What if: war between Israel and Egypt

[the_tyrant]

If the current Egyptian government topples, there is a good chance that the religious hardliners (Muslim Brotherhood) who want to declare war on Israel will come to power.

What if scenario: Muslim Brotherhood comes to power in Egypt, and war is declared between Egypt and Israel (doesn't better who attacks first).
In my opinion, Israel will win that war. Just look at the stats:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/w...index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/w...index.html

Egypt's army is 468,000 strong with an extra 480,000 reservists
Egyptian equipment comprises of moderately modern equipment with 1500 m60 and 1000 m1(original, not a2) tanks and assorted old soviet tanks, and moderately modern artillery and infantry weapons
Israel's army is 125,000 soldiers and 600,000 reservists
Israeli army equipment comprises of generally modern domestic made equipment , with around 1600 Merkava and around 1500 Magach tanks of all variations, and modern artillery and infantry weapons.

On paper it seems like Egypt's army has an advantage over Israel's army, but this is hard to determine, as Egypt's army preformed badly against Israel's army in the past.

In the air:
Egypt has 438 combat aircraft, comprising of mainly f16s (around 200), plus other American, French, Soviet, and Chinese aircraft.
Israel has mainly f15s and f16s, 83 f15s(all variants, including ground attack strike eagles.) and 325 f16s (all variants). Plus assorted other aircraft

I believe that the Israeli air force has the upper hand. Israeli equipment is better, and the pilots are presumably better.

Navy
the navy is not a deciding factor, but generally I would presume the Israeli navy is better, especially considering that is Israeli navy has the highly advanced dolphin (type 212 in Germany) class submarine. However, the Egyptian navy has the highly advanced American made Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate, however Israel also has a highly advanced surface fleet comprised of self made vessels too.

Circumstances:
The IDF will probably be on high alert the moment the Muslim Brotherhood takes power, so a surprise attack into Israel is highly unlikely, Israeli forces are likely to be on high alert.
Actual Egyptian military ability is doubtable. Since historically, Israel has fought on much worse circumstances and won. Especially at a change of government, since it is extremely likely that certain amount of Egyptian troops and officers will be prosecuted/dismissed for political and religious reasons.
External support will likely go to Israel, especially since the Muslim Brotherhood is a hard-line Islamic government.

In conclusion, I believe that Israel is most likely to win a war between Israel and Egypt if the Muslim Brotherhood.

[CCIP]

In conclusion, I believe that Israel is most likely to win a war between Israel and Egypt if the Muslim Brotherhood.

I'm pretty sure that was always a given. However the real question is: what would be the other Arab states' response be? Where would the US stand on this? Would Turkey's recent change of stance on Israel play in? What of Iran, perhaps the biggest dark horse in a conflict like that?

Sadly, I don't think there's gonna be any duels in that region. So you really have to take the other powers into account. And that does get a little scary for Israel, though fortunately, it's scary for everyone involved on the other side as well.

As far as Egypt alone, I think Israel has the capability to swiftly take Sinai again and hold on to it. Which is what the outcome of this theoretical scenario would be, imho.

[Raptor1]

What would be the operational and strategic objectives of this supposed invasion?

[UnderseaLcpl]

What would be the operational and strategic objectives of this supposed invasion?

To get invaded by America, presumably?:hmmm:

[Castout]

If the current Egyptian government topples, there is a good chance that the religious hardliners who want to declare war on Israel will come to power.



That's a BIG if.

[CCIP]

You also have to keep in mind that, as we have seen on the streets of Cairo, the military is NOT a mindless puppet or sympathises with extremist leanings. And I honestly have trouble seeing all the officers operating Egypt's sophisticated equipment to go extremist overnight - which makes the use of Egypt's military potential at the hands of the Brotherhood extremely unlikely. Even if an extremist revolution were to occur, Egypt's military would lose a lot of its capability in the process, along with a supply line to the US that is crucial to keeping much of their machinery running.

[TLAM Strike]

I disagree that Naval power is not a deciding factor.

Well Israel is essential an Island, on three sides it borders potential enemies and one side water. That water side must remain open for Israel to maintain supply (the old Sea Lanes of Communication thing again). Isreal has not fought a long protracted war, and would most likely not be able to without outside supply that supply must come by sea or be flown in over said sea.

The ISC is ill prepared to do much beyond coastal defense. It has only three large size corvettes and 8 older non stealthy missile boats. Its three submarines are generally used in the nuclear strike role (rumored anyways) and would be dangerous to risk them in direct combat (especially against superior Egyptian ASW forces). The ISC can't hope to break a distant blockade (a blockade far off shore) its few surface ships would be in danger of air attack and lack green/blue water ASW systems. The IAF has only three (outdated) Patrol Planes that are not designed for ASW focused operations. Also the ISC has no mine sweepers, one Romeo with a load of mines could shut down Israeli ports for quite a while.


The EN on the other hand has six frigates designed for blue water ASW operations and 7 frigates with basic ASW systems and 12 coastal ASW craft plus 16 ASW helicopters and 9 Naval Patrol choppers. They also have four old Romeo class subs that are equipped with decent torpedoes/missiles and received a sonar upgrade not to long ago. The ASW capablity of these is quite low but as an Anti-shipping platform they could be very dangerous if operated beyond the range of IAF/ISC ASW efforts (Say in the Strait of Sicily or the Malta Channel).

[CCIP]

Although on point of naval power, again, I'm curious how far the USN and other likely parties involved in supplying Israel would allow this to go. I think that may be partially the thinking behind Israel's current capabilities.

[TLAM Strike]

Although on point of naval power, again, I'm curious how far the USN and other likely parties involved in supplying Israel would allow this to go. I think that may be partially the thinking behind Israel's current capabilities.

I'm worried it might turn in to a reverse Cuban Missile Crisis with us as the Soviets and the Egyptians blockading. :hmmm:

[the_tyrant]

I disagree that Naval power is not a deciding factor.

Well Israel is essential an Island, on three sides it borders potential enemies and one side water. That water side must remain open for Israel to maintain supply (the old Sea Lanes of Communication thing again). Isreal has not fought a long protracted war, and would most likely not be able to without outside supply that supply must come by sea or be flown in over said sea.

The ISC is ill prepared to do much beyond coastal defense. It has only three large size corvettes and 8 older non stealthy missile boats. Its three submarines are generally used in the nuclear strike role (rumored anyways) and would be dangerous to risk them in direct combat (especially against superior Egyptian ASW forces). The ISC can't hope to break a distant blockade (a blockade far off shore) its few surface ships would be in danger of air attack and lack green/blue water ASW systems. The IAF has only three (outdated) Patrol Planes that are not designed for ASW focused operations. Also the ISC has no mine sweepers, one Romeo with a load of mines could shut down Israeli ports for quite a while.


The EN on the other hand has six frigates designed for blue water ASW operations and 7 frigates with basic ASW systems and 12 coastal ASW craft plus 16 ASW helicopters and 9 Naval Patrol choppers. They also have four old Romeo class subs that are equipped with decent torpedoes/missiles and received a sonar upgrade not to long ago. The ASW capablity of these is quite low but as an Anti-shipping platform they could be very dangerous if operated beyond the range of IAF/ISC ASW efforts (Say in the Strait of Sicily or the Malta Channel).

:hmmm:depends on who attacks first
Israel could do a "pearl harbor" type attack
and destroy the Egyptian naval capabilities
Also just like CCIP said, the Egyptian army is not a mindless puppet
big chance that a "great purge" like thing will happen (so the hardliners have total control), shattering Egyptian military morale and capabilities
Therefore, i believe that the army will shatter first before the blockade can seriously damage Israel. Also, just look at the length of the previous wars. Israel won is 6 days! I don't think a navel blockade can do much damage in 6 days.

[yubba]

If they are hungry now, I wonder how hungry they are going to get when we cut off all aid , if they decide to be warlike. I don't care how much money you got, when the cupboards are bare they are bare , by the way how many calories are in a hundred dollar bill ? Simple fact oil gets cut off food gets cut off, must be a bitch living in desert.

[TLAM Strike]

:hmmm:depends on who attacks first
Israel could do a "pearl harbor" type attack
and destroy the Egyptian naval capabilities
Also just like CCIP said, the Egyptian army is not a mindless puppet
big chance that a "great purge" like thing will happen (so the hardliners have total control), shattering Egyptian military morale and capabilities
Therefore, i believe that the army will shatter first before the blockade can seriously damage Israel. Also, just look at the length of the previous wars. Israel won is 6 days! I don't think a navel blockade can do much damage in 6 days.

Exactly my point on the War Length. Israel is use to winning a war quickly but not to occupying major enemy population centers. Their doctrine is to destroy the enemy army in the field, not to conquer real estate unless necessary. I wonder how long the IDF could hold Cairo if Israel itself was cut off from the SLOC. If Egypt does not play the direct offense game and instead digs in and blockades the eastern Med it could get very ugly, in other words Egypt plays the attrition game.

[krashkart]

Also, just look at the length of the previous wars. Israel won is 6 days! I don't think a navel blockade can do much damage in 6 days.

I wouldn't want to overestimate my capabilities based on past victories. But this comes from an American point of view where we helped win a major war, yet lost numerous smaller wars afterward even though we possessed technological superiority over our opponents.

Given that, I don't know if Israel has the same level of public outcry that we do during prolonged conflict. Most of our wars since WWII were pointless proxy battles against a rival superpower, and public outcry has played pivotal roles in defeating our own objectives. Israel's survival in a war depends much more on their effectiveness on the battlefield. They could very well pull off another earth-shattering victory, but I still wouldn't put it past Murphy's Law to throw a wrench in the works. :yep:


Edit: And what TLAM said. That's a point I hadn't thought about.

[CCIP]

Exactly my point on the War Length. Israel is use to winning a war quickly but not to occupying major enemy population centers. Their doctrine is to destroy the enemy army in the field, not to conquer real estate unless necessary. I wonder how long the IDF could hold Cairo if Israel itself was cut off from the SLOC. If Egypt does not play the direct offense game and instead digs in and blockades the eastern Med it could get very ugly, in other words Egypt plays the attrition game.

Honestly, I can't imagine Israel even crossing the Suez for more than just establishing strategic bridgeheads and carrying out raids. Israel even thinking of occupying Cairo or other large Egyptian cities besides perhaps Suez would be practically suicidal, and I'm sure they know it.

However I don't think that would be an objective for them. I think they would be able to grab Sinai and hold it, while neutralizing Egypt's offensive capability from a distance.

By the way, I totally agree with your analysis of Israel is an island state. It definitely is, from a naval perspective, and it's surprising that their navy has always been strictly continental.

[yubba]

One big muslim army bearing down on you, great big desert, couple of tactical nukes.

[CCIP]

One big muslim army bearing down on you, great big desert, couple of tactical nukes.

Well now, this is 2011, not 1102... I don't think anyone does "one big army" like that anymore, or else you're gonna need enough tactical nukes to make the whole region uninhabitable for ages. Consider even Israel's area. How do you even get that kind of concentration without wiping your own territory clean with some good ol' radiation?

However it's definitely a worry - Israel would use its nukes, not on the "one big muslim army", but on places like, say, Cairo...

[Krauter]

And when that happens you can bet your arse that Iran will step in to help Egypt against the "American Puppet"

[krashkart]

Most nations probably want to avoid allowing that to come to pass - we're trying to stuff everything back into Pandora's Box that was let out after Trinity. I'd think of it more as one rival bringing a live grenade to a party to kill another, and everyone else brave enough to stick around trying to cool the tensions between the two.

Nukes are serious business. Truman would not allow MacArthur to dump nukes on NK when the war turned sour for the US, no matter how much he begged. :yep:


Edit: Things would have to get really, really ugly before nukes would be used. They're not cheap to produce, nor to maintain. And why waste a nuke on Cairo when you can keep it in reserve against Tehran?

[Krauter]

True, but there is a difference between MacArthur wanting blood and wanting to use the most advanced weapon in his time. While having a semi-sensible president with the balls to say "no".

It is an entirely different matter to have a leader who openly despises the US and Israel, who spits in the faces of the IAC (sp? International Atomic Arms Control ::hmmm: whatever the acronym is..) and the U.S and who now has the guns to rival Israel and the U.S

Not to mention their other crazy friends in places like NK, Libya and other extremists.

Krauter

[krashkart]

Good point. I keep forgetting the ethical differences; tooth for a tooth and all that.

[Krauter]

I'm just curious to see who comes in on who's side?

If Egypt enters into a war with Israel, obviously all U.S aid will cease, but what about Syria? Jordan? Lebanese extremists? How are their feelings towards the Israelis?

Also, would the U.S actually step in? (Either as a mediator, fully on Israels side, or as a third party to keep the nukes/bio/chem weapons flying?)

[Castout]

Even if an extremist revolution were to occur, Egypt's military would lose a lot of its capability in the process, along with a supply line to the US that is crucial to keeping much of their machinery running.

It's not an extremist movement or a religious inspired one. But as always religious extremist could and would try to ride atop the movement.
But I think most Egyptians are above falling to that. They just want their rights respected, to feel mattered and secured. Egypt could play the role of being the first Arab democracy. Standing in their way is not only Mubarak but also US and Israel fear of losing their main Arab ally and Egypt as the consequence. And fear is mostly an irrational attitude but then again mankind has never been a mostly rational being even to their elites. If the movement gets quashed with severe violence or an anti religious government set foot then we will see a religious inspired social movement.

[krashkart]

I'd hope for the US to step in to try to prevent the ME from turning into a sheet of glass rather than to help that process along. Have heard the theory many times that a thorough nuking is the only path to peace in the region, and I even believed in that at one time, but it's not the answer. Just like here at home, it's not the average person earning a wage or some right to live that creates bad policies. If nukes or bios go off it won't be politicians that suffer the most from it; it will be whoever happens to be there at the time. And that could be anyone. But there are many more 'average' folks out there than policy makers.

I hope for the best, but the reality does seem pretty dismal at times. :haha:

[Growler]

When it comes to nukes, keep in mind:

Against aggressors from any Arab nation, Israel is fighting for its very existence.

That means nukes, should Israel be left no other option. Push any nuclear power to the brink of extinction, you have to at least consider someone in that nation desperate enough to pop the nuclear cork.

[Krauter]

And that's exactly my fear.

Personally I doubt that the Egyptians could push the Israelis hard enough to consider nukes.. At best I think they'd push back into the Sinai and hold the line..

My worry is that someone, through terrorism, sabotage or what have you, decides to attack Israel's nuclear assets. (or forces them, with bio/chem attacks, etc).

[TLAM Strike]

I'm just curious to see who comes in on who's side?

If Egypt enters into a war with Israel, obviously all U.S aid will cease, but what about Syria? Jordan? Lebanese extremists? How are their feelings towards the Israelis?

Also, would the U.S actually step in? (Either as a mediator, fully on Israels side, or as a third party to keep the nukes/bio/chem weapons flying?) If other Islamic States joined the war Syria would be the major threat to Israel, its Air Force adds significant capabilities to the fray; namely their MiG-29s and Su-24s. Their Army is large but only has a few new weapons. Their Navy would not factor in much but it does have over a dozen ASW helis that would be useful.

Iran would be a threat but mostly with air attacks, although I would not rule out a sea attack; maybe even a SLCM attack. IRCG forces in Syria and Lebanon would also be a major problem. WMD use would also be a major concern from Iran.

Libya would be the last nation on my "might join in" list, their air force is very outdated and few in number. Their Army is small, and their Navy is tiny and outdated (I would not count on their Foxtrots being a factor, I doubt they are seaworthy). The only ace they got is the 400 some odd Scuds they have.

True, but there is a difference between MacArthur wanting blood and wanting to use the most advanced weapon in his time. While having a semi-sensible president with the balls to say "no".

It is an entirely different matter to have a leader who openly despises the US and Israel, who spits in the faces of the IAC (sp? International Atomic Arms Control ::hmmm: whatever the acronym is..) and the U.S and who now has the guns to rival Israel and the U.S

Not to mention their other crazy friends in places like NK, Libya and other extremists.

Krauter

IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency

[Krauter]

That would be it thanks for the acronym Oh king of acronyms TLAM :D

I'm curious, are you basing your 'might join' probability on how well the nations might fare in a conflict? After a few reads on the current Libyan clown, I doubt he cares if he wins or loses but would rather show how 'great' the Libyan military and nation is..

Do you think that, if Iran were to enter the fray, would NK (being somewhat of a 'nuclear' ally) provide help or resources? What about China?

[Castout]

I'd hope for the US to step in to try to prevent the ME from turning into a sheet of glass rather than to help that process along. Have heard the theory many times that a thorough nuking is the only path to peace in the region, and I even believed in that at one time, but it's not the answer. Just like here at home, it's not the average person earning a wage or some right to live that creates bad policies. If nukes or bios go off it won't be politicians that suffer the most from it; it will be whoever happens to be there at the time. And that could be anyone. But there are many more 'average' folks out there than policy makers.

I hope for the best, but the reality does seem pretty dismal at times. :haha:

Actually times and again it's neurotic or extreme and bad or corrupt leadership are the ones that contribute to a nation's downfall. With this in mind it's the elites who are to be blamed for every blunder of their policy and fall of their society civilization while they take credits for policies which implementation and results don't depend on them much. The clue is everybody can be a politician though not everyone can become a good politician but everybody is different and add to the fact that man is fallible then you have potentially a time bomb, major catastrophe in waiting in the form of your top leadership.

In an ideal world the safest route would be to rule by majority consent. That's the essence of democracy by the way. There's a very good reason to that too. The many average folks are not average at all and the few top elites may not be that good either or any at all. People get to power through many different ways: luck, deceit, backstabbing and plotting, violence, wealth/influence, charisma/appealing vision, or skills or combination of any of which. To know which politician is which takes wisdom. There are many different kind of dogs as there are many different kind of politician and person.

If you still disagree then I will ask this question:
What would you do and how would you do it if suddenly you have an almost unlimited resources and immunity from the law?
Certainly you would be a different man doing things differently and viewing things differently, setting up different goals and even think and feel differently. How much and how different may differ from person to person but suddenly you have it big and the rest I leave to your imagination. Do you know what would become of you if this happened to you? You'll be YOURSELF! Especially with time. Yeah that's absolutely scary! Why because most people have no plan on what kind of person they want to become.

There was this wise person who you might know who once said: if you want to know a man give him power.

[Krauter]

The only problem with implementing democracy in these countries is that:

a) This form of government has never really existed in their culture before (to my knowledge) and thus may lead them to believe they are acting against their culture

b) Same as after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the game's changed, the same people stay. Theres been so much corruption within these countries that, democracy or no, there will still be corrupt, crazies taking advantage of the system

[krashkart]

Actually times and again it's neurotic or extreme and bad or corrupt leadership are the ones that contribute to a nation's downfall. With this in mind it's the elites who are to be blamed for every blunder of their policy and fall of their society civilization while they take credits for policies which implementation and results don't depend on them much. The clue is everybody can be a politician though not everyone can become a good politician but everybody is different and add to the fact that man is fallible then you have potentially a time bomb, major catastrophe in waiting in the form of your top leadership.

In an ideal world the safest route would be to rule by majority consent. That's the essence of democracy by the way. There's a very good reason to that too. The many average folks are not average at all and the few top elites may not be that good either or any at all. People get to power through many different ways: luck, deceit, backstabbing and plotting, violence, wealth/influence, charisma/appealing vision, or skills or combination of any of which. To know which politician is which takes wisdom. There are many different kind of dogs as there are many different kind of politician and person.

If you still disagree then I will ask this question:
What would you do and how would you do it if suddenly you have an almost unlimited resources and immunity from the law?
Certainly you would be a different man doing things differently and viewing things differently or even think and feel differently. How much different may differ from person to person but suddenly you have it big and the rest I leave to your imagination.

:hmmm:

Thanks. I needed that.

[Castout]

:hmmm:

Thanks. I needed that.


Do you know what would become of you if this happened to you? You'll be YOURSELF! Especially with time. Yeah that's absolutely scary! Why?! because most people have no plan on what kind of person they want to become.

There was this wise person who you might know who once said: if you want to know a man give him power.

Added those since :03:

[Krauter]

Absolute power breeds absolute maniacs :O:

[Castout]

Absolute power breeds absolute maniacs :O:

Absolutely. Well maybe not. It really depends on the person. If he had the tendency to be a maniac in the first place he will become an absolute maniac when given absolute power. But I guess a maniac most probably can't be successful enough to get himself absolute power unless it is handed to him. A maniac most probably is lacking focus on the real important things in their lives to become really successful. They are the kind of person who are probably obsessed with the trivial things.


Generally when people become themselves, truly themselves they will probably be called a creep by the people who haven't become themselves or realized their true self. A creep is a person who is so different from anybody else or an eccentric because they have developed their personality such that their experience and knowledge or skill renders them insight that other people most probably unable to realize. A creep unlike a maniac is able to focus on the things which matter and are much more likely to achieve success than a maniac I suppose.

Like this prime specimen :haha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiCznGaex2c

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cxRm7MYLsqA/SUPZWma66UI/AAAAAAAAADw/HzW6jlwdgVQ/s320/palpatine.jpg



Now actually the purpose of all education besides the transferring of skills and knowledge needed to earn a living is to make a person to realize his true self. To simply become themselves or rather to find themselves. To become a person by desires and match it with design. That should become the primary goal of a good education.
But if becoming yourself means becoming a rapist or murderer or a robber then it will mean that they are essentially a failed specimen of a person who needs help to reform. So the question we should be asking ourselves is are we who we are today largely by decisions we made or by situation that compelled us to compromise to unbecoming who we really are. Most probably if we take average people we are made unfortunately largely by situation imposed upon us rather than by decisions. People are attaching themselves too much on the things that surround their lives, be it people, objects or ideas (incl status)rather than taking the initiative to decide what kind of person they really would like to become in spite. Some call it the timid path or the safe path or even the norm. I call it being dwarfed. Because the smallest prison a person could find himself in is the confine of his thoughts and beliefs of what is possible and not. Don't ever look down on yourself. Most probably you haven't become the person you could have and still could have. . . .even . . . in your deathbed.

Mahatma Gandhi is a very good example of the person who made conscious effort to become the person he would like to become. He let his personality to shape the power that he was entrusted to and not the other way around to make the power to enslave his personality. There is no doubt in my mind that he made continuous conscious efforts to be the man that he was. A true leader because a true leader must be able to lead himself before he lead other people. To have restraint especially when there is none to restrain him. And I don't think Gandhi was the person he was because he was religious. He was religious because he felt he WAS NOT(just like Mother Teresa). No not to pretend but to genuinely seek in order to help him becoming the person he ought to be: himself. Like I mentioned another example would be Mother Teresa. Thus Gandhi was definitely a creep as was Mother Teresa.

How about the likes of Hitler? Such is the perfect example of the kind of people who never planned what kind of person they would like to become or were victims themselves who never saw help. They never did or never bothered to plan or unable to due to past trauma that fixated them. They simply let things flow and let their desires take over detached from morality and conscience. And such is the consequence of being ignorant both to himself and to many other people whose lives they ruined. I don't believe people to actually able to plan to be evil. Ask any child if they want to become an evil person. Of course they would answer no.

[krashkart]

Absolute power breeds absolute maniacs :O:

I'm perfect for the job! :salute:

Wait... will there be croissants? :hmmm:

[TLAM Strike]

That would be it thanks for the acronym Oh king of acronyms TLAM :D

I'm curious, are you basing your 'might join' probability on how well the nations might fare in a conflict? After a few reads on the current Libyan clown, I doubt he cares if he wins or loses but would rather show how 'great' the Libyan military and nation is..

Do you think that, if Iran were to enter the fray, would NK (being somewhat of a 'nuclear' ally) provide help or resources? What about China?

Yea I'm basing it mostly on who would be a threat. If Jordan or Sudan entered the war it would not add much to the Red Force side aside from some troops.

Countries who I consider greater threats but unlikely to get directly involved are Turkey and Saudi. At that point they would be burning their bridges with the west and its quite possible that American involvement would follow, which would be approaching a WWIII type situation.

Algeria I would put up as a possible threat but their only real trump card is pair of Project 877 Kilos. Which would be a major asset if the Red Force tried to close the med.

I doubt North Korea would get involved much. They have little to gain in such a situation, they are an ally to such states because they are the only people who would buy their arms.

I doubt China would get involved, weak Arab/Muslim states are to their advantage. Any sort of Pan-Arab union would provide "collective bargaining" power leverage against China.

[Type941]

I thought IDF has some 200 nukes and if pushed it's gonna use them. The Suez thing though is a worry with all that oil nicely flowing through. I wonder who gains from this. :yeah::nope:

[Takeda Shingen]

War between Egypt and anybody isn't likely to happen anytime soon. The nation is going to be struggling to get it's act together for the forseeable future.

[MH]

http://rubmint.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/5440b_funny-pictures-cat-will-attack-at-dawn.jpg