Iranian leader denies Holocaust

[Volourn]

Bush is not perfect. He's mad ehis share of errors. Including some big ones. I also didn't vote for him either time ( " ); but he's done an okay. The US's economy is on the rise, Iraq while it's been and will continue to be a bumpy road is still moving along and certainly is better than what they had prior to the war. I should point out, wher'e all the talk about Amerikan jobs. I remember when people were quick to attack Bush for all the job losses. Where are those same people when month after month jobs are being created en masse? Hmm.

 

As for the topic, the Iranian leader is a joke. But, hey we Westerners believe in 'free speech' so he can say what he wants and then we cna make fun of him for his ridiculous believes. Hahaha.

 

Everyone wins.

[Laozi]

I remember when people were quick to attack Bush for all the job losses. Where are those same people when month after month jobs are being created en masse? Hmm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ya the new jobs are great, too bad they don't pay nearly as well as the ones that have been lost.

[Volourn]

Ya, because only minimum wage jobs are being created, and million dollars jobs are being sent over seas. Hahaha. Ya, right.

[Kalfear]

LOL, I wont get into the Bush /anti Bush stuff.

 

All Ill say is this new Iranian Leader is going to be trouble for EVERYONE!

[Laozi]

Ya, because only minimum wage jobs are being created, and million dollars jobs are being sent over seas. Hahaha. Ya, right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

You might be exaggerating a bit, but you seem to have the basic principal down.

 

 

Who's the big winner to day, Volourn thats who

[Commissar]

Ya, because only minimum wage jobs are being created, and million dollars jobs are being sent over seas. Hahaha. Ya, right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right. Nobody's farming computer-related work over to India, for example. They're not known for their programmers.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Bush has created jobs. All you have to do sign the dotted line and you can be enlisted into the military.

[Kinslayer]

Back on topic:

 

You should note people that president Ahmadinejad isn't Iran's first in command, the true leader in Iran is the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who succeeded the revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The supreme leader has control over the military, judiciary and any critical policy matter, both domestic and foreign. The president on the other hand sets the country's economic policies and has a nominal rule in other governmental matters including security and intelligence.

 

This is the true cappo in Iran.....

[Ellester]

Ya, because only minimum wage jobs are being created, and million dollars jobs are being sent over seas. Hahaha. Ya, right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually the x-generation, which is people who are in the 30

[Kinslayer]

Ya, because only minimum wage jobs are being created, and million dollars jobs are being sent over seas. Hahaha. Ya, right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually the x-generation, which is people who are in the 30

[Surreptishus]

Back on topic:

 

You should note people that president Ahmadinejad isn't Iran's first in command, the true leader in Iran is the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who succeeded the revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The supreme leader has control over the military, judiciary and any critical policy matter, both domestic and foreign. The president on the other hand sets the country's economic policies and has a nominal rule in other governmental matters including security and intelligence.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Iranian president maybe gambling on the assumption that there will be no action against Iran. At least none that is meaningful.

 

The UN is impotent. The US doesnt have the resources or political will to commit to yet another military engagement. Iran will be in a position to develop their own nukes if they so opted. Ahmadinjad must be feeling pretty c0cky.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Surreptishus

[Volourn]

That was Saddam's thinking... and, that thinking led him to spoend months inside a hole in the ground and then more months in prison. Not exactly the best thinking.

[kumquatq3]

In Irans case, not sure we needs tons of boots on the ground to get the job done, at least for awhile.

 

 

 

I LOVE this: Widely condemned remarks by Iran's president about Israel and the Holocaust were "misunderstood" by Western governments, the country's interior minister has said.

[Hildegard]

In Irans case, not sure we needs tons of boots on the ground to get the job done, at least for awhile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If war erupts you'll need 'tons of boots'....

 

 

I LOVE this: Widely condemned remarks by Iran's president about Israel and the Holocaust were "misunderstood" by Western governments, the country's interior minister has said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

^Classic attempt of damage control.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Hildegard

[Commissar]

In Irans case, not sure we needs tons of boots on the ground to get the job done, at least for awhile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If war errupts you'll need 'tons of boots'....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

War wouldn't erupt.

[Hildegard]

In Irans case, not sure we needs tons of boots on the ground to get the job done, at least for awhile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If war errupts you'll need 'tons of boots'....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

War wouldn't erupt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

War will erupt in late 06 or in the beginning of 07.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Hildegard

[Dark Wastl]

That was Saddam's thinking... and, that thinking led him to spoend months inside a hole in the ground and then more months in prison. Not exactly the best thinking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Iran isn't Iraq.

There is quite a difference between a country that was controlled (and weakened) for over a decade by UN-sanctions against pretty much everything and a country that could buy anything it wants on the world market.

Not to forget, Iraq was ruled by a secular ruler, unlike Iran. In addition to that, Saddam wasn't exactly popular in parts of the population. I think you could expect the Iranians to defend their country a bit more fanatically than the Iraqis did, especially if their government plays the " the west wants to destroy the Islam" card.

[Commissar]

That was Saddam's thinking... and, that thinking led him to spoend months inside a hole in the ground and then more months in prison. Not exactly the best thinking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Iran isn't Iraq.

There is quite a difference between a country that was controlled (and weakened) for over a decade by UN-sanctions against pretty much everything and a country that could buy anything it wants on the world market.

Not to forget, Iraq was ruled by a secular ruler, unlike Iran. In addition to that, Saddam wasn't exactly popular in parts of the population. I think you could expect the Iranians to defend their country a bit more fanatically than the Iraqis did, especially if their government plays the " the west wants to destroy the Islam" card.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt it.

 

Even if they do, so what? The US hasn't lost a platoon-level or greater engagement in the Middle East...ever. And believe me, we'd kill for some good old-fashioned symmetric warfare these days.

[Lucius]

That was Saddam's thinking... and, that thinking led him to spoend months inside a hole in the ground and then more months in prison. Not exactly the best thinking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Iran isn't Iraq.

There is quite a difference between a country that was controlled (and weakened) for over a decade by UN-sanctions against pretty much everything and a country that could buy anything it wants on the world market.

Not to forget, Iraq was ruled by a secular ruler, unlike Iran. In addition to that, Saddam wasn't exactly popular in parts of the population. I think you could expect the Iranians to defend their country a bit more fanatically than the Iraqis did, especially if their government plays the " the west wants to destroy the Islam" card.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're absolutely right. Besides, I don't think the republicans wants to lose all remaining chances of a reelection.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Lucius

[Ellester]

With all do respect, can you please create a thread of you own so this one doesn't get all spammed up since you demos obviously can't control your Bush-bashing as usual

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually it had nothing to do with Bush, it was a comment about the situation the x-generation is in financially. Also I would like to know how I've somehow magically now become a Bush basher. I never knew I was one, well whatever....

 

And I sorta agree with Dark Wastl, but in a different light. There was a lot of Iraqi

Edited December 16, 2005 by Ellester

[Hildegard]

You're absolutely right. Besides, I don't think the republicans wants to lose all remaining chances of a reelection.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's excatly my point....the US Congressional elections of 2006 will be held on November 7, 2006. It is improbable that the United States would launch strikes against Iran in the run-up to the election. However, as soon as the election concludes, domestic political inhibitions about the uncertain consequences of striking Iran would be greatly diminished. Some analysts predict that Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon as early as 2006. As of mid-2003 the CIA reportedly assessed that Iran was two or three years away from developing nuclear weapons....so in my view the possible war could start in the in 07.

 

BTW, anyone who says that Iran would be a cakewalk like Iraq doesn't know one thing what he's talking about.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Hildegard

[Commissar]

BTW, anyone who says that Iran would be a cakewalk like Iraq doesn't know one thing what he's talking about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, you're the expert.

[Volourn]

"BTW, anyone who says that Iran would be a cakewalk like Iraq doesn't know one thing what he's talking about."

 

That depends on the approach the US uses. The US Coalition used kid gloves in the war with Iraq.

 

And, people seem to be overestimating the Iranian people's love for the Iranian leadership.

 

Would it be cakewalk? It depends on what the goal would be. If it's just the removal of nuclear power from Iran; I doubt it be that hard. If it's the rmeoval of the Iranian leadership which would mean having troops inside Iranian cities then the US woudl likely meet the same problems they have in Iraq.

 

Don't forget the Iranians are so advanced that they blame the US for their plane crashing awhile back because the US limited their ability to purchase parts.. Haha.

 

I should point out, however, I don't see a war with Iran happening anytime soon and likely definitely not on Bush's watch.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Volourn

[Hildegard]

BTW, anyone who says that Iran would be a cakewalk like Iraq doesn't know one thing what he's talking about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, you're the expert.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

If you think I'm so wrong then prove me wrong in a more constructive way rather then cheap sarcasm.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Hildegard

[Volourn]

"If you think I'm so wrong then prove me wrong in a more constructive way rather then cheap sarcasm."

 

No way to really prove any right or wrong on this issue on the war actually happens. Afterall, war is very much unpredictable.