[philosofy123]

Sharon is too militant to stay in power. The Israelis need to bring him down and let Perez lead. If not for any reason than to assure that the weapons of mass destruction in the Israeli arsenal are in the hands of a steady man.

[Cachelot]

If not for any reason than to assure that the weapons of mass destruction in the Israeli arsenal are in the hands of a steady man.

To assure that they're in the hands of an Arabist traitor, you mean. That would probably be the quickest way for the jihadists to aquire nuclear weapons.

[Lazamataz]

Sharon is too militant to stay in power. The Israelis need to bring him down and let Perez lead.

Actually, I was hoping we could recruit Neville Chamberlain's grandson.

[monkeywrench]

That would be like replacing President Bush with clinton, in a similar crisis. We'd take many many hits without striking back, he'd probably send the attackers foreign aid, and demand foreign troops!

[agrace]

let Perez lead

That's the funniest thing I've read today, thanks. :)

[Ancesthntr]

Sharon is too militant to stay in power. The Israelis need to bring him down and let Perez lead. If not for any reason than to assure that the weapons of mass destruction in the Israeli arsenal are in the hands of a steady man.

I'd say that the choice of who leads Israel is up to Israeli voters, not you. Sharon was elected by the voters of his nation. He now enjoys popularity on the order of 75%, while Peres and his "peace at any price" camp are viewed as a dangerous and naive anachronism. You sound too much like the Gore bassholes who constantly complain that "the wrong man is in the White House." Go back to DU, disruptor.