Cheney to become President

Plus I'm pretty sure Iran has a stronger army than Saddam did so the US will have more trouble taking over. Also you'd be surprised at how much support the Islamic government has, most people wouldn't want them to be ousted anyway... the same idiots who overthrew the Shah in 1979. I mean there's widespread disdain for the US in all of Iran so you can imagine how much worse the insurgency would be.

Hope it doesn't happen though, I'll lose any remaining sympathy I have for the US. Not just Iran, if they attack any other countries in fact. I think two is enough for at least a decade. :rolleyes:
 
Well, I think the US has a problem with world sympathy in their quest for.. what?

I mean, there is no one who actually believes that Iraq posed any threath to the United States of America.

So what it boils down to, if we view it objectively, what happened with the war in Iraq, was that the United States of America sent troupes to a country half way round the world, with a deranged leader, to get control of the oil in the country.

If we remember Attlee, it's for the Suez crisis, if we remember Bush, it will be for Iraq.

It won't become bigger than Vietnam, but it will still be a black spot on the US record.

If his Georgeness decides to attack Iran too, it will be.. bad.
 
nomix said:
If we remember Attlee, it's for the Suez crisis, if we remember Bush, it will be for Iraq.
Click to expand...
Er except that it was Eden (who at the time was very ill indeed and it is thought that his judgement was impaired) - also he was a Conservative and not a Labour Politician.
Also the French were there and the US did not support the UK or France. The US threatened to cause a "run" on the pound unless we left PDQ. The situation is similar to Cuba later, in that US interests were nationalised without compensation, but in our case we had to suck it they embargoed Cuba and nearly provoked WW III. The lessons for France and UK were different - we chummed up to the US, whilst France decided never ever to be beholding to the US for their future foreign policy.

The effects of this can be seen today. Most American do not know any of this and are usually bemused by stuff outside their own borders. Oh I forgot and the whole thing was triggered when the US decided to pull the funding of the ASWAN damn - a vital Egyptian interest. We could not or would not stump up the additional cash ourselves.

Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
 
Last edited:
Cobol74 said:
Er except that it was Eden (who at the time was very ill indeed and it is thought that his judgement was impaired) - also he was a Conservative and not a Labour Politician.
Also the French were there and the US did not support the UK or France. The US threatened to cause a "run" on the pound unless we left PDQ. The situation is similar to Cuba later, in that US interests were nationalised without compensation, but in our case we had to suck it they embargoed Cuba and nearly provoked WW III. The lessons for France and UK were different - we chummed up to the US, whilst France decided never ever to be beholding to the US for their future foreign policy.

The effects of this can be seen today. Most American do not know any of this and are usually bemused by stuff outside their own borders. Oh I forgot and the whole thing was triggered when the US decided to pull the funding of the ASWAN damn - a vital Egyptian interest. We could not or would not stump up the additional cash ourselves.

Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
Click to expand...

You have to excuse me. I always mix up Attlee and Eden. I'm generally quite good on 20th century history, it's one of my prime interests, but I do get them wrong. I have no idea why.

He wasn't just ill, he was popping the stuff that helped the Beatles make Rubber Soul. Benzedrine. It's a bit like LSD, I think?

But yes, it was a British-French-Israeli venture. And as for the Americans, I think Ike just told Eden that he wouldn't risk WW3 over it, and would he be so nice as to just stop it.

I also believe the Americans perceived it as a 'colonial war', which wasn't something the US would like to support in the political climate. They did later, but that's another story.

As for Cuba, it wasn't officially a colony, only economically controlled by US interests. And, let's not forget, Castro was ready to deal with the US, and Castro was a whisker away from meeting Ike. Only that cute and cuddly Vice-President of yours, Richard Nixon, had a look at what Castro was doing, told Eisenhover that it was communism, which it actually wasn't, and that he shouldn't bother meeting this commie bandit.

So, instead of starting trade with the US, Castro was in a bit of a problem. What should he do? Let the Cuban economy demolish itself, or maybe..? So he got into contact with comrade Khrutsjov and struck a deal.

So, there you go Mr. Nixon. You made sure that Cuba became communist.

Now, ain't that just perfect?
 
Well, try juggling atomic war while you're on speed. :)
 
I'm gonna list comedy central as a source when I study history at Uni.

:)
 
Pabst Blue Ribbon...an anal remnant of Bush's Yale days...
:lmao: :rofl: :roflmao: :lol: :clap:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top