Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I can hear War Pigs by Black Sabbath humming in over the horizon. This Christmas is going to be brutal.

Whether the US/UK was involved or not is irrelevant. (If they were - talk about sticking your junk in a hornets nest) All that matters now is what Iran does and their perception of the event. i.e. Blame UK/US/Pakistan - nuke something.

Khornholio wrote:I can hear War Pigs by Black Sabbath humming in over the horizon. This Christmas is going to be brutal.

Whether the US/UK was involved or not is irrelevant. (If they were - talk about sticking your junk in a hornets nest) All that matters now is what Iran does and their perception of the event. i.e. Blame UK/US/Pakistan - nuke something.

Oh God, I wish they'd try it. We would rain the Holy Wrath of God down on their heads. Just once Iran, give us a REAL reason to feth you up.

Ameejeehad says something like this every other day. I bet he blames Israel for stuff ten times as much as us, so picking a fight with us makes even less sense than picking a fight with Israel (which doesn't make a lot of sense).

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Hah. Yesterday he was blaming Pakistan for it.

I guess his intelligence agencies are about as qualified as he is.

Yeah, it's terrible when they lie to their people and the world like that. I'm glad we live in a country where no one ever said "Mobile chemical weapons labs" roamed around Iraq in an effort to avoid detection. Or ever linked Iraq and 9/11.

It's not bad intelligence. They're just rabble rousing, just as the article suggests. If this is the wackiest thing Iran says this month we'll be lucky.

See, originally I had intended to say "I guess his intelligence agencies must be castoffs from Bush's CIA." but then I decided that even Bush's CIA advisors weren't *that* dumb.

And thats where you made your mistake!

Help me out here, but excepting the NSA, the cia advisors stay the same across administrations right?

GG

Orkeosaurus wrote:Ameejeehad says something like this every other day. I bet he blames Israel for stuff ten times as much as us, so picking a fight with us makes even less sense than picking a fight with Israel (which doesn't make a lot of sense).

Ahmadinejad didn't blame the West, the head of the revolutionary guards did. Ahmadinejad blamed Pakistan and said they should focus on removing dangerous elements of their own intelligence services.

Which is, bizarrely, a completely sensible thing to say.

Well, I guess that's what I get for skimming.

Even less of a concern, then!

The dinner jacket isn't nearly as insane as people like to believe. He's massively antisemitic, and that's problematic in a certain sense, but he isn't some loon.

dogma wrote:The dinner jacket isn't nearly as insane as people like to believe. He's massively antisemitic, and that's problematic in a certain sense, but he isn't some loon.

The enemy of the week is always the most irrational nutburger, likely to commit some act of idiotic self-destruction.


The whole time we were wigging out about Saddam Hussein, you had Saparmurat Turkmenbasi, president of Turkmenistan. He banned ballet, lip synching and recorded music, demanded a palace of ice be built in his desert capital, banned filling and said people should chew on bones to keep their teeth (because dogs have good teeth and they chew on bones therefore...), and banned people on television wearing make up because he couldn't tell the women from the men. He was, basically, bonkers.

But they were an ally in the war on terror so we didn't make too much noise about him.

Well, yeah, obviously.

There's also the whole tradition of US sensitivity to anything which involves Judaism, Jews, or antisemitism.

dogma wrote:Well, yeah, obviously.

There's also the whole tradition of US sensitivity to anything which involves Judaism, Jews, or antisemitism.

Which is, to an extent, understandable. But there is very clearly one rule for allies and one rule for enemies. None of which would be all that surprising, but we just went through all this with Iraq, and we know how that turned out. But while we're still tied up in that war we're starting the whole process again with the next country.

At the very least, Iran is a massively different animal. Four times larger than Iraq, no colonial legacy, and a good deal mountainous territory. It gives one pause where the Iraqi situation did not.

dogma wrote:At the very least, Iran is a massively different animal. Four times larger than Iraq, no colonial legacy, and a good deal mountainous territory. It gives one pause where the Iraqi situation did not.

I don't think a full blown occupation is likely, but the groundwork is being set for some level of military action down the line.

You don't have to occupy anything if you just kill everyone.




Like Ghengis Khan did.

sebster wrote:
I don't think a full blown occupation is likely, but the groundwork is being set for some level of military action down the line.

Its been set. The US is happy to expend its munitions on any nation which cannot affect domestic policy for itself, or any allied state (at least when said states do not agree with US policy).

That said, it seems unlikely that Iran will suffer a direct US strike. Israel will do it for us, should anyone do it at all.

We do ever so love to equip and train terrorist forces and destabilize enemy governments covertly.

You obviously havent studied your history of middle/South America.

Personnally its more sabre rattling from Iran not to be taken too seriously.
They are the same as North Korea albeit with a better military, rescources and location but its all the same.
Its good PR for whatever segment of the populace they want to influence to think "hey we are strong, we can fight the infidels".
When a leader is besieged from without, the best defense is to espouse strenght, otherwise hes on a slippery course to a coup or an internal challenge.

As for the rather strong comments about nuking Iran and bombing them can you lay out your arguments a little better?
What exactly have Iran done to your country - the US in the last 20 years?
I'd be fascinated to hear your comments.

And as another poster commented whilst it may be hard to prove US/UK involvment who is to say it actually is false?
Are you that naiive to think the US/UK havent a hand in a few pies around the globe to continue their foreign policies?
History strongly disagrees with you.

Ratius wrote:
You obviously havent studied your history of middle/South America.

I'll assume you didn't detect the honesty.

Ratius wrote:
They are the same as North Korea albeit with a better military, rescources and location but its all the same.

Iran's military is inferior to North Korea's, by a considerable margin.

Ratius wrote:
When a leader is besieged from without, the best defense is to espouse strenght, otherwise hes on a slippery course to a coup or an internal challenge.

The leader I assume you are referring to said nothing.

I'll assume you didn't detect the honesty.

Clearly too subtle.

Iran's military is inferior to North Korea's, by a considerable margin.

A subjective argument to be sure and one not likely to be tested in real world circumstances.

The leader I assume you are referring to said nothing.

Amended to leadership.

Ratius wrote:
Clearly too subtle.

There's a fine line between being subtle, and being wrong. You were wrong.

Ratius wrote:
A subjective argument to be sure and one not likely to be tested in real world circumstances.

Its not really subjective at all. The only reason you might believe that is one of ignorance.

Ratius wrote:
Amended to leadership.

Well hey there Berlusconi.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Ameejeehad says something like this every other day. I bet he blames Israel for stuff ten times as much as us, so picking a fight with us makes even less sense than picking a fight with Israel (which doesn't make a lot of sense).

Which is why the current rumors are, if no heavy sanctions by Christmas, Israel attacks.

Well hey there Berlusconi.

My avatar flag is Irish and I'll thank you to keep your cheap pops to yourself.

Ratius wrote:

Well hey there Berlusconi.

My avatar flag is Irish and I'll thank you to keep your cheap pops to yourself.

My subtlety has caused wars in the past. Don't feel too bad about it.

no colonial legacy

Iran was a British colony, wasn't it? And didn't we install a puppet regime? Isn't that why they hate the feth out of us in the first place?

Albatross wrote:
Iran was a British colony, wasn't it? And didn't we install a puppet regime? Isn't that why they hate the feth out of us in the first place?

No, no, and no.

I think a big old face palm is required at this point.

Actually we did occupy several Iranian territories, but not the country as a whole. My mistake, lol. And YES the UK and US did depose a democratically elected leader (Mossadegh) and re-install the Shah as supreme leader.

So it's...

Not really, yes, pretty much.