Who is going to take out the Iranians first? Israel or the US?

[DaNinjew]

I've been digesting the President's speech on Iraq, he made some not so subtle (or idle) threats towards Iran's interference in Iraq. We are currently moving another carrier strike group into the Persian Gulf. I just don't see too many options where we won't eventually be in direct military conflict with Iran. There have also been reports released to the press of Israeli plans to take out Iran's nuclear facilities with a tactical nuke air strike. Who do you think will strike first?

[Brian Dugger]

One must bear in mind the history of Ehud Ohlmert and consider events since May of 1948. Israel has nuclear capability [although it isn't publisized] and being completely surrounded by Arab countries geographically, they will not consider the slightest probability of being attacked.

[TicTac]

I don't see how Israel can NOT strike. The Arab world that surrounds them hates them with a fervor not known since Nazi Germany. If they have the ability to completely destroy Israel they will. It is only a matter of time.

[Brian Dugger]

Oh, it will be preemptive:rubeyes:which makes it all the more unsettling. I'm fascinated as why it hasn't already happened. More importantly, the strength of the thread(s) that have kept things from completely unraveling is equally baffling to me.

[DaNinjew]

Brian,
I agree, I thought that Iran's Holocaust denial convention would be the last straw and it may have been. The 1973 Arab-Israeli war tought the Isrealis to not under estimate warnings and threats....they swore to strike first if threatened. This will be a dangerous year in the middle east.

PS The Iranians have to know its coming one way or another. Maybe they have a Nuke already.

[Brian Dugger]

Brian,
I agree, I thought that Iran's Holocaust denial convention would be the last straw and it may have been. The 1973 Arab-Israeli war tought the Isrealis to not under estimate warnings and threats....they swore to strike first if threatened. This will be a dangerous year in the middle east.

PS The Iranians have to know its coming one way or another. Maybe they have a Nuke already.

On the ruminations of the President's address, George W. would not have suggested or mentioned anything at all if the support and positioning were not already underway if not already in place.

At the moment, there is only one man alive from the Camp David peace accords which represented each of the families of Shem, Ham and Japeth. Begin and Sadat have long been dead. I am fairly certain that he has had to do some work he lately for the present sitting President.

[coralreefer]

Though I think it should be Isreal to deal with this issue more than anyone, since they are the once in the biggest amount of danger by a nuclear armed Iran, I think Isreal rests comfortably in the notion that the US will likely do the dirty work for them.

As much as I hate to see the US involved in ther issue, and even though Isreal is more than capable of dealing with Iran, as well as the other neighbors, I believe it will be the US to start that front, and further inflame hatred for Americans in the Middle East.


Todd

[Brian Dugger]

As much as I hate to see the US involved in ther issue, and even though Isreal is more than capable of dealing with Iran, as well as the other neighbors, I believe it will be the US to start that front, and further inflame hatred for Americans in the Middle East.



Shameful, but true. I don't like our country finding itself in such precarious positions.:frown:

[Ramirez]

Though I think it should be Isreal to deal with this issue more than anyone, since they are the once in the biggest amount of danger by a nuclear armed Iran, I think Isreal rests comfortably in the notion that the US will likely do the dirty work for them.

As much as I hate to see the US involved in ther issue, and even though Isreal is more than capable of dealing with Iran, as well as the other neighbors, I believe it will be the US to start that front, and further inflame hatred for Americans in the Middle East.


Todd

Todd you sound like an old style conservative, Pat Buchanan for example.

It is odd how conservatism did a complete about face on foreign intervention.

[starkjudo]

Warlike as it may be, i've got my popcorn and my pom-pom and i'm rooting for Israel to stomp the dogcrap out of 'em.

[dao]

I love pharses like "taking out". What exactly does that mean? I think that a strong case could be made that the USSR "took out" Apghanistan during the 80's and that has been such a success....

For those who don't know, in an attempt to stablize the government after a coup, the USSR invaded, killed lots of people, destroyed the infrastructure and destroyed the government. And after its solders left a civil war started that killed more people and effectively prevented any progress being made toward a peaceful environment for families to raise their children. The need for stability enabled the repressive Taliban government to rise to power which instead of trying to solve it's countries multiple problems survives by scapegoating "the evil west" for everything that is wrong. Now the US has invaded and is attempting to "fix" it. And yet in spite of all the turmoil Apghanistan is still physically present, there are still people whose ancestors lived there for who knows how many generations attempting to make a living and raise their children, there is still a Apghan culture. In every way that matters Apghanistan is still there. I think the notion that one country can "take out" another is actually pretty riduculous. The only thing that can happen is that countries can force cultural changes.

The reason I don't think Isreal or the Arab counties have resorted to nuclear attacks yet is that even the most fanacitcal realize the collatoral damage to their own countries would be too great. Self preservation is too strong of a force and even self matrydom loses it's appeal when you realize that nobody is going to be around to mourn for you and remember your "heroism". Ever notice that it is never the leaders who self sacrifice?

[STORMCROW34]

I think Israel will strike pre-emptively.

1) The rhetoric and threats coming out of Iran are on a significant increase.

2) You can't reason with the unreasonable and you can't make peace with an entity that is hell bent on your destruction.

3) Israel has done it before. In 1981 Israel destroyed a French built nuclear power plant in Baghdad with airstrikes.

4) The entire Israeli nation is a frontline. That's why you occasionally see 17 year old girls in civilian clothes, walking around with Uzi's.

5) One well placed nuke and it's all over for Israel.

I would love to see this resolved peacefully, but with Israels back against a wall, what choice do they have?

[coralreefer]

Todd you sound like an old style conservative, Pat Buchanan for example.

It is odd how conservatism did a complete about face on foreign intervention.


Wow, now that's a surprise. I have never been called a conservative, and certainly never compared to Pat Buchanan. Given as though I don't really get into the whole "lib-turd and Neo-con" arena, if my comments make some believe that I am a conservative, then so be it. I have no problem being thought of as conservative or liberal.

Guess I should chalk it up to coming from the same district as Jesse Helmes:)

Todd

[STORMCROW34]

I think Israel will strike pre-emptively.

I'm quoting myself to clarify.

I don't think Israel is going to "take out" anyone as a nation, culture, etc.

I do think Israel will likely be forced to "take out" any nuclear plants in the region with which they are threatened.

[Brian Dugger]

I think Israel will strike pre-emptively.

1) The rhetoric and threats coming out of Iran are on a significant increase.

2) You can't reason with the unreasonable and you can't make peace with an entity that is hell bent on your destruction.

3) Israel has done it before. In 1981 Israel destroyed a French built nuclear power plant in Baghdad with airstrikes.

4) The entire Israeli nation is a frontline. That's why you occasionally see 17 year old girls in civilian clothes, walking around with Uzi's.

5) One well placed nuke and it's all over for Israel.

I would love to see this resolved peacefully, but with Israels back against a wall, what choice do they have?

Whew! Now, that's a perspective. No argument, nope--none.


I would love to see this resolved peacefully, but with Israels back against a wall, what choice do they have?

It's not a choice, the Israelis have said what they will do, which validates our preemptive strike statement.:eek:

[Ramirez]

Wow, now that's a surprise. I have never been called a conservative, and certainly never compared to Pat Buchanan. Given as though I don't really get into the whole "lib-turd and Neo-con" arena, if my comments make some believe that I am a conservative, then so be it. I have no problem being thought of as conservative or liberal.

Guess I should chalk it up to coming from the same district as Jesse Helmes:)

Todd

Didn't mean to compare you to Buchanan, I used him as an example of the isolationist view that conservatives used to have. It now seems "liberals" are the isolationists.

[STORMCROW34]

Regardless of who uses Isolationism as a platform, I think history will show that Isolationism is a VERY bad idea.

[starkjudo]

Regardless of who uses Isolationism as a platform, I think history will show that Isolationism is a VERY bad idea.


Definitely. And to clarify my previous, I agree with Michael on his points - I think Israel with attack tactically, taking out military assets.

[Ramirez]

Regardless of who uses Isolationism as a platform, I think history will show that Isolationism is a VERY bad idea.

the problem is resources, right now there seem to be too many targets that should be dealt wit. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all volatile. India and Pakistan are quiet right now but who knows when things could explode there. China is some odd mix of capitalism being run by a totalitarian government.

Where do you even start to intercede? Can you even intercede in India , Pakistan and China given they are part of the nuclear club?

[David Craik]

Regardless of who uses Isolationism as a platform, I think history will show that Isolationism is a VERY bad idea.

A matter of degree, I think. On the other end of the spectrum I think it's a bad idea to meddle too much in the business of sovereign nations and to heavy-handedly and unilaterally attempt to force one's will on others - particularly matters which should be the purview of the U.N.

[STORMCROW34]

I agree Mr. Craik, there is a big difference between tending to our national interests and the idea of a global manifest destiny. But the thought of Iran with nuclear weapons just doesn't leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling.

[Brian Dugger]

. . . - particularly matters which should be the purview of the U.N.

David, as man representing our country in war, I'm interested (innocently, I might add) in knowing how you feel about the U.N. overall, not just in this case. For myself, I'd appreciate some comment for personal introspection and rumination [although, you're not obiligated to me for anything].

[David Craik]

I feel that they are something of a paper tiger, unfortunately. I think the idea behind the U.N. - or even the old League of Nations - is sound, however they are too slow to act and lack the resolve to mediate effectively or enforce anything. This is why I say should be the purview of the U.N., if the organization wasn't so wishy-washy.

I have a stupid question - who is it precisely that decides who gets to have nukes and who doesn't? Some sort of nuclear regulatory commission within the U.N.? What criteria do they use to make this determination?

[Brian Dugger]

. . .I have a stupid question - who is it precisely that decides who gets to have nukes and who doesn't? Some sort of nuclear regulatory commission within the U.N.? What criteria do they use to make this determination?

First, I believe this is a very valid question. Second, maybe we should get another thread going regarding this particular subject. Thanks for entertaining my question. Now, off I go to surf and ponder.:bow:

[Ron Tisdale]

What criteria do they use to make this determination?

a) who is likely to use them to blow their enemies off the map

b) who is likely to sell them to someone who will then use them to blow their enemies off the map

Best,
Ron (in an ideal world anyway...U.N. sometimes seems to = the federation senate from Star Wars)

[David Craik]

I imagine that when the U.S. developed nuclear weapons it would seem likely that we would use them to 'blow someone off the map'....in fact, it seemed like that was a distinct possibility during the cold war.

[Brian Dugger]

I imagine that when the U.S. developed nuclear weapons it would seem likely that we would use them to 'blow someone off the map'....in fact, it seemed like that was a distinct possibility during the cold war.

Just remember who all was on the "think" tank for the Manhattan Project and consider why we remain so close to Israel. It wasn't coincidence that shortly after WWII that Israel re-established itself and Truman was the first to call and make congratulations. We used their scientist, they used our resources and they've had nuclear capability even before 1948 due to 'intellectual property' as it were. This is perhaps a reason why the U.S. has remained so close at hand.:yikes:

[arod]

I try not to post in political threads, mostly because I’d probably start a war. On that note please forgive me.
I am wondering why we pose the question, who will strike first. It seems more likely that no one will strike at all. Have these countries not been abusing each other for decades? As I see it, to get a first strike, the US needs start something.
Secondly, do we know with absolute certainty that Israel has nuclear weapons?

[GRWMMAolddude]

I have a stupid question - who is it precisely that decides who gets to have nukes and who doesn't? Some sort of nuclear regulatory commission within the U.N.? What criteria do they use to make this determination?

Good reference for this is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty) description on Wikipedia or at the Federation of American Scientist site (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/) .

The treaty is often summarized as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. Key issue with Iran, a signatory state of the treaty, is the third pillar. Under the treaty they have the right to "peaceful use of nuclear power". Given their obvious critical need for energy (what's that black stuff they are pumping out of the ground useful for?), and their clearly demonstrated record of honest behavior (something about statements on the holocaust comes to mind), I am sure they are telling us the truth about only using their reactors for energy.
On August 9, 2005, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a "fatwa" forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

Gosh, that makes me feel so much better!:cool:

[DaNinjew]

I try not to post in political threads, mostly because I’d probably start a war. On that note please forgive me.
I am wondering why we pose the question, who will strike first. It seems more likely that no one will strike at all. Have these countries not been abusing each other for decades? As I see it, to get a first strike, the US needs start something.
Secondly, do we know with absolute certainty that Israel has nuclear weapons?

Its widely accepted that Israel has nuclear weapons, they developed them in secret back in the late sixties and early seventies (when she was in wars with her neighbors), when someone with in their program went public with Isreal's big secret, he was eventually put on trial for treason....don't remember the rest of the details. They have land based missile and aircraft based delivery systems. They have a small but dangerous nuclear capability.

To answer the first part of your question, although it is unlikely that a strike will occur, it is certainly not improbable based upon our current leadership or the amount of intense rhetoric being voiced publicly by the Iranians. Sometimes people get tired of the talk and actually build up enough courage to act.

[DaNinjew]

I have a stupid question - who is it precisely that decides who gets to have nukes and who doesn't? Some sort of nuclear regulatory commission within the U.N.? What criteria do they use to make this determination?

Usually its the countries who 'have' the nukes that DETER-mine who else can enter the fraternity. Its about being in the power position. Much like why we choose not to share our technological advantage with many countries.

[David Craik]

Thanks all, I rather figured it was a case of the big boys deciding who can have nukes and who can't.

[elder999]

Just remember who all was on the "think" tank for the Manhattan Project and consider why we remain so close to Israel. It wasn't coincidence that shortly after WWII that Israel re-established itself and Truman was the first to call and make congratulations. We used their scientist, they used our resources and they've had nuclear capability even before 1948 due to 'intellectual property' as it were. This is perhaps a reason why the U.S. has remained so close at hand.:yikes:


I was going to stay out of this, but....

Okay-Israel's nuclear capability is primarily the result of a decade long collaboration with the French, between 1953 and 1963, and Israel had developed weapons by the late 60's, sometime between 1966 and 1969, at any rate. While some Manhattan Project scientists were involved in this exchange, they were largely French scientists who had minor participation, and permission to share the technology with their own govenrment, which became, by extension, with Israel-something that served the French strategically as a balance against Egypt and Algeria. By the time France withdrew support from Israel's nuclear programs around 1966, Israel already had the technology and enough material to assemble at least one plutonium weapon before the 1967 Six Days War, and likely-and certainly, eventually, due to French influence, the capability of building extremely sophisticated and economical devices that utilize only between 4.5 and 9 lbs. of plutonium.They continued to receive support for their program from South Africa for a time, in the form of uranium fuel for their Demona reactor. In any case, there was never any direct participation in this program by Jewish "Manhattan Project" scientists, most of whom ewre Americans, and remained loyal to America as well as zealous in their guarding of nuclear secrets.

As far as David's question on non-proliferation, while the terms of the treaty are supposed to prevent this-principally by supporting peaceful nuclear power in an attempt to exclude weapons development, they largely don't. If a nation wants to develop nuclear capability, they will, and there is very little that can be done about it before the fact, and only sanctions to be imposed afterward, as in the long ban on the exportation of certain materials and technologies to Pakistan, a ban which proved largely moot and impotent. In fact,there are examples of nations-like South Africa -that were signatories to the treaty, had "peaceful" nuclear programs, and very secret weapons programs that weren't largely revealed until they were abandoned, though South Africa is unique in that it is the only nation to develop a full-fledged weapon and then voluntarily give up its weapon capability.

And, in reference to Iran's now flouishing nuclear program, while there can be little doubt that they are in the process of developing weapons capability, and have been for more than a decade-something we knew from looking at the papers that come from their academic establishment (some plagiarized, and some interestingly original)and interpolating-there are also studies by our own energy establishment that indicate they also could be out of oil in a short time, and thus could really use nuclear power-the way they are going about it, though, leaves no doubt that they are pursuing a weapon.

As for who's gonna go after them, some people here know what I've been saying for nearly 5 years, and now they know why...

[David Craik]

I'm happy that Jeff chimed in. Nobody knows more.

[GRWMMAolddude]

......

And, in reference to Iran's now flourishing nuclear program, while there can be little doubt that they are in the process of developing weapons capability, and have been for more than a decade-something we knew from looking at the papers that come from their academic establishment (some plagiarized, and some interestingly original)and interpolating-there are also studies by our own energy establishment that indicate they also could be out of oil in a short time, and thus could really use nuclear power-the way they are going about it, though, leaves no doubt that they are pursuing a weapon.

As for who's gonna go after them, some people here know what I've been saying for nearly 5 years, and now they know why...


Other recent relevant documents some of you might want to read are the DNI's (John Negroponte) Annual Threat Assessment (http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20070111_testimony.pdf) or the text of the testimony (http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20070111_transcript.pdf) to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on 1/11/07. Puts this issue and others in a very clear context. A bit much to read but well worth it for those who want to understand the issues and see what the intel community is saying (at least in open source) as well as some of the ongoing partisan debate from our elected representatives.:smack:

[elder999]

I'm happy that Jeff chimed in. Nobody knows more.


God, David-don't say that; I'll blush-hehe!

I should say here that everything I've posted is mostly public information, or public speculation, and widely available on the web, even.....

[DaNinjew]

Other recent relevant documents some of you might want to read are the DNI's (John Negroponte) Annual Threat Assessment (http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20070111_testimony.pdf) or the text of the testimony (http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20070111_transcript.pdf) to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on 1/11/07. Puts this issue and others in a very clear context. A bit much to read but well worth it for those who want to understand the issues and see what the intel community is saying (at least in open source) as well as some of the ongoing partisan debate from our elected representatives.:smack:

Are these the same guys that said Saddam had WMD and that the Soviet Union wasn't going anywhere? :eek: Forgive my scepticism.

[GRWMMAolddude]

Are these the same guys that said Saddam had WMD and that the Soviet Union wasn't going anywhere? :eek: Forgive my scepticism.

We might be getting of this thread's topic but if you listened closely to the after-the-fact testimony about WMDs and the decision to invade Iraq, you will see that the Intel Community (IC) laid the facts out on the table based on the objective data they had. There were several questions asked of them like "Gee, since you saw this particular thing, could that possibly be an indication of WMDs?" The answers were always along the lines of "Yes, there could be a possible correlation but we do not have any direct evidence of WMDs". The conclusion that they had WMDs was made by the Administration, not the IC.

The current question (see other thread) is what should we be doing in Iraq and does the troop surge make sense or should we just pull out. If you read the recent testimony in the link you will get the ICs view as to why we need to finish the job we started and the consequences if we don't.

[STORMCROW34]

Apparently another carrier battle group, along with some minesweepers, are now enroute to the region.

I wonder if this is a typical show of force, or are more pieces falling into place?

[AllanJGAnderson]

I expect Iran to say or do something stupid within a few years, that is when Israel will reply with strategic strikes, if the US aids Israel during this the Iranians will pour into Iraq with the Syrians, who in turn will pour into Israel (or try) with it's vassal state Lebanon, along with Hezbollah. Some other Arab nations, maybe Egypt, Libya, etc could join the fight in what would be viewed and promoted as a Holy War against the evil West.
That is in my own opinion how I imagine WW3 to break-out.

[GRWMMAolddude]

I expect Iran to say or do something stupid within a few years, ....

Let's see, 27 Dec 2002 North Korea expels IAEA inspectors (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/27/nkorea.expulsions/).

On 16 October 2006, North Korea detonates a nuke (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html).

On 22 Jan 2007, Iran expels IAEA inspectors (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11682871/).

Think we got a few years or less???

[DaNinjew]

I think the shot over the bow, has just been fired.

[Brian Dugger]

Let's see, 27 Dec 2002 North Korea expels IAEA inspectors (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/27/nkorea.expulsions/).

On 16 October 2006, North Korea detonates a nuke (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html).

On 22 Jan 2007, Iran expels IAEA inspectors (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11682871/).

Think we got a few years or less???

I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in the next 18-24 months.

[Jeff C.]

I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in the next 18-24 months.

Ahmadinejad is taking a beating from the state-controlled press in Iran right now. The Ayahtolla is "strongly encouraging" him, along with the Parliament, to back off and cooperate more with the West in all-things-nuclear. As everyone knows, the president of Iran does not really have the power; the clerics and Ayahtolla let him serve at their pleasure. The pressure is working.

These little gold nuggets of positive information can be mined from the largely-liberal media, if you spend some time looking for it.

Jeff Cook

[Jeff C.]

Oddly enough, from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fA%2f Ahmadinejad%2c%20Mahmoud&oref=slogin

Jeff Cook

[Brian Dugger]

Ahmadinejad is taking a beating from the state-controlled press in Iran right now. The Ayahtolla is "strongly encouraging" him, along with the Parliament, to back off and cooperate more with the West in all-things-nuclear. As everyone knows, the president of Iran does not really have the power; the clerics and Ayahtolla let him serve at their pleasure. The pressure is working.

These little gold nuggets of positive information can be mined from the largely-liberal media, if you spend some time looking for it.

Jeff Cook

True, I was just stating I wouldn't be surprised. People's minds change just like the weather.

[GRWMMAolddude]

True, I was just stating I wouldn't be surprised. People's minds change just like the weather.

It does appear international pressure is making his, Ahmadinejad's, position less tenable. Some folks like the Arab League's Maussa put US involvement at 50/50 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070124/ts_nm/davos_moussa_iran_dc_2) (but he has an agenda).

Either way, it certainly appears Iran is preparing for what may come (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_russia_weapons_5).

I am sure there is a martial arts analogy to our current (correct) posture of letting the enemy know we are not afraid and "all options are on the table".

[teashoci]

I expect Iran to say or do something stupid within a few years, that is when Israel will reply with strategic strikes, if the US aids Israel during this the Iranians will pour into Iraq with the Syrians, who in turn will pour into Israel (or try) with it's vassal state Lebanon, along with Hezbollah. Some other Arab nations, maybe Egypt, Libya, etc could join the fight in what would be viewed and promoted as a Holy War against the evil West.
That is in my own opinion how I imagine WW3 to break-out.

and america hasnt been acting stupid for the past 3 months :confused:, has it not been america that has excacerbated political and military tension in the middle east. ?

[Jeff C.]

When you squeeze a pimple to get all of the pus out, it becomes inflamed and looks worse prior to healing.

Or we could all just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the Middle East situation was not getting much worse all on its own....

Jeff Cook

[GRWMMAolddude]

....
Or we could all just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the Middle East situation was not getting much worse all on its own....

Jeff Cook

True, true, true

The consequences of a world power adopting an isolationist posture are well established. Just look to our history in WW1 and WW2.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=495329)

[DaNinjew]

When you squeeze a pimple to get all of the pus out, it becomes inflamed and looks worse prior to healing.

Or we could all just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the Middle East situation was not getting much worse all on its own....

Jeff Cook
:laugh: Thats funny Jeff...are you by chance prior service or just law enforcement? Just curious....

[Jonathan Randall]

Ahmadinejad is taking a beating from the state-controlled press in Iran right now. The Ayahtolla is "strongly encouraging" him, along with the Parliament, to back off and cooperate more with the West in all-things-nuclear. As everyone knows, the president of Iran does not really have the power; the clerics and Ayahtolla let him serve at their pleasure. The pressure is working.

These little gold nuggets of positive information can be mined from the largely-liberal media, if you spend some time looking for it.

Jeff Cook

To the contrary, I have found that it is the far right in the media that is playing up Ahmadinejad right now, and the more left (or non-intervenionist right) that is trying to clarify the issue regarding his place and real power, or lack thereof.

Still, the man's a dangerous nutbag (even if he doesn't have real power, his comments are extraordinarily stupid and evil).

[DaNinjew]

Here it comes Ladds...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html

[Cliff Hargrave]

I fixed your link.

[DaNinjew]

Thanks Cliff...I'm not the most adept tech guy.

[AllanJGAnderson]

:laugh: Thats funny Jeff...are you by chance prior service or just law enforcement? Just curious....
You can't tell with just the haircut?

[DaNinjew]

The plot thickens...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2583167,00.html