TWO WARS - Against Terrorists

Two Wars Against Terrorists.

T.W.A.T.?! :twisted:

Sorry, could'nt resist it...I'll get me coat... :oops:
Seriously, some interesting points. But nothing that has'nt been said before.
I have to say I find myself increasingly in agreement. F22s over Tehran? Why stop there?

Win the war.

Then write the history.
While I am against half-measures, and I must say this whole "war" has been one of half-measures because it's an affair entirely run by politicians trying to win votes, bombing Iran might be a bad move. It's probably what the Ayas want, because it would give them the "proof" that Iran is under perpetual threat from the USA.
When you think about it, they have the US/UK/EU in the corner, because there's no way they can get out of this without losing something.

- You bomb them, and they get to use it as political ammo around the whole Mid-East. Not to mention, the US public will go bat-sh*t because they're already tired of the war in Iraq, and won't be too keen on fighting another war next door.

- Or, you sanction them, which takes forever, and just leaves them open to trade with everyone that doesnt care about sanctions. They have a lot of red and on their flag, with a few yellowy-starry things on it.

- Or you invade and topple them, which would be rather nasty since they seem to have a lot more popular support than Uncle Saddam did, and the Military of those states up against Iran is rather stretched at present. Well, at least the Militaries of two of them are, and the other ones are beset by a public who are in a thouroughly contrary mood when it comes to Americans, and another is stuck with a consitution that doesn't entirely let them do the whole "war" thing.
Plus occupying Iran would be like occupying Iraq, but without the sides to play off against eachother, and twice as many people.

So it's all a bit custard for now I think. Buggered if I know what to do, maybe the septics should just bribe them.

Similar threads

Latest Threads