|
|
|

"A
nuclear Ira[ ], either out of calculation that it could win
a nuclear exchange with Israel, or out of a fanatical derangement,
clearly poses an existential threat to Israel." –
Tony Blankley
"Surely
the burden of proof is on those who say the United States should
stay its disarming hand until the U.N. has reached yet another
set of undertakings with an Ira[ ] that is contemptuous of such
things." –George Will
"Right
now--and until we might have to abandon the Security Council
and go it alone--the war option against Ira[ ] enjoys international
legitimacy." –Charles Krauthammer
"Perhaps
we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing
contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria
back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Ira[ ]."–Ann
Coulter
"Conventional
wisdom holds that there are really only two options for dealing
with Ira[ ]: military strikes (by us or Israel) or the usual
bundle of conferences, ineffective sanctions and windy UN speeches
that lead to nothing." –Jonah Goldberg
"You
know in a sane world, every country would unite against Ira[
] and blow it off the face of the Earth. That would be the sane
thing to do." –Bill O’Reilly
"We
must be sure that Ira[ ] becomes a ‘nuclear-free zone.'
" –Oliver North
"On
balance, war with Ira[ ] may not be inevitable but is highly
probable." Bob Novak
ANSWERS:
Blankley-Iran, Will-Iraq, Krauthammer-Iraq,
Coulter-Iran, Goldberg-Iran, O'Reilly-Iran, North-Iraq, Novak-Iraq
|
|
|