Abbott Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Originally posted by Saviola: yada yada yadaThe new president of Iraq said that U.S. troops will probably be out of that country in two years. ... The good news is they'll be next door in Iran. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviola Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Originally posted by Abbott: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Saviola: yada yada yadaThe new president of Iraq said that U.S. troops will probably be out of that country in two years. ... The good news is they'll be next door in Iran. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviola Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Um, it's earning time now, stomp you later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 You know when Moon bunped TanksmMucho, I thought we could get this back on track but it seems that there is yet again a rising tide of drivel. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Excuse me....what was the track?...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Peter Cairns writes: "...because they have no intention of attacking America." Here here! I agree, but Fox News is working overtime lately building up a 10 foot tall Iranian bogeyman under the guidance of their hard-right masters. Recent history has show that just because we shouldn't do something stupid, and don't need to do something stupid, and will live to regret doing something stupid does not necessarily mean we won't do something stupid. As to getting off track - I'd kill for a decent game mechanics topic about now 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 I'd like to remind all you Democrats (and Euro-Liberals) that it's historically your party that's gotten the U.S. into most of it's wars. Does anybody remember Korea? Or VietNam? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Ouch. Blame the Democrats for past wars, that definately makes the present debacle in Iraq a whole lot more palatable. But game-wise, I think that an Iran expansion pack would be a great thing! The Iranians (or as we old fogies love to call them, the Persians) have a nice homogeneous nation and the population is patriotic and willing to to fight for their country, which you sure can't say about certain Arab nations in the vicinity. Syria would be a speed bump for America if America decided to take a Syrian invasion serious (not a given of course). But an invasion of Iran is a whole lot more problematic, even if the Iranians don't have nukes, and if the Americans invaded. For one thing, the Iranians have lots of cool hardware in all different states of maintenance: Chieftains, M-60s, M-113s, the Soviet product line, Scorpions, Brazlinan Urutu and Cascaval armred fighting vehicles, Scuds, Hawks, TOWs, Cobra gunships, Tomcats, Chinese AAA missiles, and best of all, they build their own tanks and a whole bunch of other stuff! (All this from Global Security). Here's a linkie to learn more about Allah's true sword, the Iranian Zulfiqar tank: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/zulfiqar.htm Now that's an opponent worth fighting! None of this cast-off Cold War gear, but a real country with a real arms industry! Not to mention the mujahaddin an jihad in Iran would attract: they're Shia in Iran and there are plenty of Afghan highlanders quite close, ethnically and linguistically, to the Persians. Plenty of mountains to guerilla around in in Iran. And best of all, if you have an Iranian theater of operations you can resurrect the Cold War scenario about Russian intervention, what with the wonderful relations between Putin and the Turkmenbashi. Yep, that would be a package worth buying. I'd take it over the Battle of Taiwan. Ok, now it's the turn of you guys who are going to say the awesome U.S. military will flatten the Iranians with the expenditure of several thousand smart munitions but not too much sweat, and after suffering a couple of stubbed American toes. Go ahead, let's hear how the Iranians are going to be shocked and awed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 The bad news is Iran is capable of making a nuclear bomb. The good news is they have to drop it from a camel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Is Iraq still a member of the "Axis of Evil"? Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Worst comment i heard was a report on a meeting in the run up to the liberation of Kuwait where a journalist met rich young kuwaities in a Cairo Casino. When he asked them if they were willing to fight to free there country one of them said, "Why should we, we have our white slaves to do that".Have you heard this joke from GW? What's Kuwait's national anthem? - Onward, Christian Soldiers! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Originally posted by Splinty: I'd like to remind all you Democrats (and Euro-Liberals) that it's historically your party that's gotten the U.S. into most of it's wars. Does anybody remember Korea? Or VietNam? And the US Civil War! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Republican or Democrat, doesn't matter, same crap. no real war with Iran, it's simply a too big target. i find bombings unlikely as well, because they are too hard to achieve and end result is likely to be negative. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviola Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Originally posted by Abbott: The bad news is Iran is capable of making a nuclear bomb. The good news is they have to drop it from a camel. Know Your Enemy 101: Camels are Arab Strykers, Low Hovering Persian Rugs are Iranian Delivery Systems. You gonna **** everything up with your reckless National Intelligence Estimate and prognostications. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tagwyn Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Big Duke00: Iran is a political hotbed. There are lots of native persons willing to act to displace the rag-head do-dos running the show. Keep the Pressure on China and Russia to quit kissing Iranian Butt. Once they (thke Persians) realize they are actually going to be destroyed, they might take a more practical approach. Or, send them all a safety razor wrapped in women's hygiene products. Tag 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 "Rag-head"? Why not use the phrase sand-nigger while you're at it. Jeez, I'm sure Iran would welcome YOU with open arms. No wonder they all hate us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Abbott, That was funny, dammit! Tag, I bow before your withering logic. Any one using female hygiene products to score debating points is out of my league. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Tag, In case you haven't noticed, although how you could have missed it escapes me, you can't really scare people who believe they will go to heaven if you kill them. No amount of big stick waving is going to bother Iran. so that leaves you either limited strikes which would just irrate them, or full blown war, which would be a disaster for America which to be honest would probably finish you. Don't get me wrong America would win, but you'd be pretty much friendless and bankrupt by the end of it and now we have China and India, the world doesn't need Uncle Sam any more. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogface Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Naw, I think Saviola was a bit funnier. Hopefully with that last post, Tag will now go the way of TanksMucho (being that he spews the same racist drivel in allmost every post.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviola Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Mullahs just announced they aim to nuke US hicks and oakies till they glow and shoot'em in the dark of Persian nights. What a gas. [ April 26, 2006, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Saviola ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 "Don't get me wrong America would win, but you'd be pretty much friendless and bankrupt by the end of it " Hell, that's what I thought we were going into it! Keep repeating - Iran isn't Granada. I have visions of Caesar Augustus sending his Roman Legions north to teach those upstart German tribes a lesson. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Originally posted by Saviola: You gonna **** everything up with your reckless National Intelligence Estimate and prognostications. According to the New York Times, a commission due to report to President Bush this month will claim that our intelligence regarding Iran's weapon program is inadequate. Today Bush said 'Hey, good enough for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Interesting BBC article, Al-qaeda jihad V US "Long War" The intersting thing is that Bin Laden and Zaqawi, both are Sunni's who see the Shia is, to use the "The Life of Brian" phrase "Splitters", and guess who backs the Shia's in Iraq, yep Iran. So the US is now talking about bombing Iran in case it gets nuclear weapons and they fall in to the hands of Bin Laden, who would use them against, yeah you guessed Iran. You couldn't make this stuff up could you. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviola Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Originally posted by Abbott: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Saviola: You gonna **** everything up with your reckless National Intelligence Estimate and prognostications. According to the New York Times, a commission due to report to President Bush this month will claim that our intelligence regarding Iran's weapon program is inadequate. Today Bush said 'Hey, good enough for me. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Interesting BBC article, Al-qaeda jihad V US "Long War" The intersting thing is that Bin Laden and Zaqawi, both are Sunni's who see the Shia is, to use the "The Life of Brian" phrase "Splitters", and guess who backs the Shia's in Iraq, yep Iran. So the US is now talking about bombing Iran in case it gets nuclear weapons and they fall in to the hands of Bin Laden, who would use them against, yeah you guessed Iran. You couldn't make this stuff up could you. Peter. At no point has the U.S. government said officially they would bomb Iran. What has been misconstrued as "official policy" was a report on the contingency plan updating the U.S. defence establishment has been doing regarding Iran. The U.S. has contingency plans on just about everybody BTW, on a purely pragmatic level it's just sensible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviola Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Originally posted by Splinty: At no point has the U.S. government said officially they would bomb Iran. What has been misconstrued as "official policy" was a report on the contingency plan updating the U.S. defence establishment has been doing regarding Iran. The U.S. has contingency plans on just about everybody BTW, on a purely pragmatic level it's just sensible. No one can disagree with your observations, all very true. Rumsfeld called all the media theories out there products of “fantasies”, and Bush labeled them “pure speculations”, yet you’ve no categorical denials either. “Said officially” is the operative phrase, you’ve to give ‘em time. The second Bush took office in 2000 he had every intention, as we know now, to do Iraq. But he didn’t start to "say officially" till roughly 2002. We’ve no “official” announcements, but tell tale signs are beginning to emerge. Take Condi Frankenstein Rice’s statements for example, she insists on stomping the UN Security Council into farting a resolution allowing for sanctions under chapter 7 of the organization’s charter. Condi ain’t interested in sanctions, she wants a so called legitimate conduit to pulverize. She’s looking to cover her bony ass internationally. Then you’ve W’s statements (with the swagger, twang and passable English), he states not only will he not allow Iran nukes, but he will deny it “the knowledge to develop nukes.” Here’s when the “official” statement will come, when you get wind of Russian and Chinese diplomats vacating their families from Tehran to Moscow and Beijing, listen to the whirl wind, not to what’s “said officially”. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.