POLL: Britain vs. Iran

[ranmaniac]

Iranians have acquired Russian anti-ship cruise missiles that are capable of destroying an aircraft carrier, so GBs navy are sitting ducks in the Persian Gulf. Not to mention that Iran can stop selling oil, and sink a few tankers, and virtually shut down the movement of oil out of the Persian Gulf, driving oil to $200 a barrel, which means $8-10 a gallon gasoline in the short term.

 

[Vonkhan]

Britain would loose

Proof ... with soldiers like that, they couldn't defeat Bangladesh if they had to let alone Iran

 

[RichUK]

Arhh, how did I miss this thread?!

So much heated banter has been lost.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: Vonkhan
Britain would loose

Proof ... with soldiers like that, they couldn't defeat Bangladesh if they had to let alone Iran

That's priceless.

 

[Aimster]

Persian Gulf:
That's probably why nobody has touched Iran.

U.S Navy is pointless there. U.S Navy will crush anything that comes in their way in the open. In a small body of water the Iranian Navy can cause destruction.

Hundreds of small boats and craft armed with torpedoes/missiles as well as land-sea missiles and armed drones make Iran a dangerous threat.

That doesn't mean Iran could win a war.
Iran can only win a defensive war. Offensive war Iran will lose.

 

[swatX]

spartaaaaa!!!!



i believe britian will win hands down unless iranians go on a mass suicide bombing plan.

 

[Eeezee]

CAKETOWN

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
We'd all lose.

Seriously though, it's not a good idea. We need to encourage the resistance in Iran, but stay out of there militarily unless we have to go in. Revolution created today's Iran and it will create tomorrow's.

Seriously, if not for President Eisenhower there would most likely not be an Islamic Republic of Iran.

Don't you mean Carter?

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
We'd all lose.

Seriously though, it's not a good idea. We need to encourage the resistance in Iran, but stay out of there militarily unless we have to go in. Revolution created today's Iran and it will create tomorrow's.

Seriously, if not for President Eisenhower there would most likely not be an Islamic Republic of Iran.

Don't you mean Carter?

Don't know who was President, but I think he might mean Eisenhower ordered a democratic government to be overthrown. Then the CIA helped install the Shah. The U.S did this, but I have no idea who was President at the time.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Don't know who was President, but I think he might mean Eisenhower ordered a democratic government to be overthrown. Then the CIA helped install the Shah. The U.S did this, but I have no idea who was President at the time.

Yeah. Eisenhower ordered the democratically elected government of Iran overthrown and had the Shah installed. The Shah happened to be a rather corrupt dictator, and the revolution came about as a result.

 

[Sureshot324]

Britain. take aircraft out of the equation, and Iran would win.

 

[soydios]

The Brits kick ass, just as much as the USA. Don't mess with them, Argentina didn't fare so well when they tried last time.

However, the British are also smart enough to avoid a war with Iran, something that I'm somewhat uneasy about when it comes to the US government. The Iran-USA spat contains language that I only use when I'm royally pissed off, which should not be a part of international relations, IMHO.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Last time Britain pwned Argentina. If a war does break out as a result of the kidnapping of British soldiers, who would win in a confrontation, assuming no other parties get involved?

ah.. but war with Iran isnt feasible according to CNN quick clip. but i didnt go back after the commercial, so i dont know exactly why it isnt feasible.

Any ideas?

 

[drinkmorejava]

1) Falklands: Ardent, Antelope, Coventry were sunk by aircraft, the Sheffield was destroyed by a French Exocet Missiles, although not sunk, and a container ship the Atlantic Conveyer, was hit and sunk by an Exocet. The Glamorgan was hit by an Exocet, but it did not detonate. Also, none of the ships hit by the Exocets had antimissile defenses.
2) Are you people even aware of how sophisticated the anti-missile and torpedo systems are these days that are used on high value equipment
3) The Brits would win on their own with a decently low number of casualties; however, Iran wouldn't exactly have a problem targeting civilians within the UK as terrorist reprisals.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
3) The Brits would win on their own with a decently low number of casualties; however, Iran wouldn't exactly have a problem targeting civilians within the UK as terrorist reprisals.

Not sure how well this one would work. There isn't exactly an abundance of Iranian extremists living abroad.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Billions of dollars and years of labor to rebuild, 10 seconds to re-destroy. Bombs are cheap and England has plenty of them.

Years over schedule and billions of dollars over budget...maybe if you put Halliburton in charge of it. Iran doesn't have an insurgency problem either.

I didn't realize that Britain could only bomb a place once.

March 23rd: 15 sailors detained.
March 24th: No bombs dropped.
March 25th: No bombs dropped.
March 26th: No bombs dropped.
March 27th: No bombs dropped.
March 28th: No bombs dropped.
March 29th: No bombs dropped.
March 30th: No bombs dropped.
March 31st: No bombs dropped.

I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

if this was america

March 23rd: 15 sailors detained.
March 24th: No bombs dropped.
March 25th: GWB offers a warning.
March 26th: last chance.
March 27th: iran is rearranged to be about level with the sea.
March 28th: everyone is dead, and some how a british ship went down in a fit of blue on blue.

i think we are doing things correctly here, the american way is to go charging in guns blazing, whooping and hollering "die motherfuckers!" and "your ass is grass".

dont get me wrong, thats a great trait to have sometimes....it makes people think twice about picking a fight because they know they'll be on the recieving end of the biggest hammer blow in existence within the half hour.

we're a little more reserved. people picking a fight with us know that all they'll get in retaliation is a tony blairs grinning face and some BS about "education education education"

eventually though the SAS will go in, unannounced, and in the morning the whole iranian prison will be lying in a pool of blood, the prisoners will of gone, and iran will shut up.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Britain. take aircraft out of the equation, and Iran would win.

our special services > *

we dont need planes. just a few highly trained men

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: 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??

I am not sure of the persian pride thing he has going. Did 300 piss him off as well?

 

[iversonyin]

The Brit doesn't have any reputation to live up to. I think they can just go in and fvck up the country and leave a mess. And the fact that Iran did made the first move, they have the right to retaliate. And we know, Dubya would be more happy to supplies a few weapon or two.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Britain. take aircraft out of the equation, and Iran would win.

our special services > *

we dont need planes. just a few highly trained men

As Vonkhan posted, your troops would never make it past the beach.

 

[drinkmorejava]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
3) The Brits would win on their own with a decently low number of casualties; however, Iran wouldn't exactly have a problem targeting civilians within the UK as terrorist reprisals.

Not sure how well this one would work. There isn't exactly an abundance of Iranian extremists living abroad.

Correct, but it wouldn't exactly be a problem to train small groups of soldiers to integrate into the Western World and start blowing things up. Iran knows it's being a jackass, and they know they're starting to put everyone on edge, and they also know if they were attacked they could never win, but that's not the point. Their ultimate goal would be to completely destabilize the Middle East and incite terrorist attacks on the Western World, which could cause more damage than they would ever be capable of.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
3) The Brits would win on their own with a decently low number of casualties; however, Iran wouldn't exactly have a problem targeting civilians within the UK as terrorist reprisals.

Not sure how well this one would work. There isn't exactly an abundance of Iranian extremists living abroad.

Correct, but it wouldn't exactly be a problem to train small groups of soldiers to integrate into the Western World and start blowing things up. Iran knows it's being a jackass, and they know they're starting to put everyone on edge, and they also know if they were attacked they could never win, but that's not the point. Their ultimate goal would be to completely destabilize the Middle East and incite terrorist attacks on the Western World, which could cause more damage than they would ever be capable of.

So umm...if they know they can't win, why are they putting themselves in a situation in which the possibility of being attacked increases so greatly? You think the regime cares more about causing damage to Western countries than it does about maintaining its own country?

 

[50cent1228]

usa would win

 

[OutHouse]

brits win hands down.

a couple of weeks of pinpoint bombing to take out all communications. power, water, fuel, food. then start hitting the tanks and troops, then roll in the brit ground forces. they could be in teheran in a week once the ground war starts.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: Aimster
Don't know who was President, but I think he might mean Eisenhower ordered a democratic government to be overthrown. Then the CIA helped install the Shah. The U.S did this, but I have no idea who was President at the time.

Yeah. Eisenhower ordered the democratically elected government of Iran overthrown and had the Shah installed. The Shah happened to be a rather corrupt dictator, and the revolution came about as a result.

yea but before all of this Churchill created Iraq so anyway you look at it the brits are at fault.