No announcement yet.

War with Iran - when?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • War with Iran - when?

    Lets see if this produces lots of replies.

    A lot of reports have been appearing about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme.

    How soon before Bush turns his Axis of evil speech into the bombing of Iran?
    Starts a land invasion?
    Or will the Iranians talk their way out of it?

    Will the German's remember that Plan C is Appeasement but Plan Delta is War?
    Will the British turn up for the fun in the sun or has Blair learnt his lesson?
    Last edited by Andrew_Swallow; 08-16-2005, 04:50 PM. Reason: Spelling
    Andrew Swallow

  • #2 it safe to assume you meant to name this thread "War with Iran - When?" rather than "with Iraq"?

    I can change it if you're not able to...

    "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization we're seeing now.


    • #3
      Opps. Title corrected.

      Yes the next campaign in the War on Terror.

      From the people who brought you:
      Afghanistan - you marvelled at pilots on horseback
      Iraq - your heard the dictators hide in a hole

      Comes Iran - Bigger, longer and nastier.

      (The insurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq came from the rival side.)
      Andrew Swallow


      • #4
        Lets not forget "Vietnam" - "TOS" so to speak.....
        This Staircase has 105 Steps...


        • #5
          What really bugs me is that the countries the terrorists come from (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, etc.) are "free to go", because they have nulear weapons (Pakistan and India) or because they have "good ties" to america (Saudi Arabia). On one hand I can really understand why any country wanting to go another way than america *wants* to have atomic weapons, on the other hand I don't want to have a world with more atomic weapons. As a friend of mine said: I hate the French for their atomic weapons (and -tests) but still: I am glad they are in the European Union...

          I don't know if there will be war with Iran, heck, I didn't think there would be war with Iraq until Bush stepped forward. I really don't understand the world today, it isn't important what is true but what you can sell best... maybe a flashback of our self chosen importance of money? (I'm no Commie, but I'm not that sure Money should be a religious entity, as it is today...)

          greetings from austria, best known for its history and fine wine... feels like a wine cellar on a graveyard 8-)


          • #6
            I have always found is somewhat ironic (at best) or hypocritical (at worst) that the nations with the nastiest stocks of "Big Ones" ((c) Steve Bell's "If" cartoon series) are the most vocal in their determination that no one else in the world should be allowed to develop them.

            Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons across the planet (particularly where nations with volatile regimes are concerned), but isn't it about time that we major Western powers addressed our own stockpiles of Big Ones?
            The Optimist: The glass is half full
            The Pessimist: The glass is half empty
            The Engineer: The glass is twice as big as it needs to be


            • #7
              Heres a thought - in a perfect world......

              lets give 'em what they want - pull everyone out of all the countries all these terrorists want the "western" influence out of..... all of 'em. period.

              that should shut them up - then everything will be happy and peaceful...right?


              first of all, after the pull out, the people who actually wanted the western influence there would probably feel angry, betrayed etc - so I'm thinking all these countries would most likely spiral into civil wars....

              ...and sooner or later, some nut over there would let the genie out of the bottle, and nukes would be used - then we can all kiss our collective behinds' goodbye...

              Personally, I dont believe that all the terrorists out there still active, or that have died in attacks, bombings etc all over the world, are really the "terrorists" per se - just a different kind of victim. They're targeted when young by the real monsters, the leaders who want the world to be shaped in the way they want, with their rules, and their morals.... another kind of brainwashing maybe...

              I loathe violence, and the day I heard that Iraq had been invaded I was so sad - because even then, something about the whole thing just didnt smell right. Unlike ww2, I think we all know these days that there were not any genuine reasons for doing it other than reasons involving money (ie Oil) - it's a known fact now that reports were exagerrated, "sexed up" for the benefit of the media, and us poor gullible proles out here in the real world - so to me, anyone who has died out there has died for no tangible reason worth dying for...

              I know one thing.... if this ever ends, no-one will come out of it smelling rosy - I think that the leaders on both sides of all this conflict should be made to sit down, and read out the names of each and every person who has died because of this crap - along with showing them a photo of each person. Make them see exactly what it is that is really going on, and what they have been a party to.....


              This Staircase has 105 Steps...


              • #8
                I think this will only end when that idiot is kicked from the White House, if I was an american I would ashamed to have a president with an IQ of 90. Jed Bartlett For President, if he can't make it then Hillary Clinton For President.


                • #9
                  With all the crap that's going on in Iraq, I doubt that we'll attack Iran.

                  I think this is a example of a president who went to war under the assumption we'd win in about 3 days. Which we did against the standing army, actually.

                  Unfortunately, the president seems to lack any kind of history about foreign countries, especially muslim history. I'm sure his advisers were quite aware of what would happen when Saddam Hussein was taken out of power. Of course, it's easy to replace advisors for ones that would agree with the president.


                  • #10
                    Just to be fair here.. isn't it the europen union that is pushing Iran the most now days about their nucular weapons? We have (according to our media coverage, which i am constantly told isn't actual news) been spending way more time on the more eastern nuke countries.

                    I know its fun to bash the US and her president... I know i tell my fair share of jokes, but not everything nuke related is the US fault nor are they the only ones trying to stop it.

                    * Yes im from the US, no im not going to argue about iraq, and i won't judge our leaders actions from popcultures need to have instant gratification to everything. Some things take time, some results aren't realized until long after the actions, and some things don't make sence without all the info that the average person can't have.

                    **No that doesn't mean i "blindly follow" assuming they are all telling the truth, but some things do require secrecy and i trust the people i voted for to do what they need to do in our best interest.


                    • #11
                      There's still someone who trusts their elected leaders? And I would have sworn that kind of individual was extinct. I guess I'm too cynical
                      RIP Coach Larry Finch
                      Thank you Memphis Grizzlies for a great season.
                      Play like your fake girlfriend died today - new Notre Dame motivational sign


                      • #12
                        What to do in Iraq? Unfortunately, stay the course.

                        Well, we aren't going to be out of there any time soon. I know there are some calling for immediate withdrawal of our troops. Unfortunately, this just won't be possible.

                        Even without the debate over the legitimacy of the original invasion in Iraq, we can't just pack up and leave like we did in Viet Nam. We will have to stick it out until there is some kind of stable government there, even one not sympathetic to the west. Without a stable government there, there will be basically one of three scenarios.

                        One, a prolonged occupation by US/UN troops. Not a good idea. It would be a wasting disease, killing handfuls a week. Add that up over 10 years or get the picture.

                        Two, a complete breakdown of any governmental authority, and the rise of local cheiftans. Think Somalia. Only worse because of the infusion of radical islamic clerics.

                        Three, a complete annexation of Iraq by one or more neighboring countries, meaning war in the Middle East like we have never seen before. Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia all jockying for territory and "breathing room"? EEEK! They would end up shooting fairly quickly, and the Iraqi people would be caught in the middle.

               we have a choice? Nopers. We have to stick it out, no matter how bad we have frakked it up so far.
                        "Ivanova is God!"


                        • #13
                          An immediate withdrawl would make things worse, I agree. I personally want a year or 2 before the troops be pulled. The thing that I want to see is a clearly defined exit strategy, not a haphazard clusterf---. Something like a checklist of things to do and/or get established before the troops pull out. I've heard nothing of the sort from the president, nor from any military officials. If we stay in Iraq 10 years, 20 years or longer, our government just might as well drop all notion of Iraq as a nation and just declare it a U.S. territory like Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
                          RIP Coach Larry Finch
                          Thank you Memphis Grizzlies for a great season.
                          Play like your fake girlfriend died today - new Notre Dame motivational sign


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by GrumpyGropo
                            I think this is a example of a president who went to war under the assumption we'd win in about 3 days. Which we did against the standing army, actually.
                            Only because he called his "associates" into it.

                            Actually Israel was the first to threaten to nuke Iran if the continue their program not the US, IIRC.

                            Did it ever occur to anyone that they might really just want to have a power source instead of bomb material. You can get that much cheaper and with less effort, you know.
                            What's up Drakh?


                            • #15
                              The Problem is: With a Nuclear Reactor you can "breed" Plutonium for weapons... so even the "we just want energy" phrase is not entirely true/justified. I'm not saying they *want* to gain Plutonium, I just say the could get it that way...

                              And they would need a facility to get the Plutonium out of the Nuclear Rods...

                              greetings from austria, best known for its history and fine wine... feels like a wine cellar on a graveyard 8-)