Thought you might be interested in this post:
JUST ASK UNCLE WEST. HE IS THE MAN WHO KNOWS.
Feel free to take all the credit for everything.
Meanwhile back in the war...The expansion of the war becomes more likely as the rhetoric heats up some more. The siege the Iranians talk about is of course the fact that we have them surrounded.
I believe we are pussy footing around with terminology. Kerry hopes to pullout and let the Germans and French handle the Muslim militants. He seems to forget that Clinton tried that and got 9/11 results.
There are 150 million Muslim militants and 15 million Muslim militant extremists. I hate to say it but I see only two choices:
Accept Muslim world domination or go nuclear. The militants are too strong to fight conventionally.
Taking out Iran's nuke facilities may be satisfying but it won't stop nuclear proliferation and it won't stop Iran from seeking the weapons from other sources.
We do not have the resources to stop the extremists conventionally. And we don't have the quick ability (nor imo the intestinal fortitude) to assemble them. Our fallback position is our nuke arsenal.
The mere threat of that arsenal worked to subdue the Soviet empire. Threats don't, haven't and won't work against the extremists we face now.
Arch enemies trade threats over nuclear arms programs
August 21, 2004
By JOSEF FEDERMAN
of The Associated Press
JERUSALEM - Iran threatened this week to attack Israel's nuclear facilities. Israel ominously warned that it "knows how to defend itself."
Tensions between the two arch enemies have suddenly escalated, underlining the other great enmity that has been bubbling on the sidelines of the Arab-Israeli conflict for more than two decades.
Suspicions that the Iranian regime is moving forward with a nuclear arms program deeply worry Israel, which considers Iran the greatest threat to the Jewish state. Israeli officials say they want to avoid escalating the situation, however, and there is no sign Israel is building up for an attack like the one that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.
Experts say the two countries are unlikely to go to war anytime soon, despite the heated-up rhetoric coming out of Iran and the intensified efforts by Israel to isolate the Iranian regime diplomatically.
The heightened tensions arose from the U.S.-led campaign to organize international pressure on Iran to rein in its nuclear program.
While recently confirming they are working with technology that can be used to produce weapons-grade uranium, the Iranians insist their program's sole purpose is the peaceful generation of power and angrily complain about being under siege.
Last month, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Iranians would "crush" Israel if it attacked the Persian state. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani, upped the ante this week, telling Al-Jazeera television that his government might launch pre-emptive strikes to protect its nuclear facilities if they were threatened.
"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," he said, adding that some Iranian generals believe the doctrine of pre-emption is "not limited to Americans."
The warning was seen as aimed at Israel, alluding to the Israeli strike on Saddam Hussein's reactor two decades ago.
A senior Israeli official responded that Israel's government was ready for all eventualities.
"We're not seeking war with Iran. But if a real threat materializes, Israel will know how to defend itself," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
pjstar.com
Message 20436164 |
