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