Is Britain too weak?

[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.

Originally Posted by gnirtS

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??

Originally Posted by gnirtS

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.

Originally Posted by gnirtS

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??


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]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

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.

[redacted]

Due to Gnirt's sense of fair play.

[Penelope_Grey]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by greyrider

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'

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

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

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."

[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]

Originally Posted by Fish

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

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.

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/...-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/...f_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