Douglas Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Robert Goodman wrote: >> I thought more or less the same, but I wouldn't go for air strikes agains>t> Iran. AFAIK Iran's pro-freedom opposition is not geographically> concent>rated and would not benefit particularly by air strikes. >Not now. Now I would favor air strikes only on the city of Qom to take out >the mullahs, plus strikes on Iran's nuke facilities. In 2003, the pro-democ>racy people had the Iranian govt. tottering. Air strikes would have been us>eful in keeping the mullahs from moving Revolutionary Guards to fight them.
Would that have caused any more than a bit of delay? Or even that? I hadn't realized the guards were based in a particular place and could be intercepted so. I thought they were pretty well intermixed such that air strikes would only cause indiscriminate mayhem. >I agree with you generally, though not completely on Cyprus. The Greeks tri>ggered the whole thing back in 1974; the Turkish Cypriot separation was a r>eaction to the Greek Cypriot move to annex Cyprus to Greece, which collapse>d when the Greek junta did. I was thinking a few years farther back than that, which allowed me to count the Turks as the aggressors. That is, the Greeks on Cyprus would not have been interested in annexation to Greece had it not been for their being victims of oppression at the hands of the local Turks during the previous decade. Not continuously, though, so it's not as strong a case as might've been. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
