(robert arndt) wrote in message . com...

snip

Tom is starting up again with his pro-Iranian BS.

What kind of "pro-Iranian BS"?

You're obviously too limited to understand the difference, yet explain
my post above for "pro-Iranian". By what? By pointing at the fact that
the striking Bushehr will have nothing like effects striking Tuweitha
had?

Well Tom, say what
you will but history proves you wrong time after time.

What kind of BS is this?

How about you first show me that the history proved me wrong -
especially "time after time".

Where has the "history" proved me wrong so far?

The Israelis
have both the will to fight total war and the arsenal to win it. They
have never faltered when the security of the State of Israel has been
in danger. Even in this current intifada running for almost 3 years
now, the Israelis are back to 3-to-1 superiority and killing Hamas
leaders like flies. Yasser Arafat has been effectively neutralized and
his PA in fragments. No one is going to tell Israel what to do in
their region.

But, who is talking here about Intifada and all the other BS you're
bringing into this discussion?

I pointed at the fact that many here - and obviously this includes you
too - think that "striking Bushehr = ending eventual Iranian projects
on the topic of nuclear weapons", because "striking Tuweitha =
destroying Iraqi project for development of nuclear weapons".

That is plain and simple wrong.

Why? I explained that above. If you can't understand what you read,
but consider this for "pro-Iranian BS", sorry, not my fault.


Now Iran wants to mouth off about its missiles and
hatred for Israel. So what? If they are so strong then let THEM make a
move on Israel and see what happens.

If you want some "pro-Iranian BS", here it is:
Who said the Iranians have any aggressive plans against anybody? Can
you at least name me one case the Iranians started some war against
somebody - without being victims of a foreign aggression?

Even the US could not prevent
(and probably wouldnt attempt to block) an overflight mission to
Tehran if Israel was determined to strike that evil nation.

For those in the rear rows: OK, strike Bushehr.

And, what would that bring?

You destroy a commercial light-water reactor, and leave something like
150 other places where the real bombs might actually be built.

Wouldn't you consider yourself stupid to do so?

Or do you expect Israel to send the whole IDF/AF over Saudi Arabia to
strike all the targets it would have to hit in Iran in order to stop
the nuclear projects there?


Dream on Tom.

What am I dreaming about?


Iran will someday pay the price for its membership in the
export-terror business club, just like Iraq.

Given this statement, should I now conclude that every country that
"exports terrorism" is "some day" going to pay for its deeds?

If yes, and you seem to imply this, then the USA and Israel are in the
row far ahead of Iran... Need few examples? I don't know what kind of
"terrorism export" you mean, but there are different sorts, the
leading of which is state-sponsored terrorism. It is undeniable, that
Iranian state-sponsored terrorism hit US targets in the Middle East.
But, I don't remember, just for example, the Iranians coming to the
USA to topple a democratically-ellected government: the USA did so in
Iran, in 1953. I don't remember Iran openly supporting an aggression
against the US soil, the USA did so, during the whole 1980s. I don't
remember the Iranians shooting down a civilian US airliner: the USA
did that too. Finally, I don't remember the Iranians actively
supporting a terrorist organization active on the US soil: the USA did
so (with MEK/MKO) for years.


Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.schifferbooks.com/militar...764316699.html

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585