Conquer Club

vtmarik wrote:

unriggable wrote:I hope the world doesn't stand for this. 180 countries said we were out of our minds when we invaded Iraq, and we ignored every last one of them.

Without teeth, the UN is no more than an aggrandized Blue Ribbon Commission.

If the UN had any military/legislative power over its member states, then maybe the US Gov't would listen to them.

The reason they don't have that power is becuase the US is unwilling to let them. I agree that going against the UN really brings very little consequence, but I still believe that it is an important institution and should not be ignored in some cases and complied with in others.

Guiscard wrote:They might not have any choice. If any attack on Iran is made, its very likely that Iran will invade over the border into Iraq, bringing with it all the problems of a popular uprising throughout the country. Then we're all in a sticky situation.

It is that that makes me think an invasion is unlikely. The US can barely cope with Iraq now, never mind an invader. Maybe I'm missing something here, but another carrier can surely only bring planes. That's what I don't understand - there definitely are "feelers" being put out for another attack, but what possible attack can the US make on Iran, that can possibly benefit the US?

I think the whole anti-war sentiment is important, but if the US seriously tries to make the case for invasion I think they could, at least to their own people. They produce a dossier proving Iran has nuclear capacity, or will do within X number of years, and thats the threat there and then. We went to war with Iraq on the back of intense public outcry, but parliament voted it through becuase they had evidence (later proved false) that Iraq had threatening WMDs. They did it once and they'll do it again. The plans already in place, they've done as much as threaten military action if Iran don't comply... Iran aren't complying...

Well, if it happens, and it's a big IF - either a large bombing or an invasion - the Bush administration will have moved to a scale of lunacy I hardly thought possible, even for them.

We need to catch Amehdinejad wearing a dress.

Heh, he's leaving soon what does he care!

Guiscard wrote:Heh, he's leaving soon what does he care!

He, like our Mr Blair, has his legacy to think of! Don't be so insensitive!

Well if he can get into Iran he'll have beat his daddy. Surely that counts for something! Then Bush Jnr II can come to power in in twenty years and go for saudi and get the whole set!

Guiscard wrote:Well if he can get into Iran he'll have beat his daddy. Surely that counts for something! Then Bush Jnr II can come to power in in twenty years and go for saudi and get the whole set!

How much does this set worth? or maybe it's just an escalating one, you can never be sure with these.

I personally think that the most likely outcome of all this would be a (possible US instigated) Israeli pre-emptive air strike on the Iranian nuclear research base. This will allow the threat to disappear without the near impossible job of a ground invasion of Iran. It will cause outrage in the Middle East, but it may stop short of all out war. (Not saying I agree with this course of action, mind you). Israel carried out a similar mission in the 80's against Iraq which they got away with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

flashleg8 wrote:I personally think that the most likely outcome of all this would be a (possible US instigated) Israeli pre-emptive air strike on the Iranian nuclear research base. This will allow the threat to disappear without the near impossible job of a ground invasion of Iran. It will cause outrage in the Middle East, but it may stop short of all out war. (Not saying I agree with this course of action, mind you). Israel carried out a similar mission in the 80's against Iraq which they got away with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

The majority of the Israelies support this kind of action (I would like to classify myself as a leftist, but perhaps it is the lesser of evils). Moreover, Iran's attempts at reaching nuclear capabilities drive other Arab nations to undertake nuclear projects (out of self defense) and this might cause a serious instability in the middle east rejoin. I just hope this madness will stop somehow.

Aegnor wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:I personally think that the most likely outcome of all this would be a (possible US instigated) Israeli pre-emptive air strike on the Iranian nuclear research base. This will allow the threat to disappear without the near impossible job of a ground invasion of Iran. It will cause outrage in the Middle East, but it may stop short of all out war. (Not saying I agree with this course of action, mind you). Israel carried out a similar mission in the 80's against Iraq which they got away with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

The majority of the Israelies support this kind of action (I would like to classify myself as a leftist, but perhaps it is the lesser of evils). Moreover, Iran's attempts at reaching nuclear capabilities drive other Arab nations to undertake nuclear projects (out of self defense) and this might cause a serious instability in the middle east rejoin. I just hope this madness will stop somehow.

Good point, I hadn't really considered the implications of this, but you're right it could start a mini cold war arms race in the Middle East. I can understand the Israelis feeling threatened with the anti-Semitic rubbish that’s being put out as the party line in Iran recently.

Israel wouldn't launch an airstrike anyway. Iran is too far for a jet to fly without stopping. They were running on empty when they got back from Iraq in the 80s.

That was the 80s. They've got a lot of American technology in their hands since then. As far as I knew (though might be wrong), they do have the capacity to bomb Iran.

Guiscard wrote:That was the 80s. They've got a lot of American technology in their hands since then. As far as I knew (though might be wrong), they do have the capacity to bomb Iran.

The one thing i've noticed is that Israel's got a bomb right?

What's the worry? MAD.

That's why they invented aircraft carriers...

I'm afraid for the future because Bush appointed an admiral to head the affairs in the ME which means he is planning to carry out an attack on Iran.

areon wrote:That's why they invented aircraft carriers...

I'm afraid for the future because Bush appointed an admiral to head the affairs in the ME which means he is planning to carry out an attack on Iran.

He'll rattle the saber, but if they've got nuclear capabilities he won't follow through.

Cheney isn't that dumb.

vtmarik wrote:

Guiscard wrote:That was the 80s. They've got a lot of American technology in their hands since then. As far as I knew (though might be wrong), they do have the capacity to bomb Iran.

The one thing i've noticed is that Israel's got a bomb right?

What's the worry? MAD.

I think Israels is worried because Iran might just be a bit too MAD

Not enough oil to justify invading it... pass

flashleg8 wrote:

unriggable wrote:Doesn't our country know that the best way to lose an enemy is to make a friend?

Agreed. Look at what’s happened recently in Libya. The US gave an incentive to Gaddafi to give up his pursuit of WMD and "come in from the cold" by relaxing the harsh economic sanctions. Its no good using the stick all the time - you have to offer a carrot one in a while.
....

Got this in an email, found it very interesting

Read all of this one, it is interesting!! Read down to the very bottom highlighted in green, IT GAVE ME GOOSEBUMPS!!! you don't want to miss this! ((*_*))


VERY INTERESTING-
1. The Garden of Eden was in Iraq.

2. Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, was the cradle of civilization!

3. Noah built the ark in Iraq.

4. The Tower of Babel was in Iraq

5. Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern Iraq!

6. Isaac's wife Rebekah is from Nahor, which is in Iraq!

7. Jacob met Rachel in Iraq.

8. Jonah preached in Nineveh -
which is in Iraq.

9. Assyria, which is in Iraq, conquered the ten tribes of Israel.

10 Amos cried out in Iraq!

11. Babylon, which is in Iraq, destroyed Jerusalem.

12. Daniel was in the lion's den in Iraq!

13. The three Hebrew children were in the fire in Iraq (Jesus had been in Iraq also as the fourth person in the
Fiery Furnace!)

14. Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the "writing on the wall" in Iraq.

15. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the Jews captive into Iraq.

16. Ezekiel preached in Iraq.

17. The wise men were from Iraq.

18. Peter preached in Iraq.

19. The "Empire of Man" described in
Revelation is called Babylon, which was
a city in Iraq!

And you have probably seen this one: Israel is the nation most often mentioned in the Bible. But do you know which nation is second? It is Iraq! However, that is not the name that is used in the Bible. The names used in the Bible are Babylon, Land ofShinar, and Mesopotamia . The word Mesopotamia means between the two rivers, more exactly between the Tigris
and Euphrates Rivers. The name Iraq, means country with deep roots.

Indeed Iraq is a country with deep roots and is a very significant country in the Bible.

No other nation, except Israel, has more history and prophecy associated
with it than Iraq.

And also, This is something to think about: Since America is typically represented by an eagle. Saddam should have read up on his Muslim passages...

The following verse is from the Koran, (the Islamic Bible)

Koran (9:11 ) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah;
and there was peace.
(Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?!

I BETTER NOT HEAR OF ANYONE BREAKING THIS ONE OR SEE IT DELETED. This is a ribbon for soldiers fighting inIraq. Pass it on to everyone and pray. Something good will happen to you tonight at 11:11 PM. This is not a joke. someone will either call you or will talk to you online and say that they love you. Do not break this chain. Send this to 13 people in

the next 15 minutes. Go.

Jamie wrote:

The following verse is from the Koran, (the Islamic Bible)

Koran (9:11 ) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah;
and there was peace.
(Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?!

As other thread:

That’s strange, in my version it says:
"But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and we make the communications clear for a people who know."
I guess yours has a different translation

Iran will not be attacked by the United States during the remainder of the Bush administration. Hold me to my word.

vtmarik wrote:He'll rattle the saber, but if they've got nuclear capabilities he won't follow through.

Cheney isn't that dumb.

I haven't heard any projections for Iran having weapons grade nukes in the next 2 years. They don't even have the capability to install a large number of factories which would be much easier. Are you implying they bought some?

Genghis Khant wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:

unriggable wrote:Doesn't our country know that the best way to lose an enemy is to make a friend?

Agreed. Look at what’s happened recently in Libya. The US gave an incentive to Gaddafi to give up his pursuit of WMD and "come in from the cold" by relaxing the harsh economic sanctions. Its no good using the stick all the time - you have to offer a carrot one in a while.
....

Ah, lovely lovely Private Eye.

Reminds me of yet more bill hicks, paraphrased:

"Sir, we know Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction"
"How?"
"Uh, we checked the receipts"