Posted on 11/06/2011 7:51:04 AM PST by blam
I don't know. If I had some ugly bull dyke trying to run my life it wouldn't take long before I was more than ready to kill something.
I don’t trust this source.
No!
Another frakin’ article fomenting further BS hypothetical hype; something which has been an ongoing process for the past half decade concerning Israel and/or the US militarily striking Iran’s nuclear weapons program. =.=
I think you are right. Obama bows to Riyadh.
I’d be interested in what you think.
Gay female Drill Sargents with whips?
It looks like maybe a few unusual things have occurred and someone (Debka) has connected them to make this story.
I think there's only a remote possibility of this happening.
Now, would I like to see Israel 'stick-it' to Iran, yes.
Your turn.
An article citing Debka as source is as wrong as a football bat. Any Iran solution that does not have certain targets end up as smoking holes of melted silica is simply wrong.
They've got to know this - even if he gives them the OK in private - he is not to be trusted or believed.
Unfortunately, I think Israel is stuck waiting until they are attacked. At least as long as 0bama is in the White House.
“Obama is NOT gonna attack ANYONE between now & the election.”
I agree. He would totally alienate his liberal base, just when he needs them the most. Plus Obama probably soiled himself when the generals told him to sit down, shut up, and let them take out Bin Laden.
Obama might do it to try to get re-elected. The democrats think war is only for political gain.
He ISN'T! He NEVER DID!! :-)
That sounds more sensible. Good thing I’m not in charge of the military.
Our guys are pooped from Iraq and Afghanistan.
What are we gonna use for troops, Cub Scouts?
I think this invasion biz is very, very unlikely.
Time has past for this option...Unless israel acts alone.
>>”Hard to believe that Barak Hussein Obama would be one to deliver it.”<<
Obi is in a better position to deliver it. Anti-war, the Left & the media wouldn’t question Obi as much as they would a republican president.
Anyhow, I think the likelihood of a strike on Iran is high this time, unlike previous reports. For one thing, recently, the UK made a point of saying “the official UK policy on Iran is not regime change”. — http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2796638/posts?page=6#6 — A strike even on nuke facilities in Iran can result in ‘regime change’. And, unlike Iraq, this time it’ll have full support from the French. But, my guess is that they just don’t want to use neocon-type words. They’ve been trying to manage public perception.
The Saudis dread the Persians as do all the little oil emirates. No one wants to die for Palestine, or even be inconvenienced for it. They don’t mind writing a check to the terrorists, but they don’t want a real fight.
Some Persians have delusions of a re-emergence of the Persian Empire and this scares the bejeebers out of Arabs. The Arabs would be wise not to “encourage” the Ottoman, either.
I think you’re quite right about the Sheikdoms & S. Arabia.
Personally, if there was a ‘regime change’ in Iran, I’d be in favour of sending the whole lot of them mullahs & their supporters back to Arablands, particularly S. Arabia. So that they could be close to their beloved Mecca. They share the same ideology, love worshipping an Arab prophet, his book & his ways. Shi’ism is just a technicality - they can then sort things out w/ their moslem brothers & sisters. Currently, they are using a state-nation (Iran) to achieve their goals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.