And how will the usa pay for another war?

The banking industry seems to be teetering on the brink of a major collapse, if another war breaks out kiss your dollar goodbye as you'll need a wheelbarrow to carry enough paper to buy a loaf of bread.

A strike on Iran? perhaps the usa could muster enough cash to launch a few missles and planes against Iran, but any rational person knows that such an act would be economic suicide. A short blockade of the straits of Hormuz would sink the economies of the western world. The 'war' wouldn't last too long before the nhillests nuked the nabobs.

Note carefully that the fact that both the CIA and the IAEA agree that there is no evidence that Iran is trying to build a bomb isn't mentioned here.

And after the Iraq war, surely everyone must be on the lookout for slippery language. So, this caught my eye.

"concern that Tehran may soon have the know-how for building a nuclear bomb."

Note that now the propaganda centers on 'the know how' to build a bomb.

BTW, back in the 1970's I used to read a science fiction magazine called Analog. They used to publish a 'science fact' article in each issue, and I plainly remember one that described how to build a nuclear bomb.

The 'know how to build a bomb' is not particularly difficult nor unknown.

This reminds me of the British claim about Iraq that "IF" they had the fissionable materials, they could have a bomb in six months. My reaction was, what on earth would make them take that long. Anyone who already has the fissionable materials could build a bomb in about 3 weeks using materials that could be found at Home Depot.

My point is, this is the relatively easy part.

But, just because Iran has the centrifuges to get uranium up to the 3% enrichment needed for a nuclear power plant, it doesn't mean that they can get to the 99% enrichment needed for a bomb. And that would be a huge facility with something like 5000 centrifuges that Iran claims to have. So, its not something you can move to someone's garage and run in secret. The IAEA knows about the facility, and can test it to see what enrichments have been achieved in the materials coming out of it. And so far the IAEA sticks to saying they've never seen any evidence of enrichment beyond 3%.

Another site mentioned that Adm. Mullen's recent trip to Israel included his telling them not to pull another USS Liberty attack.

If an 'Iranian' attack occurs in the Persian Gulf (for example), will there be time to stop the insanity long enough to determine whether or not it was the work of the Mossad?

The US is openly supporting terrorists operating inside Iran from their bases in Iraq, to the tune of 400 million dollars (that we know of). How do you square that with: "U.S. officials are primarily seeking a diplomatic solution."?

Isn't it about time that we have some candid public discussion about just how and when the policy "option" of militarily attacking a sovereign nation ever got "on the table" to begin with?

The mainstream US media's casual, uncritical acceptance of the Bush regime's notion that well established international legal constraints prohibiting wars of aggression reason simply don't apply to the United States in the post-9/11 world is arrogant and dangerous.

Preventive war is universally prohibited. Preemptive war is justified in only extremely narrow factual circumstances. Nothing that the 9/11 attackers did ever authorized the White House, or its right wing think tank enablers, to cavalierly pretend these established rules of law and the laws of war can simply be ignored, and indulge the pretense that Uncle Sam the Sole Superpower has a free pass to make up new, half-baked rules as we stumble along.

For that matter, why shouldn't the Obama campaign or even the Democratic party platform squarely disavow the doctrine of preemptive war, much like they've categorically disavowed torture?

Think about it. How would John McCain respond?

If McCain agrees, then both major party candidates have committed the country to back off on the incessant sabre rattling. Hooray.

If however McCain embraces the concept of preemptive war (a more likely partisan position for him to take, given his personal background and the power of the neo-con wing of the GOP), then the issue is suddenly out there, right "on the table" for open public policy debate.

As Molly Ivins might have put it, grown ups are allowed to talk about such things.

The more fear mongering demagoguery from the McCain campaign camp about waging preemptive war that comes out, the clearer it will become which candidate is really the best qualified to be trusted to pick up the red phone if it rings at 3:00 am.

Bill from Saginaw

Has Gates finished loading the coordinates of every Persian School and Hospital into his bomb sights yet?
Targeting Infastructure, check!
Targeting Civilians, check!
Targeting Humanity, check!
Big M$M Lie ready, check!

william street: "For that matter, why shouldn't the Obama campaign or even the Democratic party platform squarely disavow the doctrine of preemptive war, much like the use of torture has been categorically disavowed?"

Nobody disavows torture better than the Republicans. "We do not torture" said Bush. Perhaps Obama can state categorically that he disavows pre-emptive war. Sorry, but Obama's actions speak louder than his words. He has made it clear where he stands on wars of aggression and occupation, with his votes. As for torture, He says he wants to "close Guantanamo". Even if he means it, the kangaroo courts may simply be relocated to a town near you. After all, say the neocons, what would we do with all the innocent people held there, set them free?

You are right the Democrats should disavow pre-emptive war. Just as the progressive politicians already have.

Dear ACLU Supporter,

A few days ago, we alerted you to Attorney General Michael Mukasey's demand that Congress issue a new declaration of war. This would make the entire globe -- including the United States itself -- a "battlefield" where the president gets to decide who is an "enemy combatant" and lock that person up forever.

The Bush/Mukasey plan also includes a congressionally-approved subversion of the Constitution and a cover-up of the Bush administration's systemic torture and abuse of detainees.

At the same time, an ACLU lawsuit has uncovered new evidence that the torture and abuse Mukasey wants Congress to cover up was authorized by -- you guessed it -- the Justice Department. One of the documents obtained by the ACLU is a redacted version of a previously undisclosed 2002 Justice Department opinion that authorizes the CIA to use specific interrogation methods, including waterboarding.

Now, Mukasey -- as head of the Justice Department -- wants Congress to cover up torture committed under the watch of his predecessor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It's outrageous!

Don't let it happen. Read the alert I've attached below and take action now at: http://action.aclu.org/coverup
------------------------------------------

At this rate we will not need to fight them over there - - -

The United Nations Charter states in Chapter I, Article 2, Paragraph 4 that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

The US Senate passed the UN Charter as an international treaty on July 28, 1945.

The US Constitution states in Article VI that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."

Therefore, it is a crime in the United States to threaten to bomb Iran.

Therefore, Bush, Cheney, McCain, Obama, Hillary, to name a few, could be charged with violating US law.

When are they going to be arrested and charged, and by whom?

Therfore, It is the militaries' job to say "everything is on the table".

It also is the best way for Bush to look like it was this threat that will make the peace possible, and Bush will be outta here in 6 months.

Obama never threatened to bomb Iran and if he did the LA Times would make it headlines.
Obama is Walkin' the line and he has to to get elected and negotiate peace in the Middle East.

It is McSame who sings "bomb Iran", so if you want that then let McSame win and you will deserve everything McSame gives us.

"The final story, the final chapter of western man, I believe, lies in Los Angeles."
Phil Ochs

For SeriousCitizen;

The American people can and with all legal authority charge anyone of their elected officials with International Crimes whether they voted for them or not.

It just takes more than a few to get it done.

This may be the opportunity that the Progressive Movement has been needing to take a leadership position in the political and national field by being the "group of people" who made America live up to its creed of being a "nation of laws, and a government of the people by the people".

It just takes numbers; and enough people moving in the same direction will make the necessary changes.

Start your own group and or join others in a group and work to make the needed changes.

That is exactly the rhetoric that the "Conservative Movement" uses to describe how "this Great Nation was founded".

Mr. Bush would be a bit busy planning his defense against extradition to the Netherlands for trial at the Hague for War Crimes; to be planning strikes on Iran.

We will find out if Israeli hegemony in America is predominant or if the American people still count for anything.

If Obama wins the Presidency, we might get a slight mitigation of overt unConstitutional power plays, but the general abuse will go on, unless the American people decide we have had enough! We cannot go on much longer down this road we are on. Something has to change or the U.S. (and much of the world) will be in irreversable damage territory, or worse. An Obama is happy to play the 'trump up a war with Iran' game. Son of a !#%@#@*&#*!. >|-{

Fossil's New Black Don Fool

Black oil
White greed
White black Obama creed
White black Osama seed

Carbonized
Carbonized black
Carbonized black babies

Black out the sands of time
Black sands
Tar sands
Tar baby sands
Toxic tar baby sands

Carbonized
Carbonized time
stands still

Like fuel
war fuel
cremation fuel
for fossil fools
like you

What would happen if there was a national referendum on the war in Iraq? … Beyond that, what would happen if there was a national referendum on war itself, war in general?

Perhaps we should ask the question another way. … Why do those in power *not* want a national referendum on war; a national referendum on either a specific war or war in general?

The political establishment in the United States – the United States possessing the largest, most powerful military in the history of the world – will never allow the general public to vote on war or peace. And the reason is simple: the average person, in any country in the world, not just America, doesn't want war.

The United States is spending $15 billion per month on the war in Iraq. Ask the average American how they would like that $15 billion per month spent … on war or on peace?

See the following -- http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home -- especially the part of this website that outlines how *else* that $15 billion dollars per month can be spent -- how $15 billion dollars per month can be spent on health, education and welfare, instead of war.

Those in power know damn well that if a national referendum were held on the question of "WAR OR PEACE, WHICH DO YOU PREFER?" that the overwhelming majority of people would vote for peace.

(Continued)

Notice how regularly, how systematically and how cynically those in power take the antiwar sentiment of millions of people "off the table." …

Consider the 2002 Congressional elections. This was the period of time in which the Bush Administration was claiming that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many people believed otherwise. … What did the Democratic Party do?

The Democratic Party made it quite clear to the voting public that the 2002 Congressional elections would not be about whether the United States should or should not go to war. You may recall the famous picture (the "photo op") of the Democratic Congressional leaders standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Republican Congressional leaders right after the vote was taken authorizing the invasion of Iraq. The message to the American public was clear: "Don't expect the Democratic Party to serve as an oppositional party to the president's war -- invading Iraq is a bipartisan decision."

In other words, the Democratic Party was saying, loud and clear -- "Don't think that this Election will be a referendum on war or peace; it won't."

And so the Democratic Party made the 2002 Congressional election about "other issues." The war in Iraq, as far as the Democrats were concerned, was "off the table."

Indeed, rather than act as an oppositional party on the issue of the War, the Democratic Party went right along with it, authorizing the invasion as well as every subsequent funding of the War.

(Continued)

Now flash-forward to 2004. The general population is, again, questioning the war in Iraq. And from out of nowhere an unknown Vermont governor, Howard Dean, becomes a rallying point for antiwar sentiment throughout the United States. He raises an unprecedented amount of money for his campaign, an unprecedented amount of small donations via the Internet and, above all, an unprecedented amount of support by virtue of his opposition to the war in Iraq.

Were Dean to have gotten the Democratic nomination, the Election would have been, in effect, a national referendum on the war in Iraq.

So what happened to what was shaping up in 2004 to be a national referendum on war versus peace, Bush versus Dean? Well, we all know what happened. Dean "yelped" and his candidacy tanked.

Enter John Kerry, the war candidate.

John Kerry in a July 16, 2004 interview he gave to the "Wall Street Journal" was asked: If you are elected President, how long do you think the US will be in Iraq? … Kerry's answer: Probably to at least the end of my first term.

So that far from representing the antiwar sentiments of millions of Americans, John Kerry *embraced* the Iraq War. … Far from being a peace candidate, Kerry's position was that the war in Iraq was fundamentally right, that the United States *should* be in Iraq -- it's just that Bush was conducting the war incorrectly, inefficiently.

A Kerry administration, John Kerry told us, would prosecute the war more effectively.
… And so what could have been a national referendum on the War (Bush versus Dean) was "taken off the table."

(Continued)

Now flash-forward to the 2006 Congressional elections. The general population in 2006 was even more opposed to the war than it was in the days leading up to the war in 2002; and even more opposed to the War than in was 2004! In fact, exit polls showed that the number-one issue for voters in the 2006 Congressional elections was the war in Iraq.

So that despite the political establishment's ongoing efforts not to make a presidential election or a Congressional election a national referendum on war or peace, the 2006 elections appeared to be just that – with the Democratic Party being swept into power, suddenly (and, to a large extent, unexpectedly) in control of both houses of Congress.

A stunning victory owed in large measure to the general population's opposition to the War.

And how did the Democratic Party respond to this dramatic antiwar sentiment? What? -- you need me to remind commondream.org readers what happened? We all know what happened. We all know how the Democratic Party *again* betrayed the will of the people.

Immediately following the Democrats dramatic victories in the 2006 Congressional elections -- I mean, in just a matter of a couple of *days* after the Election -- the Democratic leadership made it clear to the general public that despite "the will of the people," they had no intention of stopping the war in Iraq.

The Democratic Party continued to rationale away the reasons for withdrawing from Iraq; they continued to fund the War; and, with the Republicans, they continued to make threatening remarks regarding Iran and Pakistan.

(Continued)

Now flash-forward to the 2008 primaries. How does the American public now feel about the war in Iraq? Polls show that two-thirds of the American public want the US out of Iraq.

If millions of Americans were against the War in the days of "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom clouds over New York City" … and if millions of Americans were against the war in 2004 and in 2006 … they are now, in 2008, even *more* Americans against the War: in fact, a clear majority.

Enter, Barack Obama, the king of the con men.

Barack Obama won the Democratic Party nomination to a large extent because he gave the appearance of being a peace candidate. The average voter associated Barack Obama's campaign with his position, taken in the primaries, that he had a 16-month timetable for leaving Iraq.

However, wasting no time, *immediately* after he became the presumptive Democratic nominee – I mean, within a couple of *days* -- lo and behold, Obama "clarified" his position on the War. On July 2, 2008, in a speech in Colorado Springs, Obama stated:

"I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability."

In other words: I may withdraw troops in 16 months; but, if conditions change, I may not.

(Continued)

So that now Obama tells us that his position (all along!) has been that he will defer to the judgment of the commanders in the field. Meaning: Obama's position on Iraq is essentially the same as that John McCain and George Bush. If the commanders in the field say we should stay, we stay.

Considering the fact that any commanders in Iraq who may have questioned the War have been either fired, demoted, brought home or pressured to retire early, what Obama is saying shouldn't be too hard to figure out -- "Don't make any bets that we'll be out of Iraq soon … suckers."

Not content to betray the antiwar movement by in recent days "clarifying" his position on Iraq, Obama now wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan. In a July 14th "New York Times" op-ed piece, Obama proposed sending 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

(Interestingly enough, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, also feel that there are an insufficient number of troops in Afghanistan. And guess how many additional troops they recommend be deployed in Afghanistan -- the same number as Barack Obama, 10,000. … Note, too, that *the day after* Obama's aforementioned "New York Times" op-ed piece, in a White House press conference, George Bush indicated that the US and its NATO allies were already initiating a "surge" in Afghanistan.)

(Continued)

A war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan -- oh, the "peace candidate" doesn't stopped there. Obama has also threatened to invade Pakistan. Quoting Obama from the above-cited July 14th New York Times op-ed piece:

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents.

"We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

In the July 2, 2008 speech in Colorado Springs cited above, Obama praised the US military and vowed to increase its ranks. Obama has called for an overall increase of American ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and "investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time."

And last year, writing in "Foreign Affairs" magazine, Barack Obama wrote:

"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale."

Obama supports two wars now in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan) and has shown a clear-cut willingness to engage in two more wars (Iran and Pakistan).

So the peace candidate, in reality, was never a peace candidate at all. Rather, it sounds like Barack Obama wants to be a war president, just like his "opponent," George Bush.

All this guarantees that the 2008 election will, again, *not* be a referendum on war or peace.

Mission accomplished!

One wonders how many times the DPAers (Democratic Party Apologists) will continue to support candidates who have historically and systematically sold out any number of broad-based, grassroots movements. One might start with the Democrats selling out the Populist movement in the 1890s … then there was the labor movement in the 1930s … then the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, the antiwar movement. The four most recent betrayal of the antiwar movement being the four mentioned above – 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008. (Does anyone see a *pattern* here?)

The Democratic Party insinuates itself into these broad-based, grassroots movements, promises to represent the interests of these movements, and then once those who support these movements sell out to the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party, in turn, sells out *their* interests.

At first, certain reforms are made -- as in the case of the Populist movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement and the environmental movement -- but after a while things go back to "normal," the status quo prevails, and all the while the political consensus in the United States moves further and further to the right.

How many times does the liberal-left have to be betrayed before they catch on that the Democratic Party is the graveyard of one broad-based, democratic-inspired movements after another.

And it's all happening …. again.

It is surprising the article does not mention HR 362 currently in Congress. It has a lot of "Democratic" co-sponsors including the blue dog from my district. This is the same crowd that gave Bush a blank check to invade and occupy Iraq while pretending they don't want war. Truly criminal. HR 362 is over the top demonization of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.. Packed full of half-truths and lies, it commits the US to aggression and near or active acts of war. What would we say if another government demanded inspection of all incoming and outgoing ships and planes plus a quarantine on government official travel? Amazing. See it at
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/hc362_ih.xml

wsws,

If you want a real graveyard, let McCain win!

Aside from the grammatically clumsy "on" and the impracticality of a war against an abstract noun the "War on Terror" is a misnomer; it really should be called "War on Peace".

cromerovich,

You got it!

Would anyone here like to wager there WON'T be an attack on Iran before the end of the year?

It's positively pathetic that we even allow an Israeli, like Defense Minister Ehud Barak, to come into the United States to lobby the DOD in favor of attacking Iran.

I predict that the day will come when Americans finally see the Jews for what they really are. And when that happens, the the days of AIPAC and the Jewish lobby will come to an end. And then the Middle East will have a chance to develop into societies of their choosing, uncurrupted by the power politics of America and Israel.

GALEN

yes, me.......................how much?

Sure Galen,
a Gentleman's bet.

We'll See.

Sure Galen, we'll have to wager in dollars tho, if there's an attack I'll pay you a thousand yankee peso's. If there's not an attack I'll pay you a thousand Zimbabwe dollars. (grin)

Both the Intelligence Estimates and the IAEA have reported that Iran is only building nuclear reactors which it is permitted to do under the NPT. The IAEA also reports that Iranian uranium is only 4% pure, a far cry from the 97% needed for weapons.

Since the IAEA is the most knowledgeable and reliable source of information about Iran's nuclear program, it is no accident that their findings are being ignored. Clearly, the US has an ulterior motive (what else is new)and that is to gain control of Iranian oil and replace the theocracy with a friendlier and more compliant government.

By the way, it should be noted that Israel is not a member of the NPT and does not officially have nuclear weapons (ha).

http://www.stateofdarkness.com

Too bad none of those will to bet with me will do so in Canadian dollars, which, by the way is doing quite well against the US moldback.

Coco - how about if I'm right I help get you across the US/Canada border?

Skippy- Sorry, brother. I only take REAL money.

Galen,
I only bet in worthless currency, I can honestly say that I never gamble, it's not gambling if you always lose, right?

With this crowd everything except common sense is always possible, even a more terrible war in defense of their insanity.

Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews.
There is much more criticism of Israel in the Israeli Media, than there is in North America.
The Zionists control the majority of the Corporate run Media in the USA and Canada.
It is Israel that has 300 nuclear missiles.
What are they worried about?

Go to wwwstopwaroniran.org

Ehud Barrak was just on CNN.

From what I could understand of his tortured use of the English language, he said that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in 15 - 30 months, but that the Israeli guess is probably long behind the curve. He asserted the IAEA and CIA assessments that Iran was not using uranium enrichment for military purposes are completely wrong, and gave a Cheney-esque assurance that Iran has a super secret program to make nuclear weapons and that this would not be tolerated.

Barrak went on to state that if Iran has even the possibility of nuclear weapons there will be no turing back. Israel will strike, and bring about massive damage, if not an end to Iran as a country, no matter how wide the conflict will spread and who it will harm.

If that is not a direct threat, I don't know what is...

Well if Israel wants to be suicidal, I wonder who will take in their refugees?

The Christian Zionists? This is what they have been waiting for... Hello Jesus!

Canada?

What do you think Galen?

Good time for a pre-emptive strike on all of Israel's nuclear facilities using those wonderfully accurate smart bombs. It may even save the world from further Isreali disasters to come.

Jim - I would gladly welcome the refugees from Palestine into Canada.

For those Israelis who support this madness, I condemn them to suffer in the wastelands and shattered, contaminated cities they will inherit.

For those Americans who support this madness, I condemn them to watch as their techno-toys slow and grind to a halt for lack of oil, to watch as their shelves empty of food and common goods, and the US government try to force calm on a raging storm of it's own creation.

Ehud Barrak, didn't he announce that he's resigning from office today? Ahh, according to google news it takes effect in September, lots of time for him to launch a going away war...

GALEN

that's a very kind offer for which i thank you. but i'm in southern europe so will watch the results of the aftermath of any attack on iran from a different viewpoint - both geographically and politically.

Coco - Head north, hop from Scotland, over the Hebrides Chain to Iceland, skirt Greenland and make a slight left and you are in Canada.

No doubt southern Europe is watching with a different viewpoint.

You will be so much closer to the action when it does happen. And given the historical context and large number of Muslims living in Europe, many of whom are being persecuted and scapegoated by the host governments (France and Germany to name two), there will no doubt be a large amount of blowback in Europe.

The directions I gave you above were only half in jest. But the invitation is real.

Canada has two choices, either develope some defence and strike back power or sign treaties with China and or Russia.

The U S A will ride roughshod over any country that cannot defend itself, especially now with the earths resources running down.

skippyagogo41 - 6:14 pm

Ehud Barrak, didn't he announce that he's resigning from office today?
_______________________________________

Close, but no cigar! It's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who's stepping down in September-- one step ahead of the sheriff-- once his party chooses a new leader to replace him in their elections.

Good riddance, not that there's much chance that his successor will be an improvement.

All those Ehuds look alike! ;)

Little Brother

Had to triple check, obviously I cannot read. Maybe I was just hoping that he'd be the one who's resigning...

But, no, they don't look remotely similar.

israel needs a new radar system to detect the bottle rockets being launched from Gaza.

Galen, et al,

I am even more fervent in warning "Beware the Ides of August"

(especially after Ehud's threats and bluster)

Israel has a 60 year history of violating international law and countless U.N. resolutions. They have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over forty years. Israel has waged terrorist wars against Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Palstine Territories and now they are chopping at the bit to bomb innocent Iranian civilians. Israel kills with impunity whether it be bombing U.N. observers, murdering international journalists or slaughtering Palestinian children. when these incidents do come to light Israel's standing excuse is "It was a tragic mistake." Yet if the reverse were true every Jew would be screaming about the second hollowcost coming. Israel refuses to join the IAEA, sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty or allow inspections of their facilities. Iran has done all this and more. Yet somehow Israel is always the victim. Oh that's right, the world is peopled with literally billions of anti-semites. Because of this that gives the "chosen people" the right to flaunt international law and kill indescriminately. Ariel Sharon is quoted calling Palestinians "Two legged beasts" He must have been staring at a mirror when he made that assignation.

There is nothing wrong with Israel that a nuclear burst over Tel Aviv couldn't fix. (Except for the fact that too many Arabs would die along with all the Zionists).