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

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.


So all N. Korean nuclear weapon research sat dormant for 6 years, eh?



... 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?


There's plenty of proof. He paid the families of terrorist suicide bombers
in Israel. He harbored terrorists like Abu Nidal and Ramzi Yousef. His
intelligence agents met with al Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta. That's all what
you'd call "proof".

... commit genocide against his own people

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

Sure we do. Maybe not all, but a lot of them.


... and threaten his neighbors.

Yep, the first President Bush told him it was OK to invade Kuwait,

You've been spending too much time on liberal conspiracy web pages.

and sold him weapons (including WMDs) to fight Iran.

Nope. Bush wasn't President when those weapons went to Iraq.


... 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,


That's not what emboldened them. Read bin Laden's 1996 Fatwah:

" But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous
propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of
the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force,
including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However,
when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American
Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared
in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these
threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by
Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became
very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy
to the "chests" of believing nations "

NOYB wrote:
So all N. Korean nuclear weapon research sat dormant for 6 years, eh?


Let me put it this way... Did the N.Koreans unapologetically build atoms
bombs while Clinton was President? No. Did they do so while George Bush
Jr was President? Yes.

Apparently you draw from these facts that Clinton failed and Bush succeeded.




... 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?



There's plenty of proof. He paid the families of terrorist suicide bombers
in Israel.

And that is anti-US terrorism? Remember too, that there is no proof that
Saddam ever actually paid his bounty, there is more evidence that he
used this offer as a PR tool to increase his "street cred" in the Arab
world.


... He harbored terrorists like Abu Nidal and Ramzi Yousef.

Yeah, back in the Reagan Administration... I guess that's why Don
Rumsfeld was such buddies with him back in those days...

... His
intelligence agents met with al Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta. That's all what
you'd call "proof".

Actually, that meeting is now believed to have never taken place. And if
it did take place, the result was the Saddam refused to give any funds
or training to Al-Queda. Not that fundamentalist Al-Queda would have
been eager to buddy up to a brutally secular Arab ruler anyway, but hey
let's ignore that little inconvenient fact...



... commit genocide against his own people

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


Sure we do. Maybe not all, but a lot of them.

Like the former Yugoslavia, right? Odd how it's conveniently forgotten
that Republicans fought intervention tooth & nail, then railed at
Clinton for not intervening sooner.



... and threaten his neighbors.

Yep, the first President Bush told him it was OK to invade Kuwait,


You've been spending too much time on liberal conspiracy web pages.

Really? I guess reality is a liberal conspiracy, then.

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
** * ** quote ** * **
In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled,
Iraq massed troops on Kuwait's borders and summoned American ambassador
April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of
them controversial. According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his
grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade
Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published
by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern
over the troop buildup, but went on to say:

But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border
disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during
the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we
should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not
associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen
to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using
any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General
Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these
issues are solved quickly.

Some have interpreted these statements as signalling a tacit approval of
invasion, although no other evidence of this has been presented.
Although the State Department did not confirm the authenticity of these
transcripts, US sources say that she had handled everything "by the
book" (in accordance with the US's neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue)
** * ** end quote ** * **

Now, that was rather long, NOBBY, and I don't expect you to actually
grasp all of it. The key point is that the US ambassador told Saddam
personally that the US didn't have a problem with his invasion plans.





and sold him weapons (including WMDs) to fight Iran.


Nope. Bush wasn't President when those weapons went to Iraq.

Really? But he was certainly Vice President, nyet? And didn't those
weapons sales continue until right before the start of Gulf War 1?


... 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,



That's not what emboldened them. Read bin Laden's 1996 Fatwah:

" But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous
propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of
the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force,
including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However,
when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American
Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared
in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these
threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by
Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became
very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy
to the "chests" of believing nations "


You agree with Osama Bin Laden?

DSK

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

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.


So all N. Korean nuclear weapon research sat dormant for 6 years, eh?



... 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?


There's plenty of proof. He paid the families of terrorist suicide
bombers
in Israel. He harbored terrorists like Abu Nidal and Ramzi Yousef. His
intelligence agents met with al Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta. That's all
what
you'd call "proof".

Is it "Liebral bury your head in the sand" week?


... commit genocide against his own people

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

Sure we do. Maybe not all, but a lot of them.


... and threaten his neighbors.

Yep, the first President Bush told him it was OK to invade Kuwait,

You've been spending too much time on liberal conspiracy web pages.

and sold him weapons (including WMDs) to fight Iran.

Nope. Bush wasn't President when those weapons went to Iraq.


... 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,


That's not what emboldened them. Read bin Laden's 1996 Fatwah:

" But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous
propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of
the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force,
including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However,
when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American
Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton
appeared
in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these
threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced
by
Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became
very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy
to the "chests" of believing nations "