This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Dagan vs Netanyahu

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

Dagan vs Netanyahu

Binyamin Netanyahu recently slammed critics of a pre-emptive strike on Iran as “having set a new standard for human stupidity”.

Yet Netanyahu’s view is not shared by all Israelis. In fact, there are some very prominent Israeli critics of Netanyahu’s view. Meir Dagan, the former head of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, says that an attack on Iran would be the “stupidest idea I’ve ever heard.”

Speaking to ’60 Minutes’ Dagan noted: “An attack on Iran now before exploring all other approaches is not the right way to do it.”

Dagan should be congratulated for his rationality. It is my belief that the greater threat to Israel and the West is not the potential for an Iranian nuclear weapon — the truth remains that mutually assured destruction remains the most potent peacemaking force in history, even for supposedly irrational regimes like Pakistan, North Korea and Soviet Russia — but the dangers of blowback from a unilateral strike on Iran.

Oil and resource supplies through the Persian Gulf could be interrupted, sending energy prices soaring, and damaging the already-fragile global economy.

A regional war in the Middle East could result, potentially sucking in the United States and Eurasian powers like China, Pakistan and Russia. China and Pakistan have both hinted that they could defend Iran if Iran were attacked — and for good reason, as Iran supplies significant quantities of energy.

And with the American government deep in debt to foreign powers like China who are broadly supportive of Iran’s regime, America’s ability to get involved in a war on Israel’s behalf is highly questionable. And even without a war, further hostility and tension between America and her creditors would surely result in an even faster rush toward more bilateral and multilateral agreements to ditch the dollar for trade, something that America will almost certainly seek to avoid. So even with a President in the White House significantly more sympathetic to Netanyahu than Obama, America may find herself constrained by the realities of global economics, and unable to assist Israel.

Most discouragingly, such a high risk operation seems to offer very little reward — a successful Israeli strike on Iran is estimated to set back Iran’s program by only one to three years. And such an operation would likely require bombings over many days and in many locations.

If Netanyahu wishes to go ahead with such a scheme then that is his prerogative. But if he will not listen to Dagan’s wise counsel, why should the West rush to his aid if his scheme backfires?


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:09 | 2805367 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Oh no now we are going to have to wait for WWIII as well as for Greece to default.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:21 | 2805402 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

I Say:


Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:24 | 2805411 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Fuck NetanYAHOO...

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:09 | 2805733 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

"But if he will not listen to Dagan’s wise counsel, why should the West rush to his aid if his scheme backfires?" Aziz that is the most inane nadir of your postings here. I realize it's rhetorical, but come on, really?  

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 23:10 | 2805962 Dalago
Dalago's picture

You send Israelis to do an Israeli job.  Keep the American families intact by keeping the Americans home.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 23:46 | 2806028 DebaL
DebaL's picture

Azis, presumably from Arab descent, always criticizes Israel.

Iran already attacked Israel through its proxy, Hezbollah, based in Lebanon.

Iran's leaders are outspoken and violent with their anti-Israeli threats and rhetoric.

Israel, about the size of NJ, has no strategic depth. One nuke, and Tel-Aviv is radioactive waste.

Any wonder Israel is worried?


Stop being hypocrites as you would follow the same rational in Israel's place.


Now, this is not to say that the US must sacrifice its own interests and attack Iran.

PS: When the US attacked Iraq, Israeli officials warned the US leadership that it is a mistake. They didn't listen to anybody, including the Saudis and Israelis.




Tue, 09/18/2012 - 00:07 | 2806063 ArrestBobRubin
ArrestBobRubin's picture

Just Hilarious. Are you this ignorant, or this stupid.

Google Oded Yinon.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 08:21 | 2806466 Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

ABR you are slaying the zinos with the truth bombs.  Thanks.


Tue, 09/18/2012 - 01:35 | 2806142 defencev
defencev's picture

You are correct. I suspect that Aziz is shea muslim doing the job he is paid for.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 02:00 | 2806153 Aziz
Aziz's picture

If I was a Shi'ite Muslim who hated Israel I would be urging Israel to invade Iran as soon and violently as possible. 

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 03:07 | 2806196 defencev
defencev's picture

In your previous article you indicated Bahrain as repressive regime but you omitted Syria. I think it is a fair guess that you are shi'ite muslim. And your argumentation is as stupid as usual: neither China nor Pakistan will do aything to protect Iran. As a matter of fact, Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

It is also quite obvious why you so desperately trying to campaign for Obama reelection. In the end of the day it will make no difference. If necessary Israel will use nukes.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 03:31 | 2806214 Aziz
Aziz's picture

I'm not campaigning for Obama's re-election. Obama is a terrible President in the pocket of Wall Street.

I think it's a little naive to say that nations that are trade partners won't defend one another. Oil and the flow of oil speaks very loudly. 

I'm not a Shi'ite Muslim. I'm not a Muslim of any sort. 

As for Syria, it's a civil war. According to many reports I have seen, the US-backed opposition are as brutal as the regime itself. 


Tue, 09/18/2012 - 04:08 | 2806228 defencev
defencev's picture

Well, it is quite simple. If you believe that there will be Presidential elections in November than it is not unreasonable to assume that either Obama or Romney will be elected as POTUS. You (and to be fair) many others here pretend that they are equally critical of both Obama and Romney. But it is obvious that there is a huge difference in who will be elected.  Romney promotes economic freedom, Obama agenda is de facto Marxist. Of course, he will not be able to transform America in Marxist state unless a real crisis (i.e. default) will occur. If this happens, all bets are off. Romney has a fair chance to fend off the crisis. As Newt Gingrich correctly indicated, the license fees that federal government can potentially receive for American oil fields (which became viable due to new shale technology) are alone sufficient to pay off federal debt. Thus, Romney energy independence program as well the ability to avoid fiscal crisis are absolutely real.

Anarchists like yourself obviously are not interested in such an outcome and therefore by pretending that you are equally critical of Obama and Romney , you  defacto support destructive Obama agenda and improve his chances for reelection.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 08:48 | 2806539 pods
pods's picture

Do you know what would happen if the paid off the federal debt in a debt based currency?

There is a reason why the debt does not go down.  


Tue, 09/18/2012 - 07:33 | 2806358 Treeplanter
Treeplanter's picture

You're a fool.  Got urself an Arab slave name.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 23:50 | 2806034 DebaL
DebaL's picture

Azis, presumably from Arab descent, always criticizes Israel.

Iran already attacked Israel through its proxy, Hezbollah, based in Lebanon.

Iran's leaders are outspoken and violent with their anti-Israeli threats and rhetoric.

Israel, about the size of NJ, has no strategic depth. One nuke, and Tel-Aviv is radioactive waste.

Any wonder Israel is worried?


Stop being hypocrites as you would follow the same logic.

Now, this is not to say that the US must attack Iran. This is a seperate issue, worth debating.


Indeed, Iran is a large fish, likely too large for Israel to deal with on itw own.

This explains why they waited this long rather than taking an action independently as they did to take out nuclear facilities in Syria (2007) and Iraq (1980 or so).




Tue, 09/18/2012 - 00:10 | 2806066 ArrestBobRubin
ArrestBobRubin's picture

Yep, just as stupid, ignorant, and stupidly ignorant the 2nd time 'round.

There's something to be said for your consistency though.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 02:01 | 2806157 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

That's a bot.  Keywords triggered a very familiar reply.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 08:50 | 2806549 pods
pods's picture


Tue, 09/18/2012 - 01:29 | 2806136 Joseph Jones
Joseph Jones's picture

Simple fix: move Israel to somewhere in the USA.  All the brain dead members of USA churchianity can pay for the transport. 

Oh, but then Jesus can not return to David's throne in Jerusalem.  Oh well, I tried.

<Sarc off>

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 22:36 | 2805912 ACP
ACP's picture

Just throwing a question out there...if someone threatened your life, would you call the police (take action) or think to yourself "nah, that's just his way of trying to get a better price for the products he's selling me."

Some consider this a game of chess, and others say the Iranian leadership would never do anything stupid enough to bring about harm to their own people. If this were the case, why did the leadership blunder so badly at this game of chess as to bring about sanctions, which only hurt the Iranian people? They could probably have avoided this by changing the rhetoric for the past several years - the religious leaders could have reined in Ahmadinejad because, well, he has only a fraction of their power. After all, the people have already given the leadership the finger by ignoring many of the ridiculous recent edicts, such as playing western music. I think it adds up to a seriously unstable government that would be willing to do exactly what they say they will do.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 00:31 | 2806084 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Politics is a sales job and Amamaddinnerjacket is a sales rep for the Mulluhas at the top of the Iranian pyramid who want their sheep in line.

See the pattern? No middle class, no independent thought, ubitquituous religious cult programming as the expected standard....

Kinda like in China now with the Japanese ire and fire...what better way to keep the masses' minds off of the local unemployment and inflation...

History is replete with such manipulations.

Sheep don't play chess...the Bishops make them nervous

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 00:39 | 2806098 Ginsengbull
Ginsengbull's picture

Eff the police.

I would simply open the cylinder on my favorite wheelgun and drop in a full moon clip of .45ACP.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 01:50 | 2806147 Cyrano de Bivouac
Cyrano de Bivouac's picture

Just throwing a question out there... if everyone in your class had a black belt in karate would you want one too?


Tue, 09/18/2012 - 02:59 | 2806148 Cyrano de Bivouac
Cyrano de Bivouac's picture

Double post. Not DP.



Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:24 | 2805412 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Fuck NetanYAHOO...

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:46 | 2805434 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

Fuck you Nazi Kraut square head kont

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:56 | 2805526 Blue Horshoe Lo...
Blue Horshoe Loves Annacott Steel's picture

Fuck off U Zionist scumbag.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:13 | 2805582 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture


Why are ZH commentors so quick to warm up the ovens ?

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:24 | 2805619 frenzic
frenzic's picture

Shut the fuck up and get out of my house.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:26 | 2805627 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

You are a real Nazi eh..

Got the Benz and everything.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:29 | 2805638 frenzic
frenzic's picture

Yup. Not politically affiliated though. Don't do doublethink either. You should try it sometime.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:03 | 2805722 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

thats what they all say.... with one hand on the stoker

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:41 | 2805813 john39
john39's picture

zionist are more extreme fascists than nazis... just ask the tens of millions who were murdered by the bolsheviks (zionists) in Russia...  Nazis were amateurs in relative terms, even accepting the holohaox at face value.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:40 | 2805665 ozziindaus
Mon, 09/17/2012 - 23:41 | 2806015 RingToneDeaf
RingToneDeaf's picture

God, what a bitch!

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:30 | 2805637 slyhill
slyhill's picture

Why don't you pay for whores in cash?

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 23:13 | 2805966 ArrestBobRubin
ArrestBobRubin's picture

What ovens?

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 23:20 | 2805974 pods
pods's picture

Depending on where you reside, your ass may be tossed in jail for asking that question.


Tue, 09/18/2012 - 00:15 | 2806072 ArrestBobRubin
ArrestBobRubin's picture

"Truth Fears No Investigation"

Truer words were never spoken. It's only lies and the liars who tell them that require protection.


Tue, 09/18/2012 - 06:17 | 2806285 frenzic
frenzic's picture

Over here that's true.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 01:37 | 2806141 Joseph Jones
Joseph Jones's picture

You mean the ovens in Germany Russia built after they invaded Germany, upon orders from their friends in DC, in return for which we turned a blind eye while Russian Jews (the Bosheviks such as the father of Fox News' William Kristol) killed oh, about 26 million?  You mean those ovens? 

BTW, the Rabbis in charge of jew land care not one whit about sacrificing jews for their nefarious purpopses.  The Rabbis have sang fake stories about their magic number of "6 million" jews killed since the early 20th C.  

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:57 | 2805531 ozziindaus
ozziindaus's picture

Yahudi Shalom Spitzer, you have finally lost your mind

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:37 | 2805608 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Not surprisingly, Dick Armitage? Is that you?

It seems that there is at least one Jew calling Nuttyyahoo "Hitler."

This guy, CIA, source for Tom Clancy's work, is saying on Alex Jones that WWIII is gearing up and that Nuttyyahoo is behind 911, among other things. It's a very interesting interview, to say the least.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 00:28 | 2806089 adeptish
adeptish's picture

Great link , thanks...


Tue, 09/18/2012 - 00:29 | 2806091 adeptish
adeptish's picture


Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:24 | 2805413 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Fuck NetanYAHOO...

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:51 | 2805690 WillyGroper
WillyGroper's picture

You forgot banking.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 04:57 | 2806241 bigbwana
bigbwana's picture

Don't you mean Illuminati?

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:32 | 2805442 SmackDaddy
SmackDaddy's picture

Why in the fuck would Iran nuke Israel?  Who would want radioactive 'holy' (rolls eyes) land?

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:54 | 2805518 roadsnbridges
roadsnbridges's picture

Cuz Muslims are iPhoneys.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 22:59 | 2805945 surf0766
surf0766's picture

Because they believe it is their duty to hasten the return of the 12th imam or mahdi. Try reading once in awhile.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 23:22 | 2805978 pods
pods's picture

Well I guess the Farsi definition of "hasten" is a bit different than the western one?


Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:09 | 2805732 GOSPLAN HERO
GOSPLAN HERO's picture

Israeli subs off Iranian coast?

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:17 | 2805381 CatoRenasci
CatoRenasci's picture

The fundamental problem from the Israeli perspective is that an Israeli conventional attack won't permanently stop the Iranians from building a bomb, but the Americans, who could do it, won't.  The Israelis really don't want the Iranians to use nukes on them, which they (probably correctly) believe the Iranians will when they get the bomb.  This is really a recipe for a nuclear exchange in the Middle  East: the only question is whether it will be an Israeli preemptive nuclear strike or an Iranian nuclear strike killing at least 20% of the Israelis followed by the annihilation of Iran.  I wouldn't bet on the Israelis waiting around for an Iranian strike.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:23 | 2805405 chet
chet's picture

"an Iranian nuclear strike killing at least 20% of the Israelis followed by the annihilation of Iran"

Why would Iran do that?

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:28 | 2805428 john39
john39's picture

Agreed.  And many Israelis admit, not a real risk.  This is all about balence of power, and the mad dog of the middle east (israel) wanting every country that it perceives as a threat destroyed.  Netanyahu has apparently crossed so far beyond the line of rationality that even other Israelis are calling him out...  and this guy may have access to 300 nuclear weapons?  perfect.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:34 | 2805448 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture


Israel bombed Iraq in 81 and Syria in 2007 with no retribution. Arabs bark has ZERO bite.

Omar said last year that 10,000 Israelis wouldn't die, 5000 wouldn't die, 1000 wouldn't even die if they attacked Iran

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:41 | 2805469 Aziz
Aziz's picture

How many times did Pakistan and China imply they'd defend Iraq or Syria? 

Protip for Netanyahu: if he really wants to stop Iran getting a nuke the people he has to talk to are Russia and China and Iran's oil customers. America has almost zero leverage.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:51 | 2805508 donsluck
donsluck's picture

I can't believe you view the last 10 years as zero bite.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:17 | 2805592 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

Im talking specifically about their reaction to Israel..

I thought Isreal did 9/11 and not the Arabs ; )

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:10 | 2805569 john39
john39's picture

So killing is fine as long as uncle gorilla protects Israel from the consequences? Evil, plain and simple. Good thing uncle gorilla's days of backing Israeli aggression are just about over. Maybe sanity can return to the ME.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:06 | 2805727 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Ha, not if Rob-me gets elected.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:26 | 2805785 john39
john39's picture

US is broke and collapsing.  it wont matter whichclown wins the phony election.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 00:09 | 2806065 Element
Element's picture

I was thinking same about the new guy about to hit the Chinese Great-wall-'o-no-steel.

But if the US re-'elects' big-ears ... OK, it wouldn't make much difference, ... but ... I'd seriously consider emigrating to Cuba.  If you're going to be broke anyway and live by your wits you may as well live somewhere where that you'll you feel free, has great scenery, rum, cigars and Latin music.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:55 | 2805839 The Squid
The Squid's picture

Iranians are predominantly Persian, you imbecile...

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 23:19 | 2805969 ArrestBobRubin
ArrestBobRubin's picture

Correct. And Iranian Jews are quite happy to remain in Iran.

They have no interest in immigrating to Rothschildstan.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 22:02 | 2805855 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Spitzer, off his meds:

Israel bombed Iraq in 81 and Syria in 2007 with no retribution.

Each were single-point, unfortified, open targets. Iran's uranium enrichment program consists of multiple, dispersed sites. Some of these sites are quite well fortified. Are you actually suggesting that Iraq and Syria are in any way comparable?

Arabs bark has ZERO bite.

Non sequitur. This isn't about Arabs.

Omar said last year that 10,000 Israelis wouldn't die, 5000 wouldn't die, 1000 wouldn't even die if they attacked Iran

What's his track record on predicting winning lottery numbers?

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:35 | 2805453 CIABS
CIABS's picture

"The Israelis really don't want the Iranians to use nukes on them, which they (probably correctly) believe the Iranians will when they get the bomb."

- CatoRenasci

No, probably incorrectly.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:17 | 2805749 bankruptcylawyer
bankruptcylawyer's picture

i believe that most student's of warfare , myself included, tend to rely far too much on the assumed normalcy bias towards mutually assured deestructive affects guaranteeing that strategic weapons exist as deterrance rather than to be used. weapons are used as threats BECAUSE THEY CAN BE USED.  


BUT and the big BUT is that ----On top of the giant lie of WMD that was concocted by the neocons ( many of whom are jewish americans on the boards of aipac) -----that was used to garner support for the iraq war (when in fact the real reason is the petrodollar bank-petroleum racket ) --------, it is understood that the game of propoganda will be used to push forward warfare even when it isn't necessary.  and thus, the wise person should be very wary of people shouting for aggression. especially people like neocons, militarists, chickenhawks, aipac, ultra 'patriots', and others. 

war, agressive war, is not only expensive, but it costs real american lives, not just in deaths, but in trauma. too much of these negative side effects of war can cripple the social fabric of a nation and a people.

that said, when you continue to assume a nuclear weapon will never again be used on actual human beings-----consider that 

1) nucelear material sufficient to produce a 10kt blast can be smuggled in a suitcase. a proper placement of  a 10kt blast near the intelligence/military headquarters of a country can be devastating and basically end a war before it even begins. 

2) missile detection systems cannot tell the difference between normal missiles and nuclear missiles. a missile that is sent from a country towards another country ( whether by false flag, by terrorist, or by actual said launching country) -----cannot be distinguished as nuclear or conventional. because of this, a nuclear retaliation can occur even when a non-nuclear missile is launched from another country

3) a nuclear missile can be given or stolen form a producing country to 'non-state' actors. 

4) the bullshit 1% chance that a suicidal or mentally unstable dictator/leader decides to launch first does exist though is quite small. HOWEVER, should a conventional war breakout, it is concievable that such a leader would use a nuke. israel bombed lebanon in 2006 for a few straight weeks. if lebanon or iran had a nuclear weapon, they may have launched it. and thus, knowing this, israel probably would not have bombed lebanon. 

this alludes to another far more salient fact about proliferation

5) a state actor seeks to obtain nuclear weapons not only as a deterrent/insurance policy, but also to expand their influence over their allies by providing an implicit strength to the umbrella over which their alliances exist. that is to say, allies of a nuclear power are far stronger than they would be otherwise. should iran obtain nuclear weapons, allies of iran become much more strong, and emboldened to use aggressive CONVENTIONAL force against their common opponents. 


if IRAN gets nuclear capabilities, you will see much more 'activism' against the saudi regime and the emirati regimes. the allies of iran , like hamas, will be emboldened to launch rocket attacks against israel . and any alligned interests of iran around the world, will be emboldened to attack american and european outposts. 

proliferation is not unacceptable. but one must realize the risks are not only of the nuclear weapon being used, but of the collateral affects of possession. 

this is chess, not checkers.


Tue, 09/18/2012 - 05:09 | 2806231 Element
Element's picture



if IRAN gets nuclear capabilities, you will see much more 'activism' against the saudi regime and the emirati regimes.


I would agree with that, plus the new armed drones Iran announced yesterday would provide a certain deterrent value, but then again Iran already has a full arsenal of capable and fairly deterring conventional missiles.  But to deter the US and Israel, Iran's military made clear yesterday, they signalled they may withdraw from the NPT, which means that long before they give formal notice to do that, they will have already built the capability and processes, and systems to field such bombs. The fact that they are now talking about doing this, in the event of a surprise attack, tells me they already have the capability to do it.  To me, this is a warning light to the West, saying you're already too late.

Plus if their military is talking about likely abandoning of the NPT in the media, then Ali Jafari's is doing this with the knowledge of the Supreme Leader's understanding that he's going to make those points, to camera.

So I have no doubt Iran has already prepared a completed weaponed warhead design, and pre-manufactured everything needed to mate warhead to weapon, and weapon to delivery platform, and integrated that weapon type with the platform's systems.  This should not be surprising, especially to just about every significant western country, that has done the same at some stage.  Practically all technically advanced countries will have done such work, to prepare for the possible of wholesale failure of the NPT (and possibly assured it in the process).

I expect this also isn't surprising to you, as you can bet Japan, Australia and Germany and several other threshold nuclear weapon capable countries will have done this, several decades ago, as part of such necessary precautions. 

Iran probably did most of this sort of work during the 1990s, as Pakistan and India started testing bombs and rattling nuclear sabres.  But I think people forget that Iran has had this enrichment technology insecret since 1989.  And also, let's not forget, the Pakis developed a-bombs with the full knowledge and presence of numerous CIA operatives in Pakistan, in order to fight the Russians, in Afghanistan.  The US said they would make an example out of Pakistan, if they didn't stop, but they did nothing.  So if the US and Israel were so worried about "dah cwazy moosleems gittin dem boms", they could have done something THEN, but after 1989 it was too late to stop:

"... Khan then restarted his nuclear network, beginning with Iran.[41] It emerged in August 2003, that Dr. Khan had offered to sell sensitive designs of centrifuge technology to Iran as early as 1989.[41] Following the revelation, the Iranian government came under intense pressure from United States and the European Union to fully disclose its nuclear program.[41] In October 2003, Iran finally agreed to accept tougher inspections from the IAEA.[41] The IAEA reported that Iran had established a large uranium enrichment facility using gas centrifuges based on the URENCO designs, which had been obtained "from a foreign intermediary in 1989".[41] The intermediary was not named but many diplomats and analysts pointed to Khan, who was said to have visited Iran in 1989.[41] The Iranians turned over the names of their suppliers and the international inspectors quickly identified the Iranian gas centrifuges as Pak-1's, the model that Khan developed in the early 1980s.[41] In December 2003, two senior staff members at Khan Labs were arrested on suspicion of having sold centrifuge technology to the Iranians. ..."

So Iran has had the tech for a very long time, and was found to be using it, there's a 14 year period in which no one knew for sure that they had it.  And the IAEA finally saw what the Iranians had it was a well-established operation.  So it would be foolish to presume they didn't use the technology extensively, at several sites, prior to its being uncovered.  What this means to me is there could be HEU for a couple of weapon cores in existence and no one would know, as for fourteen years no one had known what was going on at all.  South Africa showed how easy it is to hide a weapon program, and how cheap it can be to get a small arsenal within 10 years, using an even less efficient enrichment technology than Iran has.

Given the threats made to Iran since 1989, and Desert Storm, and the No-Fly-Zone occurring just across the border for that whole period, then a massive brutal invasion of Iraq, and bloody occupation with numerous threats issued and implied to Iran, and being called the Axis-of-Evil, it would be very unrealistic indeed to work from an assumption that Iran hadn't already made all the necessary preparations for building a bomb well over ten years ago.

All they would need to do was insert fissile cores to have them ready to deliver.  That can be done very quickly.

I for one do not for a second believe that intelligence reports know everything, because I've read a lot on this subject and know how country after country has done things that intelligence reports of the time did not know anything about.  So I place no store in their completeness, and I'm always surprised that people do basically take it a given that they will be mostly correct and almost complete.  Logical examination and the implications of various facts, can tell you much more, again.

So as I see it, this as a done deal, not a topic to debate over whether it's right or wrong.  Iran is a defacto nuclear power just like Pakistan was, for most of a decade, before India finally provided the pretext for a weapon test to take place.  So do we have to goad Iran into testing a bomb in order for us to change our tune?  

So geopolitical behaviour towards Iran has to change. Economic aggression also has to be wound back because that's becoming particularly dangerous now, (more dangerous to the US-NATO and Asia, than for Iran, BTW).  The sanctions in themselves are a sufficiently inciting a reason for Iran to go ahead and field a small operational arsenal simply because such economically strangling sanctions are no coercive tools, they are in fact the standard pre-attack sequence, that we have seen before. 

As long as the sanctions remain Iran must and will presume the US is going to attack, and will prepare and act accordingly, and that means they will build up a nuclear arsenal.  So the sanctions are already a strategic failure, the only question is how bad the failure it's going to be. 


Iran has already said it intends to deny oil to countries imposing these sanctions.  What of they do?  Think about it.  And also simultaneously test a nuke, to make it clear they mean to close the straight, for as long as it takes?  

So the sanctions have to go, they invite a catastrophe.


the allies of iran , like hamas, will be emboldened to launch rocket attacks against israel .


Disagree with this.  Hezbollah are a faction within Lebanon, and if that faction acts to bring general sustained bombardment on all of Lebanon, then there is little to be gained, and a lot to lose.  I have no doubt they would respond to direct aggression, from Israel, but Hezbollah already made it clear it does not intend to start something with Israel, like take Israeli's hostage again, etc. 

Look at how reticent Hezbollah were to get involved when Gaza was being bombarded in Jan 2009.  So Hezbollah will do nothing unless Israel starts something with them, or if Iran is attacked.  I think you can add Syria to that list too, if there is direct military intervention there.


and any alligned interests of iran around the world, will be emboldened to attack american and european outposts.


I want to disagree with that, but it is possible.  However, you could say that about any nuclear power and it would be equally true.  Which shows deterrence works pretty well.  But that doesn't negate your point, that it takes only one failure, and that failure will be devastating. 

Which is why US drones should stay the hell away from Pakistan territory, as the Pakis demanded last year.  The Pakis still haven't made their move about this, but I think they will.  And it very well could be a target in the USA, where that happens.  Look what their fundamentalists did in India, several times.  Does Washington really dream that they are exempt from direct proportional retaliations?

Obama and Clinton are making a gigantic mistake, ... or they know they are, ... and actually want to goad and invite a Pakistani attack on the US itself.


proliferation is not unacceptable. but one must realize the risks are not only of the nuclear weapon being used, but of the collateral affects of possession.


True, but I fail to see any solution to this.  But clearly those most seriously impaired by this appalling situation are the US and Russia, and they seem more than content to not give a damn about it.  It's strictly do as I say, not do what I do, and that is most of the problem.


this is chess, not checkers.


I've come to the view that nuclear war is not different to regular war, in general, they happen, just very rarely. 

I think of it like this; a regular war is like a business-cycle recession, fairly commonplace couple per decade.  But a great-war that can be a nuclear war is like a great-depression, and occurs in a pattern not unlike a Debt Super-Cycle, only in this case it's a hubris and hegemony super-cycle, and one look at Obama and Hitlery and Nettyahoo, and I can see we're in a huge bubble of peak-stupid.  So to me the thing to do is not to ban the bombs, because that's very unlikely to happen, at least before we have a significant nuclear exchange. 

What need to do instead, is to greatly reduce the size of the warhead yields, so that instead of them producing DR Strangelove scale area-effects, that really wipes out advanced civilisation for 500 to 2500 years, you get a much less damaging exchange with much smaller weapon.  Limit yields to a small fraction of present US and Russian average arsenal weapon yields (say 5-kilotons max)

Military weapons should destroy military targets, and little or nothing else.

It is an outrage and completely insane that the US and Russia have yield levels not unlike those around the time of the Cuban missile crisis.  It's just beyond the pale that it's remained like this because if we get an exchange with big bombs like those now ... welcome to a re-run of the Bronze-Age.

This should not even be a risk that we face today because such high-yield weapons, in an age of digital recon and precision-guidance, should never even exist, they should have very low yields, when they are so precise in targeting.  The high-yield bombs should be gone and never come back again, simply because they are not military weapons used for killing specifically military targets alone. 

They are instead obivously a demented wet-dream of mass murderers.

If these are gone, and an exchange does occur, then it's not the end of the road for humanity, as we can recover from that in a few decades.  Because if we make it through that, then we might have the smarts to make sure all the nuclear bombs go away.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 05:37 | 2806259 Shevva
Shevva's picture

Well I read it all and would agree with you but one point, 'Jihad', in no part do you take this into account and it's quite a big part of the modern Muslim world we live in at the moment. The west, Russia and China do not have the religious belief to destroy all non believes with the added benefit of killing your self as well.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 06:24 | 2806286 Element
Element's picture



That comes under:

"... only in this case it's a hubris and hegemony super-cycle, and one look at Obama and Hitlery and Nettyahoo, and I can see we're in a huge bubble of peak-stupid. ... "

Jihadism is a part of it.  Plus what do you do about Pakistan?  If the US and Israel wanted to stop them they should have done it in 1982. It's thirty years too late.

I'm a touch more worried about Israel doing something dumb than Iran doing it, to be frank. Although I did see Iran's buddy Nasrallah out whipping up some generalist anger against non-Muslims this morning, which was a pretty low act I thought.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 09:01 | 2806582 Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

because jihadis are fanatics?  like neocon zionist/likudniks?

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 07:14 | 2806330 Tango in the Blight
Tango in the Blight's picture

Lebanon would never have used a nuke on Israel. Israel and Lebanon are both tiny countries. If one or the other would have used a nuke on their neighbor they would have received all of the fallout from it if they were unlucky. It would be like New Hampshire nuking Maine.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 09:04 | 2806591 Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

israeli/zino/likudnik fanatics did drop a nuclear device on south lebanon in 2006 war. robert fisk covered it.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:39 | 2805812 Landrew
Landrew's picture

You make very little sense. One very small weapon ends Israel while a numbers of weapons damages Iran. Why not embrace and trade. There is no better way of ending threat of war than friendship and trade.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 22:52 | 2805872 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



I wouldn't bet on the Israelis waiting around for an Iranian strike.

Iran doesn't need a nuke, Russia would be more than happy to lob a few on Israhell and turn that shitty little strip of troublemaking desert to glass.

If I was Putin I'd be looking for a justification, and Nuttyyahoo attacking Iran would be that justificaiton.

Israhell knows they're gonna bring Russia & China in on Iran's side and it'll be lights out for them, so they want the US to do it.  And it'll be lights out for the US too.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 00:15 | 2806075 tired1
tired1's picture

Any ideas on why Bibi or his handlers are Hell bent on starting another conflagration?

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 01:33 | 2806140 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



I don't care why.  Starting WWIII for any reason is insanity. 

Hmmmmm..... I guess that's why.  He's insane

...sorta like our "leaders" who also wana start WWIII.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:17 | 2805384 chet
chet's picture

Nuclear weapon technology is almost 75 years old.  It is ridiculous to think we're going to keep it away from other large advanced states indefinitely. 

If you don't want someone to pursue nukes, you probably shouldn't publically announce that they are part of an "axis of evil" and then invade their neighbor, also coincidentally part of your newly proclaimed axis of evil.  Might make that first country just a bit antsy.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:37 | 2805460 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

What are the Iranians gonna do about it huh ?

The decision to go to war is being made by the Iranians as we speak. Just like Saddam Hussain

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:44 | 2805484 chet
chet's picture

They aren't going to do much about it.  Is that your criterion for whether or not you're going to attack someone?  Do you attack children and old ladies in the street because they aren't "gonna do anything about it"?

Iran made the decision to try to get a nuclear weapon because it has the impression that large, nuclear states, including the world's remaining superpower, have an unhealthy interest in its business.  Do you think that Iran is wrong in that assessment?  If I were Iran, I'd wan't a nuke too.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:19 | 2805601 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

Iran is giving the west all the reasons it needs to attack.

No, if I was Iran, I would not presue a nuke. It makes no fucking sense

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:32 | 2805643 I am a Man I am...
I am a Man I am Forty's picture

Maybe they want one so people will quit fucking with them.  Israel wants to attack them before they get one because they know they can't afterwards.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 22:18 | 2805876 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Spitzer, chugging more kool-aid, said:

Iran is giving the west all the reasons it needs to attack.

Those sneaky bastards! Their full compliance with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations and allowing on-site visits and 24/7/365 closed-circuit TV monitoring of their nuclear facilities by the IAEA are all signs of an obvious Anti-Semiotic plot.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 23:42 | 2806019 OpenThePodBayDoorHAL
OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture

Hmm, let's see, they are surrounded by 41 military bases from the biggest military bully in the world, that has shown time and again it will bomb and invade countries on the slightest manufactured pretexts with no regard for international law. That bully is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and is the only country in the world ever to have used them against others.

I would be scared shitless and trying my best to get SOMETHING that would help defend me.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 04:47 | 2806235 Acet
Acet's picture

Iran is giving no reason to the West that the West itself will not make up to justify whatever the military complex wants to do.

Prime example: Iraq

Iraq proved to anybody and everybody that an oil-rich country can't trust the West even if they do refrain from developing nukes. In fact, it pretty much made the case that such country must have nukes as deterrent against the world's bullies.

After the example of Iraq, having a nuke would be a very good idea for Iran. In fact, the only reason they might not have a nuke at the moment is religious.

It's not by chance that the invasion of Iraq is considered by many as the biggest American strategic clusterfuck of all times ...

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:44 | 2805487's picture

Over a non-existent threat. Just like Saddam Hussein.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:57 | 2805530 centerline
centerline's picture

You have to admit though that the sales pitch reads the same.  It is all so scripted and ironic that it fucking reeks from top to bottom and leaves no one without blood on thier hands - including the MSM.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:00 | 2805541 Al Huxley
Al Huxley's picture

It seems so obvious when you put it that way...

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:19 | 2805391 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

It almost seems as if there are those making these decisions who don't care much how America would fare in such a situation, and that wouldn't mind using a big disastrous war in the Middle East and the final destruction of the U.S. dollar/single super power status as a convenient excuse to begin one world currency/government in earnest.  But that would be crazy to think such a thing.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:25 | 2805621 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Very good point, LTER. That should show everyone where their loyalties lie. But for some reason, it doesn't. This confuses me. Brainwashing is powerful.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 22:00 | 2805850 The Squid
The Squid's picture

Are you a terrorist?

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:19 | 2805395 Ralph Spoilsport
Ralph Spoilsport's picture

Mazel Tov,

Nisht Naitik,

Netanyahu is a fucking prick

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:30 | 2805433 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Bibi will fight till the last dead American soldier.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:24 | 2805399 roadsnbridges
roadsnbridges's picture

Is Dagan Blabbermouth-Schultz's dad?

I'm all in favor of waiting to get nuked before responding in kind.


Wonder what the usual morons on this site would think of needing a bomb shelter as part of buying a place to live?

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:55 | 2805521 donsluck
donsluck's picture

Are you calling yourself a moron? Are you saying we should nuke every country that disagrees with us? Or just the nuclear powers? Let's start with Russia, they may be planning to attack us too!!

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:21 | 2805766 bankruptcylawyer
bankruptcylawyer's picture

i'm with you. israel should wait to get nuked before nuking. when israel gets nuked, europe will be scared shitless and about 40 million arabs and 4 million persians will be incinerated before the beginning of world war 3 commences to determine who will control ALL of middle eastern oil.


it will be a tragedy of unmentionable proportions, but it will be the price that the israeli's and the arabs and persians must pay for living in the era of western power. sorry boys, we win you lose.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:23 | 2805407 Eally Ucked
Eally Ucked's picture

No matter what Netanyahu says he won't do it on his own, period. Just think what would come next after attack happens, they will be in state of war for the next 30 years? And US will quadruple military aid, or any aid to them? And Europe will send money to them like crazy too. 5 million nation surrounded by enemies. Puffing and steaming for nothing unless US wants to have another war on its hands.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:45 | 2805489 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

You sure need a history lesson. The US and UK sternly warned Israel more then one time NOT to attack Egypt.

What did Israel do ?Without any help

After a period of high tension between Israel and its neighbors, the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise bombing raids against Egyptian air-fields. Within six days, Israel had won a decisive land war. Israeli forces had taken control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy torpedo boats, on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War.[2] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 170 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.[3] At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][4]

^In other words, get the fuck out of the way


Operation Orchard[2][3] was an Israeli airstrike on a nuclear reactor[4] in the Deir ez-Zor region[5] of Syria carried out just after midnight (local time) on September 6, 2007.

Bush : Olmert did not ask for a green light for an attack and that he did not give one, but that Olmert acted alone and did what he thought was necessary to protect Israel.[23

According to a WikiLeaks cable, the Syrian government placed long-range missiles armed with chemical warheads on high alert after the attack but did not retaliate, fearing an Israeli nuclear counterstrike.


Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:12 | 2805535 donsluck
donsluck's picture

Your point being Israel will attack Iran unilaterally and without regard to it's international repercushions. I think you are correct. Buy gold.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:21 | 2805610 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

They always seem to and yes, buy gold.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:23 | 2805776 bankruptcylawyer
bankruptcylawyer's picture

i think when netanyahu goes on 'meet the press' its a tacit admission that israel cannot do this alone, and will not even try. 

it's about as desperate as you can get, going on MSM begging americans to do your dirty work on your time schedule, instead of just waiting silently for the americans to do their own dirty work on their own time schedule.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:03 | 2805551 Eally Ucked
Eally Ucked's picture

I like your postinggs because your views are very close to mine, except that Israeli slant, but I understand that heritage is very important and it's hard to get rid of it.

I think that Iran is a bit bigger fish than Egypt in 1950-70, maybe your opinion is different but let it be at that. 

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:09 | 2805567 ozziindaus
ozziindaus's picture

In other words, get the fuck out of the way


....or, "it wasn't us, it was the Egyptians"....

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:13 | 2805581 john39
john39's picture

How well did the more recent 33 day war go for Israel? Oh, got its ass kicked by Hamas. Can't even handle Hamas and Israel thinks it can't attack Iran? You are all going to die. Fools.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:23 | 2805616 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

Ass kicked ?


According to who ? CNN's Anderson Cooper ?

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:37 | 2805660 john39
john39's picture

Can't even fight a small scale war with Hamas. No wonder Netanyahu has an inferiority complex. Compensating for some shortcoming?

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 00:21 | 2806080 ArrestBobRubin
ArrestBobRubin's picture

Right, better we should listen to your Hasba-RAT cousins on Talmudvision?

The Jew Media Octopus
Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:48 | 2805623 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Israel attacking the Liberty is a good point? I'd love to see the explanation for that.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 02:08 | 2806161 groundedkiwi
groundedkiwi's picture

Liberty survivors would also like an explanation for the attack. They are also still waiting for a congressional hearing, which many of them realize now is never going to happen.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:46 | 2805682 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

    What did Israel do ?Without any help

You might want to look at a *map* before you get too confident about Israel's ability to attack Iran unilaterally.

Just a thought, anyway.  The barrier is ALWAYS logistics.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:57 | 2805704 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

Apparently Israel will not be able to sleep peacfully at night until they set the world on fire.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:24 | 2805410 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

if they fuck up the m.e. oil trade heads are going to roll.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:25 | 2805421 roadsnbridges
roadsnbridges's picture

Well, fuk m.e.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:36 | 2805458 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

Nobody has ever gunned down a New York police captain before. It would be disasterous. All the other five families would turn against you. The Corleone Family would be outcast. Even the old man's political protection would run for cover. So, do me a favor, take this into consideration... [/tom hagen]

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:47 | 2805498 roadsnbridges
roadsnbridges's picture

We all know NY cops are really bad shots.  Who knows how many civilians went down from one going for the captain?

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:28 | 2805632 Ineverslice
Ineverslice's picture

  ...Louie's Restaurant in the Bronx.

  Try the veal, it's the best in the city. ;)

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:46 | 2805662 Ineverslice
Ineverslice's picture

...and don't take any chances, two shots apiece in the head.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:23 | 2805775 Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

leave the gun, take the cannoli

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:24 | 2805415 Henry Hub
Henry Hub's picture

If Netanyahu attacks Iran and Israel gets themselves in trouble with a drawn out war, we will see the full power and control of IAPAC and the Israel Lobby on this country. The Israel firsters will be howling and frothing at the mouth to force the U.S to come to their aid. World war III!!!

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:31 | 2805435 john39
john39's picture

we are already there (by design).  when the shooting starts, we will be immediatly involved...  the only way out for the U.S. now is to bring the damn troops home where they belong, and avoid foreign entanglements as our forefathers wisely advised.  Israel is the mother of all foreign entaglements...  surgical removal of that parasite is required for the U.S. to survive.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:01 | 2805548 donsluck
donsluck's picture

Surgical indeed, which describes what almost happened in 2008, until the Congress (US) stopped it, and here we sit.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:51 | 2805513 Blue Horshoe Lo...
Blue Horshoe Loves Annacott Steel's picture

We'd be better off dropping an A-bomb on Israel first.  Then the Arab world would hail us with cheap oil!

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:29 | 2805634 malikai
malikai's picture

No, the Arab governments would hate us as we would have removed the only thing that allows them to focus their public's rage. After that, their people would be looking at their governments' transgressions instead of Israel's.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 00:31 | 2806092 dubbleoj
dubbleoj's picture

Nut-in-my-yahoo is a good boogie man.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:24 | 2805420 Arvo Particleboard
Arvo Particleboard's picture

What better way than weaponized nuclear technology to defend yourself from imperialist encroachments?

If only the Palestinians had such a tool.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:27 | 2805425 roadsnbridges
roadsnbridges's picture

They had Arafat; the best they could come up with.

Peas Prize, bitchez!

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:27 | 2805426 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Most of the world is against a war on Iran. Only the neo-cons right wingers and the tools who believe the MSM want war.

Want war? Suit the fuck up and sell everything you've got to fund your precious war and be taxed at 100% of your salary for the next 20 years to pay for it or shut the fuck up.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:29 | 2805432 roadsnbridges
roadsnbridges's picture

Sell?  What trash u talking?  Gots lots of neutron bombs just deteriorating through non-use.

Just dust the critters off and viola!  No more sand ni-.....!

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:40 | 2805454 Henry Hub
Henry Hub's picture

“What’s the good of nuclear weapons if you can’t use them?” William Kristol

This show the mentality of the sick twisted neocon mind!

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:03 | 2805556 donsluck
donsluck's picture

Just hastening the day of Jesus' return (whoever he is).

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:10 | 2805572 Henry Hub
Henry Hub's picture

I don't think Kristol believes in Jesus. He's more Old Testament.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:18 | 2805596 Arvo Particleboard
Arvo Particleboard's picture

Fill it to the (fire and)brim(stone), Brother.

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 00:33 | 2806093 dubbleoj
dubbleoj's picture

first boots on the ground in iraq were using dust covered bombs from the 60's and 70's. they went through them quick. have you seen our military tab recently? guess what? we bought new shit. 

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:43 | 2805671 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

We need to gather all the fucks like him up put them on one of those Japanese/Chinese disputed islands ,and give them their wish.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 22:29 | 2805896 rqb1
rqb1's picture

Post of the day for me!

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:46 | 2805496 Blue Horshoe Lo...
Blue Horshoe Loves Annacott Steel's picture

AMEN.  All these armchair generals & couch commanders always want to send someone else into a foreign land to fight.  Most people who are pro-war are cowards that never enlist.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:26 | 2805786 Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:47 | 2805497 chet
chet's picture

A majority of Israelis are against a war with Iran.  You wouldn't guess that from watching American media though.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:51 | 2805511 Azannoth
Azannoth's picture

Only because they realize how small their country is and that no missile shield would do them any good if Iran went all in on their asses, they are simply pragmatical if they could sit and watch Gentile soldiers fight their wars they would

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:53 | 2805694 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

No, asshole, it's because "Israelis" are about as well-represented by their batshit-crazy "leaders" as "Americans" are by Dubya and/or Obama.

Aside from the tiny radical set of hardcore "Greater Israel" hawks, most of the country is populated by reasonable and moderate people.

In that regard, it's a lot like the US. 

(And Iran.) 

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:25 | 2805780 bankruptcylawyer
bankruptcylawyer's picture

funny, because it never occured to me that most of the world's opinions actually counted for squat when it comes to making decisions for the military. i think that's the president and joint chiefs and oil cartel that get to have meaningful 'opinions'. when it comes to making a choice.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:32 | 2805441 TheLooza
Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:36 | 2805456 Aziz
Aziz's picture

$7 mil in bullion at home.

Hope this guy's family are grateful!

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:25 | 2805782 Roandavid
Roandavid's picture

As likely, it was $14 mil and the cops are grateful.

Mon, 09/17/2012 - 19:50 | 2805504 Blue Horshoe Lo...
Blue Horshoe Loves Annacott Steel's picture

Great link.  Good thing the guy didn't have his money in John Corzine's MF Global!!!!!!!!!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!