Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SunkenCiv

You wrote: "Main problems would seem to be that Israel doesn't have a viable air route"

That certainly did not stop them when Israel took out the Nuclear Power Plant in Iraq.


19 posted on 01/21/2005 7:35:59 AM PST by NY Attitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: NY Attitude

Since then the Saudis have purchased AWACS (the overflights took place across Saudi territory); the US has detection and air combat capability in the region (so, either the Israelis are seen but nothing is done, or are seen and intercepted, hopefully not shot down); Iran has widely distributed the targets, and presumably has at the very least triple-A all over the place.

I think Cheney's words are part of the ongoing "hard cop" from the US. This is intended to push Iran along into dealing away its capability in its alleged negotiations with Europe.

But that won't work, because the negotiations are just a stalling tactic. The Moslem states learned yet another lesson in the 1973 war -- if Israel could be defeated on the ground, then the nuclear retaliation would take care of the Arabs for good. I won't say it. ;')

The lesson is, they can't fight another war against Israel unless they have nuclear strike capability, which means, nuclear warheads and a capable delivery system (or more than one). Despite their vociferous and generally violent differences, the Moslem states (other than Turkey) near Israel have in the past collaborated in a genocide campaign, and they have done so continually, and are doing so now.

Egypt used the first WMDs in the area, against the Saudis, during the Yemem civil war, and yet they fought on the same side in 1967, 1973, and during the terrorist campaigns before, during, and since then.

If Syria's next on the list for liberation and democracy, Israel's assistance will probably be needed and eagerly provided. That might be the best option, since that won't take too long, will smash Iranian influence in Lebanon, remove water shortage difficulties caused by the Syrians, and postpone or eliminate any chance of immediate war against Israel.

Removing Iran would probably result in the flight of Iranian fanatics to Syria and Lebanon, which creates a "fish in a barrel" situation. Nation-building in Iran is something the Iranians are itching to do, and getting rid of the Iranian Moslem horde will be simpler, because they fight to the death.

They have no idea how quick their fight will be over.

Iran is bound to have loads of chemical weapons, and will probably launch missiles against Israel, just as Iraq did in the Gulf War. After they're overcome, all of the WMDs should be piled up in one stack, right on top of Iran's "holiest" city, and blown up. The event should be televised. The Iranian trials in which the mullahs are condemned, and their executions certainly will be televised in Iran.

Y'know, provided the mullahs make it to trial, and aren't just torn limb from limb by the Iranian people.


21 posted on 01/21/2005 10:06:48 AM PST by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on January 13, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson