Punch Up

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4794363.stm

"Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says a new Middle East has emerged as
a result of what he called Hezbollah's victory over Israel in southern
Lebanon"

OK shall we start a NG Book on how long Syria and Iran have before they
get a severe kicking from Israel/USA/GB/Saudi Arabia et all?
2nd Book on the form it will take?

# I'm suspecting that at the point Iraqi security is turned over to home
grown troops it'll be Dust Up time. 9 months?
# All weapon producing factories & nuclear installations

if they get bolshy after that

# all main bridges and power generation capacity

<opens popcorn>

 

Sweet or salty?

 

Diabetic = salty

 

Diabetic = inbreeding IIRC

 

You sir, are a bad man. <vbg>

 

and a ****, dont forget.
I've never lived in Norfolk....or Wales

Males Females
Wales 121 118
England 99 100
Scotland 112 103
NI 33 38

1998 diabetes rates. Looks like he was right.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Cane

*Waves webbed fingers*

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - Podium Placed Ducati Race Engineer As featured in
Performance Bikes

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
SBS#39 OMF#6 Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (On its hols) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"
Suzuki TS250 "The Africa Single" Yamaha Vmax Honda ST1100 wiv trailer

 

heh, by all means have the bait but give me the hook back

 

Hog wrote

As long as is doesn't interfere with Iranian date production I don't
give a shit.

Consumes another Israeli Medjool date.

 

But that's what I suggested would happen

I think the volume of weapons did surprise everybody. IMHO Iran has used
the nuclear standoff to take attention away from increased conventional
munitions production. I didn't *actually* support it before, but now
that the cards are down, Hizbolla being a de-facto extension of the
Iranian regime, I think Iran should be taken down and hard. Syria has no
in-depth strength.

 

I don't think so. If they try that then Iraq will immediately go into civil
war - the Shiite majority there would rebel against the American-controlled
puppet government if Iran and Syria are attacked (the only reason it hasn't
happened yet is that the situation has worked to the advantage of the
Shiites up to now). The Iraqi Sunnis won't allow the Shiites to take over
without a fight and while they are attacking each other the Iraqi Kurds
would declare independence (thereby de-stabalising Turkey with its very
substantial Kurdish population's long-standing claims to independent
status). Both Iran and Syria have the means to deliver large conventional
explosive warheads in Israeli cities. The Israelis might then be tempted to
use their nuclear weapons. Meanwhile. Iran may not yet have nuclear weapons
but it has the capacity to create and deliver dirty bombs that could render
large areas of Israel uninhabitable.

The regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia would run the risk of being toppled by
popular uprising if they stood by whilst Iran and Syria were attacked.
Musharraf would be at risk in Pakistan and Pakistan is already a nuclear
state. The other 800,000 or so Muslims around the world would have their
worst fears confirmed - every appearance of another Crusade, provoking
extreme hostility towards the West among many who up to now have been fairly
neutral. Essentially it is a potential WW3 scenario. Even if it didn't lead
to WW3 it would cause a worldwide recession due to skyrocketing oil prices.
The US military may sometimes appear to be stupid but it isn't THAT stupid.
The US Republican administration will have to face elections that it won't
be able to buy or steal so easily this time around. The US public are
starting to become cynical about the the existing situation in Iraq so an
entirely avoidable global conflict would not make an ideal platform for the
next lot of Republican candidates - especially if the net effect of the
conflict is mass bankruptcy and unemployment in the US.

 

No chance. Not for the foreseeable future, as the Merkins and their
allies have their hands full in Iraq. That'll be going on for a few
years to come.

Even then, I think that the rest of the world will have something to
say about it because there is no justification. There is no proof of
WMD in Iran at this time. Syria is a two-bit nation that likes to shout
and scream, but has no force elsewhere.

Again, if the Merkins do wade in to Iran and Syria, Iraq will seem like
a walk in the park. If Israel does the business, then it'll be wiped
off the face of the planet.

 

Are they not targetting a hand over to Iraqi forces within 6-9 months?

I would say there is plenty of justification and it doesn't really
matter any more what a few other nations think

Not a land invasion, just an aerial bombardment against infrastructure.
I imagine the US and Israel could keep them both in the stoneage for
ever.

 

Heh, I like your reply better than mine, even though it's saying pretty
much the same thing (with a few other points, with which I totally
agree).

 

Heh, they've announced or tried that already a couple of times. If the
Merkins pull out now, the country will totally disintegrate. It's
already at breaking point as it is. The Merkins and Allies will be
there for the foreseeable future IMO, as the Iraqi government will
request that they stay to assist.

Oh, don't forget all the other Arabic countries in the region (yes, I
know Iran is Persian, but they're close enough). They're a force to be
reckoned with. Furthermore, most Arabic nations said nothing about the
invasion of Iraq because very few really liked Saddam anyway. Attack
Iran or Syria without proper justification and the whole region will
break down. I really belive that if the US continue their existing
foreign policy in the ME and "punish" Syria and Iran, that WWIII will
start from there.

I think you should read TMacks post. It says it all very nicely.

 

Woo Hoo the End Day theory!! I doubt many tears would be shed for Iran

I just don't buy it all. I know it sounds logical but then you really
wouldn't have expected the Iraq invasion or recent Lebanon spat to
happen quite as they did. OTOH the Yanks have let Iran alone for the
past 26 years but that was before the Nuclear issue came up and before
NK did it's thing.

Actually I'm slightly surprised NK hasn't just sold the Iranians the
wherewithal.

 

I think a percentage of the 1.4 thousand million Muslims may have
something to say about it.

Interestingly enough, I wanted to check with wikipedia the number of
Muslims in the world and the article on Islam has been locked, as
people 'vandalise' the page.

Well, the Merkins won't get involved in NK, as they have too much to
lose now. If there ever was a rogue state, NK is that state. Why do you
think that the Merkins are playing the game ever so softly there?

Just because both states have a common enemy [1], doesn't mean that
they always collaborate. I don't think that there's an interest in
cooperation.

[1] Just because they both don't like the US, doesn't make the US an
enemy, I suppose.

 

.... but that aside, shall I put you down as a "yes"?
--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/CBX1000Z
|_\_____/_| ..82016../..22238.../..31893.
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 WG*
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 PM#5
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17 IbB#4 YTC#4 two#11
'^' RBR Clues: 27 Pts: 490 Miles:1992

 

And don't forget that China, Iraq and Venezuela have all been whispering
sweet nothings to each other lately. A rather nasty combination in
terms of oil wealth and a huge (indirect) influence over the American
economy.

You only need a few wrong moves and the world collapses into a
recession. While Al Qaeda and the like quite enjoy murdering people
much of their malign influence is targeted at the Western economic
system. Old Bin Lid knows how it all works and thus how to make it
falter. What does the West hate more than its people being shot at? - a
decline in the prosperity of its citizens. What gets political parties
voted out? - economic mismanagement.

This is a "game" being played out on several fronts at once.

 

Unless the US/Israel/AIPAC lot go in with nukes straight away, they're in
for a severe kicking from Iran. The US has huge numbers of troops in big,
well-defined concentrations in Iraq, in easy missile range of Iran. These
will be the first targets to be hit, if Iran has the slightest approximation
of a clue, followed closely by any US warships in the Gulf and miscellaneous
US assets around the Caspian Sea.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/

Unlike the US armed forces, the Iranian armed forces haven't been fought to
a standstill by Iraqi insurgents. The US can't commit their forces to Iran
without easing up on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would result in Iraq and
Afghanistan going up in chunks.

Unlike Lebanon, Iran is armed to the teeth.

India has just gotten into bed with the US - who's to say that elements
within India's old enemy, the nuclear-armed state of Pakistan, haven't found
reason to get into bed with Iran, to the extent of slipping them a couple of
nukes? In any case, Pakistan is one assassination away from electing a
fundamentalist Islamic government.

If I was the US, I'd stick to hot air and sabre-rattling.