"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Scooby Doo" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in :

washingtonpost.com
Israel Warns of Iran Nuclear Plans

By GAVIN RABINOWITZ
The Associated Press
Monday, August 1, 2005; 7:33 PM



JERUSALEM -- Israeli officials expressed alarm Monday over Iran's
decision to resume uranium processing, warning that unless the
international community steps up pressure on the Islamic state, Iran
will develop nuclear weapons.


Back atcha:

August 1, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

Deep Background

In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around
the
administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for
Iran.
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick
Cheney's
office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with
drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another
9/11-
type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-
scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical
nuclear
weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets,
including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites.
Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not
be
taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the
case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being
involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.
Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are
reportedly
appalled at the implications of what they are doing-that Iran is being
set
up for an unprovoked nuclear attack-but no one is prepared to damage his
career by posing any objections.

Stay with the action. ;-)

I posted that here a week ago when I wrote:

" The plans are already drafted to destroy Iran should another 9/11-type
attack occur...particularly if it's with WMD. " (NOYB, July 27th)

How big a "mass" does a weapon need to kill in order to fit your
definition?

More than one American...or more than 1000 Muslims.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Scooby Doo" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in
:

washingtonpost.com
Israel Warns of Iran Nuclear Plans

By GAVIN RABINOWITZ
The Associated Press
Monday, August 1, 2005; 7:33 PM



JERUSALEM -- Israeli officials expressed alarm Monday over Iran's
decision to resume uranium processing, warning that unless the
international community steps up pressure on the Islamic state, Iran
will develop nuclear weapons.


Back atcha:

August 1, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

Deep Background

In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around
the
administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for
Iran.
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick
Cheney's
office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with
drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another
9/11-
type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-
scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical
nuclear
weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets,
including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites.
Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not
be
taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the
case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being
involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.
Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are
reportedly
appalled at the implications of what they are doing-that Iran is being
set
up for an unprovoked nuclear attack-but no one is prepared to damage
his
career by posing any objections.

Stay with the action. ;-)

I posted that here a week ago when I wrote:

" The plans are already drafted to destroy Iran should another
9/11-type attack occur...particularly if it's with WMD. " (NOYB, July
27th)

How big a "mass" does a weapon need to kill in order to fit your
definition?

More than one American...or more than 1000 Muslims.




Meaningless, as expected.

Do you consider the ramp-up of Iran's nuclear program a success for the
Bush Administration's foreign policy? How about President Bush's
schmoozing with Vladimir Putin, asking him to not give (or sell,
actually) the Iranians any nuclear material, which they went ahead and
did anyway?


NOYB wrote:
Diplomacy would have done nothing to halt either action from taking place.

I didn't say 'diplomacy' I said 'foreign policy.' Neither President
Bush's soapy smile nor his saber-rattling have succeeded, unless you
have a very odd definition of 'success.'


Of course, he could have used Clinton-style diplomacy: send $4 billion
their way and *hope* that they stop (a la N. Korea).

Or he could have spent less, and simply bought the nuclear material from
Russia directly. Would have cost less. Of course, it wouldn't have
helped his campaign donors reap immense profits.

BTW if you're going to mention Clinton, you should also mention that his
policies *were* successful.



Last heard from, you were stamping your little feet and ranting that there
was no insurgency in Iraq. Has a brief cooling-off period allowed some
reality to sink in? Maybe I shouldn't mention it.


The attacks in Iraq are terrorist attacks committed by foreigners...

Really? You mean about 5% to 10% of them are committed by foreigners,
don't you?

... and not
a part of some large domestic insurgency.

Actually, a lot of it *is* terrorism, but then OTOH any attacks against
uniformed military personell are not terrorism, by definition. And
insurgency is defined as resistance to civil authority, nyet?

In other words, you are finally 'fessing up that you have no facts, so
you quibble over semantics. Thanks.

DSK

BTW if you're going to mention Clinton, you should also mention that his
policies *were* successful.


Scooby Doo wrote:
At getting the USS Cole attacked?

And at tracking down those responsible.


At providing missle technology to communist China?

When did this happen? Any documentation, or is this just fascaist
fantasy? Oh and remember, Clinton's brother was a cocaine dealer too...

At ignoring the opportunity to apprehend Osama Bin Laden? TWICE?

Really? The fascist fantasy lore is up to twice now?

And can you explain why Clinton should apprehended Bin Laden before Sept
11th, when President Bush let him go afterwards?



At erecting the wall between intelligence agencies blamed for the
inability to connect the pre-9-11 dots?

Funny, intel under Bush has only gotten worse, here it is years after
Sept 11th and they're still fighting reform.

DSK

NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 08:00:30 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:


I fowarded my suggestion to the State of Israel:

Complete the Wall of Division, and allow no "Palestinians" to cross it
into Israel for any reason whatsoever.

Let "Palestine" make it on its own, or with the help of its Muslim Arab
neighbors and friends.

Under such circumstances, how long would it take for the "Palestinians"
to
kill off each other?

Well, those aren't the circumstances, are they? Even after the
withdrawal, Israel will continue to control Gaza's borders, coastline,
and airspace. It reserves the right to undertake military operations at
will. Israel will continue to tax Gaza products entering Israel, but
will
not tax Israeli products entering Gaza, and will continue to collect
custom duties on any foreign products entering Gaza. Under those
circumstances, Gaza doesn't stand a chance. It sounds to me
like Israel is setting up a Palestinian prison, not an independent
country.



If the United States had Iran as its northern neighbor, we'd probably do
the same.


We *do* have Iran as our neighbor...ever since we annexed Iraq.

Still, I think the answer for Israel is to keep all "Palestinians" not now
within it borders out, and allow no day workers, familial visits,
humanitarian hospitalizations, nothing, zip, zilch, nada. Any
"Palistinans" now within Israel's borders are free to emigrate to
"Palestine" any time they like and to take whatever belongings they have
with them.

I don't know what the answer is for Gaza. It is the canard of canards.
Perhaps the oil-soaked sheiks can build a road through Sinai and a bridge
into Jordon and then another road to "Palestinian" territory. But
wait...the Egyptians and Jordanians don't want anything much to do with
the "Palestinians" either.

The Arab Muslims have all the real estate in that part of the Middle East
but for the bit of land comprising Israel. I'm sure the Arab Muslims can
afford to help out their less fortunate "Palestinian" brothers and
sisters, and bring them into the 14th Century.

That's assuming the rest of the Arab Muslims come out of the 10th Century
any time soon.

Man, you are stupid!! To think that the entire Arab Muslim population
is still living in the 10th century is BEYOND dumb.
It never ceases to amaze me at how narrow minded you are. If someone
doesn't follow lemming-like behind BushCo, in your eyes they are
stupid. If someone doesn't worship the same way as you, they are
backward types. If someone doesn't live in Naples, Fl, they are
inferior to you. Well, except for the swampbillies there.

"Scooby Doo" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote in
:

BTW if you're going to mention Clinton, you should also mention that his
policies *were* successful.

At getting the USS Cole attacked?

At providing missle technology to communist China?

At giving Hollywood the script for Black Hawk Down?

At ignoring the opportunity to apprehend Osama Bin Laden? TWICE?

At erecting the wall between intelligence agencies blamed for the
inability to connect the pre-9-11 dots?

It sounds like it's OK with you that Bush not only allowed WMDs to vanish,
but actually set up the situation to ASSURE that they would.

NOYB,
Here is some interesting reading concerning moderate Muslims.

From Christian Scientist Monitor - Saving Islam From Terrorists

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0910/p08s03-comv.html


The Islamic Verdict on Suicide Bombings


http://thetruereligion.org/modules/w...p?articleid=61


Attacks are "injustice, oppression and tyranny" - The Grand Mufti of Saudi
Arabia


http://thetruereligion.org/modules/w...p?articleid=65

What Does Islam Say about Terrorism?
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch3-11.htm











"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 08:00:30 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:


I fowarded my suggestion to the State of Israel:

Complete the Wall of Division, and allow no "Palestinians" to cross it
into Israel for any reason whatsoever.

Let "Palestine" make it on its own, or with the help of its Muslim Arab
neighbors and friends.

Under such circumstances, how long would it take for the "Palestinians"
to
kill off each other?

Well, those aren't the circumstances, are they? Even after the
withdrawal, Israel will continue to control Gaza's borders, coastline,
and airspace. It reserves the right to undertake military operations at
will. Israel will continue to tax Gaza products entering Israel, but
will
not tax Israeli products entering Gaza, and will continue to collect
custom duties on any foreign products entering Gaza. Under those
circumstances, Gaza doesn't stand a chance. It sounds to me
like Israel is setting up a Palestinian prison, not an independent
country.



If the United States had Iran as its northern neighbor, we'd probably do
the same.


We *do* have Iran as our neighbor...ever since we annexed Iraq.

Still, I think the answer for Israel is to keep all "Palestinians" not
now within it borders out, and allow no day workers, familial visits,
humanitarian hospitalizations, nothing, zip, zilch, nada. Any
"Palistinans" now within Israel's borders are free to emigrate to
"Palestine" any time they like and to take whatever belongings they have
with them.

I don't know what the answer is for Gaza. It is the canard of canards.
Perhaps the oil-soaked sheiks can build a road through Sinai and a bridge
into Jordon and then another road to "Palestinian" territory. But
wait...the Egyptians and Jordanians don't want anything much to do with
the "Palestinians" either.

The Arab Muslims have all the real estate in that part of the Middle East
but for the bit of land comprising Israel. I'm sure the Arab Muslims can
afford to help out their less fortunate "Palestinian" brothers and
sisters, and bring them into the 14th Century.

That's assuming the rest of the Arab Muslims come out of the 10th Century
any time soon.

"Scooby Doo" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Scooby Doo" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote in
:

BTW if you're going to mention Clinton, you should also mention that
his policies *were* successful.

At getting the USS Cole attacked?

At providing missle technology to communist China?

At giving Hollywood the script for Black Hawk Down?

At ignoring the opportunity to apprehend Osama Bin Laden? TWICE?

At erecting the wall between intelligence agencies blamed for the
inability to connect the pre-9-11 dots?

It sounds like it's OK with you that Bush not only allowed WMDs to
vanish, but actually set up the situation to ASSURE that they would.

What does Bush have to do with Clinton's foreign policy failures?
Changing the subject to evade questions isn't a particularly credible
debate tactic.

You're blaming Clinton for absurd things. I thought it was time to lend some
balance to your comments.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Do you consider the ramp-up of Iran's nuclear program a success for the
Bush Administration's foreign policy? How about President Bush's
schmoozing with Vladimir Putin, asking him to not give (or sell,
actually) the Iranians any nuclear material, which they went ahead and
did anyway?


NOYB wrote:
Diplomacy would have done nothing to halt either action from taking
place.

I didn't say 'diplomacy' I said 'foreign policy.' Neither President Bush's
soapy smile nor his saber-rattling have succeeded, unless you have a very
odd definition of 'success.'


Of course, he could have used Clinton-style diplomacy: send $4 billion
their way and *hope* that they stop (a la N. Korea).

Or he could have spent less, and simply bought the nuclear material from
Russia directly. Would have cost less. Of course, it wouldn't have helped
his campaign donors reap immense profits.

BTW if you're going to mention Clinton, you should also mention that his
policies *were* successful.

Bull****. N. Korea continued to develop nukes well after Clinton bribed
them in the mid-90's. Saddam continued to aid and abet terrorists, commit
genocide against his own people, and threaten his neighbors. And al Qaeda
grew emboldened by Clinton's withdrawal of troops from Somalia.

Success my ass.





Last heard from, you were stamping your little feet and ranting that
there was no insurgency in Iraq. Has a brief cooling-off period allowed
some reality to sink in? Maybe I shouldn't mention it.


The attacks in Iraq are terrorist attacks committed by foreigners...

Really? You mean about 5% to 10% of them are committed by foreigners,
don't you?


No. According to the al-Jaafari, PM of Iraq, those numbers are not accurate.


... and not a part of some large domestic insurgency.

Actually, a lot of it *is* terrorism, but then OTOH any attacks against
uniformed military personell are not terrorism, by definition.

The attacks have been predominantly against civilian populations.


And
insurgency is defined as resistance to civil authority, nyet?

In other words, you are finally 'fessing up that you have no facts, so you
quibble over semantics. Thanks.

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
It really bothers you that there is a Jewish State, doesn't it.

It really bothers you that they resisted destruction by their Arab
neighbors and have a military that is the envy of the world.

What doesn't bother you is that these people that you claim
are being brutalized have been blowing up restaurants and
buses full of innocent civilians.

I think you have an agenda on this subject, and its not necessarily
an objective one.

Sherwin D.

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a problem with
Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex trade and no one
seems to really care. I thought when I lived in Japan, that Japanese men
were ****ed up - into weird ****. Nothing compares to the Israelis and what
**** they are into. I am not sure why we must protect Israel so much, when
they showed they can protect themselves just fine. I think one of the
reasons we are in Iraq (not the only reason) is that Iraq was a bigger
threat to Israel than to the U.S.