Iran Threatens To Attack Tel Aviv...

[Wild Bill]

My position vis. Iran and nukes is this:

1. Iran is not, according to the U.S.'s own intel service, developing these weapons.

2. If Iran decides to resume developing nuclear capability, the west should intervene.

3. However, intervention should stop short of military action based on the high probability that such action would excrebate the political situation without achieving the desired result.

Side point: Should Iran develop nuclear weapons, the probability that they would actually use them is very low.

You realize, you can form your opinion with no personal risk.

If you are wrong, almost everyone in Israel dies.

If someone trumpeted to the whole neighbourhood that he was going to kill me and then I saw him buying a gun, I don't think I could afford to adopt your attitude.

If I had friends and family to worry about as well I'm afraid that it is only simple prudence to take the threat very seriously and react accordingly.

If I had rockets raining intermittently down on my head I would be even more motivated.

I guess its easy to be a pacifist when it's not you or your own family at risk.

[Army Guy]

My position vis. Iran and nukes is this:

1. Iran is not, according to the U.S.'s own intel service, developing these weapons.

( we both know you don't put any water into that argument, i mean these are the same guys that brought us WMD in Iraq are they not, the building cleaners at wal mart have better intel than the US at least the ones advising Bush anyways....)

Even Russia's chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian Senate, visited Washington last week. He said Iran is likely to produce a nuclear bomb "soon."

Iran

2. If Iran decides to resume developing nuclear capability, the west should intervene.

Thats the problem short of military action, Iran will not stop, and the world has yet to step up to the plate and take any serious diplomatic action....It's getting everything it needs from Russia and China, and teasing the west just seems to influence the worlds Oil market, a win win for them....

3. However, intervention should stop short of military action based on the high probability that such action would excrebate the political situation without achieving the desired result.

Side point: Should Iran develop nuclear weapons, the probability that they would actually use them is very low.

We don't know that for fact, what we do know is if they don't have them , they can't use them....we also know if it did get used it will draw most of the world into the region, some of which don't play nice with others.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What would be the point of having a weapon you wouldn't use? Who could afford to do that? It is a foolish person that believes they can put the genie back in the bottle. The technology is out there, and can be had for mere pieces of silver. If it is wanted it will be made or bought, of that you can bank on.

The real issue here is far more complicated, it is one of human not scientific dimensions. That is the problem to be addressed, just as sure as this planet has weather. The nature of mankind is the true issue and it is not being debated very damned well. It is the essence of our being, the way that we live that is the real problem here. Now why isn't this self evident reality being talked about?

Nationalism is part of the problem, so is religion. Economics are part of the problem, and so is education. It is not merely emotional, it is rational thought process as well that have lead us to this point. Even so, they have to date provided no viable solution for our problems. Communism didn't work, and capitalism has its own problems as well.

We need to put aside the concept of a national public will and get beyond our own self imposed limitations.

[Army Guy]

What would be the point of having a weapon you wouldn't use?

The mere hint that you have one, gives your nation a seat at the big boys table, Israel for example, there is no 100 % proof that she does have them, and yet she has that card nobody else in the region has.

Some wpn systems such as nuk wpns are just meant to be owned, thier actual use would have world reprecusions and consquences.

Who could afford to do that?

Any of the nations already in pocession of Nuk wpns.

It is a foolish person that believes they can put the genie back in the bottle

Your right, we can't put the genie back in the bottle, but we can control who has access to the genie.

The technology is out there, and can be had for mere pieces of silver. If it is wanted it will be made or bought, of that you can bank on

Yes, but many countries have spent a kings ransom in search of a nuk wpn, and have yet to produce any thing of value....Those that did get close, had thier programs halted via force, or sanctions...

[Black Dog]

AG

1. Iran is not, according to the U.S.'s own intel service, developing these weapons.

( we both know you don't put any water into that argument, i mean these are the same guys that brought us WMD in Iraq are they not, the building cleaners at wal mart have better intel than the US at least the ones advising Bush anyways....)

I don't believe they were the same people at all. The Iraq intel was cooked by a small bunch of Bush/Cheney acolytes, not the CIA per se.

Even Russia's chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian Senate, visited Washington last week. He said Iran is likely to produce a nuclear bomb "soon."

Soon? What does that even mean? A one-word "quote" from a newspaper like the Times is hardly what I'd call good intel.

Thats the problem short of military action, Iran will not stop, and the world has yet to step up to the plate and take any serious diplomatic action....It's getting everything it needs from Russia and China, and teasing the west just seems to influence the worlds Oil market, a win win for them....

So diplomatic action which we haven't tried yet won't work?

What guarantee is there that military action will?

We don't know that for fact, what we do know is if they don't have them , they can't use them....we also know if it did get used it will draw most of the world into the region, some of which don't play nice with others.

We don't know anything for a fact. But based on the balance of probabilities I'm less worried about the potential consequences of a nuclear armed Iran than I am about the potential consequences of military action to try and stop them.

[Army Guy]

I don't believe they were the same people at all. The Iraq intel was cooked by a small bunch of Bush/Cheney acolytes, not the CIA per se.

If they had anything different, then they failed to convince the President.

Soon? What does that even mean? A one-word "quote" from a newspaper like the Times is hardly what I'd call good intel.

Perhaps, it's just the Russians playing thier games. but then again they don't do much unless there is a pay off for the mother country, and in this case what would be the pay off. They are already supplying a steady stream of wpns and arments into Iran, russias getting paid in cash and oil. It should at the very least be worth looking into. If nothing perhaps it was confirmation that Iran does have a nuk program, and it's doing well.

So diplomatic action which we haven't tried yet won't work?

What guarantee is there that military action will?

So what is the world waiting for, diplomatic solutions take lots of time to have any effect, but as per normal the UN will debate the shit out of it, and it will be to late.

Military action is no guarantee either, but it did work in Iraq with thier program, not that it means anything. but a limited strike in Iran would be easier to contain than say a large smoking hole in Israel with hundrds of thousands of dead and dying. not to mention the radioactive cloud that would cross into most of the middle east and other countries.

We don't know anything for a fact. But based on the balance of probabilities I'm less worried about the potential consequences of a nuclear armed Iran than I am about the potential consequences of military action to try and stop them.

I don't see Iran as that stable, much like giving a drunk a loaded wpn in a room full of people....Israel's entire existance hangs in balance if a nuk wpn was used, a conflict that would get out of hand very quickly, no thanks, better to take thier toys away while we can, than try and clean up a smoking hole later...

[GostHacked]

Army Guy

Military action is no guarantee either, but it did work in Iraq with thier program, not that it means anything. but a limited strike in Iran would be easier to contain than say a large smoking hole in Israel with hundrds of thousands of dead and dying. not to mention the radioactive cloud that would cross into most of the middle east and other countries.

So a strike on a nuclear facility in Iran won't mean the same thing then? You'd have the same scenario really.

I don't see Iran as that stable, much like giving a drunk a loaded wpn in a room full of people....Israel's entire existance hangs in balance if a nuk wpn was used, a conflict that would get out of hand very quickly, no thanks, better to take thier toys away while we can, than try and clean up a smoking hole later...

Could it be like this? :

When Amadinejad says Isreal will dissapear, he might be talking about a retaliation if Iran is hit first. Which to me is 100% reasonable, and well, expected. I am not sure why it did not happen when Iraq's Osirak reactor was destroyed.

Yes Isreal will be whiped off the map, only if they decide to attack first. Either way it will be used against Iran by the west. No matter what the result is.

[bush_cheney2004]

When Amadinejad says Isreal will dissapear, he might be talking about a retaliation if Iran is hit first. Which to me is 100% reasonable, and well, expected. I am not sure why it did not happen when Iraq's Osirak reactor was destroyed.

It didn't happen because Iraq was busy with a war against Iran and would have been mauled by Israel in short order. Hell, Iran attacked Osirak first, only to screw it up....not so the Israelis. Well done!

Yes Isreal will be whiped off the map, only if they decide to attack first. Either way it will be used against Iran by the west. No matter what the result is.

Israel would not be "whiped off the map"....nuclear weapons capabilities and effective military deployment do not ramp up overnight....it is not a step function. Advantage Israel.

[GostHacked]

Israel would not be "whiped off the map"....nuclear weapons capabilities and effective military deployment do not ramp up overnight....it is not a step function. Advantage Israel.

Ahh ok, so the security of Israel is not in jepardy then. At least not from Iran. When you have corruption cases brought against Olmert, (how many other Isreali prime ministers have been tied to corruption cases) you don't need to worry about Iran. Besides they are more threatened with rocket attacks weekly from the Palestinians.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283691,00.html

This is the case more than not. Someone is hired and says he/she will fight corruption, only to be connected to corruption/bribery cases and having to step down because of the fact.

Iran should feel more threatened from Israel, for it is an open secret they have nuclear weapons. Even if they don't I am sure the US can spare a couple for this cause.

Speaking of ramping up. NATO went into Afghanistan only 2-3 months after 9/11. There must have been preparation for over a year to get to that stage.

[White Doors]

Speaking of ramping up. NATO went into Afghanistan only 2-3 months after 9/11. There must have been preparation for over a year to get to that stage.

cite? or is that how you became the all knowing 9/11 conspiracy theorist?

this is the standard of proof for you?

lol

[bush_cheney2004]

Ahh ok, so the security of Israel is not in jepardy then. At least not from Iran. When you have corruption cases brought against Olmert, (how many other Isreali prime ministers have been tied to corruption cases) you don't need to worry about Iran. Besides they are more threatened with rocket attacks weekly from the Palestinians.

You are operating from a flawed perspective. Iran is far more worried than Israel, which can execute on domestic or international matters at the same time without worrying about the wheels coming off.

This is the case more than not. Someone is hired and says he/she will fight corruption, only to be connected to corruption/bribery cases and having to step down because of the fact.

Whereas PMs Martin and Chretien made no such promises!

Iran should feel more threatened from Israel, for it is an open secret they have nuclear weapons. Even if they don't I am sure the US can spare a couple for this cause.

That's the idea.....worry the holy poop out of them. President Ineedahjob should be careful what he wishes for.

Speaking of ramping up. NATO went into Afghanistan only 2-3 months after 9/11. There must have been preparation for over a year to get to that stage.

Bullshit.....we know exactly which "NATO" nations showed up to fight that early on.

[DogOnPorch]

Ineedahjob should be careful what he wishes for.

It's "Ahmedinnerjacket"...get it right....geeze!

----------------------------------

Any change is resisted because bureaucrats have a vested interest in the chaos in which they exist.

---President Richard M. Nixon

[GostHacked]

BC

You are operating from a flawed perspective. Iran is far more worried than Israel, which can execute on domestic or international matters at the same time without worrying about the wheels coming off.

According to you, all my view are flawed.

Whereas PMs Martin and Chretien made no such promises!

Your slippin BC, you usually bring out the Canada thing in your first segment.

Speaking of ramping up. NATO went into Afghanistan only 2-3 months after 9/11. There must have been preparation for over a year to get to that stage.

---

Bullshit.....we know exactly which "NATO" nations showed up to fight that early on.

What part are you calling bullshit on? That NATO went in only 2-3 months after 9/11? Or there must have been much preparation over the previous year to get to the stage of being able to invade.

And it is not Ineedajab that you should worry about. It is the people who control him. It is like Bush, we blame him and not the people who control him. Or the people who controled Blair, or the people who control Brown, or the people who control Harper, ....... *yawn*

[bush_cheney2004]

...And it is not Ineedajab that you should worry about. It is the people who control him. It is like Bush, we blame him and not the people who control him. Or the people who controled Blair, or the people who control Brown, or the people who control Harper, ....... *yawn*

Correct....you worry about things that either don't exist or things you have absolutely no control over. That must really suck. If there is to be a conflagration with Iran, then it shall be. The world has survived far greater perils just in my short time on the planet.

Don't worry.....be happy!

[Black Dog]

If they had anything different, then they failed to convince the President.

You're assuming there were alternate views actually being presented and that Bush would be open to receiving them. Regardless, even if your origional point were correct, being wrong on WMD doesn't preclude being right on Iran.

Perhaps, it's just the Russians playing thier games. but then again they don't do much unless there is a pay off for the mother country, and in this case what would be the pay off. They are already supplying a steady stream of wpns and arments into Iran, russias getting paid in cash and oil. It should at the very least be worth looking into. If nothing perhaps it was confirmation that Iran does have a nuk program, and it's doing well.

We don't even have a full quote or context. That remark is proof of nothing more than the Times' lousy journalism.

So what is the world waiting for, diplomatic solutions take lots of time to have any effect, but as per normal the UN will debate the shit out of it, and it will be to late.

I would dispute the notion that there has been no diplomatic efforts.

Military action is no guarantee either, but it did work in Iraq with thier program, not that it means anything.

Apples and oranges.

but a limited strike in Iran would be easier to contain than say a large smoking hole in Israel with hundrds of thousands of dead and dying. not to mention the radioactive cloud that would cross into most of the middle east and other countries.

Assuming a nuclear strike is completely successful. But what's to stop Iran from rebooting and going for it again?

I don't see Iran as that stable, much like giving a drunk a loaded wpn in a room full of people....Israel's entire existance hangs in balance if a nuk wpn was used, a conflict that would get out of hand very quickly, no thanks, better to take thier toys away while we can, than try and clean up a smoking hole later...

I don't see Iran as being any more or less stable than any other state. If they are so unstable as to be a threat, will bombing them really encourage a rational response?

[HisSelf]

Double post. See next post.

Edited August 2, 2008 by HisSelf

[HisSelf]

The mere hint that you have one, gives your nation a seat at the big boys table, Israel for example, there is no 100 % proof that she does have them, and yet she has that card nobody else in the region has.

I love this answer. The big boys table. "I am going to pump you up."

Ha ha.

So if a guy sneaks a little dirty bomb onto a container ship and blows it up in the port of Haliufax, does this mean he has a seat at the big boys table?

Ha ha. How much can we get for our yellowcake today?

LOL.

I can kill yu and I am now sitting at the big boys table.

I personally would like to congratulate you on your contribution to peace.

I would nominate you for the Nobel, but you probably already have at least ten of them.

Or at least a turnip you stole out of your neighbour's garden.

Nuke them all. Then we'll have peace.

Ha ha. I love it.

[Army Guy]

You're assuming there were alternate views actually being presented and that Bush would be open to receiving them. Regardless, even if your origional point were correct, being wrong on WMD doesn't preclude being right on Iran.

Yes, i was doing more hoping than assuming, that before the most powerful nation in the world took any action, that the Pres would at least have a sit down with all his dept heads and discuss the problem and all the viable solutions.

And your right, being wrong about WMD does not mean anything. but you have to admit thier track record is not very good, or was atleast damaged with thier handling of the WMD intel. And it should atleast make everyone involved cautious about what intel they do provide.

I would dispute the notion that there has been no diplomatic efforts.

I never said there was no diplomatic efforts, just none that are very serious, or supported by the majority of the UN. Current efforts have succeeded in doing what at this piont.

Apples and oranges.

Not aples and oranges, Israel felt it was threatened by Iraq's nuk program, and they took a huge risk in destroying it via a limited military strike as they did Syrias, In Iraq's case it did destroy that nations abilities to rpoduce a viable nuk program, in Syrias case it may have bought them some time...

Assuming a nuclear strike is completely successful. But what's to stop Iran from rebooting and going for it again?

Thats a big gamble your willing to take, even with todays tech advances israel has made in missle interceptions, Detonation of a small nuk device would spell disaster for Israel, they would not have the manpower or resources to defend thier nation, and respond to the clean-up at the same time.... Iran would also know that such an attack would have to be followed up with a conventional strike as well, you don't just kick a honets nest, you need to crush it completely or risk a nuk attack yourself....

Nothing is stopping Iran from rebooting. except fear from another attack...

I don't see Iran as being any more or less stable than any other state. If they are so unstable as to be a threat, will bombing them really encourage a rational response?

Would you see it any differently if you lived in Israel with your family, The whole region is unstable, always on the edge, and any nuk wpn in the region could have serious effects on Israel's very survival. Any military action or unfavourable diplomatic action is not going to encouage any rational response...but then again what has doing nothing brought us today, any rational responses from Iran's government...

[Army Guy]

HisSelf

Psst, climb down out of your tree, nobody is going to hurt you.....

perhaps you can show me where i said "Nuke them all. Then we'll have peace."

[Rue]

RUE:

My expectations for Iran's behaviour are far lower than those for Israel and others professing to uphold democratic ideals.

In regards to the first comment above, your comment about holding Israel to a different standard then Iran because it professes to uphold democratic ideals is precisely the kind of hippocritical, subjective bias I challenge.

Just what is your alleged standard for Israel anyways? Is it the same one you use for Britain, the U.S., France, South Africa, Brazil and India? Well I would suppose we can wink wink nudge nudge look the other way on Pakistan, Russia and India right Black Dog? No wait. I am confused Black Dog. Russia and China claim to be democratic. For that matter Iran does to, or did that escape your selective bias selection of which alleged moral code you will use.

Do me a favour Black Dog enough with the pretentious bullshit as to your assumptions that you hold Israel to a different standard as Iran. Its bullshit and you know it. All countries must follow the same international laws and that is the point.

Where do you get off pronouncing Iran is exempt from the same moral standards as any other country?

Right. Logical. No subjective selectivity in that.

Oh by the way I just love your defined moral code and what you expect. Sort of mystical isn't it. We know what you think Israel does wrong-you do like to state references to Israel in the negative, but I have yet to see you define anything positive. Israel shall not according to Black Dog but never Israel shall.

So Black Dog is the new Moses come down from Mt. Sinai to pronounce his new rules as to who must behave in what manner. Problem is you still haven't said anything coherent about the moral code you expect.

In fact your admission of holding Israel to an ambiguous different standard summarizes precisely what I challenged. Its not credible precisely because it is inconsistent and based on discriminatory assumptions only you seem to understand.

Yah those Israelis. Who do they think they are trying to defend themselves from anhiliation.

But wait, following Black Dog's logic, if the PM of Israel announces today all Israeli are savage hooligans it will be o.k. then because now they no longer claim to be democratic.

Oh.

Pass me the maalox.

[Rue]

If you're going to throw a hissy over my stance, at least have the intellectual honesty to get it right.

My position vis. Iran and nukes is this:

1. Iran is not, according to the U.S.'s own intel service, developing these weapons.

2. If Iran decides to resume developing nuclear capability, the west should intervene.

3. However, intervention should stop short of military action based on the high probability that such action would excrebate the political situation without achieving the desired result.

Side point: Should Iran develop nuclear weapons, the probability that they would actually use them is very low.

Moi have a hissy fit? You bitch! Hah. Just working with the theme Dog.

Now then you make a lot of presumotions. First off, you think you are privy to the U.S. intelligence reports on Iran. Secondly you presume to think the West acts collectively and will act collectively in regards to Iran in such a manner that would actually preclude it from setting off a nuclear attack. Thirdly you assume Iran is logical and sane and calm and balanced and reasonable like thou.

Here's the bottom line. You do not know what the actual U.S. intelligence reports say and never will. What you read comes from what is placed on the internet for your consumption. Are you that naive to think what you read is anything but disinformation? Tell me BlackDog for an intelligence analyst do you really think your data from the internet is accurate? Yegads man get a grip.

More to the point are you for real? Do you think for one moment France, Germany, Britain, or whatever other 'Western" nation you are referring to act in a unified manner on anything let alone Iran? What world do you live in? Oh wait, the French and British and Italians and Germans all hold hands and sing together around a camp fire. Right.

The bottom line is Israel is well aware that today, any fool, anyone, you, I, a child, an old man, a woman, anyone can make a dirty bomb and kill hundreds of thousands. Likewise anyone could release anthrax or dozens of other chemicals and do the same damage without taking down any buildings.

Much of what is going on now over the alleged nuclear issue is a smokescreen for issues of strategic interest you and I probably will never know in our life times and I would suspect have everything to do with control of oil and natural gas markets and pipelines with the nuclear reference as a disinformation smokescreen to keep people off the real battle, one between the West, the US and Russia against China for control of vital oil and natural has supplies which require elaborate pipelines with Iran smack dab in the way and refusing to cowtow to the West but sriking an alliance with China to offset its stance.

Oh yes the same China Blackdog will not criticize since presumably unlike Israel is not democractic?

I personally suspect much of the dialogue is posturing. It has always been a part of the Middle East psyche for alleged factions to name call. Its a cultural tradition to name call. 95% of it is bluff and its precisely that bluff and posturing that prevents war. Its an intricate dance to prevent war.

You do this, I do that goes the song.

Now of course Blackdog will go to Israel and assure its citizens that those missiles that came in from Iraq and continue to come in from the Gaza those are just figments of their imagination and Iran's leader who continuously calls for Israel to be wiped out is just joking. He really isn't a bad guy. O.k. true he has a beard and looks like a pedophile but hey come on Ariel Sharon was a big fat pig.

Right Blackdog. Its all harmless. He's a fun guy. No fanatics in his country are going to be blinded my religious fervour and any desire to have a holy war to rid the Middle East of its Jewish vermin right Blackdog?

I mean you have it all figured out. Its all horseplay.

One missile is all it takes. That missile being nuclear is besides the point Blackdog and you would know that if you had the pleasure of having a missile come at you.

It is all about living another day Blackdog for Israelis. The same people by the way you hold to a different standard then others because I mean according to you they claim to be democratic.

[GostHacked]

Rue

Do me a favour Black Dog enough with the pretentious bullshit as to your assumptions that you hold Israel to a different standard as Iran. Its bullshit and you know it. All countries must follow the same international laws and that is the point.

Many countries do not follow International Law. Some say they do, but the actions prove otherwise. The US does not adhear to international law just for the fact they do not subscribe to the UN. Considering every country has it's own share of criminals, it is a no brainer to conclude that many countries break 'international law' all the time.

This is why there is the UN, WTO, WHO, IMF, World Bank, ICC. These are the forums where we talk about the rules that have been broken.

Where do you get off pronouncing Iran is exempt from the same moral standards as any other country?

The rhetoric towards Iran is 'ass backwards', radical muslms. The picture that is painted by the West towards Iran is a proof that Iran is not held to higher standards than say Israel.

What Black Dog is saying is that not many countries can claim high ground when the actions are deplorable. Israel, Canada, the US, the UK, China, Russia, Myanmar (ect) have all done things that violate international law.

Ugh ....

Now then you make a lot of presumotions. First off, you think you are privy to the U.S. intelligence reports on Iran.

It's been in the news. Just not on the front page. Only terrorism gets front page, anything that does not support the dogma gets thrown to the back pages.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1690515,00.html

Anyone following the Iran nuclear issue via the presidential debates might have been shocked to learn Monday that the U.S. intelligence community now believes that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program four years ago, and is unlikely to have restarted it.

Rue, you bring up a great point here.

Much of what is going on now over the alleged nuclear issue is a smokescreen for issues of strategic interest you and I probably will never know in our life times and I would suspect have everything to do with control of oil and natural gas markets and pipelines with the nuclear reference as a disinformation smokescreen to keep people off the real battle, one between the West, the US and Russia against China for control of vital oil and natural has supplies which require elaborate pipelines with Iran smack dab in the way and refusing to cowtow to the West but sriking an alliance with China to offset its stance.

So you admit there is propaganda and dissinformation when it comes to this situation with Iran. It is not about them getting a nuke (kind of) it is about getting the oil before Iran gets the nuke. Once Iran does, it makes taking Iran over much harder and much more dangerous. Iran without the bomb will eventually fall like Iraq did.

So in this context, no country should be held higher that another country. But when countries claim to be a beacon of democracy, but yet break international law, no high ground can be claimed.

It is all about living another day Blackdog for Israelis. The same people by the way you hold to a different standard then others because I mean according to you they claim to be democratic.

The birth of Israel was not democratic at all. The locals had no say about where the Jews would make their new home. It was a UN mandate. I am not sure if I can call Israel democratic considering how it was created/born.

And Rue .. take it easy on me.

[White Doors]

The US does not adhear to international law just for the fact they do not subscribe to the UN

???

There is a monthly UN Magazine that the US doesn't subscibe to?

Edited August 5, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

The birth of Israel was not democratic at all. The locals had no say about where the Jews would make their new home. It was a UN mandate. I am not sure if I can call Israel democratic considering how it was created/born.

I see. In that case, I guess that Canada isn't a democratic country then.

Really, the more I think about it, there isn't a democratic country in the world.

Interesting that you only seem to mention Israel though. I will let you explain why.

PS: You do know that there were Jews there who were considered 'locals' do you not?

Edited August 5, 2008 by White Doors

[GostHacked]

I see. In that case, I guess that Canada isn't a democratic country then.

Really, the more I think about it, there isn't a democratic country in the world.

Interesting that you only seem to mention Israel though. I will let you explain why.

PS: You do know that there were Jews there who were considered 'locals' do you not?

Well, you know considering the Topic is 'Iran threatens to attack Tel Aviv' ... I thought I'd stay in the topic. But for your purpose, please replace Israel with any other country out there. I'd sure hate to be pegged as an anti-semite !!!!!

White Doors

QUOTE

There is a monthly UN Magazine that the US doesn't subscibe to?

I am talking about subscribing to the mantra or ideals of the UN. I am wrong to say that the US is not part of the UN, I mean to say the ICC. But most countries use the UN for their own gain. But be disingenuous whenever you feel like it.