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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Not necessarily in this order:
1. Liechtenstein. Its still not too late to stop the tsunami of evil that is Liechtenstein
2. The set of Real Housewives
3. Tom Cruise (can you nuke a person?)
4. Cats they evil stop it TBone get off the keyboard!

Don't advocate the wholesale murder of thousands to millions and then make a joke about it. It makes you out to be kind of a dick.

Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts. You're confusing me with...someone
Unless of course you're one of those Leichtensteinian fellow travellers. Sucking up to the Leichtensteinians has proven futile in the past.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Prima facae inaccurate. The sunni minority was the minority in power. The Kurds and Shiites were controlled with the gun, the gas, and the cattle prod. I'm shocked you'd argue that point.

Kurds are not a religious group.

I'm arguing two things.

1: The disproportionally large Shiite population of Iraq is the direct result of Saddam's regime; following from an oppressive state Muslims will tend to become Shiites.

2: The Suuni Baathists did not care about religion, and we use the monikers only to ease our own issues of category; fundamentally distorting the common perception of what happened.

Frazzled wrote:

What are you on about now?

The folly inherent in a nuclear strike on Iran.

1. OK we're talking different things here on the Iraq front. I wasn't viewing them based on religion but more along tribal lines. The Shia and Kurish groups (can't say minorities when you say Shia in Iraq) have different cultures and were repressed by the dominate Sunnis under Hussein. Religious-not really. We're in agreement there.

2. Nuke strike. There's confusion here if this is directed at me. I'm not advocating a nuke strike on iran. I'm not even advocating having troops in the Middle East. I'm the nutty isolationist remember?

Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.

I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.

My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.

I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.

My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.

Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.

I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.

My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.

Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.

If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.

Stop projecting your failures onto others.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.

I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.

My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.

Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.

If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.

Stop projecting your failures onto others.

Stop projecting your lack of reading a simple post properly. if you can't take the time to think about before you go half cocked then you really should look at other things to do with your time.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.

I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.

My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.

Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.

If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.

Stop projecting your failures onto others.

Stop projecting your lack of reading a simple post properly. if you can't take the time to think about before you go half cocked then you really should look at other things to do with your time.

You really just can't admit that you wrote an incorrect and misleading set of sentences. You are truly an adult.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.

I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.

My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.

Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.

If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.

Stop projecting your failures onto others.

Stop projecting your lack of reading a simple post properly. if you can't take the time to think about before you go half cocked then you really should look at other things to do with your time.

You really just can't admit that you wrote an incorrect and misleading set of sentences. You are truly an adult.

Ditto baby. Ditto.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.

I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.

My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.

Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.

If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.

Stop projecting your failures onto others.

Stop projecting your lack of reading a simple post properly. if you can't take the time to think about before you go half cocked then you really should look at other things to do with your time.

You really just can't admit that you wrote an incorrect and misleading set of sentences. You are truly an adult.

Ditto baby. Ditto.

That might work, but I was apparently not the only one to misread what you wrote and you've advocated the exact same thing in the past.

So seriously, do you want a waaaahmbulance? Do you need a waaaahndaid for your post so that you can feel super confident in your editorial skills? I have them. They are in a box right next to me.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.

I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.

My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.

Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.

If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.

Stop projecting your failures onto others.

Stop projecting your lack of reading a simple post properly. if you can't take the time to think about before you go half cocked then you really should look at other things to do with your time.

You really just can't admit that you wrote an incorrect and misleading set of sentences. You are truly an adult.

Ditto baby. Ditto.

That might work, but I was apparently not the only one to misread what you wrote and you've advocated the exact same thing in the past.

So seriously, do you want a waaaahmbulance? Do you need a waaaahndaid for your post so that you can feel super confident in your editorial skills? I have them. They are in a box right next to me.

You and Dogma. I think Dogma got the clarification. You evidently less so.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.

I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.

My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.

Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.

If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.

Stop projecting your failures onto others.

Stop projecting your lack of reading a simple post properly. if you can't take the time to think about before you go half cocked then you really should look at other things to do with your time.

You really just can't admit that you wrote an incorrect and misleading set of sentences. You are truly an adult.

Ditto baby. Ditto.

That might work, but I was apparently not the only one to misread what you wrote and you've advocated the exact same thing in the past.

So seriously, do you want a waaaahmbulance? Do you need a waaaahndaid for your post so that you can feel super confident in your editorial skills? I have them. They are in a box right next to me.

You and Dogma. I think Dogma got the clarification. You evidently less so.

That wambualance is old. They're still using vans in Shuma world?

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:Wrong. Saddam's regime was secular.

Prima facae inaccurate. The sunni minority was the minority in power. The Kurds and Shiites were controlled with the gun, the gas, and the cattle prod. I'm shocked you'd argue that point.

That the Sunni minority was in power does not preclude the possibility that Saddam's Stalinist-modeled regime was secular. Saddam seemed primarily interested in promoting the worship of Saddam, and was known to be a major supporter of archeological exploration of the ruins of Babylon and Summeria, seeking to promote a new Babylonian identity that would break the power of Islam. Whatever concessions Saddam made to Islam were fairly clearly made due to the tremendous social power of the clerics, not out of any actual desire to promote Islam, which Saddam clearly saw as a threat to his own power.

Saddam's secularism was one of the primary reasons the USA originally courted him as an ally against Iran.

Frazzled wrote:
1. OK we're talking different things here on the Iraq front. I wasn't viewing them based on religion but more along tribal lines. The Shia and Kurish groups (can't say minorities when you say Shia in Iraq) have different cultures and were repressed by the dominate Sunnis under Hussein. Religious-not really. We're in agreement there.

Yeah, if you're using 'Shiite' to refer to the amalgamated tribes that weren't aligned with the Tikrit, then we agree.

Frazzled wrote:
2. Nuke strike. There's confusion here if this is directed at me. I'm not advocating a nuke strike on iran. I'm not even advocating having troops in the Middle East. I'm the nutty isolationist remember?

Your initial comment seemed like advocacy of a nuclear strike, though thinking back on it it seems more like "Nuke them, or do nothing." which is in step with your nominal all or nothing attitude. I still don't agree, for a variety of reasons, but that stance is less odious than the first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote:
Saddam's secularism was one of the primary reasons the USA originally courted him as an ally against Iran.

Indeed, the invasion of Kuwait was conducted only after seeking either US sanction or indifference. The Iraqi state never expected the US to come down on them for it.

Well that was short-sighted wasn't it? Maybe they just didn't watch the news?

I dont want to wedge myself in between Shuma and Frazz, but i think we need to seriously hurt the Iranians, they have assisted AIF and Taliban forces onsuch a scale that as far as im concerned, pretty much every British and American casualty is on their heads as much as the actual triggerman.

Nuking them is harsh, and i dont want to waste our guys lives on a costly ground war, so i cant think of anything other than dropping a very small (2000lbs?) bomb on their government building when Mahmoud is busy at work!

Well..

Or nuking them.

Well the US has been escalating it's behind the scenes operations since Americans have no stomach for another war/occupation.

Guitardian wrote:Well that was short-sighted wasn't it? Maybe they just didn't watch the news?

The US didn't respond to the diplomatic cable. Saddam took that as indifference, he was wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:I dont want to wedge myself in between Shuma and Frazz, but i think we need to seriously hurt the Iranians, they have assisted AIF and Taliban forces onsuch a scale that as far as im concerned, pretty much every British and American casualty is on their heads as much as the actual triggerman.

Nuking them is harsh, and i dont want to waste our guys lives on a costly ground war, so i cant think of anything other than dropping a very small (2000lbs?) bomb on their government building when Mahmoud is busy at work!

Well..

Or nuking them.

We (the US) may yet end up hitting their nuclear sites. We know where most of them are, and we could very easily delay their program for 8-10 years; which may be enough time to get a decent nonpro agreement off the ground.

2/1 isreal hits the sites within a year, bet know win big

I expect any Israeli strike to coincide with the draw down in Iraq; avoiding the wondrous air defense scandals.

dogma wrote:I expect any Israeli strike to coincide with the draw down in Iraq; avoiding the wondrous air defense scandals.

It would be terrrrriiibble if we accidentally shot down the entire zionist airforce. We'd have to give them more old planes.

They would be reduced to F-16Cs!

youbedead wrote:2/1 isreal hits the sites within a year, bet know win big

Iran is planning on activating their Bushehr site in the next few days or so with the Russian's help. Russia really has been an absolute waste of time to try to talk to.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Iran-Warns-Against-Attack-on-Nuclear-Plant-100892969.html

Russia has a deal with Iran regarding off-site enrichment and technology development. That deal is sanctioned by our State Department. They've really been quite cooperative in the wake of the ABM cancellation.

youbedead wrote:2/1 isreal hits the sites within a year, bet know win big

There is more than a half decent chance thats the next several days actually, before the nuclear material from the Rooskies gets to the reactor.

mattyrm wrote:I dont want to wedge myself in between Shuma and Frazz, but i think we need to seriously hurt the Iranians, they have assisted AIF and Taliban forces onsuch a scale that as far as im concerned, pretty much every British and American casualty is on their heads as much as the actual triggerman.

I thought most casualties were from IED's? If so then it needs to be proven that the equipment to build such devices (which actually isn't that hard to gather even in tribal hilly areas) is being provided directly from Iran.

Your right mate. Most casualties are from devices, you gotta trigger them as well right? They keep eyes.on then detonate. Or put em on a timer, or.... well you know what I meant.

Aye, the Iranians make em, supply the bits, train the boyz.. the whole shebang!

We owe them a thrashing I tell you!

mattyrm wrote:

We owe them a thrashing I tell you!

Or we we could just stop getting bogged down occupying/Garrisoning Middle Eastern Countries that end up being slow drawn out meat grinders for our soldiers.

We go in all Gung Ho and blow the gak out of everything int he first few days, topple the government and wipe our asses with Iran's army, Then what?

I'll tell you what: we end up occupying a crippled country with no infrastructure for years on end with no exit strategy in sight and provide yet another terrorist training ground for every extremist who can get in-country to get hands on experience fighting guerilla wars, building/using IEDs and taking hostages.

End result: Billions spent, thousands of our soldiers dead, another wrecked country we now have to rebuild/prop up, better trained terrorists, and more evidence that the "infidel" want to defile the Holy Land.

Yeah that sounds like a great plan...

Going to have to pass on Iran - one of the last things the US and its allies need are more combat tours in sandboxes with suicide bombers, hundreds of years of incredible hate, and small arms galore. How about spicing things up by going to the mountains in North Korea instead?

mattyrm wrote:Your right mate. Most casualties are from devices, you gotta trigger them as well right? They keep eyes.on then detonate. Or put em on a timer, or.... well you know what I meant.

Aye, the Iranians make em, supply the bits, train the boyz.. the whole shebang!

We owe them a thrashing I tell you!

Oh dear... You got your red coat and musket ready for that then? Let me get my drum and flag...


Iranian supplied bomb components seem to have been limited to the south of Iraq and their not very well concealed support of the JAM militias, including even sending over a couple of Pasdaran Commandos who promptly got captured. In short they did it poorly.

If you think it is just Iran supplying weapons, though that supply seems to have faltered to a trickle over the last two years, you may also need to turn your weapons onto Syria (RPG-29s from Syria were used in two attacks on Coalition armour in 2007 and 2008) and also Jordan who did a poor job of closing the border to 'volunteers'. Plenty of targets out there for those with a jingoistic streak.

Why not Pakistan?

Plenty of Tier One Terrys are sporting nice shiny new G3s from the Pakistan Ordanance Factory...

"good plan"?

I think you lot need to read up a few posts, I said we owe them one ( we do) not "let's invade them"

I can't reply in full on my phone, but after invading both Iraq and ganners then going back for seconds I'm no way ignorant of who is assisting our enemies or the high casualties that another long ground war would involve (well, not so much the initial surge cos were kinda bad ass but hugely in the occupation)

I'd love to smack the Iranians, but I'm aware were in no position to do so. Please dont take me for a flag waving idiot who thinks we can march to war with no ramifications. I may not give a gak about Iranians, but I care a lot about British and American soldiers.

We could invade them with robots!

Get right on it us department of defence, you guys have a better defence budget than us.