72 replies to this topic

[Dvoe]

http://www.cnn.com/2...main/index.html

Damn the time flies, 2 and half years later and we're still bogged down with no end in sight.

How the f*** did Bush get re-elected?

[DeathDude]

Sad news to hear about, and it doesn't look like any time soon they'll be able to leave Iraq, not the way things are going for them.

[A. J. Raffles]

Oh, but they'll have to leave it when they go for Iran...

[BeefontheBone]

At least they won't have far to go next week.

[A. J. Raffles]

BeefontheBone, on Oct 28 2005, 08:30 PM, said:

At least they won't have far to go next week.

Exactly. They might even be able to go over during their lunch break.

[Juni Ori]

A. J. Raffles, on Oct 28 2005, 08:46 PM, said:

BeefontheBone, on Oct 28 2005, 08:30 PM, said:

At least they won't have far to go next week.

Exactly. They might even be able to go over during their lunch break.

Except - for what little I know - Iran is far more better equipped and it seems they have better morale to defend their country. But this scenario would be interesting in theory...

[A. J. Raffles]

Please don't remind me of the gory details. My granny lives in Tehran...

[DeathDude]

I don't think we'll be seeing the states heading to Iran any time soon, they got enough to focus on with Iraq, if they really want to get themselves more resentment of them in the middle east, then by all means go to Iran too.

[Tulac]

Well there are some huge tentions between Iran and Israel(Iranian president was speaking strongly against Israelis on "world ithout zyonism" conference, or something like that), and they can even nuke each other...

[Juni Ori]

Well, Israel does have nuclear warheads, but it's capability to strike with them relies solely on fighter-bombers. We also have to remember that there's only islamistic countries between them and even though Israel's powerful air force could bomb Iran, some of its fighter-bombers might be intercepted. Iran on the other hand most likely doesn't have nuclear weapons, but it has different SCUD-variants able to strike even Israel. And Israel doesn't have too efficient protection against ballistic missiles. Actually nobody has.

On the other hand, Iran has corrected a bit her president's sayings and he was supposed to refer to Khomein's words from distant past. However I still don't understand why to refer such provocative words if you don't mean to pick a fight? Well, it's possibly just me.

[DannyMc252]

Then there's Iran's "Israel should be wiped off the map" statement.

[Juni Ori]

I believe Tulac was speaking about that...

[A. J. Raffles]

DannyMc252, on Oct 29 2005, 10:40 PM, said:

Then there's Iran's "Israel should be wiped off the map" statement.

Well, you see, Iran's just another country that chose the wrong guy to be its president...

[MdaG]

A. J. Raffles, on Oct 30 2005, 01:06 AM, said:

DannyMc252, on Oct 29 2005, 10:40 PM, said:

Then there's Iran's "Israel should be wiped off the map" statement.

Well, you see, Iran's just another country that chose the wrong guy to be its president...

Yeah, it's not like the citizens want war. Maybe the fanatics does, but they hardly represent the majority. It's just media choosing to focus on those retards making it appear so. If I'm not mistaken CNN and BBC are partly to blame for all that.

[A. J. Raffles]

One of the problems about Iran may be that the US just doesn't seem to be able to handle nations which have, erm, well, a sort of a national inferiority complex. There was a time when Persian empire was huge and its influence far-reaching - at least as much so as that of the US today - and now Iran is basically a developing country. They're still blaming the British and the Americans for everything that went wrong, and they're quite desperate to prove that they're still a great nation by causing as much of a stir as possible. Of course they're saying "we're bloody well going to develop nuclear weapons if we want to, and there's nothing you can do to stop us. So there." But to them it's of course extremely humiliating to have the US say "no you can't".
Still, it was quite a shock to people when Ahmadinedjad (or however he spells his name) was elected, because everybody was expecting his lazy but moderate opponent to win (you know, that millionaire; can't remember his name). I doubt many people share his extremist attitude, but still, what he does is popular (like bashing Israel and the US, quoting Khomeini and praying and kneeling before his grave and all that), and he's doing it precisely because it's popular. But it's dangerous, of course, and will quite likely lead to another war. Stupid sods.

Anyway, I've been hijacking this topic. Back to Iraq.