Article

2007-03-13 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-03-13 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 No need for invasion. Like Derbyshire said "Rubble don't make trouble".

Posted by DMFD 2007-03-13 00:09|| 2007-03-13 00:09|| Front Page Top

#2 "The stupid Bush revived the glory of the old Persian Empire in a very short period of time. I didn't know the Ayatollah Khoumeini was W's cousin. I learn something every day.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-03-13 02:13|| 2007-03-13 02:13|| Front Page Top

#3 A US invasion of Iran would be desired by AQ - they benefit three ways:
1) They don't like Shia and we'd kill off a bunch, and
2) They don't like Americans and the Shia'd kill off some.
3) It would divide our attention and spread our forces.

"expect us to use nuclear weapons "
No, expect us to use weapons on nuclear installations - but same effect: nuclear contamination.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-03-13 07:15|| 2007-03-13 07:15|| Front Page Top

#4 It's called reverse physcology.

I still don't fully buy the Radical Shia verse Radical Sunni stuff. Personally I believe that is something the Muslim Dictators are trying to use to replace the Western hatred becuase we are calling em out on that part since 9-11. I find it somewhat hard to believe when the radicals are calling for unity, working coordinating thier actions like 04' Iraq Sadr/Zarkawi, and the biggest part to me is "Why is it that Shia Radicals instead of bombing the Sunni Radicals and vice versa instead just go kill eachothers moderates who are not at war but just doing daily life". NO my friends the radicals are killing eachothers opponents off, forcing fence sitters to thier side, getting browny points with the US media "ohhh the carnage" crap. If they really hated eachother and was a primary goal Sadr's offices would be carbombed not the University, radical Preachers on both sides would be turning up everywere not Moderate pro governement, the bodies found daily would not be random john does but would be in our databases as suspected or AS Jihadi's.

And to no ones suprise the US media bites the enemy propoganda hook line and sinker.

Posted by C-Low 2007-03-13 08:55|| 2007-03-13 08:55|| Front Page Top

#5 Kinda predictable when Sunni savages destroy several million tons of skyscrapers housing 50,000 Americans that Sunni power is threatened. That the historical enemy, a rising Persian and Shiite power is the principal threat is just the extra sweet icing on the cake. In this several way knife fight, there is no payoff for America to take on all comers. Better to set historical enemies upon each others throats and then take out the winners and plunder them. I predict Shiite dirt farmers will be enjoying the pleasures of Sunni and Saudi princess sex slaves long before America takes out Iran.

Posted by ed 2007-03-13 09:13|| 2007-03-13 09:13|| Front Page Top

#6 A US military operation against Iran will play into the hands of Americas worst enemies

House Democrats?

Posted by Excalibur 2007-03-13 09:45|| 2007-03-13 09:45|| Front Page Top

#7 Japan dared the US to invade as well. Didn't quite go that way now did it.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-03-13 09:54|| 2007-03-13 09:54|| Front Page Top

#8 Or what a tangled web we weave...

Posted by gromgoru 2007-03-13 11:16|| 2007-03-13 11:16|| Front Page Top

#9 There will be no need for an invasion of Iran.

Ever heard the saying:

"Cuius testicles habes, habet cardeum et cerebellum"

And the US is slowly twisting them, in the grand perspective we are watching the same diplomatic and economic poetry that brought down the USSR.

Beautifull.

Posted by Harry Thinelet8011 2007-03-13 11:31|| 2007-03-13 11:31|| Front Page Top

#10 Wow, HT8011, I've never heard Latin "sound" so beautiful, and I only made out 3 or 4 of the words, lol!

Posted by BA 2007-03-13 13:47|| 2007-03-13 13:47|| Front Page Top

#11 "Cuius testicles habes, habet cardeum et cerebellum"

I'm just guessing -- will check with Latin student trailing daughter #1 when she gets home from school -- but that looks like, "When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." Am I close, Harry Thinelet8011?

Posted by trailing wife 2007-03-13 15:01|| 2007-03-13 15:01|| Front Page Top

#12 'Habes' and 'habet' should have the same ending, if they are, as I suspect, referring to the same person. Otherwise, it is directly translated as, "Whose testicles you have, (he/she/it/one) has the heart and brain."

-td#1

Posted by trailing wife 2007-03-13 15:31|| 2007-03-13 15:31|| Front Page Top

#13 She got home.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-03-13 15:32|| 2007-03-13 15:32|| Front Page Top

#14 LOL tw, we have everything at RBU..even Latin Scholars = WAY KOOL!

is thisn correct then..

"Cuius testicles habet, habet cardeum et cerebellum" ?
or thisn..
"Cuius testicles habes, habes cardeum et cerebellum" ?

Posted by RD 2007-03-13 18:42|| 2007-03-13 18:42|| Front Page Top

#15 That's the old Patton Quote, "When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".

Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-03-13 21:09|| 2007-03-13 21:09|| Front Page Top

#16 RD, trailing daughter #1 was willing to be satisfied with either one, so long as both clauses were consistent. Me? I only learn languages I can talk to living people in. ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2007-03-13 22:48|| 2007-03-13 22:48|| Front Page Top

23:52 USN, ret.
23:51 JosephMendiola
23:30 Old Patriot
23:28 RD
23:23 JosephMendiola
23:07 anonymous2u
23:05 JosephMendiola
22:58 anonymous2u
22:54 john
22:48 Barbara Skolaut
22:48 RD
22:48 trailing wife
22:45 Barbara Skolaut
22:41 RD
22:36 Elmolutle Phiger5201
22:34 Cyber Sarge
22:33 john
22:28 john
22:19 Mike
22:16 john
22:09 john
21:55 john
21:53 49 Pan
21:47 Alaska Paul