You think Egypt will turn out to be as big a foe to the US as Iran?
[/quote]
I don’t know about equating the two but Egypt is a huge problem.
Yes Libya is a worry too. They have large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons - much of it has already found its way into the hands of Hamas, Hezbollah etc
Syria is the flashpoint and it will likely develop into a proxy war.
Not really. The Russians are backing Iran and Assad to the hilt - Syria/Iran of course are their proxies in the region.
[quote]
Or are they just standing by an ally, the way we should have in Egypt and possibly Libya?[/quote]
We never vetoed security council resolutions against human rights abuses in Egypt and Libya. We didn’t disseminate Gaddafi propaganda like the Russians are disseminating Assad’s lies. No, Russia is cynically using Assad’s regime as a proxy.
How about this for karma, Assad said there were no militants crossing from Syria into Iraq during the war…sounds like they’re making the return trip to me:
JERUSALEM, Israel - The Iranian nationals involved in Tuesday’s bombings in Bangkok were attempting to assassinate Israeli diplomats, one Thai official acknowledged.
“These three Iranian men are an assassination team and their targets were Israeli diplomats, including the ambassador,” a senior Thai intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AFP.
“Their plan was to attach bombs to diplomats’ cars,” he said.
Police arrested a second Iranian Tuesday at Bangkok’s airport as he attempted to board a plane to Kuala Lumpur.
Mohammad Hazai, 42, identified on surveillance cameras as one of three men renting a house in central Bangkok, is in custody. Police found C-4 plastic explosives in the rental house.
Meanwhile, Thai investigators found that the same magnetic sheets used in the New Delhi bombings were also used in Bangkok.
“The individual was in possession of the same magnets, and we are currently examining the source of the magnet,” Reuters quoted Thai National Security Council Secretary Wichian Podphosri as saying.
Iran, meanwhile, claimed Israel was targeting its own diplomats in Bangkok to “harm the friendly and historic relations between Iran and Thailand.”
Pretty much echoes everything I’ve said in this thread.[/quote]
Where now is your caveat from the other thread about not believing everything you read?[/quote]
I’ll take the word of the former Director of the CIA and the current head of the National Intelligence Agency over a journalist’s trying to sell books or an alleged spy confirmed as such by anonymous, ambiguous sources.
Pretty much echoes everything I’ve said in this thread.[/quote]
Although I wouldn’t discount the effectiveness of an Israeli strike buying us time for sanctions to really bite, this article pretty much confirms what I’ve been thinking. Bombing is not going to be the best way to take out the Iranian nuclear program.
“Most experts argue that Iranian scientists now possess enough technological know-how so that no air campaign, not even sustained bombing by U.S. forces, could destroy Iran’s ability to someday produce a nuclear weapon should it choose to do so.”
The easiest way to decisively put an end to the Iranian problem will be a ground invasion. Interestingly enough in recent months we have been building up our troop levels in the Persian gulf to a high enough level that we could invade.
Man I know some Iranian people and they really care about their country. I hope Iran isn’t bombed and innocent people don’t have to die. It’s a shame really, how a country with so much possibility is strangled by an elite few with extremist views.
A university colleague of mine is scheduled to fly back there for a short period of time. I’m not really scarred for him but I know what it would mean if some act of war were perpetrated against or by Iran.
Pretty much echoes everything I’ve said in this thread.[/quote]
Where now is your caveat from the other thread about not believing everything you read?[/quote]
I’ll take the word of the former Director of the CIA and the current head of the National Intelligence Agency over a journalist’s trying to sell books or an alleged spy confirmed as such by anonymous, ambiguous sources.[/quote]
And you are firmly of the persuasion that these two fellers have no reason to ever color the truth?
Why is it that you are only a conspiracy supporter when it seems to fit your narrative? Or did I just answer my own question?[/quote]
I’ll take the word of the former Director of the CIA and the current head of the National Intelligence Agency over a journalist’s trying to sell books or an alleged spy confirmed as such by anonymous, ambiguous sources.[/quote]
