Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War [Archive]

View Full Version : Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War

Warrior-Mentor

09-15-2009, 08:10

Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War
President Obama can't outsource matters of war and peace to another state.
By BRET STEPHENS

Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?

At July's G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.

Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the "ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations" and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, "respect for the rights of nations," and other areas where Iran is a paragon.

Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran's nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.

What's an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn't a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.

All this only helps persuade Israel's skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable," he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly reprimanding his misbehaving teenager. That impression is strengthened by Mr. Obama's decision to drop Iran from the agenda when he chairs a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly opposing military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities; and by Russia's announcement that it will not support any further sanctions on Iran.

In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won't lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the "international community." So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own.

Thus, unlike Israel's air strike against Iraq's reactor in 1981 or Syria's in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.

The problem, however, is that the administration isn't taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn't really paying attention.

But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will "be able to produce a weapon's worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months." No less critical in determining Israel's timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.

Such a strike may well be in Israel's best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America's supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn't need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.

Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran's disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower's responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver's seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574410672271269390.html

Dad

09-15-2009, 08:17

would the Arab states be angry or secretly jubilant?

Team Sergeant

09-15-2009, 09:25

How many times has Israel launched unilateral strikes against ME nuclear facilities?

I don't think it will be a big surprise when Irans nuclear program lies in ruins.

I don't think it will drive the cost of a barrel of oil to $300.

There will be no "fight" or "war" between Israel and Iran. Israel will destroy the Iranian nuclear capability and Iran will, scream, jump up and down and then swear to someday destroy Israel in a fireball.

Iran will then begin to "rebuild" it's facility and it will tell the world, again, it's doing so.

It's not going to end, not in our life time.

TS

jw74

09-15-2009, 09:36

Iran will, scream, jump up and down and then swear to someday destroy Israel in a fireball.

TS

and the UN and Obama will issue words of disapproval towards Israel but be secretly relieved.

Peregrino

09-15-2009, 10:01

akv

09-15-2009, 10:05

I don't think it will be a big surprise when Iran's nuclear program lies in ruins.

Not so much a matter of if but when. Israel's interests are aligned with ours here. If anything this aggressive posturing possibly makes things more dangerous for any IDF special forces who are sent in to laser designate targets, etc, I wish them well. It seems this type of thing is further evidence that bad guys across the globe sense Obama is a lightweight and will test us.

Team Sergeant

09-15-2009, 10:21

Or Israel will achieve something less than 100% destruction, Iran will claim victory for having retained a percentage of its capabilities, the Russians will deliver the S-300s, Israel will be unable to mount a second strike, and the WORLD will be that much closer to a real Armageddon. This is rapidly becoming "lose - lose". Israel will not go quietly into the night nor will she go alone. We could easilly be right there with her.

It will take decades for I-ran to rebuild it's program from dust. In those years we can devise better fly swatters.;) We now have UAV's that are "fighter" aircaft and UAV bombers.
I'm sure some smart people are working on UAV "jammers".

Not so much a matter of if but when. Israel's interests are aligned with ours here. If anything this aggressive posturing possibly makes things more dangerous for any IDF special forces who are sent in to laser designate targets, etc, I wish them well. It seems this type of thing is further evidence that bad guys across the globe sense Obama is a lightweight and will test us.

akv, I see you're a Portfolio Manager, a good one I hope.

Your knowledge of Special Forces, ours or theirs is limited. We don't have to laser designate targets anymore, neither does Israel. Go and read about the JDAM and then do a google search on Israel & JDAM. Think before you post.

greenberetTFS

09-15-2009, 10:36

akv

09-15-2009, 10:42

Bigger balls than you think.

Looks like they had a ground element there before the air strike, and took some of the NK nuke material with them.

TR

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297732,00.html

Report: Israeli Forces Seized Nuclear Material During Syrian Raid
Sunday , September 23, 2007

Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month, according to Sunday Times report citing informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem.

The attack was launched with American approval on September 6 after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related, the well-placed sources say.

They confirmed that samples taken from Syria for testing had been identified as North Korean. This raised fears that Syria might have joined North Korea and Iran in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

Israeli special forces had been gathering intelligence for several months in Syria, according to Israeli sources. They located the nuclear material at a compound near Dayr az-Zwar in the north.

Evidence that North Korean personnel were at the site is said to have been shared with President Bush over the summer. A senior American source said the administration sought proof of nuclear-related activities before giving the attack its blessing.

Diplomats in North Korea and China believe a number of North Koreans were killed in the strike, based on reports reaching Asian governments about conversations between Chinese and North Korean officials.

Syrian officials flew to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, last week, reinforcing the view that the two nations were coordinating their response.

Team Sergeant, I meant no disrespect or insinuation of expertise in the military world. I came across this post on the Syria strike, and should have been more precise, I wish all our troops and allies well in the war on terror, if for any reason the Israelis might have to do something similar on the ground to politically justify military action in Iran as well. I apologize for any offense.-AKV

Team Sergeant

09-15-2009, 10:54

Team Sergeant. I meant no disrespect or insinuation of expertise in the military world. I came across this post on the Syria strike, and thought perhaps the Israelis might have to do something similar to politically justify military action in Iran as well. I wish all our troops and allies well in the war on terror. I apologize for any offense.-AKV

And why were the Israeli SF gathering intel on this specific mission? To confirm Syria was indeed working with Nuclear Material to build a bomb. I doubt the Israeli SF were onsite during the bombing.

Now you're mixing overt and covert operations. The Iran strike will be mostly an "overt" operation.

As I've been reading no one needs clarification or confirmation on Irans nuclear intent.

Warrior-Mentor

09-15-2009, 10:54

P,

I think you've made an excellent point,especially regarding your last statement.....I agree with you completely,it could end up as Armageddon.............:(

Big Teddy :munchin

FYI. Armageddon isn't an event...it's a location.

Armageddon is only mentioned once in the Bible, in the sixteenth book of Revelation.

The Hebrew word harmageddon means "the mount of Megiddo."

Har means mount, and megiddo means slaughter.
The Mountain of Megiddo is an actual geographic feature located in Northern Israel.

It includes the extended plain that reaches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Northern part of Israel.
It's about 18 miles south of Haifa and 55 miles north of Jerusalem - only 10 miles from Nazareth.

Here's a photo of the area:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/images/megiddo.jpg

Pete

09-15-2009, 11:30

I have a World Globe I like to look at.

For subject's like this it's better than looking at a flat map.

Israel is not big into Aircraft carriers soooooooo, Hmmmmm.

Interesting.

Peregrino

09-15-2009, 11:44

FYI. Armageddon isn't an event...it's a location.

WM - You are technically correct and I was metaphorically sloppy. To elucidate - the popular meaning of the word has morphed so that today it is synonymous with the concept of "the" apocalyptic battle. I have adopted the popular usage of the word because in my mind the concept of apocalypse is more important than the place name. More people relate = better communication of critical concepts. Bottom line - the location may be the flashpoint; the resulting conflagration will consume a lot more than a desert wasteland. (Too much time staring at a computer screen - I couldn't resist! :p)

greenberetTFS

09-15-2009, 12:32

FYI. Armageddon isn't an event...it's a location.

Armageddon is only mentioned once in the Bible, in the sixteenth book of Revelation.

The Hebrew word harmageddon means "the mount of Megiddo."

Har means mount, and megiddo means slaughter.
The Mountain of Megiddo is an actual geographic feature located in Northern Israel.

It includes the extended plain that reaches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Northern part of Israel.
It's about 18 miles south of Haifa and 55 miles north of Jerusalem - only 10 miles from Nazareth.

Here's a photo of the area:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/images/megiddo.jpg

W-M

Thanks for the info...............:D

Big Teddy :munchin

incarcerated

09-15-2009, 21:36

Armageddon isn't an event...it's a location.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=32.716822,35.122948&spn=0.092722,0.350189&t=h&z=12

Best to expend the map to the full width of the screen.

Praetorian

09-15-2009, 21:42

FYI. Armageddon isn't an event...it's a location.

Armageddon is only mentioned once in the Bible, in the sixteenth book of Revelation.

The Hebrew word harmageddon means "the mount of Megiddo."

Har means mount, and megiddo means slaughter.
The Mountain of Megiddo is an actual geographic feature located in Northern Israel.

It includes the extended plain that reaches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Northern part of Israel.
It's about 18 miles south of Haifa and 55 miles north of Jerusalem - only 10 miles from Nazareth.

Here's a photo of the area:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/images/megiddo.jpg

Going by that, hasn't a (the?) "Battle of Megiddo / (Armageddon)" already happened?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_%281918%29

Team Sergeant

09-16-2009, 10:36

Old article but in the news again......

The Washitngon Times July 18, 2006

Israel capable of air strike on Iran
In-Depth Coverage By Rowan Scarborough

Israel is in the best position militarily in its history to mount air strikes against Iran, after a decade of buying U.S.-produced long-range aircraft, penetrating bombs and aerial refueling tankers.

Tel Aviv has ratcheted up the volume in attacking the hard-line Islamic regime as it fights the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. In the past, Israeli politicians have talked openly of attacking Iranian nuclear sites to prevent the U.S.-designated terror state from building atomic warheads.

Israel has purchased 25 $84 million F-15I (I for Israel) Ra'am, a special version of the U.S. F-15E long-range interdiction bomber. It also is buying 102 of another long-range tactical jet, the $45 million F-16I Sufa. About 60 have been delivered.

The Jewish state also is buying 500 U.S. BLU-109 "bunker buster" bombs that could penetrate the concrete protection around some of Iran's underground facilities, such as the uranium enrichment site at Natanz. The final piece of the enterprise is a fleet of B-707 air-to-air refuelers that could nurse strike aircraft as they made the 900-mile-plus trip inside Iran, dropped their bombs and returned to Israel.

"They have the capability to strike Iran," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a former fighter pilot who has trained with Israelis. "It would be limited, though. They could do 30 to 40 'aim points' in the array. I'm not worried about them hitting the targets. They will suffer losses, but they are capable of doing it."

He said Israeli fighter pilots are "the best in the world. I've flown against them. They train better. They get more flying time."

Perhaps just as important as weapon systems is airspace.

The most direct route would be through Jordanian and Iraqi airspace. Two Israeli pilots showed that they could navigate both without being shot down in 1981, when they flew the 600 miles to the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad, dropped their bombs and returned over Jordan to an air base in southern Israel.

Today, the United States, not Saddam Hussein, controls Iraq's vast airspace. Military analysts suggest the United States might approve the mission passively by letting the jets fly both ways unencumbered.

Gen. McInerney said the United States must grant airspace rights. "They really can't do this without us," he said. "I wouldn't have them do it. We can do it much more aggressively and more decisively. We shouldn't force the Israelis to do it when we should do it."

The retired pilot called Iran's air defenses "1960s vintage" and not as good as the Iraqi defenses that Israeli pilots avoided in 1981.

Vice President Dick Cheney last year revealed Bush administration suspicions that Israel may take pre-emptive action.

"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked, that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," he said on the "Imus in the Morning" radio show.

In the Osirak strike, both F-16s made the round trip without aerial refueling, but targets in Iran are at least 300 miles farther away. Although the F-15Is and F-16Is have a combat radius of more than 1,000 miles, the numbers would indicate that the mission might require aerial refueling, thus complicating an already daunting operation.

However, the Web site GlobalSecurity.org says the F-15Is and F-16Is "extended flight range reportedly allows Israeli forces to attack targets well within Iran without having to refuel."

Israeli political leaders have pressed the Bush administration to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program. At the same time, some have publicly stated that Israel will take unilateral action to destroy Iranian facilities if Washington fails to stop it.

© Copyright 2006, The Washington Times, LLC.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060718-israel-iran.htm

Blitzzz (RIP)

09-16-2009, 10:58

I wonder why the Israelis don't have long range Cruise missles. They worked great for US.
And as to Obama's handling of Israel I suspect Jimmy Carter is his adviser. Just My zwei centavos. blitzzz

HowardCohodas

09-16-2009, 13:47

I wonder why the Israelis don't have long range Cruise missles. They worked great for US.

Given how unreliable we are as a supplier due to politics, I would be surprised if they were not in development. Of course, resources need to be prioritized.

Sdiver

09-16-2009, 18:28

I wonder why the Israelis don't have long range Cruise missiles. They worked great for US. Blitzzz

I've wondered that as well. Aren't there Israeli warships "patrolling" in the Gulf now?

They may just as well have some form of Cruise missiles on board, or on land for that matter, and we just don't know about it. Look how long they kept secret the fact they had Nuclear capabilities.

I think the Israeli bomber pilots would do a one-way, no return mission, if they had to, if they viewed it as protecting their homeland.

Sorry, but I can't see that happening. Sure, any combat pilot going up on a mission knows that this mission being a "one-way" flight, but I can't see any IAF pilot doing a "Kamikaze", even for such "High Value" targets as the Iranian Nuke facilities.

For starters, they would want to return to be able "to" protect their homeland. You know that if (and the way it's looking more and more...WHEN) they go in, they are going to stir up something worse than NDD stirring up something with his pointy stick with a nail on the end, so Israel will need every able pilot they have.

Secondly, undoubtedly they will be going in with their new F-15I's, and they don't come cheep. They definitely aren't just "throw away" planes.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-15i/F-15I.html

They said though that it seems as if the Obama administration is pushing Israel towards feeling they will have to do such a thing.

This I agree with. Berry and his gang, sure are putting Israel into this position, and I don't blame them if (and when) they launch.

Pete

09-27-2009, 08:07

".......The most direct route would be through Jordanian and Iraqi airspace. Two Israeli pilots showed that they could navigate both without being shot down in 1981, when they flew the 600 miles to the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad, dropped their bombs and returned over Jordan to an air base in southern Israel.

Today, the United States, not Saddam Hussein, controls Iraq's vast airspace. Military analysts suggest the United States might approve the mission passively by letting the jets fly both ways unencumbered.

Gen. McInerney said the United States must grant airspace rights. "They really can't do this without us," he said. "I wouldn't have them do it. We can do it much more aggressively and more decisively. We shouldn't force the Israelis to do it when we should do it." ..............."

Israel appears to be working on their own routes.

SAUDIS WILL LET ISRAEL BOMB IRAN NUCLEAR SITE

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/130251/Saudis-will-let-Israel-bomb-Iran-nuclear-site

INTELLIGENCE chief Sir John Scarlett has been told that Saudi Arabia is ready to allow Israel to bomb Iran’s new nuclear site.

Richard

09-27-2009, 08:59

The view from the Israeli right:

Too late to stop Tehran, Obama aims to stifle an Israeli attack
26 Sep 2009

Maestro Barack Obama's histrionics in New York and Pittsburgh Thursday and Friday, Sept. 24-25 - and his threat of "confrontation" for Iran's concealment of its nuclear capabilities - were water off a duck's back for Tehran, whose nuclear weapons program has gone too far to stop by words or even sanctions.

The Islamic regime only responded with more defiance, announcing that its second uranium enrichment plant near Qom would become operational soon.

The US president's tough words and willingness to step out of his axiomatic insistence on dialogue and turn to economic warfare against Iran may be impressive but it is no longer effective. Tehran is too close to its goal of a nuclear weapons capability to be deterred by offers of engagement or economic penalties.

Obama certainly knows this. He also understands that Iran is now unstoppable except by force. His performance was therefore directed at another target: Israel, whom he is determined to dissuade from resorting to military action against Iran's nuclear installations.

Defense secretary Robert Gates hit the nail on the head when he said Friday: "The reality is there is no military option that does anything more than buy time. The estimates are one to three years or so."

Iran was allowed to reach the point defined by Gates thanks to the permissiveness of two US presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and two Israeli prime ministers, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. They had no illusions about the deterrent value of the three sets of UN Security sanctions imposed to punish Iran, but held back from pre-emptive action on the pretext that there was still plenty of time before Iran was in a position to destroy Israel.

In any case, Israeli leaders argued, Iran's nuclear ambitions were a threat to the whole world and it was therefore incumbent on the "international community" to take care of them.

This of course did not happen. Iran carried on exploiting international inaction, finally capitalizing on Obama's foot-dragging in his first nine months in office.

By now, Iran has used the gift of time to process enough enriched uranium to fuel two nuclear bombs and is able to produce another two per year.

Its advanced medium-range missiles will be ready to deliver nuclear warheads by next year.

Detonators for nuclear bombs are in production at two secret sites.

And finally, a second secret uranium enrichment plant - subject of the stern warning issued collectively in Pittsburgh Friday by Obama, French president Nicolas Sarkozy and British premier Gordon Brown - has come to light, buried under a mountain near Qom. Its discovery doubles - at least - all previous estimates of Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Caught red-handed yet again in massive deceit, the Iranian president Mahdmoud Ahmadinejad had only more defiance to offer. America owes his government an apology, he told interviewers in New York Friday, because the new plant would not be operational for 18 months, and Tehran had therefore not violated International Atomic Energy Agency rules requiring notification.

He was soon caught in another lie.

Saturday, the Iranian news agency was informed by an aide of supreme leader Ali Khamenei that "the new plant would become operational soon."

Iran's published concealments and deceptions are disquieting enough. But a whole lot more are undoubtedly buried in fat intelligence dossiers on Iran's nuclear program - plutonium production, for instance. The progress made in its plutonium-based weapons program was never mentioned in the stern condemnations of the last few days, except indirectly in a quiet comment from an anonymous Israeli official Friday night.

He said Iran operates on two hourglasses and both were running out fast. He was referring obliquely to the enriched uranium and the plutonium tracks.

Sarkozy was clearly thinking about those undiscovered Iranian secrets and evasions when he declared in Pittsburgh:

"Everything - everything must be put on the table now" (at the October 1 meeting of the Six Powers with Iranian negotiators). Obama too urged Iran "to come clean."

All the powers concerned - the US, Russia, France, Germany the UK and even China - have the same information as Israel and are fully aware that Iran has already crossed a number of red lines this year and will cross more in 2010. The more time allowed for diplomacy and engagement, the greater Tehran's defiance. Meanwhile, world powers will argue - not over futile sanctions, but on how to stop Israel, so wasting several more months.

DEBKAfile's sources note that the Gates assessment and the cooling note he injected into the US president's oratory came after Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak visited the Pentagon. The visit clearly did not change Gates' view that the Iranian nuclear program was now too advanced to stop, while the use of force would only gain an interval of up to three years, after which Tehran would pick itself up and start again. Therefore, according to Gates, diplomacy remained the only viable option.

The answer to this argument is simple: It is exactly this approach which gave Iran 11 quiet years to develop its weapons capacity. For Israel and Middle East, a three-year setback is a very long time, a security boon worth great risk, because a) It would be a happy respite from the dark clouds hanging over the country from Iran and also cut back Hamas and Hizballah terrorist capabilities, and b) In the volatile Middle East anything can happen in 36 months.

But the US defense secretary believes Israel, like the rest of the world, must accept life under the shadow of a nuclear-armed Iran and make the best of it.

This view is shared by the Kremlin. It was advanced by prime minister Vladimir Putin to Binyamin Netanyahu during his secret trip to Moscow on Sept. 7.

According to DEBKAfile's Russian sources, when the Israeli prime minister tried to counter Putin's thesis and explain what restraint meant for Israel, the Russian prime minster became impatient and told his guest to leave.

After that interview, the Israeli government can no longer avoid appreciating that Gates and Putin talk the real talk for Washington and Moscow, while their leaders' moralistic condemnations of Iran are mainly hot air for public consumption and for maneuvering Israel into a position where a military strike would be hard to conceive.

Netanyahu's Sphinx-like silence on the nuclear to-do in the US this week was apt. But it is hard to tell what he is hiding. Will he succumb to the world powers' pressure to sit tight while Iran goes all the way to a military nuclear capability - or face up to it and act?

This is the most important decision of Netanyahu's political life as two-time prime minister of Israel. It will also determine Israel's future.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1405

And so it goes...:munchin

Utah Bob

09-28-2009, 07:33

Israel has never needed a push from us before.
At some point the PM will say say, "Armageddon tired of this Iranian nuke program. Let's take em out."

This will result in a lot of rhetoric and some saber rattling from the Middle Eastern countries, condemnation from the UN, a volley of Palestinian rockets, and little else in my opinion.

LarryW

09-28-2009, 08:34