On 16 Nov 2006 10:27:55 -0800, "jgarbuz" <jgarbuz@netzero.com> wrote:
The Re'vr''ddd wrote:
On 16 Nov 2006 07:20:58 -0800, "Iamnotallthere" <dotcom457@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Ground forces should be ruled out. WMDs must be ruled in. A joint
USA-Israeli bombing mission would end this Iran crap once and for all.
On the contrary, a joint USA-Eyeranian bombing mission would put an
end to 'Israeli' WMDs. Problem sorted.<<
A lot riskier. Right now, Iran has no nukes, as far as we know, whereas
Israel has at least 200, and probably more.
Allegedly. It could be yet another jew lie.
Israel also has missiles
and satellites. And in any case, destroying Israel gives you no more
oil than before, whereas breaking Iran could mean cheaper or even free
oil, if the US demands booty. IN any case, it is much less risky to
attack and destroy a country before it has nukes, than one that already
has hundreds.
Attacking Israel is crazy, or even possibly suicidal, but the Iranian
muslims are already suicidal, so sending them to Allah is doing them a
favor.
Your host country has more than enough nukes to take 'Israel' out.
The sooner the better, insh'Allah.
.
