Have We Already Accepted the Fact of an Iranian Bomb?
The evolving U.S. policy points to learning to live with an Iranian nuke.
Last week, President Barack Obama was at the United Nations, wining and dining the international do-gooder set and doing the grip and grin with friends, adversaries, and those who can’t quite make up their minds. He gave a lovely speech to the General Assembly, speaking in glowing terms of international cooperation to deal with the world’s problems, and he chaired a meeting of the Security Council where one and all solemnly promised to work toward a world where Albert Einstein’s ruinous equation E=MC2 would be conveniently forgotten and mankind would be forever saved from the prospect of nuclear annihilation.
Both the speech and the song and dance at the Security Council meeting were illustrative of the sad fact that the United Nations is not a place where serious issues are addressed, much less resolved. While Obama talked non-proliferation and a nuke-free world, he was also fully aware that one of the UN’s member states was thumbing its nose at the world and constructing a secret uranium enrichment facility that was giving the lie to its oft-repeated promises that its nuclear program is for “peaceful” purposes only.
It is not logical or reasonable to assume that Iran has not been engaged in the dreaded “parallel fuel cycle” approach to their enrichment program. While their main facility for enriching uranium at Natanz was under the eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency and producing low-grade uranium suitable for nuclear reactors, the Iranians were secretly building one — or more — facilities that, for safety’s sake, we must assume was going to be used to enrich uranium to levels suitable for bomb-making, else why keep it secret?
And yet, world leaders at that Security Council meeting (most of whom were fully aware of the secret Iranian facility) pretended that dismantling their bombs and missiles would somehow remove the nuclear threat from the world, and we would all live happily ever after.
We like to think that this is simple naivete on the part of our president and the other leaders present. This is not a credible analysis given what these ladies and gentleman know from their own intelligence briefings regarding what is happening in Iran, and North Korea as well. Instead, they found it a pleasant diversion to pretend that the disagreeable reality represented by the Iranian threat simply didn’t exist.
In case you haven’t noticed, this is par for the course at the UN. You may recall during the last decade, the United Nations refused to call what was happening in Darfur “genocide” despite hundreds of thousands being murdered. You also may remember that the UNIFIL force (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) was supposed to keep the political party/terrorist group Hezbollah from rearming after their war with Israel in the summer of 2006 — as futile a mission ever designed given the fact that the Party of God has been resupplied by their Iranian benefactors to the tune of 40,000 rockets. And it was done right under UNIFIL’s noses.
The disheartening corruption that permeates the world body, the cronyism, the waste, the fraud, the Oil for Food scandal — all of this pales in comparison to the consequences of what will happen if the United Nations does not get deadly serious about the Iranian nuclear program and do all in its power to stop it.
But this is a body that only gets “deadly serious” about making sure the napkins match the curtains at any of the endless diplomatic soirees that help kill the boredom of life at the UN. In order to get serious about denying Iran the ultimate means of assuring that no one will ever again insult the prophet by portraying him in silly little cartoons, the world would have to face some unpleasant truths. And since the UN is all about burying unpleasant truths underneath an avalanche of platitudes and meaningless drivel, the chances of any concerted effort by the world community to stop the Iranians are between slim and none.
The number one unpleasant truth the UN refuses to face is that the Iranians are not going to stop their drive for developing the capability to build a nuclear weapon unless someone physically restrains them from doing so. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made this perfectly plain and there should be no reason to doubt him. He has tied the Iranian nuclear program to the issue of Iranian sovereignty and demands the same rights any other nation has to a nuclear program granted under international law.
The “P-5 + 1″ talks (the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany) in Geneva will simply confirm what everyone already knows: no sanctions regime will prevent Iran from continuing their nuclear work. There are no enticements, no blandishments that the Iranians will accept in exchange for abandoning what they clearly see is a matter of national pride and international prestige. To think otherwise is not logical.
There have been all manner of grandiose proposals for a “grand bargain” that would establish a multinational enrichment facility on Iranian soil, or a vastly increased inspection regime by the IAEA, in exchange for inducements to Iran that consist of sponsoring Iranian membership in the WTO to increased trade with the West.
But when Iran refuses, what then? And here is where I think it fairly obvious that the United States, the West, and the rest of the world have already accepted the idea that Iran is going to eventually develop the capability to construct a nuclear bomb.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Rick Moran is PJM Chicago editor; his own blog is Right Wing Nut House.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
84 Comments
1. Pragmatist:I think the Obamanation has found his spiritual home at the UN there its all smoke and mirrors and no one ever investigates anything they just take the Tyrant/Dictators/Mohammedans/ POTUS’s word at face value. How Obambi must love this no ‘birthers’ to ask him awkward questions no public to actually READ the corrupt legislation he and his cronies on the left are trying to ram rod through. Just admiration applause and praise for his vacuous nonsensical historically incorrect naive pathetic speech.
Oct 1, 2009 - 1:32 am 2. Terry, Eilat - Israel:I think that the idea that there is no military option is sheer foolishness for a military as equipped as the U.S. – this is just rationalization & excuses. And, any military strike on Iran can be on-going, not limited to one strike, until the job is finished.
Oct 1, 2009 - 2:27 am 3. Terry, Eilat - Israel:Second, there is nothing wrong with a military strike even if it only delays Iran’s program by a few years. Buying time is actually quite a positive development.
Third, a military strike would improve chances of a negotiated end & meaningful inspections of Iranian facilitites – nothing like a good bombing to impress upon an adversary that you are very serious.
Fourth, while great attention is paid to the consequences of a military strike, little consideration is given to the really horrific consequences when Iran obtains nuclear weapons. It seems that for many ”liberals” why have a military strike today with 10,000 casualties when you can have millions of casualties later?
By the way, for those that think that there is some modus vivendi, some deterrent, against an Iranian nuclear attack, either on Israel or on the U.S. – well, self- deception knows no bounds. Given the religious beliefs of the Iranian regime, we are not dealing with rational players. When they obtain nuclear weapons, they will use them.
Oct 1, 2009 - 2:34 am 4. Blackwater:Eh we should have intervened militarily during the Iranian freedom protests a couple of months ago. That oppurtunity is probably never going to happen again in decades. That was the test for the leftist Obama regime and they failed miserably.
Oct 1, 2009 - 2:58 am 5. Numerian:I have long had the impression that efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nukes were half-hearted at best, and have entertained the suspicion that perhaps we actually want the mullahs to have them. Why? Because 1) Iranian nukes are not (at this time) a direct threat to the US, 2) Iranian nukes WOULD threaten a whole lot of people the US would like to have influence over, and 3) those people would have no one to turn to for protection except the US.
Yes, I know that sounds crazy.
Oct 1, 2009 - 3:46 am 6. Norman:- Destroying gasoline facilities would be a very good target.
- An attack would last at least 15 days and targets be as multiple as necessary to weaken this regime.
- If strikes must be done every three years… go on
Just a question…or a response will obamadministration prohibit strikes and even will threaten Israel ???
Oct 1, 2009 - 3:49 am 7. Adina Kutnicki, Israel:Terry said it very well.
What I would add is that despite the fact that Israel’s leadership is fractured on most issues, on the issue of Iran they are for the most part of like mind.
Therefore, in spite of the fact that Washington has indeed accepted a nuclear Iran, Israel absolutely hasn’t. Therefore, the world should expect Israel to do WHATEVER it takes to take out their facilities, and perhaps other ‘aspects’ of the regime.
Suffice it to say that Israel’s actions will be in accordance with international laws which sanctions, yes sanctions, pre-emptive strikes necessary for survival. Not only will these strikes be entirely legal, but manifestly moral.
The fallout to many innocent Iranians will be on the heads of the mad mullahs, and ALL those who refused to thwart their evil designs.
The far left ruling elite are none too concerned about the vaporization of Israel. It is this engine which drives them most, hoping that the Islamic beast will be satiated through their Jewish genocide.
As if!!
Oct 1, 2009 - 4:16 am 8. whyamInotsurprised?:The UN is worthless.
Anyone paying attention would see that
1. if Iran was truly interested in “peaceful” energy, they would have invested in their own oil refineries
2. they continue to build these “secret” nuclear plants in hardened locations next to human/holy shields
3. parallel development of delivery systems makes one wonder just why missiles are needed if nuclear energy is in fact the goal
4. all the “wipe Israel” off the map talk is inconsistent with peaceful intent
The US military took out Saddam’s military in days. Yet, the Iranians fought the Iraqi’s for eight years to a stalemate after slaughter on both sides. What makes you think we couldn’t trash that country if we wanted to. Compared to terrorists running around the world with nukes, a few well placed tactical nukes would eliminate the Iranian leadership and the nuclear sites as well. But alas, with Barry at the helm, he will vote “Present” and punt. This will leave the world in a desperate situation which will only be ignored until the first nuke goes off. Unfortunately, I believe that will be aimed at Israel. God’s speed to Bibi and the Israeli’s in defending their homeland.
Oct 1, 2009 - 5:23 am 9. ehunter:Compare any President from Americas past to what we have today..and see how far we have fallen.
What would Harry Truman do in this situation?
What would Richard Nixon do in this situation?
What would Reagan do in this situation?
What would George Washington, or Jefferson do?
And finally (God help Iran) what would Teddy
Oct 1, 2009 - 5:34 am 10. SAF:Roosevelt do?
The US has accepted the fact of the Iranian bomb from all appearances. It is unlikely Obama has any plan to militarily confront them.
Few countries ever opt for preemption. The Israelis did it with Iraq but I really can’t recall another event like this. Real action always happens after the fact when it is much more expensive and bloody. So it will be here.
I don’t see how the Israelis can stop Iran alone, unless they use low yield nukes and I don’t see how that happens.
What Obama and the Arabs don’t get is that a nuked Israel kills many of them as well. But suicide against enemies is in their blood but I guess wiping out Israel is worth the millions they also will lose.
Oct 1, 2009 - 5:53 am 11. Booker T. Gain:Considering the source this was a reasonably good article until this descent into moronism.
We have accepted this nightmare because the alternatives would be even worse and because the rest of the world refuses to act responsibly in keeping the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of religious fanatics.
The dangers of Iran having nuclear weapons are incalculable and not limited to merely destroying Israel, something the left could no doubt live with. And it is absurd to suggest that United States should cave in to the nuclear ambitions of the crazed Islamists because the rest of the world is irresponsible.
And the author doesn’t understand why Obama didn’t speak out in support of the democracy protesters in Iran. Either he is delusional and thinks he can talk the Iranians out of their nuclear ambitions or he is mad and thinks they won’t use their nuclear weapons.
Not that it really makes any difference but I think it is the former. There is now overwhelming evidence of Obama’s pathological narcissism. The look on his face before he spoke at the U.N. was very revealing of his deranged state of mind.
Oct 1, 2009 - 6:27 am 12. Bear:I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Iran already had a bomb, (either their own or otherwise) and are baiting an action to justify their own reaction.
Oct 1, 2009 - 6:42 am 13. Bob Miller:Our maximum leader may be more against our own nukes than Iran’s.
Oct 1, 2009 - 6:49 am 14. AThinkingPerson:I think we can guess what this administration is planning on doing in this instance. Nothing.
When Obama hasn’t spoken with McKrystal in weeks about Afghanistan while choosing to fly personally to cheer for Chicago to get the Olympics, we are in deep do-do. Priorities?
Iran is making a bomb. We know it, they know it, the world knows it. Let’s see if Obama’s winning personality and Cheshire cat smile can make them stop. Any guesses?
Oct 1, 2009 - 6:53 am 15. Libertyship46:Adina (#7) has touched on a very important point. Iran getting nuclear weapons is NOT just a problem effecting Israel. People in the United States must understand that. When a dictatorship bent on regional domination gets nuclear weapons, do you honestly think it will stop at threatening just Israel? Israel would simply be the first victim of Iran’s nuclear blackmail or, worse, a nuclear attack. But once Iran gets nuclear weapons, why does anyone think they will be any less threatening to that part of the world as North Korea is to Asia? North Korea is constantly making overt threats to South Korea, Japan, and any other nation within its nuclear missile range. Why would it be any different with Iran? After Iran threatens Israel, why is it such a stretch of the imagination to see them threatening more of their own neighbors, like Iraq or Saudi Arabia? And for those people who think appeasing Iran will ensure stability in the region, what do you think the price of oil will be after Iran starts threatening its other oil-producing neighbors, like Saudi Arabia? What is the West going to do if Iran decides that Iraq should be run by Shia Muslims at the expense of the Sunnis and the Kurds that live there? What if Iran says that NATO should withdraw from Afghanistan or else face nuclear attack inside that dysfunctional country? And what if Iran decides one day that Muslims are not being treated well enough in France, Britain, or Germany and blackmails Europe in giving the Muslim minorities in those countries more political power? Remember, Iran doesn’t have to actually attack Europe. It only has to threaten Europe and then hand off a small nuclear device to some radical Muslim group in Europe to do the actual dirty work for them. Also remember that we are dealing with a country that is run by religious fanatics that could care less if the West threatens them with nuclear retaliation. The Iranian mullahs would actually embrace the opportunity to usher in the Twelfth Imam, which is their version of the Book of Revelation. So the bottom line is that we all have skin in this game, not just the Israelis, and the sooner the West realizes this the sooner it should be willing to stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons. This is not a crisis that can be put off any longer. It also is NOT a problem that the Israelis can bomb away. Only if Iran thinks that the West, especially the Europeans, are serious about this and is willing to back up their lame rhetoric with substantial economic and possibly military action, will Iran back down. If that does not happen, then all bets are off and the rest of the world, as well as the Iranians, should start preparing for the return of the Twelfth Imam.
Oct 1, 2009 - 6:58 am 16. Marie Claude:“the UNIFIL force (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) was supposed to keep the political party/terrorist group Hezbollah from re-arming after their war with Israel in the summer of 2006 )”
according to UN 1701 resolution paragraphs, it was never ment that the forces of UNIFIL were supposed to de-arm, (or to empech to re-arm), which was/is the Lebanese government concern, but to empech that conflicts broke within antagonist communities, and or HBZ vs Israel, only Lebanese forces are allowed to fight HBZ and to remove their arms, but would you think that they would do that when HBZ soldiers are also part of the Lebanese forces ?
Now, if the UNIFIL forces aren’t effective in what most of the “civilised nations” were expecting, it’s because Condi Rice and the american State department didn’t want to accord to France her whole requests (ie via Chirac), or whatever gift she wanted to leave to HBZ and IRAN. Seams that there were backyards discussions with IRAN.
It was just a question of paragraph numbers, N°6 vs N°7 (I believe, though not certain)that would have made the difference, N°6, UNIFIL forces are ONLY allowed to fight back when they are attacked, N°7 UNIFIL forces are allowed to search hidden arms and to initiate fights
Therefore UNIFIL mission was and has more Huamanitarian agendas
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/mandate.html
Oct 1, 2009 - 7:09 am 17. Maurice:This is perilous, playing with these idiots. For one thing, that regime is ripe for overthrow. The people in Iran simply do not want it. Not talking nation-building here, nor regime change. Just regime destruction. The Mullahs are preparing to become the world’s first Suicide Bomber Nation. They do intend to drop the big one on Israel. They have said it repeatedly. Even the Euros are with us on this one. We must take out their nukes. The regime will collapse.
Oct 1, 2009 - 7:30 am 18. AThinkingPerson:To echo our illustrious First Lady Michelle who made a huge “sacrifice” to fly to Europe with Oprah to push for the Chicago Olympics…. For the first time in my life, I am ASHAMED of my country. I’m ashamed of my President. I’m scared of what my OWN country is doing.
Re #9 ehunter: It’s almost too painful to contemplate what past President’s would do in this situation. Remember the days when an American President operated out of dignity and honor and with the safety and security of US citizens first and foremost? Those days are truly gone. These are dark days for America.
Oct 1, 2009 - 7:35 am 19. Now and Then:Here’s a question nobody is willing to answer: How many of those brave political protesters, those heroes, those freedom loving friends of liberty who took to the streets of Iran are you willing to kill to bomb Iran? Anybody?
Oct 1, 2009 - 8:05 am 20. SAF:#19: Here is your answer:
There are many ways to bring Iran to bay without killing vast amounts of the population. Those include:
1. Take out 10% of the electric generation capacity of the country, on a temporary basis, every 4 hours (easy to do, Clinton did it in Bosnia) until we get results
2. Take out 5% of all electrical capacity on a permanent basis every day until we get results
3. Destroy the navy
4. Bunker busters
There are many things that can be done with a minimum of risk to American or Iranian lives. Electricity might spur the population to rebel.
But have no fear Now and Then, we will do none of these things.
Oct 1, 2009 - 8:28 am 21. AThinkingPerson:Your point is moot Now and Then. We’ve got a panty-waist administration more concerned about getting the Olympics to Chicago than anything concerning Afghanistan or Iran remember?
You are obviously an Obama supporter. Why not share with us what you feel he should be doing (since he isn’t doing ANYTHING right now). You own both houses of Congress and the White House. The balls in YOUR court so to speak. What’s the solution Now and Then?
Do share….
Oct 1, 2009 - 8:28 am 22. Then and Now:Re: #19
Gee, I don’t know. How many people are you willing to let Iran incinerate so that you can maintain your fantasy that inaction is noble and righteous?
Oct 1, 2009 - 8:35 am 23. AThinkingPerson:Just as we thought, our resident liberal just like our current hot mess President, has no solution but yet demands that conservatives and independents provide one. Funny and sad at the same time.
Oct 1, 2009 - 8:42 am 24. David W. Lincoln:Hitler having the bomb made as much sense as Ahmadinezhad and his fellow deformed souls having it.
Lets get the sequence in order, shall we. Ahmadinezhad, and his cohorts, send proxies and agents of the Iranian government against those whom they deem as targets. Then those targetted respond to the version of man’s inhumanity to man attributable to Ahmadinezhad, Nasrallah, and that pack of wolves.
So, if Ahmadinezhad, Khameini, Nasrallah, and the
Oct 1, 2009 - 8:52 am 25. Paul from Hamburg:rest of that pack of wolves conclude that they are entitled to supreme protection of their warped double standard, then they have to have this message communicated to them: You are not allowed to get away with this forever. Your double standard will catch up to you.
It is a done deal. The AP is reporting: “A senior U.S. official met Iran’s top atomic negotiator for face-to-face talks on Thursday — the first such encounter in years of big-power attempts to persuade Tehran to freeze a program that could create nuclear weapons.”
Six nations, including the US are meeting with Iran. All six supposedly share the goal of getting Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program. The US meets privately with Iran. Iran is alone at the talks; they have no need for secrecy. So, which is more likely: Iran will make a private concession that it is unwilling to make in front of the other participants or the United States is making a private concession to Iran that our allies are not supposed to know about?
Oct 1, 2009 - 8:58 am 26. Now and Then:20. SAF:
So, your answer is somewhere just short of “vast” amounts.
21. AThinkingPerson:
Your answer is the innocent victims are moot.
22. Then and Now:
You have no answer.
Well done, folks. Your geopolitical acumen is outweighed only by your cowardice. I suggest you all apply immediately to the Sean Hannity Internship Team (S.H.I.T. for short).
Oct 1, 2009 - 9:21 am 27. AThinkingPerson:Now and Then: Yet another flame out.
It’s getting easier to see why you’re such a staunch Obama supporter. Neither of you can produce one coherent thought. Interesting that you’ve not offered up one solution but then again, neither has Obama.
No surprises here people. Yet another liberal with no solutions, only finger pointing.
*yawn*
Is it 2010 yet?
Oct 1, 2009 - 9:31 am 28. wondering:Maybe this isn’t very nice, but as the muslim world is always spreading terror, Iran will give them some terror back, if nuclear.
Oct 1, 2009 - 9:42 am 29. heetookuazy:Should be interesting to see them, for a change, have to live with Iran’s threats and pushy ways. Will Iran go after other muslim countries? Maybe, they’ll just demand, demand all the time, from Iraq and Jordan etc…
Remarkable that we are even discussing this issue…
The government of Iran has killed and is killing to this day, Americans and American allies. They declared war upon us in 1979 and have pursued it virtually unabated, over 3 decades, through both Republican and Democratic administrations.
We were prepared to strike, during Bush but certain leftist elements within our politicized intelligence community and media, successfully prevented it. At the point we were placed in a position weakness and vulnerability, which the election has cemented. There are few knowledgeable persons who doubt the ramifications and consequences. This is especially and immediately true for Israel.
Iran will use the bomb/s at some point. Hizbollah, Hamas, ETC. will use the bomb/s at some point. We, are out of time but I have noticed that our leftist now recognize that there is a problem. How to shoot down Israeli missiles and jets….
Deepest apologies to the Israelis for the situation and circumstances. Do what you have to. Even if the American left isn’t with you, know that the American people are. We have some political matters to deal with concerning treason but we will not forget you, and I assure you, we will not forget our mutual enemies either.
Oct 1, 2009 - 9:43 am 30. myth buster:The one thing nobody is paying attention to is the prospect of Iran having no intention of building a URANIUM bomb. What if this whole thing about a secret enrichment facility is a diversion from their true intention to reprocess spent fuel to build a bomb out of Pu-239 or Np-237?
Oct 1, 2009 - 9:47 am 31. Scott:#19 N&T
Here’s a question nobody is willing to answer: How many of those brave political protesters, those heroes, those freedom loving friends of liberty who took to the streets of Iran are you willing to kill to bomb Iran? Anybody?
Every last one of them if need be.
Yeah, you’re going to come out with the “blood thirsty” conservative meme but like the left’s cries of “racism” when criticizing “The Won” I really don’t give a crap anymore. The suffering that would be inflicted upon the world if/when Iran gets the bomb will far surpass what would be inflicted if we carpet bombed Iran.
You’ve probably never given thought to what would happen should Iran nuke Israel or a European nation or gave one to a terrorist group that then nuked a US/European city. Perhaps you should. Imagine if they nuked NY or LA during the work day. Iran has a total population of about 67 million, LA Metro area about 13 million and NYC about 8.5 million. One nuke detonated by a terrorist in either of these cities would wipe out an equivalent to 12% (NYC) or 19% (LA Metro area) of their total population. You think the Patriot Act (which many conservatives and libertarians opposed) was bad you’ll see Americans (or Europeans) sacrifice their remaining freedoms on the altar of “security” or have them ripped away as martial law is declared. To prevent that I’d bomb Iran and its people back to the stone age with conventional weapons if I had to.
Oct 1, 2009 - 10:00 am 32. Now and Then:31. Scott:
The question is: How many innocent Iranians are we willing to kill to bomb Iran?
Scott’s answer: “Every last one of them if need be.”
I think we have the definitive conservative POV. The Final Solution. Thank you, Scott. Your application to S.H.I.T. (Sean Hannity Internship Team) has been accepted. Move to the head of the class. (First time at the head of the class, eh ? I know, it feels good.)
As for you, 29. heetookuazy:
“(Iran) declared war upon us in 1979 and have pursued it virtually unabated, over 3 decades.”
I wonder why Reagan didn’t know that? Surely if he had known they didn’t like us he wouldn’t have sold all those weapons to them through a secret government apparatus set up to circumvent Congress (and generate tidy profits!) Thank god we know Iran doesn’t like us now.
You people are enemies of humanity.
Oct 1, 2009 - 10:16 am 33. Scott:And what brilliant solution to Iran getting nukes would you propose N&T? Would you also accept personal responsibility for any people killed by those nukes?
Oct 1, 2009 - 10:22 am 34. Scott:Now & Then do you believe that ending institutionalized slavery in America was a good thing?
Oct 1, 2009 - 10:27 am 35. Now and Then:33 Scott . . .
I know you’re probably a little nervous sitting this close to the teacher. I’ll be gentle.
I would assassinate the top 100 extremists in the country followed by incentives to engage in Western economic and cultural opportunities to the moderates. That’s MY number, 100, and none of them are innocent. I know, interesting.
Now, do you accept personal responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed and maimed in the last 8 years? It’s OK, Scott. Don’t be a pussy. You can speak up in this class. History is full of examples of people living in fear and striking out at hypothetical threats. Why, just recently our very own administration got so scared (and yes, I must admit, greedy) that they did exactly that . . . they attacked without proof of threat or provocation. And that’s why the last eight years have been such a disaster for this great nation we call America.
Don’t worry though, Scott, the ‘fraidy cats aren’t in control anymore. So you can walk home today unafraid. And remember, don’t abuse any animals on the way. Yes, I heard about that incident with the cat and the washing machine. We don’t want you to turn into another Jeffrey Dahmer now, do we? Good. Run along now.
Oct 1, 2009 - 10:36 am 36. Now and Then:34. Scott:
“Now & Then do you believe that ending institutionalized slavery in America was a good thing?”
Sounds like a question for Glenn Beck to me.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909300024
Oct 1, 2009 - 10:42 am 37. Professor Guvinoff:This reminds me of an old joke about a free-fall parachute contest, in which the guy who dares open his chute closest to the ground gets the prize.
One guy, more ambitious and more sure of himself than most (and I am not naming anyone), was coming down fast and trying to refine his ultimate decision about when to pull the handle and open the chute. He was watching the needle of his altimeter, rapidly winding down, not overly concerned because he had already noticed long ago that his thinking was even faster…
At 2000 feet above ground, he knew that pulling the handle would be foolish, because everyone else so far had opened below 1000 feet. At 800 feet above ground, he thought “that’s still too early because some other dude after me will open another 100 feet lower”. Proud of this eco-friendly line of reasoning, he recycled it all the way down to 100 feet above ground, where the argument loses some of its force, regardles of gravity’s unwillingness to do the same…
So, he said to himself “Ha Ha, now, this is getting really serious”. A few milliseconds later, 30 feet above ground he suddenly realized that would be about the same as falling from the roof of my barn. No sweat, do you really need a parachute for that? There would not even be any time for the parachute to open! Sorry, I can offer no further speculation about whatever the next thought might have been, it’s up to you from this point on.
If the human power of denial (or power of abstraction, I can’t tell) was not capable of reaching such stratospheric heights in the mind of people with legs too short to reach the ground, every single train wreck might have been recognized, and acted upon before turning into a tragic catastrophe.
In the meantine, don’t waste your money on parachutes, you don’t need them, unless perhaps you are an Israeli citizen, and you care about your children and grand-children.
But that does not apply to you if you are not an Israeli?
Oct 1, 2009 - 10:42 am 38. billslayer:36. Now and Then:Have no fear buddy, Billslayer is here to remind you that your messiah got his start in politics turning tricks for a slumlord. Yes, I Know its your favorite visual, isn’t it. Sweet little Barry servicing that mean ol’ slumlord so that one day he could moralize from the pulpit at the UN… it’s inspiring. Yes, whether stepping up to the mic for the slumlord or polishing Putin’s boots with his tongue, he is truly inspirational to all 400 lb shut ins.
Oct 1, 2009 - 10:54 am 39. Scott:Now how would you accomplish the assassination of the top 100 extremists in Iran without inflicting casualties on innocent bystanders Now and Then? What about the executive order banning assassination as a tool of US foreign policy? Thanks to Obama and Holder no CIA agent would even think about carrying out that order.
Also you seem to be afraid to answer my other question. Why is that?
Oct 1, 2009 - 10:59 am 40. Now and Then:38 Layer of Bill . . . Yes I do weight 400 pounds. But I’m also 8 feet tall. Bring it on, knob gobbler.
Oct 1, 2009 - 10:59 am 41. Morry Rotenberg:NOW we have a fascist tyrant who wants to kill the Jews. THEN we had a fascist tyrant who wanted to kill the Jews. NOW we have a Jewish Nation with weapons. THEN we didn’t have such an entity. NOW the Jewish Nation has learned the lessons that THEN they didn’t believe was possible. The Jews will not let happen to them NOW what happened to them THEN no matter what the anti-Semites and complicit bystanders do or don’t do.
Oct 1, 2009 - 11:04 am 42. billslayer:40. Now and Then:You’re not 8 feet tall, you’re 5′6. You are a weakling who has never touched the opposite sex. You pined away for the kind of women that you saw guys like me with. You are weak and effeminate and envy ridden.
Oct 1, 2009 - 11:13 am 43. Now and Then:41. Morry Rotenberg . . . Morry, Morry, Morry . . .
You have no cause to call me an anti-Semite. Your religion is irrelevant to me. I consider religion to be the scourge of human existence. Not God, mind you, just religion. I’m against the murder of innocents. You should consider that option and not some ongeppotchket foreign policy. If you insist on imbuing, target yourself. I’m self-defining.
Oct 1, 2009 - 11:17 am 44. David W. Lincoln:Professor Guvinoff, the joke about parachutes reminds me of a joke from the bad old days of Carter in the White House, and Brezhnev in the Kremlin. They were on a flight with Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, and a boy scout.
The plane has engine problems, and Carter grabs a parachute and bails out because he is too important to go down with the plane. So the first engine is shut down. Then another engine has problems, and Brezhnev grabs a parachute and bails out, because he is too important to die in a plane crash. Then the third engine has trouble, and Trudeau leaves the plane, because he is too important to die in a plane crash. Then the last engine has trouble, and the pilot says to the Boy Scout, “You take the last parachute, because I have lived longer than you, and you are just starting to live”. But the Boy Scout then says, “But there are two parachutes. Trudeau grabbed my back pack”.
Does it show that I am a Canadian?
But, getting to the point, as long as the powers that be only pay lip service to what transcends the political arena, we will continue to get inanities like accepting Ahmadinezhad, Khameimi, and that collection of deformed souls having nukes.
Oct 1, 2009 - 11:18 am 45. Now and Then:42. Layer of Bill:
So many posts. So little variety. It’s like your brain is in a centrifuge, whipping around a single cycle. Me, I requires more . . . challenge and reward. But hey, as long as you’re entertained that’s fine.
Oct 1, 2009 - 11:21 am 46. Poor Citizen:Ok,then
We should destroy the country in order to save it.
Todays “Point to Ponder” moment is brought to you by: The Likud Party.
Oct 1, 2009 - 11:26 am 47. Now and Then:39. Scott:
“What about the executive order banning assassination as a tool of US foreign policy?”
Is that a rhetorical question? Yes, I’m well aware of that executive order. Clearly I don’t care about that executive order. Just as I don’t care about the tax emption for churches. I form my own beliefs. You should try it.
Oct 1, 2009 - 11:26 am 48. Now and Then:39. Scott:
“Also you seem to be afraid to answer my other question. Why is that?”
I would think you would have picked up on this by now, but I’ll indulge your fog . . . Because it doesn’t exist.
Anybody else out there wanna try? Come on, surely somebody can get a punch through.
Oct 1, 2009 - 11:40 am 49. Morry Rotenberg:43 Now and Then … Now, Now, Now
What did the judge say about what constitutes pornography? I know it when I see it. I did not see anti-Semitism in your post NOW and THEN. Your sensitivity to my words must mean that I have touched a sensitive place in your psyche.You are either a latent anti-Semite or just a bystander. Either way, you and your useful idiot friends on the left will suffer with the rest of us when the Iranians have the bomb.
Oct 1, 2009 - 12:16 pm 50. AThinkingPerson:Re #48 “surely somebody can get a punch through”? Pathetic and sad but yet predictable. Reading his/her/it’s posts are like watching a train wreck in s*l*o*w motion. You know what the outcome is going to be but the lead up is ever so fascinating.
Obama has no solution. The Democrats in control of Congress have no solution. Gee, wonder if Iran will take advantage of Obama’s lack of plan and/or testosterone? The news from today’s talks with Iran is encouraging…not. Yet more talks are planned. *yawn*. More inaction. More indecision. More time for Iran to hide the evidence.
Surely they’ll fall prey to that winning smile and outstanding personality of his. It sure seems to have worked on the easily swayed amongst us. (No offense to our 400 lb friend Now and Then of course.)
Oct 1, 2009 - 12:23 pm 51. Robert V:To me, this is a dificult situation. Here is what I see as not being difficult to understand. The moment Iran gets a nuke, and detonates it in Isreal, the ENTIRE country of Iran is erased from the planet. I mean, come on, to believe that Israel’s nuclear arsenal (which they will not open to international inspections in violation of the UN) is not ready to deploy, right now, into all sections of Iran, is naive.
Oct 1, 2009 - 12:29 pm 52. myth buster:48. What you mean is that you don’t care about reality. The fact is that Obama would betray any CIA agent who carried out such an action, which means it would be up to MOSSAD to accomplish the assassinations. They are quite capable, but I doubt they’d be able to get access. You can pick off a couple people with snipers, but to kill the top 100 requires getting up close and personal. Doing so without starting a war is nigh impossible, especially if your face betrays your disguise.
Oct 1, 2009 - 12:37 pm 53. Now and Then:52. myth buster:
“48. What you mean is that you don’t care about reality.”
Wrong. I don’t care about YOUR reality. I care greatly about THE reality.
Oct 1, 2009 - 1:13 pm 54. Now and Then:49. Morry Rotenberg:
“I did not see anti-Semitism in your post NOW and THEN. Your sensitivity to my words must mean that I have touched a sensitive place in your psyche.”
Morry, Morry, Morry . . . your words
” . . . no matter what the anti-Semites and complicit bystanders do or don’t do.”
You just have to be honest with yourself. That’s all. Is that so hard, people?
Oct 1, 2009 - 1:15 pm 55. DavidN:There are a couple of dimensions to this that I haven’t seen brought up yet, though I’ll confess I didn’t read *all* the comments. You have to think about this long-term, and regionally, culturally, and in terms of religion, in order to figure out what’s going on. Seeing Israel’s destruction as the goal of the Iranian regime is rather short-sighted. That is merely (in my opinion) the beginning.
Iranians are Shiites, and Persians. Most Muslims in the region are Sunni and Arab. Both divisions separate Iranians from he majority of the rest of Islam, and both divisions aren’t particularly friendly. There is an odd component to this, though: Shiites try to recruit from among Sunnis. They *proselytize*. And it’s bears repeating: Arabs have considerable disdain for other races and ethnicities (they’re racists, just like everyone else) and they despise Persians, who they see as soft, ineffectual, and effete. On the other hand, most of the Arab “street” as it’s usually known, is disconnected from its leadership, discontented with the way things are going, and burning with jealousy and hatred towards Israel, which has humiliated Arab armies repeatedly and remains an affront to Arab and Muslim strength by its mere existence.
Now imagine what would happen if Iran managed to hit Israel with a couple of nuclear bombs, and annihilate the country. Persians would no longer be thought ineffectual or effete: they’d be celebrated as the killers of the Jews. Shiism would be see as the sect that destroyed Israel, and many Sunnis would defect. Regimes around the Middle East would either become much more friendly to Iran or fall to Iranian surrogates, if they didn’t just join Iran as new territorial acquisitions. After the dust clears, 25 years from now, there could be only one large country in the Middle East, encompassing all the Stans, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the gulf states, and the Mahgreb. It would control a substantial portion of the world’s oil supply, but by then we might be using alternative energy sources. This would, of course, enrage this “super-Iran” further, and they’d be bent on world domination.
I know there are some who will think me paranoid for putting forward this scenario. I also know that it only has a slim chance of working. You have to remember though, that these guys really do believe in miracles. Anyone willing to risk them having the nukes, and the capability of using them, on the off chance they might see this scenario as unworkable?
Oct 1, 2009 - 1:31 pm 56. Scott:Understand this Bedouin (Arab) Proverb and you will understand the quagmire of the Middle East and virtually all Islamic nations.
“I against my brother, I and my brother against our cousin, my brother and our cousin against the neighbors, all of us against the foreigner.”
Sorry DavidN but its more likely you’d see the Shia and Sunni end up at war, why do you think the Saudis got concessions from us on nuclear technology last year?
Oct 1, 2009 - 2:12 pm 57. billslayer:55. DavidN:
Oct 1, 2009 - 2:24 pm 58. Markus:Thanks for bringing up some of these points. For a lot of the arab street, Iraq was initially thrilling, because they got to watch AQ blowing us up, but turned into a disappointment when AQ turned into a horror for everybody, and was then crushed during the surge. AQ disappointed because they turned out to be bloodthirsty killers and rapists and then got smashed by the Anbar Awakening and american firepower. Now, on another front Hezbollah has impressed the arab street by fighting israel–and standing their ground, and forcing israel into an embarassing retreat. A good analogy is the crips and bloods in LA in the 80’s and 90’s…the ones that were the hardest and most ruthless attracted the most attention.
I personally think that America’s vital interests would not be threatened were Iran to have nukes. It would be a real threat to Israel, however, and the decision of how to respond should be left to Israeli citizens and no one else. Morry Rotenberg is correct that Jews are going to protect themselves without apologies in any case, this is understandable, but the US should still stay strictly neutral. And American Jews who want to support Israel’s defense ought to be urging Israeli military action, rather than American intervention.
Oct 1, 2009 - 3:42 pm 59. Bob from Virginia:BTW, a poll shows that one quarter of Israel’s Jewish population would emigrate if Iran got the bomb. That means the Arab birthrate would turn Israel into an Arab country in two generations at the most without firing a shot. Israel takes out the Iranian bomb or Israel dies. It is really that simple.
Obama is a disaster and millions saw it coming. I really am fed up with a US electorate too stupid to see the obvious, happy 1939 everyone.
Oct 1, 2009 - 3:43 pm 60. Sebastian Shaw:President Obama’s sanctions for Iran are toothless; therefore, Iran will continue an attempt to make a nuclear bomb. Obama will just ignore the problem & call anything a success for him. Democrats think you can talk someone out of things, but this is not the case. The Democrats refuse to carry a big stick, yet have no problem giving away not only the carrot, but the entire garden…
Oct 1, 2009 - 4:09 pm 61. David P:There will be NO LIVING with a nuclear Iran.
Oct 1, 2009 - 4:10 pm 62. McBride:We’ve been sitting on the eastern and western borders of Iran for six years.I’d like to think that we have been fomenting regime change by communicating and giving material support to the Iranian citizens opposed to the current government,but I guess that’s unacceptable behavior now,unless we’re talking about Honduras.
Our most scurrilous and vapid troll made a telling statement when he used the term “Final Solution” pertaining to Iranians.A Freudian slip,wishing it on Israel?
Oct 1, 2009 - 5:16 pm 63. Andy:On top of the mountain (or perhaps underlying it) of headfakes and deception that the Iranians are throwing at The One is the notion that the bomb(s) are intended for Israel first and foremost. But oh, if that were only the case.
Think about it. That DOES NOT achieve their ultimate goal. In fact it makes the achievment of that goal (by Iran) all but impossible. Iran nukes Israel and in return is eliminated one way or the other. While the larger SATAN remains standing.
However, if several of those bombs go off here. ESPECIALLY given the touchy nature of our internal politics AND the state of our economy. Well THAT is another matter entirely.
Oct 1, 2009 - 6:53 pm 64. Anonymous:Wussing out!
Oct 1, 2009 - 6:54 pm 65. Andy:I know, feeding the trolls. Now and Then, I’m sure this response is going to shock the hell out of you. Coming from a knuckle-dragging neanderthal and all. But here it goes. HOW EVER MANY IT TAKES TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND SURVIVAL OF THIS COUNTRY.
Oct 1, 2009 - 7:18 pm 66. John "birther" Samford:For some of you it will be learning to die. Flyover America will be safe, but the bi-coastals are in for it.
Oct 1, 2009 - 9:02 pm 67. ella:Iran has now Shahab 3 which threatens Israel and parts of Turkey, but soon it may produce Shahab 4 (2,000 – 2800 km) which will threatens parts of Europe.. I know that attack on Israel is possible because both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are fanatics but there is another possibility. Iran can get a bomb and then blackmail western countries, it would be much more efficient. Their government might say – if you won’t do “something” we will use the bomb [or give the bomb to our proxy-armies]. People are more afraid of things which did not happen yet then of things which already happen. That’s one of the reason why blackmail works. If somebody say I will do something then people imagination is running wild, and people, governments and the countries imagine the worst. And because of their fright, western countries might do things which they would not do if Iran actually used the bomb. For example: they might agree to slowly start put sanction on Israel. They might agree to stop Iranian sanction. Then they might agree to do other things. Because fear makes cowards of us all.
Oct 1, 2009 - 9:28 pm 68. Gary Rosen:“I’m against the murder of innocents.”
So how come you’re in favor of Nutjob nuking Israel?
Oct 2, 2009 - 12:59 am 69. Now and Then:62. McBride:
“Our most scurrilous and vapid troll made a telling statement when he used the term “Final Solution” pertaining to Iranians.A Freudian slip, wishing it on Israel?”
I asked: How many innocent Iranians are you willing to kill to bomb Iran?
Scott’s answer: “Every last one of them if need be.”
Noting Freudian about it. Scott’s a sociopath. You’re a willing accomplice.
Oct 2, 2009 - 5:22 am 70. Now and Then:68. Gary Rosen:
Back to spread more of your closeted anti-Semitism I see. Shame on you. You have a history of trashing REAL Jews here at PJM. You should have the grace to stop.
Oct 2, 2009 - 7:21 am 71. Scott:Now and Then how can you be so intellectually dishonest and look yourself in the mirror every morning?
If you asked any soldier past, present, or future “How many of the enemy would they be willing to kill to defend your country?” They would give you the exact same answer. How many civilians have died as a result of WWI & II? What about Democrat Harry S. Truman dropping 2 nuclear weapons that wiped out the civilian population of two Japanese cities? Are you willing to paint him with the same brush as you do me? How about Kennedy or LBJ who caused the suffering of the Vietnamese people for 15 years? You also cherry pick and exclude my reasoning for the statement “Every last one of them if need be.”
You yourself have admitted that you believe murder is acceptable to achieve your political ends. I’m sure you’re just salivating to get Bill Ayers camps for Conservatives going, right Now and Then? You’re also a hypocrite. Good luck getting anyone to perform the assassinations since 1) its illegal by Executive Order and 2) nobody in the intelligence community would be willing to stick their necks out thanks to Obama and Holder.
Oct 2, 2009 - 8:36 am 72. Now and Then:71. Scott:
Oct 2, 2009 - 8:49 am 73. Jodetoad:I’m just putting faces to the victims of pre-emptive rightwing chickenhawk rage that we saw so irresponsibly applied in Iraq and Vietnam. We were attacked by the Japanese. Yes, I hold LBJ and JFk to that standard. They were wrong then, just like you’re wrong now. BTW, repeating your words does not constitute cherry-picking them. Any questions?
Iran is the largest supporter of organized terror. Sure, they have missiles now, and better ones in the works, but there are other ways. Get a ship reasonably close to US shores, and do an EMT attack. Give a dirty bomb to a terrorist outfit and get it through the US border. Practice extortion threatening US allies. Actually, the possibilities are endless, particularly given a delusional peacenik president. Nuclear Iran is a threat to the US and everybody else, predicated on their history and statements.
When contemplating a threat, intentions don’t mean much, given that the future and peoples’ true intent is basically unknowable. Calling people ‘innocent’ is not pertinent. Most of the folks in WW2 Germany were innocent of desiring the Holocaust, but sifting through them to determine who to fight was impractical. People always suffer the consequences of the decisions of their leaders. That includes us.
If life was a computer game, we could have all these fabulous and painless choices. But the choices we actually have are deciding if nuclear Iran is a threat to us and our interests, and if so, what to do about it and when. Most Americans have decided Iran IS a threat, and the diplomatic dithering looks ridiculous, the usual parties posturing to look like moral heroes to other idealists.
‘When’ is long past due – as usual the moral heroes’ self-delusions are likely to delay until some horrifying tragedy occurs. Not being a military whiz, I leave ‘How’ to the knowledgeable, but tend to agree with those who say “whatever it takes”. The wafflers at the UN and in our government will end up, after costing many lives, having to do the same job in the end, with much more difficulty and cost. Unless, of course, they just lay down and surrender, which wouldn’t be much surprise at this point.
Oct 2, 2009 - 10:46 am 74. Scott:I’m just putting faces to the victims of pre-emptive rightwing chickenhawk rage that we saw so irresponsibly applied in Iraq and Vietnam.
Last I checked Kennedy and LBJ were Democrats, so not much “Right Wing or Republican” there. What about “putting faces” on the millions of people that will easily be wiped out if Iran were to provide nukes to terrorists, and they are a known state sponsor of terrorism, that were then successfully detonated in metropolitan area like NY, LA, Chicago, London, Madrid, Berlin, or Paris?
You’ve said assassinate the top 100 extremists. I again ask you how you would accomplish this without harming a single innocent bystander? You plan on hiring Angelina Jolie from “Wanted” to carry out your plans? Your “plan” is just about as much fantasy as that movie. Like everything else from the left it is poorly conceived, poorly thought out, and would be a failure in execution.
Oct 2, 2009 - 11:15 am 75. Scott:Oh also don’t forget all those “Left-wing” Democrats who authorized and funded the war in Iraq. I wrote both my Senators and Representative, who at the time were all Democrats, telling them to vote against the authorization of force in Iraq. They all voted in favor.
Oct 2, 2009 - 11:20 am 76. Now and Then:74. Scott:
“Last I checked Kennedy and LBJ were Democrats, so not much “Right Wing or Republican” there.”
And I said they were wrong then. But it’s not Democrats doing it now, is it? No.
74. Scott:
Oct 2, 2009 - 11:30 am 77. Gary Rosen:“What about “putting faces” on the millions of people that will easily be wiped out if . . . if . . . if . . . .IF! Whatever happened to because?
Now and Then #70:
Bwahaha. Everyone here can see that you are the one with the lip-lock on Adolf Jr’s love muscle. By the way, how many sock puppets do you have? You posted this same kind of idiocy before under some other name.
Oct 2, 2009 - 8:33 pm 78. Scott:N&T: But it’s not Democrats doing it now, is it? No.
Wrong. Yes it is, see #75. Obama has been in office 9 months as CiC he has the authority to order every single soldier out of both Afghanistan & Iraq, he has yet to do so. Bush already took care of the Iraq troop draw downs and eventual withdrawal, which Obama tried to interfere with. “The Won” also campaigned on Afghanistan being “the good war” and how he’d “take care of bidness” where ol’ ChimpyBusHitler dropped the ball. Nine Months, no bin Laden and he seems more like a deer in the headlights than a “world leader”.
The man is so incompetent he couldn’t find his own arse in a dark room with both hands and a flashlight.
Oct 3, 2009 - 8:01 am 79. Now and Then:77. Gary Rosen:
Denial is the sincerest form of bigotry (and fascination with fellating the Fuhrher . . . what would they say down at Temple if they knew you were having such thoughts?)
78. Scott:
You were happy to give Bush eight years, now you’re whining about Obama’s eight months. Your lack of consistency betrays your commitments.
Step up or step off. There’s no time for amateur analysis.
Oct 3, 2009 - 8:30 am 80. Gary Rosen:“what would they say down at Temple”
N&T proves his antisemitism again, he’s the one who said Jews cause antisemitism.
Oct 3, 2009 - 12:34 pm 81. Now and Then:80. Gary Rosen:
Mentioning Temple is anti-Semitic? I suggest you spend you time more wisely, perhaps a haircut.
Oct 3, 2009 - 12:45 pm 82. LarryOldtimer:Obama would be the sort of poker player who sees all of the raises, folds his hand and then calls the bet, every time.
Oct 4, 2009 - 11:33 am 83. Ruvy:I would remind all of you that taking out Iran’s nuclear capability is not YOUR decision to make. You Americans still delude yourselves that you are a first class power. You are no longer a first class power. The Arabs, Russians and Commie Chinese all have you by the cojones, and your idiot of a president is going to spend you further into their power.
The decision to get rid of Persia’s nuclear capabilities is Israel’s to make – we are the ones with the most to lose. I only pray that our own leaders will not cower before your idiots.
Oct 5, 2009 - 12:31 am 84. Scott:Step up or step off. There’s no time for amateur analysis.
For once N&T is correct, and that’s why we should tell Joe Biden to shut his pie hole. Obama is guaranteed to make the wrong decision on Afghanistan because he’s has no clue what the mission is/was and what he wants it to be or even should be now.
Ruvy should be quite sad that it isn’t OUR decision to make, because most of us here would have made it long ago. As for it being Israel’s decision, they’ve been dithering as long as the US has. Many of the analysis say that without our green-lighting the strike or at least “looking the other way” the chances of Israeli success is very slim. Too bad we have Obummer as CiC, I doubt he’s even wise enough to just “look the other way” let alone actively assist Israel.
Oct 6, 2009 - 2:59 pm