Israel 1 , Iran 0.

[WILF 52,874]

12 hours ago, mackem said:

Tower hamlets and the Isle of Dogs were wastelands back then,it was a posher home away from home,I felt quite gentrified 

Crack whore spotting driving along city road early in the morning was always very entertaining, see them out there looking to earn their last tenner of a long night ! 
State of some of them puts the depths humans can sink to into sharp focus.

Used to serve them their bottles of lucazade on the market on a Sunday morning, f***ing hell !!….you didn’t even want to touch their money some were in that bad a state. 

[mC HULL 18,378]

15 hours ago, WILF said:

Serious question, does anyone here seriously believe Iran can out-war the American war machine ?

If you do, just say yes……

Yes a much weaker afganistan did 

[Bendigo 2,264]

15 hours ago, WILF said:

Serious question, does anyone here seriously believe Iran can out-war the American war machine ?

If you do, just say yes……

Yes.....I'm afraid MC H is sorting of right. Again depends what you call our- waring. 

I'd be amazed if in 5 years Iran is anything but a breeding ground for Islamists and still threatening Israel and oil prices with their games. 

I hope I'm wrong and this time America does manage to out war a country long term.....

[WataWalloper 5,248]

Looks like a no win situation to me, unless they level the whole lot an litery wile Islam out, cos it will just keep coming back like the hydra 

[chartpolski 29,824]

The Korean and Viet Nam wars set the American public against protracted foreign wars.

As the costs, both financially and in casualties , and the lies mounted , the public turned against the wars.

Now, in the days of 24 hour rolling independent news, the public are even more informed and wars have to be won quickly, like the Gulf wars were, “shock & awe” and over before the body bags start coming home.

Once a war starts to hit the public financially and emotionally, sentiment soon turns against the government.

Cheers.

[WILF 52,874]

5 minutes ago, mC HULL said:

Yes a much weaker afganistan did 

Except they didn’t did they…….

Right, here goes……this is only how I perceive it from what I’ve seen…..

In the post colonial world wars are waged based on a wish list of possible outcomes…..some are realised, some are not, some to a greater degree and some to a lesser degree, some totally unintended but they take them given all the various circumstances.

What they are not waged as is total war with clear cut aims, objectives and outcomes…..the belligerents don’t know exactly what the middle and end should look like.

Example, in WW2 the decision was taken that nothing less than total surrender would be acceptable….so we waged total war along those lines, we knew it meant invasion, total occupation and control of the state, we knew it meant gloves off war fighting (hence Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima), we knew it then meant totally cleansing society of the people that had run things (Hence Nuremberg and the subsequent executions) and we knew it meant rebuilding it all…..we don’t do that anymore !

Take Afghanistan, so if we fought that war in the late 1800s or early 1900s we wouldn’t be thinking about going there and installing some sort of hybrid system whereby our troops are fighting with one hand tied behind their back while we let the native people run themselves and their government……we’d have gone there, nicked the gaff, put our own government in place, killed every c**t who made a fuss, built loads of modern infrastructure, nicked all their goodies to pay for it and created a clear choice between modern, peaceful existence with lots of modern stuff or death ! 
Same for Iraq, same now for Iran.
Thats colonialism !

We don’t do that anymore !……so we end up with fudges and wars where people are looking for their traditional idea of a “win”

Because we don’t rule these people and let them to their own devices, now and again we have to step in when they are getting carried away……there’s nothing to “win” !……it’s a punch in the face to put people back on track, there is no definitive outcome as most people have an idea of battle, there is no “win” 

Like when you tell your kids off, you don’t win, your are just adjusting the until the next time you have to do it.

The only way you can definitively “win” is if you just invade and nick the gaff and subjugate the population without mercy…..nobody is going to do that.

The Falkland was a win, because we knew what the beginning looked like, we knew what the end should look like and we planned and brilliantly executed the middle and it was always populated by us anyway so we always had total control of the people…..we’d didn’t have any ongoing issues. 
 

I don’t know what people are looking for in these military actions given that context ?

Jmho 

[TRUEBRIT66 2,491]

20 minutes ago, Bendigo said:

Yes.....I'm afraid MC H is sorting of right. Again depends what you call our- waring. 

I'd be amazed if in 5 years Iran is anything but a breeding ground for Islamists and still threatening Israel and oil prices with their games. 

I hope I'm wrong and this time America does manage to out war a country long term.....

Circumitio............ the only plus being Irans military capabilities virtually wiped out and any chance of them producing a nuke gone.  

[chartpolski 29,824]

4 minutes ago, WILF said:

Except they didn’t did they…….

Right, here goes……this is only how I perceive it from what I’ve seen…..

In the post colonial world wars are waged based on a wish list of possible outcomes…..some are realised, some are not, some to a greater degree and some to a lesser degree, some totally unintended but they take them given all the various circumstances.

What they are not waged as is total war with clear cut aims, objectives and outcomes…..the belligerents don’t know exactly what the middle and end should look like.

Example, in WW2 the decision was taken that nothing less than total surrender would be acceptable….so we waged total war along those lines, we knew it meant invasion, total occupation and control of the state, we knew it meant gloves off war fighting (hence Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima), we knew it then meant totally cleansing society of the people that had run things (Hence Nuremberg and the subsequent executions) and we knew it meant rebuilding it all…..we don’t do that anymore !

Take Afghanistan, so if we fought that war in the late 1800s or early 1900s we wouldn’t be thinking about going there and installing some sort of hybrid system whereby our troops are fighting with one hand tied behind their back while we let the native people run themselves and their government……we’d have gone there, nicked the gaff, put our own government in place, killed every c**t who made a fuss, built loads of modern infrastructure, nicked all their goodies to pay for it and created a clear choice between modern, peaceful existence with lots of modern stuff or death ! 
Same for Iraq, same now for Iran.
Thats colonialism !

We don’t do that anymore !……so we end up with fudges and wars where people are looking for their traditional idea of a “win”

Because we don’t rule these people and let them to their own devices, now and again we have to step in when they are getting carried away……there’s nothing to “win” !……it’s a punch in the face to put people back on track, there is no definitive outcome as most people have an idea of battle, there is no “win” 

Like when you tell your kids off, you don’t win, your are just adjusting the until the next time you have to do it.

The only way you can definitively “win” is if you just invade and nick the gaff and subjugate the population without mercy…..nobody is going to do that.

The Falkland was a win, because we knew what the beginning looked like, we knew what the end should look like and we planned and brilliantly executed the middle and it was always populated by us anyway so we always had total control of the people…..we’d didn’t have any ongoing issues. 
 

I don’t know what people are looking for in these military actions given that context ?

Jmho 

I think the Falkland war confirms my point; we went in quickly and with clear objectives. When the Belgrano was approaching the Exclusion Zone, Thatcher didn’t consult International Law or Human Rights Lawyers, she acted decisively and sunk it …….Then told us to REJOICE, and we did.

It was over quickly and with relatively little casualties and a clear win

Cheers.

[mC HULL 18,378]

26 minutes ago, WILF said:

Except they didn’t did they…….

Right, here goes……this is only how I perceive it from what I’ve seen…..

In the post colonial world wars are waged based on a wish list of possible outcomes…..some are realised, some are not, some to a greater degree and some to a lesser degree, some totally unintended but they take them given all the various circumstances.

What they are not waged as is total war with clear cut aims, objectives and outcomes…..the belligerents don’t know exactly what the middle and end should look like.

Example, in WW2 the decision was taken that nothing less than total surrender would be acceptable….so we waged total war along those lines, we knew it meant invasion, total occupation and control of the state, we knew it meant gloves off war fighting (hence Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima), we knew it then meant totally cleansing society of the people that had run things (Hence Nuremberg and the subsequent executions) and we knew it meant rebuilding it all…..we don’t do that anymore !

Take Afghanistan, so if we fought that war in the late 1800s or early 1900s we wouldn’t be thinking about going there and installing some sort of hybrid system whereby our troops are fighting with one hand tied behind their back while we let the native people run themselves and their government……we’d have gone there, nicked the gaff, put our own government in place, killed every c**t who made a fuss, built loads of modern infrastructure, nicked all their goodies to pay for it and created a clear choice between modern, peaceful existence with lots of modern stuff or death ! 
Same for Iraq, same now for Iran.
Thats colonialism !

We don’t do that anymore !……so we end up with fudges and wars where people are looking for their traditional idea of a “win”

Because we don’t rule these people and let them to their own devices, now and again we have to step in when they are getting carried away……there’s nothing to “win” !……it’s a punch in the face to put people back on track, there is no definitive outcome as most people have an idea of battle, there is no “win” 

Like when you tell your kids off, you don’t win, your are just adjusting the until the next time the you have to do it.

The only way you can definitively “win” is if you just invade and nick the gaff and subjugate the population without mercy…..nobody is going to do that.

The Falkland was a win, because we knew what the beginning looked like, we knew what the end should look like and we planned and brilliantly executed the middle and it was always populated by us anyway so we always had total control of the people…..we’d didn’t have any ongoing issues. 
 

I don’t know what people are looking for in these military actions given that context ?

Jmho 

The aim in afghanistan was to invade and install a friendly democracy lol failed miserably hands tied wow best fighting machine ever apparently 

Taliban in power before and after thats a loss no doubt won battles but lost the war 

Iraq was the same sort of worked get oil  but the country is ruined badly 

You can't just bomb somewhere then say we eon 4 weeks later while there sending missiles thenext ten years mate lol 

All the yanks are is alot noise bit of action then jack like a cur dog when it gets drawn out and rough nations see that now 

[mC HULL 18,378]

24 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

I think the Falkland war confirms my point; we went in quickly and with clear objectives. When the Belgrano was approaching the Exclusion Zone, Thatcher didn’t consult International Law or Human Rights Lawyers, she acted decisively and sunk it …….Then told us to REJOICE, and we did.

It was over quickly and with relatively little casualties and a clear win

Cheers.

It matters who your fighting France with all there gear be a walk in the park compared to.iran different breeds 

[Bendigo 2,264]

37 minutes ago, TRUEBRIT66 said:

Circumitio............ the only plus being Irans military capabilities virtually wiped out and any chance of them producing a nuke gone.  

True. They had to be stopped from producing anything like a nuclear bomb....or even a dirty bomb of any sort. 

[mC HULL 18,378]

5 minutes ago, Bendigo said:

True. They had to be stopped from producing anything like a nuclear bomb....or even a dirty bomb of any sort. 

Come on this is the biggest load a nonsense there is history facts prove that 

Look at north Korea we aren't calling him a madman going to end the world now are we he has one no more games with him same would happen to iran security no more bullying Israel have them illegally and by far the coutry most likely to drop the next work that out

 

[mC HULL 18,378]

52 minutes ago, TRUEBRIT66 said:

Circumitio............ the only plus being Irans military capabilities virtually wiped out and any chance of them producing a nuke gone.  

Lol ye mate wiped out lol thats why there hitting tankers at will hitting isreal left right center why all.our bills will be going up while guess what iran stays the same amd the war Lords reap the benefits again

Never thought id say this thank f**k for.starmer lol at least hes saved us some money cost only be half as bad 

[chartpolski 29,824]

Seven specialised low altitude C130’s just took off from UK.

My guess is insertion of special forces forward observers and forward air controllers in the Strait of Hormuz to pinpoint the moorings of the Iranian small fast craft.

Just my opinion , of course, but it looks like the two tankers and one bulk carrier were hit by these type of craft.

Cheers.

[Bendigo 2,264]

19 minutes ago, mC HULL said:

Come on this is the biggest load a nonsense there is history facts prove that 

Look at north Korea we aren't calling him a madman going to end the world now are we he has one no more games with him same would happen to iran security no more bullying Israel have them illegally and by far the coutry most likely to drop the next work that out

 

That's where we disagree. 

North Korea is quite well contained and it's leaders wouldn't see themselves getting 100 virgins if they are killed in jihad. Even sadam Hussain wasn't a total Muslim extremist. Just my opinion of course. The houthi rebels have launched 2000 missiles and drones..... everyone made and supplied by Iran. 

Iran was a wonderful free country and an example to the world in how religions can live in peace..... destroyed by Islamic extremism. I spoke to an Iranian just yesterday and he had parents still there, he escaped Iran because he was a bit of a hippy and they would of just killed him and his wife for how they dressed. All he wants is to go home to Iran and see his parents again. 

This war was always going to happen, it was just a case of when. Now it's started, personally I think, we need to finish it as best as we can. Maybe, as we have said, that's not possible.....if not then putting their military and nuclear activities back 20 years is the best we can hope for.

Just my opinion of course