Did you bother to read this article before posting it? The conclusion is
that the Israelis can't mount a realistic threat, and probably wouldn't
anyway.

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? By golly, that Bush-Cheney team really gets the job done!

BTW why did you run away from the thread about Turkey?

DSK

NOYB wrote:

washingtonpost.com
Israel Warns of Iran Nuclear Plans
... Officials questioned Israel's ability to destroy Iran's nuclear
installations. Israeli warplanes bombed the unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor
at Osirak near Baghdad in 1981. They said Iran's nuclear installations,
unlike the Iraqi reactor, are dispersed throughout the country _ many in
populated areas, with sophisticated defense systems.

"I believe this is beyond our abilities," said Uzi Even, a former lawmaker
and a Tel Aviv University expert on nuclear weapons.

Iran should fear the U.S., not Israel, Steinitz said. "The Americans have
proven their ability to strike many sites simultaneously."

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Did you bother to read this article before posting it? The conclusion is
that the Israelis can't mount a realistic threat, and probably wouldn't
anyway.


I didn't read it that way. I read it as a canard...meant to mislead the
Iranians and lull them into a sense of complacency. I also read it as a
strong warning to the US: "you guys take care of this problem, or we'll do
it for you...and then you can live with the total ****-storm that would
follow an Israeli attack against an Arab nation".





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?
By golly, that Bush-Cheney team really gets the job done!

BTW why did you run away from the thread about Turkey?

What about it?

Did you bother to read this article before posting it? The conclusion is
that the Israelis can't mount a realistic threat, and probably wouldn't
anyway.



NOYB wrote:
I didn't read it that way. I read it as a canard...meant to mislead the
Iranians and lull them into a sense of complacency.

Really? In other words, this article saying that it would be almost
impossible for the Israelies to attack Iran's nuclear sites... and
listing some pretty solid reasons why... is all a smokescreen to cover
up Israel's intention to really attack?

Do you always assume gov't spokespeople are lying, or is it only
'conservative' ones?



... I also read it as a
strong warning to the US: "you guys take care of this problem, or we'll do
it for you...and then you can live with the total ****-storm that would
follow an Israeli attack against an Arab nation".


Gee, that'd be nice. Maybe you should read it again, only consider some
of the facts conveyed in the article this time.

And why no answer to my questions?

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?


Big success, right? Just like the decrease in *reported* terrorism
because of the Bush/Cheney policy of supressing reports!

BTW why did you run away from the thread about Turkey?


What about it?


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.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
news
Did you bother to read this article before posting it? The conclusion is
that the Israelis can't mount a realistic threat, and probably wouldn't
anyway.



NOYB wrote:
I didn't read it that way. I read it as a canard...meant to mislead the
Iranians and lull them into a sense of complacency.

Really? In other words, this article saying that it would be almost
impossible for the Israelies to attack Iran's nuclear sites... and listing
some pretty solid reasons why... is all a smokescreen to cover up Israel's
intention to really attack?

Yes.



Do you always assume gov't spokespeople are lying, or is it only
'conservative' ones?



... I also read it as a strong warning to the US: "you guys take care
of this problem, or we'll do it for you...and then you can live with the
total ****-storm that would follow an Israeli attack against an Arab
nation".


Gee, that'd be nice. Maybe you should read it again, only consider some of
the facts conveyed in the article this time.

And why no answer to my questions?

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?

Diplomacy would have done nothing to halt either action from taking place.
Of course, he could have used Clinton-style diplomacy: send $4 billion
their way and *hope* that they stop (a la N. Korea).





Big success, right? Just like the decrease in *reported* terrorism because
of the Bush/Cheney policy of supressing reports!

BTW why did you run away from the thread about Turkey?


What about it?


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

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

"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.

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


NOYB wrote:
Bull****. N. Korea continued to develop nukes well after Clinton bribed
them in the mid-90's.

Really? That must explain why they only started up their enrichment
plant... relatively easily verifiable by satellite... after President
Bush started calling them names.


... Saddam continued to aid and abet terrorists

There is no proof that Saddam Hussein has ever had any links whatever to
anti-US terrorism. The White House has said so many times, when will you
get with the program?

... commit
genocide against his own people

Is this our business? We don't interfere in other countries that carry
out far worse genocides.

... and threaten his neighbors.

Yep, the first President Bush told him it was OK to invade Kuwait, and
sold him weapons (including WMDs) to fight Iran.

... And al Qaeda
grew emboldened by Clinton's withdrawal of troops from Somalia.

???

I thought they were all PO'd because of US troops on Saudi Arabian soil,
and President Bush caved in to them?


Success my ass.

Is that the goal you're working toward? Sorry, but I think Clinton only
goes for women.

DSK

NOYB wrote:

BTW why did you run away from the thread about Turkey?

What about it?

I take it you didn't comprehend the question? He asked WHY did you run
away from the thread about Turkey?

wrote in message
ups.com...

NOYB wrote:

BTW why did you run away from the thread about Turkey?

What about it?

I take it you didn't comprehend the question? He asked WHY did you run
away from the thread about Turkey?


NOYB was toying with DSK. He pulls that **** constantly if you let him.
Don't let him. It's a game he plays.

Doug Kanter wrote:
NOYB was toying with DSK. He pulls that **** constantly if you let him.
Don't let him. It's a game he plays.


It's the only way he can pretend he's "winning."

Another possibility (which I've suggested before) is that he is actually
an extreme leftist (maybe Trotskyite), determined to highlight the right
wing's follies by being enthusiastic about them.

DSK