[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Or possibly the Saudi/Pakistan nuke story is completely untrue.

We can still invade, though.

Hm. On further thought… why would Israeli intelligence want to spread that story? The implications are unpleasant. Not that I’m saying I don’t think Israeli intelligence would do that, it’s just worrisome. Weren’t we supposed to be stabilizing the Middle East?

Comments

[acratus.livejournal.com]

Hi. I'm Dan.

I'm adding you, if you don't mind.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely convinced Israel wants a stable Middle East. Sure, stability means no more suicide bombers, but it also means not being able to spread settlers into Arab territory or bulldoze Arab homes on the theory that 'terrorists' might hide in them. The fanatical Israelis (and the Americans who fund their settlements) don't want peace as much as they want 'Greater Israel'. Also, instability, and the related fear, prop up strong-arm governments promising drastic actions in the name of security.

[carelessflight.livejournal.com]

Of course we're stabilizing the Middle East. Therefore, Saudi Arabia getting nukes from our staunch ally Pakistan must contribute to the stability of the Middle East. QED.

Or, the alternative. Sure, Saudi Arabia getting nukes from Pakistan makes the Middle East less stable. But it's sure better than if we hadn't invaded Iraq! Because, because, who knows how much worse the Middle East would be today otherwise. See?