POLL: Britain vs. Iran

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: BUTCH1
UK should borrow one of these from us and aim
it's turrets toward shore while cruising about 3 miles offshore...

what? a WW2 style battleship that hasn't been in service for more than 15 years?

IIRC the last of the class the USS Missouri, is a museum now.

ahahaha, yeah, wtf was that guy thinking. Battleships aren't war winners anymore bud. to be frank, they never were.

 

[route66]

GB would win the initial battles, but attempts to 'civilize' Iran would fail just like attempts to 'civilize' Iraq have failed to insurgency. War is dead.

 

[jai6638]

Pardon my ignorance but who is Dubya?

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: BUTCH1
UK should borrow one of these from us and aim
it's turrets toward shore while cruising about 3 miles offshore...

what? a WW2 style battleship that hasn't been in service for more than 15 years?

IIRC the last of the class the USS Missouri, is a museum now.

ahahaha, yeah, wtf was that guy thinking. Battleships aren't war winners anymore bud. to be frank, they never were.

Yea, there outdated as an Edsel, but you've got to admit 15" guns lobbing 2000lb rounds would scare
the crap out of 'em as Iran has no effective air force to stop anything..

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Merlyn3D

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Merlyn3D

Originally posted by: Merlyn3D

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Merlyn3D

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
They can't? Iran's economy based on selling oil. Destroy their refinery, destroy their pipeline and Iran ceases to exist on the world stage. They're right back in the stone age where they belong. There's probably not a single "military power" on earth that can be brought to their knees more easily than Iran. One wave of air attacks and their economy would be gone.

Stone age where they belong? Excuse me? Just how racist and stupid are you?

A lot more than you realize, trust me.

I'm betting he is. I know this was posted before around a month or two ago, but lemme repost it in this thread for those to naive to realize what or who they're so casually joking about bombing.

Text

Now maybe Gag would be kind enough to enlighten us on why Persians all of the sudden belong in the stone ages.

What are you guys, British? Nobody else could possibly be that namby-pamby. Are you the Iranians friend now? Okay, let me explain this to you and I'll use simple words so that hopefully you might be able to understand. Iran belongs in the stone age because that's where they want to live. The Persian Empire was a rich, vibrant, cultural place. It had commerce, education, art, music, literature, architecture, science. It was the most advanced society of its day. Take a look at Iran now. It's brand of extremism has reverted the area to a state that is FAR beneath where the area was 1500 years ago. Despite trillions of dollars in oil revenue they have an low literacy rate, a high infant mortality rate, almost ZERO economic growth, no original thought, no money being spend on science, on research, on education beyond "Hate the Great Satan", on hospitals, on building an economy, on a system of government beyond hated and intolerance for anyone that isn't just like them. They have less agriculture than they used to despite scientific breakthroughs allowing greater possibilities of growing in arid land. They have pissed away a huge fortune while moving BACKWARD in every measure that defines a society. They're moving themselves into the freaking stoneage and anyone with an education beyond 1st grade understands that. Good luck getting there someday.

Take a look at Dubai. They had less oil money than Iran and started with less of a foundation of a society. When Iran was a rich empire Dubai was tribesmen in tents. They've taken less wealth and turned it into a modern city. They have education, tolerance, employment, medical care, economic growth, science and a society that can survive and even flourish when the oil runs out. Iran? You know what, you were right, I misspoke on them belonging in the stone age. They're not even an advanced enough society to belong in that time period. The folks in the stone age managed to move forward, all Iran can do is move backward.

Ok you nitwit, I happen to be of persian decent which is why I take offense by both your attitude and what you said. You've probably never even been to Iran, so how the hell do you know what it's like there? "no education beyond hate the great satan"? wtf are you talking about? There are many persian grad students here that were undergrads in Iran. I suppose you're an expert though since you've obviously been through their education system, no, wait, if you had you wouldn't be so stupid.

As for being backwards, if you even read the news, you'd see that a LOT of university students over there are protesting in front of the government in a country where you CAN actually get in trouble for doing so. The educated students there know what's going on, and they protest just like the liberal university students here do. Heck, they like the same fashion, same styles and some even same music as the West.

But okay, let's take your mentality and punish the people wanting exactly what we have here in America for the actions of a few extremists in their government. That'd be like punishing all americans for re-electing Bush, when only half the country voted for him.

And FYI, there are quite a few persians along with many other races here on ATOT. You'd be wise to be a little (read: a lot) less stupid in what you say in your posts.

ROFLMAO!! It was easy to tell you were of persian descent. Otherwise you'd have sense enough to not blindly support that collection of stoneage goatherders. Okay Skippy, explain it to me. Tell me all about Iran's advancement. Tell me all about their modern society. Tell me all about their accomplishments. I want you to educate me. What are Iran's original contributions to the world in the last 30 years except for oil exports? What are their advances in medicine? What about architecture? Literature? Engineering? Economics? Mathematics? Education? Art? Music? Agriculture? C'mon, tell me all about what a vibrant and culturally diverse society they have built. The Iran of today is behind the persian empire of 1500 years ago in every significant way. Iran is a country that has moved BACKWARDS and is continuing to move BACKWARDS and that fact is indisputable to anyone that has an education.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

ROFLMAO!! It was easy to tell you were of persian descent. Otherwise you'd have sense enough to not blindly support that collection of stoneage goatherders. Okay Skippy, explain it to me. Tell me all about Iran's advancement. Tell me all about their modern society. Tell me all about their accomplishments. I want you to educate me. What are Iran's original contributions to the world in the last 30 years except for oil exports? What are their advances in medicine? What about architecture? Literature? Engineering? Economics? Mathematics? Education? Art? Music? Agriculture? C'mon, tell me all about what a vibrant and culturally diverse society they have built. The Iran of today is behind the persian empire of 1500 years ago in every significant way. Iran is a country that has moved BACKWARDS and is continuing to move BACKWARDS and that fact is indisputable to anyone that has an education.

I agree with you to a large extent. However, I believe that Iran's academia (including science) is a composed of a greater percentage of women than most Western countries. I know they've been purging a lot of people in recent years though, but I'm fairly certain this was true in the last 30 years.

Edit: I'd also like to emphasize the point I think Merlyn was trying to make that the government's positions are not a reflection of the general populace.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: angminas

Originally posted by: mrkun

I don't think the UK has any B-52s. Besides, with modern SAM systems they'd easily be shot down.

Like all the American B-52s were in the Gulf War, bombing one of the most SAM-dense nations in the world?

:laugh:

Indeed.

The British armed forces are extremely well trained and technologically advanced...

They would uberpwn the Iranians, and don't forget that handy backstop, nukes

While Britain is one of very few nations that can project force abroad by itself, that force would be pretty insignificant. When NATO bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, it was primarily the US doing all the bombing, Britain and the rest of NATO did very little and had to rely heavily on the US for support. And unlike Yugoslavia which had suffered years and wars and sanctions and had leftover 70s equipment, Iran is flush with oil cash and is snapping up the latest Russian stuff.

So yes, they would get their asses handed to them.

 

[Superself]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Superself

Originally posted by: Martin
If Britain attacks Iran, they'll have their asses handed to them.

QFT.

Bombs don't do anything to troops on the ground. Hell, after a few hours, you get used to them.

What makes you say that? Read up on the psychological effects of being under attack by a B-52. I don't think that war is something easy to get used to. I've never been in combat, but I know people who have.

It's easy to forget just how nice our lives are and just how horrible war is.

Psychological effect is over-rated. You cannot win against troops on the ground with air superiority. That is impossible.

I've been in combat before and I'm telling you that bombs are good against structures, but troops get used to them.

 

[Superself]

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot

Originally posted by: Superself
Bombs don't do anything to troops on the ground.

You've obviously never been hit with a bomb.

Bombs kill people.

You've obviously never been in combat before. The US dropped tons of bombs in Vietnam, but it didn't do squat.

 

[Safeway]

The OP's question is unrealistic. The U.S. has to get involved in everything, no exceptions.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Superself

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot

Originally posted by: Superself
Bombs don't do anything to troops on the ground.

You've obviously never been hit with a bomb.

Bombs kill people.

You've obviously never been in combat before. The US dropped tons of bombs in Vietnam, but it didn't do squat.

Are you fvcking stupid? There is a huge difference between the effectiveness of bombing and winning a war.

 

[montypythizzle]

So, ah, when do I get to fly a plane? If there was anything I learned in BF2 is that with enough planes (or one J10) you can win ANY war!!!

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Superself

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot

Originally posted by: Superself
Bombs don't do anything to troops on the ground.

You've obviously never been hit with a bomb.

Bombs kill people.

You've obviously never been in combat before. The US dropped tons of bombs in Vietnam, but it didn't do squat.

What about Japan? Bombing likely would have forced a surrender even without nukes.

 

[PingSpike]

I don't really understand why everyone is saying that GB can't defeat the troops on the ground...I say, why bother doing that? Just destroy all infrastructure with bombing campaigns. Repeat until the country collapses and people start starving to death.

While I think it was a mistake to get involved in Iraq, the US certainly didn't have much trouble destroying things. Its rebuilding them thats hard.

 

[jpeyton]

I wouldn't pay too much attention to Gag's rants. He talks a big game, but he's disconnected from the world's political climate. We're not dropping any bombs on Iran anytime soon.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

...the US certainly didn't have much trouble destroying things. Its rebuilding them thats hard.

No, it is rebuilding things while every motherfvcker and his grandmother is out there shooting at you that is hard

 

[angminas]

The basic reason America lost Vietnam and now Iraq is because now we only play till halftime. War is war. It's dirty and ugly and evil, and I'm against it, but if you're going to fight, you should bloody well win. Otherwise you're often killing and hurting even more people with partial measures and drawn-out campaigns, and you don't accomplish anything in the end with which to even attempt to justify all the killing. Why people think they should continue to fight more like they did in Vietnam than they did in WWII I can't understand. Why our leaders think reaching a stalemate so we can rationally discuss and negotiate with the radical insurgents is a viable military plan, I also can't understand. We can't help the people rebuild if we don't first defeat that which we (supposedly) went there to fight. Which countries are better off today- Germany and Japan, or Vietnam and Cambodia? Which wars left America in better shape?

Well, I do understand some of the reason for this policy. For some people, there's a lot more to be gained from a drawn-out war. For other people, there's a lot more to be gained from a national failure than a success.

 

[Aimster]

U.S didn't lose Iraq.
Iraq didn't fight the U.S.

Iraqis wanted the U.S to come for the most part.

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: angminas
The basic reason America lost Vietnam and now Iraq is because now we only play till halftime. War is war. It's dirty and ugly and evil, and I'm against it, but if you're going to fight, you should bloody well win. Otherwise you're often killing and hurting even more people with partial measures and drawn-out campaigns, and you don't accomplish anything in the end with which to even attempt to justify all the killing. Why people think they should continue to fight more like they did in Vietnam than they did in WWII I can't understand. Why our leaders think reaching a stalemate so we can rationally discuss and negotiate with the radical insurgents is a viable military plan, I also can't understand. We can't help the people rebuild if we don't first defeat that which we (supposedly) went there to fight. Which countries are better off today- Germany and Japan, or Vietnam and Cambodia? Which wars left America in better shape?

Well, I do understand some of the reason for this policy. For some people, there's a lot more to be gained from a drawn-out war. For other people, there's a lot more to be gained from a national failure than a success.

I agree with you 100%. Let Army generals plan the war, don't listen to some clueless fvcking politician. Have intelligence that the enemy is hiding in some town? Tell the town "we're coming, if you don't want to get killed, get the fvck out" and then bomb the goddamn thing to the ground. War is bad but you do it to win not fvck around.

 

[invidia]

The Persians. That is if only a hunchback brit give away their grandest war strategies

 

[KingofCamelot]

Originally posted by: Superself

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot

Originally posted by: Superself
Bombs don't do anything to troops on the ground.

You've obviously never been hit with a bomb.

Bombs kill people.

You've obviously never been in combat before. The US dropped tons of bombs in Vietnam, but it didn't do squat.

You do realize that millions of people died in the Vietnam War, right?

Something tells me we didn't individually shoot all of them.

 

[Merlyn3D]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

ROFLMAO!! It was easy to tell you were of persian descent. Otherwise you'd have sense enough to not blindly support that collection of stoneage goatherders. Okay Skippy, explain it to me. Tell me all about Iran's advancement. Tell me all about their modern society. Tell me all about their accomplishments. I want you to educate me. What are Iran's original contributions to the world in the last 30 years except for oil exports? What are their advances in medicine? What about architecture? Literature? Engineering? Economics? Mathematics? Education? Art? Music? Agriculture? C'mon, tell me all about what a vibrant and culturally diverse society they have built. The Iran of today is behind the persian empire of 1500 years ago in every significant way. Iran is a country that has moved BACKWARDS and is continuing to move BACKWARDS and that fact is indisputable to anyone that has an education.

I agree with you to a large extent. However, I believe that Iran's academia (including science) is a composed of a greater percentage of women than most Western countries. I know they've been purging a lot of people in recent years though, but I'm fairly certain this was true in the last 30 years.

Edit: I'd also like to emphasize the point I think Merlyn was trying to make that the government's positions are not a reflection of the general populace.

Thank you mrkun, that was one of my points. My other was that whatever education system Gag's been through (if any) seems to have totally failed him.

 

[da loser]

britain would win, no contest. don't confuse small terrorist actions with the ability to wage war.

britain would also be smarter and keep it a limited engagement leaving iran in rubble, letting iran pick up the pieces themselves, think the gulf war. not a happy thought for iranians.

 

[s0ssos]

Originally posted by: Merlyn3D

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Merlyn3D

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
They can't? Iran's economy based on selling oil. Destroy their refinery, destroy their pipeline and Iran ceases to exist on the world stage. They're right back in the stone age where they belong. There's probably not a single "military power" on earth that can be brought to their knees more easily than Iran. One wave of air attacks and their economy would be gone.

Stone age where they belong? Excuse me? Just how racist and stupid are you?

A lot more than you realize, trust me.

I'm betting he is. I know this was posted before around a month or two ago, but lemme repost it in this thread for those to naive to realize what or who they're so casually joking about bombing.

Text

isn't that almost a quote from borat? bombing them back to the stone age? when he was in texas?

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

ROFLMAO!! It was easy to tell you were of persian descent. Otherwise you'd have sense enough to not blindly support that collection of stoneage goatherders. Okay Skippy, explain it to me. Tell me all about Iran's advancement. Tell me all about their modern society. Tell me all about their accomplishments. I want you to educate me. What are Iran's original contributions to the world in the last 30 years except for oil exports? What are their advances in medicine? What about architecture? Literature? Engineering? Economics? Mathematics? Education? Art? Music? Agriculture? C'mon, tell me all about what a vibrant and culturally diverse society they have built. The Iran of today is behind the persian empire of 1500 years ago in every significant way. Iran is a country that has moved BACKWARDS and is continuing to move BACKWARDS and that fact is indisputable to anyone that has an education.

I agree with you to a large extent. However, I believe that Iran's academia (including science) is a composed of a greater percentage of women than most Western countries. I know they've been purging a lot of people in recent years though, but I'm fairly certain this was true in the last 30 years.

Edit: I'd also like to emphasize the point I think Merlyn was trying to make that the government's positions are not a reflection of the general populace.

I'm still trying to figure otu why Merlyn even thought of throwing in the race card. OH NOEEES, we want to bomb Iran because they're Iranian!! What else could the reason be??