: Um, no, you have so much factually incorrect here, it's not even funny ...
LOL!
Sorry Prof, but it's you who needs to dig that little deeper. Not only did the US and UK supply the weapons to Sadam. But where do you think half of the Soviet weapons come from originally. Yep the good old US and UK, bought by a third party who the sold them on too the Soviets.
Between them they've supplied arms to half the world if not more. It's not always directly, but they often get there in the end.
LOL!
Sorry Prof, but it's you who needs to dig that little deeper. Not only did the US and UK supply the weapons to Sadam. But where do you think half of the Soviet weapons come from originally. Yep the good old US and UK, bought by a third party who the sold them on too the Soviets.
Between them they've supplied arms to half the world if not more. It's not always directly, but they often get there in the end.
Philbert
Banned
ProfV, I want to personally thank you for relieving my headache!
I knew a good deal of what you said, but didn't want to misspeak ( a weird thing I have, not wanting to say 'green is the only color trees come in" when I know they have many colors; I prefer to know the actual colors before speaking.<< an analogy, folks!)
Iraq wan't fighting to eradicate Iran, there was historical territory involved, and oil (wealth); of course anyone with 3 cents worth of brain will help someone destroy a common enemy, even if they are not your favorite entity.
Waitng 'til the damage is done before reacting is quite abysmally stupid, and a grievous failure to discharge protective responsibility.
Knowing when to act is another matter...
And I was aware Iran had a great deal of (aging) American military hardware, a major bone of contention when we cut them off. They have fixed the problem...
As well, does anyone think Germany and France are keeping out of the Iraqi (and Iranian) pissing match because of a desire to stay peaceful, and for any moral reason?
Here are your moral reasons;$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
Whatever...great posts, ProfV! Thanks for sharing with most of us uninformed members, even those who don't let that stop them from posting fiction as fact.
Now, I am off of work, and don't have to research those documented facts and head-hurting relationships!
I can read about hand-jobs and big titties!:nanner:
I knew a good deal of what you said, but didn't want to misspeak ( a weird thing I have, not wanting to say 'green is the only color trees come in" when I know they have many colors; I prefer to know the actual colors before speaking.<< an analogy, folks!)
Iraq wan't fighting to eradicate Iran, there was historical territory involved, and oil (wealth); of course anyone with 3 cents worth of brain will help someone destroy a common enemy, even if they are not your favorite entity.
Waitng 'til the damage is done before reacting is quite abysmally stupid, and a grievous failure to discharge protective responsibility.
Knowing when to act is another matter...
And I was aware Iran had a great deal of (aging) American military hardware, a major bone of contention when we cut them off. They have fixed the problem...
As well, does anyone think Germany and France are keeping out of the Iraqi (and Iranian) pissing match because of a desire to stay peaceful, and for any moral reason?
Here are your moral reasons;$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
Whatever...great posts, ProfV! Thanks for sharing with most of us uninformed members, even those who don't let that stop them from posting fiction as fact.
Now, I am off of work, and don't have to research those documented facts and head-hurting relationships!
I can read about hand-jobs and big titties!:nanner:
Or maybe they'ed just like some proof first. I know I would.
But Blair and Bush will just go steaming in again making up their own reasons. Just to be caught with their trousers down again when the smoke clears :o
Re: Um, no, you have so much factually incorrect here, it's not even funny ...
I have no idea where you even remotely get this information. Yes, the US and UK assisted Iraq after the fall of the Shah in Iran, but you should really read up on the actual assistance from the Soviets as well as France and Germany -- especially on what the US would not sell them.
Iraq had it's own money. They did not need the US (much less does anyone need the US today to buy Russian arms). Unfortunately the war with Iran cost even Iraq too much in the end.
I have no idea where you even remotely get this information. Yes, the US and UK assisted Iraq after the fall of the Shah in Iran, but you should really read up on the actual assistance from the Soviets as well as France and Germany -- especially on what the US would not sell them.
If only there was a leader in the world who is sane enough to resolve the Eastern upheaval without being religiously biased. George W was told by God himself to invade Iraq. Now that's what I call dilussional/psychotic.
How can the UN assist when the US, Britain, Japan, & us Aussies held them in contempt, and invaded Iraq againsat the UN's advice. Now we expect the UN to intervene??
I only feel threatened since the invasion. How can we expect to turn a country that has been in civil war for centuries into a Christian moralled country in a couple of years? Who wants Christian morals anyway? Priests rape boys and get away with it. The Vatican is mega rich yet the followers are poor. Suckers all of you believers. Why not believe in yourself and your family.
How can the UN assist when the US, Britain, Japan, & us Aussies held them in contempt, and invaded Iraq againsat the UN's advice. Now we expect the UN to intervene??
I only feel threatened since the invasion. How can we expect to turn a country that has been in civil war for centuries into a Christian moralled country in a couple of years? Who wants Christian morals anyway? Priests rape boys and get away with it. The Vatican is mega rich yet the followers are poor. Suckers all of you believers. Why not believe in yourself and your family.
Philbert
Banned
Re: Um, no, you have so much factually incorrect here, it's not even funny ...
You really should read the post before you commented on it Prof. Then you might actually have got this right.
I never said that the Iraq had no money. In fact the oppersite and paid for their weapons by buying them.
The information comes from living through this 30 year period and research when doing work on other things. Oh yeah and paying attention to what people say and do.
But I would expect you defending the US because you always do. Through rose coloured glasses is a term that comes to mind. As for me I know my country has many faults and problems as everyones does. But you always seem to forget these when someone posts against your country.
You really should read the post before you commented on it Prof. Then you might actually have got this right.
I never said that the Iraq had no money. In fact the oppersite and paid for their weapons by buying them.
The information comes from living through this 30 year period and research when doing work on other things. Oh yeah and paying attention to what people say and do.
But I would expect you defending the US because you always do. Through rose coloured glasses is a term that comes to mind. As for me I know my country has many faults and problems as everyones does. But you always seem to forget these when someone posts against your country.
Re: Um, no, you have so much factually incorrect here, it's not even funny ...
Without wanting to dis anybody i gotta agree with you here poggy - certain members sometimes seem to think only their points are valid, that only their view of history correct and that no one else can come up with a pertinent insight or idea
Without wanting to dis anybody i gotta agree with you here poggy - certain members sometimes seem to think only their points are valid, that only their view of history correct and that no one else can come up with a pertinent insight or idea
Similar threads
