Iran launches "space rocket...or missile".

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:On Mar 3, 8:47 pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:08:27 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
: Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
: 2) Partition Iraq.
:
: That's probably what's going to eventually happen. But that means that
: the southeast Shiite part gets absorbed by Iran, and then they have even
: more land and oil... and Kuwait now has Iran on three of its sides.
:
: Yes, of course, because we all know how famously Persians and Arabs
: get along...
:
:He wasn't speaking about Persians or Arabs, he was talking about
:Kuwaitis.

Eric, you have failed to keep up. The statement "the southeast Shiite
part gets absorbed by Iran" refers to Persians (in Iran) and Arabs (in
the Shiite part of Iraq).

Oh, and Kuwaitis are Arabs, so even by your rather skewed
interpretation he would have been talking about "Persians and Arabs".

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
oups.com...

No, actually the US does not claim to be a Christian nation as Israel
claims to be a Jewish nation. In short, the US has more freedom (or is
at least supposed to!) of religion than does Israel.

I consider the more significant comparison to be Israel's freedom of
religion vs. that of any of it's neighbors for thousands of miles in any
direction.

Besides we don't
have the forced draft.

If Mexicans had as much animus toward Americans as Palestinians do Jews, we
probably would.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:59:56 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:


Rand Simberg wrote:
I hope that you, if not Eric, are not such a moron as to think we were
talking about Kuwaitis.


That's what _I_ was talking about when I mentioned that if Iran annexes
part of Iraq, it leaves Kuwait with Iran on its west through northeast,
the Persian Gulf to its northeast through southeast, and the Saudi
desert from its southeast through southwest
That's not a terribly defensive position. Iran will have the ability to
attack its tankers from three sides if it feels like it.
And assuming that the Kuwaitis don't learn how to eat sand and
scorpions, they could really lay siege to this country, followed by
annexing it also.
But we don't have to worry about that...because the President has had
the brilliant idea to start sending vast amounts of monetary aid
to...Sunni terrorists?:

Not to worry, the Kuwait "leadership" has a well rehearsed exit
strategy. Not only that, but they seem to be on even friendlier terms
with potential saviors than France.


Pat

Fred J. McCall wrote:
If it really is routinely that high, why is Canada screaming about it
now?

The Canadian government isn't doing the screaming.

Of course, we *do* have our newspapers which have editorial staffs
which have the same mindset as your Boston Globe or Washington Post.

And since *they* cannot be pre-occupied with "pull our boys out of
Iraq", because our boys aren't *in* Iraq, they are instead pre-
occumpied with "pull our boys out of Afghanistan".

This would not fly in the U.S., because September 11, 2001 happened in
the U.S., so even if Iraq is controversial, Afghanistan is *not*.

In Canada, the view can be maintained that any soldier we send to
Afghanistan is one soldier the U.S. can send to Iraq *instead* of to
Afghanistan, for example.

Other, even more viciously leftist, views can also be advanced in
Canada, without those responsible placing themselves at risk of being
torn limb from limb (or at least having advertisers boycott their
newspapers), such as the claim that, despite several Canadians being
among those who perished in the September 11, 2001 attacks, that
Afghanistan is merely a United States concern.

John Savard