U.S. OFFICIAL: ISRAEL MIGHT ATTACK IRAN'S NUKE SITES

[TexasLawyer]

"Developing" item on Drudge

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm

U.S. OFFICIAL: ISRAEL MIGHT ATTACK IRAN'S NUKE SITES
Mon Jan 31 2005 02:44:11 ET

American envoy John Bolton, the State Department's top international security official, repeated U.S. allegations Monday about an Iranian nuclear weapons program and said Israel might attack Iran's nuclear sites because the Jewish state has "a history" of such actions.

"The vice president said we're very concerned that this might happen," Bolton said, referring to a recent statement by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney.

"Israel destroyed the Osirak reactor in Iraq. They have a history of this," Bolton said. Earlier this month Cheney said it was possible Israel might attack Iran if it became convinced Tehran posed a nuclear threat.

Israel's nuclear weapons program is thought to include about 200 warheads deployed on ballistic missiles and aircraft and on three submarines, according to the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Israel is also believed to stock chemical and biological weapons, according to the Carnegie Endowment and the Monterey Institute of International Studies, which track such issues. Israeli officials do not comment on the country's nuclear weapons potential. "Israel isn't a threat to the United States. We don't treat different cases the same," he said, adding that the United States favors "a Middle East free of all weapons of mass destruction."

Developing...

[BlueEyedSon]

1. It's gonna be really funny when the Xtian Neocon Death Cult

unleashes Armageddon, and they don't get "raptured". They're not flying out of their clothes... they're getting stuck here with the rest of us - digging out and trying to fix things back up!

[SpiralHawk]

5. "All your Apocalypse are belong to us." - BushCo

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark. The real tragedy of life is when men (and women) are afraid of the light." - Plato

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neverforget]

11. My eyes!! It burns!!!

:puke: that's just wrong!

[PaganPreacher]

15. Heehee!

I wasn't sure if posting that picture was a censoring offense, or merely a stoning offense.



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Emboldened Chimp]

23. "No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle...."

"...even if the do say Jehovah!"

[BlueEyedSon]

13. No you don't. Cause they want to TRASH the place before they leave.

[PaganPreacher]

20. You called that right.

Too much trashing of this world going on.

I wish Euell Gibbons and Fred Bear would come back and kick some serious ass!

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Megahurtz]

35. You're Right.

They are trashing the place (probably for the "heathens" left behind) because they think they are going to escape by the Rapture.

[Lisa]

75. Yeah. Like a bad heavy-metal band in a hotel room ...

Apologies to the headbangers out there!

[Kikosexy2]

30. bwashhhaaaahhahaaha...

oh the pic is hilarious! They await the Rapture indeed.

[genieroze]

78. Arm a geddon sick of this crap. lol eom

[BlueEyedSon]

79. cute.

[sleipnir]

2. Drudge...trotting out old news stories for sensationalism

This has been known for months. Israel has threatened Iran for quite some time now.

[TexasLawyer]

28. The "news" aspect is that an administration figure

said it AGAIN. The statement could be conditioning Americans to expect an Israeli attack on Iran. Or it could be made up: the article doesn't mention where Bolton was when he said this, and to whom he said it.

But we do have Cheney on TV, on Inauguration Day, no less, warning that Israel might attack Iran, so that TV appearance makes me inclined to believe this report of what Bolton said is for real.

[natrat]

54. and we have haliburton pulling out of iran

[Zynx]

3. Dumb - Israel doesn't have enough strike lift to do this

They have 25 F-15 Ra'am that can reach Iran, and those would need to be carrying nothing but fuel and bombs, which would make them sitting ducks for any Iranian aircraft.

Not to mention that Iran has dozens of sites, unlike Iraq, which had one reactor.

Israel cannot possibly pull off a covert single strike attack on Iran's nukes.

[twaddler01]

7. but they can do it

with our help!!! :evilgrin:

[Tempest]

19. They can use bases in Iraq as a jumping off point

Cheney hinted at this when he talked about Israel attacking Iran.

[Zynx]

25. That'd be dumb - it's an act of war between us and Iran

If we're doing that, we might as well just bomb them ourselves.

[Tempest]

34. Plausible deniability

With those two words, Bush can string Iran along long enough to set up an attack against them.


The U.S. has already sold Israel bunker buster bombs to use in Iran.
The U.S. has also already told Israel they can use Iraqi airspace in an attack on Iran.

The administration doesn't give the Iranians enough credit for putting the pieces together.

[Massachusetts]

4. Cute diplomacy

No he did it, no he did it, no,no,no she did it......:nuke:

[Don Claybrook]

6. 2 points

1. Israel will do whatever the Bush Admin tells it to do, r.e. Iran.

2. Israel will not be bombing Iran.

Israel does not have enough airpower, range, or site intelligence to hit all of the suspected nuclear-related sites in Iran. If Israel undertook this action, no one would ever be sure what percentage of Iran's pre-nuclear infrastructure was "hit". Same with the US, for that matter, but idiot might try it anyway.

My thinking on this is largely informed by an article in Atlantic Monthly about a war game that was played with this very possibility in mind. And for the record, I trust the Atlantic more than I trust Bolten or Likud.

[goodboy]

10. wouldn't the US supply Israel with the intelligence it needed to strike?

[Don Claybrook]

22. It would...if it had the proper intelligence

I think that's the crux: neither the US nor Israel know what all targets Iran has of a nuclear nature. And even if the US were able to give Israel proper targeting information, as a poster mentioned above, Israel just doesn't have enough air force or range to do the job. Also, they'd be flying directly over Iraq to get there. That'd be popular. Finally, Iran apparently has the stroke to either keep the Shias in Iraq either relatively placid or they can, should they choose, stir up a hornet's next. So Iran really has the US over a barrel--we're just posturing and spewing propaganda.

[goodboy]

31. i guess that's why we've been invading their soverign airspace...in order

to map out their defenses.


I'm pretty sure Iran's got those nukes hidden pretty well. And besides, why would israel take the chance that Tel Aviv might wind up a smoking hole?

[TexasLawyer]

32. Hope you're right about posturing

But I thought that threatening war with IRAQ was posturing, since it made absolutely no sense. I'll cross my fingers that this situation with Iran is just saber-rattling.

[Don Claybrook]

37. You make a good point

All of this guesswork on my part is predicated on the Bushies having at least some small measure of sanity left. Not a real safe bet, is it?

[atreides1]

18. But If Israel Does Bomb Iran

1. Airpower isn't that big of a problem, if they lose a few fighters the US will replace them.

2. Range isn't a problem, with the US in control of Iraqi airspace the Israelis will have a corridor straight to Iran. And the return back to Israel won't be a problem. The surviving jets will probably
either land at the Baghdad Airport, or be refueled in the air by the
USAF.

3. As far as site intelligence, the US will provide the Israelis with all the intell they need.

[Don Claybrook]

26. If Israel actually did bomb Iran

it would only mean that both they and the Bush admin are crazier than I thought...and that would take some doing.

We're talking about 100 or more targets, and we apparently don't have the intelligence on all of their locations, little if any human intel on the ground, no way to know if we got the stuff or if we didn't.

For the record, I have my strategic thinking cap on. On a personal note, I am completely opposed to a strike on Iran by either the US or Israel. The world doesn't need this sort of thing happening, we really don't.

[DELUSIONAL]

38. They are crazy -- and will probably use the mini nuke option

And I hope to god(dess) that I am WRONG.

But the idiots in charge -- or the one who has his finger on the trigger is a nut-case -- he is crazy. In fact the nut house is the white house. And the crazies are in charge -- and half of the nation thinks that these guys are protecting us.

"Thank god I have Fox news -- for the truth". So says a conservative that I know. These people are calling for bush to use nukes. "Just the little ones, you know, to limit the damage."

[atreides1]

46. Looking At Iraq

The US didn't have very good intel there either but it didn't stop them from going in. The Israelis wouldn't have to hit all of the targets, just some, if for no other reason, then to make a point.

As for being able to confirm what if any targets were hit, that won't really matter to the kool-aid drinking sheep who support this regime, the corporate MSM will report what they are told byt this administration.

With your strategic thinking cap on, you're going to always be ahead of Bush and his puppet generals, too bad you and others like you aren't in charge.

But looking at what we do have, commanders who are more concerned with their loyalty to Bush, and very little concerned with whether or not their troops have the equipment. I don't see much strategic thinking.

I too am against any strike on Iran or Syria. But people like you and I don't get to make the rules, we can only hope that somehow common sense wins the day, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[sweettater]

56. number 1 should read:

the bush administration will do whatever Israel tells it to do and number 2 should read: Israel will provoke Iran. The consequences obvious.

[SKKY]

9. I must have missed this exit on the road map to peace.

[nickgutierrez]

12. Can you say 'holy war'?

I knew you could.

If Israel strikes in Iran, let's just say that I don't think the repercussions will made of flowers and candy.

[truthpusher]

14. I've been looking for the story on an even slightly legitimate...

...news source and can not find a thing! i am guessing that Drudge, again, is throwing spaghetti.

[Journeyman]

16. The US has a "history" of using nuclear weaponry. . .

are we to expect the US to launch such an attack because of this "history" of action?

The US has a history of genocide against indigenous peoples. Are the Iraqis to expect such a fate, given the US "history" of such action?

Japan has a "history" of attacking its neighbors, Germany a similar past, and lest we forget, Britain has a "history" of waging war against the United States. Are we to expect these events to occur in the near future, too, since all these countries have a "history" of doing them?

Here's a clear case of someone for whom a little bit of knowledge has proved a bad thing. Bolton needs to retire to the safety and relatively harmless world of the private sector.

Besides, Israel's a democracy. So's Iran (or at least so says the CIA Factbook). And our illustrious Pretzeldent assures us -- oh so often and with such forceful belief -- no democracy has ever attacked another nation, let alone another democracy.

[mom cat]

52. After the last two US presidential elections, I would question if the US

qualifies as a democracy anymore.

[Tempest]

17. They're softening us up

That way when it happens, as I expect it will since the U.S. didn't sell Israel bunker busters for nothing, the American public will just yawn.

Israel is going to fall into a trap.

The strikes will be mostly unsuccessful and Iran will unleash Hizzbollah and Hamas on Israel with a fury.

[natrat]

55. yea but doesnt that mean palastinians there are fucked too?

[Tempest]

59. Not necessarily

If the Palestinians play it cool and stay on the sidelines, they could benefit.

Any retaliation by Israel on the Palestinian people because of attacks from Hamas after an attack on Iran would be seen as collective punishment and Israel might face sanctions from the rest of the world. Even Bush would have a hard time defending them.

Also, Israel might be forced to give up their settlements on the West Bank if they are caught in a vice between Hamas in Palestine and Hizzbollah in Lebanon. They'll have a hard time defending the settlements if they trying to fight against terrorist attacks from two different directions.

And there's also the Syria factor. If Syria steps up financing of Hizzbollah, Israel will have their hands more than full. Palestine would be left alone and given a chance to have their new government get its footing without being undermined by Sharon.

[Tempest]

21. WWCD

What Will China Do?

China has already gone on record as saying they will not allow an attack on Iran to go unanswered. They have too much at stake economically.

All China has to do is stop purchasing U.S. debt before the attack as a protest move and Bush will back down in a hurry.

[twaddler01]

27. WWIII?

Hmmm...

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[TexasLawyer]

29. I wouldn't be so sure that Bush would respond to China

in a reasonable way.

[cvoogt]

49. yes, but

... China is increasingly in a position to not care so much what Bush thinks. They have significant economic leverage on America .. and their military is slightly larger than, say, Iceland's.

[Azadre]

36. Could I get a link?

I need one for reference, because the Red Giant doesn't like to see its gas prices fluctuate.

[Tempest]

43. One article spelling it out

http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=27254

[VirginiaDem]

58. Let me get this straight...

China can afford to let the US dollar collapse because the yuan is artificially pegged to the dollar so a drop in the dollar means a corresponding drop in the yuan, so they still have someone to buy their goods. If they're worried about being artificially pegged to a collapsed currency, then all they have to do is float. Their yuan goes up, because it's artificially low anyway but not up so much that the US won't buy their goods because the dollar is on the ground.

I'm not sure I buy it--if the US stops buying Chinese goods then they're screwed. There simply aren't enough Europeans and Japanese to pick up the slack.

There's a difference between strategic diversifying and outright Beggar Thyself stupidity.

You might be able to convince me otherwise but I'm skeptical.

China will allow an attack on Iran because there's no sense in getting involved in somebody else's ever-escalating mess. They can sit back and watch us make a bad situation, that they're not involved in, worse and laugh.

The escalation problem is with Iran--will they block the Straight of Hormuz and/or send troops into Iraq? At that point the risk would be of severe escalation by Bush...

[Tempest]

60. U.S. wouldn't stop buying Chinese goods

Americans are addicted to goods from China.

It would take a huge difference in currency rates before Chinese goods are priced out of the U.S. market.

And thanks to Bush's deficit, even a small correction in the exchange rates would cause panic in the U.S. markets.

[0007]

24. El Paso on Drudge

[hangemhigh]

33. The headline should read, "US Might Attack Iran's Nuke Sites for Israel"

What Israel says, chimpco does. Please don't start with the anti-semitism accusations. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH JEWISH PEOPLE. It has to do with Israel, a known terrorist state that has infiltrated the US government at the highest levels so that our kid's blood is spilled to fight their wars. Bonus that chimpco can line its pockets in the process. Flame away.

[Quakerfriend]

39. Very well said!

[Disturbed]

42. "Not gonna happen. Wouldn't be prudent."

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

by Mark Gaffney

10/26/04 "ICH" -- Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.

But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US has seen fit to “show the flag” or flex its naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power?

The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: “Saber Rattling Unnerves China”, and: “Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese.” But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat -- in the particular case of China, because of Peking’s newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.

“Nonsense!” you are probably thinking. That’s impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?”

Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve “an asymmetric advantage” over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

More here: < http://www.InformationClearingHouse.info/article3288.htm

[Skeptic2]

80. The reason this IS antisemitism...

...is that any difference between "the jewish state controls Bush" and "the jews control the banks" is purely a shift in terminology, not in essence.

In both cases, the jews--or the jewish state, or the jewish bankers, or the jewish state, etc., etc.--are seen as possessing "secret" power to control the most powerful men in the world, in order to deviously bend history for their benefit at the expense of peace-loving people everywhere.

In both cases, this "theory" is offered as an explanation and the "real reason" for whatever powerful people do that you don't like, from secularization to extending voting and civil rights (remember how THAT was all the fault of the "commie pinko jews"?) to invading a country to lowering the interest rates to whatever.

In both cases, the "reasoning" is the same: if anything happens that benefits jews (or israel) in any way and that you oppose, this is not a coincidence, or a side result of Bush (or whomever) acting on their own accord.

No, the mere fact that the jews benefited is sufficient proof that it was all a conspiracy that the jews engineered in advance; and the fact that you oppose what Bush (or whomever) did is proof that the jews are conspiring against YOU.

If you think Bush would be wrong to invade Iran, that's one thing; you're probably right, mind you. But, please, it's not a jewish--sorry, "zionist"--conspiracy.

[TexasLawyer]

40. "Iran N-programme threatens Mideast allies: US "

More detail in the Iranian press today.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=29262&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs


Iran N-programme threatens Mideast allies: US

Monday, January 31, 2005 - ©2005 IranMania.com

LONDON, Jan 31 (IranMania) - US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton said Sunday that the Iranian nuclear programme was a major security threat for Washington's allies in the Middle East.

"For the United States, the threat posed by Iran is not direct, in other words they do not at the current level of development have the capacity to launch a nuclear war-headed missile that could strike the United States," Bolton told reporters in Bahrain, according to AFP. "But they can strike our friends and allies in the region and the broader region here," he said.

Bolton, a noted hawk in President George W. Bush's administration, reaffirmed Washington's belief that Iran "has been pursuing this strategic decision to acquire nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles delivery systems." Tehran insists that its nuclear programme is purely of civilian nature.

The US official, on a tour of the Gulf, said that the issue at stake was whether Iran creates "a new strategic reality in the region and around the world, and whether we will be able to stop it in advance. "We would like to see a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the Iranian efforts," he said.

Bolton's comments come amid a hardening of US rhetoric against Iran, which Bush has already lumped into an "axis of evil". Earlier this month, Bush said he could not rule out using force if Tehran failed to rein in its nuclear plans, and US Vice President Dick Cheney said Iran was "right at the top of the list" of global trouble spots. Cheney also warned that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike on its own to shut down Iran's nuclear programme.

[twaddler01]

41. hmm...

"Earlier this month, Bush said he could not rule out using force if Tehran failed to rein in its nuclear plans, and US Vice President Dick Cheney said Iran was "right at the top of the list" of global trouble spots."

Maybe we will have another war...

:nuke:

[natrat]

57. what a douche

talking about warheads when all it takes is a suitcase. What are these guys brain damaged from too many country club martinis?

[MasonJar]

44. The Bushistas are going to let Israel take the blame since even

teflon Dubya's popularity is running thin. I am ready for a world free of all nuclear bombs and utility plants and of all lying bas--rds.

[shraby]

48. Not too long ago Iran publicly reserved the right

to pre-emptive strike if it feels seriously threatened...taking a cue from our invasion of Iraq.

[necso]

45. If Israel attacks Iran,

and the US is retaliated against, Israel's act (aggression) might not be seen as that of a friendly state.

Israel had better wait until we are better prepared for, and more isolated from, the possible consequences before doing anything like this.

The estimates that I have seen indicate that Iran will take years to develop nuclear weapons. There is still plenty of time to deal with this. Of course, the neocons and their Israeli counterparts will lie through their teeth about it... And why not, lying has worked like a charm -- if you just look at what these lies have enabled the neocons to do -- and disregard the consequences.

Maybe this is a trial balloon -- if so, get out your shotguns.

[Chicago Democrat]

47. Our leaders are INSANE WAR MONGERING FOOLS!!

Ahem, that felt better...


Wait no it didn't! NO MORE BLOOD! please?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

50. .......

[AliciaKeyedUp]

51. For the 2,423 time

If Israel did everything that the news reports claim, they would have attacked half the world by now.

The little boy didn't just cry wolf, he said wolves were falling from the sky like rain.

I don't have a real dog in this fight, but I am sick of the story at this point.

[yinkaafrica]

63. Sharon is extremely vocal in his desire to see us invade Iran and Syria

There is no doubt that Sharon had a major role
in fomenting the US invasion of Iraq.
No one is crying wolf here. Bush will invade Iran and the
ill wind called Sharon (that evil war mongering bastard) is a major reason why.

[reprobate]

70. Thomas Friedman had an interesting take on invasion of Iran.

In today's rag he said in effect that we could not invade Iran for several reasons.

First, we have neither the troops nor the money to invade.

Second, and more important, is our vulnerability to the price of oil. Since Iran is a major supplier to the world, any disruption of Iran would be a disruption in the supply and price of oil to the rest of the world and especially to the US.

According to his article, our obstinacy in refusing to conserve and research alternative fuels has tied our hands. We simply cannot afford to invade Iran.

Good job, George.

God help America.

[VegasWolf]

53. Don't know but this could be a clever plan. The neocons know

an invasion of Iran would be a tough sell. The WMD excuse
is already gone. But get the neocons good buddies Israel
to attack Iran, then we would have to come to poor little
Israel's defense to maintain peace in the middle peace.
This would be a sweet little Machiavelian ploy.

[lovuian]

61. Lets get this straight Bush & Cheney want Iran's Oil

and they will do ANYTHING to get a hold of it!!! Thats been the whole agenda all along!!!

and if Iran refuses then Yes Cheney * Bush will get it. Because they have the power to get it. And they are not going to allow Iran to make nukes for all its buddies... Unfortunately people its DDAy for Bush!!!

and WMD worked on Congress and the people and I have no doubt Iran has Nukes too.

The powers to be have put alot of money time and effort to get a hold of the MidEast and now that Arafat is dead. This is the time. This is the plan. The MidEast is at war and its gathering as many allies as it can.

Russia & China are the wild cards!!! this is why escalation means WWIII :nuke:

[yinkaafrica]

62. Russia shall have her revenge.

I don't think we know the extent of the Russian/Iranian
military supply connection. What possible reason would Russia have for not supplying Iran with whatever weapons and technicians they can afford? Putin needs money and Iran needs weapons.
If I were Putin, I would make damn sure Iran had all the
weapons they need to kick some American butt.
I predict Iran will more than compensate for what they lack in recon,
satellite information, and exact targeting ability with brute
firepower. Those Sunburns and Exocets may not be perfect,
but enough of them will sink our battleships.
Expect heavy US casualties. Expect Iran to hit many
sensitive targets, including oil fields.
You know they have those missiles locked and loaded.

[Pettson]

64. Please

no more wars.

[peacebird]

65. i'm with you Pettson

Peace IS an option.

Perhaps dimson overextending our military in his excursions in afghanistan and iraq is a good thing after all? He's lacking the people and gear needed for yet a third war at this time. And he surely is lacking in international "coalition" support.

HOPEfully no more wars.

[reprobate]

71. One hopes beyond reason the moron wouldn't put carriers in the gulf.

It is, however not beyond the inability of this bunch to fuck up so badly that they put two carrier groups there.

That would mean that we lose two carriers with what, ten thousand sailers and marines?

That would literally be the end of the world cause * would unleash nukes on iran and whoever else he's pissed at. And we are not the only ones with nueclear weapons. Boy would that add to global warming.

[ElectroPrincess]

66. If Israel pulls on Iran what it did to "take out" the nuclear site in Iraq

They better tell their populace to lean their head down in between their legs and kiss their a** good-bye. All hell's gonna break loose because Iran may already have a surprise package for retribution.

[ElectroPrincess]

67. Is that the only SITE that claims "U.S. OFFICIAL" ?

Drudge is scum. A media tool for the Excutive Branch.

[mitchum]

68. I wish these lunatics would leave we atheists out of their "holy" wars

Why can't they just fight amongst themselves about whose crazy, made up bullshit is superior?

[Radio_free_america]

69. It's an attack again Israel , really surprising

Mr Sharon is trying to negociate peace nowaydays.
Saying that kind of things could make the peace plan falling-down.

It's a diplomatic clash with Irael.

Mr Sharon saying : "we could only count on ourself" at time of Austwichtz commemoration.

[durutti]

72. Barak was here (Pittsburgh) the other night, and said the following...

He said the U.S. was just trying to scare the international community into placing sanctions on Iran. Maybe, maybe not...

[lovuian]

74. Thats not going to happen Iran is Germany's trading partner

it was on the German channel that Iran is where Germany outsources too and sells parts. Its a great relationship and Germany gets alot of money from Iran...

If Turkey is in the EU its been speculated that Iran would be next and would make the EU the most powerful economy in the world!!!

Food for thought!!!

[Gyre]

73. DISINTERESTED CITIZEN: ISRAEL MIGHT GET NUKED

That would be a goddamn shame. It really would. But that seems like a foreseeable response to any unprovoked, military attack by a nuclear armed nation within missle reach.

We all reap what we sow, or should.

Gyre

[superconnected]

76. We'll help Israel and be right in on it.

they don't care how many of us die, they want the big war. Big war = big profits for defense companies. Imagines all those warheads the US would have to replace.

so what if it takes out millions of people over there and here. I believe they don't even care if we win.

[superconnected]

77. it took the whole world to ban together and fight to stop hitler

who's going to stop bush.