Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/21/2006 7:23:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 7:23:42 PM EDT by jkstexas2001]
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060122/D8F9EEN00.html

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.

His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.

Germany's defense minister said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that "all options" should remain open.

Asked by the Bild am Sonntag weekly whether the threat of a military solution should remain in place, Franz Josef Jung was quoted as responding: "Yes, we need all options."

French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Saturday that Chirac's threats reflect the true intentions of nuclear nations, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

"The French president uncovered the covert intentions of nuclear powers in using this lever (nuclear weapons) to determine political games," IRNA quoted Asefi as saying.

Israel long has identified Iran as its biggest threat and accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program is peaceful.

Iran broke U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant Jan. 10 and said it was resuming nuclear research after a 2 1/2-year freeze. Germany, France and Britain said two days later that talks aimed at halting Iran's nuclear progress were at a dead end and called for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, will meet Feb. 2 to discuss possible referral.

Israel's Mofaz said sanctions and international oversight of Iran's nuclear program stood as the "correct policy at this time."

In Germany, Jung called himself "confident that there will be a diplomatic solution in the case of Iran."

Israeli leaders have also repeatedly said they hope the crisis can be resolved through diplomacy, and they said any military action would have to be part of an international effort. They have denied having plans for a unilateral preventive strike.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Tehran might still agree to Moscow's offer to move its uranium enrichment program to Russia, a step backed by the United States and Europeans as a way to resolve the deadlock.

Israel's concerns about Iran have grown since the election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said last year that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

On Friday, Iran's Students News Agency reported Friday that Central Bank governor Ebrahim Sheibani said Iran had begun moving its foreign currency reserves from European banks and transferring them to an undisclosed location as protection against possible U.N. sanctions.

Sheibani backed away Saturday from his statement that the transfers were already underway, and Iran's Central Bank said there had been no change in its currency policy.

Estimates put Iranian funds in Europe at as much as $50 billion.

Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:26:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:28:01 PM EDT
Going to need a lot of windex.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:29:29 PM EDT
Here, "borrow" these bunker busters....
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:30:26 PM EDT
Cool! I always wanted to see a limited nuclear exchange!
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:30:42 PM EDT
We might as well pitch in and help since we will get blamed for it anyway.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:31:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:31:47 PM EDT
Good let'em...we are busy and the rest of the world are panseys..
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:32:57 PM EDT


Israel is the guy that says "I am going to hit you in the face" and then proceeds to hit you in the face.



Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:37:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DrMark:

Israel is the guy that says "I am going to hit you in the face" and then proceeds to hit you in the face.






That is why they are so endearing.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:48:12 PM EDT
Frankly, I am hoping Israel does it. There is going to have to come a time in the Middle East when the war the radical Islamicists are waging against the West comes back to haunt them. Better now than when my son is the one to go fight it.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:59:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DrMark:

Israel is the guy that says "I am going to hit you in the face" and then proceeds to hit you in the face.






Not only that, but everyone is shocked and surprised when they do. Explain that one to me...
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:00:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:07:03 PM EDT
Can you say WWIII.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:09:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By double_wielder:
Can you say WWIII.



We have been in ww3 since 9/11. Many just haven't noticed.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:13:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By double_wielder:
Can you say WWIII.



Actually, they say the Cold War was WWIII and this is WWIV. Either way, the other side is already fighting it and has been for 25 years.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:14:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Frankly, I am hoping Israel does it. There is going to have to come a time in the Middle East when the war the radical Islamicists are waging against the West comes back to haunt them. Better now than when my son is the one to go fight it.



[liberal]I dont want to do it! Let someone else have to deal with it[/liberal]
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:15:52 PM EDT
WW-IV, actually. WW-III was the cold war.

This ain't gonna be fun. Iran has a lot of terror connections and I expect they'll use them, and probably not just against Israel. Also missiles that can reach Israel. Plus a whack-job president. Still, it's better than a nation with terror connections, missiles, a whack-job president, and nukes.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:19:36 PM EDT
Do they have all the right weapon systems too take out all the sites , or are we going to have to help.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:24:02 PM EDT
I heard Pat Buchanan recently say that if Israel bombs Iran, it will bring on a middle east shitstorm. He was advising against it. He might have a point. I dont want Iran to ramp up there capabilities, but at the same time I have reservations about Israel taking it out.
I would rather one of our supposed allies do it. What about the Luftwaffe? How about the Germans step up and take out the next Hitler on the Jews radar?
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:26:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gravity_Tester:
Cool! I always wanted to see a limited nuclear exchange!



It won't be an exchange, but a one-way gift from Israel to those asshat Iranians
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:29:35 PM EDT
Obviously I would like to see Israel bomb the hell out of them, BUT it would be much better for Middle Eastern stability for us to go ahead and attack them. An attack by "the zionists on our moslim brothers" could be trouble.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:31:13 PM EDT
This is truly ridiculous.

Letting a stone age group of a-holes dictate to the world what they will or will not do???

Here is how regime change is accomplished folks:

One ICBM ... count it... ONE ICBM with multiple DUD warheads MIRVing out of the sky at the next General Assembly of the Iranian government.

Somebody here on ARFCOM posted what practice MIRV warheads did upon impact and it wasnt pretty folks.

No Special Forces.

No fighter bombers.

No NOTHING.

One minute their government is there, the next... umm... not so much

When will the world wake the frack up and do what has to be done?

Why risk our boys for nothing?

Israel could do this thing too.

Screw that attack the reactor biz.

Take out the Persian pain in the arse and all the jackasses that follow them.

And if the rest of the world gets uppity... tell them Mecca is gonna get turned into a radioactive glass holy land next.

All this pussyfooting just kills me.

We need some Teddy Roosevelt style foreign policy in the form of an Iranian stomping.

Dram out
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:32:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Painter:
I heard Pat Buchanan recently say that if Israel bombs Iran, it will bring on a middle east shitstorm. He was advising against it. He might have a point.



There's a first time for everything.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:32:41 PM EDT
The Israelis have about 30-40 aircraft that at least nominally have the range to reach most of the sites in Iran, plus penetrating guided bombs. That's not enough to take out all the sites in one mission, let alone the missile sites. And the range figures are for a benign mission profile, basically climbing to 30K and flying straight to the target, with no air combat manuevering. They'd need to refuel from tankers at least once and more likely twice, and getting the tankers there is a problem.

I think best case is a setback for the Iranian program of a year or two.

Yes, it would be a shitstorm. But the alternative ain't that hot either. If Iran goes nuclear all the other nations in the area will want bombs, too. I'm not too keen on nukes being ubiquitous with the unstable-nations-that-have Islamist-terrorist-connected-intelligence-services demographic.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:32:54 PM EDT
Go Isreal! Get some!
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:34:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gravity_Tester:
Cool! I always wanted to see a limited nuclear exchange!



So how is Isreal going to nuke Iran, with our boys so close buy? Problem?
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:39:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
The Israelis have about 30-40 aircraft that at least nominally have the range to reach most of the sites in Iran, plus penetrating guided bombs. That's not enough to take out all the sites in one mission, let alone the missile sites. And the range figures are for a benign mission profile, basically climbing to 30K and flying straight to the target, with no air combat manuevering. They'd need to refuel from tankers at least once and more likely twice, and getting the tankers there is a problem.

I think best case is a setback for the Iranian program of a year or two.

Yes, it would be a shitstorm. But the alternative ain't that hot either. If Iran goes nuclear all the other nations in the area will want bombs, too. I'm not too keen on nukes being ubiquitous with the unstable-nations-that-have Islamist-terrorist-connected-intelligence-services demographic.



If Israel can't destroy all the sites and the best they can do is delay them 1 or 2 years, then we have to step in and make sure it's done right the first time, with B52's with 5000 pound bombs
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:00:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
The Israelis have about 30-40 aircraft that at least nominally have the range to reach most of the sites in Iran, plus penetrating guided bombs. That's not enough to take out all the sites in one mission, let alone the missile sites. And the range figures are for a benign mission profile, basically climbing to 30K and flying straight to the target, with no air combat manuevering. They'd need to refuel from tankers at least once and more likely twice, and getting the tankers there is a problem.

I think best case is a setback for the Iranian program of a year or two.

Yes, it would be a shitstorm. But the alternative ain't that hot either. If Iran goes nuclear all the other nations in the area will want bombs, too. I'm not too keen on nukes being ubiquitous with the unstable-nations-that-have Islamist-terrorist-connected-intelligence-services demographic.



I think you raise a very good point. This is likely beyond the Israelis ability to accomplish. Don't forget that the iranians can deploy SA-11 missiles and fully modern soviet intercepter aircraft over their home territory to meet a prospective israeli strike.

Before even the US would attempt to take out enough sites to make a difference, it would be prudent, if not outright necessary to conduct a full campaign to rid Iran of air defenses, similar to the gulf war. At a round trip sortie length of 1300 to 3200 miles, this would be an incredibly difficult campaign for the israelis.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:07:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 9:07:31 PM EDT by Specop_007]

Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
The Israelis have about 30-40 aircraft that at least nominally have the range to reach most of the sites in Iran, plus penetrating guided bombs. That's not enough to take out all the sites in one mission, let alone the missile sites. And the range figures are for a benign mission profile, basically climbing to 30K and flying straight to the target, with no air combat manuevering. They'd need to refuel from tankers at least once and more likely twice, and getting the tankers there is a problem.

I think best case is a setback for the Iranian program of a year or two.

Yes, it would be a shitstorm. But the alternative ain't that hot either. If Iran goes nuclear all the other nations in the area will want bombs, too. I'm not too keen on nukes being ubiquitous with the unstable-nations-that-have Islamist-terrorist-connected-intelligence-services demographic.



I think you raise a very good point. This is likely beyond the Israelis ability to accomplish. Don't forget that the iranians can deploy SA-11 missiles and fully modern soviet intercepter aircraft over their home territory to meet a prospective israeli strike.

Before even the US would attempt to take out enough sites to make a difference, it would be prudent, if not outright necessary to conduct a full campaign to rid Iran of air defenses, similar to the gulf war. At a round trip sortie length of 1300 to 3200 miles, this would be an incredibly difficult campaign for the israelis.



It wouldnt be the first time the Israelies did the impossible. Rememebr when they rescued a plane full of Israelies that were being held something like 2000 miles away or something? The world was saying it couldnt be done (a rescue), yadda yadda yadda negotiate with terrorists etc.
They flew there, kicked ass, got the hosties, came back.

They were 1 minute off on their schedule. That aint too damned shabby.........
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:17:40 PM EDT
I don't think it will be a shitstorm if Israel spanks Iran.

Remeber, Israel will bend over backwards to avoid civilian casualties.

After the attack, the various other Arab will say "Bad Bad Israel", while quietly giving them the thumbs up sign.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:17:41 PM EDT
There was just a huge write-up in Jane's Defence about all the new Russian AA missiles the Iranians have bought. These are some serious AA threats. They would definitely have to be taken out first-no doubt about it.

Ground war to pave the way for debilitating air strikes vs. limited nuclear strike. Who knows???
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:22:23 PM EDT
Come on....other than a few stategic air strikes, Israel can't do jack-shit about Iran. They are not going to use nukes.

Iran has 1.636 million sq km of land area....roughly a little larger than Alaska with 68,017,860 people.....68% of who are of fighting age (18-64). It ain't gonna be like going into Grenada.

Piss em off and they shut down the Straits of Hormuz. Gas goes to $100+ per barrel. Can you say $5 per gallon gasoline?

So.....guess who it's gonna fall on to actually go in and take the place? Can you say DRAFT? Sure you can. Can you say 10's of thousands of casualties? Sure you can.

Y'all may want to be careful what you wish for.....you may get more than you bargained for.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:24:36 PM EDT
Have you considered the possibility that Israel has nuclear missiles, and can launch the attack entirely from Israel? - they may even have a sub or two that can shoot nuclear missiles. The argument that Iran's Anti-Aircraft capabilities and land area size would make an Israeli attack impossible have a significant flaw if Israel choses to use missiles.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:53:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
The Israelis have about 30-40 aircraft that at least nominally have the range to reach most of the sites in Iran, plus penetrating guided bombs. That's not enough to take out all the sites in one mission, let alone the missile sites. And the range figures are for a benign mission profile, basically climbing to 30K and flying straight to the target, with no air combat manuevering. They'd need to refuel from tankers at least once and more likely twice, and getting the tankers there is a problem.

I think best case is a setback for the Iranian program of a year or two.

Yes, it would be a shitstorm. But the alternative ain't that hot either. If Iran goes nuclear all the other nations in the area will want bombs, too. I'm not too keen on nukes being ubiquitous with the unstable-nations-that-have Islamist-terrorist-connected-intelligence-services demographic.



I think you raise a very good point. This is likely beyond the Israelis ability to accomplish. Don't forget that the iranians can deploy SA-11 missiles and fully modern soviet intercepter aircraft over their home territory to meet a prospective israeli strike.

Before even the US would attempt to take out enough sites to make a difference, it would be prudent, if not outright necessary to conduct a full campaign to rid Iran of air defenses, similar to the gulf war. At a round trip sortie length of 1300 to 3200 miles, this would be an incredibly difficult campaign for the israelis.



not to mention TOR-M1 systems too ....
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 12:14:23 AM EDT
so the Holocaust never happened....i guess that the Iranians will not believe thier version will not either
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:00:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zaphar:
]

not to mention TOR-M1 systems too ....



I had also just heard about that from an article in US News. At least the altitude range isn't the best on this missile, but it would be bad news for cruise missiles, apparently.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:02:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2006 7:04:32 PM EDT by Fast_Jimmy]

Originally Posted By pcsutton:


So.....guess who it's gonna fall on to actually go in and take the place? Can you say DRAFT? Sure you can. Can you say 10's of thousands of casualties? Sure you can.

Y'all may want to be careful what you wish for.....you may get more than you bargained for.



If the worst case scenario you described came to pass, I think we'd all agree it would be better than having several nukes lobbed into israel, or sold on the black market. These guys are basically daring the world to stop them while there is still a window of opportunity.
For a world with vivid and stark memories of the price of inaction in WWII, the answer seems increasingly clear.

If the rationale for going to war with iraq was a reasonable standard, which is debatable, it's pretty clear that iran has stepped boldly into territory vastly more dangerous, and right in front of the world.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:10:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheTracker:
Do they have all the right weapon systems too take out all the sites , or are we going to have to help.

They have everything we have. The conflict will last about 2 hours............
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:32:46 PM EDT
They have low observable aircraft like F117 and B2?
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:45:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
The Israelis have about 30-40 aircraft that at least nominally have the range to reach most of the sites in Iran, plus penetrating guided bombs. That's not enough to take out all the sites in one mission, let alone the missile sites. And the range figures are for a benign mission profile, basically climbing to 30K and flying straight to the target, with no air combat manuevering. They'd need to refuel from tankers at least once and more likely twice, and getting the tankers there is a problem.

I think best case is a setback for the Iranian program of a year or two.

Yes, it would be a shitstorm. But the alternative ain't that hot either. If Iran goes nuclear all the other nations in the area will want bombs, too. I'm not too keen on nukes being ubiquitous with the unstable-nations-that-have Islamist-terrorist-connected-intelligence-services demographic.



I think you raise a very good point. This is likely beyond the Israelis ability to accomplish. Don't forget that the iranians can deploy SA-11 missiles and fully modern soviet intercepter aircraft over their home territory to meet a prospective israeli strike.

Before even the US would attempt to take out enough sites to make a difference, it would be prudent, if not outright necessary to conduct a full campaign to rid Iran of air defenses, similar to the gulf war. At a round trip sortie length of 1300 to 3200 miles, this would be an incredibly difficult campaign for the israelis.



It wouldnt be the first time the Israelies did the impossible. Rememebr when they rescued a plane full of Israelies that were being held something like 2000 miles away or something? The world was saying it couldnt be done (a rescue), yadda yadda yadda negotiate with terrorists etc.
They flew there, kicked ass, got the hosties, came back.

They were 1 minute off on their schedule. That aint too damned shabby.........



Honestly, I don't think the Isreali's can pull it off without using nukes.

So, I think they'll use nukes if someone else doesn't do it first.

Remember, there isn't a choice for Isreal. The stated policy of Iran is to 'wipe them off the face of the earth'. There is ZERO doubt that Iran will Nuke Isreal at the first opportunity. Isreal cannot survive a Nuclear exchange, hence, they cannot allow one to occur, hence, they will use nuclear weapons against Iran to prevent Iran using them against Isreal.

Honestly, they won't, because a blind man can see it's their only choice, which is why someone, probably us, will take out Iran's nuclear capability first.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 10:50:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Duffy:
They have low observable aircraft like F117 and B2?



no way
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 11:00:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 2:19:02 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 5:45:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 5:53:33 AM EDT by Duffy]

Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:

Originally Posted By Duffy:
They have low observable aircraft like F117 and B2?



no way



Right, it was a rhetorical question in response to johnthreesixtenn's post " They have everything we have. The conflict will last about 2 hours............"

Andy, from what I've read, most of the Pakis seem to support the Taliban, these fools. I agree the present government may be toppled, but the rest I dunno. The domino theory in SE Asia didn't pan out, the fall of Vietnam did not trigger the predicted communist dominance. Anyone in that region even likes Iran?
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:08:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pcsutton:
Come on....other than a few stategic air strikes, Israel can't do jack-shit about Iran. They are not going to use nukes.

Iran has 1.636 million sq km of land area....roughly a little larger than Alaska with 68,017,860 people.....68% of who are of fighting age (18-64). It ain't gonna be like going into Grenada.

Piss em off and they shut down the Straits of Hormuz. Gas goes to $100+ per barrel. Can you say $5 per gallon gasoline?

So.....guess who it's gonna fall on to actually go in and take the place? Can you say DRAFT? Sure you can. Can you say 10's of thousands of casualties? Sure you can.

Y'all may want to be careful what you wish for.....you may get more than you bargained for.



Pretty much spot on. All Israel can do is con the USA into either fighting Iran or placing sanctions against Iran. It won't harm Israel, but it will harm the USA- either economically or with war.

Good thing we are the lapdog in the arangement.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:13:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 6:13:30 AM EDT by HKgnnr]

Originally Posted By DrMark:

Israel is the guy that says "I am going to hit you in the face" and then proceeds to hit you in the face.



No doubt! Another thing to toss into the discussion, if the Israelis do, what about Syria? Both Syria and Iran have a pact to aid one another in times of threats. However, Syria doesnt want to go toe to toe with the US - last year saying that they do not want to be "drawn into such an enmity." "Drawn in" sounds more like "we will if we are forced to"

Ultimately, Middle Eastern countries have the doctrine, "Attack my brother, but join my brother to fight our cousin" mentality.

My guess, Syria would roll back into Lebannon, and strike at Israel.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:23:55 AM EDT
Israel's chief of staff, Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz, was born in Israel but both his parents were born in Iran.
Asked how far Israel would go to stop Iran's nuclear program, Halutz replied: "two thousand kilometers."
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:37:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 6:38:38 AM EDT by ar15bubba]
There are 2 choices here. Either let Iran get nukes or not.

If we decide that they can't have them (the only real choice) then we have to whatever is necessary to stop them. If we decide they cannot have them, then whatever else happens will have to be dealt with. What ifs can't get into the way.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:48:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By pcsutton:
Come on....other than a few stategic air strikes, Israel can't do jack-shit about Iran. They are not going to use nukes.

Iran has 1.636 million sq km of land area....roughly a little larger than Alaska with 68,017,860 people.....68% of who are of fighting age (18-64). It ain't gonna be like going into Grenada.

Piss em off and they shut down the Straits of Hormuz. Gas goes to $100+ per barrel. Can you say $5 per gallon gasoline?

So.....guess who it's gonna fall on to actually go in and take the place? Can you say DRAFT? Sure you can. Can you say 10's of thousands of casualties? Sure you can.

Y'all may want to be careful what you wish for.....you may get more than you bargained for.




Good to see someone has a clue here and understands the reality of the situation.


FACT: Israel will do jack shit and is doing what Israel has always done for the last 15 years, bark furiously like a litle yap dog hoping the big dog, the United States, steps up and does it's dirty work for it.

Israel attacks Iran and we will see a major uprising across the Middle East, as a starters we will lose Iraq, Saudi Arabia will fall and the most worryingly so will Pakistan.

So, Musharref gets toppled by the radical Islamists in Pakistan, (who have popular support) and we get a new Taliban in Pakistan, and they, and Bin Laden will be safe behind Pakistans nuclear umbrella....

....now what?


ANdy



On the contrary. . .The US is the *only* thing standing between Isreal and the rest of the Middle East. The US gets out of the way and Isreal cleans up the rest of the Middle East. You've heard of the "us vs. the world" syndrome? For Isreal it is reality.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:51:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:54:52 AM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top