Politics > Politics-USA > The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ubiquitous" |
| Date: |
31 May 2007 12:17:48 PM |
| Object: |
The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept
11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world
war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is
generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this
one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World
War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the
first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us
against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we
defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of
communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of
weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.
What follows from this way of looking at the last five years is that the
military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are
regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see
them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a
protracted global struggle. The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently
main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been
fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department's latest
annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is
Islamofascism's weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV.
Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially
most dangerous one of all.
The Iranians, of course, never cease denying that they intend to build a
nuclear arsenal, and yet in the same breath they openly tell us what they
intend to do with it. Their first priority, as repeatedly and unequivocally
announced by their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is to "wipe Israel off
the map"--a feat that could not be accomplished by conventional weapons
alone.
But Ahmadinejad's ambitions are not confined to the destruction of Israel.
He also wishes to dominate the greater Middle East, and thereby to control
the oilfields of the region and the flow of oil out of it through the
Persian Gulf. If he acquired a nuclear capability, he would not even have to
use it in order to put all this within his reach. Intimidation and blackmail
by themselves would do the trick.
Nor are Ahmadinejad's ambitions merely regional in scope. He has a larger
dream of extending the power and influence of Islam throughout Europe, and
this too he hopes to accomplish by playing on the fear that resistance to
Iran would lead to a nuclear war. And then, finally, comes the largest dream
of all: what Ahmadinejad does not shrink from describing as "a world without
America." Demented though he may be, I doubt that Ahmadinejad is so crazy as
to imagine that he could wipe America off the map even if he had nuclear
weapons. But what he probably does envisage is a diminution of the American
will to oppose him: that is, if not a world without America, he will settle,
at least in the short run, for a world without much American influence.
Not surprisingly, the old American foreign-policy establishment and many
others say that these dreams are nothing more than the fantasies of a
madman. They also dismiss those who think otherwise as neoconservative
alarmists trying to drag this country into another senseless war that is in
the interest not of the United States but only of Israel. But the irony is
that Ahmadinejad's dreams are more realistic than the dismissal of those
dreams as merely insane delusions. To understand why, an analogy with World
War III may help.
At certain points in that earlier war, some of us feared that the Soviets
might seize control of the oil fields of the Middle East, and that the West,
faced with a choice between surrendering to their dominance or trying to
stop them at the risk of a nuclear exchange, would choose surrender. In that
case, we thought, the result would be what in those days went by the name of
Finlandization.
In Europe, where there were large Communist parties, Finlandization would
take the form of bringing these parties to power so that they could
establish "red Vichy" regimes like the one already in place in
Finland--regimes whose subservience to the Soviet will in all things,
domestic and foreign alike, would make military occupation unnecessary and
would therefore preserve a minimal degree of national independence.
In the United States, where there was no Communist Party to speak of, we
speculated that Finlandization would take a subtler form. In the realm of
foreign affairs, politicians and pundits would arise to celebrate the
arrival of a new era of peace and friendship in which the Cold War policy of
containment would be scrapped, thus giving the Soviets complete freedom to
expand without encountering any significant obstacles. And in the realm of
domestic affairs, Finlandization would mean that the only candidates running
for office with a prayer of being elected would be those who promised to
work toward a sociopolitical system more in harmony with the Soviet model
than the unjust capitalist plutocracy under which we had been living.
Of course, by the grace of God, the dissidents behind the Iron Curtain and
Ronald Reagan, we won World War III and were therefore spared the
depredations that Finlandization would have brought. Alas, we are far from
knowing what the outcome of World War IV will be. But in the meantime,
looking at Europe today, we already see the unfolding of a process analogous
to Finlandization: it has been called, rightly, Islamization. Consider, for
example, what happened when, only a few weeks ago, the Iranians captured 15
British sailors and marines and held them hostage. Did the Royal Navy, which
once boasted that it ruled the waves, immediately retaliate against this
blatant act of aggression, or even threaten to do so unless the captives
were immediately released? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed,
using force was the last thing in the world the British contemplated doing,
as they made sure to announce. Instead they relied on the "soft power" so
beloved of "sophisticated" Europeans and their American fellow travelers.
But then, as if this show of impotence were not humiliating enough, the
British were unable even to mobilize any of that soft power. The European
Union, of which they are a member, turned down their request to threaten
Iran with a freeze of imports. As for the U.N., under whose very auspices
they were patrolling the international waters in which the sailors were
kidnapped, it once again showed its true colors by refusing even to condemn
the Iranians. The most the Security Council could bring itself to do was to
express "grave concern." Meanwhile, a member of the British cabinet was
going the Security Council one better. While registering no objection to
propaganda pictures of the one female hostage, who had been forced to shed
her uniform and dress for the cameras in Muslim clothing, Health Secretary
Patricia Hewitt pronounced it "deplorable" that she should have permitted
herself to be photographed with a cigarette in her mouth. "This," said
Hewitt, "sends completely the wrong message to our young people."
According to John Bolton, our former ambassador to the U.N., the Iranians
were testing the British to see if there would be any price to pay for
committing what would once have been considered an act of war. Having
received his answer, Ahmadinejad could now reap the additional benefit of,
as the British commentator Daniel Johnson puts it, "posing as a benefactor"
by releasing the hostages, even while ordering more attacks in Iraq and even
while continuing to arm terrorist organizations, whether Shiite (Hezbollah)
or Sunni (Hamas). For fanatical Shiites though Ahmadinejad and his ilk
assuredly are, they are obviously willing to set sectarian differences aside
when it comes to forging jihadist alliances against the infidels.
If, then, under present circumstances Ahmadinejad could bring about the
extraordinary degree of kowtowing that resulted from the kidnapping of the
British sailors, what might he not accomplish with a nuclear arsenal behind
him--nuclear bombs that could be fitted on missiles capable of reaching
Europe? As to such a capability, Robert G. Joseph, the U.S. Special Envoy
for Nuclear Non-Proliferation, tells us that Iran is "expanding what is
already the largest offensive missile force in the region. Moreover, it is
reported to be working closely with North Korea, the world's No. 1 missile
proliferator, to develop even more capable ballistic missiles." This, Joseph
goes on, is why "analysts agree that in the foreseeable future Iran will be
armed with medium- and long-range ballistic missiles," and it is also why
"we could wake up one morning to find that Iran is holding Berlin, Paris or
London hostage to whatever its demands are then."
As with Finlandization, Islamization extends to the domestic realm, too. In
one recent illustration of this process, as reported in the British press,
"schools in England are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid
offending Muslim pupils . . . whose beliefs include Holocaust denial." But
this is an equal-opportunity capitulation, since the schools are also
eliminating lessons about the Crusades because "such lessons often
contradict what is taught in local mosques."
But why single out England? If anything, much more, and worse, has been
going on in other European countries, including France, Germany, Italy,
Spain, Denmark and the Netherlands. All of these countries have large and
growing Muslim populations demanding that their religious values and
sensibilities be accommodated at the expense of the traditional values of
the West, and even in some instances of the law. Yet rather than insisting
that, like all immigrant groups before them, they assimilate to Western
norms, almost all European politicians have been cravenly giving in to the
Muslims' outrageous demands.
As in the realm of foreign affairs, if this much can be accomplished under
present circumstances, what might not be done if the process were being
backed by Iranian nuclear blackmail? Already some observers are warning that
by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into
a place to which they give the name Eurabia. Whatever chance there may still
be of heading off this eventuality would surely be lessened by the menacing
shadow of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, and only too ready to put them
into the hands of the terrorist groups to whom it is even now supplying
rockets and other explosive devices.
And the United States? As would have been the case with Finlandization, we
would experience a milder form of Islamization here at home. But not in the
area of foreign policy. Like the Europeans, confronted by Islamofascists
armed by Iran with nuclear weapons, we would become more and more hesitant
to risk resisting the emergence of a world shaped by their will and tailored
to their wishes. For even if Ahmadinejad did not yet have missiles with a
long enough range to hit the United States, he would certainly be able to
unleash a wave of nuclear terror against us. If he did, he would in all
likelihood act through proxies, for whom he would with characteristic
brazenness disclaim any responsibility even if the weapons used by the
terrorists were to bear telltale markings identifying them as of Iranian
origin. At the same time, the opponents of retaliation and other antiwar
forces would rush to point out that there was good reason to accept this
disclaimer and, markings or no markings (could they not have been forged?),
no really solid evidence to refute it.
In any event, in these same centers of opinion, such a scenario is regarded
as utter nonsense. In their view, none of the things it envisages would
follow even if Ahmadinejad should get the bomb, because the fear of
retaliation would deter him from attacking us just as it deterred the
Soviets in World War III. For our part, moreover, the knowledge that we were
safe from attack would preclude any danger of our falling into anything like
Islamization.
But listen to what Bernard Lewis, the greatest authority of our time on the
Islamic world, has to say in this context on the subject of deterrence:
MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold
war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both
sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a
religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is
not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran's leaders]
do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have
seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the
more strongly if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing
them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its
delights.
Nor are they inhibited by a love of country:
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name
for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in
smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
These were the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who ruled Iran from 1979 to
1989, and there is no reason to suppose that his disciple Ahmadinejad feels
any differently.
Still less would deterrence work where Israel was concerned. For as the
Ayatollah Rafsanjani (who is supposedly a "pragmatic conservative") has
declared:
If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms
Israel has in possession . . . application of an atomic bomb would not leave
anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the
Muslim world.
In other words, Israel would be destroyed in a nuclear exchange, but Iran
would survive.
In spite of all this, we keep hearing that all would be well if only we
agreed--in the currently fashionable lingo--to "engage" with Iran, and that
even if the worst came to the worst we could--to revert to the same
lingo--"live" with a nuclear Iran. It is when such things are being said
that, alongside the resemblance between now and World War III, a parallel
also becomes evident between now and the eve of World War II.
By 1938, Germany under Adolf Hitler had for some years been rearming in
defiance of its obligations under the Versailles treaty and other
international agreements. Yet even though Hitler in :"Mein Kampf" had
explicitly spelled out the goals he was now preparing to pursue, scarcely
anyone took him seriously. To the imminent victims of the war he was soon to
start, Hitler's book and his inflammatory speeches were nothing more than
braggadocio or, to use the more colorful word Hannah Arendt once applied to
Adolf Eichmann, rodomontade: the kind of red meat any politician might throw
to his constituents at home. Hitler might sound at times like a madman, but
in reality he was a shrewd operator with whom one could--in the notorious
term coined by the London Times--"do business." The business that was done
under this assumption was the Munich Agreement of 1938, which the British
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared had brought "peace in our time."
It was thanks to Munich that "appeasement" became one of the dirtiest words
in the whole of our political vocabulary. Yet appeasement had always been an
important and entirely respectable tool of diplomacy, signifying the
avoidance of war through the alleviation of the other side's grievances. If
Hitler had been what his eventual victims imagined he was--that is, a
conventional statesman pursuing limited aims and using the threat of war
only as a way of strengthening his bargaining position--it would indeed have
been possible to appease him and thereby to head off the outbreak of another
war.
But Hitler was not a conventional statesman and, although for tactical
reasons he would sometimes pretend otherwise, he did not have limited aims.
He was a revolutionary seeking to overturn the going international system
and to replace it with a new order dominated by Germany, which also meant
the political culture of Nazism. As such, he offered only two choices:
resistance or submission. Finding this reality unbearable, the world
persuaded itself that there was a way out, a third alternative, in
negotiations. But given Hitler's objectives, and his barely concealed lust
for war, negotiating with him could not conceivably have led to peace. It
could have had only one outcome, which was to buy him more time to start a
war under more favorable conditions. As most historians now agree, if he had
been taken at his own word about his true intentions, he could have been
stopped earlier and defeated at an infinitely lower cost.
Which brings us back to Ahmadinejad. Like Hitler, he is a revolutionary
whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace
it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by
the religio-political culture of Islamofascism. Like Hitler, too, he is
entirely open about his intentions, although--again like Hitler--he
sometimes pretends that he wants nothing more than his country's just due.
In the case of Hitler in 1938, this pretense took the form of claiming that
no further demands would be made if sovereignty over the Sudetenland were
transferred from Czechoslovakia to Germany. In the case of Ahmadinejad, the
pretense takes the form of claiming that Iran is building nuclear facilities
only for peaceful purposes and not for the production of bombs.
But here we come upon an interesting difference between then and now.
Whereas in the late 1930s almost everyone believed, or talked himself into
believing, that Hitler was telling the truth when he said he had no further
demands to make after Munich, no one believes that Ahmadinejad is telling
the truth when he says that Iran has no wish to develop a nuclear arsenal.
In addition, virtually everyone agrees that it would be best if he were
stopped, only not, God forbid, with military force--not now, and not ever.
But if military force is ruled out, what is supposed to do the job?
Well, to begin with, there is that good old standby, diplomacy. And so, for
3 1/2 years, even predating the accession of Ahmadinejad to the presidency,
the diplomatic gavotte has been danced with Iran, in negotiations whose
carrot-and-stick details no one can remember--not even, I suspect, the
parties involved. But since, to say it again, Ahmadinejad is a revolutionary
with unlimited aims and not a statesman with whom we can "do business," all
this negotiating has had the same result as Munich had with Hitler. That is,
it has bought the Iranians more time in which they have moved closer and
closer to developing nuclear weapons.
Then there are sanctions. As it happens, sanctions have very rarely worked
in the past. Worse yet, they have usually ended up hurting the hapless
people of the targeted country while leaving the leadership unscathed.
Nevertheless, much hope has been invested in them as a way of bringing
Ahmadinejad to heel. Yet thanks to the resistance of Russia and China, both
of which have reasons of their own to go easy on Iran, it has proved
enormously difficult for the Security Council to impose sanctions that could
even conceivably be effective. At first, the only measures to which Russia
and China would agree were much too limited even to bite. Then, as Iran
continued to defy Security Council resolutions and to block inspections by
the International Atomic Energy Agency that it was bound by treaty to
permit, not even the Russians and the Chinese were able to hold out against
stronger sanctions. Once more, however, these have had little or no effect
on the progress Iran is making toward the development of a nuclear arsenal.
On the contrary: they, too, have bought the Iranians additional time in
which to move ahead.
Since hope springs eternal, some now believe that the answer lies in more
punishing sanctions. This time, however, their purpose would be not to force
Iran into compliance, but to provoke an internal uprising against
Ahmadinejad and the regime as a whole. Those who advocate this course tell
us that the "mullocracy" is very unpopular, especially with young people,
who make up a majority of Iran's population. They tell us that these young
people would like nothing better than to get rid of the oppressive and
repressive and corrupt regime under which they now live and to replace it
with a democratic system. And they tell us, finally, that if Iran were so
transformed, we would have nothing to fear from it even if it were to
acquire nuclear weapons.
Once upon a time, under the influence of Bernard Lewis and others I respect,
I too subscribed to this school of thought. But after three years and more
of waiting for the insurrection they assured us back then was on the verge
of erupting, I have lost confidence in their prediction. Some of them blame
the Bush administration for not doing enough to encourage an uprising, which
is why they have now transferred their hopes to sanctions that would inflict
so much damage on the Iranian economy that the entire populace would rise up
against the rulers. Yet whether or not this might happen under such
circumstances, there is simply no chance of getting Russia and China, or the
Europeans for that matter, to agree to the kind of sanctions that are the
necessary precondition.
At the outset I stipulated that the weapons with which we are fighting World
War IV are not all military--that they also include economic, diplomatic,
and other nonmilitary instruments of power. In exerting pressure for reform
on countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, these nonmilitary instruments are
the right ones to use. But it should be clear by now to any observer not in
denial that Iran is not such a country. As we know from Iran's defiance of
the Security Council and the IAEA even while the United States has been
warning Ahmadinejad that "all options" remain on the table, ultimatums and
threats of force can no more stop him than negotiations and sanctions have
managed to do. Like them, all they accomplish is to buy him more time.
In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from
developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of
military force--any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler
was to be stopped in 1938.
Since a ground invasion of Iran must be ruled out for many different
reasons, the job would have to be done, if it is to be done at all, by a
campaign of air strikes. Furthermore, because Iran's nuclear facilities are
dispersed, and because some of them are underground, many sorties and
bunker-busting munitions would be required. And because such a campaign is
beyond the capabilities of Israel, and the will, let alone the courage, of
any of our other allies, it could be carried out only by the United States.
Even then, we would probably be unable to get at all the underground
facilities, which means that, if Iran were still intent on going nuclear, it
would not have to start over again from scratch. But a bombing campaign
would without question set back its nuclear program for years to come, and
might even lead to the overthrow of the mullahs.
The opponents of bombing--not just the usual suspects but many both here and
in Israel who have no illusions about the nature and intentions and
potential capabilities of the Iranian regime--disagree that it might end in
the overthrow of the mullocracy. On the contrary, they are certain that all
Iranians, even the democratic dissidents, would be impelled to rally around
the flag. And this is only one of the worst-case scenarios they envisage. To
wit: Iran would retaliate by increasing the trouble it is already making for
us in Iraq. It would attack Israel with missiles armed with nonnuclear
warheads but possibly containing biological or chemical weapons. There would
be a vast increase in the price of oil, with catastrophic consequences for
every economy in the world, very much including our own. The worldwide
outcry against the inevitable civilian casualties would make the
anti-Americanism of today look like a lovefest.
I readily admit that it would be foolish to discount any or all of these
scenarios. Each of them is, alas, only too plausible. Nevertheless, there is
a good response to them, and it is the one given by John McCain. The only
thing worse than bombing Iran, McCain has declared, is allowing Iran to get
the bomb.
And yet those of us who agree with McCain are left with the question of
whether there is still time. If we believe the Iranians, the answer is no.
In early April, at Iran's Nuclear Day festivities, Ahmadinejad announced
that the point of no return in the nuclearization process had been reached.
If this is true, it means that Iran is only a small step away from producing
nuclear weapons. But even supposing that Ahmadinejad is bluffing, in order
to convince the world that it is already too late to stop him, how long will
it take before he actually turns out to have a winning hand?
If we believe the CIA, perhaps as much as 10 years. But CIA estimates have
so often been wrong that they are hardly more credible than the boasts of
Ahmadinejad. Other estimates by other experts fall within the range of a few
months to six years. Which is to say that no one really knows. And because
no one really knows, the only prudent--indeed, the only responsible--course
is to assume that Ahmadinejad may not be bluffing, or may only be
exaggerating a bit, and to strike at him as soon as it is logistically
possible.
In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush made a promise:
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on
events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and
closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most
dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.
In that speech, the president was referring to Iraq, but he has made it
clear on a number of subsequent occasions that the same principle applies to
Iran. Indeed, he has gone so far as to say that if we permit Iran to build a
nuclear arsenal, people 50 years from now will look back and wonder how we
of this generation could have allowed such a thing to happen, and they will
rightly judge us as harshly as we today judge the British and the French for
what they did and what they failed to do at Munich in 1938. I find it hard
to understand why George W. Bush would have put himself so squarely in the
dock of history on this issue if he were resigned to leaving office with
Iran in possession of nuclear weapons, or with the ability to build them.
Accordingly, my guess is that he intends, within the next 21 months, to
order air strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities from the three U.S.
aircraft carriers already sitting nearby.
But if that is what he has in mind, why is he spending all this time doing
the diplomatic dance and wasting so much energy on getting the Russians and
the Chinese to sign on to sanctions? The reason, I suspect, is that--to
borrow a phrase from Robert Kagan--he has been "giving futility its chance."
Not that this is necessarily a cynical ploy. For it may well be that he has
entertained the remote possibility of a diplomatic solution under which Iran
would follow the example of Libya in voluntarily giving up its nuclear
program. Besides, once having played out the diplomatic string, and thereby
having demonstrated that to him force is truly a last resort, Mr. Bush would
be in a stronger political position to endorse John McCain's formula that
the only thing worse than bombing Iran would be allowing Iran to build a
nuclear bomb--and not just to endorse that assessment, but to act on it.
If this is what Mr. Bush intends to do, it goes, or should go, without
saying that his overriding purpose is to ensure the security of this country
in accordance with the vow he took upon becoming president, and in line with
his pledge not to stand by while one of the world's most dangerous regimes
threatens us with one of the world's most dangerous weapons.
But there is, it has been reported, another consideration that is driving
Mr. Bush. According to a recent news story in the New York Times, for
example, Bush has taken to heart what "officials from 21 governments in and
around the Middle East warned at a meeting of Arab leaders in
March"--namely, "that Iran's drive for atomic technology could result in the
beginning of 'a grave and destructive nuclear arms race in the region.' "
Which is to say that he fears that local resistance to Iran's bid for
hegemony in the greater Middle East through the acquisition of nuclear
weapons could have even more dangerous consequences than a passive
capitulation to that bid by the Arab countries. For resistance would spell
the doom of all efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and it would
vastly increase the chances of their use.
I have no doubt that this ominous prospect figures prominently in the
president's calculations. But it seems evident to me that the survival of
Israel, a country to which George W. Bush has been friendlier than any
president before him, is also of major concern to him--a concern fully
coincident with his worries over a Middle Eastern arms race.
Much of the world has greeted Ahmadinejad's promise to wipe Israel off the
map with something close to insouciance. In fact, it could almost be said of
the Europeans that they have been more upset by Ahmadinejad's denial that a
Holocaust took place 60 years ago than by his determination to set off one
of his own as soon as he acquires the means to do so. In some of European
countries, Holocaust denial is a crime, and the European Union only recently
endorsed that position. Yet for all their retrospective remorse over the
wholesale slaughter of Jews back then, the Europeans seem no readier to lift
a finger to prevent a second Holocaust than they were the first time around.
Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has
demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification
and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen
whether this president, battered more mercilessly and with less
justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by
the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in
particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran
from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward
Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.
********************************************************************************************
Mr. Podhoretz is editor-at-large of Commentary. His new book, "World War IV:
The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism," will be released by Doubleday on
Sept. 11. This essay, in somewhat different form, was delivered as an
address at a conference, "Is It 1938 Again?," held by the Center for Jewish
Studies at Queens College, City University of New York, in April.
********************************************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Neolibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
31 May 2007 02:31:05 PM |
|
|
In article <yuydnUomRq-gnsLbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has
demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification
and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen
whether this president, battered more mercilessly and with less
justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by
the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in
particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran
from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward
Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.
No attack on Iran. Period.
You have to fight them some other way.
--
NeoLibertarian
"The nine most terrifying words in the English
language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
---Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
01 Jun 2007 09:42:47 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 3:31 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English
language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
---Ronald Reagan
"And I want to lead that government"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
01 Jun 2007 09:49:58 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 3:31 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
No attack on Iran. Period.
You have to fight them some other way.
Like.. Stop the warlike chestbeating that feeds the nationalist
paranoia that in turn feeds fundamentalism, so that the Iranian people
can resume the grassroots pressure for a more **liberal** society
which was so widely observed before the recent liberation of Iraq? And
provide gentle but firm support for that movement whenever it's
needed? But how will history remember Bush as a great leader, by that
route? And how will that win American elections, if you can't show
dead people who look sort of Arabic?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neolibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
02 Jun 2007 06:56:51 AM |
|
|
In article <1180709398.750444.292310@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
On May 31, 3:31 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
No attack on Iran. Period.
You have to fight them some other way.
Like.. Stop the warlike chestbeating that feeds the nationalist
paranoia that in turn feeds fundamentalism,
That's not what the US is doing, and that's not what "feeds"
fundamentalism.
so that the Iranian people
can resume the grassroots pressure for a more **liberal** society
which was so widely observed before the recent liberation of Iraq?
It wasn't "widely observed," because that isn't really what was
happening inside Iran.
Khatami wasn't a great reformer--he only played one on tv. He was chosen
by The Supreme Leader because Iran's Manhattan Project was nearing
fruition.
He wanted to fool you into thinking Khatami was a great reformer because
he knew that your government knew in 1996 that Iran had completed the
secret enrichment cascades at Natanz.
Rafsanjani never knew how to make the right noises.
And
provide gentle but firm support for that movement whenever it's
needed?
The US has been doing that all along, but the specter of Kermit
Roosevelt still haunts those operations.
But how will history remember Bush as a great leader, by that
route?
Because he didn't listen to gullible idiots. That's tough to do when so
many of them are running around these days.
And how will that win American elections, if you can't show
dead people who look sort of Arabic?
Bush isn't running for office.
--
NeoLibertarian
"The nine most terrifying words in the English
language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
---Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
02 Jun 2007 02:31:30 AM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 9:49 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
On May 31, 3:31 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
No attack on Iran. Period.
You have to fight them some other way.
Like.. Stop the warlike chestbeating that feeds the nationalist
paranoia that in turn feeds fundamentalism, so that the Iranian people
can resume the grassroots pressure for a more **liberal** society
which was so widely observed before the recent liberation of Iraq? And
provide gentle but firm support for that movement whenever it's
needed? But how will history remember Bush as a great leader, by that
route? And how will that win American elections, if you can't show
dead people who look sort of Arabic?
There is another way. Seen the "Girls Gone Wild" series of
documentaries?
I guess we could start with Baghdad. Dont send soldiers, send hookers.
Most of them already know how to work with self medicated psychotropic
meds, and are well aware of the power of the ***** combined with them
to get dudes to talk.. brag about what they've been doing and who they
know. The girls would find out about all of the weapon stashes in town
within a month.
i mean, how many of those poor horney bastards are going to be suicide
bombers hoping to go for Mohammet's wholy whorehouse to ***** 12 year
old virgins if they are getting laid now in this life? Hello?
They all know America is full of loose women. Well, let the women
loose. be gonzo cheaper than the Pentagon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
05 Jun 2007 10:03:28 AM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 3:31 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
There is another way. Seen the "Girls Gone Wild" series of
documentaries?
I guess we could start with Baghdad. Dont send soldiers, send hookers.
Most of them already know how to work with self medicated psychotropic
meds, and are well aware of the power of the ***** combined with them
to get dudes to talk.. brag about what they've been doing and who they
know. The girls would find out about all of the weapon stashes in town
within a month.
Start easy, though. Send them pictures of women driving cars and wait
for the crazed excitement to die down.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
31 May 2007 12:32:36 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 10:17 am, "Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Norman Podhoretz (born January 16, 1930) is a Jewish-American
intellectual considered to be a prominent neo-conservative thinker and
writer.
Norman Podhoretz is son of a Galician Jewish immigrant[1] who was
raised in Brownsville, Brooklyn, a low-income neighborhood in racial
transition. Podhoretz's family was left-wing, with his elder sister
joining a socialist youth movement.
Podhoretz received bachelor's degrees from both Columbia University-
where he studied under Lionel Trilling-and the Jewish Theological
Seminary. He later received a BA with first-class honors and an MA
from Cambridge University.
Perhaps best known as editor of Commentary, Podhoretz served as the
magazine's editor-in-chief from 1960 (when he replaced Elliot E.
Cohen) until his retirement in 1995. Podhoretz remains Commentary's
editor-at-large. In 1963, he wrote the influential essay, "My Negro
Problem - And Ours."
From 1981 to 1987, Podhoretz served as an adviser to the U.S.
Information Agency. From 1995 to 2003, he was a senior fellow at the
Hudson Institute. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
In 2004, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest
honor the U.S. Government can bestow on a civilian.
Podhoretz is married to author Midge Decter and is the father of
syndicated columnist John Podhoretz.
He asserts that the war on Islamofascism and terror is World War IV
(World War III having been the Cold War against left-wing
totalitarianism).[2] A book on that subject is scheduled for 2007.
Podhoretz received the Guardian of Zion Award from Bar-Ilan University
on May 24th 2007."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
31 May 2007 01:48:47 PM |
|
|
Even tho Podhertz is correct on some points, the man is a fool.
Slverstein, The CIA, and others in the Bush administration setup 911
as a falseflag event. I dont blame them, the West needs to wake up to
the Islamic threat. But they are using the weapons of the last war,
the Cold War. This is a different struggle, and needs the insights of
science, like the human genome, hormone profile, and neurology to deal
with it.
Its not a moral issue; the New World Order needs better case
management, and Podhertz dont get it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neolibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
31 May 2007 10:02:01 PM |
|
|
In article <1180637327.063737.159400@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:
Even tho Podhertz is correct on some points, the man is a fool.
Slverstein, The CIA, and others in the Bush administration setup 911
as a falseflag event. I dont blame them, the West needs to wake up to
the Islamic threat. But they are using the weapons of the last war,
the Cold War. This is a different struggle, and needs the insights of
science, like the human genome, hormone profile, and neurology to deal
with it.
It's a revolutionary doctrine.
Just as Soviet doctrine was.
During the Cold War, the US fought it while carefully not testing
Democratic Ideals against Soviet Revolutionary Doctrine.
It was an unstated belief that Democracy would inevitably lose.
We're not fighting this war the way the Cold War was fought.
Its not a moral issue; the New World Order needs better case
management, and Podhertz dont get it.
It is a moral issue. THE moral issue.
All the players outside the US understand it exactly that way.
Here in the US, "the man is a fool."
--
NeoLibertarian
"The nine most terrifying words in the English
language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
---Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
01 Jun 2007 09:40:59 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 1:32 pm, wrote:
On May 31, 10:17 am, "Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Norman Podhoretz (born January 16, 1930) is a Jewish-American
intellectual considered to be a prominent neo-conservative thinker and
writer.
Norman Podhoretz is son of a Galician Jewish immigrant[1] who was
raised in Brownsville, Brooklyn, a low-income neighborhood in racial
transition. Podhoretz's family was left-wing, with his elder sister
joining a socialist youth movement.
Podhoretz received bachelor's degrees from both Columbia University-
where he studied under Lionel Trilling-and the Jewish Theological
Seminary. He later received a BA with first-class honors and an MA
from Cambridge University.
Perhaps best known as editor of Commentary, Podhoretz served as the
magazine's editor-in-chief from 1960 (when he replaced Elliot E.
Cohen) until his retirement in 1995. Podhoretz remains Commentary's
editor-at-large. In 1963, he wrote the influential essay, "My Negro
Problem - And Ours."
From 1981 to 1987, Podhoretz served as an adviser to the U.S.
Information Agency. From 1995 to 2003, he was a senior fellow at the
Hudson Institute. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
In 2004, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest
honor the U.S. Government can bestow on a civilian.
Podhoretz is married to author Midge Decter and is the father of
syndicated columnist John Podhoretz.
He asserts that the war on Islamofascism and terror is World War IV
(World War III having been the Cold War against left-wing
totalitarianism).[2] A book on that subject is scheduled for 2007.
Podhoretz received the Guardian of Zion Award from Bar-Ilan University
on May 24th 2007."
If you're trying to blame us for him, we don't want him either.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
31 May 2007 05:20:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:17:48 -0400, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
A Jew
"Jews always position themselves as mediators. These
nasties hold it cardinal they accredit and interpret *everything*.
Nothing has worth or meaning until it's pronounced upon by a generous
scoop of ***** in a hate hat. Nothing must be expressed save in jewish
terms. Invaders become undocumented workers. Queers become gays.
Freakins become African-Americans. Attack on Iraq becomes defense of
America. Nothing is legitimate save Big Kike stamp off on it.
BK doesn't like it when a Sheehan steps forward and foghorns facts to
fodder. Instantly, like mosquitoes at twilight, a flock of
bloodthirsty kikes appears, buzzing and sucking and whining. Have you
ever noticed that it is impossible to criticize jews and keep your
character? The jews have literally billions of enemies worldwide, yet
not a single one of them is an honest man of laudable motive. It is
impossible to carry off this charade without controlling the media
and a hell of a lot of other things too. The minute jew-criticism
appears, the ashkenazis and appeaser annies begin the smear. No one
ever opposed a loving kike except invidiously. Smear campaigns are
media control in action. There are other aspects of media control, but
day in day out, making horrible shrieks and gurgles to keep the goyish
herd away from the healthy green fields is the workaday business of
the controllers. Jews determine which issues may be debated, and in
what terms. Jews make up more than fifty percent of the experts on
both sides of these tiny debates. A few vetted goyim are allowed
through to keep up the charade of democratic discussion. The Internet
is the only medium that prevents the illusion of popular conformity
with jewthink being carried off. All that is necessary for jews to
maintain control is to create a congenial if bogus reality through
television and the main dailies, and relentlessly enforce this
orthodoxy through smear campaigns against any who breach it.
The death of a son is one of the few motives strong enough to drive
average goy fodder to breach etiquette and speak truth to kikes. She
must be shut down. How to do that? You can see the jews' uncertainty.
They attack her, at the same time, as both a lefty and a nazi.
Illogical, but in time they'll settle on an approach. Sometimes just
throwing ***** and see what sticks is the best way. How dare Sheehan
value her own son more than the interests of Israel?
I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he
was LYING.
And none of the thick rancid honkings Limbaugh and the freeper
patriotards can gainsay it. Remember that bushy came out of manly
Barbara, the wizened maw who asked why she should trouble her
"beautiful mind" about the body bags coming back from Iraq. You know -
the ones you never see, because they have to show you endless pictures
of $440,000-compensated jews being "ethnically cleansed," sniff, yet
again. Only an anti-Semite puts his own life before Israel. The jews
are the one people on earth who routinely are absolved of guilt for
that for which they and they alone are guilty. Isn't that odd?
DaX
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Redneck american muslim killer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
30 Jun 2007 11:14:18 PM |
|
|
I hope there's a cure for what you got. Sounds like paranoid
head-up-the-assitis to me. Like most jews this one is infinitely more
intelligent and educated than the one who replies with ethnic slurs.
I don't like muslims because the ones I meet smell bad and their religion
tells them that they must kill me.
I've managed to be quite successful in this American system. I've never had
one jew interfere in my life in any way. I've personally known many jewish
people, none of whom have "positioned themselves as mediators". One thing
is certain, ignorant dumbfucks ALWAYS use words like always, never, nothing
and everything because their narrowmindedness sees things in absolute terms.
You go ahead and spew your nonsense. Fortunately, you'll never convince
anyone with half a brain of anything. You do provide decent entertainment
though. LOL
Chuck
"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vdiu53hpe6k5f77ula48rlmt948id2ureh@4ax.com...
On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:17:48 -0400, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
A Jew
"Jews always position themselves as mediators. These
nasties hold it cardinal they accredit and interpret *everything*.
Nothing has worth or meaning until it's pronounced upon by a generous
scoop of ***** in a hate hat. Nothing must be expressed save in jewish
terms. Invaders become undocumented workers. Queers become gays.
Freakins become African-Americans. Attack on Iraq becomes defense of
America. Nothing is legitimate save Big Kike stamp off on it.
BK doesn't like it when a Sheehan steps forward and foghorns facts to
fodder. Instantly, like mosquitoes at twilight, a flock of
bloodthirsty kikes appears, buzzing and sucking and whining. Have you
ever noticed that it is impossible to criticize jews and keep your
character? The jews have literally billions of enemies worldwide, yet
not a single one of them is an honest man of laudable motive. It is
impossible to carry off this charade without controlling the media
and a hell of a lot of other things too. The minute jew-criticism
appears, the ashkenazis and appeaser annies begin the smear. No one
ever opposed a loving kike except invidiously. Smear campaigns are
media control in action. There are other aspects of media control, but
day in day out, making horrible shrieks and gurgles to keep the goyish
herd away from the healthy green fields is the workaday business of
the controllers. Jews determine which issues may be debated, and in
what terms. Jews make up more than fifty percent of the experts on
both sides of these tiny debates. A few vetted goyim are allowed
through to keep up the charade of democratic discussion. The Internet
is the only medium that prevents the illusion of popular conformity
with jewthink being carried off. All that is necessary for jews to
maintain control is to create a congenial if bogus reality through
television and the main dailies, and relentlessly enforce this
orthodoxy through smear campaigns against any who breach it.
The death of a son is one of the few motives strong enough to drive
average goy fodder to breach etiquette and speak truth to kikes. She
must be shut down. How to do that? You can see the jews' uncertainty.
They attack her, at the same time, as both a lefty and a nazi.
Illogical, but in time they'll settle on an approach. Sometimes just
throwing ***** and see what sticks is the best way. How dare Sheehan
value her own son more than the interests of Israel?
I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he
was LYING.
And none of the thick rancid honkings Limbaugh and the freeper
patriotards can gainsay it. Remember that bushy came out of manly
Barbara, the wizened maw who asked why she should trouble her
"beautiful mind" about the body bags coming back from Iraq. You know -
the ones you never see, because they have to show you endless pictures
of $440,000-compensated jews being "ethnically cleansed," sniff, yet
again. Only an anti-Semite puts his own life before Israel. The jews
are the one people on earth who routinely are absolved of guilt for
that for which they and they alone are guilty. Isn't that odd?
DaX
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terrorist Killer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
01 Jul 2007 10:14:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:14:18 -0500, "Redneck american muslim killer"
<ilduce@nra.com> wrote:
I hope there's a cure for what you got. Sounds like paranoid
head-up-the-assitis to me. Like most jews this one is infinitely more
intelligent and educated than the one who replies with ethnic slurs.
I don't like muslims because the ones I meet smell bad and their religion
tells them that they must kill me.
I've managed to be quite successful in this American system. I've never had
one jew interfere in my life in any way. I've personally known many jewish
people, none of whom have "positioned themselves as mediators". One thing
is certain, ignorant dumbfucks ALWAYS use words like always, never, nothing
and everything because their narrowmindedness sees things in absolute terms.
You go ahead and spew your nonsense. Fortunately, you'll never convince
anyone with half a brain of anything. You do provide decent entertainment
though. LOL
Chuck
Well said Chuck!
I've also made it well in our American system. I did it the old
fashioned way; I worked hard, I worked long hours, I saved my money
and invested it intelligently across the board and started several
businesses.
I'm not a member of any religion. I've also never had a single problem
with any Jewish people. The ones that I've gotten to know were polite,
well educated and well spoken. The exact opposite of the Muslims I've
met.
"Jew Haters" are nothing but "***** Haters" with the glove on the
other hand. Nothing they say makes any sense. They rant, they froth,
they swear the end of an entire country of people because they hate
them.
In my opinion, one Jewish person is worth a thousand Muslims.
Muslims have ***** for brains. They have almost the entire non-Muslim
world hating and fearing them. That will spell their own destruction
in the end unless they change their ways to be more tolerant of
non-Muslims and start educating their populace.
From all appearances, the average Muslim seems to have the education
of about a 10 year old in the USA.
They should think about fixing that problem and stop the fanaticism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Muhammad the slut" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bushwill do it. |
06 Jul 2007 06:12:36 AM |
|
|
Redneck american muslim killer wrote:
I don't like muslims because the ones I meet smell bad and their religion
tells them that they must kill me.
snip
A hindu a jew and a muzzie are all walking through the country and stop
at a farmer's house to see if they could sleep there for the night.
"Well," said the farmer, "All I got fer ya is the barn." The three
travellers all agreed that the barn was fine, and the farmer showed them
the way. A few minutes later there is a knock at the farmer's door. It
was the hindu. He said, "I am very sorry, but there is a cow in the barn
and it is strictly forbidden for me to sleep in the barn with a cow.
Besides, it smells like ***** out there." "Oh, fine, you can sleep in the
damn house!" said the farmer. A few minutes later there is another knock
at the door. This time it's the jew. He said, "Sir, I am jewish, and you
expect me to sleep in the same barn as a pig? A dirty, disgusting,
filthy swine? Besides, it smells like ***** out there." "Fine, fine, you
can sleep in the damn house, just stop bitching!" A few minutes later
there is another knock at the door. "I swear to god if it's that damn
muzzie I am going to whip his *****, because I'll be damned if I let him
sleep in my house!" The farmer opened the door and it was the pig and
the cow.
--
Muhammad the *****.
TO KEEP IN MIND BEFORE EVER BUYING FOOD FROM A MUZZIE!
Saying of Ayatollah Khomeini <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
A man can have sex with sheep, cows and camels and so on. However, he
should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the
meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the
next door village should be fine.
The Little Green Book, Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political,
Philosophical, Social and Religious, ISBN number 0-553-14032-9, page 47
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. |
01 Jun 2007 09:43:53 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 6:20 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
A Jew
Gesundheit
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gods Creator! HTML & TEXT" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bushwill do it. |
31 May 2007 03:18:51 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000906040802060903070609
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ubiquitous wrote:
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept
11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world
war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is
generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this
one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World
War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the
first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us
against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we
defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of
communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of
weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.
Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*
Choose a rich God or you will have to pay more later on. :-D
Sale ends.... SOON!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Psstt.... Hey! ---> USED GODS SALE! : ---> http://www.godchecker.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---> http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/trailer-12min.php
God's Creator!
( Sorry, I don't forgive *****! ) :-(
8-)
--
*You have nothing to fear except... Poverty!
*
--------------000906040802060903070609
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Ubiquitous wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:yuydnUomRq-gnsLbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@giganews.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept
11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world
war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is
generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this
one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World
War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the
first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us
against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we
defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of
communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of
weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Choose a rich God or you will have to pay more later on. <span
class="moz-smiley-s5"><span> :-D </span></span><br>
<br>
Sale ends.... SOON!<br>
<br>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>
Psstt.... Hey! ---> USED GODS SALE! : --->
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.godchecker.com/">http://www.godchecker.com/</a><br>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>
<br>
---> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/trailer-12min.php">http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/trailer-12min.php</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
God's Creator!<br>
( Sorry, I don't forgive *****! ) <span class="moz-smiley-s2"><span>
:-( </span></span><br>
<br>
<span class="moz-smiley-s11"><span> 8-) </span></span><br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="78">--
<big><big><b>You have nothing to fear except... Poverty!
</b></big></big></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------000906040802060903070609--
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
