"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.