War on Iran
I still think this is sort of inevitable, so place your bets.
I say 27 March 2007. Plucked that number of out of thin air, so let's see how far off I am. (you can quote me fore integrity if you wish, otherwise I could be tempted to change the date to the correct one once the war starts... not that I cannot edit anyone else's posts :P)
A related story from BBC News: [quote][size=18]US accuses Iran over Iraq bombs[/size]
The US military has accused the "highest levels" of Iran's government of supplying increasingly sophisticated roadside bombs to Iraqi insurgents.
Senior defence officials told reporters in Baghdad that the bombs were being used to deadly effect, killing more than 170 US troops since June 2004.
The weapons known as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) are capable of destroying an Abrams tank.
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6351257.stm]Read More...[/url][/quote]
This highly sophisticated weapon is putting a quarter ince thick of steel on one side of the explosive, and a 3 quarter inch thick piece on the other.
Upon explosion the onequarter inch think piece will disentegrate, but the three quarter inch think plate will be launched as a projectile. an armour piercing projectile.
You would not want to be on either side of this, but if the three quarter inch plate is facing, say an Abrams tank, it has a very good chance to pierce it's armour (obviously depending on the distance, amount and power of explosive used).
Very sophisticated. Too sophisticated. It is not as if some could just bolt two steel plates around an explosive. (Yes I am being sarcastic.)
War on Iran
War on Iran
[quote="Ya'qub"]
I meant that it was stupid, insensitive and downright nasty to take delight in drawing comparisions to a nuclear bomb that killed somewhere between 135,000 to 200,000 people[/quote]
If your reasoning suggests to you that Iran was taking a delight at deaths of Japanese vicitims of American terrorism than I rest my case; because my earlier reply is then established.
War on Iran
my suggestion was that Iran was taking delight in soon having the power to cause that many deaths themselves, and were trying to scare the Americans by drawing the comparision.
Which is what I thought was sick.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not Iran 'stand-up' to the USA or how 'humiliating' this is for them.
I meant that it was stupid, insensitive and downright nasty to take delight in drawing comparisions to a nuclear bomb that killed somewhere between 135,000 to 200,000 people, only two generations ago. Especially when you consider that Iran is claiming that it is not developing its own nuclear weapons at the moment.
If all 'Islamic states' are run by people like that, I'm much happier living under the kafirun.