The Israel-Iran War ?

[CountDeMoney]

Mongers is second only to Timmay in retarda-threads.

I don't know, i think mongers is worst. remember the "what tree are you" thread?

Meh, Mongers does it out of boredom;  Timmay does it because he's got, like, Asparagus Syndrome, or some other malady that keeps him perpetually golly gosh gee 13 years old.

[jimmy olsen]

Mongers is second only to Timmay in retarda-threads.

I don't know, i think mongers is worst. remember the "what tree are you" thread?

Meh, Mongers does it out of boredom;  Timmay does it because he's got, like, Asparagus Syndrome, or some other malady that keeps him perpetually golly gosh gee 13 years old.

Only on the internet.

Anyways lets get back on the subject of Iran.

How do you guys see the new revelations playing out?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/with_iran_the_cuban_missile_cr.html

With Iran, 'The Cuban Missile Crisis in Slow Motion'

Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who is one of America's leading security strategists, likes to speak of the U.S.-Iranian nuclear confrontation as "the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion." Well, on Friday morning, that slow-mo process started moving a little faster, as President Obama issued a stark warning about a secret Iranian project that poses a "direct challenge" to the international order.

World leaders used language this morning that described a dangerous ladder of escalation ahead. Obama said Iran will be "held accountable" for its actions. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that unless Iran changes its nuclear stance by December, harsher sanctions will be imposed. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, normally no Churchill, said there was "no choice today but to draw a line in the sand."

Allison's Cuban analogy may strike some people as alarmist, but it seems more and more apt to me. The United States and its allies have caught Iran cheating, again, on International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards -- this time by building a second undeclared enrichment facility in a mountain near Qom. It was an Iranian effort to gain leverage, reminiscent of Moscow's moves in Cuba in 1962 as described by Allison in his classic book, "Essence of Decision."

The Iranians outed their covert project in a lame, obtuse letter to the IAEA last Monday. But they must have suspected that the U.S., which has covertly monitored this breakout since the Bush administration, was about to blow the whistle.

A senior Obama administration official described the enrichment facility as a "hardened" facility, built to withstand attack, which has been under construction for several years. Constructing this mountain fortress was a significant Iranian move, since if it had remained undiscovered, it would have allowed them to keep pushing toward bomb production even if the Natanz enrichment site were taken out in a bombing attack or closed through negotiations. Basically, it gave them the ability to cheat.

So why didn't the Obama administration lay down an even stronger marker in response to this breakout -- by threatening, say, to intercept ships at sea that it believed were carrying parts for the Iranian nuclear program?

The answer, explained the senior official in a telephone interview, is that the U.S. wants to preserve consensus among its allies for much harsher sanctions, even as it heads toward a face-to-face negotiating meeting with the Iranians on Oct. 1.The U.S. has privately communicated with the Iranians in recent days that it wants those talks to go forward, the senior official said.

Obama's consensus-building seems to be working: The U.S. briefed top Russian officials this week on the intelligence about the Iranian covert enrichment site. "They are now much more prone to join us" in backing tough sanctions if Iran doesn't back down, the senior official said. "They have been bamboozled by the Iranians. They're pretty mad."

If the negotiations fail and Iran makes a further breakout toward weapons capability, "we could always escalate," says the senior administration official. It's hard to see how this one will end short of military confrontation if the Iranians don't start bargaining for real.

[Josquius]

They may soon have nothing left to lose.

Still, even after the last 'election' crap they're not a out and out evil dictatorship. They're not exactly going to see the writing on the wall, the rebels at the gates and decide there's nothing for it, they should launch the nukes.
Even full-on, no pretensions of democracy dictators never did that.

I agree with Agelastus I guess.
Chances of aerial skirmishing/Israel bombing Iran a little- quite high. This will also lead to increased terrorism.
A actual war? Nah.

[jimmy olsen]

They may soon have nothing left to lose.

Still, even after the last 'election' crap they're not a out and out evil dictatorship.

[Warspite]

What colours are each side's counters?

[Viking]

What colours are each side's counters?

Israel light blue text on white background
Iran black text on brown background (hard to read )
Revolutionary guard have green text on brown background (easy to read)
US white on blue
UK white on blue with "Uk" [sic] in corner
Iraq black on blue
Kurds white on blue with black stripe
Gulf Arabs white on blue with yellow stripe
Saudis white on green

[Eddie Teach]

Meh, Mongers does it out of boredom;  Timmay does it because he's got, like, Asparagus Syndrome, or some other malady that keeps him perpetually golly gosh gee 13 years old.

One of the main symptoms of Asperger's is lack of empathy; that is a terrible diagnosis.

[The Brain]

Better break it to Timmay gently then.

[Tamas]

What colours are each side's counters?

Israel light blue text on white background
Iran black text on brown background (hard to read )
Revolutionary guard have green text on brown background (easy to read)
US white on blue
UK white on blue with "Uk" [sic] in corner
Iraq black on blue
Kurds white on blue with black stripe
Gulf Arabs white on blue with yellow stripe
Saudis white on green

Great, now I want to play TOAW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!