Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iran Elections: Ahmadinejad Rivals Take Victory  
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10859 posts, RR: 38
Posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1745 times:

Iran elections : Ahmadinejad rivals to win control of parliament

President's sister Parvin Ahmadinejad defeated by a conservative rival in their hometown of Garmsar
Conservative rivals of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appear on course to gain firm control of the Iranian parliament, according to early election results.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...elections-ahmadinejad-rivals-ahead

Not that it will make much difference. President Ahmadinejad was always a puppet in the hands of Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution. This will give him even less power for the remaining 18 months. Then he will not be able to run for the job again.

Vote count massive fraud in favour of the clerics and their candidates me thinks.

 Wow!


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1251 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1668 times:

Congratulations. Good to see peaceful civil election this time.

As my Iranian friend said to me, it appears people trust the religious authorities more to steer the nation and voted in favor of their candidates over Ahmadinejad clan.

Especially now with economic troubles (much blamed on Ahmadinejad) and pressure from outside getting back to Islamic revolution basics with strong cleric guidance is essentially a form of nationalism rally support from the people. Its interesting to see even the rural areas that gave previous great support to Ahmadinejad who appeared as a common man have lost faith in him also, and prefer to set power back with more conservatives.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2930 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1635 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 1):
Congratulations. Good to see peaceful civil election this time.

As my Iranian friend said to me, it appears people trust the religious authorities more to steer the nation and voted in favor of their candidates over Ahmadinejad clan.

They were peaceful alright, after the '09 protests, the reformists are scattered and in hiding and no one dares cross the government...for now.

And I think your Iranian friend might be more of a government supporter, with all due respect. Only an outsider would see that these elections are a sham from the moment the candidates submit their names. A Guardian Council chooses which candidates can stand election (many reformists are barred from competing), thus, the democratic principle of elections is eliminated. Then, you have intimidation from the rulers and their militia so that only preferred candidates win. Finally, there are reports that election fraud is always committed, In fact, in the 2009 elections, two provinces had more than 100% turnout AND (what set off the protests) the Supreme Leader actually congratulated Ahmadinejad on his victory when Iranians were still voting.

I'm sorry, but there is a very slim chance (if any) that Iranians actually believe that religious authorities can guide them better than civilians.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1251 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1567 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 2):
And I think your Iranian friend might be more of a government supporter, with all due respect.

He loves his country, and calls things the way he sees them. Certainly there has been good and bad in the last 33 years since topling the a corrupt Pahlavi regime.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 2):
A Guardian Council chooses which candidates can stand election (many reformists are barred from competing), thus, the democratic principle of elections is eliminated.

This does not sound very unusual at all. Its actually the manner its done in most "democracies" that have parliamentary systems.

For instance many European nations - Say your average citizen cannot decide that he will be simply a candidate. First he must join a party, be in good standing, and often after many years if he shows his benefit and loyalty to the party then its the party that puts him on the ballot. Even some parliamentary systems one does not even have to represent geography of your background, but instead simply serve and do what the party wants you to represent.

If you want look at this link from wikipedia - you can see how many nations from Norway to Italy to Brazil to South Africa to use party list for elections. Even founder of democracy Greece uses such a party list system for candidate selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 2):
I'm sorry, but there is a very slim chance (if any) that Iranians actually believe that religious authorities can guide them better than civilians.

Why is that? Are you opposed to religion? I can quite easily see people being supportive of religion or a religious group providing leadership. In the region its quite common to vote and support groups based on religion. Look at all the religious background parties from Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Tunisia, etc..

[Edited 2012-03-04 19:27:37]

User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2930 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1470 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 3):
This does not sound very unusual at all. Its actually the manner its done in most "democracies" that have parliamentary systems.

Actually, it does sound unusual. It's one thing to go against what your government stands for (to which I see that there is no choice but to bar people), but it's another to implement some reforms. For instance, in the states, we don't bar a candidate just because the candidate is opposed to/is for gay marriage. That's up for the people to decide, which is the very thing that makes a democracy work: the people (not a council, not a supreme leader) choose who will represent them. If the candidate meets conditions for elegibility, then I see no reason to bar him/her from being on the ballot.

Iran is merely a theocracy passing itself off as a democracy. It does not even get close to a democracy when its highest elected position is merely a figurehead with barely any powers. Anything the president does can be vetoed by the Supreme Leader (an unelected position). So how is Iran any different from, say, Gaddafi-era Libya?

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 3):
Why is that? Are you opposed to religion? I can quite easily see people being supportive of religion or a religious group providing leadership. In the region its quite common to vote and support groups based on religion. Look at all the religious background parties from Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Tunisia, etc..

I'm not opposed to religion as long as it's not shoved down my throat which is why I believe in complete separation of religion and state (but that's for another thread). In fact, I read that even Ayatollah Khomeini opposed having clerics in the government, so why do we have this sudden change in beliefs after Khomeini died?



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1462 times:

Yes, the Ayatollah Khamenei and his allies on the Supreme Council are consolidating power. As indicated, Mr A will be gone (and likely gone forever) in about 18 months -- if not pushed out earlier. Khamenei to my understanding has no love for Mr A, but he has been a useful fool for the Supreme Council.

Implications for Israel and the West: Khamenei is a real hardliner on the issue of Shiite Islam and protecting Khomenei's legacy: the Revolution. But I also truly feel he is much more conservative on the topic of bearding the lion, as Ahmedinajad seems to love to do. Rather than see the economy implode totally due to sanctions, he may be willing to deal somewhat to preserve his country. Mind you, he likely does not have much time left on this Earth, he's not a young man.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1251 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1384 times:

You make to want to sound like Iran is some mickey mouse country. It has a system in place.

Yes elections are relatively new, as the country suffered for long time under puppet kings. Sure things might not be perfect, however they have a hybrid parliamentary system with a president also. (I read that says come 2016-17 they might change constitution and instead get prime minister position).

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 4):
Actually, it does sound unusual.

But its not. In such parlimentary systems as you even say its OK for parties to decide, there is a body that pick who can run and who cant. Its only then for the people to make final selection.

Matter of fact Iran is actually more open that many other systems and allows independent candidates (some 100 win in this election).

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 4):
It's one thing to go against what your government stands for (to which I see that there is no choice but to bar people)

So you agree its OK for system to bar people. Yes its quite normal. Either you espouse the formal party line or you are out.

I was in Sweden a few years back during an election and I recall reading the head of one of the political parties stating that he had personally decided on each candidate that ran on that parties list for elections and would say that all his candidates would fully support the party platform.

I dont hear anyone call Sweden model a failed system?

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 4):
but it's another to implement some reforms.

One persons "reforms", is anothers step back. You speak about gay marriage below. Such can be viewed by many as a terrible thing and against the principles of law and god.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 4):
For instance, in the states, we don't bar a candidate just because the candidate is opposed to/is for gay marriage. That's up for the people to decide, which is the very thing that makes a democracy work: the people (not a council, not a supreme leader) choose who will represent them.

In US system anyone that meets a basic criteria can run for office. Well in many parliamentary system government as I posted in previous thread around the world, people do not directly decided who can run for office, but its done by a 3rd entity. Only once a list approved candidates has been selected then voters are asked to decide. Its as if your Republican and Democratic parties in the US would officially select who runs for office where under the party banner.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 4):
complete separation of religion and state

I can very easily understand how church is the state. Many can argue church is the ultimate authority, and hence provides the guidance and rules for a state. Even in the US where on paper laws separate the two, religion serves as guidance for many especially in areas of morality. Its quite human to look to religion it seems.


User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1353 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 6):
So you agree its OK for system to bar people. Yes its quite normal. Either you espouse the formal party line or you are out.

I was in Sweden a few years back during an election and I recall reading the head of one of the political parties stating that he had personally decided on each candidate that ran on that parties list for elections and would say that all his candidates would fully support the party platform.

I dont hear anyone call Sweden model a failed system?

The difference is that its not 1 panel who decides who run for election. In Denmark the social democrats decides who they will allow and the conservative party decides who they will allow and so on. If you don't agree with any of the partys then you can form your own. The only thing needed is a petition with ~20000 signatures, no government body will decide if you can run for election or not on other criteria than the petition.

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2930 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1317 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 6):
(I read that says come 2016-17 they might change constitution and instead get prime minister position).

Instead, not in addition. The motive is to have a parliament system only where the Prime Minister heads a rubber stamp parliament.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 6):
So you agree its OK for system to bar people. Yes its quite normal. Either you espouse the formal party line or you are out.

I was in Sweden a few years back during an election and I recall reading the head of one of the political parties stating that he had personally decided on each candidate that ran on that parties list for elections and would say that all his candidates would fully support the party platform.

I dont hear anyone call Sweden model a failed system?

I don't think it was the government the one which barred the candidates.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 6):
In US system anyone that meets a basic criteria can run for office. Well in many parliamentary system government as I posted in previous thread around the world, people do not directly decided who can run for office, but its done by a 3rd entity. Only once a list approved candidates has been selected then voters are asked to decide. Its as if your Republican and Democratic parties in the US would officially select who runs for office where under the party banner.

That's why you have a primary. The Republican and Democratic parties aren't the ones who pick the candidates. Candidates decide to run under the party they feel matches their points of views and if they meet the qualifications, they are entered in a primary against each other. Eventually, only one candidate is successful and runs under that party. What's happening in Iran, however, is the equivalent of the US Supreme Court deciding which candidates can stand to be elected, not the parties themselves.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 6):
One persons "reforms", is anothers step back. You speak about gay marriage below. Such can be viewed by many as a terrible thing and against the principles of law and god.

That may be so in Islamic countries where ALL must abide by religion because THEY think religion is needed to maintain order or because its tradition. However, I don't see how a couple of gay men having sex in a room affects you in any way. As I recall, it's not the LGBT community which has decided to wage jihad against infidels and Americans. Besides, all societies eventually cave in to reform. The Shah didn't implement it and look what happened.

As George Santayana said: Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 6):
Matter of fact Iran is actually more open that many other systems and allows independent candidates (some 100 win in this election).

Of course it's more "open"...political parties are not that well established. If you share conservative views, then you're OK. If you have a reformist view, you'll definitely have trouble if you're not organized as a group.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1251 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1224 times:

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 7):
The difference is that its not 1 panel who decides who run for election.
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
I don't think it was the government the one which barred the candidates.
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
What's happening in Iran, however, is the equivalent of the US Supreme Court deciding which candidates can stand to be elected, not the parties themselves.

Ah OK you don't like this concept, but again this is not a unusual system at all. Iran is not unique or some banana republic because of it.

If don't like what Iran calls Guardian Council, replace that with 'election commision" or "constituational court", etc and you have the model which is used in countries to validate potential candidates.

Iran like all nations has a system, with a short list of criteria that people must meet. Even in the US, you must swear to uphold and defend the constitution, in Iran its the same. Those that oppose the constitution are not eligible to participate. I don't think in US you would allow people that will not support the basic constitution and its rules to run for office either.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
That may be so in Islamic countries where ALL must abide by religion because THEY think religion is needed to maintain order or because its tradition.

I dont know why you like to put down Islamic nations or cultures only. Outside in Christian, Buddist, Jewish cultures religion can play a large roll on society and government policy as well. As one very smart person said - religion is the people, and people are the religion.
It seems hard and not practical to separate the two as they are joined at hip within our souls.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7102 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1005 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 4):
Iran is merely a theocracy passing itself off as a democracy.

The Ayatollah has final say in ANYTHING in that country.

Now what I'm becoming confused on is this: his rivals won the election, but the conservatives in that country which backed him the first place are now calling him to appear before them? What's going on?



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10859 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 989 times:

Looks like Mr Ahmadinejad may not be President of Iran much longer.
There are calls of impeachment from the religious hardliners. He no more parliament majority to support him so maybe his time is up much sooner than we think.
Ayatollah Khamenei won't do anyone favours. He wants to let it be known he is the boss.

 

Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces impeachment calls
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faced demands for his impeachment after delivering a caustic defence of his record during an unprecedented public interrogation by Iran's parliament.

The Iranian president outraged MPs with a theatrically abrasive display in which he made light of becoming the first leader in the country's postrevolutionary history to be subjected to an official summons by the legislature.

Mr Ahmadinejad's ordeal, broadcast live on state radio, offered a rare public glimpse into his increasingly bitter feud with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...nejad-faces-impeachment-calls.html

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinevictrola From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 499 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 946 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 3):
This does not sound very unusual at all. Its actually the manner its done in most "democracies" that have parliamentary systems.

First of all you need to understand the difference between a government and a political party. In most paralamentary systems, the parties do choose their candidates who will run for office. If you don't support the platform of the party, the party will not allow you to run as a candidate under their banner. This is there perogative. At the same time, there is nothing preventing a group of citizens from starting their own political party and running their own candidates for election. This happens all the time in democracies.

In true democracies, any group that has enough support is able to put its candidates on the ballot. Often you have parties that are on the ballot and only gain 1 or 2% of the vote. Although their views only represent a very small minority of popular opinion, they are still allowed to compete.

This is not the case in Iran. In Iran, you have a group of unelected leaders who decide what parties can and cannot run candidates for political office. Any effort to protest this situation is crushed by violence. It is obvious that there is a large minority if not majority of the Iranian people whose political views are not represented by the parties that are currently allowed to run in Iranian elections. Anyone with any sense of reason would not call that democracy.

I can't believe you don't have the intelligence to understand this concept. My suspicion is that you are merely trolling.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12395 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 848 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 9):
Ah OK you don't like this concept, but again this is not a unusual system at all. Iran is not unique or some banana republic because of it.

OK, maybe a pistachio republic then?

It's not unusual for any party to weed out those who don't follow the party line, but of course, there's nothing wrong in that, in a democracy. In a totalitarian society, the natural tendancy would be to weed out those who are perceived as most likely to go against the party line; trouble is, of course, you have a tendancy towards lip service, in that the brighter ones - those who see how things are actually going (not the way Khamenei wants them to be going) will just parrot the party line and wait until Khamenei is dead.

It comes to something when you start to perceive Ahmedinejad as the sane alternative!

Anybody who thinks Iran is a stable democracy is deluding himself/herself! It is a democracy in name only, contrived in a way that is designed to ensure power stays where it is. You have all of the ingredients for instability in Iran. There is a pressure cooker effect in play, in that you have a very large population of young, bright and educated people (many unemployed, due to the state of the economy), who perceive that they have absolutely no voice and no way to change the way their country is headed; sanctions are making things more uncomfortable by the day. Iran is not North Korea and as much as the clerics try to repress and restrict access to the outside world, word spreads and that access is there. The more you use thugs, the more you bully, the more you suppress and repress, the worse it becomes on that INEVITABLE day when the people rise up. Khamenei may be a world away from Ghadaffi, Mubarak, Ceausescu and other dictators who thought that repression would solve all their problems, but they all shared that same assumption - that repression is the answer. Maybe natural death will take Khamenei before an uprising, but it is inevitable and the longer the repression last and the harsher it becomes, the worse it will be when the end finally comes ... as their ally in Syria is soon going to discover.


User currently offlinegreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3077 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 834 times:

That argument comparing Iran to Other countries is crap In most yes the party can run who they want. However, at the same time people can also run as independents. There is no official gov't or election council approval needed to run. In fact if you do not agree with the constitution You can run on a platform to change it. It happens all the time.

Is there any provision for independents to run in Iran?

Iran is a theocracy that is a dictatorship. It is just covered in a think skin that they try and pass off as a democracy.

If you do not believe me go there and try and run on a platform that is going to return it to a Secular country.

gs



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 804 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
they are entered in a primary against each other. Eventually, only one candidate is successful and runs under that party.

Are you saying that an ordinary democrat voter, who is not a member of the GOP, gets to vote in a primary on who should be the GOP candidate? This is indeed novel because in the rest of the world no matter what the internal voting procedure may be, it is only party members who get to vote on who will be a party candidate. I never realised that if I were a fully paid up member of the Democrat Party I could determine who the GOP candidate should be.

While not disputing for a moment that Iran is not a democracy as the word would be understood in the West, it is important to recognise that in the West there are numerous limitations on who can stand for election, who may register as a political party, who may receive electoral funding and so on. While in most countries a choice between twiddledee and twiddledum exists, the laws may reduce the number of effective challenges to the status quo by rewarding major parties in paying x$ per vote, imposing minimum membership before a party may be registered, ensuring that access to electoral advertising is only available to those who have the funds to gain air time on television, etc. This is quite apart from laws that may prohibit standing on particular platforms - i.e. we will only recognise you if you agree with what we regard as acceptable views. How realistic is it, for example, that an independent would ever become President in any western democracy? Does Joe Blogs have enough money to achieve that?

There are also differences in determining how Governments are elected: some countries allow a first past the post system where a party with less than 50% of the votes wins simply because it has 27% and the next party has 26% of the votes cast. There have been instances where on a national basis a party that achieved office actually had fewer votes than the party they defeated because of the way electoral boundaries are drawn. The Gerrymander that was Derry in the north of Ireland is perhaps the most obvious example. Despite a Catholic, pro nationalist majority, the boundaries where drawn to ensure a minority Protestant and Unionist council. Other countries recognise the limitations of such systems and have introduced proportional representation, while others, like Australia have a preferential voting system.

Each system has its faults, and each is light years ahead of what exists in Iran, but none is perfect. All are open to abuse and many seem to result in the same thing: twiddledee or twiddledum over who becomes Prime Minister/ President while the real bastions of power are left untouched. Who exactly voted for the Chief Justice or the Chief of the General Staff or the people who make millions in bonuses while bringing countries to their knees? Who voted for the IMF, the rigged body that is the UN Security Council and other bodies that we are all supposed to look up to and ingest everything they say simply because they are who they are? We are quite happy if the US or the UK applies a veto at the UN while we complain if Russia or China does the same thing. Who cares what the rest of the members think? No democracy here.

Yes, Iran is a monstrous dictatorship but possibly no worse than many others supported by the West in the past. The Constitution does guarantee representation in Parliament for ethnic and religious minorities, so there are Jewish and Christian members (as well as women) sitting in Parliament. The Parliament is more constrained than it is in some Western countries but not all. In theory any member can introduce a Bill here in WA, but if the Government doesn't back it it has an ice cube's chance in hell of emerging as an Act. Before we condemn Iran, perhaps we ought to put our own houses in order. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, as the saying goes.

History shows that when a people are unwilling to go on as before and the rulers are incapable of going on as before, the edifice comes crumbling down. A point will be reached when the people of Iran say enough is enough and the rulers are unable to contain it because they can offer no alternative. We can support that moment or we can try and impose our ideas as to what is acceptable. If you seek to impose your ideas of what is democracy, why would the people listen to you? It is up to them to decide, otherwise it isn't democracy - it is an imposed solution that benefits the West and will sew the seeds of future discontent against the West. People have to decide for themselves what they want and learn through their own experiences. By all means hold up an example: just don't impose it.

[Edited 2012-03-18 11:02:45]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Iran's Pres Ahmadinejad Scares The CR#P Out Of Me! posted Mon Jan 16 2006 03:21:49 by Pbottenb
Iran's Ahmadinejad: Israel Can't Continue To Exist posted Thu Sep 13 2007 05:00:42 by Falcon84
Ahmadinejad "Doubts" Iran Armed Taliban. posted Tue Aug 14 2007 18:45:01 by Cumulonimbus
Iran's Ahmadinejad Applies For U.S. Visa posted Sat Sep 9 2006 09:39:20 by Clipperhawaii
Does Ahmadinejad/Iran Have Someting Planned? posted Wed Aug 9 2006 00:43:07 by JamesAg96
Iran's Ahmadinejad posted Mon Apr 24 2006 17:17:12 by Greyhound
New Orleans Elections Will Take Place On 4/22/06 posted Wed Apr 12 2006 15:38:14 by PHLBOS
Ahmadinejad To Europe - Take Jews Back posted Sat Jan 21 2006 04:52:44 by Halls120
Hariri Has Won A Sweeping Victory In Elections posted Mon May 30 2005 04:23:26 by Jetjack74
Report: Israel Won't Warn US Before Iran Strike posted Tue Feb 28 2012 16:44:06 by Mortyman