Britain, France and Germany are busy trying to persuade Iran to abandon efforts to develop nuclear weapons, so far with little success. Cajolery and bribery having tried and failed, how about a bit of leadership by example? Two of the three parties in this effort have nuclear weapons of their own, even though they don’t face any conceivable threat of invasion[1]. Perhaps if they agreed to disarm themselves, the Iranians would be impressed enough to follow suit.
OK, I’m joking about Chirac and France. There’s no way that France is ready to admit that it is no longer a Great Power, and certainly Chirac is not the man to start the process. But, why shouldn’t Blair do something like this? It’s a perfect example of the non-ideological willingness to embrace radical alternatives to established dogma that New Labour is supposed to symbolise. And even if it didn’t produce any immediate payoff with Iran it would have to help the cause of non-proliferation in the medium term.
Of course, nuclear disarmament was the subject of bitter dispute within Labour in the 1980s, and disarmaming now would seem to hand a retrospective win to the left. But, if you buy the standard rightwing line on this subject, the nuclear deterrent did its work the day the Soviet Union collapsed, unable to sustain the arms race. Why hang on to it now? The answer, as far as I can see, is the same as for France. With the bomb, Britain is still one of the Big Five. Without it, Britain stands in much the same position as Italy or (a more populous version of) Australia.
As long as France and Britain sustain, by example, the view that having nuclear weapons is critical to being a Great Power, governments everywhere will seek them, whether or not they actually provide any security.
update The comments thread has now ended up in the usual Palestine-Israel slanging match. So I thought I’d sum up now.
As my title suggested, I wasn’t expecting a very positive response to this post. In over 100 comments here and at my blog, no one has come up with a reason for Britain and France keeping nuclear weapons more plausible than the suggestion that they might want to use them on each other. At the same time (with a handful of exceptions) everyone is agreed that it’s unthinkable that either Britain or France should implement their obligations under the NPT and actually take steps towards nuclear disarmament.
This is, I think, pretty representative of public opinion in all the countries that currently have nuclear weapons, or are planning to acquire them, including Iran. In this context, the nasty, repressive nature of the Iranian regime is beside the point: progressive opponents of the government generally back the nuclear program from what I can see. The examples of South Africa and Brazil, which abandoned well-advanced programs to develop nuclear weapons, now seem like inexplicable exceptions to a general rule.
In these circumstances, it seems almost inevitable that nuclear proliferation will continue and that nuclear weapons will sooner or later be used.
end update
fn1. Like everyone else, the British and French face the threat that some lunatic in Russia will start firing missiles, or that al Qaeda will get its hands on nuclear weapons. But the logic of deterrence (or even of effective retaliation) doesn’t apply in these cases, so having nuclear weapons of your own is no safeguard against them.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 95 comments }
bad Jim 08.15.05 at 5:46 am
Oy, have you got the wrong end of the argument!
Who, with an enemy army at their border, would not add that arrow to their quiver?
abb1 08.15.05 at 6:04 am
For a few weeks in 2003 it seemed like France would’ve been invaded if not for their nuclear deterrence. They were demonized all right, quite professionally. Remember this?
yabonn 08.15.05 at 6:17 am
The the exemplarity of a British or French disarmament in Iran’s case? Mmhm.
How about the exemplarity of the North Korean armament?
jm 08.15.05 at 6:44 am
Surely the logic of your footnote applies just as forcefully to the US? Why exactly do they need to retain their massive nuclear arsenal but not the British or French?
Phil Hunt 08.15.05 at 6:46 am
“they don’t face any conceivable threat of invasion”
You’re right, but we do face a credible threat of nuclear blackmail from rational states such as the USA, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, etc. I would point out that these countries (like Iran) are run by people who respect military force more than anything else in the world, and they would see a Europe without nukes as weak and contemptable, which would in turn make them more likely to act in ways we would not like.
So rather than Europe getting rid of nuclear weapons, we should acquire more.
nikolai 08.15.05 at 6:53 am
Britain’s deterrent is going to be obsolete before long, and is currently up for renewal. The policy question facing the government is whether to build another nuclear weapon system, to replace this one. The government doesn’t have to disarm as such, if they just do nothing now the current deterrent will simply reach the end of its natural life.
This isn’t going to happen though. Blair’s CND days are long behind him and a replacement system will be commissioned – the government “needs” nukes for the same reason France has them. I’m against renewing the system, just on the basis that they don’t provide any value worth the several billions pounds they’d cost. Have Germany or Japan or Italy really suffered through not having nukes? Though, with militarists on one side and peaceniks on this other, this argument just isn’t going to get a hearing.
I also don’t think the existence of British nukes has any real effect on proliferation. I just can’t see any of the nations who’ve just got them, or are going for them being succeptible to to being led by example (India, Pakistan, Iran, etc.). Has South Africa’s example influenced anyone?
qwerty 08.15.05 at 6:54 am
If John was serious about this, he wouldn’t have borrowed his title from elsewhere. Strange though to allude to a famous piece of satire proposing something highly practical but morally indefensible, when you are straightforwardly proposing something politically undoable but morally worthy.
tom 08.15.05 at 7:30 am
Europe is seen as ‘weak and contemptible’ because it is so fond of appeasement policies. Nukes or no nukes, there is no despot EU wouldn’t try to bribe into friendship. And there is subtle difference between Iran and Israel: the mad mullahs have repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map; Israel’s nuclear doctrine is strictly defensive.
almostinfamous 08.15.05 at 8:36 am
being from india, i’ve often wondered what would happen if we started the disarmament process. there are so many things we could be better using our brains and money for, that pursuit of nukes seems totally unnecessary. but then i am a peacenik, so what the hell do i know, right?
abb1 08.15.05 at 8:37 am
According to this piece the UK doesn’t control any nuclear weapons anyway.
David B 08.15.05 at 9:11 am
The Guardian article relates to ‘strategic’ nuclear weapons (Trident and cruise missiles), not to ‘battlefield’ weapons. I don’t think the UK officially discloses how many battlefield weapons it possesses, but there must be some. Remember the row at the time of the Falklands war over whether the British fleet was carrying nuclear depth charges?
Personally I would be happy to see the UK give up its strategic weapons, as Michael Portillo has advocated, but I think it should retain the capacity to produce weapons at short notice.
ry 08.15.05 at 9:35 am
Somebody only hit at this tangentially: Britain and Germany can disarm til the cows come home and not influence Iran at all because the US would still have a nuclear arsenal. Disarmament is ALWAYS a good idea when it comes to nukes for the most part, but wouldn’t affect Iran’s thinking much at all(they’d just claim that Isreali and US weapons forced them to have a nuc arsenal.)
Japan, Taiwan, and someone else I can’t think of at the moment went the South Africa route(hit up Jeff Lewis of Arms Control Wonk if you want confirmation). They can have a small nuclear weapon in a few weeks or days. They don’t have an assembled weapon, but they’ve got the materials and production capability. I think the phrase is ‘minimal deterence’.
Someone presented the ‘Finland Strategy’–don’t need nukes or a sizable military of their own. Try googling and you’ll get better arguments than I could form as to why this is a flawed strategy based on a few fallacies.
emel 08.15.05 at 9:43 am
Iran is not “nuking up” because of France Britain or Germany, but because of Pakistan, India China Russia and now there are US troops to it’s east and west- two failed states. Yes it is about projectile swinging and respect, but it is a tough neighberhood.
jet 08.15.05 at 9:51 am
Iran will want to go nuclear as long as A. Israel is nuclear and B. As long as Israel’s conventional military can best Iran’s. And Israel will give up its nuclear weapons maybe one or two generations after Middle-Eastern school books show Israel as a proper country worthy of existance. Talks of influencing Iran by example that don’t include Israel aren’t really reality based.
Seymour Paine 08.15.05 at 10:04 am
The best and only viable way to remove the threat of Iranian nukes is to destroy them, the sooner the better. Sadly, if the US were bogged down in the idiocy of Iraq, we’d have that option. I guess the Iranian mullahs can count Bush as their best friend.
Sebastian Holsclaw 08.15.05 at 10:28 am
From the title I presume this is satire, though I’m not totally sure. Internal clues:
1. “Perhaps if they agreed to disarm themselves, the Iranians would be impressed enough to follow suit.”
I’m pretty sure that few who know anything about Iran, its position in the Middle East, its military power vs. Israel’s, its history with Iraq, and its French-like aspirations to be a great power would believe this.
2. “And even if it didn’t produce any immediate payoff with Iran it would have to help the cause of non-proliferation in the medium term.”
This almost tricks me into thinking that this isn’t satire, because it at least acknowledges the reality that Iran wouldn’t be much impressed. But why would it have to help in the medium term. If we could erase the knowledge of nuclear weapons from the world that would be one thing, but otherwise why would one think that an attempt to gain nuclear weapons is merely a counter to nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are also a counter to conventional forces. Any despotic state which wants to act locally but is afraid of interference from larger states is going to want nuclear weapons. North Korea doesn’t want nukes because it is particularly afraid of being nuked–it is afraid of the conventional power of the US and China (and really of South Korea as well. So unless you are also proposing a unilateral disarmament of the conventional forces of the US and all regional powers, the desire for nukes will persist because they offer a large strategic advantage over your neighbors if you have them and they don’t–especially if you can’t maintain a good conventional military.
3. “But the logic of deterrence (or even of effective retaliation) doesn’t apply in these cases, so having nuclear weapons of your own is no safeguard against them.”
This is probably the biggest tip off. If Al Qaeda gets nukes (unless very small) it is very likely that they do so with the cooperation of a state. That state could be deterred or retaliated against.
So this is probably a satire, though a very clever one.
jet 08.15.05 at 10:32 am
Seymour Paine,
Until the Iranian plant starts fusion it is still an option to bomb it. The Iranian conventional military wouldn’t even require US forces to reposition to stop. And Iran is already funding, training, and supplying Iraqi insurgents. Thus Iran’s options for revenge are limited.
Destroying the Iranian plant is certainly not off the table.
Jim Harrison 08.15.05 at 10:51 am
In the long run, Britain and France need nukes for the same reason the Iranians need them. To deter the United States. Note that this motive is not premised on a judgment about any particular American administration, but on the observation that nations have to consider the capabilities rather than the intentions of their rivals. That and the prospect that declining great powers are always tempted to maintain their position by resorting to force while they still retain a military proponderance.
Slocum 08.15.05 at 11:33 am
Perhaps if they agreed to disarm themselves, the Iranians would be impressed enough to follow suit.
Why am I afraid he’s actually serious?
And even if it didn’t produce any immediate payoff with Iran it would have to help the cause of non-proliferation in the medium term.
The dementia of the ‘nuclear freeze movement’ returns.
Iran will develop nuclear weapons because the UK and France have them. It will develop them because nuclear weapons will enhance its power and status and because it perceives there really isn’t f**k all that anybody is going to do about it. To the extent that western powers destroyed their arsenals, that would increase, not decrease, the value of such weapons to Iran (and North Korea).
ry 08.15.05 at 1:27 pm
“”3. “But the logic of deterrence (or even of effective retaliation) doesn’t apply in these cases, so having nuclear weapons of your own is no safeguard against them.â€
This is probably the biggest tip off. If Al Qaeda gets nukes (unless very small) it is very likely that they do so with the cooperation of a state. That state could be deterred or retaliated against.””
Actually Sebastian, on this one he’s very right. MAD sucks. US policy regard nucs and having nucs didn’t prevent the US from having them targeted at the US.
I think it was Liddel-Hart, in Strategy, who said that the existance of nuclear arms made convetional war more likely, by proxy.
Quig’s correct on point three–even if he didn’t intend it.
Sebastian Holsclaw 08.15.05 at 2:11 pm
I’m not particularly worried about people targetting us with nuclear weapons, I’m much more annoyed with the thought of being hit with them.
fifi 08.15.05 at 2:22 pm
“Britain, France and Germany are busy trying to persuade Iran to abandon efforts to develop nuclear weapons, so far with little success.”
Has Iran admitted this? I haven’t been following the story (I’m trying to wean myself off politics which I now consider a habit of thinking that makes no progress or difference) but I thought Iran signed a non-proliferation treaty and was willing to be monitored by the IAEA?
abb1 08.15.05 at 3:26 pm
Has Iran admitted this?
No, but you can’t trust these Arabs… uh… I mean Muslims. They are devious creatures, they are not Judeochristians like decent folks.
Yes, the free world demands that they have no program (or program-related activity) that could yield to a nuclear weapon.
ry 08.15.05 at 4:08 pm
abb, you know google is your friend and there’s lots of info out there about painting ‘death to isreal’ and ‘burn the great satan’ on the side of Shahab3 MRBMs by the Iranians.
The worry about Iran getting a nuc weapon isn’t all bluster. It is a serious problem. Producing fuel for a reactor(HEU and plutonium) could very easily be used to generate material for a weapon. It is a serious conundrum–while Iran has a right to energy production exercising that right could also aid their ability to wage offensive war(the ‘we destroy Israel and threaten to nuke Rome’ scenario). That’s not a good thing.
Of course, if the Iranians just let the IAEA run the plants all would be well, but…..
Brett Bellmore 08.15.05 at 4:39 pm
I have never been much impressed by the argument that the (comparative) good guys should disarm to win the trust of the bad guys, so that THEY will in turn disarm. It has never really worked, on any level from a school playground to international relations, because it’s based on a fundamentally flawed premise: That everybody is nice.
And everybody isn’t nice.
John Quiggin 08.15.05 at 5:28 pm
Slocum and Brett, do you think it’s a good idea that all countries that consider themselves ‘nice’ should get nuclear weapons? If not, what are you claiming?
As regards the nature of the post and title, it’s semi-satirical, in that this proposal has less chance of adoption than Swift’s. But the arguments put up against it so far seem entirely unconvincing to me.
MQ 08.15.05 at 5:32 pm
Please remind us all why U.S. foreign and military policy is “nicer” than that of Iran.
Russkie 08.15.05 at 5:34 pm
… it’s semi-satirical, in that this proposal has less chance of adoption than Swift’s. But the arguments put up against it so far seem entirely unconvincing to me.
The suggestion that Iran could be inspired in this way into giving up its nuclear ambitions is so absurd that it’s not even worth the effort of a response.
jet 08.15.05 at 5:57 pm
mq,
If you have to ask that question, you either believe Iran can do no wrong or you haven’t bothered to learn much about Iranian history.
Perhaps studying what happened in the Iran-Iraq war would be a good place to start. You know, the one where Iran would round up 5,000 or so “volunteers” at a time. This “suicide brigade” would be hearded in front of the regular Iranian force so that the Iraqis would be tired, confused, and hopefully low on ammo from all the slaughter by the time the regular Iranian forces would engage them.
I’m not sure if forcing civilians to charge Iraqi machine gun nests was more evil than the Iraqis using chemical weapons on Iranian cities, but you can be sure it led to more innocent Iranian deaths.
So your comparison of the US army to the Iranian’s is as laughable as it is ignorant (we won’t even cover the topic of women’s rights and what it means to be gay in Iran).
rollo 08.15.05 at 6:16 pm
Absurdities abound, this side of the conflagration. Afterward they may not seem quite so unrealistic.
It’s possible to imagine a world that went right up to the brink of the verge of nuclear holocaust and then pulled back. It’s easier to imagine the dystopic aftermath of nuclear war though.
It is absurd to suggest “that Iran could be inspired in this way into giving up its nuclear ambitions”.
It’s just as absurd to suggest that the deployment of nuclear weapons can ever remain a limited and exclusively one-sided potential whose only function is deterrence.
There’s an element of the suicidal zealot in the posturing of nuclear weapons as threat and “equalizer”. Placing the fate of the world in the hands of suicidal men seems like an absurd misuse of resources.
Sooner or later one of these absurdities will become the only reality the world knows.
MQ 08.15.05 at 6:25 pm
Jet: I specifically said “foreign and military policy”, as Iran is obviously more internally repressive than the U.S., although Iranian internal politics is more complex and less repressive than right wing propagandists put forward.
Now that the neocons have control of U.S. foreign policy, our major concern in judging how dangerous other countries is supposed to be red-faced, sputtering, propaganda accounts of how EEE—VIIILL they are. Forgive me for my ignorance, but I prefer to judge nations by their propensity for aggressive action against other nations who have not harmed them. The hostage crisis in the late 70s was a gross Iranian violation of international law. After that, what do we have? Iraq invaded Iran, Iran defended itself. Israel illegally invaded Lebanon, Iran sponsored a paramilitary resistance there…granted a violation of law, but less than we have done within our own sphere of influence (Central America) under much less provocation than Israel was offering and facing much less of a genuine threat than Iran has.
In terms of unprovoked aggression and respect for international law, there is a decent case to be made that the U.S. record is worse than the Iranian one.
It is true that the U.S. is a nicer country overall than Iran. But we are much wealthier and live in a much nicer neighborhood. By the standards of its middle eastern neighborhood, Iran is not a bad state at all. It has made impressive progress toward democracy, really second only to Turkey in that area. (Israel has very nice democratic rights for the 50% of persons under its sovereignty who are Jewish, and none at all for the half who are Palestinian). Certainly Iran is very from being a crazy facist state like North Korea.
MQ 08.15.05 at 6:27 pm
Lots of typos in the previous — obviously meant to say “Iran is very FAR from being a crazy facist state like North Korea”. Actually, to finish, my overall point is that Iran seems like a pretty rational actor who can be dealt with.
Dan Simon 08.15.05 at 6:58 pm
Slocum and Brett, do you think it’s a good idea that all countries that consider themselves ‘nice’ should get nuclear weapons? If not, what are you claiming?
Would you ask the same question, the same way, if the word “nuclear” were omitted? If not, what are you claiming?
Brett Bellmore 08.15.05 at 7:25 pm
I don’t give a bucket of warm spit whether countries consider themselves to be nice, since I don’t think I’m under any obligation to judge people by THEIR standards of niceness instead of my own.
jet 08.15.05 at 8:09 pm
mk,
I think you put forth a good argument (one I still disagree with), but your terming the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as illegal confuses me. What about that situation was illegal? Did illegal things only begin when Israel crossed the border, or was Israel responding to something that occurred before that? As I recall there was something about a Syrian and PLO military build up on the Israeli border and then something about Israeli civilians being blown up by Lebanese freedom rockets. Sometime after that we see Israel respond. But I guess in your history the right thing would have been to let Isreali cvilians get blown up and hope the UN could stop the Peace Loving Comrades of the PLO-Lebanese-Syria alliance ;)
Just hard to get around that history that Israel never started a war.
derrida derider 08.15.05 at 11:24 pm
Iran will give up nukes about the same time Israel does – and for the same reason. They’ll give them up when it is no longer in their national interest to have them.
As I keep saying, from Iran’s POV they face an existential threat. If I was an Iranian (or indeed Israeli) national security adviser of *any* ideological bent I’d take one look at a map, take a quick note of the enemy’s rhetoric, and advise that getting nukes ASAP was not merely in the national interest but a matter of national survival. Given that, it’s far too late to either bribe or threaten them out of it now.
BTW, jet’s rationalisation of the Israeli aggression in Lebanon is a Stalinesque rewriting of history. jet, there was no Syrian threat to Israel prior to the invasion. Yeah the PLO lobbed the odd rocket, though actually at the time of the invasion the PLO was much busier trying to stay alive in the midst of the civil war than with anything else. It was their enemy’s *weakness*, not their strength, that tempted the Israelis into invading another country (sound familiar?).
abb1 08.16.05 at 1:57 am
Well, I think the bottom line here is that the same NPT agreement that is the basis for this current anti-Iran effort also stipulates that the nuclear states make a good-faith effort to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Dan Simon 08.16.05 at 2:07 am
As I keep saying, from Iran’s POV they face an existential threat.
To quote myself:
(The great thing about Crooked Timber is that one never has to go to the trouble of thinking up brand new refutations for brand new misapprehensions about the world.)
there was no Syrian threat to Israel prior to the invasion. Yeah the PLO lobbed the odd rocket, though actually at the time of the invasion the PLO was much busier trying to stay alive in the midst of the civil war than with anything else. It was their enemy’s weakness, not their strength, that tempted the Israelis into invading another country (sound familiar?).
So I guess if Iran’s Western enemies had been barraging its towns with rockets over a period of years, then you’d be ready to dismiss supposed Iranian concerns about an external “existential threat”, and finally concede that in fact Iranian aggressiveness isn’t purely defensive? Or is it only liberal democracies whose every response to violent attack is treated as expansionism, while totalitarian theocracies are given the benefit of the doubt, no matter how threateningly they behave?
tom 08.16.05 at 5:50 am
For the mullahs Iran is ‘not a bad country’. If you are one of those creeps preaching modesty while driving a Merc, Teheran is fun. If you are a gay teenager, it is less so: a couple of boys were hanged the other week just for having sex with each other. And that chap who is on hunger strike and close to death after years of imprisonment for criticising the mullahs is unlikely to sing praises to Iranian ‘democracy’. This ‘not a bad country’ introduced the first suicide bomber and has thousands of brainwashed idiots eager to blow up buses in Tel-Aviv.
Iran is a bestial regime which has a nasty design on the future of the whole region. If it can’t be muzzled, it will be destroyed, like Saddam’s Iraq
Long time lurker 08.16.05 at 7:17 am
It’s so pervalent that it no longer is funny. Any online discussion on violence anywhere in this world includes Israel. I won’t be surprised if a thread on Aceh will elicit a ‘You-No-You-No-You.’ from the Israeli and Palestenian camps. It’s awsome (or awful) to see how two people fighting over a handkerchief of a land captivates almost every literate person on earth.
Slocum 08.16.05 at 7:40 am
Forgive me for my ignorance, but I prefer to judge nations by their propensity for aggressive action against other nations who have not harmed them.
And not by their propensity to oppress their own people? Not even when said oppression is both a failure of a government’s most raison d’etre and because such oppressive tendencies are generally not limited to the domestic sphere. Iran has not invaded neighbors, but it has been a state sponsor of terror (in Iran and outside of it).
Iran is not a bad state at all. It has made impressive progress toward democracy
My god, the absurdity. The same people who belive Bush is leading the U.S. into fascism also believe that Iran ‘is making impressive progress toward democracy’?
Democracy in Iran is a complete sham. When given the opportunity, Iranians voted overwhelmingly for reform and the Mullahs completely thwarted the efforts of the reformist government (and the reformist press–one by one, they shuttered all the newspapers). This time around, they did not even want to bother with confronting and thwarting reformers–they simply disqualified them from running en masse. A hard-line, Mullah approved government was inevitable and that is what happened. To put your stamp of approval on it as ‘impressive progress toward democracy’ is just obscene. Does stoning women accused of adultery and hanging young men ‘guilty’ of being gay consitute ‘impressive progress toward democracy’? It is an evil, repressive regime and the fact that Bush called it that doesn’t it make it less so.
That said, it seems to me that Iran is going to become a nuclear power. The chances of the West as a whole imposing sanctions with teeth and sticking with them, I think, are remote and the Mullahs know this.
jet 08.16.05 at 8:02 am
derrida derider,
1981 Lebanon is kind of like this:
Belgium is being torn apart by ~12 factions, the strongest coalition of which says France has no right to exist, that the French should be driven into the sea, and sends terrorist regularly across the border to do things like hijack buses and kill everyone on board. Several of the militias are calling for England, Germany, and Italy to join them in their war against France. France is worried because of its long history of these countries attacking them that they might actually attack again. And the UN has been completely ineffectual in stopping any of this.
If you think France has every right to invade Belgium to quell the threat, maintain civil order, and stop the militias from massacring civilians then you’re right. If you believe this but think Israel was wrong in 1981, then you’re a racist.
abb1 08.16.05 at 8:58 am
Lol, Jet. Maybe these guys in the French government who ethnically cleansed most of the ethnic French from France and then later occupied Germany where most of those ethnically cleansed French fled, maybe they shouldn’t blame Belgium for their problems.
Russkie 08.16.05 at 9:34 am
Someone wrote:
By the standards of its middle eastern neighborhood, Iran is not a bad state at all. It has made impressive progress toward democracy, really second only to Turkey in that area. Israel has very nice democratic rights for the 50% of persons under its sovereignty who are Jewish, and none at all for the half who are Palestinian
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Consequently you should keep quiet.
Sebastian Holsclaw 08.16.05 at 10:15 am
“Yeah the PLO lobbed the odd rocket…”
Wow. Just wow. Like lobbing the odd rocket isn’t an act of war.
Sebastian Holsclaw 08.16.05 at 10:19 am
“Maybe these guys in the French government who ethnically cleansed most of the ethnic French from France and then later occupied Germany where most of those ethnically cleansed French fled, maybe they shouldn’t blame Belgium for their problems.”
Maybe someone needs to find out about population transfers after World War I.
abb1 08.16.05 at 10:25 am
According to Sheldon L. Richman there were no rockets.
Brendan 08.16.05 at 11:59 am
‘a couple of boys were hanged the other week just for having sex with each other’.
That story was not what it seemed.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050815&c=1&s=kim
OutRage (and Peter Tatchell) has a poor record of….well….truth when it comes to the Islamic world.
http://bionicoctopus.blogspot.com/2005/08/little-tameem-and-mystery-of-floating.html
Uncle Kvetch 08.16.05 at 12:23 pm
‘a couple of boys were hanged the other week just for having sex with each other’.
The sudden concern for the rights of gays in Muslim countries is touching. Strange that our steadfast ally, Egypt, regularly sentences people to hard labor for the same crime with nary a peep of protest from the prowar types.
Steve LaBonne 08.16.05 at 12:42 pm
I was unaware that one had to be prowar (or an admirer of Mubarak) in order to find the Iranian regime despicable. These days it’s just so hard to keep up with the ever-changing standards for political correctness. ;)
Uncle Kvetch 08.16.05 at 1:16 pm
I was unaware that one had to be prowar (or an admirer of Mubarak) in order to find the Iranian regime despicable.
One doesn’t, Steve. I’m merely pointing out that the outrage is highly selective around here.
ry 08.16.05 at 1:28 pm
Quiggen, let’s try this then: why doesn’t Iran lead the pack then? What’s the driver of them arming then? Arrogance? Stupidity? What?
They don’t face an external threat, at least that seems to be what you’re saying since you don’t find that argument convincing.
They don’t need them to be El Supremo of the region, again it seems so because you don’t find the arguments to that effect convincing.
So why build them in the first place and why obfuscate about the nuc program in the first place? Why?
secondly, what do you find lacking from the arguments presented so far?
Brendan 08.16.05 at 1:29 pm
Here’s the Wikipedia link to the ‘two boys hanged for having sex’ article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Asgari_and_Ayaz_Marhoni
Given that it’s from the Wikpipedia I make no claim (repeat, NO claim) for its accuracy. However it is still worth reading.
Antoni Jaume 08.16.05 at 1:35 pm
The “USA” want to attack Iran. They thought that Iraq would be easy to win and use as a base to attack Iran. That is at least a rational interpretation of the “Axis of Evil” verbiage.
DSW
jet 08.16.05 at 1:37 pm
Abb1,
Why would you pick 82 to start your discussion? What an odd year. Kind of like talking about the 6 day war and starting on day 3. And if you think Israel invaded because of a single assassination attempt, you must have read the abridged abridged, double abridged version of that history.
You really have to go back to 1970, when the PLO joined in the festivities that the Christians and Muslims were having in Lebanon to get to the point in 82 where Israel decided to end the PLO “cease-fire while we round up more terrorists”.
abb1 08.16.05 at 2:02 pm
Why would you pick 82 to start your discussion? What an odd year.
Actually, it’s an even year. It’s also the year Israel invaded Lebanon.
Richman doesn’t think Israel invaded because of the assassination attempt, he says the assassination attempt was a bullshit pretext. And it still is, read Israel ministry of foreighn affairs site:
I checked: Abu Nidal wasn’t based in Lebanon at the time, his organization was based in Syria.
So, you see, they don’t even bother to concoct a half-way plausible lie for the loyal folks like you. You get no respect, Jet.
jet 08.16.05 at 3:15 pm
In the ~1 year long ceasefire of 81′ Arafat’s PLO in Lebanon was very peaceful, only breaking the rules a couple of times (including a bus bombing). But the PLO and PLO affiliates from the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, and Jordan were humming along like the Lebanese ceasefire only applied to Lebanon (which it did). So while the PLO was fine with the Lebanese ceasefire, they continued their terrorism from just about every other place they occupied. So if Abu Nidal was pretext, who gives a shit. No other Western power would have put up with that kind of PLO UN lawyering to protect their leadership while continuing to use terror.
On a side note, let’s not forget your PLO heroes (and masters of using international law to allow them to continue using terrorism while dodging military reprisals) were accused of genocide in Southern Lebanon for killing 100,000 South Lebanese natives (part of Arafat’s plan to create himself a cozy little place there).
abb1 08.16.05 at 3:46 pm
Well, that’s just it: Arafat’s PLO in Lebanon moved in the late 70s from terrorism to political and PR campaign; Abu Nidal and others splinter groups went on. Your Likud heroes don’t mind terrorists at all, wingnuts need each other, they feed off each other, wingnuts on the opposite side is their raison d’etre; but they are scared shitless of a legitimate political liberation movement and they’ll do anything to destroy it. And so it goes.
jet 08.16.05 at 5:36 pm
I don’t understand how using the UN to protect them from retribution from their ongoing terrorist activities is a “legitimate” “political and PR campaign”. I don’t think you understood the part about the Lebanese cease-fire being followed by a year of PLO terror from outside Lebanon which was the real pretext for the Israeli invasion. During that invasion in the siege of Beirut, the PLO turned their artillery onto Lebanese civilian parts of town that supported the Israelis (killing around 7,000 innocents). So yeah, I guess I now better understand your definition of “a legitimate political liberation movement” ie terrorism and heavy artillery pieces for civilians.
The Likud are my heroes because the US has never known that kind of restraint. I can not imagine being so generous and giving my enemies so many chances to change their ways. See Afghanistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Vietnam, etc etc for how the US deals with the likes of the PLO. See Algeria for how France deals with the likes of the PLO. See Ireland for how England deals with the likes of the PLO. Israel uses the kindest gentlest methods compared to how a larger Western power would react.
Brett Bellmore 08.16.05 at 6:58 pm
The Likud are NOT my heros because there comes a point beyond which restraint is a vice, not a virtue. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 23 times, I’m an idiot.” as it were.
derrida derider 08.16.05 at 8:11 pm
“This is the oldest canard in the book: that aggressive totalitarian nations bent on external projection of power are only building up their military capabilities out of necessity, to shore up their own “security†against external threats.”
From Iran’s POV this description fits US behaviour to a tee (and, no, I do not think the US is totalitarian – I’m just trying to get you to see how Iran will see things. Spending more than the rest of the world combined on “defence” while pursuing distant wars of choice is naked aggression in my book, though). Iran, with some justification, sees itself as Poland rather than Germany (FWIW, Poland had a pretty unlovely regime too).
As for the Lebanese invasion, most Israelis consider it a first class blunder that worsened Israel’s security for 20 years (more parallels to the Iraq adventure). It cost Likud government. And whatever the morality of the invasion (lets agree to differ there, or this thread will go on for weeks) it certainly was illegal (Where’s the imminent threat of attack? Where’s the UN authorisation? Those are the only two legal grounds for war).
jet 08.16.05 at 8:55 pm
derrida derider,
It certainly was a PR blunder. But it bought Israel many many years of relative peace and it isn’t illegal to go after a terrorist organization that is blowing up your civilians regardless of any ceasefire. After the destruction of most of the PLO authority/military in 82, Arafat was reduced to only being capable of diplomacy. And this, after the pullout, is where I turn my venom on Israel. A world altering blunder to not resolve the issue when Arafat was at his weakest. Also it is incredibly sad (as it could have been averted) to look at satellite photos of Palestine vs Israel (desert vs irrigated farmland).
As for Iran, their government would be stupid to not want to gain nukes. Their international ambitions certainly don’t mesh with ours.
Steve LaBonne 08.16.05 at 9:44 pm
I hope people do understand that if the Iranian mullahs were replaced tomorrow by a legitimate, democratic regime that wanted good relations with the rest of the world- that government would still want to develop nukes. Because doing so appears to be widely popular, for much the same national-self-esteem reasons that obtain in India. Is that a wonderful thing? No. But it’s reality and has to be figured into realistic diplomatic calculations. Perhaps that new government would want to be more accomodating in some ways (and might even be somewhat moved by the “modest proposal”), but it would be constrained by domestic political pressures in favor of nukes. It would also see the way Bush has basically blessed India’s nuclear arsenal in return for better relations, and would expect the same treatment.
ry 08.16.05 at 10:19 pm
labonne, I’m not sure where you get the India ‘pride’ over nukes thing? Care to explain?
The US GAVE India quite a leg up in nuke weap tech way back(50’s and 60’s). They were even asked to produce their own ‘bomb’ at one point(60’s).
Then there’s the whole Pakistan issue.
I’m not sure that the national pride angle applies, but maybe you know something I don’t.
abb–surely you have something better than the school yard logic of ‘well they cheat so we cheat too’? Chastizing the States for not carrying through on the NPT is one thing(and correct), but saying that that justifies adding one more gun to the Mexican standoff is another, no?
derrida derider 08.16.05 at 11:12 pm
“Also it is incredibly sad (as it could have been averted) to look at satellite photos of Palestine vs Israel (desert vs irrigated farmland).”
Which the Palestinians will very quickly tell you is because the Israelis have now grabbed all the irrigation water – the Jordan is a trickle through most of the West Bank and no longer reaches the Dead Sea.
If you’ve been there you’ll understand that control of water is one of several subtexts that neither side wants to talk about much and which makes the dispute so intractable. No Palestinian state can be viable without it, and from the Israeli POV allowing others to control it is an existential threat. And it’s the issue that broke the Israeli-Syrian accord that came very close to fruition in 1999.
Dan Simon 08.17.05 at 12:43 am
Spending more than the rest of the world combined on “defence†while pursuing distant wars of choice is naked aggression in my book, though).
Does that include Serbia/Kosovo? Just curious.
Iran, with some justification, sees itself as Poland rather than Germany (FWIW, Poland had a pretty unlovely regime too).
Who is this “Iran” of which you speak? If you’re talking about the Iranian theocratic leadership, they certainly don’t see their country as either Poland or as Germany, both of those being infidel crusader states. They see Iran as the vanguard of a Shiite Islamic world revolution, advancing their righteous theocracy across the entire world through jihad. And if you’re talking about the Iranian people–well, who knows what they think, since they can be jailed and tortured for saying anything out loud that is displeasing to the government’s thugs.
Or did you have someone else entirely in mind when you referred to an “Iran” that thinks of itself as Poland being menaced by Nazi Amerikkka? Someone very, very close to you, perhaps? Are you familiar with the Freudian term, “projection”?
Dan Simon 08.17.05 at 12:49 am
I hope people do understand that if the Iranian mullahs were replaced tomorrow by a legitimate, democratic regime that wanted good relations with the rest of the world- that government would still want to develop nukes.
Possibly. But then, a legitimate, democratic Iran that wanted good relations with the rest of the world would be much less of a threat to the rest of the world–even with nuclear weapons–than the current Iranian regime is, even without nuclear weapons.
That’s why the US is working with Britain, France and other countries to try to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program, rather than, say, working with Britain, Iran and other countries to try to get France to give up its nuclear weapons program.
abb1 08.17.05 at 2:18 am
Well, Jet, you started with PLO rockets launched from Lebanon into Israel. I proved to you that there were no rockets. Correct?
Now it’s a “cease-fire being followed by a year of PLO terror from outside Lebanon”. Abu Nidal and his group weren’t a part of the PLO at the time, in fact he was PLO’s sworn enemy. Well, if, perhaps, to you any Arab is the PLO, then you should say so; otherwise, unless you can prove terrorist activity in 1982 coordinated by the PLO in Lebanon, you have no case, my friend. Put up or shut up, OK?
But I’ll tell you this: if there were such activity, Israeli propaganda would certainly stated it as a reason for the 1982 invasion instead of the Abu Nidal’s London hit, so don’t bother.
abb1 08.17.05 at 3:39 am
The Likud are NOT my heros because there comes a point beyond which restraint is a vice, not a virtue. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 23 times, I’m an idiot.†as it were.
Well, Brett, you as a freedom-loving person, you of all people should understand that there will be terrorism there for a long-long time. They displaced almost a million people in 1948, they’ve kept 3 million people under military occupation for 40 years – there will be plenty of terrorism there for decades and decades and there’s nothing anyone can do about it with or without restraint. Less terrorism with restraint, in fact.
There are still terrorists in Corsica for christsake.
abb1 08.17.05 at 3:56 am
abb—surely you have something better than the school yard logic of ‘well they cheat so we cheat too’? Chastizing the States for not carrying through on the NPT is one thing(and correct), but saying that that justifies adding one more gun to the Mexican standoff is another, no?
Right, it’s not a good logic, but the ‘have nukes’ countries showing less hypocrisy and more good faith might help end the standoff. What now looks like bullying could’ve been under different circumstances as a legitimate good faith effort and then, perhaps, even most of the Iranians had a different attitude.
derrida derider 08.17.05 at 5:06 am
dan simon, wtf are you talking about? You don’t even know what country I live in (hint: its not in the ME, and its not the US. A little googling might tell you). Before speculating on someone’s motives for speaking it is wise to consider the content of what they’re saying.
All I meant is that Iran is in self-preservation mode; its security fears are perfectly rational. The days of trying to export Islamic revolution at the point of a bayonet are long, long behind it, despite the US’ best efforts in Iraq. That doesn’t mean I like the mullahs; still less that I dislike America.
And don’t kid yourself. Nothing would rally the population behind the mullahs like an attack from the US. Imagine Hilary Clinton stole the next election – would that then lead you to favour liberation by the Iranian army?
Anyway, I’m not convinced that the mullahs are as widely detested as much as people say. Regimes, even authoritarian ones, just don’t survive as long as they have without the consistent support of a large segment of the population (a thought that should have given pause to the “the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers” brigade).
tom 08.17.05 at 5:41 am
“They displaced almost a million people in 1948”
Correct about the figure; wrong about the year; over 900,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab countries. Many ended up in Israeli refugee camps. Has anyone heard of Jewish terrorists blowing up buses and school children in Marocco and Yemen?
soru 08.17.05 at 7:00 am
Regimes, even authoritarian ones, just don’t survive as long as they have without the consistent support of a large segment of the population (a thought that should have given pause to the “the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers†brigade).
This is a joke or parody right? Surely noone could honestly believe this as a statement of factual truth?
soru
jet 08.17.05 at 9:07 am
Abb1,
Please search the web or go hit up wikipedia or something, but if you think 82 was a high point of action you are wrong. 77 through 81 involved a LOT of fighting between the PLO and Israel. And yes, this did involve many rocket attacks on Israeli cities (among bus bombings, shootings etc etc). You seem so focused on the ceasefire and the invasion of 82 that you forget there was an 80, an 79, etc all the way back to the beginnings of the Lebanese involvement in 70. You think you’ve won something with the rockets. But I never gave a time frame for the rocket attacks, which had occurred for many years before the 82 invasion. And if you believe that the PLO was bottled up in Lebanon without any presence outside, then you’re the only one who believes this.
It’s like you think that the 81 ceasefire was some king of magical eraser that wiped the slate clean, forcing Israel to forget all about 1980 and earlier? And that Israel should have forgiven the PLO leadership in Lebanon for the PLO attacks coming from outside of Lebanon.
Matt McGrattan 08.17.05 at 9:32 am
“It’s like you think that the 81 ceasefire was some king of magical eraser that wiped the slate clean, forcing Israel to forget all about 1980 and earlier? And that Israel should have forgiven the PLO leadership in Lebanon for the PLO attacks coming from outside of Lebanon.”
I hate to carp on about technicalities, jet, but that’s precisely what a ceasefire means.
If two sets of parties are engaged in a cessation of hostilities that ceasefire enjoins both parties precisely to ‘forget’ — in the sense of not actively pursuing grievances, however legitimate, via military action — about earlier hostilities.
That’s sort of the point.
jet 08.17.05 at 9:52 am
Matt McGrattan,
But the situation would be like Germany calling for a ceasefire on the German border because they are losing, then continueing to attack the Allies through Finland. The Allies would be fools to let some ceasefire cost them lives when they could end the war by invading Germany.
abb1 08.17.05 at 10:10 am
There was only one massive invasion into Lebanon – the war of 1982. I am arguing that it was not justified.
I am not saying anything about the much smaller invasion into Southern Lebanon in 1978; I don’t see any reason to mix the two together. You can have the 1978 invasion.
Sebastian Holsclaw 08.17.05 at 10:51 am
“If two sets of parties are engaged in a cessation of hostilities that ceasefire enjoins both parties precisely to ‘forget’—in the sense of not actively pursuing grievances, however legitimate, via military action—about earlier hostilities.”
Umm, no. When the PLO resumes fire, you don’t have to forget the previous actions. That is what I would call a ‘broken’ cease-fire.
abb1 08.17.05 at 11:46 am
Sorry Tom, almost missed your thoughtful comment:
Has anyone heard of Jewish terrorists blowing up buses and school children in Marocco and Yemen?
Yeah, right, Jewish terrorism is unheard of. I can’t figure out why that is, the only explanation seems to be that they belong to a different more advanced species. What do you think?
jet 08.17.05 at 12:11 pm
abb1,
The difference being that if the guy wouldn’t have been beaten to death, he’d have gone to jail. Unlike the PLO, Israel does not reward its citizens who randomly kill the other side. You appear to consider the two sides equally legitimate. I see Israel as a nation of laws and democracy and the PLO as barely a proto-democracy (and just since Arafat the great destroyer or peace died) still ruled by thugs and warlords who terrorize their own worse than the IDF ever could.
abb1 08.17.05 at 12:56 pm
Jet, sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I said that terrorism will be there for a long time because of all the injustices. Tom responded that Jews don’t do terrorism despite injustices. I asked him if this means they are superhuman. What does it have to do with the PLO? Absolutely nothing.
I see Israel as an ethnic racist expansionist state, the worst violator of the international law in the post-WWII history.
I view the PLO as the organization that made unbelievable, impossible advance and sacrifice by agreeing to give away 78% of its people’s land for the sake of peace in the region. In 2002 the Arab League also agreed to end the conflict completely if Israel would comply with the relevant UN resolutions: to end the occupation and to compensate the refugees.
So, what else does your nation of laws and democracy want? A bit more than 78% – is that it?
jet 08.17.05 at 1:31 pm
From the first war on, Israel was responding to low grade guerrilla warfare. The war in 56 was just an excuse to join France and England and retaliate in a big way against Egypt for their support of insurgency (yes, sending people to kill your civilians is an act of war). And the 6 day war came after Egypt illegally re-militarized the Sinai and continued supporting insurgents along with Syria. But the kicker to the 6 day war would have to be Syria’s using 152mm artillary shells on Israeli towns from the Golan heights. If you don’t consider raining down artillary on civilians an act of war, then we really can’t have a conversation. So along with that plus the Syrian fly overs, who the hell can blame Israel for not only kicking the shit out of Syria and Egypt, but keeping the militarily important land.
So if keeping land out of the hands of your enemies that they have just used to rain down artillary on your civilians is “expansionsist” then I’m glad they are.
You seem to have a soft spot in your heart for people who use artillary on civilians so I’d think you’d be more forgiving of the US’s accidents in Iraq. But I guess it would just be your racism. Non-arab states can do no right, and arab states can do no wrong.
abb1 08.17.05 at 1:53 pm
So, what about 78-22% division of Palestine? Sound fair or do you (the innocent civilian) want a little more, like, say, additional 7% of that 22% in little pieces here and there connected by roads and fences?
Dan Simon 08.17.05 at 2:25 pm
dan simon, wtf are you talking about? You don’t even know what country I live in (hint: its not in the ME, and its not the US. A little googling might tell you). Before speculating on someone’s motives for speaking it is wise to consider the content of what they’re saying.
My criticism has nothing to do with where you live, and everything to do with the content of what you’re saying. You made the ludicrous assertion that “Iran” justifiably sees itself as Poland to America’s Nazi Germany. Since there is no basis in fact for this absurd analogy–or indeed even a clear interpretation of the name “Iran” used in it–I speculated that what you really meant was that you saw Iran as Poland to America’s Nazi Germany. Your other references to America’s “naked aggression” lent support to my speculation.
All I meant is that Iran is in self-preservation mode; its security fears are perfectly rational.
All totalitarian regimes are perennially in self-preservation mode, and at least some of their security fears are bound to be perfectly rational. But that’s certainly not “all [you] meant”….
The days of trying to export Islamic revolution at the point of a bayonet are long, long behind it, despite the US’ best efforts in Iraq.
Does the name, “Hezbollah”, mean anything to you? Or “Badr Brigades”? Or “Palestinian Islamic Jihad”?
That doesn’t mean I like the mullahs; still less that I dislike America.
You mean the America whose “[s]pending more than the rest of the world combined on ‘defence’ while pursuing distant wars of choice” constitutes “naked aggression”? Gosh–I can only wonder what you go around saying about the countries you do frankly dislike….
Anyway, I’m not convinced that the mullahs are as widely detested as much as people say. Regimes, even authoritarian ones, just don’t survive as long as they have without the consistent support of a large segment of the population
I’m with soru on this one–I really hope, for your own sake, that you’re just saying this to shore up a collapsing argument, and don’t really believe it.
abb1 08.17.05 at 2:40 pm
This is true, though. Even the worst imaginable tyranny to exist and function has to have support of a significant portion of the population, minority, perhaps, but a sizable one. Otherwise everything will fall apart quickly. That’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? Saddam, for example, had what – about 30% support in Iraq?
soru 08.17.05 at 3:00 pm
I’d heard 7%, but it isn’t really an answerable question.
If you wanted to look at internally-stable regimes with popular support probably lower than that, try Pol Pot’s Cambodia, King Leopold’s Congo, or German South West Africa (present day Namibia).
Of course, in those cases, it makes a big difference to the figures whether you assume those killed by the regime would have voted against it.
soru
abb1 08.17.05 at 3:22 pm
Well, colonies are not included, of course; Leopold, I am sure had enough support at home.
Pol Pot – yes, but his regime fell appart really very quickly, didn’t it.
jet 08.17.05 at 3:38 pm
Abb1,
After 50+ years of insurgency, I can’t find fault with Israel for being slow to demilitarize its occupied lands. But I’d say that removing settlers is a huge first step. If the PLO can keep from going batshit, perhaps Israel will keep the peace train going.
Brett Bellmore 08.17.05 at 3:59 pm
“If the PLO can keep from going batshit, perhaps Israel will keep the peace train going.”
Well, that pretty much settles it, you’ll be hearing the emergency brakes screaming in short order. Going batshit is essentially the PLO’s reason for being.
soru 08.17.05 at 4:43 pm
Pol Pot – yes, but his regime fell appart really very quickly, didn’t it.
That sounds like an interesting version of history. Can you tell me where you learnt it?
soru
abb1 08.18.05 at 2:31 am
Soru, Pol Pot regime lasted about 4 years, that’s, like, less than 0 on the grand scale of things.
Wikipedia says: In December 1978, after several years of border conflict and a flood of refugees into Vietnam, Vietnamese troops invaded Cambodia, capturing Phnom Penh on January 7, 1979 and deposing the Khmer Rouge regime. Despite Cambodians’ traditional fear of Vietnamese domination, the Vietnamese invaders were assisted by widespread defections of Khmer Rouge activists, who formed the core of the post-Khmer Rouge government. See, he didn’t had enough support and that was the end of him.
tom 08.18.05 at 6:09 am
“Tom responded that Jews don’t do terrorism despite injustices. I asked him if this means they are superhuman.”
Thank you for asking: it ‘means’ they are human, just like countless other refugees (such as over 12 mil Germans kicked out of their homes after WW2)whose leaders didn’t project their victimhood by celebrating murders of innocent people and other crimes against humanity. Not that Palestinians collectively are ‘inhuman’; those who keep them in camps while themselves living in luxury are. Or those who send other people’s children on suicide missions. And that takes us to the second question:
“What does it have to do with the PLO? Absolutely nothing.”
Or maybe it has something to do with the PLO. A fraction of the billions stolen by Arafat and his cronies would have transformed Palestinians into a model of prosperity. Money spent on fermenting anti-Semitic hatred at schools and in the media could have been used for teaching reconciliation and nation building. Obvious staff, unless you are demented by Israel-hatred and pin global warming on the Jews
tom 08.18.05 at 6:16 am
“I see Israel as an ethnic racist expansionist state, the worst violator of the international law in the post-WWII history.”
That’s the kind of demented hatred of Israel that speaks for itself; no comments are necessary
Troutsky 08.18.05 at 11:02 am
I know, let’s keep fighting all the recent and ancient historical battles, keep sifting and re-sifting the sands of knowledge till we uncover the Truth, let’s bring all the arguments and grievances and injustice to the Great Court of Impartial Judgement and get things settled once and for all! Maybe then we can start building something which is not ruled by power and greed and hate.It will be hard for us bloggers to fill our days but…
jet 08.18.05 at 1:25 pm
Good catch Tom,
Jordan killed more Palestinians in one month than Israel has in 50 years. The PLO murdered more Minotes in one artillarly strike that Israel has killed of Palestinians in 15 years of Infatada. Never mind the Sudan, Pol Pot, Tibet, the PLO genocide in Lebanon, etc etc, it is Israel that is the worst violator.
I’ve never really conversed with an honest to god anti-semite before, but I guess abb1 now qualifies.
Comments on this entry are closed.