Is ra el, US Disagree on Timetable for Attacking Ir an
Is ra el says it "cannot afford" to wait for an I ra nian nuclear weapons program, which intelligence says doesn't exist
by John Glaser, March 22, 2012
Is ra el and the U.S. disagree on how soon a military attack on Ir an would be necessary, Is ra el’s defense minister said Thursday, even after admitting Ir an currently has no nuclear weapons program.
Eh ud Bar ak claimed Iran is trying to make its civilian nuclear program immune from attack before making a decision to actually develop nuclear weapons, and said Is ra el “cannot afford” to wait for that completely speculative hypothetical situation.
The consensus in the U.S. and Is ra el is that I ran has no nuclear weapons program and has so far demonstrated no verifiable intention to do so. To suggest that an attack is warranted is to claim the right of preventive war, which flies in the face of both international law and any sane conception of just war.
In this case, it would be the right to wage war on a country who may at some unspecified point in the future develop weapons that it would certainly never use, although no evidence has been presented that said development has or will ever take place.
In a statement made simply to rattle I sr ael’s sabers and terrify I ranians, Barak told Israel Radio that the Jewish state could hold off waging preventive war for several more months to allow sanctions and negotiations to work, during which time it would become clear whether ”the Iranians intend or don’t intend to stop their nuclear weapons program.” The one that doesn’t exist.
Neither Is ra el nor the U.S. seem willing to put an end to this seemingly impending conflict with Iran. For example, if Is ra el agreed to dismantling its vast stockpiles of un-inspected nuclear weapons and to a deal enforcing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East – a deal Iran has repeatedly proposed – Ir an’s defensive opaqueness on certain aspects of its nuclear program would surely vanish, along with the pretext for war. But this remains out of the question for Tel A viv and Washington.
http://news.an ti war.com/2012/03/22/is ra el-us-disagree-on-timetable-for-attacking-ir an/
Jesus Christ existed as surely as George Washington
Not having seen George Washington's birth certificate, I can only conclude he was a Mu slim from Kenya.
Jesus likely never existed...except as a political dissident and a thief.
Jesus Christ is a fiction. Like the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and Santa Claus.
<< There were major massacres of Joos by Arabs. >>
Substantiate please vermit. Yea conflicts erupted after 1917 but hardly for no reason. I mean it is so incredible you guys think everything you do to others doesn't count and any retaliation back as a consequence of your own outrageous actions is "persecution". The extent that that psychological game is played is really astounding. I read your own literature and it is ingrained throughout and indoctrinated from birth on and I just gag.
<< And during World War 2 the main Arab leaer in the region was an ardent supporter of Hitl@r.>>
The Pale stians were suppose to align with the British? They did that in WWI and look at how the British reciprocated - gave their country away to a bunch of Europeans. The zi on ists were most certainly supporting Hitler as well, financing him and working in conjunction with him to deport j's to Pal es tine and build Is Ra el, factories, roads, even synagogues - pure white race in Germany and pure j race in Palestine. Both were fascists.
rodentess: <<In the case of Pales tine, j's and muslims lived there and got along just fine for centuries. There was no conflict, no threat to the j's nor to arabs>>
There were major massacres of Joos by Arabs. And during World War 2 the main Arab leaer in the region was an ardent supporter of Hitl@r.
<< Except in Texas, they're NOT coming home since they're all dying of drought.>>
What drought idiot? Two more weeks like any of the past 8 and Texas is out of drought status.
I mean we have had so much rain, some days I have thought of taking the boat instead of the car.
<< Neither were the Texans. TOTAL anker baybee invaders who kicked other people out.>>
Who did they kick out moron? Those Texans were here BEFORE the Cherokee. As to throwing them out, not hardly. Nor did they drive out the hispanics here.
The Commanche were plains Indians from the Shoshone in the north. They moved in and out of Texas through out the central US, never staying long in one place. The main problem Texans had with the commanche was that they had a bad habit of kidnapping women and children, and then selling/trading them.
Regardless, problem got solved.
In the case of Pales tine, j's and muslims lived there and got along just fine for centuries. There was no conflict, no threat to the j's nor to arabs. That is, until the european zi on ists started moving in with their plans of creating a eugenically pure "j" state.
After near 100 years, two world wars and how many smaller, absolutely no resolution and we sit on edge of WWIII.
Most obvious, Zi on ists are not capable of ruling - only causing conflict.
I hope this post has legs, holds up and breaks the "vats of Acid post" held by Mr. Duke alumni himself.
We're not even close yet, but I can laugh at Texas til the cows come home.
Except in Texas, they're NOT coming home since they're all dying of drought.