US attack on Iran 'inconceivable'

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Nov 4, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    Remember this Jack?

    Get in early while stocks last
  2. About the only thing I can see us doing in Iran is an airstrike like the Isreali's did in the 80's.
  3. Saying that it is 'inconceivable' is a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

    As I understand it from the Bush administration and media reports, they are letting diplomacy work. It is my understanding that the IAEA, France, Germany and even the UK are trying to get Iran to stop enriching or aquiring enriched uranium. The dealings and diplomacy doesn't seem to be going very well; considering the fact that the Iranian parliment just passed legislation to go forward with uranium enrichment, and the vote took place to shouts of "Death to America."

    If a deal with Iran can not be reached to stop their efforts to aquire nukes I think you will see attacks by the US against Iran. I agree with Corporal that these attacks will be most likely aerial and less likely to be a ground war. This is not to say that a ground war would not result, and it would most likely occur with Iran stepping over the board into Iraq 8O
  4. I think we should attack Irania. Let's face it, they shouldn't have nukes. They invade other countries on dubious grounds! They are run by religious extremists with mad social views! They sponsor terrorism abroad!
  5. :wink:
  6. Crikey! I now see that what I wrote was open to misinterpretatianism! Us pro Bushies are like that you see.

    I meant :

    We should attack iranistan because they are Brown! And they have Oil! Which we want! And we meant to attack them last time! But there was a typing error! One lousy letter - you'd think these dumbass Ay-rabs would distinguish their lousy countries better than that! It's like Spain being called Bortugal - think of the confusion if that happened. They deserve everything we throw at 'em.

  7. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Very very quick retort I like it B_B
  8. My God, Steamy. If only the official Bush campaign had explained it that well!

    I take back all my previous anti-Bush posts. I am converted by your far-seeing wisdom.

    Thank you for showing me the light!
  9. I suppose you have forgotten British history.
  10. Yes. All of it. Apart from 14th March 1986, about 21.00hrs, back of my land rover. I remember that well.

    Took 3 washes to get the stains out.
  11. World Cup 1966
  12. My underpants after my first attempt at a vindaloo, they should go down in history :wink:
  13. Let's do an ARRSE attack on Iran just to prove Straw wrong.

    about £458 each but I think you still get a discount if you've got a gong from Gulf I.

    Could be a problem getting tooled up though. We may have to use broken grolsch bottles.

    Oh, hang on.....
  14. RTFQ


    You're right tomahawk, our history is particularly chequered, but at least we didn't try to deceive ourselves over the fact we were being batsards. We invaded people because we wanted to rule the world - it was a national past time. Sh1t, we invaded people if they looked at us funny. We didn't need stupid excuses, and we shouldn't now. Iraq needed sorting, so USUK is sorting it. The world is a safer place now that Afghanistan and Iraq has been stamped on - the average squaddie certainly isn't, but that's our job. What we NEVER did was overestimate our political leaders. They were mostly cnuts, we never worshipped our over priviledged, under educated morons-in-chief as "men of the people" just because Fox News told us to.
  15. :lol: :lol: stop it, youre killing me :lol: :lol: