Sharon Suffers Stroke

A big one this time. The political question isn't just whether he'll survive to see his 78th birthday, but whether his Kadima Party will live to see its first.

Comments

[Kwix]

I love this:
President Bush praised Sharon as "a man of courage and peace,"

Peace, yes. When he dies he will finally be a man of peace.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I think the big question of the moment now that this has happened is, will there be anyone in the Israeli leadership willing and able to order the destruction of Iranian nuclear sites?

[Dave W.]

I think the big question of the moment now that this has happened is, will there be anyone in the Israeli leadership willing and able to order the destruction of Iranian nuclear sites?

And this would be legitimate why? Because Iran said that they don't like Israel and want them moved? Does the fighting words doctrine apply in international diplomacy? Who put Israel in charge of Iran?

[simply simon]

Dave,

No one said it would be legit, not sure where you pulled that question from. But regardless of it's legitimacy or legality, Israel attacking Iran is certainly a possibility. Therefore, Douglas' question is an important one, in similar words, does the incapacitation or death of Sharon make this eventuality more or less likely?

[jf]

Douglas:

I've wondered the same thing. In a way, Sharon seems to me to be like Reagan, in that he was willing to wield a big stick in order to create a larger peace.

[Dave W.]

I pulled out a question bcs I was asking not telling. My series of questions may have been leading, but they were still questions. If I wanted to tell people how they felt, then I would have used statements instead of questions.

[Eric II]

And this would be legitimate why? Because Iran said that they don't like Israel and want them moved?

Yes, at least when you're dealing with a country possessing a track record like Iran's.

That said, I don't think Israel has the ability to pull off a successful strike, at least not without the support of one or more Arab states with whom it's presently on unfriendly terms.

[James Feldman]

FWIW, I believe there is no shortage of Israeli politicians who are and will continue to be willing to order a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. I would include Olmert, Peretz, Peres, and Netanyahu as all being willing to do so if the IDF believes that airstrikes can take out the facilities and feel it is needed.

[Brian Courts]

And this would be legitimate why?

I'm not nearly as worried about legitimacy as I am about the danger to all of humanity posed by a bunch of vicious thugs, who stone women to death for adultery, hang teenage girls for having sex, and execute gays, acquiring nuclear weapons. If people who really live by their barbaric religious beliefs, (unlike those that merely pay it lip-service while sweeping the particularly unsavory aspects under the rug) are to have the means of vaporizing tens of millions of people, I for one will not bemoan any lack of perceived legitimacy for whoever does the right thing and reduces the Ayatollah's nuclear capability to a pile of stone-age rubble. There it will be right at home with his disgusting religious philosophy.

[The wed RINO]

Brian...
Is Pakistan fair game then?

Anyone else worry that... It'll turn out he was poisoned? Too many spy novels?

[Ariel Cartman]

Sharon is fine. I shined a flashlight in his eyes and he smiled. We have the whole thing on tape. Cartman is his BFF and he told Cartman that he wouldn't want to be shown on TV in this state, so PLEASE! no cameras.

[SY]

Because Iran said that they don't like Israel and want them moved?

I think the phrase was "wiped off the map."

[Eddy]

Anyone else worry that... It'll turn out he was poisoned? Too many spy novels?

Poisoned, no. I am thinking a bonus bolus of .as dd8hq2e f89envuvrh9 q8a3u v89hgn 3re[0...

[Adam]

Whether Israel would be justified in attacking Iran is moot. There's little that can be done about Tehran's nuclear program since they learned the lesson of Osirak and have multiple sites hidden throughout the country. They're underground or embedded in mountainsides, and there's no way to be sure you've hit them all. So a first strike would likely do nothing to harm Iran, but would give them a perfect justification for getting the bomb. Diplomacy isn't a preferable option because it's peaceful, it's preferable because there really is no viable alternative.

[happyjuggler0]

The wed RINO,

No one is going to attack Pakistan's nuclear facilities, regardless of principle or lack thereof. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and should be considered highly likely to nuke anyone that tries to take out said weapons.

Iran is trying quite hard to make nuclear weapons, but does not have them yet according to everyone who thinks they know what is going on there. This makes all the difference in the world in practical terms. And even though it doesn't change principle, it does change the moral equation since there is no WMD retaliation against civilians.

Israel does have them. Iran of course says they aren't making them, they have merely had a secret nuclear program for a couple of decades that they have been hiding so the Israelis don't destroy it lie they did in Iraq in 83. They say they want nuclear power, not weapons. They also say they won't accept the actual completed nuclear material they need for their plants from other countries even though this assures it is not weapons grade, they insist they make it all themselves. They also say we should trust them not to go the tiny final step from there and enrich it a bit more than they need for nuclear power. Read between the lines. Please.

Finally, Iran is not a democracy as we know it. All the candidates are vetted by the unelected theocrats who are not even appointed by elected officials a la the US Supreme Court. Their top elected offical(s) is not commander-in-chief. Therefore in no way, shape or form is the Iran military answerable to the Iranian people, and they pretty much have to do what the theocracy says or get their heads chopped off, not that it seems they are unwilling.

The whole Iran nukes thing is deeply disturbing in a way that no other country with nukes is. I suspect the issue in Israel (from Israel's point of view) is not do they have the right to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, but rather 1) do they have the logistics to do so themselves, crossing a couple of Arab countries to do so and striking at thoughtfully dispersed and mountain hardened facilities? 2) will the US do it for them instead?

[Deus ex Machina]

How long before we start seeing conspiracy theories that this was all stage managed by the Mossad?

[Rick Barton]

Sharon ...was willing to wield a big stick in order to create a larger peace.

Maintaining the brutal and theiving occupation of Palestine is not consitant with peace.

Sharon actually supported racist "Jews Only" housing area laws on government land in open discrimination against Israel's own 15% to 20% Arab citizen population!

http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/article.php?sid=1779

[happyjuggler0]

How long before we start seeing conspiracy theories that this was all stage managed by the Mossad?

You mean besides your post, and one or two others in this thread?

To paraphrase an old joke: just because the assasination theory is paranoid does not mean that it is untrue.

I think it would be naive to think that the Mossad has not at least tried to create undetectable poisons.

The Israeli far right already assasinated one of their own prime ministers who was pushing hard for withdrawal from the Palestinian territories. There is no reason to think it paranoid they would do so again, especially if they thought they could get away undetected. Sharon chose to withdraw from Gaza despite vehement opposition from the far right of his own party and was basically marginalized in his own party after that and was creating a more centrist party as a result, one that appeared to have significant public support. Now Sharon has had two believable strokes considering his weight and diet. They very well may have been due to natural causes. It may very well be coincidental that they occurred just a few months from the new elections to determine the future of the West Bank.(Sure, there are other issues too).

I think it would be foolish to not at least keep an open mind on this issue of poison.

[jf]

Rick Barton:

And Reagan installing MX missiles in Europe pointing at the USSR was not consistant with peace. Sharon has been accurately painted as someone seeking peace with the Palestinians without giving up one inch of Israeli security. I'd say recent history has shown that he has succeeded more than anyone would have thought.

Regarding the link you posted, I will 100% agree that his endorsement of that proposal on it's face is reprehensible. I wasn't nominating him for sainthood, but merely stating that I think his poliies towards Palestine have been more effective in creating a peaceful co-existence than previous efforts.

[Rick Barton]

jf,

The racist Sharon sought "peace" with the Palestinians in the same way that the Soviet occupiers sought peace with the captive nations.

Even the Gaza pullout simply moved the "settlers" into other occupied areas on the West Bank. The occupation doesn't enhance the security of Israeli citizens; it imperils their security. That the occupation is for security is laughable. What a funny security zone it is that you insert civilians into!

[Rick Barton]

Sharon always had theft on his mind, not peace. Note that when Winston S. Churchill III in 1973 asked Ariel Sharon, "What is to become of the Palestinians land?" Sharon answered:

"We'll make a pastrami sandwich of them. We'll insert a strip of Jewish settlement, in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlement, right across the West Bank, so that in twenty-five years time, neither the United Nations, nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart."

[jf]

Interesting. A google search of the pastrami phrase yields 3 hits, 2 by you, Mr. Barton, and one (unsourced) quote from something called alternativeinsight.com.

However, the quote doesn't really matter. Recent history speaks for itself. Unless you are seriously suggesting that Israel-Palestinian relations are worse now than they have been at any point since the whole mess began.

[Brian Courts]

Is Pakistan fair game then?

I don't know. Pakistan is not similarly situated so the inference is invalid. For one thing, as happyjuggler0 pointed out, it's a practical impossibility to do it after the weapons are made and dispersed and ready to use. I suppose that would be one more reason to stop Iran now, if it were possible to do so, before it is too late, if it is not already.

Anyway I was simply saying that worrying about legitimacy when you're dealing with the idea of certain individuals getting a hold of technology that could kill millions who also happen to believe it's God's will when they bury a woman to her waist and have men bash her brains in with rocks (not to mention the killing of infidels), is according them a formality to which they are not entitled. If you could bring back medieval Europe at the time of the crusades or the inquisition I should think it uncontroversial that preventing the Pope and his barbaric minions from getting a nuclear weapon would be a legitimate goal in and of itself. Since we're dealing with a mentality at least as backwards and dangerous as that, can we really afford to offer them 21st century sensibility and politesse?

Now that doesn't mean that any action towards that end would be justified. Given Iraq, I would be very apprehensive about giving the President the cover of a just goal for fear that he would use it to unleash another invasion, for example. Also, it does not mean I'm convinced that it is even possible at this point. I just think that if someone found a way to dismantle Iran's program with a minimum of casualties and did so, it would be an unequivocally good thing.

[jf]

Ok, I see the Nation has quoted the pastrami phrase as well, although there is still no source.

[FatDrunkAndStupid]

This is one of the rare times that the death (or incapaciation or whatever) of an important leader has the potential to change history. Sharon would have won the election and at least attempted his plan to pull out of the West Bank. Now I imagine Likud will win and his plan is dead. The merits of the issue aside (I flip flop myself on whether Sharon or Likud is right) this shows that the Great Man theory of history isn't completely off base.

[Rick Barton]

jf,

Yeah, the exchange between Churchill and Sharon and Sharon's quote is well known.

[Rick Barton]

Unless you are seriously suggesting that Israel-Palestinian relations are worse now than they have been at any point since the whole mess began.

I'm saying that the prime aggravating factor has been, and continues to be, the occupation. Sharon has always supported the occupation.

[happyjuggler0]

This is one of the rare times that the death (or incapaciation or whatever) of an important leader has the potential to change history

I am not so sure it is rare.

Arafat died in office and Palestinian democracy and the cause of peace between Israel and Palestine was no longer a joke.

Rabin was assassinated 10 years and 2 months ago for wanting to pull out of the Palestinian territories.

Egypt's Sadat was assassinated for cutting a peace deal with Israel, and that sent a chill through any Arab leader thinking of doing the same. How much pain, death and destruction was the result of that much delayed explicit peace?

JFK was assassinated in office. He made a large cut in taxes and we had a large economic boom. I'll let others speculate on whether or not there was a cause and effect there, but it is not unreasonable to think more such cuts might have followed, long before Kemp/Roth in 78 and Reagan in 81-83 and 86. JFK accelerated (some say unwittingly) the civil rights movement, and was definitely not one for doing all things the way they had been done before. things may have become more libertarian in the US had he not been killed. Or maybe not, we'll never know.

Martin Luther King was assassinated. I would not be surprised if he would have been an advocate for the reversal of statism with regard to our cities and welfare when he had witnessed their marked destruction of black Americans. Or not. We'll never know.

A series of relatively rapid deaths among old Soviet premiers led to the younger Gorbachev to power. He then tried the impossible: to reform Communism, and his every reform accelerated the demise of the Soviet Union.

A couple of near deaths would also have changed history.

If Hitler had actually been killed one of the times his generals tried, then WWII in Europe would have ended prematurely, or possibly have ended in a different side winning, depending on when said assassination would have occurred. If WWII in Eurpoe had ended earlier, the US would have sent its forces there to Japan sooner, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki may not have happened. Or may have anyway.

If Reagan had died when he was shot, then Bush would have become president, and the 80's would have been very different. Bush was the one who coined the term Reaganomics during the primary debates, and showed during 89-93 that he was not kidding. We can expect that during the severe Volcker recession (not his fault really, he was cleaning up the failed inflationary policies of Nixon Ford and Carter) that Bush would have raised tax rates to plug the budget deficit, and the economic boom of the 80's and 90's might never have happened and we might look a lot more like Europe today.

[happyjuggler0]

Ok, 11 years and 2 months. I forgot it is 2006 now.

[Shem]

Eric II-they might not be able to take out all the sites at one blow, but I bet they could seriously hobble the Iranian program enough to at least push the timeline back.

[Larry Edelstein]

The merits of the issue aside...this shows that the Great Man theory of history isn't completely off base.

Any announcement on the change in the status of the Great Man theory is premature, at the very least. Neither Sharon's death nor the consequences of his death have actually occurred yet!

[Eric II]

Eric II-they might not be able to take out all the sites at one blow, but I bet they could seriously hobble the Iranian program enough to at least push the timeline back.

Maybe...if the IAF's planes can make it from Israel to Bushehr, Natanz, etc. and back on one tank of gas, and if they can do it with various Arab governments turning a blind eye to the use of their airspace along the way.

[Shem]

They had to pass over Jordan and Saudi Arabia to hit Osirak, and that was fairly close to the Iranian border. Besides, given the fact that Iran has stated repeatedly that one of their goals is the destruction of the Israeli State, I would be very surprised if they hadn't prepared something that would be capable of hitting Iran. Now granted the trickery that they used before to ensure a surprise attack wouldn't work again, and the size of a strike force would make it difficult to cook something new up, but I doubt that the Israelis would care all that much.

It all depends on whether the Israelis would be willing to risk a wider war with their neighbors in order to eliminate the threat of a nuclear Iran. Given the fact that Pakistan would probably be willing to sell weapons if the Iranians found themselves in a war, it might be better to just let the Iranians get the bomb and expect that international opinion will hold them in check, as it's held the rest of the world since WWII. Not a pleasent option to consider, I grant, but a viable one, and maybe the best availiable.

[Eric II]

They did fly over Jordan and SA...without the consent of either of those countries. Just about everyone was pissed off over the Osirak raid at the time (save, perhaps, for the Iranians, though they farcically denounced it as well). The Reagan Administration actually suspended F-16 shipments to Israel for a while on account of it.

This time around, the likelihood of Israeli planes going undetected is much lower. Certain Arab states could feign ignorance while giving tacit consent to the use of their airspace, but chances are that their citizens, most of whom wouldn't take kindly to the raid (except maybe for Iraq's Sunni Arabs - now that would be a moment rich with irony), would see right through it.

As for Pakistan selling Iran weapons in the event of a war with the US, I really doubt it. First, because Pakistan wouldn't want to throw away its alliance with the US, and second, because Pakistan and Iran aren't exactly close friends. They effectively waged a proxy war over Afghanistan (Pakistan supporting the Taliban, Iran supporting the Northern Alliance), and in 2003, a deal was signed allowing India to use Iranian military bases in the event of a war with Pakistan.

[Dave W.]

Sy,

An alternative formulation I heard was "moved to the situs of any Holocaust that may have happened." That is a much more symapthetic formulation because it stresses Israel's status as a colonial era leftover was used to assauge the white man's guilt post-Hitler.

But even if Iran did say "wiped off the map" so what -- mere words are not a sufficient provocation to war, in any case.

[BarryJV]

jf

Unless you are seriously suggesting that Israel-Palestinian relations are worse now than they have been at any point since the whole mess began.

As far as I can see recent improvements in the situation are almost entirely due to American intervention. If Powell was not influencing policy and Bush was not willing to use sanctions against Israel I don't think we'd have seen any withdrawal from Palestinian territory. Even now all we have on the table is the creation of two racist states that will discriminate against the minority population.

[Eric II]

That is a much more symapthetic formulation because it stresses Israel's status as a colonial era leftover was used to assauge the white man's guilt post-Hitler.

Just as strident anti-Israel rhetoric is used to assuage the (European) white man's (colonial) guilt post-everywhere.

Btw, Ahmadinejad did actually go all the way and call the Holocaust "a myth."

[Dave W.]

Eric II,
Holocaust a myth. So what? Why not take this as a challenge to show some irrefutable proof? Ain't no harm in that, jes' potential harm-onization.

[Warren]

I doesn't matter. No matter who is PM or what they try to do, the streets of Israel will forever run red with blood.

I've said it before. The people of the Middle East are committed to killing each other. Nothing can change that.

[SR]

"Interesting. A google search of the pastrami phrase yields 3 hits, 2 by you, Mr. Barton, and one (unsourced) quote from something called alternativeinsight.com."

The website below gives the source as Churchill himself. Full citation: Winston S. Churchill III (journalist, former member of Parliament, and grandson of the British prime minister) at the National Press Club, October 10, 2001, recalling his conversation with then-General (res.) Ariel Sharon in 1973.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~wimduz/astro/arafat29.htm

[Phil]

Why not take this as a challenge to show some irrefutable proof?

At this late date in history, why the fuck should the Jews be required to show any more "irrefutable proof?" The only people who aren't yet convinced are anti-Semitic neo-Nazi white-power shitheads, or radical Islamic muckrakers. Fuck a whole bunch of that. "Ain't no harm," my ass.

Will my family's headstones count? Oh, wait, never mind, there aren't any, because the ones who stayed in Europe all disappeared.

[joe]

Phil,

They shouldn't "have to." But that's the way it is. There are people out there who still believe all kinds of stupid myths. Most of them aren't evil people, just ignorant. Ignorance is something you have to combat - you can't just cede the field to the worse elements because you consider yourself above such things. That's how Kerry lost.

And, actually, the Israeli F-16s that attacked Osirik were detected. But the strategy was to fly in a tight formation so they appeared to be a single jetliner on the radar, and have an Arabic-speaking pilot in one of the planes pretend to be the pilot of an Arab airline. It worked, and he actually convinced the (Saudi?) air traffic controller that the flight was a slightly off-course airliner. Pretty freaking clever.

[Dave W.]

They shouldn't "have to."

Sure they should have to. I mean, if they decided to put Israel in Germany then they wouldn't have to because Germans are in a position to know what happened. However, you start using the Holocaust as a reason to hold onto colonial holdings, then the natives deserve some good proof. The proof is there. You don't have 6 million die without some good proof, especially since they took a lot of pix at the time. Just sending the fucking pix, all of them, drown Iran in a see of pictures of Jewish skulls. Then they'll get the message and we can move discussion along to the next obvious issue of whether Israel is better viewed as a war reparation or as recompense for Muslims stealing Palestine from the Jewish people.

[Phil]

Well, I disagree, joe. When the remaining people who believe something are all fringe fucktards and deliberate troublemakers, there is no reason to indulge their tastes and let them control the course of argument and information flow. Let them wallow in their ignorance. The only tasteful way to treat them is to shun them.

[Phil]

It's been 60 years since the end of the war, One-Trick Pony. EVERYBODY IN THE FUCKING WORLD is "in a position to know." What, you think all the Holocaust evidence in the world is socked away in a safe in Munich?

Jebus. I can't believe I'm even HAVING this conversation.

[Phil]

I know, Iran can sue Israel to prove the Holocaust happened and find it all during discovery!

[Anonymous]

"That's how Kerry lost."

No, Kerry lost because he's a second rate hack.

[Anonymous]

And the trivialization award goes to joe for equating holocaust deniers to Kerry's opponents.

Congratulations.

[Dave W.]

Phil, I believe that the Holocaust happened (disclaimer: I think it is illegal for me to say otherwise here in Canada, but regardless, I believe it happened and I believe they took pictures and kept evidence.)

However, when you are in an argument with someone and they demand proof of something -- you be forthcoming with that proof. That is how you pwn your opponent. If he gets a 1000 page fax of skull pictures everytime he yaps, then he is goan stop yapping to free up his fax mach or inbox and discussion can move on to other disputes, until you work your way all the way to an awesome Hegelian synthesis.

[Phil]

Dave, do you really think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is interested in seeing Holocaust evidence? It isn't a matter of "not enough evidence presented" for this kind of person, it's a religious/political belief that serves a religious/political purpose, and no amount of contrary evidence will matter for them.

Sorry, but not indulging the paranoid fantasies of Holocaust deniers is something I feel VERY VERY STRONGLY about.

(What's more, Ahmadinejad further cheapens the debate by stating that the creation of Israel was the Jews' consolation prize for WWII, which it isn't; there was a Zionist movement already in place a half-century before which had been collecting land in the area by means both fair and foul.)

Phil, I believe that the Holocaust happened

Well, that's mighty white of you.

[AnonCowherd]

Ariel,
Did they finally find the last page of Sharon's will? 😉

[The Scarecrow]

Dave W, are you getting money from Islamo-Theonuts to support and excuse their racist, sexist, and homophobic agenda?

If not, you're giving it away too easily, you're really good at it!

[Not So Mr. Nice Guy]

Regarding Iran: Diplomacy only works when the subject is remotely civilized. These people are living in the dark age. They only understand the language of force. And while we still have the advantage, we must bring it to them decisively. Otherwise, their poison is going to spread exponentially beyond their pathetic little sandbox and give us some very, very serious problems.

[Qbryzan]

I've got to agree with Phil here, there are people who doubt the moon landing, even in spite of the film and video evidence. Do you really believe the Holocaust deniers will behave more rationally than them?

[jf]

SR:

Thanks for the link to the source of the pastrami quote.

[Kid Yid]

I'd like someone to prove to me that Palestinians actually lived in Israel at some point. For my whole life their only homeland has been Jordan and Lebanon.

Those tricky arabs are making the whole thing up! They're a very devious race, you know.

[Dave W.]

Okay everybody:

what exactly is the downside of sending them the pictures, maybe even doing up a report.

I know you think it is a waste of money (but we're talking tiny money here in the grand scheme), what exactly are you afraid of? That if we try to make our case with words, before resorting to our bombs, then we will be at some kind of disadvantage? I don't see it.

[joe]

Phil, first of all, what % of Iran do you think considers the Holocasue a myth, after all the propaganda they've been exposed to for the past decades? 50%? 20%? 70%? Are all of those millions of people "fringe fucktards and trouble makers?" Or have they just been mislead?

Second, the best way to allow the deniers to control the argument is to say nothing.

[Phil]

"Doing up a report." Shiva H. Vishnu.

I think copies of The Diary of Anne Frank and Schindler's List should suffice, you know?

joe, I wouldn't want to venture a guess as to how many Iranians are Holocaust deniers, and quite frankly, I'm not interested.

Second, the best way to allow the deniers to control the argument is to say nothing.

Just like homeopathists control the argument concerning US medical policy, I guess.

[joe]

Were holocause deniers as rare in the Middle East as homeopathic quacks are in the United States, and were their ideas considered as eccentric, simply ignoring them would be the best policy, Phil. But they're not. They're the mainstream. When the message has been distributed so broadly, and been so broadly accepted, silence doesn't moot the argument; it cedes it.

[SR]

"Thanks for the link to the source of the pastrami quote."

No problem.

[Phil]

Maybe you're right, joe, but I don't feel that it should be Israel's responsibility, or the responsibility of the Jews generally, to school them on it. What, Jews have to suffer the horrors of the Holocaust, then prove to the benighted denizens of Islamic theocracies that it happened, too? Sorry, I'm not buying.

But if you and Dave want to "do up a report" and ship it to the Iranian consulate, I'll pay for the postage.

[R C Dean]

joe, one can hardly call the case that the Holocaust occurred a big secret.

Anyone who cares about the truth knows it happened, so it doesn't matter what evidence you put in front of modern-day Holocaust deniers - it is a matter of faith to them that the Holocaust never happened, so any evidence you put in front of them will be dismissed as part of the Zionist Joo Mind-Control conspiracy.

By engaging in a rational conversation with them, you dignify their rabid ignorance, and give them credibility they don't deserve. People who deny the Holocaust are barbaric idiots who do so for reasons that are perfidous at best, and they deserve to be treated as such.

[Curious]

How would someone outside of the Iranian government be able to get information to the masses to educate them on the holocaust (or anything else)? It's not like the information is not out there and has been for 60+ years.

Maybe faxing to the Iranian president's office won't work if his fax does not receive international calls. Giving proof at the UN would be OK for the Iranian delegation to the UN (who I bet know about it already) but it doesn't mean it will get to the man on the street in a little village.

Is there a way around these info blocks if a culture doesn't see a problem in controlling all the information its citizens receive?

[Dave W.]

Yes. The UN could distribute millions of little handcranked green laptops with a link to the report in the Iranian language pre-loaded. Then we WiFi Iran and let them enjoy the report in a decntralized bottom up manner.

[Curious]

So, what you're saying is there isn't a way to keep leaders of closed societies from filling their citizen's heads with goo?

So why should the Israeli government worry about talking to the Iranian government instead of protecting itself from the Iranian government?

[Dave W.]

So why should the Israeli government worry about talking to the Iranian government instead of protecting itself from the Iranian government?

Addressing Iran's concerns does amount to protecting itself. It is not an either-or choice between doing a report and having an army. If you are telling me that Israel needs to do a military pre-emptive strike now, then you're FOS.

[Shem]

As for Pakistan selling Iran weapons in the event of a war with the US, I really doubt it.

I wasn't talking about a war with the US, I was talking about a war with Israel, a vastly different animal, I think you'll agree.

And, they found a way to "sneak" through last time, they could find a way to get through again, if only by flying over Jordan and Iraq, both of which have plenty of reason to turn a blind eye.

[Curious]

I certainly do not think a pre-emptive strike is called for, but I was wondering if you had realistic ideas on how to counter what the Irainain president said. The education prgram you proposed seemed to be as useful as everyone wishing on a star that Iran would disappear.

[Dave W.]

Curious,
Israel got nukes a long, long time ago. I am not exactly sure how they got'em, but they got'em. For the time being that is the insurance policy. that and an alliance with the US, which has even more nukes. Using nukes to defend yourself has exactly been a common strategy for awhile now, and not just for Israel. I think that if a war between Israel and Iran did break out today or tomorrow or the next day, then Israel would win decisively.

[johnl]

The report showing the Holocaust to be an actual historical event should include a subsection on how Jews can't eat crackers or cookies made with Moslem babies blood because (just to pick one reason) Moslems lack cloven hooves. If the Jews hadn't quietly let these stories persist unquestioned all these years, surely nobody would believe the libels.

[Phil]

Dave W. to the world's Jews: "Hey, sorry those Nazis killed six million of you. Still, work is work, so have a 25-page report on that done and on the Iranian President's desk by Monday."

[Eric the .5b]

Addressing Iran's concerns does amount to protecting itself.

Not when Iran's (repeatedly and loudly stated) concern is with the very existence of Israel.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Ignorance is something you have to combat - you can't just cede the field to the worse elements because you consider yourself above such things. That's how Kerry lost.

ROTFLMAO -- thanks for the Christmas present.

[nofrontin]

The lust to see Iran bombed is disturbing. The president waving his dick around does not mean the rulers of Iran would risk total destruction by actually nuking anyone. All we are saying is give nukes a chance.

[Native NYer]

I don't see how a religion infested idiot like the current president of Iran can be compared to level headed realists like american and soviet leaders. In the cold war everyone knew what it meant to be destroyed in nuclear fire and were afraid of it, but the Iranian prez probably thinks everyone he kills will go get their houris in allah's afterlife, or else tossed down to hell.

A person had to be rational to be elected president or appointed general secretary of the communist party, but being rational does not get you passed the Iranian mullahs who OK every candidate.

A big problem in the war on terror is assuming your enemies are rational people, when they have shown over and over they are not.

[Nike Dunk Shoes]

thanks