• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Wow. Bush is finally using common sense in regards to Iran

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Washington is signaling Tehran

It is hard to believe that the following series of events, all of which took place within a short period, occurred by chance, without a guiding reason. Suddenly, despite the harsh threats voiced by the White House against Iran for trying to produce nuclear weapons, the world learned that Iran's former president, Mohammad Khatami, received a tourist visa to visit the United States. He was not invited to official meetings, but President George Bush himself approved the visa request.

Afterward, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, received a visa for the United Nations General Assembly, and also an invitation to appear in New York before the Council on Foreign Relations. Shortly before this, the prime minister of Iraq, Nuri al-Maliki, visited Iran and held talks with its leaders. It is hard to believe that this visit by the Iraqi leader could have been made without coordination with Washington.

As though by chance, in the same week when Khatami was in the U.S., Bush invited a well-known correspondent for the Washington Post, David Ignatius, to interview him in the White House. The interview dealt with one subject alone: Iran. And it indicated a substantive shift in Bush's approach. He did not threaten military action against Iran, he did not even mention sanctions. He made do with saying that deep concern exists in view of the desire by some of Iran's leaders to develop nuclear weapons and the possibility of their attempting to make good on their declarations about attacking Israel and threatening the U.S.

It is worth reading Bush's remarks closely in order to understand the singularity of this interview. America recognizes Iran's role "as an important nation in the Middle East," Ignatius noted on the basis of the interview, and went on to quote Bush: "I would say to the Iranian people: We respect your history. We respect your culture ... I recognize the importance of your sovereignty  that you're a proud nation ... I understand that you believe it is in your interest  your sovereign interest, and your sovereign right  to have nuclear power ... I would want to work for a solution to meeting your rightful desires to have civilian nuclear power. I would tell the Iranian people that we have no desire for conflict." Bush added that he would like to see programs for "cultural exchanges" and "university exchanges" between the U.S. and Iran.

It is not surprising that Ignatius concluded that the Bush administration is seeking a diplomatic solution to its clash with Iran over the nuclear issue. Concurrently, reports have been published about cracks that have appeared in the "iron triangle" of Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The latter is apparently skeptical that a military option exists against Iran, should it go on developing nuclear weapons.

The conclusion from all these developments is that the current tendency in the U.S. administration is to support an attempt at dialogue with Tehran. Can we conclude from this that Washington has dropped its demand that Iran forsake its nuclear weapons program and stop backing terrorist organizations? The answer is negative. Washington is saying, effectively, that it will help Iran to develop into a regional power with economic capability if Iran is willing to forgo nuclear weapons.

Tehran, for its part, is hesitating. Some there believe that the country needs nuclear weapons to deterWashington, which is liable to use aggression against it. Iran wants to be a regional power with nuclear weapons.

These developments will occupy several countries in the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for example, will be extremely perturbed if they discover that Iran, a Shi'ite country, is acquiring a leading status in the region
as a result of cooperation with Washington. This competition exists even without Iran's having nuclear weapons.

These latest developments should also occupy Israel intensively. If an American-Iranian dialogue ensues, Israel will not be invited to take part in such talks, as it was not invited to contribute to the agreement that Washington and London worked out with Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi.

Therefore, Israel should initiate coordination talks with Washington, based on the assumption that the Israeli issue will come up in possible secret talks between Washington and Tehran. Israel has red lines of its own on this sensitive strategic subject. Instead of being one of the participants in the dialogue, it is liable to find itself the subject of the dialogue, as Tehran will certainly have demands of its own. This is a salient example of strategic cooperation between Jerusalem and Washington. Israel's goal is not to push for a regional confrontation, but to calm the situation, provided that its security is not adversely affected.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

link


I don't know who Bush has been listening to, but it sure isn't any of the neocons within his vicinity. I guess he's FINALLY realized that tough talk won't get you anywhere, only diplomacy. Unfortunately, I thin the Iranians have realized this and will play him like a settar.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
0
0
"Iran wants to be a regional power with nuclear weapons."

And that pretty much sums it up. Yet many here will continue to deny Iran's intentions and insist they're on some "peaceful nuclear power" quest.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,512
3,264
126
I may be missing your point here because it sounds like you are against a military option against Iran and yet suggest that they will manipulate dialog to their advantage. Could you clarify what you are saying or where you want to go with it?
 

KHudson30

Junior Member
Sep 23, 2006
2
0
0
A military option will be the only option with this guy. He thinks he is the guy to bring the end of the world....The UN won't do anything about them.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
"Iran wants to be a regional power with nuclear weapons."

And that pretty much sums it up. Yet many here will continue to deny Iran's intentions and insist they're on some "peaceful nuclear power" quest.
I firmly believe that as well. Yet, this is not a looming crisis (fortunately) as Iran is at least several years away from having a bomb and probably more like 5-10 years off.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
The second you take the military option off the table Iran has no reason to comply with the world?s demand that they stop their Nuke program.

It?s like the old joke about English cops without guns ?Stop!! Or I?ll yell stop again!?
Doesn?t really work does it?

I am not saying we should bomb them into the ?stone age?, but there needs to be real consequences for their actions.

Chirac says sanctions should not be an option, how the hell does he intend to get Iran to play along then?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Even if they do want a bomb, can we honestly stop them? Do we really want to? Having the bomb will be like another cold war. Iran is only a threat to us if we want them to be. No need to go apesh!t over nuclear weapons. Last time we did that, we landed in the quicksand called Iraq. Let's not even get started on North Korea.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,512
3,264
126
Originally posted by: KHudson30
A military option will be the only option with this guy. He thinks he is the guy to bring the end of the world....The UN won't do anything about them.
People see what is unknowable about others what they know, but hide, about themselves. You are tremendously mistrustful of yourself is what I hear.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Pabster
"Iran wants to be a regional power with nuclear weapons."

And that pretty much sums it up. Yet many here will continue to deny Iran's intentions and insist they're on some "peaceful nuclear power" quest.
I firmly believe that as well. Yet, this is not a looming crisis (fortunately) as Iran is at least several years away from having a bomb and probably more like 5-10 years off.
You have stated the 5-10 years thing several times before. What is your source for that statement?

I hope you are right, I am just curious if the statement is based on truth or someone?s wishful thinking.

BTW: if it is 5-10 years away at what point does it become a "looming crisis"? When he is 2 years out?

Maybe we should have a B-2 drop leaflets over one of Ahmadinejad?s residences that say ?This is a test of the American stealth bombing system. If this had not been a test you would be dead.? ;)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,512
3,264
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The second you take the military option off the table Iran has no reason to comply with the world?s demand that they stop their Nuke program.

It?s like the old joke about English cops without guns ?Stop!! Or I?ll yell stop again!?
Doesn?t really work does it?

I am not saying we should bomb them into the ?stone age?, but there needs to be real consequences for their actions.

Chirac says sanctions should not be an option, how the hell does he intend to get Iran to play along then?
What good is a gun when the criminal is surrounded by thousands of innocent people? You are having a bad dream if you think there is a military option, no? You have a population in Iran that likes American and would like to have more freedoms and you are going to bomb them into the arms of the Mullahs? That would be rather stupid, no?

We will have to learn to trust the other because the other is ourselves. We will have to learn to work for the benefit of others because we are the other who benefits. There is only love. There is no other answer for anything.
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Even if they do want a bomb, can we honestly stop them? Do we really want to? Having the bomb will be like another cold war. Iran is only a threat to us if we want them to be. No need to go apesh!t over nuclear weapons. Last time we did that, we landed in the quicksand called Iraq. Let's not even get started on North Korea.
I don't think the USSR had leaders that, after a case of indigestion and a bad dream, would wake up the next morning and decide that god told them to nuke all the infidels.

Yes, they can be stopped, and yes, we do want to. When you have the Ayatollahs spewing hatered on a regular basis, and labeling all non-muslim as corrupt, sinful animals, I don't really think they'd have any qualms about providing nuclear material to various terror groups.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Even if they do want a bomb, can we honestly stop them? Do we really want to? Having the bomb will be like another cold war. Iran is only a threat to us if we want them to be. No need to go apesh!t over nuclear weapons. Last time we did that, we landed in the quicksand called Iraq. Let's not even get started on North Korea.
So you are saying that it is ok if Iran has a nuke weapon? Does the fact that Iran supports one of the largest terrorist groups in the world (Hezbollah) and calls for the elimination of Israel make you worry in the least bit that they could use their Nukes?

The cold war ?worked? because both sides were fearful of the other side using its Nukes. Iran may not have that problem because of their Islamic view that killing non-believers is a one way ticket to heaven.

We know for certain that al-Qaeda will use Nukes on us if they can. I am not willing to gamble that Iran will not.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The second you take the military option off the table Iran has no reason to comply with the world?s demand that they stop their Nuke program.

It?s like the old joke about English cops without guns ?Stop!! Or I?ll yell stop again!?
Doesn?t really work does it?

I am not saying we should bomb them into the ?stone age?, but there needs to be real consequences for their actions.

Chirac says sanctions should not be an option, how the hell does he intend to get Iran to play along then?
What good is a gun when the criminal is surrounded by thousands of innocent people? You are having a bad dream if you think there is a military option, no? You have a population in Iran that likes American and would like to have more freedoms and you are going to bomb them into the arms of the Mullahs? That would be rather stupid, no?

We will have to learn to trust the other because the other is ourselves. We will have to learn to work for the benefit of others because we are the other who benefits. There is only love. There is no other answer for anything.
What the hell does that mean? Maybe we should all join hands and start singing "Give Peace a Chance" I am sure that will work. :roll:

BTW: what part of "I am not saying we should bomb them into the ?stone age? do you not understand?
 

chcarnage

Golden Member
May 11, 2005
1,751
0
0
Afterward, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, received a visa for the United Nations General Assembly
I don't know the importance of the other signs but recieving a visa for talking to the UN General Assembly is nothing special at all, I think. On the contrary, exclusion by a host of UN institutions would be the real sensation.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Dari
Even if they do want a bomb, can we honestly stop them? Do we really want to? Having the bomb will be like another cold war. Iran is only a threat to us if we want them to be. No need to go apesh!t over nuclear weapons. Last time we did that, we landed in the quicksand called Iraq. Let's not even get started on North Korea.
So you are saying that it is ok if Iran has a nuke weapon? Does the fact that Iran supports one of the largest terrorist groups in the world (Hezbollah) and calls for the elimination of Israel make you worry in the least bit that they could use their Nukes?

The cold war ?worked? because both sides were fearful of the other side using its Nukes. Iran may not have that problem because of their Islamic view that killing non-believers is a one way ticket to heaven.

We know for certain that al-Qaeda will use Nukes on us if they can. I am not willing to gamble that Iran will not.
Why should I worry? I don't live in Israel.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Dari
Even if they do want a bomb, can we honestly stop them? Do we really want to? Having the bomb will be like another cold war. Iran is only a threat to us if we want them to be. No need to go apesh!t over nuclear weapons. Last time we did that, we landed in the quicksand called Iraq. Let's not even get started on North Korea.
So you are saying that it is ok if Iran has a nuke weapon? Does the fact that Iran supports one of the largest terrorist groups in the world (Hezbollah) and calls for the elimination of Israel make you worry in the least bit that they could use their Nukes?

The cold war ?worked? because both sides were fearful of the other side using its Nukes. Iran may not have that problem because of their Islamic view that killing non-believers is a one way ticket to heaven.

We know for certain that al-Qaeda will use Nukes on us if they can. I am not willing to gamble that Iran will not.
Why should I worry? I don't live in Israel.
Do you live in Iran??????? NO?! Good then what the hell, let's Nuke'em.

After all I don't know anyone who lives there. Real sound judgement there. :roll:
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Dari
Even if they do want a bomb, can we honestly stop them? Do we really want to? Having the bomb will be like another cold war. Iran is only a threat to us if we want them to be. No need to go apesh!t over nuclear weapons. Last time we did that, we landed in the quicksand called Iraq. Let's not even get started on North Korea.
So you are saying that it is ok if Iran has a nuke weapon? Does the fact that Iran supports one of the largest terrorist groups in the world (Hezbollah) and calls for the elimination of Israel make you worry in the least bit that they could use their Nukes?

The cold war ?worked? because both sides were fearful of the other side using its Nukes. Iran may not have that problem because of their Islamic view that killing non-believers is a one way ticket to heaven.

We know for certain that al-Qaeda will use Nukes on us if they can. I am not willing to gamble that Iran will not.
Why should I worry? I don't live in Israel.
Do you live in Iran??????? NO?! Good then what the hell, let's Nuke'em.

After all I don't know anyone who lives there. Real sound judgement there. :roll:
Why wastes some good nukes, I say leave them alone until they are problem to the US. Otherwise we just get another quagmire.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Dari
Even if they do want a bomb, can we honestly stop them? Do we really want to? Having the bomb will be like another cold war. Iran is only a threat to us if we want them to be. No need to go apesh!t over nuclear weapons. Last time we did that, we landed in the quicksand called Iraq. Let's not even get started on North Korea.
So you are saying that it is ok if Iran has a nuke weapon? Does the fact that Iran supports one of the largest terrorist groups in the world (Hezbollah) and calls for the elimination of Israel make you worry in the least bit that they could use their Nukes?

The cold war ?worked? because both sides were fearful of the other side using its Nukes. Iran may not have that problem because of their Islamic view that killing non-believers is a one way ticket to heaven.

We know for certain that al-Qaeda will use Nukes on us if they can. I am not willing to gamble that Iran will not.
You don't really believe that, do you? I realize the natural tendency to lump everyone in the Middle East together as terrorists, but it's really more complicated than that. While Iran may support terrorist groups, there is a BIG difference between supporting from afar and willing to risk national death in dying for some particular cause. Words are cheap, especially in that part of the world, I firmly believe that MAD will work with Iran just as well as with the Soviet Union, all the more so because it is NOT "mutual", at least not in our case. Iran could probably trade their entire country for all of Israel, and in the case of the US they couldn't even get that far. Attacking the great Satan is fine if you can get someone else to do it for you, but when it's their own nuts on the chopping block, I think Iran will stop and reflect.

Iran is clearly trying to become a regional superpower, and I think they have a good chance of doing so now that we've taken away their only competition by invading Iraq (once again, just great work form the Bush team). I do not believe their current stance on a lot of things is an attempt to "bring about the end of the world", just the opposite. They want EARTHLY power and influence, and people like that are the last ones who are going to be nuking anyone.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Dari
Even if they do want a bomb, can we honestly stop them? Do we really want to? Having the bomb will be like another cold war. Iran is only a threat to us if we want them to be. No need to go apesh!t over nuclear weapons. Last time we did that, we landed in the quicksand called Iraq. Let's not even get started on North Korea.
So you are saying that it is ok if Iran has a nuke weapon? Does the fact that Iran supports one of the largest terrorist groups in the world (Hezbollah) and calls for the elimination of Israel make you worry in the least bit that they could use their Nukes?

The cold war ?worked? because both sides were fearful of the other side using its Nukes. Iran may not have that problem because of their Islamic view that killing non-believers is a one way ticket to heaven.

We know for certain that al-Qaeda will use Nukes on us if they can. I am not willing to gamble that Iran will not.
And therein lies your problem. First of all, you're mixing Iran with Al Qaeda, which Bush did with Iraq and that turned out to be a lie.

Second, America, Israel, and many other nations on earth have supported one guerilla organization or another, why single out Iran's? It's just stupid.

Third, America made Iran what it is today. There's nothing like being afraid of your own creation, no?

Fourth, show some respect for other peoples and they may not want to kill you.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Dari
Even if they do want a bomb, can we honestly stop them? Do we really want to? Having the bomb will be like another cold war. Iran is only a threat to us if we want them to be. No need to go apesh!t over nuclear weapons. Last time we did that, we landed in the quicksand called Iraq. Let's not even get started on North Korea.
So you are saying that it is ok if Iran has a nuke weapon? Does the fact that Iran supports one of the largest terrorist groups in the world (Hezbollah) and calls for the elimination of Israel make you worry in the least bit that they could use their Nukes?

The cold war ?worked? because both sides were fearful of the other side using its Nukes. Iran may not have that problem because of their Islamic view that killing non-believers is a one way ticket to heaven.

We know for certain that al-Qaeda will use Nukes on us if they can. I am not willing to gamble that Iran will not.
And therein lies your problem. First of all, you're mixing Iran with Al Qaeda, which Bush did with Iraq and that turned out to be a lie.

Second, America, Israel, and many other nations on earth have supported one guerilla organization or another, why single out Iran's? It's just stupid.

Third, America made Iran what it is today. There's nothing like being afraid of your own creation, no?

Fourth, show some respect for other peoples and they may not want to kill you.
Great theory, try telling it to these people:
"Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim," Malin, a prominent cleric in the Somali capital, told worshippers at a mosque in southern Mogadishu.
Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to find the pontiff and punish him for insulting the Prophet Mohammed and Allah in a speech that he said was as offensive as author Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses.

"We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion," he said in Friday evening prayers.
Another Iraqi extremist group, Ansar al-Sunna, challenged "sleeping Muslims" to prove their manhood by doing something other than "issuing statements or holding demonstrations."

"If the stupid pig is prancing with his blasphemies in his house," the group said in a Web statement, referring to the pope, "then let him wait for the day coming soon when the armies of the religion of right knock on the walls of Rome."
"You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq.
In Iran, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used the comments to call for protests against the United States. He argued that while the pope may have been deceived into making his remarks, the words give the West an "excuse for suppressing Muslims" by depicting them as terrorists.

"Those who benefit from the pope's comments and drive their own arrogant policies should be targeted with attacks and protests," he said, referring to the United States.
Last one is my favorite... The pope has insulted us by depicting us as terrorist, me must go out and stage protests and attacks in response.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,505
3,008
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Pabster
"Iran wants to be a regional power with nuclear weapons."

And that pretty much sums it up. Yet many here will continue to deny Iran's intentions and insist they're on some "peaceful nuclear power" quest.
I firmly believe that as well. Yet, this is not a looming crisis (fortunately) as Iran is at least several years away from having a bomb and probably more like 5-10 years off.
Weren't the same words used to assure people on not being aggressive against North Korea? I have to assume we will end up with the same results.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Dari
Even if they do want a bomb, can we honestly stop them? Do we really want to? Having the bomb will be like another cold war. Iran is only a threat to us if we want them to be. No need to go apesh!t over nuclear weapons. Last time we did that, we landed in the quicksand called Iraq. Let's not even get started on North Korea.
So you are saying that it is ok if Iran has a nuke weapon? Does the fact that Iran supports one of the largest terrorist groups in the world (Hezbollah) and calls for the elimination of Israel make you worry in the least bit that they could use their Nukes?

The cold war ?worked? because both sides were fearful of the other side using its Nukes. Iran may not have that problem because of their Islamic view that killing non-believers is a one way ticket to heaven.

We know for certain that al-Qaeda will use Nukes on us if they can. I am not willing to gamble that Iran will not.
You don't really believe that, do you? I realize the natural tendency to lump everyone in the Middle East together as terrorists, but it's really more complicated than that. While Iran may support terrorist groups, there is a BIG difference between supporting from afar and willing to risk national death in dying for some particular cause. Words are cheap, especially in that part of the world, I firmly believe that MAD will work with Iran just as well as with the Soviet Union, all the more so because it is NOT "mutual", at least not in our case. Iran could probably trade their entire country for all of Israel, and in the case of the US they couldn't even get that far. Attacking the great Satan is fine if you can get someone else to do it for you, but when it's their own nuts on the chopping block, I think Iran will stop and reflect.

Iran is clearly trying to become a regional superpower, and I think they have a good chance of doing so now that we've taken away their only competition by invading Iraq (once again, just great work form the Bush team). I do not believe their current stance on a lot of things is an attempt to "bring about the end of the world", just the opposite. They want EARTHLY power and influence, and people like that are the last ones who are going to be nuking anyone.
You may be right that Iran will not attack anyone with Nukes itself. But you said yourself why do it if you can get someone else to do it for you. Can we risk Iran giving a Nuke to Hezbollah? "Here go blow up Tel Aviv."

The idea that we shouldn't worry about them dropping a Nuke on Israel because we don't live there is idiotic (and I know you didn't make that statement, others did) I don't want to see anyone get Nuked, including Iran. I'd be very happy if peace broke out all over the world, but some how I don't see that happening as long as some people believe that killing in the name of god is a good thing.

BTW: right now you are right about us taking Iraq off the table as a balance to Iran, but if we can get Iraq up and running again then they will return to their position of acting as a balance. Even more so if we are giving them military aid. Look at little ole? Israel and how powerful they are because of the support we gave them for so many years. Of course all this depends on us figuring out the Iraq situation and making it work.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: Dari
Fourth, show some respect for other peoples and they may not want to kill you.
Ok, let's see:
  1. We are sinful animals, and
  2. death to america

Yep... respect would really help in this case.

EDIT: now linking to the entire video.
Very nice dna, I especially like this part:
If we accept the principle that anybody whose forefathers ever lived on any land 2,000 or 3,000 years ago should rule today, then America should be ruled by the native Americans who are there today
Well since we know from history that the land of Israel was ruled by Jews 3000 years ago I think he just made a statement supporting their right to rule there today... thank you Ahmadinejad.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,505
3,008
126
CNN?s Cooper asked Ahmadinejad about Israel?s right to exist and all the con artist would mention was Palestine?s right to take back the land. He also mentioned that it?s up to Palestine to rule over and decide what happens to the Israelis. When he said such things the mental image I had was the state of Israel will be destroyed with the land given to Palestine and then he wouldn?t care what the Palestinians decide to do with their Israeli slaves.

Cooper appeared to take offense when Ahmadinejad put up the notion that our government was commanding Cooper?s questions.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY