Debka is reporting that Shorty (Ahmadinejad) said that he has intelligence that the United States and perhaps Israel plan to attack Iran in the next three months. [...] It has always been apparent that their would be a minimum of two fronts in any war involving Iran. Those are the Iran-Iraq front and the Mediterranean front. The Saudi AWACS have been recently upgraded to the latest US standards. This will insure complete interoperability with our AWACS and also other specialized aircraft where information is transmitted via data links to the battle managers. The Saudi F-15S aircraft have also been upgraded to US standards. There have not been any apparent Israeli objections to these actions. The Israelis are, therefore, reasonably sure that these aircraft will not be used against them. There is only one other country in the area that the Saudis might find themselves in conflict with. The Mediterranean front will involve Egypt, Jordan, the Saudis marginally and Israel against Syria and Hezbollah. It is doubtful that the Jordanians could stand up to a full scale Syrian attack. They will require additional forces to be provided by Egypt. The IDF will operate primarily against Hezbollah. That is another reason to break the Syrians away from the Iranians. However, the Syrians will probably not only ask for control of Lebanon but for the Golan as well. That may well be the deal breaker. World Threats Blog Archive War in Three Months? Interesting. I thought some of you guys might be interested. This was on Fox News night before last too. The Saudis and the Gulf States must be making a full court press on BHO, otherwise like a fool he would let the ruling Mullahs get nukes and then try to contain them.
maybe we can get a team of juris doctors to....wait...oops i am thinking of a different one-issue psycho poster. my fault. what i meant was: maybe because islam is a religion of peace and not submission etc....
you insulted me slightly. let me insult you slightly. you are basically an intellectual coward, afraid of any idea that is slightly challenging or different than conventional wisdom.
While this may be legal by the standards of today's leges, the founders, the architechts of the great document, would not consider it lawful.
