It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by coolieno99
Persians, since the fall of the Persian Empire has looked forward to its return for centuries. I'm not joking, and I used to listen to Iranians (Aryans) brag about how great things were in Persia, and how great they will be again one day. I used to listen to their BS claims of Aryan connections, which oddly, only came into being with the Nazi regime.
Persians and Arabs are traditional, long-term enemies. They hate and despise each other. The Persians consider themselves much superior to Arabs in intellect, education, past history, bloodlines, and culture. Arabs just hate Persians (Iranians) because often, the in fact feel inferior to Persians as they overall are less educated, their history is of being Persian subjects, and they don't have a lot of cultural claims other than literally, millennia ago - pyramids, Babylon, etc.
But. Being Muslim nations, they both are taught primarily in the Hadith that they are to kill Jews. Kill them where they find them. Kill unbelievers. Give them a choice - convert or die.
So right now, Iran is trying to position itself as the big Muslim on the block, hoping to lead even their traditional enemies to destroy Israel - identified as the only "Jewish" nation - in accordance with the teachings of Muhammed.
Iran/Persia has selective memory that will bring them to their own destruction.
Let me state a fact. Whenever Eastern powers fought Western powers, the Eastern powers have lost and been slaughtered, every single time through history.
As long as Easterners pick on other Easterners, then it's only logical that an Eastern power will rule.
Even the mighty Persian Empire. Darius of Persia (Eastern) attacked Greece (Western) and you can read yourself of him first losing a mighty fleet of 300 ships and 20,000 men in a storm at Cape Athos, and then the slaughter at Marathon, where the Greeks enjoyed a 33:1 kill ratio, and that's using the conservative numbers.
His son Xerxes determined to do what his father couldn't. Xerxes brought 250,000+ man army and at the Hot Gates, 7,000 Greeks, 300 of whom were Spartans and 700 were Thespians, killed 25,000 Persians. One thousand Greeks died and at least 25,000 Persians died there for a 25:1 kill ratio.
A year later at Salamis, a Greek fleet sank 200 of Xerxes ships and 40,000 of his sailors for a 40:1 kill ratio.
The following Spring, Persian general Mardonius and 300,000 Persians met 60,000 Greeks at Plataea, and all but 43,000 Persians were killed there, with the surviving 43,000 killed at the Strymon river estuary just a short time later - a kill ratio of some 220:1.
Next time we see Persians fight, it's against Alexander where at Granicus Alexander (Westerners) enjoyed a 26:1 kill ratio against the Persians.
At Issus, Alexander fought them early evening, and only enjoyed a 4:1 kill ratio as the Persians lost the battle and ran, escaping enmasse in the darkness.
At Arbela, Alexander's smaller 47,000 man army met Xerxes larger 250,000 man army, and while outnumbered 5:1, enjoyed a 100:1 kill ratio - a slaughter.
Ever see the high technology Mach 2 Iranian F-55 air superiority fighter named the al-Camelcrapper? Or have you noted the large, Persian carrier battle groups? How about their cutting edge main battle tank, the Goatfoot? No, even in spite of their education and significant oil money, if it weren't for Western nations selling them military hardware, they'd still be using wicker shields and composite bows.
Even the oil in the East. It was the West who found the oil, financed and drilled for it, established the oil industry infrastructure, and in turn enabled their good fortune. Left to their own Easter devices, they'd still be living in stone structures or tents, scratching their asses left handed while chewing on mutton, and washing it all down with a sheep-skin canteen while betting on goat races.
Eastern versus Western.
for every distant Western defeat such as at Dien Bien Phu where the non-Westerners were using massive numbers of Western weapons - artillery, firearms, mortars, rockets, etc., there is a Khe Sanh. For every Isandlhwana, there is a Roark's Drift. For every Pearl Harbor, there is a Leyte Gulf. For every Coral Sea, there's a Midway.
For every Wake Island, there's a Nagasaki/Hiroshima. For every Thermopylae, there's a Plataea.
Persia, or Iran is destined to lose, and lose badly. Their eighth century religion restricts their advancements. They're brave to be sure, but they're hamburger.
One nation in the Middle East stand out from the rest.
A nation of WESTERN immigrants, forward thinking, brilliant, excellent weapons systems of their own right, and as evidence since their inception, tactical excellence of superior character. Plus, they're not restricted by an archaic religion that keeps trying to drag the practitioners back to the eighth century.
Here in the US, we have weapons systems and platforms that have never seen the light of day. Westerners after all, are the spearpoint of military weapons development, and the US is the tip of the spearpoint.
And we are collectively one stiff-backed people. We won't bow down to anyone.
It's worked out well.
Western nations can war like no other who ever existed on earth.
Originally posted by ProfessorWonder
Egyptian officials approve passage of Iranian warships through Suez Canal
Interesting. Don't know what to make of it.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by peteshaz
I doubt they would be carrying missiles for Lebanon but I wonder if they may join with some Turkish navy to attempt to break the Gaza blockade..
The passage of two Iranian naval vessels through the Suez Canal has been delayed by 48 hours, a canal official said on Sunday.
The frigate and supply ship had been due to enter the canal at 6 A.M. on Monday with the northbound convoy that moves daily. The passage through the canal would be a first for Iranian naval vessels since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.
Its one thing when it is attempted by "neutral" humanitarian ships.. Its an act of war when its armed navel vessels flying under flag. Its one thing to test each other by flying through airspace and retreating when confronted.
Not so easy to do with naval vessels, which is a more overt act.