retired_autumn

War on Smug doesn't win elections.

retired_mandyg

Of all the countries you picked two of the smuggies.

You need to go for Greenland and Wales or something. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah Greenland can be let off and the Welsh are too useless to be smug.

Obviously this is designed to end up invading the Yanks, who are smugness personified. Unfortunately, we need them on board for it to work so some sort of self-nuking will be required but I'm sure if I can get a few celebrity endorsements it'll work out ok.

Iran are pretty smug too, iirc, so I fully support the forthcoming war.

retired_ks reddy

Then just glory in your ill gotten smuggery.

retired_jenn912010

Can't see many negatives to a war with Iran, besides the fact that we can't afford it, financially speaking, because of New Labour's gutting of the Forces.

I mean, it's not as if there's much international opinion to lose, and with the French in tow, it might stop the rest of the EU from whining.

retired_ks reddy

With their current crop of politicians I see vassilisation followed by annexation as the more viable option.

retired_ks reddy

They've only gutted the infantry. Iran is the kind of war where for once the other bastards can earn their pay.

retired_mandyg

Good to see you somewhat sensibly ignored the loss of human life and preferred, instead, to focus on whether we can afford it or not in your list of possible negatives.

Pragmatism ftw. :thup:

retired_jenn912010

They won't though, will they? The RAF have sod all in the way of aircraft that can do the job at hand- which is why the US air force keeps bailing us out in Afghanistan.

retired_ks reddy

Pragmatism indeed. Iran has a massive unemployment problem, so we'd be doing everyone a favour.

retired_jenn912010

Some loss of human life is a given. Our soldiers sign up knowing there's a decent chance someone will shoot at them. Do it right and casualties on both sides are kept to a minimum. It's messy occupations that cause the real problems.