russia and china, i dont think they would attack, it isnt in their intrests
You don't kill 1000+ people and destroy a country for 2 guys.James-M-II wrote:
as far as i know, nobody officially supports Iran, i mean honestly who would defy the UN? i know Israel did, but in my honest opinion what they were doing wasnt wrong, they wanted their boys back.
I wish the Russians IRL were like the ones in 24, who <3 the US.
ok fair enough they did cause some carnage, but i also think israel used it as an oppertunity to have a quick dig at hezbollah or however you spell it, no harm in waiting to be attacked to have a dig at someone whos like a thorn in your sidesergeriver wrote:
You don't kill 1000+ people and destroy a country for 2 guys.James-M-II wrote:
as far as i know, nobody officially supports Iran, i mean honestly who would defy the UN? i know Israel did, but in my honest opinion what they were doing wasnt wrong, they wanted their boys back.
I don't want to derail the thread, so I will only say Hezbollah is just a bunch of people, and Israel has the 4th largest Army in the World. Do you really think Hezbollah is a threat to Israel? I don't think so.James-M-II wrote:
ok fair enough they did cause some carnage, but i also think israel used it as an oppertunity to have a quick dig at hezbollah or however you spell it, no harm in waiting to be attacked to have a dig at someone whos like a thorn in your sidesergeriver wrote:
You don't kill 1000+ people and destroy a country for 2 guys.James-M-II wrote:
as far as i know, nobody officially supports Iran, i mean honestly who would defy the UN? i know Israel did, but in my honest opinion what they were doing wasnt wrong, they wanted their boys back.
not atall my friend but any group of people that hate a country will surely do whatever they can to cause small damage and kidnap people almost to just be a pain in the arse. like the taliban to the United States and the UK and all other countries in Afgan fighting them. Terrorists are just a pain in the arse to what i see as civilised countries with a normal organised army. terrorists just piss me off so much because they cant fight properly, they cant use conventional methods... it angers me so much. sorry getting slightly off topic heresergeriver wrote:
I don't want to derail the thread, so I will only say Hezbollah is just a bunch of people, and Israel has the 4th largest Army in the World. Do you really think Hezbollah is a threat to Israel? I don't think so.James-M-II wrote:
ok fair enough they did cause some carnage, but i also think israel used it as an oppertunity to have a quick dig at hezbollah or however you spell it, no harm in waiting to be attacked to have a dig at someone whos like a thorn in your sidesergeriver wrote:
You don't kill 1000+ people and destroy a country for 2 guys.
I don't like terrorist, that's why I don't like Israel government.James-M-II wrote:
not atall my friend but any group of people that hate a country will surely do whatever they can to cause small damage and kidnap people almost to just be a pain in the arse. like the taliban to the United States and the UK and all other countries in Afgan fighting them. Terrorists are just a pain in the arse to what i see as civilised countries with a normal organised army. terrorists just piss me off so much because they cant fight properly, they cant use conventional methods... it angers me so much. sorry getting slightly off topic heresergeriver wrote:
I don't want to derail the thread, so I will only say Hezbollah is just a bunch of people, and Israel has the 4th largest Army in the World. Do you really think Hezbollah is a threat to Israel? I don't think so.James-M-II wrote:
ok fair enough they did cause some carnage, but i also think israel used it as an oppertunity to have a quick dig at hezbollah or however you spell it, no harm in waiting to be attacked to have a dig at someone whos like a thorn in your side
LOL i see what you did there, everyone is entitled to their opinion, i will not question what you just said one bit. I have my own opinion and aslong as we respect eachothers views, its all goodsergeriver wrote:
I don't like terrorist, that's why I don't like Israel government.James-M-II wrote:
not atall my friend but any group of people that hate a country will surely do whatever they can to cause small damage and kidnap people almost to just be a pain in the arse. like the taliban to the United States and the UK and all other countries in Afgan fighting them. Terrorists are just a pain in the arse to what i see as civilised countries with a normal organised army. terrorists just piss me off so much because they cant fight properly, they cant use conventional methods... it angers me so much. sorry getting slightly off topic heresergeriver wrote:
I don't want to derail the thread, so I will only say Hezbollah is just a bunch of people, and Israel has the 4th largest Army in the World. Do you really think Hezbollah is a threat to Israel? I don't think so.
Of course.James-M-II wrote:
LOL i see what you did there, everyone is entitled to their opinion, i will not question what you just said one bit. I have my own opinion and aslong as we respect eachothers views, its all goodsergeriver wrote:
I don't like terrorist, that's why I don't like Israel government.James-M-II wrote:
not atall my friend but any group of people that hate a country will surely do whatever they can to cause small damage and kidnap people almost to just be a pain in the arse. like the taliban to the United States and the UK and all other countries in Afgan fighting them. Terrorists are just a pain in the arse to what i see as civilised countries with a normal organised army. terrorists just piss me off so much because they cant fight properly, they cant use conventional methods... it angers me so much. sorry getting slightly off topic here
what do you all honestly think prompted Iran to come into the spotlight in international terms i mean... why now?
NEWS -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501555.stm
MOD link -
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Defen … Waters.htm
seem's like its confirmed, the iranians gave a GPS co-ordinate, which was in iraqi waters, then gave us a different one that was in iranian. the UK has released its co-ordinates which shows the marines in 1.7 miles of iraqi waters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501555.stm
MOD link -
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Defen … Waters.htm
seem's like its confirmed, the iranians gave a GPS co-ordinate, which was in iraqi waters, then gave us a different one that was in iranian. the UK has released its co-ordinates which shows the marines in 1.7 miles of iraqi waters.
Last edited by Toxicseagull (2007-03-28 03:41:32)
The Second Iran-Iraq War?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Well the evidence was finally released, and the Brits apparently were in Iraqi waters. So, now what?
Well. Ideally and morally Iran should let them go and apologise for the debacle. We know it wont happen thoughsergeriver wrote:
Well the evidence was finally released, and the Brits apparently were in Iraqi waters. So, now what?
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
Now we'll see some Iranian damage limitation. Obviously they will never admit that they were wrong, but the truth is they stuffed up big time. They wanted the world to believe that the British were in their waters, and they made a terrible job of it.
Read this story, it's unbelievable how Iran is conducting its self.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501555.stm
I'm watching a statement on BBC news, coming from the foreign secretary now...I'll keep yous posted.
Apparently even Iran's coordinates suggest that we were 1.7 nautical miles inside of Iraq waters.
HOWEVER...
The UK have received a second set of coordinates from Iran suggesting that the UK was in Iranian waters. What the hell are they playing at??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501555.stm
I'm watching a statement on BBC news, coming from the foreign secretary now...I'll keep yous posted.
Apparently even Iran's coordinates suggest that we were 1.7 nautical miles inside of Iraq waters.
HOWEVER...
The UK have received a second set of coordinates from Iran suggesting that the UK was in Iranian waters. What the hell are they playing at??
Last edited by KILLSWITCH (2007-03-28 04:44:37)
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
Not quite. None of the Iranian coordinates were 1.7NM inside Iraqi waters [1]. The initial coordinates given by the Iranians [3] (which were in Iraqi waters) were not the same as those given by the GPS signals from the HMS Cornwall, the Lynx helicopter that overflew the abduction and the Indian merchant ship (which was at anchor) the abductees were investigating.KILLSWITCH wrote:
Read this story, it's unbelievable how Iran is conducting its self.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501555.stm
I'm watching a statement on BBC news, coming from the foreign secretary now...I'll keep yous posted.
Apparently even Iran's coordinates suggest that we were 1.7 nautical miles inside of Iraq waters.
HOWEVER...
The UK have received a second set of coordinates from Iran suggesting that the UK was in Iranian waters. What the hell are they playing at??
When it was pointed out to the Iranians that the coordinates they had provided were actually in Iraqi waters they then supplied "corrected" coordinates [4] a 1/4 mile inside Iranian waters. Not in the slightest bit suspicious.
Considering the UK will be taking the presidency of the UN security council next week the chances of more sanctions over the Iran nuclear issue are likely to follow.
What are you on about? The British navy is the second best at force projection out of any navy in existence due to the fact we have more carriers than any other nation, barring the US. One of our carriers, the Ark Royal, was refitted relatively recently and there has been massive investment to replace the Sheffield class destroyer (Type 42) with the new Type 45 destroyer which is the most advanced naval vessel of its type that is nearing completion.Toxicseagull wrote:
different time james. the navy has virtually been destroyed by labour in the last 10 years. we have to rely on the US for force projection.
not to mention a relatively small island taken with some reasonably poorly trained troops on a forigen ground with no major city's is a different kettle of fish completely.
however with the proper support i would think it was possible, especially with US or isreali support.
I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about if you think the navy has been destroyed by Labour over the past decade.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-03-28 08:52:36)
Apparently the Iranians are going to release the woman amongst the abductees either today or tomorrow.
I saw,sergeriver wrote:
Well the evidence was finally released, and the Brits apparently were in Iraqi waters. So, now what?
Britain's Defense Ministry said global positioning data showed the British sailors and marines were 1.7 nautical miles within Iraqi waters when they were captured by Iranian gunboats near the waterway that separates Iran and
Iraq.
"The boats remained throughout well within Iraqi territorial waters," Britain's Deputy Chief of Defense Staff, Vice Admiral Charles Style, told a news conference.
It looks like Iran will be releasing the women tommorow or Thursday.
Edit: Bertster just posted that.. doh (slaps forehead)
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-28 08:45:56)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Bert, a third of the fleet has been mothballed, requiring 6 months and a total refit to be in service again, the number of new destroyers ordered have also been cut. our Navy is now smaller than frances. i would like to point out we only have 2 aircraft carriers Ark royal and illustrious. Ocean is a helicopter landing platform.
do you remember the blockade of northern korea last year, the navy's only contribution was a frigate and a supply ship requiring air cover and everything else from the US. defence downsizing in personnel has happened during one of the most active times in our modern history, the navy hit especially hard.
whilst i hate to derail a thread i think Labour have been bad for the forces in general.
The bad ammunition fiasco, the fact we're still using Snatch land rovers from 25 years ago, the nimrod fleet is facing a desertion crisis due to a fuel problem that blew up those 7 men in Afghanistan last year. it was known about but not fixed (these aircraft themselves based on a 1950's passenger airliner...) they have now been grounded. the refusal to buy new chinnooks relying again on ones that are up to 20 years old. along with the closing of a top class military hospital whilst troops are in public wards with little or no special treatment. that is a huge mess imo. All whilst committing our troops even more into action? i repeat, labour have treated them badly.
do you remember the blockade of northern korea last year, the navy's only contribution was a frigate and a supply ship requiring air cover and everything else from the US. defence downsizing in personnel has happened during one of the most active times in our modern history, the navy hit especially hard.
whilst i hate to derail a thread i think Labour have been bad for the forces in general.
The bad ammunition fiasco, the fact we're still using Snatch land rovers from 25 years ago, the nimrod fleet is facing a desertion crisis due to a fuel problem that blew up those 7 men in Afghanistan last year. it was known about but not fixed (these aircraft themselves based on a 1950's passenger airliner...) they have now been grounded. the refusal to buy new chinnooks relying again on ones that are up to 20 years old. along with the closing of a top class military hospital whilst troops are in public wards with little or no special treatment. that is a huge mess imo. All whilst committing our troops even more into action? i repeat, labour have treated them badly.
Last edited by Toxicseagull (2007-03-28 19:00:02)
QFT!!Toxicseagull wrote:
Bert, a third of the fleet has been mothballed, requiring 6 months and a total refit to be in service again, the number of new destroyers ordered have also been cut. our Navy is now smaller than frances.
do you remember the blockade of northern korea last year, the navy's only contribution was a frigate and a supply ship requiring air cover and everything else from the US. defence downsizing in personnel has happened during one of the most active times in our modern history, the navy hit especially hard.
whilst i hate to derail a thread i think Labour have been bad for the forces in general.
The bad ammunition fiasco, the fact we're still using Snatch land rovers from 25 years ago, the nimrod fleet is facing a desertion crisis due to a fuel problem that blew up those 7 men in Afghanistan last year. it was known about but not fixed (these aircraft themselves based on a 1950's passenger airliner...) they have now been grounded. the refusal to buy new chinnooks relying again on ones that are up to 20 years old. along with the closing of a top class military hospital whilst troops are in public wards with little or no special treatment. that is a huge mess imo. All whilst committing our troops even more into action? i repeat, labour have treated them badly.
Edit: altough Berster has made some valid points about the Type 45, etc. I would say that Labour has done more harm than good to all of Britain's armed forces...
Last edited by coke (2007-03-28 19:02:06)
Hmm, US carrier groups playing games near Iran... hope Ahmadinejad gets his head checked soon...
I haven't red anything in this thread but my 2 cents are The president of Iran has taken things too far and will suffer war if he dosen't pull his head out of his ass. He's really pushing limits.
Yet the UK still have the second best force projection fleet in the world. The point I was in absolute disagreement with was about the British navy lacking any proper means for force projection. The British navy has 2 carriers (Ark Royal and Illustrious) and another ready to be recommissioned if needed (Invincible), Ocean is another usefull means for force projection, although not in the same league as the others. We don't need any more than that - The US is the only other nation with more than one carrier, saying the British navy is poorly equipped for force projection when that's exactly what the British navy is particularly well equipped for seems odd. We don't want to go down the same stupid military expenditure path as the US wasting money on an oversized military.Toxicseagull wrote:
Bert, a third of the fleet has been mothballed, requiring 6 months and a total refit to be in service again, the number of new destroyers ordered have also been cut. our Navy is now smaller than frances. i would like to point out we only have 2 aircraft carriers Ark royal and illustrious. Ocean is a helicopter landing platform.
do you remember the blockade of northern korea last year, the navy's only contribution was a frigate and a supply ship requiring air cover and everything else from the US. defence downsizing in personnel has happened during one of the most active times in our modern history, the navy hit especially hard.
whilst i hate to derail a thread i think Labour have been bad for the forces in general.
The bad ammunition fiasco, the fact we're still using Snatch land rovers from 25 years ago, the nimrod fleet is facing a desertion crisis due to a fuel problem that blew up those 7 men in Afghanistan last year. it was known about but not fixed (these aircraft themselves based on a 1950's passenger airliner...) they have now been grounded. the refusal to buy new chinnooks relying again on ones that are up to 20 years old. along with the closing of a top class military hospital whilst troops are in public wards with little or no special treatment. that is a huge mess imo. All whilst committing our troops even more into action? i repeat, labour have treated them badly.
I don't really see how force projection would be an issue in this instance in any case. The British currently have troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan - both countries bordering Iran.
Minor correction here, Russia has three carriers also.
Iran has fucked up, and the best way out of the ever-deepening hole would be a complete admission of wrongdoing, an apology and some monetary compensation (Sterling, not Iranian currency) for the kidnapped soldiers.
Iran has fucked up, and the best way out of the ever-deepening hole would be a complete admission of wrongdoing, an apology and some monetary compensation (Sterling, not Iranian currency) for the kidnapped soldiers.