The cold reality is that things are only a war crime if you lose.

Quote:

---

the funny thing is that he quite literally did not write it (a ghostwriter did). and it shows! he is categorically bad at making deals, this is just the latest example.

---

Yeah, the Art of the Deal schtick has hilarious legs given its background. It was a funny PR stunt and the books author is not sure if Trump ever actually read the thing.

Quote:

---

Trump's ghostwriter says writing "The Art of the Deal" is the greatest regret of his life

President Trump's former ghostwriter says writing "The Art of the Deal" is the biggest regret of his life and wishes the 1987 bestseller "weren't even in print."

"I knew this was a bad guy when I did the book," Tony Schwartz told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett for this week's episode of "The Takeout" podcast. The pair sat down for lunch at New York's ViceVersa restaurant.

Mr. Trump offered Schwartz $250,000 up front to write "The Art of the Deal," as well as half the book's royalties, which he is still getting today. Schwartz calls it "blood money" and has donated checks from the last 2.5 years to charity.

So why did he write it? "I took it on for money," Schwartz said. "The idea of selling out. I mean, the term was invented for what I did."

---

Old McDonald said:

---

he is categorically bad at making deals

---

Seriously, there are a lot of things to complain about when it comes to Trump.

But, this is like saying OJ Simpson was bad at football.

His net worth alone is proof enough that you don't know what you are talking about.

Gaw617 said:

---

The cold reality is that things are only a war crime if you lose.

---

Or you're in the west.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

the funny thing is that he quite literally did not write it (a ghostwriter did). and it shows! he is categorically bad at making deals, this is just the latest example.

---

Yeah, the Art of the Deal schtick has hilarious legs given its background. It was a funny PR stunt and the books author is not sure if Trump ever actually read the thing.

Quote:

---

Trump's ghostwriter says writing "The Art of the Deal" is the greatest regret of his life

President Trump's former ghostwriter says writing "The Art of the Deal" is the biggest regret of his life and wishes the 1987 bestseller "weren't even in print."

"I knew this was a bad guy when I did the book," Tony Schwartz told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett for this week's episode of "The Takeout" podcast. The pair sat down for lunch at New York's ViceVersa restaurant.

Mr. Trump offered Schwartz $250,000 up front to write "The Art of the Deal," as well as half the book's royalties, which he is still getting today. Schwartz calls it "blood money" and has donated checks from the last 2.5 years to charity.

So why did he write it? "I took it on for money," Schwartz said. "The idea of selling out. I mean, the term was invented for what I did."

---

---

Do you believe that the concepts and ideas that are within the book were made up by Schwartz?

Do you think that Trump's negotiation style does or does not fit with the architecture laid out in the book?

Because, to me, those seem to be more relevant than the sour grapes of someone who got rich off of writing it and now hates MAGA. I mean, hasn't Schwartz already established that he is willing to say whatever he needs to to make a buck?

Quote:

---

Mr. Trump offered Schwartz $250,000 up front to write "The Art of the Deal," as well as half the book's royalties, which he is still getting today. Schwartz calls it "blood money" and has donated checks from the last 2.5 years to charity.

---

What about the larger checks that preceded that point?

Quote:

---

The left clearly does

---

Not just the "left." The fake conservatives that lie about "America First" also sounding that alarm.

Trump is getting hit by the dumbest from both directions!

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Take it to the Geneva Conventions board.

See my prior posts on "war crimes". It's a made up concept and term. There is no Earth Management Team, no Laws of the Earth, no Earth Police, Courts and Prison.

Once you understand that concept, then treaties and conventions and UN councils and so forth mean NOTHING.

Ability to enforce your morals on others is done at the behest of weaponry or through access to beasties like food and water.

Tonight Trump will do the right thing for the world. He will not be committing war crimes.

---

18 U.S. Code 1091 is the US domestic law version of the Genocide Convention, if you believe US domestic law means something.

(For the record, I never said I thought Trump's post violated US law or International law. I only said threats to commit genocide are generally considered a war crime.)

---

The document provided does not support your position that threats are a war crime.

---

US War Manual 5.2.2. " Measures of intimidation or terrorism against the civilian population are prohibited, including acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population." https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF

ICRC Article 2. Rule 2. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule2

US Holocaust Museum: "...public incitement to genocide can be prosecuted even if genocide is never perpetrated. Lawyers therefore classify the incitement to genocide as an "inchoate crime." https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/incitement-to-genocide-in-international-law

Nahimana War Crimes case: " The clear message conveyed by the articles published in Kangura in the first three months of 1994 was that an RPF attack would provoke the slaughter of innocent Tutsi within the country and that the RPF would be responsible for having triggered this killing. Ngeze maintained that this message was a prediction or a warning, but the Chamber considers that it was a threat, particularly in light of the strong, violent language a used in conveying the message. The message of Kangura issued in 1994 threatened the massacre of Tutsi within the country..." https://ucr.irmct.org/LegalRef/CMSDocStore/Public/English/Judgement/NotIndexable/ICTR-99-52/MSC26797R0000541998.PDF

Hitting bridges and power plants will not be seen as a war crime.

Trump used the wrong word when he used 'civilization'. "Regime" might have been better...he uses the wrong word often. It's not helpful for his goals.

I'm sure that Death to America chants led by ayatollah's were just freedom of expression, though...I never ehard anyone call those statements and the actions around them "war crimes".

Some of you libs don't realize you can move to Canada or Western Europe at any time for a real socialist experience. That's not even counting Cuba, China, Vietnam, etc...

aggiehawg said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

The attitude of the OP ends up with destruction of the United States, which would become ruled by evil globalists. We bombed all of the infrastructure in Germany in WWII. Had we not done so Germany wins the war. Compassion is one thing, but naivete on the scale of the OP is insane.

---

That certainly helped by bombing their military manufacturing facilities but I don't think it can be definitively stated that Germany would have won without it.

I have been watching a lot of podcasts about WWII POWS that were brought stateside for the duration of the war. When captured German generals were brought in and then sent across the country to internment camps by rail, they saw our manufacturing and agricultural abilities on such a scale, they innately understood Germany never had a chance once we entered the war. (Absent a nuclear capacity in Germany.) We could not only produce planes, tanks, jeeps and ships at a substantial volume, but have the men to operate them and the agricultural volume to keep them fed well.

Plus we had the refinery and pipeline capacity to keep our machinery running and advancing.

Having said that, would the war have lasted longer in Europe had Hitler not decided to open the Eastern Front and losing men and materiel to the Soviets, instead focusing everything on repelling us? Probably.

---

And we had the added advantage that our production facilities and refineries and pipelines were completely free of bombs being dropped day and night to put any of them out of action, unlike in Europe. We could operate without interruption, without delays from damage or destruction. Those huge oceans served us well once again.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Obviously "the President could pardon them" is quite different than saying something is or is not against domestic or international law.

And again, I'm not saying I think President Trump's post or whatever violated domestic or international law (setting aside whether he is or is not capable of being prosecuted).

---

There is no "international law". Period.

I'm still cracking up about this OP being the reasonable concerned conservative voice:

akm91 said:

---

Looks like new talking points have been distributed to be parrotted.

---

Yep, and here is why. Nothing these people do is organic, ever. It is all planned, war gamed, and released when they think the time is right for maximum effect.

Rep. John Larson files 13 articles of impeachment against Trump in House | Fox News

Quote:

---

Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., is mounting a long-shot bid to impeach President Donald Trump as he stares down a primary threat from younger challengers, who seek to thwart his bid for a 15th House term.

Larson, 77, introduced 13 articles of impeachment against Trump on Monday, citing the president's military intervention in Venezuela, the deployment of National Guard troops to cities across the country and his executive order to curtail birthright citizenship, among other charges.

Larson also charged Trump with "murder, war crimes and piracy" for ordering a naval blockade around Venezuela targeting U.S.-sanctioned oil tankers ahead of the U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicols Maduro in January and for launching dozens of strikes against alleged drug trafficking vessels in the Eastern Pacific and the Caribbean.

---

And

Arizona Democrat moves to impeach Hegseth over alleged war crimes | Fox News

Quote:

---

A Democratic congresswoman whose parents fled the regime of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini decades ago announced Monday she would file articles of impeachment against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth for alleged war crimes amid the current conflict.

---

Yassamin Ansari (D-Iran)

To me the crime is with the Iranian regime, and with the sick parents that would give their children up for 72 virgins, or the people who for decades have been too weak to stand up for freedom. A lot of people to get through before we get to Trump.

Quote:

---

Do you believe that the concepts and ideas that are within the book were made up by Schwartz?

Do you think that Trump's negotiation style does or does not fit with the architecture laid out in the book?

---

Yes, both the author Schwartz and the publisher Howard Kaminsky have on record for decades saying Trump had next to nothing to do with the project, gave almost no input, and had just cursory edits to the finished product.

Most of the "facts" in the book have been discredited. Trump had next to nothing to do with the acquisition of the Swifton Village in Cincinnati. The Grand Hyatt chapter has been contested by almost everyone that was involved,

And the principles of the book mostly don't fit his actual life. He was a serial bankruptor for the decades following the publication. His pivot to reality tv and then licensing his image is where he finally started making money. Not many of the books 11 rules made up by the Ghostwriter applied to him. # 9 is hilarious in hindsight.

2. Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
"I always go into the deal anticipating the worst. If you plan for the worstif you can live with the worstthe good will always take care of itself."

7. Get the word out
"One thing I've learned about the press is that they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better…The point is that if you are a little different, a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you."

9. Deliver the goods
"You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."

10. Contain the costs
"I believe in spending what you have to. But I also believe in not spending more than you should."

Quote:

---

And we had the added advantage that our production facilities and refineries and pipelines were completely free of bombs being dropped day and night to put any of them out of action, unlike in Europe. We could operate without interruption, without delays from damage or destruction. Those huge oceans served us well once again.

---

True but the food part of the equation cannot be ignored. The Germans we captured in North Africa were severely malnourished as well as those captured in other places. Germans had neither the capacity nor logistics to keep their fighting men fed. Part of that was self inflicted as Hitler conscripted butchers, bakers, farmers into the infantry taking them out of the domestic supply chain.

One final point. All of the German, Japanese and Italian POWS sent stateside were dumbfounded at how well they were fed three times a day while in the internment camps. Many were also detailed to work on nearby farms and ranches where they saw further evidence of our abundance. They also knew and felt guilty that thy were eating so well while their families back in their native countries were greatly suffering from lack of food.

Those same dynamics are or will be coming into play in Iran. They have a water shortage, meaning a food shortage. For now the IRGC can requisition most of the food, depriving civilians but without food production, that too will end.

flown-the-coop said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Obviously "the President could pardon them" is quite different than saying something is or is not against domestic or international law.

And again, I'm not saying I think President Trump's post or whatever violated domestic or international law (setting aside whether he is or is not capable of being prosecuted).

---

There is no "international law". Period.

---

Citizens arrest! Citizens arrest!

LOLOL

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

Is "Death to America" a genocidal threat?

---

Look up what that phrase actually means to Iranians.

---

Here is my 4th time to ask you Kenyo, is threatening genocide considered a war crime?

---

Another poster stated that it was and cited it. In a previous page. I haven't double checked it yet

---

It's not.

It's a position that is difficult to support, which is why it is so unsupported on this thread. The empty link to a long document with zero analysis that doesn't really even help the position isn't really meaningful.

But, if you want to make a contention that you know that it is, I would be interesting in hearing your argument.

---

Eh, I can see both sides of the argument but I am not personally sure. I never made the claim that the threat itself was a war crime; some other poster just intentionally misunderstood my post to argue that point. Obviously we can both agree that genocide is a war crime.

It's real simple here. Resident libs are fearful that we will prevail making Trumps stance all worth it.

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

How is it a war crime if it never happened? So no, a statement is not a war crime.

This is ridiculous post.

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

Is "Death to America" a genocidal threat?

---

Look up what that phrase actually means to Iranians.

---

Here is my 4th time to ask you Kenyo, is threatening genocide considered a war crime?

---

Another poster stated that it was and cited it. In a previous page. I haven't double checked it yet

---

It's not.

It's a position that is difficult to support, which is why it is so unsupported on this thread. The empty link to a long document with zero analysis that doesn't really even help the position isn't really meaningful.

But, if you want to make a contention that you know that it is, I would be interesting in hearing your argument.

---

Eh, I can see both sides of the argument but I am not personally sure. I never made the claim that the threat itself was a war crime; some other poster just intentionally misunderstood my post to argue that point. Obviously we can both agree that genocide is a war crime.

---

Well since that has not happened in Iran we dont have to worry about it.

annie88 said:

---

This is ridiculous post.

---

The old "I voted for Trump 3 times" or "I vote R every time" post


lol

Thanks, this is actually helpful.

Public incitement of genocide is clearly against the document that was cited. But, that is not the same thing as a threat.

If Trump were to encourage Israel to nuke Iran, you might have a point.

He didn't do that. He threatened to end 47 years of death and destruction, to take down the Iranian regime, and clear a path that the Iranian people might be able to rise up against their oppressors.

From today's Coffee and Covid:

Quote:

---

In 2015, Obama's Pentagon updated the Department of Defense's Law of War Manual. Revised Section 5.6.8.5 said:

Electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State's capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts.

The section was revised three more times: in 2016 (Obama), and in 2023 and 2024 (Biden). Trump's DoD hasn't touched it. It says the exact opposite of the Times's loopy pronouncement.

How quickly the Times forgets. In 1991's Operation Desert Storm, George Bush's military coalition bombed Iraq's entire electrical grid on Night One. Power plants were designated as priority targets. But there were zero war crimes charges against Bush or any coalition partner nation. There weren't even any "revels in war crimes" headlines in the New York Times.

In Kosovo in 1999, under Clinton, NATO systematically bombed Serbia's power grid. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia investigated and declined to prosecute: No war crimes! Clinton got a nice library. In Libya in 2011, Obama and NATO bombed tons of infrastructure. Obama never got Congressional authorization for that one. And that time, the NYT editorial board wildly applauded, like a ward full of drooling mental patients at snack time.

---

samurai_science said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

Is "Death to America" a genocidal threat?

---

Look up what that phrase actually means to Iranians.

---

Here is my 4th time to ask you Kenyo, is threatening genocide considered a war crime?

---

Another poster stated that it was and cited it. In a previous page. I haven't double checked it yet

---

It's not.

It's a position that is difficult to support, which is why it is so unsupported on this thread. The empty link to a long document with zero analysis that doesn't really even help the position isn't really meaningful.

But, if you want to make a contention that you know that it is, I would be interesting in hearing your argument.

---

Eh, I can see both sides of the argument but I am not personally sure. I never made the claim that the threat itself was a war crime; some other poster just intentionally misunderstood my post to argue that point. Obviously we can both agree that genocide is a war crime.

---

Well since that has not happened in Iran we dont have to worry about it.

---

What are we doing here? Pretending you don't understand? Trump made a threat of a genocide. Genocide is a war crime. Trump made a threat of a war crime. It is disturbing and unprecedented and obviously that is the point.

This whole strategy of pretending you don't understand the point being made is tiresome.

BusterAg said:

---

Thanks, this is actually helpful.

Public incitement of genocide is clearly against the document that was cited. But, that is not the same thing as a threat.

If Trump were to encourage Israel to nuke Iran, you might have a point.

He didn't do that. He threatened to end 47 years of death and destruction, to take down the Iranian regime, and clear a path that the Iranian people might be able to rise up against their oppressors.

---

That is kind of where I am at as well. He isn't "inciting" so it does not meet that requirement.

Fdsa said:

---

Hitting bridges and power plants will not be seen as a war crime.

Trump used the wrong word when he used 'civilization'. "Regime" might have been better...he uses the wrong word often. It's not helpful for his goals.

---

This is where I am at.

To figure that out, all you have to do is read the entire tweet and put the word "civilization" into context.

Not being able to do that is being purposefully obtuse, suffering from very extreme confirmation bias, or simply ignoring reality because it doesn't fit your narrative, and hoping other people are too lazy to think for themselves.

But, that word choice was a terrible, terrible unforced error.

The absolute unwillingness of some posters to acknowledge logic and reality, paired with the biting wit and sarcasm of other posters has really contributed to making this thread an entertaining read today.

Thanks to all!

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Thanks, this is actually helpful.

Public incitement of genocide is clearly against the document that was cited. But, that is not the same thing as a threat.

If Trump were to encourage Israel to nuke Iran, you might have a point.

He didn't do that. He threatened to end 47 years of death and destruction, to take down the Iranian regime, and clear a path that the Iranian people might be able to rise up against their oppressors.

---

That is kind of where I am at as well. He isn't "inciting" so it does not meet that requirement.

---

And, it would be an interesting conversation about whether or not Trump was inciting genocide, but it took dozens of posts just to start the conversation.

I just get tired of some posters on here that are unwilling to clearly state a position because then they don't have the room to crawfish when they realize what they are copying from Reddit was distorted and not really supportable.

Not saying that this is exactly what happened here, but it does happen on F16 a lot.

Let's think about this critically. Trump has always talked a larger than life game. "I only hire the best people." Everything is the greatest, magnificent, like nothing ever seen before in history, etc. It's something that the left has constantly criticized him for. Now, all the sudden they want to pretend that what he's said is 100% genuine. 8PM will come and go. More bombs will be dropped on strategic targets. He isn't going to kill an entire civilization. He knows if he okayed bombing civilians that he would be officially done. We all know he doesn't want to be out of the spotlight. Regardless, the Iranian govt needed to be stopped. They have made it their mission to bring death to America. They slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens who protested against them. The leftists, here, throw **** fits when one of their minions makes a choice that leads to their death. Whether it's Renae Good, the nurse, or any of the other dead leftist "heroes". Yet they are quite when tens of thousands of Iranian protestors are murdered, eerily quite. Quite the example of hypocrisy.

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Thanks, this is actually helpful.

Public incitement of genocide is clearly against the document that was cited. But, that is not the same thing as a threat.

If Trump were to encourage Israel to nuke Iran, you might have a point.

He didn't do that. He threatened to end 47 years of death and destruction, to take down the Iranian regime, and clear a path that the Iranian people might be able to rise up against their oppressors.

---

That is kind of where I am at as well. He isn't "inciting" so it does not meet that requirement.

---

And, it would be an interesting conversation about whether or not Trump was inciting genocide, but it took dozens of posts just to start the conversation.

I just get tired of some posters on here that are unwilling to clearly state a position because then they don't have the room to crawfish when they realize what they are copying from Reddit was distorted and not really supportable.

Not saying that this is exactly what happened here, but it does happen on F16 a lot.

---

I agree with your last post regarding the use of the word civilization. Terrible word choice if he meant regime. But it doesn't really work for regime because in the same post, he says we already have regime change. So it's disturbing (and confusing) to many, including myself.

Keyno said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

Is "Death to America" a genocidal threat?

---

Look up what that phrase actually means to Iranians.

---

Here is my 4th time to ask you Kenyo, is threatening genocide considered a war crime?

---

Another poster stated that it was and cited it. In a previous page. I haven't double checked it yet

---

It's not.

It's a position that is difficult to support, which is why it is so unsupported on this thread. The empty link to a long document with zero analysis that doesn't really even help the position isn't really meaningful.

But, if you want to make a contention that you know that it is, I would be interesting in hearing your argument.

---

Eh, I can see both sides of the argument but I am not personally sure. I never made the claim that the threat itself was a war crime; some other poster just intentionally misunderstood my post to argue that point. Obviously we can both agree that genocide is a war crime.

---

Well since that has not happened in Iran we dont have to worry about it.

---

What are we doing here? Pretending you don't understand? Trump made a threat of a genocide. Genocide is a war crime. Trump made a threat of a war crime. It is disturbing and unprecedented and obviously that is the point.

This whole strategy of pretending you don't understand the point being made is tiresome.

---

I disagree that Trump made a threat of genocide. He said he would end a civilization. Then he described a future where the Iranian people would be free from their oppressors. That sounds a lot more like a person who is very loose with their words than it does a threat of genocide.

aggiehawg said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

The attitude of the OP ends up with destruction of the United States, which would become ruled by evil globalists. We bombed all of the infrastructure in Germany in WWII. Had we not done so Germany wins the war. Compassion is one thing, but naivete on the scale of the OP is insane.

---

That certainly helped by bombing their military manufacturing facilities but I don't think it can be definitively stated that Germany would have won without it.

I have been watching a lot of podcasts about WWII POWS that were brought stateside for the duration of the war. When captured German generals were brought in and then sent across the country to internment camps by rail, they saw our manufacturing and agricultural abilities on such a scale, they innately understood Germany never had a chance once we entered the war. (Absent a nuclear capacity in Germany.) We could not only produce planes, tanks, jeeps and ships at a substantial volume, but have the men to operate them and the agricultural volume to keep them fed well.

Plus we had the refinery and pipeline capacity to keep our machinery running and advancing.

Having said that, would the war have lasted longer in Europe had Hitler not decided to open the Eastern Front and losing men and materiel to the Soviets, instead focusing everything on repelling us? Probably.

---

I certainly would not want to go back and take that chance. War is hell. Do whatever is necessary to win. Iran started it 47 years ago, and would use nukes on us and Israel if they had them. Make damn sure they don't however necessary.