Will Israel take out Iran"s atomic works before bush leaves office?

Question

they have seven month left before bush leaves office.

Answer 1

I doubt it. Bush will more likely want to attack Iran with American troops, which would probably p**s the president of Iran off, assuming he's still there. He will eventually be up for reelection and if he doesn't win, he won't be able to even attack Israel, unless he ousts the ayatollah or perhaps the ayatollah will do his work for him. If we do attack Iran, it will be for the Domination of they're Oil.

Answer 2

Well, if they do, get ready for the return of the draft.  If the young people aren't thinking that far ahead, they should be!  Our troops are beyond tired and there are not enough of them to fight three wars, simultaneously.  If you guys haven't registered, get your butts down there because they will be looking for you.  I personally believe Iran stopped enriching in 2003, as intel has told us, but Bush refuses to believe it and he does want to hand off this country in a state of WAR!

Answer 3

They better while we still have a Republican in office.  If Israel takes on a terrorist state, they need the USA to have their back.  God forbid Obama would be in office.

Answer 4

We can only hope.

Answer 5

No.  This constant threat--mostly made on their behalf by putative

"christian" neo-con (translation, crypto judaicon) talk show

loudmouths--is much like their  empty threat to "retaliate" for

the aimless scud-B "attacks" (quite likely being fired off from Iraqi

territory by deep-cover shin-bet agents who'd weaseled   their

ways into Saddam's military establishment).  The purpose of that

empty threat was to try to use it in a form of retroactive extortion--they

demanded compensation  later---$6*10^9, or double that year's

rathole-load of U.S. tax dollars, as I recall--based on having not willfully destroyed the shaky  coalition GHW Bush was using to

oust  Iraq from the congenital monarchy which had been slant-

drilling some of their richest oil reserves under  their mutual

border.  Dog knows  what sort of compensation they'll demand--

and might get if  one of their wholly-owned-subsidiary  partisans

is in office  and trying desperately to prove his middle name and early schooling in a "public school" containing it's very own mosque are

of  no concern to AIPAC over this more recent canard.

They think they're like our farmers--should be paid for what they

don't produce.  At least the farmers do produce what  we need them to produce--"israel" is   of   negative value to the U.S.

A very good article printed in a magazine devoted to those whose

hobby is intercepting point-to-point radio traffic from  various government agencies of every nation did an in-depth analysis  of the suggested raid you're asking about. It was a logistical nightmare  at least an order of magnitude worse than the raid on Saddam's reactor.

The kamakaze pilots who  went on that one never figured on coming

home from it--though they did: one was on our space shuttle when it  came down in chunks all over  our President's home state, with large quantities of reportage from Palestine Texas--wink wink...

They always sign their  work, they just can't resist.  One time they signed one of their little jobs here "Jack Ruby" (Jacob Rubenstein).

They couldn't do that raid if they really wanted to, and they don't. It was  none other than ariel sharon himself who was caught red-handed by the Reagan administration  resupplying the  Ayatollahs of Iran with replacement parts for the Shah's U.S.-made military gear.  Iran  was no part of the original pan-arab effort to disinfest  their home regions of the european neo-bolshevist  "kibbutzhim" (that's communists,

in plain english--that's why it wasn't said in english, it wouldn't have "played well" in our congress and polling booths).  So then "israel" is going to attack Iran?  Not likely--they'd get us to do it for them though.  That way they haven't violated their high-and-mighty so-called  ethical standards,   we have. It's a legal technicality  devised by  those whose very culture is law-learning  and recitation.

If "israel" did try to do that raid,  the amount of U.S. logistical  support necessary  for any chance of  a successful raid would mean we might as well just do it ourselves and get the credit.  Even the weapon under discussion for use--a modified built-up naval gun turned into, essentially, a huge hard dart which penetrates by sheer kinetic energy and then explodes deep inside the target--would have to be provided to them by us.  In order to get the raiders there, lots of   made-in-USA electronic surveillance and  countermeasures--and probably craft-work and possible loss of agent lives--would have to be provided to  get  them through so many hostile intervening  airspaces.

The whole concept is farcical.  It gives  a whole new meaning to  their term "chutzpah"--that is trying to get us to swallow that canard as if it were actually something real.  They'd never actually have the

"chutzpah" to  try it on their own.  It's not  a defenseless NSA  electronic intelligence-gathering  ship or a bunch of  palestinian children  chucking pebbles, after all...

Answer 6

Iran offered 30 years ago to negotiate all issues, including the nuclear one with the US. The US response was to ignore the offer and continue to accuse Iran of intransigence and determination to develop nuclear weapons as well as to commitment to the destruction of Israel. Iran is also the only, or one of the few, nations to have signed up to the International Atomic Energy Agency proposal to place weapons grade fissionable materials production under international control. The US and Israel are certainly not.

These two are also of the few countries who have refused to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. They are outlaw nations, and their media, owned by fellow-members of the respective ruling plutocracies, ensure that the truth is obscured from their populations.

The current campaign of lies is reminiscent of the preparations for the Iraqi armed oil robbery (war requires a victim with the means to fight back) and would almost certainly lead to a similar campaign except that:

a) US fingers have been severely burned in Iraq

b) Iran would almost certainly look east to Russia and/or, equally oil-hungry as the US, China, for succour from the international bandit. A defeat would almost certainly force the US out of Iraq.

If this happened, the s**+'ite majority in south Iraq would probably link up with that in Iran and could embolden or assist those in the closest and oil-rich part of Saudi. This could threaten the extremely repressive Islamic extremist US-backed Saudi government - jewel in the US middle east crown.

This is the fear that keeps the US in Iraq (a wedge between the two) and is a factor in the stance against Iran along with keeping puppet Israel (which they armed illegally while signatories to the non-proliferation treaty) the only nuke power in the Middle East.

Posturing is therefore expected from the neo-con posers, but action could be disastrous. With the destructive 'leave chaos for the incoming Democrat Government' mindset of the neo-cons attack is possible, but unlikely - though current stirrings make it more likely.  Israel may move unilaterally knowing well that the US will come to heel if called.