Is Britain too weak?

[waste gate]

Has Britain allowed itself to become a target for Iranian mischief by weakening its military? In 1979 our president, Jimmy Carter, was also taken advantage of by Iran. What is your opinion?

[ASWnut101]

A very possible idea. I think so.

[Yahoshua]

Militarily no, but I do see that that England (and the U.S.) are both falling prey to the multi-culti line of thought and are falling into a "blame the victim" routine. So it seems the same is being played out here that the sailors are being blamed for being taken prisoner, but people are too afraid to stand up for themselves or their countrymen. A sad state of affairs.

[waste gate]

Militarily no, but I do see that that England (and the U.S.) are both falling prey to the multi-culti line of thought and are falling into a "blame the victim" routine. So it seems the same is being played out here that the sailors are being blamed for being taken prisoner, but people are too afraid to stand up for themselves or their countrymen. A sad state of affairs.

'Blame the victim' is very much in play. Thank you for your input Yahoshua

[Oberon]

One of the main problems the British Government has is short-sightedness. Ever since the Berlin wall come down, we've convinced ourselves that the world is suddenly a much safer place and we don't need large standing armies, or a powerful Navy or Air force, if we can cut corners by sending our troops to places with inadequate provisions, well they can improvise, and so what if our fleet air arm hasn't got any adequate Anti-air fighters, we're not fighting the Cold War anymore, we don't need them. :damn:

And then we suddenly find ourselves out-manuevered by an enemy we'd thought below us, and suddenly we're running to catch up, having cut our forces too small and spreading them out too wide.

[waste gate]

One of the main problems the British Government has is short-sightedness. Ever since the Berlin wall come down, we've convinced ourselves that the world is suddenly a much safer place and we don't need large standing armies, or a powerful Navy or Air force, if we can cut corners by sending our troops to places with inadequate provisions, well they can improvise, and so what if our fleet air arm hasn't got any adequate Anti-air fighters, we're not fighting the Cold War anymore, we don't need them. :damn:

And then we suddenly find ourselves out-manuevered by an enemy we'd thought below us, and suddenly we're running to catch up, having cut our forces too small and spreading them out too wide.

So are you saying that Britain has allowed itself to become weak?

Perhaps I should have made this a poll.

[Penelope_Grey]

Not allowed ourselves to become weak. I don't see our participation in multiple wars under the Prime Ministership of Tony Blair a show of strength. I see it as a sign of inadeuquacy and poor judgement. He is making us try to punch above our weight so to speak. For us to maintain a large military is not really feasable anymore.

The key thing though I think, is like my brother always says; is to never underestimate your opponent, its not what you have its how you use it too, America underestimated the Vietnamese and their capabilities and got an arse kicking as a result of their war in Vietnam. The same thing has happened to us, Iran was clearly underestimated and as a result those 15 sailors are now hostages. When will they be released? Will they be released? All these questons, and nobody seems to be answering them.

[JSLTIGER]

Not allowed ourselves to become weak. I don't see our participation in multiple wars under the Prime Ministership of Tony Blair a show of strength. I see it as a sign of inadeuquacy and poor judgement. He is making us try to punch above our weight so to speak. For us to maintain a large military is not really feasable anymore.

The key thing though I think, is like my brother always says; is to never underestimate your opponent, its not what you have its how you use it too, America underestimated the Vietnamese and their capabilities and got an arse kicking as a result of their war in Vietnam. The same thing has happened to us, Iran was clearly underestimated and as a result those 15 sailors are now hostages. When will they be released? Will they be released? All these questons, and nobody seems to be answering them.
In terms of war, the fundamental problem lies not in the underestimation of the enemy, nor in allowing oneself to become weak. Instead, the problem that both the UK and the US face is one that has been facing modern warfare since its inception. The question, of course, is at what point is victory achieved? The answer? There are only two ways to win a war. The first is to make your enemy surrender in its entirety so that they will acquiesce. The second way is far messier and completely unacceptable in today's society: Genocide. The problem with the current conflict around the world is that the enemy is unwilling to surrender (evidenced by their continued resistance), and we are unwilling to commit genocide (not that I'm advocating we should pursue this course of action, either). Thus, we are stuck in this bloody stand-off that will last until one side gives in.

As for the current Iranian/British sailors situation, this is pure and simple exploitation of the British position, as Iran knows that the British can no longer project a significant amount of force with the force cuts, and that the US is too busy dealing with Iraq to really get involved in invading Iran. Sure, we on this end of the pond can posture and b***h and demand all we want, but in the end, we will not invade so long as Iraq remains a problem.

[PeriscopeDepth]

No. Britain is perfectly capable of teaching Iran a lesson in the same manner as we did during the late 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis), and should IMO but that's for another thread. It would require a much more concentrated effort than it did for the US, but the UK has a much smaller (but still very well trained and equipped military). It is a matter of willpower.

PD

[waste gate]

No. Britain is perfectly capable of teaching Iran a lesson in the same manner as we did during the late 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis), and should IMO but that's for another thread. It would require a much more concentrated effort than it did for the US, but the UK has a much smaller (but still very well trained and equipped military). It is a matter of willpower.

PD

Political will. Do expect Britain (the people) to become sufficiently tired/disgusted/offended with the situation as it refers to the Iranian holding British citizens hostage and making political statements.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I believe British national identity is in decline, and we aren't as proud as we once were. You see, in a past society where emphasis wasnt placed so much on ethnic diversity and "adjusting to fit others", we'd have swept them Iranians up with the broom of utter disgust by now. Yet instead we're left shaking our fists and muttering.

[waste gate]

I believe British national identity is in decline, and we aren't as proud as we once were. You see, in a past society where emphasis wasnt placed so much on ethnic diversity and "adjusting to fit others", we'd have swept them Iranians up with the broom of utter disgust by now. Yet instead we're left shaking our fists and muttering.

Argentina is watching. The Falklans will be next.

[ASWnut101]

You forgot the "d"

[gnirtS]

Has Britain allowed itself to become a target for Iranian mischief by weakening its military? In 1979 our president, Jimmy Carter, was also taken advantage of by Iran. What is your opinion?
No, Britain (or more accurately its weak excuse for a leader, Blair) has made itself a target by blindly following america into its wars. If Blair showed any spine or backbone and just said no the place would be far less of a target both home and abroad.

Yes the UKs military is very weak these days to the extent it could not start and certainly not win a war against even a minor nation with its dated air force, dated and downsized navy and massively overstretched army but it wouldn't be a problem if its leaders stood up to others and just did whats right for the country not what someone asks for a favour.

If the Falklands were invaded today, there'd be no way to reclaim them (and i doubt blair would want to or have the balls to try either). Ancient dated aircraft on a pathetic excuse for a carrier that isn't even capable of providing its own fleet defence screen yet alone offensive action.

Kidnapping the Iranians in Iraq most probably directly triggered this latest incident.

[Yahoshua]

.....America underestimated the Vietnamese and their capabilities and got an arse kicking as a result of their war in Vietnam...

The U.S. didn't lose Vietnam from a military standpoint until the NVA broke the Paris Peace Accords in 1974. Up until that time the U.S. Military won every combat engagement in the war.

Then the politicians sold out our troops and dragged them out of South Vietnam after having tied them down to sentry duty instead of hurting the NVA where they would've felt it most.

We abandoned South Vietnam and left them to their demise when the NVA invaded the south and captured Saigon, massacreing fleeing ARVN troops and civilians alike along the "column of tears." Underestimation was not the cause of loss in the war, beauracracy (sp?) and an incompetent ARVN leadership was.

[baggygreen]

Wastegate - in my opinion, britain became a target for the iranians due to their soft ROE, which came about as a result of pandering to soft, pansy-bellied pacifists who unfortunately make up too much of society. But thats just my opinion.

Has Britain allowed itself to become a target for Iranian mischief by weakening its military? In 1979 our president, Jimmy Carter, was also taken advantage of by Iran. What is your opinion?
No, Britain (or more accurately its weak excuse for a leader, Blair) has made itself a target by blindly following america into its wars. If Blair showed any spine or backbone and just said no the place would be far less of a target both home and abroad.

I think not - as has been shown before, attacks by different organisations against western targets have been going on for years, well before the invasion of afghanistan and later iraq. But i suppose they knew in advance, probably from divine foresight, that the invasions were gonna happen??

Yes the UKs military is very weak these days to the extent it could not start and certainly not win a war against even a minor nation with its dated air force, dated and downsized navy and massively overstretched army but it wouldn't be a problem if its leaders stood up to others and just did whats right for the country not what someone asks for a favour.

If the Falklands were invaded today, there'd be no way to reclaim them (and i doubt blair would want to or have the balls to try either). Ancient dated aircraft on a pathetic excuse for a carrier that isn't even capable of providing its own fleet defence screen yet alone offensive action.
I have to agree, parts of this statement is true enough, but only to an extent. The british forces have been so downsized that they would struggle to fight a full-scale conventional war. What are the chances of that happening these days though? not very high. "oh but if they invade iran" someone may say... if that happens then we (the west) would be fighting almost an entire nation, military and civilian - thats not what id call conventional warfare.

Kidnapping the Iranians in Iraq most probably directly triggered this latest incident. Did it now? Firstly, I think you'll find that the Iranians detained were not kidnapped, but were in fact engaged in illegal activities within the borders of Iraq, were on falsified diplomatic passports, and were consorting with criminal (or insurgent, or revolutionary - whatever you please) elements. Detained for aiding and abetting hostile actions against several nations. That is not kidnapping, last i checked. Now, before getting indignant on me and claiming the same case for the britons detained, they were conducting a UN approved action in friendly waters on a neutral, consenting ship, when they were taken. thats a lot more like kidnapping to me.

Secondly on that point, hell its moot anyway - Iran have said that it wasnt related to any detentions of any citizens in Iraq. So what are you going to do - believe them on one point and not the other?? :doh:


Just as a final, completely opinionated note - your sig makes me sick. And if you really feel that way, hell why not be a real patriot and put a picture of a burning british flag up as well.

[August]

Just as a final, completely opinionated note - your sig makes me sick.

Irritating people is the whole point of trolling Baggy. Yanking peoples chains under cover of internet anonymity is how he gets his jollies.

[Wxman]

[redacted]

Due to Gnirt's sense of fair play.

[Penelope_Grey]

.....America underestimated the Vietnamese and their capabilities and got an arse kicking as a result of their war in Vietnam...
The U.S. didn't lose Vietnam from a military standpoint until the NVA broke the Paris Peace Accords in 1974. Up until that time the U.S. Military won every combat engagement in the war.

Then the politicians sold out our troops and dragged them out of South Vietnam after having tied them down to sentry duty instead of hurting the NVA where they would've felt it most.

We abandoned South Vietnam and left them to their demise when the NVA invaded the south and captured Saigon, massacreing fleeing ARVN troops and civilians alike along the "column of tears." Underestimation was not the cause of loss in the war, beauracracy (sp?) and an incompetent ARVN leadership was.

I was talking about the Viet Cong, not the north vietnamese forces. Sure, in a straight fight the north would have no hope against the US, but fact is US casualties were mounting, there didn't seem to be an end in sight, and the US did indeed abandon the south, but that was happening before the Paris peace accords, when combat duty was handed over to the south forces. Also public support was draining off and taxes were going up, so stands to reason that it didn't go well for the US. Vietnam is probably the best example of modern warfare and the problems therein.

Also I thought the Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973, not 74

[STEED]

Since the downfall of Margret Thatcher this country has been undermined by forces working to an agenda, we have no democracy anymore in this country due to the fact the government of the day is doing what it wants and to hell with us. People in this country have forgotten that the government works for us not the other way around, time and time I tell people this but they will not get off there fat backsides as they say "what can you do?" wake up for a start if you can.

The whole country is sliding down hill letting PC Madness and the crap from the EU to rule us and the result of this, we are too soft on those who preach the hate message. We got these mad preachers getting away with it and when we do take action and lock them up what happens? These vile people bang on about there rights and get five star treatment.

The result of this impact on our military is clear as a crystal glass undermanned lack of equipment the list just goes on. The latest mess in the ME has resulted in the latest news the hostages could be prosecuted for spying. Many in my country have let this mess happen and it will not improve at all as long as they sit on there butts and hope it will all go away.

[greyrider]

Penelope_Grey posted

"America underestimated the Vietnamese and their capabilities and got an arse kicking as a result of their war in Vietnam."

the united states military did not lose the war in viet nam, i was in the 82nd airborne division at the time, and the VC and NVA never beat me.

the NVA and Vc losed tet, thier best offensive, and they losed the battle, never to do it again. read the accounts of the marines at HUE, then tell me again if we were the losers.

they begged the US to stop the bombing in private, begged! and by the time we left, the VC was a shattered fighting force.

congress lost the war, ted kennedy losed the war, the democrats losed the war, the south viets were also beating the NVA and VC, after we left, until congress voted to cut off the funding for the south viet army, after that it was just a matter of time, because you know what, china and russia did not stop supporting the north.

i look at the whole democratic party as the party of treason, from east to west, north to south, even in the american civil war, the democrats wanted to sign a peace treaty with the south, and make the southern states an independent country.

i wonder, can you picture the united states of america with out virginia, the caroliners, georgia, texas, and the other southern states? i cant, but thats what the democrats were willing to do, and tried to do.

there;s a time for peace, and a time for war, its now a time for war, and you will fight it, or, if you don't, then you bring the war to your children, and they will have to fight it, because there parents were to afraid to fight.

do you love your kids? then you better help them and fight!
because if you dont, your kids will be enslaved by the stalin and hilter wannabe's
that are in the world today. just waiting for thier chance.

nothing has changed in the human spirit from the past, i hope you will remember that.

[Onkel Neal]

Penelope_Grey posted

"America underestimated the Vietnamese and their capabilities and got an arse kicking as a result of their war in Vietnam."

the united states military did not lose the war in viet nam, i was in the 82nd airborne division at the time, and the VC and NVA never beat me.

the NVA and Vc losed tet, thier best offensive, and they losed the battle, never to do it again. read the accounts of the marines at HUE, then tell me again if we were the losers.

they begged the US to stop the bombing in private, begged! and by the time we left, the VC was a shattered fighting force.

congress lost the war, ted kennedy losed the war, the democrats losed the war, the south viets were also beating the NVA and VC, after we left, until congress voted to cut off the funding for the south viet army, after that it was just a matter of time, because you know what, china and russia did not stop supporting the north.

i look at the whole democratic party as the party of treason, from east to west, north to south, even in the american civil war, the democrats wanted to sign a peace treaty with the south, and make the southern states an independent country.

i wonder, can you picture the united states of america with out virginia, the caroliners, georgia, texas, and the other southern states? i cant, but thats what the democrats were willing to do, and tried to do.

there;s a time for peace, and a time for war, its now a time for war, and you will fight it, or, if you don't, then you bring the war to your children, and they will have to fight it, because there parents were to afraid to fight.

do you love your kids? then you better help them and fight!
because if you dont, your kids will be enslaved by the stalin and hilter wannabe's
that are in the world today. just waiting for thier chance.

nothing has changed in the human spirit from the past, i hope you will remember that.

Well said. It's easy for we who never saw combat to sit in our computer room and judge history. Vietnam was a series of combats in the Cold War, and we know who won that.

[1mPHUNit0]

No America not only underestimated
but was very stupid too...like nazi Barbarossa Operation

But...and there is always a but
some peoples was getting richer
then not all was stupids

[greyrider]

No America not only underestimated
but was very stupid too...like nazi Barbarossa Operation

But...and there is always a but
some peoples was getting richer
then not all was stupids

i dont know what country you live in 1mPHUNito, but i was in germany in 1973, and while waiting for a train at the bahnhof, i met a gentlemen, about 55 years old, who walked with a limp. his name was DR. Carl ZELTER.

he started a conversation with me, by asking me if i was an american. he was a real happy go lucky guy, who was a young german soldier on the eastern front in ww2.

after fighting the russians for months, he was finally wounded and captured, and spent the next 3 years in a russian POW camp.

the russians gave him no medical treatment, none! thats why he walked with a limp.

he also told me there are alot of people in germany that thought american troops
in germany should go home, but he said he didnt think the u.s. troops should leave germany, because of russia.

did he know his enemy well? i think he did.

but i told him, and i still believe it, that if germany had just fought russia alone,
germany would have wiped the russians out, period.

russia and china are still the problem today, just like yesterday, they protect dirt bag countries like the persians, embolden them, and so they do things like ambush
a row boat full of sailors, lightly armed.

why not take on HMS cornwall?

its looking alot like pre world war two out there, i am resigned to war, its comming.
dont expect your enemy to all of a sudden become people of good will, its not gonna happen, and tho russia and china walk the walk, and talk the talk, its still a protracted conflict between them and the west, just as it was in the cold war.

and you know what? they have almost won, because the west is shaken in thier boots.

but i'm not, i already count myself as dead, now i can fight for my children, like a demon from hell, and i will!

the ghosts of darius and xerxes are rising again, but so isnt the spirits of Thermopylae and marathon.

[Fish]

Just give diplomacy a change. It seems I am the only one with trust in the UK government. :yep:

[Wxman]

after fighting the russians for months, he was finally wounded and captured, and spent the next 3 years in a russian POW camp.

the russians gave him no medical treatment, none! thats why he walked with a limp.



My Grandfather was a battalion tank-commander during Operation Barbarossa. Soon after the surrender of Germany to Allied forces, the letters to Oma became more and more infrequent. Eventually no more letters arrived. There were no responses from the Soviet govenrment to formal diplomatic inquiries concerning my Grandfather's fate. In the early 60's, a Soviet diplomatic attache' rang my Grandmother's door, and when she answered asked if she was who she was. When she proved that affirmatively, the Soviet diplomatic attache' handed her a box, indicating that she was entitled to my Grandfather's personal-effects. He wished her a nice day and left.

To this day nobody knows what happened to him.

With respect to Britain being too weak, I post the following and allow one to draw their own conclusions:

Europe threatens action as Iran airs new 'confession' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2047044,00.html)

EU foreign ministers support British position and warn of 'appropriate measures' if 15 sailors and marines not released

The EU threatened to act against Iran last night if it did not immediately and unconditionally release the 15 British sailors and marines it has been holding for more than a week.

EU foreign ministers meeting in Bremen, Germany, threatened "appropriate measures" if Tehran did not let the group go, supporting Britain's position that the crew had been in Iraqi waters when they were seized eight days ago. The ministers did not spell out what measures would be taken, but British diplomats hoped they would involve an escalating array of punitive steps.

EU refuses to back Britain over call to threaten exports freeze (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1593988.ece)

European foreign ministers failed last night to back Britain in a threat to freeze the €14 14 billion trade in exports to Iran, as the hostage crisis descended into a propaganda circus.

Tony Blair could only issue a new statement of disgust as Iran tormented him with another sailor’s video confession and a fresh letter from the young mother detainee.

Evil Americans, Poor Mullahs (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,474636,00.html)

According to a recent Forsa public opinion poll, commissioned by Stern magazine, among young Germans in particular -- 57 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds, to be precise -- are said to consider the United States more dangerous than the religious regime in Iran.

Today, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about a world without Israel while dreaming of an atom bomb, it seems obvious that we -- as Germans of all people -- should be putting two and two together. Why shouldn't Ahmadinejad mean what he says? But the Germans only know what they believe: Americans are more dangerous than the ayatollahs.
==============================

I posit that its not Britain, per se, that is weak, but the liberal PC mentality of the entire West in general, and its pontificating, grandstanding, progressive, welfare-state politiician leaders that are weak. If anybody has ever played CivIII, and had to deal with the various idiosynchracies of various forms of government knows full well that democracies and republics are notoriously difficult with respect to military campaigns. Is that a good or a bad thing? I posit that its both simultaneously. Is that good or bad? Again, I posit that it is both.

With respect to Britain being too weak, well, the social and societal issues notwithstanding (they not being entirely germane), and focusing entirely on the military variables of the equation: the modern status quo respecting warfare is such that its not military defeat that will be a nation's downfall, but that of financial ruin. Case in point the former Soviet Union.

Nevertheless it is becoming increasingly cost prohibitive to wage modern war. On the other hand, the financial implications to the alternative of military failure are just as ruinous. To the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, the prevailing convention of a standing army would've been anathema in their day. However, who could dispute the wisdom of having a small, well-trained, well-equiped standing army to address the threats that the modern world posses? However, the fact of the matter is that is becoming more and more expensive, and given most countries balance-sheets, almost cost prohibitive.

Albert Einstien once said: "I don't know about the next world-war, but the one after that will be fought with sticks and stones.".

I'll tell you this, if it ever comes to another "world war" akin to WWII, people will be in for the most rude awakening imaginable. Because both of the "great" wars of the XX'th century entailed great sacrifice and suffering. What does the West know about sacriifice and suffering on the scales of the Great War, or even the one that soon followed on its heels? The answer: nothing.

I heard it stated, firsthand, that if the North ever attacks the South, that the South would capitulate within 30 minutes. The reason being that the South would stand to lose far more respecting their way of life, and standard of living than the North. To drive this point home I point to anectdotal accounts of there being no stray animals running around in Europe after the end of WWII. Neither was there a large rodent problem (despite the devestation and carnage of urban, and rural food-producing areas).

All you have to do is look at nightime pictures of Hollywood, San Fran, London, Berlin, Paris. Images of Mega-lo-Mart's fully stocked food aisles, examine the TV schedule of broadcasts for the upcoming week (and correlate it with ratings statistics), take stock at the fervor and intensity of local, regional and international sporting events. And then take a look at the state of trees that can be found in the North (without any bark). Ever eat bark soup? Take a look at the standard of living of the majority in the largest populated countries on this planet.

What it boils down to is this: the people that have the financial wherewithall to wage war don't have the intestinal fortitude to do so; the one's that don't want to see those that can exterminated from the planet (and will use whatever means they can get their grubby paws onto to accomplish that end).

If the population of China was marched single file into the Pacific Ocean at marching pace until they drowned, the line would be double its length by the end of next century. If China knew for absolute fact that in any confrontation as little as 750,000 of their population would survive, they'd initiate action. That's one thing. On the other hand there is clear empirical data from the Soviet archives concerning the Cuban Missle Crises with respect to Che Guevera at the time when Cuba actually controlled nuclear weapons. As Castro's right hand man, Che was going to outright initiate a nuclear war that would necessitate Russia finishing it. When asked in the 70's why he'd do something that would no doubt have resulted in the total destruction of Cuba, he replied: "But the United States would've been absolutely annhiliated, and that's a price worth paying." :rock:

[Penelope_Grey]

the united states military did not lose the war in viet nam

Greyrider, you were there I was not and I respect that, but even though the US didn't lose, the US did not win either. I have seen plenty of TV documentaries on Vietnam, they all say the same thing, the Viet Cong sent the US packing. As they knew all they had to do was to keep maiming and killing as many troops as possible and eventually the American will to fight would crumble which it did as you described public support for the war effort dropped off due to the casualties and the high taxes of funding the south. Therefore, they were sucessful.

they begged the US to stop the bombing in private, begged!

Considering part of that bombing consisted of dropping napalm all over the place I am not surprised they begged it to be stopped. I would have begged too if I had the misfortune to be in their position. Especially as Vietnam was primarily an agriculture based place.

But coming back to the point of this thread, I live in the south wales area, one of the captured sailors is a local lad from around here. He was featured in the Evening Post a couple of nights ago. It was a terrible thing that happened Vietnam, and I dislike war and fighting immensely, but by the same token I do accept that it has to be done. I think its high time Iran was made to release those men, or make their demands and get it over with, but this standoff is very irritating, and I feel dreadfully sorry for those men being held captive, I hope and pray they are being treated reasonably well.

[Yahoshua]

Just give diplomacy a change. It seems I am the only one with trust in the UK government. :yep:

Should we dig up Mr. Chamberlain and ask him to negotiate for us? Diplomatic venues have been exhausted, it's time to issue a resolute ultimatum, it's time to take a stand.

Penelope, don't believe everything you read in the papers, or watch in the news. In Vietnam there were literally two camps of reporters. One camp wanted to win the war and published positive or neutral stories about the war, the other camp wanted to see the U.S. lose and published every demeaning and disheartening story they could about the war.

The same is true today.





In Rivers of Africa (1893), Winston Churchill observed:

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is not hope of victory at all, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

[waste gate]

Iran didn't need the Associated Press to tell them what to do. They saw the weakness and have exploited it.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/31/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Iran-Poll.php


'We Shall Not Fight Them on the Beaches; We Shall Not Fight Them on the Seas'.

[Yahoshua]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/the_current_meaning_of_vietnam.html

To answer your question penelope, yes the paris peace accords were signed in 1973, but the accords were broken in 1974, South Vietnam collapsed in 1975.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

[greyrider]

Just give diplomacy a change. It seems I am the only one with trust in the UK government. :yep:


fish, you are a good person, i understand your desire to work things out with diplomacy, but buddy, you have to understand that politicians are the lowest form of life on the planet.

they get people killed, mostly today for NOTHING!

look at what happened to your own country in ww2, when hitler garenteed your neutrality, and the neutrality of the other low countries, then what happened, he attacked your country, and then occupied it.

my uncle buster was in the 17th u.s. airborne division, and jumped in market garden, fought in holland, to rid holland of that nazi freak.

do not ever trust politicians.

[micky1up]

from my stand point in the military yes it has become to weak to many pen pushing money grabbing gits even though the navy is short on manpower they are needing to find more cuts to satisfy thes pen pushers and the weak response from the goverment spurred on the iranians in this lastest debacle these people thrive on countries weaknesses and the uk goverment fell right into that trap

[Fish]

Just give diplomacy a change. It seems I am the only one with trust in the UK government. :yep:


fish, you are a good person, i understand your desire to work things out with diplomacy, but buddy, you have to understand that politicians are the lowest form of life on the planet.

they get people killed, mostly today for NOTHING!

look at what happened to your own country in ww2, when hitler garenteed your neutrality, and the neutrality of the other low countries, then what happened, he attacked your country, and then occupied it.

my uncle buster was in the 17th u.s. airborne division, and jumped in market garden, fought in holland, to rid holland of that nazi freak.

do not ever trust politicians.

I understand your feelings, but the US airforce bombed four Dutch towns by accident.:oops:
Both made faults and mistakes, politicans (Churchil was one) and militairy.

By the way my granddad fought the war on a minesweeper from the UK out.
He was skipper on a fishing boat and on see when the war started, and was ordered to the UK.

[joea]

he started a conversation with me, by asking me if i was an american. he was a real happy go lucky guy, who was a young german soldier on the eastern front in ww2.

after fighting the russians for months, he was finally wounded and captured, and spent the next 3 years in a russian POW camp.

the russians gave him no medical treatment, none! thats why he walked with a limp.

he also told me there are alot of people in germany that thought american troops
in germany should go home, but he said he didnt think the u.s. troops should leave germany, because of russia.

did he know his enemy well? i think he did.



Hmmm well, I realise this guy was probably a draftee, but he was part of an invading army. Now, I am not justifiying his treatment...but when you say he knew his enemy...sorry Nazi Germany made Russia their enemy. I don't believe Russia would have been able to enter and annex Eastern Europe if they had not been invaded. Just my 2 cents...oh and I am sorry while I can't tolerate that Iranian president it's laughable to compare him to Xerxes or Darius. I don't see any spirt of Marathon in the west either. :down:

[greyrider]

penelope...dear penelope
and i respect you to, very much, but i think the things you saw about VN, was propably media driven, the media services, news.
i forgot about them, they were a major cause of the loss too, played right into the communists plan, what a bunch of suckers!
why those reporters and people were not tried and hanged for treason , i dont know, but i know one thing, they turned every victory into a defeat.
and some really outstanding fighting was never reported at all, like a u-s army tank reg, against a NVA tank reg, on hiway one,
believe it was central highlands, results: total destruction of the NVA unit, american losses, one tank.
never reported at all!
here is a link to the wiki, about tet, charlie was good, but the U S was better, and you can read the account, the real account, and not the accounts
of some yellow bellied reporters.

btw, america supports GB, i support GB, see you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive

The Tet Offensive can be considered a military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved
their tactical goals. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the
huge losses inflicted by South Vietnamese and other Allied forces. Nevertheless, the Offensive is widely considered a turning point of the war
in Vietnam, with the NLF and PAVN winning an enormous psychological and propaganda victory. The Viet Cong's operational forces were effectively
crippled by the Offensive. Many Viet Cong who had been operating under cover in the cities of South Vietnam revealed themselves during the Offensive
and were killed or captured. The organization was preserved for propaganda purposes, but in practical terms the Viet Cong were finished. Formations
that were referred to as Viet Cong were in fact largely filled with North Vietnamese replacements. However, this change had little effect on the war,
since North Vietnam had little difficulty making up the casualties inflicted by the war.[18] The National Liberation Front (the political arm of the
Viet Cong) reformed itself as the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam, and took part in future peace negotiations under this name.
The Communist high command did not anticipate the psychological effect the Tet Offensive would have on America.[19] For example, the attack on the
U.S. Embassy was allocated only 19 Viet Cong soldiers, and even the expenditure of this force was considered by some VC officers to be misguided. Only
after they saw how the U.S. was reacting to this attack did the Communists begin to propagandize it. The timing of the Offensive was determined by the
hope that American and South Vietnamese forces would be less vigilant during the Tet holiday.

[greyrider]

fish,

happens in war alot, i hate the innocents death too, i'm sorry

you must know it was an accident.

[greyrider]

he started a conversation with me, by asking me if i was an american. he was a real happy go lucky guy, who was a young german soldier on the eastern front in ww2.

after fighting the russians for months, he was finally wounded and captured, and spent the next 3 years in a russian POW camp.

the russians gave him no medical treatment, none! thats why he walked with a limp.

he also told me there are alot of people in germany that thought american troops
in germany should go home, but he said he didnt think the u.s. troops should leave germany, because of russia.

did he know his enemy well? i think he did.



Hmmm well, I realise this guy was probably a draftee, but he was part of an invading army. Now, I am not justifiying his treatment...but when you say he knew his enemy...sorry Nazi Germany made Russia their enemy. I don't believe Russia would have been able to enter and annex Eastern Europe if they had not been invaded. Just my 2 cents...oh and I am sorry while I can't tolerate that Iranian president it's laughable to compare him to Xerxes or Darius. I don't see any spirt of Marathon in the west either. :down:

:rotfl: i dont care what you think joea! i would expect that from you.

[Letum]

RE: the Vietnam discussion:

The initial American objective was to:
"prevent communist domination of South Vietnam; to create in that country a
viable and increasingly democratic society".
This did not happen as a direct result of the war.
If you count a war as "won" when the initial objectives are achieved, then Vietnam was not a victory.

Even if you crush the enemy completely, you can not call it victory until you complete the initial objectives.
Winning battles is one thing, winning a war is very different.

Next to a victory is a favorable compromise. In this scenario you do not complete the initial objectives, but the conflict results in a overall gain for your country.
Weather or not Vietnam resulted in overall gain for America is the real question and one I don't know enough about to answer.


*edit* greyrider (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=216495) - consider editing your posts too add new info; insted of stacking 3 on top of each other.

[waste gate]

Have those fifteen sailors and marines been freed from Iranian custody?

[baggygreen]

Not as far as i'm aware...

but they're still being paraded around in front of cameras etc. isnt that meant to be illegal as well??

[greyrider]

*edit* greyrider (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=216495) - consider editing your posts too add new info; insted of stacking 3 on top of each other.

roger that letum, i'll try