Go to Should Bush Be Impeached?
- Add a comment
- Go to I'm Afraid this means Impeachment is unavoidable...........................
Israel is always backed by America
posted by
adventurer02
on July 4, 2015 at 12:19 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos, just memorizing!
LOL!
posted by
kingmi
on June 11, 2006 at 12:37 AM
| link to this | reply
kingmi
WOW! Good thing you didn't have to print that, you would have used up a whole cartridge of ink!
posted by
Nautikos
on June 9, 2006 at 7:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos,Nautikos,Nautikos, (got it!)
Nautikos,Nautikos,
Nautikos,Nautikos,
Nautikos,Nautikos,
Nautikos, Nautikos,
Nautikos,Nautikos,
Nautikos,Nautikos,
Nautikos,Nautikos,
Nautikos, Nautikos,
posted by
kingmi
on June 9, 2006 at 9:17 AM
| link to this | reply
It's OK, kingmi,
I wasn't really serious about this anyway...
posted by
Nautikos
on June 9, 2006 at 5:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos, Sorry, dude. One of the drawbacks for having the latest
wireless technology is that you get to post comments and posts in unlikely settings. Also, I've never been that great with my thumbs. But I will try to get your name right in the future. Not intentional!
posted by
kingmi
on June 8, 2006 at 10:50 AM
| link to this | reply
Hey, Dingmi,
I guess you don't like my name. Nautiko? Nazutikos? Somehow I don't think those are improvements,
! Nautikos, by the way, is Greek for 'sailor'...
posted by
Nautikos
on June 8, 2006 at 9:05 AM
| link to this | reply
Nazutikos, Thank you for sharing your thinking
On the Iran issue. I guess we agree!
posted by
kingmi
on June 7, 2006 at 10:29 PM
| link to this | reply
kingmi,
let me try and make a few points that, I think, need to be made.
1) It is unrealistic and, I'm afraid, naive to expect the WH to 'tell the whole truth' when it comes to foreign policy, nor should it. No government of any country ever has, or ever will. For the WH to do so would be a disaster! The public wants to know? Why!? Because Joe Schmoe has a solution to the Iran proplem??
2) An attack on Iran would not involve 'bombing them back to the stone age', but striking at their nuclear facilities. With the kind of precise weapons we have now, that can be accomplished with very little 'collateral damage'.
3) An attack on Iran would nonetheless be a disaster, since the consequences would be devastating. It would lead to a further radicalization of Islam, an exponential increase in terrorist attacks, and of course further disruption of oil supplies.
4) We must hope that Iran can be brought to the point of foregoing the development of the bomb, and that must include absolutely stringent and ongoing verification. 4a) I personally do not hold such hope. I believe that Iran will continue negotiating, but will some day soon confront the world with the announcement that it has the bomb.
5) Israel cannot allow, and what is more, will not allow Iran to have the bomb. Which means hat, before point 4a) is fully realized, Israel will act, certainly with the tacit, but possibly not with the public approval and support of the US.
5) The result? See point 3.
6) The alternative? If Iran does obtain the bomb, there is a realistic chance of a nuclear attack on Israel, leading to a Second Holocaust. Even a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran is to Iran's advantage, simply because of the geopgraphy.
7) The choices are between 4), 5), and 6). I hope for 4), but don't 'believe' it will happen, although I also hope I am wrong. But if I can't have 4), I will certainly opt for 5) will all the consequences utlined in 3), and probably much more.
You're welcome!
posted by
Nautikos
on June 7, 2006 at 9:26 PM
| link to this | reply
posted by
Amanda__
on June 5, 2006 at 4:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi & Nautiko, Thank you both. What I mean to say is that Israel
Has more to lose than us and will have to insist on a leadership role disallowing Iran nuclear capability. What was cryptic I think was that the WH put it around that Condi came to him with this new initiative after our coalition was being torn apart by Iran's manipulation of the EU. I am scared because the WH never tells the whole truth. But how could they say that Israel is now dictating US policy?
And lastly, that to bommb.Iran back to the stone age would at once, divert attention from low domestic numbers, solve the Iranian influence on terror in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe. Sorry for the confusion.
posted by
kingmi
on June 5, 2006 at 10:39 AM
| link to this | reply
kingmi,
maybe I'm just a bit slow, but, like Justi, I am mystified by these cryptic allusions...to what?
posted by
Nautikos
on June 5, 2006 at 5:19 AM
| link to this | reply
Kingmi
In plain words what are you saying?
posted by
Justi
on June 5, 2006 at 3:42 AM
| link to this | reply