NationStates Jolt Archive

Our fearless asshole UN ambassador made it plain and clear, that Iraq--I mean, Iran--will face "painful consequences" if it continues with its alleged nuclear weapons program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684031/

WASHINGTON - Iran faces “tangible and painful consequences” if it continues its nuclear activities and the United States will use “all tools at our disposal” to stop this threat, a senior U.S. official said Sunday, ahead of a crucial international meeting on Iran.

Well I was wrong in saying we'd invade Syria next. Looks like it'll be Iran. $5 to whoever correctly guesses the day we'll launch the preemtive strike! :p

Strange, the British UN guy just said it is not a case of automatic sanctions, and support for military action has already been 100% ruled out by the government. If by "painful consequences" the US means military action, it will find the UK government in opposition.

Strange, the British UN guy just said it is not a case of automatic sanctions, and support for military action has already been 100% ruled out by the government. If by "painful consequences" the US means military action, it will find the UK government in opposition.

Maybe Canada will support them. Our new PM is a real barrel-sucker.

Where exactly does Bush intend to find the troops if he chooses to invade Iran? We are thin on reserves as it is.

I think the whole world (including most Iranians) feels that Iran should not have weapons of Mass destruction. This is a bit different from Iraq in alot of ways. Iraq always said "no we do not have weapons" as to where Iran is outwardly boasting that they are wanting nuclear capacity and threatening "to wipe Israel off the map" I think there is a much more likely possibility of Israel striking Iran than the US. This could be an interesting pool. I am voting Israel, the last week of July 2006...

:sniper:

Strange, the British UN guy just said it is not a case of automatic sanctions, and support for military action has already been 100% ruled out by the government. If by "painful consequences" the US means military action, it will find the UK government in opposition.
I do hope so.

Where exactly does Bush intend to find the troops if he chooses to invade Iran? We are thin on reserves as it is.
Well apparently Bush's approval ratings are even thinner and Rove thinks that invading Iran will make him more popular.

I don't think there is a real big threat of boots on the ground going into Iran, unless it is UN forces. I want in this pool however, Israel airstrikes will commence the week that contains the day June 30th.. Why, because I said so.

Remember when President Clinton had various airstrikes against Iraq in 1998, stating he was "destroying weapons of mass destruction", the same could happen in IRAN, not necessarily followed by an allout invasion.

I think the whole world (including most Iranians) feels that Iran should not have weapons of Mass destruction. This is a bit different from Iraq in alot of ways. Iraq always said "no we do not have weapons" as to where Iran is outwardly boasting that they are wanting nuclear capacity and threatening "to wipe Israel off the map" I think there is a much more likely possibility of Israel striking Iran than the US. This could be an interesting pool. I am voting Israel, the last week of July 2006...

I think that most Iranians probably do want nuclear bombs, but hey, that's just fear and nationalism at work again. We've seen it a million times before. I doubt the US can invade Iran. I hope Israel sorts them out with an airstrike. That will cause minimal trouble, expense and loss of life.

They should just hurry up and get nukes already.

I do hope so.


Well apparently Bush's approval ratings are even thinner and Rove thinks that invading Iran will make him more popular.

Rove is delusional if he thinks that. :rolleyes:

Rove is delusional if he thinks that. :rolleyes:

I don't think this is the thought of Rove, nor the Republican party as a whole. Most of the modernized world wants to get rid of nuclear weapons in Iran, it is people who are already unhappy with our president that are trying to pin this on "Bush being a war-monger" which is 100% fallacy.

I think that most Iranians probably do want nuclear bombs, but hey, that's just fear and nationalism at work again.

Those are pretty much the reasons any country wants nuclear bombs.

But in the Iranian case, the fear is quite justified.

Well apparently Bush's approval ratings are even thinner and Rove thinks that invading Iran will make him more popular.

Really? In that case, invading China will push his approval ratings to 80%. Complete world domination would result in 95% approval ratings.

I think the whole world (including most Iranians) feels that Iran should not have weapons of Mass destruction. This is a bit different from Iraq in alot of ways. Iraq always said "no we do not have weapons" as to where Iran is outwardly boasting that they are wanting nuclear capacity and threatening "to wipe Israel off the map" I think there is a much more likely possibility of Israel striking Iran than the US. This could be an interesting pool. I am voting Israel, the last week of July 2006...

:sniper:

A sweepstake, would we? I do believe that it will be Israel, but in the first week of september 2006. Theyre patient the Jews are.

Really? In that case, invading China will push his approval ratings to 80%. Complete world domination would result in 95% approval ratings.
That's neoconservative logic (http://www.newamericancentury.org) for you.

Except this time we have France on our side! :D Oh wait...

Really? In that case, invading China will push his approval ratings to 80%. Complete world domination would result in 95% approval ratings.
Haha. Worldwar3.
The US declares war on Canada. But a clerk at the Pentagon accidentily hung the map of N-America upside down. Without anyone noticing. So one day after the DOW US troops cross the river into Mexico to liberate the poor Canadians. A CNN reporter asks the president at a press conference why there are so many brownish looking people up north. Those unfortunates are eskimo's suffering for global warming and cruel Canadian opression he answers. And the next day all of central and south America declares war against the US.:D

I disagree, it isn't Iraq all over again at all, there is one HUGE, fundamental difference - Iran actually DOES possess WMD, Iraq did not, and we knew that.

So don't worry too much, this actually makes war much LESS likely, as even Bush is not dumb enough (one would hope!) to risk having them used against him.

Where exactly does Bush intend to find the troops if he chooses to invade Iran? We are thin on reserves as it is.

Draft, that'll boost not only the strength of the army but his approval ratings as well! There's hundreds of thousandsof teens who want to fight in a war but are too uncertain to sign up.

But a clerk at the Pentagon accidentily hung the map of N-America upside down.

Sadly, that's all too true. Many Americans don't know if Canada is above or below us. :(

I really don't think we should get our pants in a knot over all of this. Just let them have their damn nukes, they're never gonna use 'em. Ours are pretty dustyy, we should fly 'em around a bit to clean 'em off.

Sadly, that's all too true. Many Americans don't know if Canada is above or below us. :(
Apparently Bush thinks Canada borders Mexico. :(

"Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better."
-- In press conference with Canadian PM, and apparently forgetting about the country wedged between Canada and Mexico, Washington, D.C., Sep. 24, 2001

Check this out:

http://www.rense.com/general69/dayone.htm

2008: Everybody gets nukes. Even Togo.

Check this out:

http://www.rense.com/general69/dayone.htm

Sounds like he's giving too much credit to the Iranian defenses. A tad pessimistic.

I want in on the wager... Let's see...
Iran is years away from producing nuclear weapons, do not have ICBM-technology, the current administration lives on fear... Factor in oil, and the fact that Bush is scheduled to leave office after the election in 2008, and that there will be no invasion in the summer due to the heat and the sanctity of the Presidents vacationing-time...

I have concluded that bombing starts the 7th or 13th of september 2008. :cool:

You know Recently I got this Computer Game, CNC Generals Zero hour. In the storyline the US over extends itself in fighting the Terrorists so in the end the US gets it's butt kicked by the terrorists and goes limping home and goes Isolationist and China becomes Europes newest Buddy. I wonder if EA is seeing the future or something?

So don't worry too much, this actually makes war much LESS likely, as even Bush is not dumb enough (one would hope!) to risk having them used against him.

But once he gets Star Wars up and running it'll be A-OK!

Where exactly does Bush intend to find the troops if he chooses to invade Iran? We are thin on reserves as it is.

Not really. There are, what, 150000 in Iraq? Out of over a million?

That's neoconservative logic (http://www.newamericancentury.org) for you.

Woah ... didn't realize they had a website. A non-profit educational organization ... awesome! Do they give tax receipts?

Maybe Canada will support them. Our new PM is a real barrel-sucker.

That is a total understatement! He's a goose-stepping neo-nazi taking after good ol' George to the south of us!

That is a total understatement! He's a goose-stepping neo-nazi taking after good ol' George to the south of us!

Well, maybe a slight exxageration ... but I loved that letter him and Stock wrote to the New York Times telling the US the silent majority of Canadians were behind the invasion of Iraq. They must have been a very silent majority, cause they sure didn't show up in any opinion polls. Then Harper has the nerve during the election to say he wouldn't have sent troops to Iraq!

Our fearless asshole UN ambassador made it plain and clear, that Iraq--I mean, Iran--will face "painful consequences" if it continues with its alleged nuclear weapons program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684031/



Well I was wrong in saying we'd invade Syria next. Looks like it'll be Iran. $5 to whoever correctly guesses the day we'll launch the preemtive strike! :p

i dont think we will do anything to iran in the forseeable future.
worse case scenario is the israili's tell us they are gonna hit em,which we dont want,will upset any hope of any peace process(which i think the iranians want..to destabilize the region for their benefit)so at the worst we will lob some cruise missiles there way to let them know we mean biz....if that dont work...some strategic bombing...but not boots on the ground..we have a very close relationship with iranians..the average iranian..not the nut jobs that seem to be in power ever since the shah.
israel attacking them would throw the region into turmoil,and aside from halliburton and exxon..we dont want that.

I disagree, it isn't Iraq all over again at all, there is one HUGE, fundamental difference - Iran actually DOES possess WMD, Iraq did not, and we knew that.

So don't worry too much, this actually makes war much LESS likely, as even Bush is not dumb enough (one would hope!) to risk having them used against him.

I think if Iran used WMD on the US or US troops, Bush's approval ratings would skyrocket. I mean, it just proves him right, doesn't it? Just shows Iran is a threat and willing to use its WMD. I'm not sure if I support war, but Iran shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons at all. Simply possessing them is bad enough if you're a regime like Iran, but when you go around saying how other countries need to be wiped out...

na england would give its full support when the usa produces the recipts for the nukes it sold iran (remember england's iron ladys lil lad also sold wepons to iraq so we knew what they had lmao)
Then in a pre emptive strike led by special forces the usa go in 4 weeks before any action(ill be surprised if they arnt already there right now targeting things and reporting back) and in a classic milatery manouver they film the invasion on south beach (like they did in dessert strike) to fool the iranian forces into thinking its a water infiltration.
Months after we invade they give us a bill for the damage and we sell back the nukes and arms we took off them at a higer price..... AND WHO SAID WAR ISNT PROFITABLE lol

(unfortunately we/they kill lots of people in the proccess but all good rember the good ol boys are safe in the bunkers commanding disposable assets to maintain the illusion of power :upyours: )
why cant we all just get along.......

Our fearless asshole UN ambassador made it plain and clear, that Iraq--I mean, Iran--will face "painful consequences" if it continues with its alleged nuclear weapons program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684031/



Well I was wrong in saying we'd invade Syria next. Looks like it'll be Iran. $5 to whoever correctly guesses the day we'll launch the preemtive strike! :p


Isreal will make the preemtive attack 12/4-06, and make the day for UK/US

Iran faces “tangible and painful consequences” if it continues its nuclear activities and the United States will use “all tools at our disposal” to stop this threat, a senior U.S. official said Sunday, ahead of a crucial international meeting on Iran.Hm... why do I suddenly get the image of the Walrus using a "board of correction" on the Mullahs? :D

So, that's why they invaded Iraq - to invade Iran.

Our army is stretched almost to the breaking point, we couldn't invade the Easter Islands and win any battles. Go go gadget conscriptionary services! And you know they will call it something happy and daisy and not a "draft" and they will make up entirely different rules which are even more stringent than draft rules all so they don't have to enact the draft and look like even bigger assholes.

First of all, America cannot attack Iran within the coming 20 years. Not because America's forces are limited, not likely, if you add all the soldiers stationed all over the world (without Iraq and Afghanistan) America has more sizable force to go on a second war. Where the twenty years comes from is all about credibility. If WMD was the case to enter Iraq and later that became a false case, then how the rest of world gonna believe that America has found a profound case on Iran which counters their case (it sounds like the kid who cried wolf). Iraq compared with Iran is primarily a smaller nation (by both size of population and size of the country itself) and that means the remaining sizable American troops I was just talking about would have to spread around within the country (Iran) even more. Attacking two countries that neighbor is also a big mistake because your enemies might have a common interest in defeating American troops instead of each other (Shia Arabs vs Sunni Arabs VS Shia Persians (Iranians who are not fully trusted by both Shia Arabs and Sunni Arabs in Iraq)) If America does attack Iran than what will stop Syria from waging their own "pre-emptive war" who also are top on the list (to be attacked) I mean, they might feel that they (Syrians) have nothing to lose. Also, while that might be happening, Muslim nations around the region may be disgusted that their "U.S puppet" leaders (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, and others) are not doing a damn thing to intervene and might try to topple their leaders and appoint more hardcore Islamist leaders (that's just worst case scenario). I'm sure China and Russia might not like what's happening around their neighborhood and might find a solution or might step up and tell the U.S to get out of the region (if you don't believe that might happen, it already did with a country America was trying to station near Afghanistan and both Russia and China asked to leave that region). I don't know what happen after attacking Afghanistan, but I thought the new policy of going to war for the U.S was to fight terrorism but it all seems to do is to create hate and resentment which than leads to terrorism and more of it. Second, without Shia restraints from attacking Americans (all thanks to Shia preachers) and Sunnis, I believe Iraq would have been another Vietnam for America (where the final defeat comes from its own unsatisfied citizens).

Maybe Canada will support them. Our new PM is a real barrel-sucker.

Yeah with what army?

Oh yes, of course if we removed all troops from every post but Iraq and Afghanistan and threw them at Iran, we would have a chance against Iran alone. But to pretend attacking Iran isn't going to piss off major players is ridiculous. Do we have the military ability to fight Russia or China as well?

Our fearless asshole UN ambassador made it plain and clear, that Iraq--I mean, Iran--will face "painful consequences" if it continues with its alleged nuclear weapons program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684031/



Well I was wrong in saying we'd invade Syria next. Looks like it'll be Iran. $5 to whoever correctly guesses the day we'll launch the preemtive strike! :p

Heh, it's like America: Total War with the UN Invasion expansion pack! :p

Canada City']Yeah with what army?

With the huge army Harper is going to build! Beware our polar ice breakers!

With the huge army Harper is going to build! Beware our polar ice breakers!

Hey, you have those neat underwater fireships!

Oh, yeah...

2008: Everybody gets nukes. Even Togo.


IN the bible code, isn't the world supposed to end in 2008....hmmmm

IN the bible code, isn't the world supposed to end in 2008....hmmmm

world was suppsoed to end on 12 december 1998 and to the best of my knowledge it didn't

Canada City']Yeah with what army?

Oh, and don't let our "huge decline" in troop strength fool you. Alot of that was just outsourcing. Functions that were being performed by military personnel are now performed by civilian contractors ... most of whom are former military. Our actual combat strength has declined less than suggested. And part of that is the simple cost of mechanization of the military. Most countries are decreasing troop strength in order to buy the fancy hardware. A fighter plane today costs 50 times in real dollars what it did during WWII. Where are they going to make up the difference?

Maybe Canada will support them. Our new PM is a real barrel-sucker.
I sure as hell hope that Harper won't commit ANY troops to an invasion of Iran or any of kind of attack.

Our fearless asshole UN ambassador made it plain and clear, that Iraq--I mean, Iran--will face "painful consequences" if it continues with its alleged nuclear weapons program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684031/



Well I was wrong in saying we'd invade Syria next. Looks like it'll be Iran. $5 to whoever correctly guesses the day we'll launch the preemtive strike! :p
Late March or early April?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=470452

Bolton has issued the threat. Now we await Iran's response?

Just a thought? IF the US attacks Iran, it just might damage the relationship that the US is trying to build with Iraq? IF the Shias in Iraq rise up against the US forces in Iraq, the US will have her hands full.

I think there is a much more likely possibility of Israel striking Iran than the US. This could be an interesting pool. I am voting Israel, the last week of July 2006...


i agree, we should just let isreal do what the hell they want, there have been many times where isreal is ready to take action but the UN or some other BS org talks them down. i feel this whole anti isreali thing can be over if we just let isreal release its hounds

edit: oh, almost forgot, im going with some time in 2012

I sure as hell hope that Harper won't commit ANY troops to an invasion of Iran or any of kind of attack.

I wouldn't count on him not doing it.

He is, after all, re-opening discussions on missile defence against the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians.