War With Iran within the week?

[railer]

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,? - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

?no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world.? - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad



Hate Bush all you want, and let that hatred color your opinions...but Ahmadinejad is a nut job. At least he talks like a nut job.

Bush talks like an idiot. Bush has never said anything about wiping anyone off the map, denying the holocaust, etc, etc. Bush is an obvious simpleton, and thinks like a 2nd gradrer in terms of good vs evil.....but he doesn't say anything at all like the things that Ahmadinejad says.

So, to an unbiased person anyway, Bush looks sane compared to Ahmadinejad.

 

[Lemon law]

So, to an unbiased person anyway, Bush looks sane compared to Ahmadinejad.

Even considering that all those above Ahmadinejhad quotes are taken badly out of context by propagandists, I still have to agree that Ahmadimejhad is quite a few fruit loops short of a full bowl. But I consider myself an unbaised person, and beg to differ that anything could possibly make GWB look sane---even with that sad and sorry example. I will buy both being birds of a feather---but in the grand scheme of things---which is worse---now there is a real hard question to answer. But if we want to define the answer by asking how many lives were lost due to their respective stupid actions---its GWB by a wide margin.

 

[Duddy]

Looks like I was wrong about the younger Iranians. They seem to be attacking the British Embassy. They chant "Death to Britain! Death to the US!" and "Oh Supreme Leader, we are ready!"

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
all those above Ahmadinejhad quotes are taken badly out of context by propagandists

proof?

 

[Aimster]

well ... he hangs out with Jews against Zionism
& he likes to help the Jews of Iran out.

He has a problem with the state of Israel. He is basically a Muslim acting like those Jews against Zionism.

He thinks it is the Muslim world's duty to help the Palestinians. He keeps calling for Israel to unite with them and form a state called Palestine in which everyone can vote to elect a leader for the new state.
In his speeches he keeps saying "Jews and Christians and Muslims must come together to get rid of Israel".

Why does he talk about the Arabs so much? He is not the leader of Iran. He has no power. So he uses his title of President to reach outside Iran where he can get attention.
For some reason I think he is an Ayatollah wannabe.

 

[Lemon law]

proof?

Do your own research---most of the quotes refer to land gained by Israel and occupied by Israeli settlers post 1967 war---and re-edited by various Israeli to implie that he advocates
the destruction of all of Israel---and yes he also does believe in the right to return that drives the Arab-Israeli conflict and Israel pretends is a dead issue.

But for what its worth I think Ahmadinejhad is quite a few fruit loops short of a full bowl-----but so are quite a few in Israel who have their own revisionist histories to perpetuate the disputes.---but the dishonest tend to drive the honest out of the decision making process.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Aimster
well ... he hangs out with Jews against Zionism
& he likes to help the Jews of Iran out.

He has a problem with the state of Israel. He is basically a Muslim acting like those Jews against Zionism.

He thinks it is the Muslim world's duty to help the Palestinians. He keeps calling for Israel to unite with them and form a state called Palestine in which everyone can vote to elect a leader for the new state.
In his speeches he keeps saying "Jews and Christians and Muslims must come together to get rid of Israel".

Why does he talk about the Arabs so much? He is not the leader of Iran. He has no power. So he uses his title of President to reach outside Iran where he can get attention.
For some reason I think he is an Ayatollah wannabe.

Or a Hitler wannabe. I thought he wanted all the Jews relocated from Israel to some other western nations. The Muslims will never control Jerusalem. There will be Armageddon before that ever happens.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Duddy
Looks like I was wrong about the younger Iranians. They seem to be attacking the British Embassy. They chant "Death to Britain! Death to the US!" and "Oh Supreme Leader, we are ready!"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right now Ahmadinejhad has his own political problems in Iran. He was popularly elected as a sort of rabble raising populist who promised to bring prosperity to Iran. But inflation is out of control, Iran has its own set of problems that are not being addressed, and worse yet much of the nation now believes he is being counter productive by his too shrill confrontations with the West. And worse yet the real power in Iran still rests with the mullahs who now want to quietly ease him out as a national embarrassment.---a view also shared by most Iranians.

Then along comes GWB who is his savior---by giving him an issue to regain popularity. Of course he is going to play it to the hilt-----and you are looking at just 200 in Iran who were probably hired to act like idiots---and from that you try to generalize up to a nation of 50-70 million?

Right now Iran and the USA share a common problem---we both elected idiots for President and now wish we hadn't---and idiots that make small problems into big problems---and if we support neither, they will soon be gone. And then we can find a lot of common interests--and start to make the world a better place

 

[Moonbeam]

Are we at war yet?

 

[Duddy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Are we at war yet?

Not yet, 4 more days until the people who voted "No" will win.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Duddy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Are we at war yet?

Not yet, 4 more days until the people who voted "No" will win.

Of which I voted no. We saw Lebanon last year, I seriously doubt the west's ability to decide to take military action. I do not believe Iran is trying to be this opaquely suicidal so they have to be making the same bet we are making.

 

[piasabird]

Did not know the EU had any military forces?

Who will attack?
France?
Germany?
Italy?
UK (Maybe)
Netherlands?
Sweeden?
Norway?

I can not imagine France or Germany attacking Iran. They have so many Islamic slaves working in their country that it would cause riots in the streets.

 

[Jiggz]

I voted NO! because I know Iran and like other terrorist countries can never face the enemy. Instead, they all want to look big and bark loud but can never really bite since they ain't got not teeth! Terrorist will never fight on the battleground! They have to hide between the populace and attack only when the enemy is looking back! Anybody ever heard of the word cowardice? Uncivilized? or Pestilence? Well if you've heard the word Iran then you've heard it all!

 

[railer]

jiggs - internet baddass.

why don't you join up, and show us all what a tough guy you are?

You can scan your enlistment forms and poet 'em up here on anandtech.

ROFL.

you are a coward. stay behind your keyboard and shreik.....it suits you well.

 

[Duddy]

Originally posted by: Jiggz
I voted NO! because I know Iran and like other terrorist countries can never face the enemy. Instead, they all want to look big and bark loud but can never really bite since they ain't got not teeth! Terrorist will never fight on the battleground! They have to hide between the populace and attack only when the enemy is looking back! Anybody ever heard of the word cowardice? Uncivilized? or Pestilence? Well if you've heard the word Iran then you've heard it all!

Wurd

 

[sothsegger]

question: what motive does iran have to provoke a military conflict?

 

[Mardeth]

Originally posted by: Duddy

Originally posted by: rickn
it would be very foolish to attack Iran with 145k american troops only a few 100 miles away. Iran could obliterate the green zone and every american base in Iraq

Think Lebanon. They basically shoot bottle rockets towards their enemies.

Think the missile boat incident. Im pretty sure that the Iranian arsenal is a bit more sophisticated than katyushas.

 

[tomywishbone]

ABC news just showed animated drawings of Iran's reactor. War is close, very close.

 

[alien42]

Iran: No plans to put British crew on trial

keep dreaming warmongers

 

[Lemon law]

Good link alien42,

Which may confirm an earlier prediction I made----one possible script---Iran and England will calmly talk---The UK will ease the lame duck Blair out and replace him with Gordon Smith if memory serves me right---Smith will tell GWB to release his Iranian hostages or the UK accelerates withdrawal of UK troops in Iraq. GWB complies, British hostages are released, and the crisis winds down.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Good link alien42,

Which may confirm an earlier prediction I made----one possible script---Iran and England will calmly talk---The UK will ease the lame duck Blair out and replace him with Gordon Smith if memory serves me right---Smith will tell GWB to release his Iranian hostages or the UK accelerates withdrawal of UK troops in Iraq. GWB complies, British hostages are released, and the crisis winds down.

Fascinating, does Blair leave that soon to work in your plan? Summer keeps ringing in my ears, but that?s months from now.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Good link alien42,

Which may confirm an earlier prediction I made----one possible script---Iran and England will calmly talk---The UK will ease the lame duck Blair out and replace him with Gordon Smith if memory serves me right---Smith will tell GWB to release his Iranian hostages or the UK accelerates withdrawal of UK troops in Iraq. GWB complies, British hostages are released, and the crisis winds down.

Lets hope for a different outcome...Iran with a quadruple win doesn't really work in the best long term interests for those of use in Western civs.

With your above, we get:

1.) Iran showing other countries/organizations that they can get away with taking hostages (because that's basically what the British troops being held are, and not even in a clear scenario to boot).

2.) Iran showing other countries/organizations that the West (in the collective) is weak when we give them the people we actually indisputably caught inside Iraq.

3.) Iran showing other countries/organizations if you take hostages and make like difficult for the West (in the collective), they will run = weakness.

4.) Iran showing other countries/organizations if you are getting pressure from the West (in the collective) and/or the UN, just take hostages and/or create a stir about something else to take notice away from what's truly important. Anyone notice the talks of Iran's nuke program have vastly dissipated? Now who thinks they've stopped working on their program the minute Iran took the Brits hostage? Their just getting more and more time to do whatever they want to be doing...

None of those four things is in any way good - at all. You want to force the Iranians to do the changing and make the hard choices, not the other way around - especially because the Iranians have created this mees. Doing it the other way around gets us Iraq and Afghanistan...hard choices that had to be made which are proving harder to make work.

Chuck

EDITS: Corrected typos...

 

[Lemon law]

Well chucky2, I can understand your distaste, but still its then established that GWB started it when he grabbed the Iranian hostages. In terms of Blair or Gordon Smith telling GWB to let the Iranians he grabbed go, its almost irrelevant. Blair can choose to go out disgraced or with a chance to save face.

But the risk of the Brits blowing the whistle on GWB could well be fatal for GWB. Something GWB &co. should have considered as a downside risk.

The Brits are none to happy with GWB as the decider.

 

[chucky2]

I'm confused on why we wouldn't grab people in Iraq we think are causing problems?

This would be like us in Vietnam catching a Soviet or Chinese advisor with a NVA...why would we ever just let them go and say, Sorry, you're just actively helping the folks trying to kill us, so you get a pass...

...and even still us capturing Iranians believed to be helping insurgents in Iraq ia a long way off in Iranians going into Iraqi waters, abducting 15 Brits, imprisoning them in Iran, and then releasing tapes and writings that are obviously coerced.

Sure got them pursuing nukes off the front pages really quickly didn't it?

Chuck

 

[Lemon law]

Chucky2 asks---I'm confused on why we wouldn't grab people in Iraq we think are causing problems?

Cause they had diplomatic immunity and were invited in by the Kurds.