Hperthetical (Uk vs Iraq)

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by SpencerH


How ironic, a citizen of the fatest country in the world calling the brits fat.

Fattest people in the world gets quick laughs anywhere in the world (even here), but it's not accurate. Ever been to Germany? Whoa! ease up on the sausage intake.

Actually, pacific islanders are the fattest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1681297.stm

But, we in the US are doing our part to keep the waistlines expanding, mostly because we go to work and sit for 8-10 hours and then go home and sit for a few before going to bed. That's why we freak out Europeans with jogging when we visit. It's the only exercise we ever get.


As to the original question: The UK could succesfully invade the country -- anybody who can get there can invade, succeed is trickier. How long are we allowing for success? 1 month, 1 year, 5 years?

[Barley]

Wandering a little off topic I think guys.

Spencer you made a good point and I completely agree with you. I dont think Uk would have the resources to facilitate a protracted occupation where the public were aggressive just look at the resources it took to occupy Northern Island.

I do agree that the professionalism of our troops and technological advantage could achieve victory in many limited scenario's and that would include taking and holding Bagdad or the main oil fields. Though if we geared up for war there is no reason we could not increase the size of the army from say 175000 present to a million (that should do the trick).

I like the thought of us trying to defend against a conventional US attack against mainland UK. Even thugh im immensly patriotic I dont think we could last very long. US would obviously have a problem with sustained occupation (once the main fighting stopped) because as W Churchill said "We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the landing grounds, we will never surrender"

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Barley
Wandering a little off topic I think guys.

I like the thought of us trying to defend against a conventional US attack against mainland UK. Even thugh im immensly patriotic I dont think we could last very long. US would obviously have a problem with sustained occupation (once the main fighting stopped) because as W Churchill said "We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the landing grounds, we will never surrender"

Fortunately, this will never happen. But as to occupation, the US doesn't occupy anything for long, it cost too much. Better to get rid of the thugs running the place, build up an economy, keep the locals from each others throats, split as soon as we can and trade like hell with the place from a safe distance.

[Sandman]

a) Probably, but it would have to be a slower attack, taking cities one by one, repulsing Iraqi counter-attacks along the way. The Iraqis used to have a positive opinion of Britain, and feel betrayed, but they'd probably put up with us more than the Americans.

b) Definitely. No question about it.

[OPD]

Originally posted by monolith94
Based on the film "The Full monty" I have concluded that all British people are fat lamers, and that we could therefore invade successfully.

However "lock stock and two smocking barrels" seems to indicate that there are some violent people in the UK - we might lose a few dozen soldiers, I guess.

lol

yeah but did you see the scenes from euro 98? All the british public need is some garden furniture and you wouldn't stand a chance.

Could the US seize power in the UK probably
Would anyone notice and difference probably not.

[Paul Hanson]

There wasn't a Euro 98. I take it you're refering to the World Cup?

[OPD]

Yeah
France 98 I mean.

[Sandman]

No, you mean Freedom 98.

[Paul Hanson]

[Urban Ranger]

Will the fight be much tougher if Turks won't let the US to attack from their country?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Barley
Wandering a little off topic I think guys.

Spencer you made a good point and I completely agree with you. I dont think Uk would have the resources to facilitate a protracted occupation where the public were aggressive just look at the resources it took to occupy Northern Island.

I do agree that the professionalism of our troops and technological advantage could achieve victory in many limited scenario's and that would include taking and holding Bagdad or the main oil fields. Though if we geared up for war there is no reason we could not increase the size of the army from say 175000 present to a million (that should do the trick).

I like the thought of us trying to defend against a conventional US attack against mainland UK. Even thugh im immensly patriotic I dont think we could last very long. US would obviously have a problem with sustained occupation (once the main fighting stopped) because as W Churchill said "We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the landing grounds, we will never surrender"

I think Britain could beat Iraq all by itself. It would have to commit, though, its entire army and some reserves.

As to a fight between the US and Britain in the UK - this would almost be like the Revolutionary War in reverse. It would be real strange.

No, I am one American who hopes that some day, long in the future or whatever, that we reunite - but under the American constitution. We could do something about keeping the monarchy as a symbolic institution. There are a lot of Americans who have real affection for British monarchy.

Do you Brits want your colonies back? We could call the new nation the United States of Great Britain and America!

[srholmes]

maybe britain could rebuild the empire in full, and also get back the land in france that it used to own (as england rahter than britain)

doubt they would allow it though

[Lawrence of Arabia]

a recent war games by britain in Oman had interesting results

the rotor blades of their helicopters had a reduced lifespan to 50 hours
the engine filters in the tanks had a reduced lifespan to 4 hours
the soldiers boots melted with the heat
the standard issue rifle got clogged with sand after every clip
the tarmigan communication system didnt work

this equipment was made to work in northern europe, and so doesnt work well in the desert.

------
on the net

http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z/special_reports/iraq_hard_place/part4.ram

[Shi Huangdi]

Might be hard for Britain to actually go into a foreign country and place it under total occupation. Britain however could give one side a victory if two countries were fighting- for instance if India and Pakistan went to war and Britain sided with a country, that country would win if nobody used nukes.