Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Avoiding a Catastrophic War with Iran
Pray cooler heads will guide America in the dialogue and decision-making over Iran’s position in the world. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and there is no certain evidence that such a program is under way. Certainly Iran has the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and the interests of world peace demand that these issues be resolved without military action that could launch a catastrophic war.
Another war would destroy America’s painful recovery from the indebtedness of two wars and the 2008 economic crash. Gasoline prices would probably go up another dollar per gallon. The Iraq and Afghanistan war’s final costs will exceed $2 trillion. Some estimates say $4 trillion, or even $6 trillion, including lifelong care for veterans physically or emotionally disabled.
Iran has four times the population of Iraq, many times the military capability, and would seek support from other nations like Russia and China, possibly sparking an unpredictable regional war.
Political hawks and shock-jocks on talk radio condemn calls for negotiations and dialogue to resolve such matters without military action as weakness. The U.S. spends as much on military preparedness as the rest of the world combined, so no one can doubt America’s capacity to wage war. It is shocking that the theme song of one national talk show host states, "We’ll put a boot up your ass, it’s the American way."
The world does not find this amusing or appealing.
More than six thousand American families grieve the deaths of sons and daughters in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. More than 30,000 U.S. troops have been physically wounded in action, and untold numbers have returned home emotionally and physically disabled. Suicides of war veterans each month exceed combat deaths.
Official estimates of some 100,000 deaths in Iraq and 20,000 in Afghanistan are considered low by other calculations. The British polling group Opinion Research Business (ORB) has estimated Iraqi deaths at closer to one million, with some 5 million becoming displaced refuges who are homeless or have left the country.
Many believe our wars in the Middle East are breeding resentments that will last lifetimes.
War brings big profits to military contractors and oil companies that simply raise their prices. Everyone else pays dearly, in dollars, lives and blood.
The people of Iran are not well served by having a bellicose posturing leader in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Cowboy professions of toughness are usually hot air, appealing to the pride of some, but are not helpful to the interests’ of peace. The vast majority of humanity desperately hopes for negotiated resolutions to political tensions to avoid war and its deaths and destruction that ruin lives and wreck economies.
The United States must lead the world in calling for cooler rhetoric and civil dialogue by all nations in the Iran discussion. Israel particularly must relax its rhetoric, confident that its close alliance with the United States and its own arsenal of (undeclared) nuclear weapons renders it a muscular regional power whose sovereignty is unquestioned.
War truly is hell, as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan remind us too well. Let’s remember that the terrible attacks on America of 9/11, 2001, were not from a nation, but from an alliance of individuals from many nations, most prominently Saudi Arabia. The U.S. attack on Iraq is now admittedly blamed on “faulty intelligence,” misinformation and miscalculation. Vice President Dick Cheney predicted that the Iraq war would last six weeks and that U.S. forces would be welcomed with flowers as liberators.
All Americans opposed to another war must stand behind leaders seeking nonviolent resolutions to world situations that could blow up into wars that would wreck our economy, raise oil prices, profit only a few, and cause incalculable suffering everywhere, while we taxpayers foot the bill.
102 Comments so far
Show All"All Americans opposed to another war must stand behind leaders seeking nonviolent resolutions to world situations that could blow up into wars that would wreck our economy, raise oil prices, profit only a few, and cause incalculable suffering everywhere, while we taxpayers foot the bill."
I wish I could locate a few of such "leaders". Having a hard time indentifying any with the possible exemption of Bernie Sanders and maybe Ron Paul.
Bernie Sanders never met a soldier he couldn't embrace or a veterans group he couldn't suck up to.
Don't write off Rocky Anderson prematurely: https://www.voterocky.org/home
"The U.S. attack on Iraq is now admittedly blamed on “faulty intelligence,” misinformation and miscalculation."
WTF? It wasn't like that at all. It was a planned deception to gain political control over Middle East oil. There was no faulty intelligence and misinformation about anything. The war was a clear-cut act of imperialism and we should never forget it.
Not true. Might want to read the Duelfer Report. Bottom line was that while WMD research was stopped, Saddam's main motivation was to trick Iran into thinking it was not. This deception worked too well and the West had too much conflicting information to know for sure that there were no more WMDs. This info came from EVERY intel service on the planet including China and Russia. We simply did not know what was going on in Iraq. Admittedly, Bush did cherry pick information though as for every positive sign there were WMDs there were as many or more that there weren't and *that* was a crime of logic.
It was a horrible decision to go to war and it was the outcome they wanted before they analyzed the facts, but bottom line was that they were using bad intelligence to make the call. It also illustrates how if you desperately want data to show something, you are going to find that something when you analyze data. in short, if you look for something, you find it regardless of whether or not it is there.
What absolute drivel! You are a fool. Perhaps you never heard of the PNAC? Your comment defines imbecility.
Are you in Tel Aviv?
Read the report. You can deny have any opinion you want, but the facts there are pretty even handed.
What about the Dancing Israeli spies sent there to film 9/11?
Since Iraq had no Nukes, Bush had his pre-planned War as soon as he was told what Israel and other intel knew.
Was their intel confusing too?
"John Shade"
The reasons the "Coalition" attacked Iraq are that the UN had proven that Iraq did NOT have all the WMD's and it was clear that the long standing sanctions had worked to reduce Iraq's ability to respond.
The invasion of Iraq was a corporate driven takeover of the resources of Iraq.
Go look at "The Project for the New American Century" from back during the Clinton administration.
Think about this - If Iraq had WMD's, why were they NOT used and why were they never found AND why did this government need to LIE and falsely connect Iraq to September 11, 2001?
You are making excuses for devious lying warmongers (from both parties in Washington).
You can see a conspiracy anywhere you like, but the facts at the time were the facts at the time.
The UN did not prove that Iraq didn't have WMDs. You can't prove something doesn't exist.
PNAC was all about the war, but just because they WERE for the war doesn't mean that the intel wasn't there that showed that they might have WMDs. The intel was wrong, but it was there. Do some research.
"But the facts of the time were the facts of the time."
John Shade
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Sir Richard Dearlove
You are in error on this one, John. "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." The decision to go into Iraq was prearranged and "intelligence" was manufactured around that policy. Remember the Niger Yellowcake story? That "intelligence" was manufactured by the Mossad (or was it the CIA?)
It was alleged by Vanity Fair's Craig Unger that the Italian Secret Service was behind the forgery of the Niger Yellowcake memorandum. http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060607_vanity_fair_nigeria_yellowcake
"That "intelligence" was manufactured by the Mossad (or was it the CIA?)"
What's the difference?
Shades of deceit!!!!!!
Horse Puckey
I forget who said it (Feith or Wolfowitz) that it was decided that WMDs would be the "best sell" for going to war. It never was, actually, about WMD.
Without the sell, there wouldn't have been the war. Just because Wolfowitz says something doesn't make it so.
Engage in all the specious rationalizations you want. The Iraq invasion was based on lies, it had nothing to do with WMD. "WMD" was just the "casus belli" that imperialists always use to justify their invasions. Hell, it was the US that GAVE Saddam the ability to make chemical and bio weapons in the '90s. If the US was so concerned about his access to WMDs that would never have occurred. Wake up, dude.
General Shade is practicing his defense for the War Crimes.
It is pure Bush Bullshit.
"... if you look for something, you find it regardless of whether or not it is there."
the absurdity of that statement is beyond quantifying. do you post comments just to hear yourself type?
Reliably, John Shade reinforces "The Cover Story," showing his adept facility with the art of plausible deniability. Is there EVER an issue for which John Shade won't play the MIC-government's assigned role of predictable Falsifier?
Odd, isn't it--that Colin Powell felt so aggrieved after his UN speech in which he embarrassed himself by parroting information about WMDs in Iraq. You would think, based upon your precious report, that he would have had no problems having delivered the speech, but that is not what his biography says. He is furious to this day about the way he was manipulated. Your rewrite of history will not go down.
John, you're wrong on this one. In December 7, 2002, 4 months before the war, Iraq submitted a 12,000 page declaration, accounting for the destruction of all past WMD and declaring that it no longer possessed WMD or was researching WMD. Turns out that report, which was dismissed by the West, was accurate. How does this report tally with your contention that Iraq was trying to "trick Iran into thinking it was not." What the Duelfer Report does say is that Iraq had the intent to reintiate WMD-related-program activities in the future. Under what international law gives anybody the right to invade a country based on such a flimsy premise? You seem to have sympathy for the West in this, but all they had to do to avoid this was not break the law.
Bush Lied 935 Times To Get Us Into Iraq - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXbKLyP_9ac&feature=related
Two Years Before 9/11, Bush was Already Talking About Attacking Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm
Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq? - CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm
New Documents Show Bush Administration Planned War in Iraq Well Before 9/11/2001 | Crooks and Liars
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/new-documents-show-bush-administration-plan
EXPOSED: Bush Planned on Invading Iraq Before 9/11-Part 2 - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-D1jCZ31Uw
AND
Bush Planned Afghan Invasion BEFORE 9/11, Condoleezza Rice Testimony - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nki9M4alG1A
U.S. planned for attack on al-Qaida - US news - Security - msnbc.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/ns/us_news-security/t/us-sought-attack-al-qaida/
The Afghanistan War was Planned Months Before the 9/11 Attacks
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/preplanned.html
US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml
The Debate: Did oil influence America's decision to invade Afghanistan? Were the true motives for war declared? Read our detai http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp
Bush Administration Planned 2001 Invasion Of Afghanistan Before 9/11 On Behalf Of US Oil And Gas Companies http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/BushAfghanistanpre-plannedattack.htm
John Shade, what a beautifully innocent world you occupy. It's a world of fairies, unicorns, and entities that grant wishes. However, for the rest of us, it's also a world that doesn't possess neither necessity nor desire for truth. Too bad that people such as David Kelly can't speak on behalf of those that possessed some expertise and detail into such a matter. Nonetheless, I'm unsure if I should pity you or feel envy.
You got it right, drosera. The quote you reference is ridiculous. It reminds me of that old standby of verbal official legerdemain: "Mistakes were made...."
"All Americans opposed to another war must stand behind leaders seeking nonviolent resolutions..."
Well, in a functioning democracy that would be possible, but seeing we no longer have one good luck with that. Remember all the people that called and emailed their "representatives" telling them to NOT bailout the banks. Or all the people that too to the streets protesting the start of the Iraq war. Well then banks got bailed and we went to war anyway.
Remember money is now free speech in America, and the 1% now have most of the money, so they have most of the free speech. As far as Washington is concerned the country is owned by the corporations, and the 1% that control them, everybody else can got to hell.
Well-said, N.C. Tom. This is precisely the issue... maybe the doctrine of M.A.D made it possible only for the maddest (and I do mean insane) of persons to rise to the highest echelons of the MIC? I mean these dummies are bankrupting the U.S., tearing irreparably into Mother Nature, haven't won a war in decades, leave millions worse off than before and cover all this under the rubric of DEFENSE? Defense of f--king what???? The profit margins of the most amoral clean-cut killers ever known to man un-kind? This M.A.D.ness MUST stop, or it will put a stop to humanity, but for the few cave dwellers who prove resistant to nuclear fallout.
War is viagra for old men. The U.S. spent the last 10 years surrounding Iran. Do you really believe they are going to walk away without a fight? The Yanks went into hock up to their eye balls to put all their eggs into this one basket (at least a trillion dollars), do you think they can afford not to have a war with Iran? Come on folks, you know the drill. First some sanctions, followed by air space control, followed by boots on the ground. It's only a matter of timing. The sanctions have already kicked off non-American dollar oil deals and that's the lit match that burns the American elites' ass. As well, they have promised to leave Afghanistan by 2014... There's not much time, so reach for the viagra old man before your world completely collapses around you.
Your attitude is disgusting. You treat the contemptible like stand-up comedy. And your equating war with Viagra reinforces the same war porn that twisted soldiers (or soldiers twisted by war) traffic in. You have assumed the role of CD's Rush Limbaugh, dominating too many threads with your glib dismissal of the outrageous, your incapacity to feel--or be moved--by a thing. Crawl back under the D O D rock you came out from.
Siouxrose, get a grip. He didn't equate war with viagra. He said that old men use it that way and that is undeniably true. Sad, horribly tragic.... but true. And, they want war. Some people just flat out want war because it amuses them. And, it is not just men, I have heard female reporters say as much themselves.
You contribute so much here. But, in this thread you have misunderstood a couple people completely. And that includes Starkraving... who was merely stating that intelligence operators fabricate evidence... in fact, that is what they mostly do... spin the truth to encourage reactions that they are asked to encourage. And, that factual statement was not meant to detract from intelligence reports that Iraq had no WMDs.
"War is viagra for old men." Yes, it is.
And this, "War is still the only interesting game in town." wealthy Iranian businessman (now resides in London), MI6/CIA partner, close friend of the former Shah after reviewing a breakthrough in semiconductor production technology.
War would be a huge disaster for everyone, especially the Iranians. Talking really doesn't cost much and we should be doing that till we kill the negotiaters from over work. Negotiations, even if they last forever are better than killing.
You are a frigging buffoon. The war will devastate US as the US can't sustain another open ended war. Rome is burning and you still have your head in the sand,,,,,,or up some zionist butt.
"The United States must lead the world in calling for cooler rhetoric and civil dialogue by all nations in the Iran discussion. Israel particularly must relax its rhetoric, confident that its close alliance with the United States and its own arsenal of (undeclared) nuclear weapons renders it a muscular regional power whose sovereignty is unquestioned."
Whew! - Thanks for the hysterical joke! I just got off the floor from nearly hyperventilating from laughter. The next paragraph on the events of 9-11 is even better! The author is a well-meaning idiot.
"Loyalty to prtrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul". - Twain
Ooops - I meant "petrified".
Thanks, I thought you had meant "putrified".
I have to agree, auggiedaddy. The article is an example of obtuse liberalism at its finest. I don't know why CD decided to publish it. Surely there are more informed editorial writers who also oppose attacking Iran, who will not spread such misinformation when calling for restraint.
let's get a few things straight
1. iran has not broken any laws - it has the right to pursue nuclear power and nuclear weapons both
2. iran has always stated they are not interested in nuclear weapons - they call them weapons of the past
3. the only nuclear armed country in the entire middle east is israel 200 to 600 of them, many on their submarines
this is another classic example of amerika fighting zion wars
bankster terrorist wars
wars of empire
the writer writes about the : "bellicose posturing leader in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "
are you crazy mr writer
gee - here you have one country peacefully minding its on business - that would be iran - and several other countries - that would be fascist amerika fascist israel and the blowboys from europe - threatening war, imposing embargoes and funding the terrorist fighters the amerikans fly in from all over thew world
and the iranians are bellicose are they
this writer is deluded, got his head up his ass
of course mentioning that all,of these actions taken by imperial amerika are illegal under international law is immaterial because fortress amerika doesn't have any law it respects other than the law of the bully
beat up the little guys
in the big picture this whole situation has a lot to do with amerika's desire to rule the world
to maintain its role as the reserve currency
to make some money selling weapons, destroying countries and stealing oil
amerikans can protest this war all they want - no one is listening to them
amerikans have sat back and watched the beast that is the mic destroy and kill country after country and have wrapped themselves in the flag in their ignorance and the medicated dystopia
this war is about constraining china - constraining russia both of whom have said they will react to any aggression against iran or syria
this war will engulf the middle east in flames - cheney himself was praying to the devil this morning thanking him for living so long - long enough for him to see his dream of total war and destruction of the world - hallelujah
once this war is started the shit will hit the fan all over and imperial amerika will be done in
Good summary
You can consider me to be a fan! Excellent! The truth burns! I love the bit on Cheney. Dick is a good Satan-worshipper, just like all his Zionist friends.
What they are doing is not illegal in pursuing their nuclear program as long as it does not lead to weapons.
However, closing the Straits of Hormuz *is* illegal.
i guess you just can't get through the bull can you shade
it is not illegal for any country to make nuclear weapons
ok - get that through your head
Israel has been doing such a great job of pushing the boundaries of international humanitarian law and laws of war (many of which, ironically, were first established in reaction to the suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust), that there doesn't seem to be any "illegal" act left.
Check out this speech by U.S. Ambassador Charles Freeman, who spells out how effective Israel has been at degrading international law to the point that it now means nothing: http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/29130/pid/897.
Here's an excerpt:.
"As always in such mayhem, truth and the law have been the first to go missing. Israel regularly attributes to others the very things it itself is doing. It has become notorious for its refusal to accept objective scrutiny or criticism. It routinely rebuffs international investigators’ examination of allegations against it, even when mandated by the U.N. [United Nations] Security Council. Instead, it stages self-indulgent acts of self-investigation calculated to produce exculpatory propaganda. As a result, Israeli government spokesmen – who once were presumed to represent the intellectual integrity for which Jewish scholars have always been renowned – now have no credibility at all except among those committed to the Zionist cause. Meanwhile, regional and international respect for the rule of law, especially humanitarian law, has been greatly degraded. This is a special irony..
"Humanitarian law and the law of war are arguably the supreme moral artifacts of Atlantic civilization. Jewish lawyers made a disproportionate contribution to the crafting of both. The resulting legal principles were intended to deter the kinds of injuries and injustices that European Jews and other minorities had long suffered and to protect occupied populations from persecution by their occupiers. Both objectives are very relevant to contemporary Palestine. It is, however, hard to find any principle of due process, the several Geneva Conventions, or the Nuremberg trials that has not been systematically violated in the Holy Land. Examples of criminal conduct include mass murder, extra-judicial killing, torture, detention without charge, the denial of medical care, the annexation and colonization of occupied territory, the illegal expropriation of land, ethnic cleansing and the collective punishment of civilians, including the demolition of their homes, the systematic reduction of their infrastructure and the de-development and impoverishment of entire regions. These crimes have been linked to a concerted effort to rewrite international law to permit actions that it traditionally prohibited, in effect enshrining the principle that might makes right..
"As the former head of the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) Legal Department has argued:.
“If you do something for long enough the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries . . . . International law progresses through violations.”.
A colleague of his has extended this notion by pointing out that:.
“The more often Western states apply principles that originated in Israel to their own non-traditional conflicts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, then the greater the chance these principles have of becoming a valuable part of international law.”.
"These references to Iraq and Afghanistan underscore the extent to which the United States, once the principal champion of a rule-bound international order, has followed Israel in replacing legal principles with expediency as the central regulator of its interaction with foreign peoples. The expediently amoral doctrine of preemptive war is such an Israeli transplant in the American neo-conservative psyche. Neither it nor other deliberate assaults on the rule of law have been met with concerted resistance from Palestinians, Arabs, or anyone else, including the American Bar Association. The steady displacement of traditional American values – indeed, the core doctrines of western civilization – with ideas designed to free the state of inconvenient moral constraints has debased the honor and prestige of our country as well as Israel..
"American determination to protect Israel from the political and legal consequences of any and all of its actions has also taken its toll, not just on the willingness of others to credit and follow the United States, but also on the authority of international organizations and the integrity of international law. The United Nations Security Council was conceived as the ultimate arbiter and enforcer of an international order in which law could protect the weak and vulnerable from the depredations of the strong. The world has occasionally allowed its sympathy for Palestinians, as underdogs, to override its legal judgment, but the U.S. has routinely exercised its veto to prevent the application of well-established principles of international law to Israel. The Security Council has been transformed from the champion of the global rule of law into the enemy of legality as the standard of global governance. Repeated American vetoes on behalf of Israel have reduced the United Nations and other international fora to impotence on fundamental questions of justice and human dignity. Confidence in these institutions has largely disappeared. Thus, the Israel-Palestine dispute has shaped a world in which both the rule of law and the means by which it might be realized have been deliberately degraded. We are all the worse off for this. ..."
excellent post petrkrop
we might also mention that the un and the world court have already passed judgement on this mess in palestine ordering israel back to the 67 borders but i think your post has covered that already
israel stands in contravention of more un decrees than the rest of the world combined
both israel and amerika are despised by the world an for good reason
Petr quotes:
"Israel regularly attributes to others the very things it itself is doing."
I guess it doesn't occur to YOU that you and MED do this relentlessly in holding Israel singularly, when not PRIMARILY, responsible for U.S. foreign policy. Thinking persons cannot help but notice the confluence of interests, and therefore fair-minded persons do not single Israel out as the chief culprit. They recognize that there are other SUBSTANTIAL interests involved in all of this ceaseless, senseless, costly to lives and treasure madness of war-making.
Those who WANT Israel to be 100% responsible are setting up the fall-guy for the U.S. They do NOT want to own their own nation's sinister policies. It's a cowardly attempt at deflection, as if karmic blowback will be misdirected. It's easy to pick a long-established scape goat. I am 100% opposed to Israel's aggression; howvever, it is DEEPLY troubling to find those who equate that nation's trespasses entirely with those of our own land, and essentially hold only one entity responsible. The logical deduction is that they want a target to take the hit for their own sins.
Furthermore, Med & Petr who push this agenda CONSTANTLY, both happen to be rabid Ron Paul supporters. Their man is a right wing Chrstian which means he has compromised views about women, Muslims, Jews, Blacks and anyone else not in the club... preferably populated by white male Christians of ($) means.
You're known by the company you keep... or wish to be part of.
Count me on the side of Pet and Med (PetMed). This might be taxing, but try imaging the Middle East, Arab and the larger Muslim world had Israel not be established (by that I mean in Palestine....but an Israel in Wyoming, Montana, Texas and so on would be ok with me). That's it.
Well, Lingum, since you chimed in, I think I'll publish MY list of all those who can be reliably counted in "the bash Israel, first and foremost" department:
Anna K, Ardath Beth, Sirios, Jeevee, Locknload, Delia-Darrow, Dorothy, Kayaker, Joker-Jack, Uranus Hertz, Thalidimide (more tempered than the rest), Wadosy, Quincy, Angry Kraut, Zeofredo, Gus, and a number of others.
It's my FIRM belief that some of these people have access to multiple screen names; and that's not because I think only a few people buy this easy use of an all purpose scapegoat, but rather the fact that I've witnessed this use of multiple screen names in other areas. So it's logical to conclude it's also great for posting racist slander, ducking and covering, and doing it all over again under a name that holds a clean slate.
One can and should be against Israel's apartheid policies and Mars rules aggression without the need to pretend that the U.S. is the innocent victim here. That is the premise that is ridiculous!
sioux - you have become a raving lunatic
a cyber bully
and you have no idea about my stand on ron paul or anything else for that matter
every other post you write is out of context and mean spirited
what is your deal
you know it is acceptable for folks to have opinions that diverge from yours - whether you like it or not
its called free speech
you sound like alan dershowitz in drag
There's a thin line between HATE speech and FREE speech, especially since the nation has moved over-archingly to the right, and people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (along with their rabid racism) have come to DOMINATE the air waves.
You are a typical male coward. You get to spew all the venom, and if a strong WOMAN calls you on your most redundant prejudice, call her the bully. Where does the free speech that corrects the lies told often enough, MED, come into play? How come you post round the clock? How come you get to blame those Zionists for everything that goes on? How come you can't seem to take in the more universal truths as offered by persons like Alan Mac Donald and Bill from Saginaw and Minitrue that hardly put this thing called naked aggression ONLY at Israel's feet? Instead, you just repeat YOUR chosen meme. And I am tired of it. It's dangerous and it's propagandistic! And there is a vast difference between demanding a sense of proportion and being an Alan Dershowitz style apologist for Israel. Anyone who can't see that is an authoritarian tied to the rigid "with us, or against" us war-oriented ethos, incapable of anything other than a black-white world view.
You like it fine when YOU get to be top dog, right? When every utterance you make goes unchallenged? And when your tag team partner shows up to reinforce ever verbal fart you emit. But if someone calls you to bat, they are a bully, hysterical, and a raving lunatic? As you know, I have sometimes agreed with your posts.
This one you can shove up your tightly clasped ass.