Author Topic: Iran (Read 3052 times)

patrone · « **Reply #120 on:** January 17, 2005, 10:23:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Heck the USA till 1941 was just as neutral as Sweden.

Yep, just as "neutral"

The swedes sent the nazis steel, gave them much acess to cross the country and were generally helpful. The USA sent the Allies materials, weaopns and we were generally helpful.

So you see not much difference at all, shame on you NUKE.

Dont forget, we sold steel to the Allies as well.

And, yes, it was very shamefull of us to let their trains pass through our country. Then again, study the map a little and tell us who would have come to our rescue if the germans ever invaded?

We where a little to difficult to invade, a high risk, Sweden is a very big country by EU messure, with very difficult terrain at parts, just like Norway.
We just didnt want to make it worth the risk.

NUKE · « **Reply #121 on:** January 17, 2005, 10:25:05 PM »

Patrone, please come back when you are not high on heroin.

Thanks

NUKE · « **Reply #122 on:** January 17, 2005, 10:28:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by patrone
We where a little to difficult to invade, a high risk, Sweden is a very big country by EU messure, with very difficult terrain at parts, just like Norway.
We just didnt want to make it worth the risk.

And America was seperated by oceans, impossible to invade....yet we fought in Europe to defeat the axis. I guess we figured it was worth it, unlike disgraceful Sweden.

I guess Sweden didn't give a damn about who won and got lucky that other nations defended against Germany.

Sweden was a disgrace in WWII. I'd call them ******* actually.

patrone · « **Reply #123 on:** January 17, 2005, 11:22:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Oh yes new role. Sure the euros have been participants and even leaders in minior UN or NATO crisis situatuions but when it really came to serious stuff the USA, naturally as western superpower lead the way. In the new world where the EU is trying it as a new independant force how will your people adjust? Who will you blame for the inevitable failures? Or the difficulties? No need to take insult but europe has had the comfort of blaming the usa for every bad thing, what will yiou do when u are in cahrge of something serious - turn on each other?

After the bombings 911 the whole world was behind you. My goverment even went against our own constitution, to back you up.

Kadaffi and Saddam even sent their regards to you, condemning the attack. What more could you have asked for? (We sent troops to Afghanistan and as I know they are still there).

Then, the Iraq issue came up and you got a little to greedy......
To use all this support to make something most of the world did´nt agree with you on.
You tried to bribe your way thru SC. used false papers from Nigeria....to prove your case was valid.
Bush wanted to be a man of action, to get his next turn as well, in the white house. To make a name in the history books: And he sure has done it, maybe not a very honourble place, as he will be put in the "bad guys" section, along with Stalin, Hitler, De clerk, Pinochet, Franco, Ho Chi Min......(list is long, but I think he will be put fairly high in that list)

And, you guys have to defend your votes to your children, just like the Germans had to do: "We really did´nt know better"

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #124 on:** January 17, 2005, 11:29:26 PM »

So after all that posing as a reasonable and nuanced type you are back to Bush is Hitler and America is Nazi Germany, neat...

Carbo this is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned you EU types having to adjust to new roles if you really wanna execrise some leadership and responsibility in the world as the new military patrons of the UN (going by your scenario of the US not being in UN)... With the USA no longer playing this role who will you demonize when things dont go perfectly smoothly?

NUKE · « **Reply #125 on:** January 17, 2005, 11:31:25 PM »

Crabbo, please come back to us after you have stopped using heroin.

NUKE · « **Reply #126 on:** January 17, 2005, 11:36:05 PM »

Bush "wanted to be a man of action" LOL

Sweden "wanted to be neutral" yet still critisizes everyone else who takes a stand. WTG Sweden!

patrone · « **Reply #127 on:** January 17, 2005, 11:37:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So after all that you are back to Bush is Hitler and America is Nazi Germany, neat...

No, not really this onesided, but to me, he is not the good guy.

Just wanted to give you a little hint, what the rest of the world thinks of him and saying: In 20 years, you might have changed your opinon about him as well. So don´t defend him to much.

I can not agree that Bush is Hitler, No. I admit that It was not very vice to bring up the last post with "bad guy list".

Thanks, by the way, for nice and intellegent postings in this thread, GRUN.

NUKE · « **Reply #128 on:** January 17, 2005, 11:39:06 PM »

Crabbo is high on heroin.

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #129 on:** January 17, 2005, 11:54:39 PM »

Although they are not the target more children will die. And more children loosing their parents in the USA.

Since the end of the cold war we looking for possible enemys instead of possible friends.

we will never learn i guess .

Isn't it great going to war.

The best tactic is to prevent a war not start one.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #130 on:** January 17, 2005, 11:58:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Scaevola

My My we are sensitive aren't we.
Please insert name calling below[/U]

All in all though I would rather be "Eurotrash" than "redneck/trailer park-trash".

You fell on your own sword idiot.

Karaya

Masherbrum · « **Reply #131 on:** January 18, 2005, 12:15:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by babek-
But if there is an attack against Iran - either simple missile/air strikes against installations or a full scale invasion - these innerpolitical fightings will stop immediately.
Then the Mullahs will get the full support from all iranians because we always fight those who attack Iran.

The same happened when Saddam and his arab hordes tried to invade Iran and steal our province Khusistan, which the arabs define as "Arabistan" because there is a strong arab minority.

With this action Saddam had stabilized Khomeini, becuase all iranian political factions who were fighting for power after the deposal of the Shah - including the communist Tudeh party - unified to fight the aggressors.

Iran is much larger than our small neighbors Iraq or Afghanistan and also not a nice flat desert country like Iraq.
We have a population of 60 millions - most young men and women who are actually not anti-american but will become in the same moment when we are under attack.

If there is no invasion - but only missile attacks - the Mullahs will make a party. Because then their regime has been stabilized for decades and the damage done to installations could be repaired or replaced easily. Just because there are many countries in the world who will sell everthing to Iran if they just get enough money.

And there is also no iranian opposition outside Iran, which is accepted by the iranian people.

The Royalist are telling nice stories and dreaming about reinstalling the Pahlavi-dynasty. But fact is that the Shah and his terror hasnt been forgotten.

The so called democrats with this creature Radjavi are nothing else than traitors and hated by iranians. Their terrorist-fighters were fighting against Iran during the Iran-Iraq-War side by side with arabs.

The most tragic aspect is, that it is ignored that the iranians of today are not anti-american.

The mullah-propaganda tried to manipulate the iranians by showing the pictures from Iraq day by day. But even the shocking pictures from US-prisons in Iraq where iraquis were forced by US-soldiers to perform homosexual perversities havent had the results the mullahs hoped: The vast majority of the iranians still remain neutral.

An attack against Iran would change this completely.

60 million?

I remember in 1991 when Saddam's "Army" had in excess of 30 million "men". I remember when in 1991 they said Operation Desert Storm would be "The Next Vietnam". Yeah, 5 months later it was over. Population counts mean diddly-sh**.

What I find funny is the following. It is a "Jyhad" when another country attacks an Islamic country. However, terrorist groups in their countries that kill are not.

Karaya

Masherbrum · « **Reply #132 on:** January 18, 2005, 12:26:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by patrone
As questions been raised by the "grey mass" about France and its defeat.

France stood up together with England from the very Start of WWII. The only reason England got away, not being invaded, was because of the geographic position: Being an Island.

(And because Churchills hate to Communism, Hitler was really naive to think he could have separate peace with England.)

Where was WW I fought?

Who took the largest risk declearing a war on its very neighbour?

Stood up? Their moronic use of their Tanks cost them from the get go. Believe it or not, the French tanks were equal to if not, better than the Panzer 1's and 2's the Germans used to attack the French. One must NEVER forget the "Maginot Line" either.

You left out "Neville Chamberlain". Remeber the stories of Hitler and him getting so drunk, that Neville allowed the Germans to grab Sudetenland, Czechoslavkia, Austria without rebuttal?

Yeah, Churchill hated Communism? This is the most ignorant statement I've seen yet in this ebtire thread. If he "hated Communism" so much, why did Roosevelt AND Churchill hang the Poles out to dry from 1939 ON, and allow it to be carved up by those "Hated Communists"?

Karaya

Vudak · « **Reply #133 on:** January 18, 2005, 12:29:06 AM »

Just curious but if we were to go into Iran, what would we do about Iraq?

And does anyone else think perhaps a large part of the reason we went to Iraq was so we'd have a launching pad for an attack against what many consider a graver threat, Iran?

It would be much more difficult to attack Iran without first controlling land next to it, after all.

... Said the fellow who couldn't be bothered reading most of the posts (can you blame me though, half of them are just two people having duels anyway)

patrone · « **Reply #134 on:** January 18, 2005, 12:31:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
60 million? I remember in 1991 when Saddam's "Army" had in excess of 30 million "men". I remember when in 1991 they said Operation Desert Storm would be "The Next Vietnam". Yeah, 5 months later it was over. Population counts mean diddly-sh**.

Karaya

Remember that Iraq had been in a hughe, long war with its neighbour, Iran, not to long before 1991. They lost millions of soldiers.

I would´nt bang my chest to hard over "the Victory".

And after that attack, you kinda "boggered out" leaving Saddam in power and the ****es to try to liberate themself.

And to become a "Next Vietnam" you really needed to stay a little. Just like you did this time. If you know what I mean.......maybe not "next nam" yet.......but pretty close...

And 60 is a little more then 30, actully double the size....