An Asus Strix GTX 970
Only buy that if your mATX / mITX case takes cards with that extra height. Quite a few don't and the Asus (Asus.com: "14 cm", the MSI GTX 970 GAMING is at 141 mm) will collide with the PSU.
In that situation, go eg. for a Palit GTX 970 JetStream. It trades the height for width, meaning you'll lose a PCIe slot, but at least it'll fit.
Side note: A 1050w PSU is entirely overpowered, you won't need more than 600w or even 500w for such a setup. I'd suggest the Enermax Platimax 600w as an alternative.
Hey, look, you left out the part where Israel lied about being attacked first.
And you omitted that little fact that this claim came in the Security Council meeting on June 5, the day the war actually started, or about three weeks after the 15th.
Because Israel, the most powerful and belligerent military force in the region, has never moved troops or weapons in preparation of possible war with it's neighbors or made threats to do so. Like it's been doing to Iran, over the nuclear weapons program that Israel admits that Iran doesn't actually have.
A total movement of 100,000 troops and hundreds of tanks outside of war, together with a multitude of other belligerent actions (again, eg. expelling the UN, closing the Straits) — no, it had not done that. Moreover, prior to the later 70s, Israel by no means was "the most powerful" military force — sure, it always had the superior and more competent personnel, but material-wise it was absolutely outgunned, which without decisive maneuvers (heavily relying on surprise, like to destroy the entire Egyptian air force on the ground) could have readily resulted in its defeat — as Egypt and Syria would show in 1973: That war could have easily resulted in their (partial) military victory had Egypt not made the idiotic decision to step outside of its SAM umbrella and Syria similarly not run out of such missiles.
But even buying your selective timeline, nothing changes the fact that Israel struck first, which means Israel started the war.
One notices how you shifted the topic from Israel's rationale to who started the war, and how you quietly dropped that "assembling for some time" claim — "whoopsie doopsie" indeed. Moreover, fog of war almost always leads to misreadings of the situation, particularly in a country that remembers how all of its neighbors invaded the day after its declaration of independence.
Oh, and then there's the almost inconsequential fact that Israelis admit they didn't expect to be attacked by Israel, making the whole operation a land-grabbing war of choice for Israel. Whoopsie doopsie.
Yeah, like when it returned the Sinai in exchange for a proper peace deal with Egypt years later, or how it emphatically urged Jordan to stay out of the 1967 war — which joined the fray after falling for Egypt's lies about fantastic military victories.
Now you can stick that in your ignorant pipe and smoke it.
That spark — the claim that Israel had been massing troops near the Syrian border — was a Soviet lie, and everybody knew it. The Egyptian chief of staff personally inspected that border, the Syrians themselves sent reconnaissance planes. They found nothing and discarded the claim. Eshkol even suggested to the Soviet ambassador to jointly inspect the Israeli side of the border — he declined.
Neither in Israel nor Syria did foreign press report any mobilization, which on any larger scale would have been absolutely unconcealable.
Yet on the 15th May — Israel's Day of Independence — Nasser announced a military emergency and started to sent the first two armored divisions into Sinai.
Nasser expelled the UN troops on the 16th May. Israel started partial mobilization only on that same day, full on the 19th.
By the 17th, Egypt ordered its armed forces to take up battle positions in Sinai.
By then three Egyptian divisions with more than 600 tanks had began fanning out through it. Damascus was simultaneously mobilizing 50 cadet battalions, Iraqi brigades were moving towards their Jordanian border. Kuwait, Yemen and Algeria announced readiness to dispatch troops and planes.
(Ultimately it would be 1,300 Israeli tanks vs 2,500 Arab ones, 746 artillery vs 2,780, 247 fighter jets vs 557, etc.)
As late as on the 20th, Israelis tried to get De Gaulle mediate with the Soviets, and requested Washington to make good on Eisenhower's 1957 declaration to demonstratively send a warship through Tiran — no response was forthcoming.
His successor Sadat would later recall Nasser's own words: "Now, with the concentration of our force in Sinai the chances of war are fifty-fifty but if we close the Straits, war will be a 100 per cent certain."
Nasser would close said straits, recognized in 1957 by the maritime nations as international waterway, to Israeli shipping on the 22th.
In a speech before unionists on the 26th, Nasser would boast: "The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel."
No Israeli PM would ever say anything like this.
Nor would Israeli troops ever publicly march through Tel Aviv chanting "We are off to Cairo."
It will encourage people to have more sex without effective protection (ie. condoms) if they falsely believe that circumcision already covers them — particularly women seem to believe in circumcision as some sort of wonder weapon against esp. HPV. Add a bit of alcohol and the bareback with the handsome circumcised stranger recently met doesn't appear just that dangerous anymore.
Same thing (risk compensation) happens in Africa with circumcision against HIV: Whatever little benefit there may be for men is eaten up by enough mislead behavior of those falsely convinced to now somehow wear an "invisible condom".
See this video with an attempted ranking.
About its purpose in Judaism, here's what Maimonides wrote:
"[W]ith regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. [...] How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? [...] The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. [...] The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."
The words of Kellogg, the man behind much of its popularization in the US:
"A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."
Video with an attempted ranking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ
The stark Type III (infibulation) makes up about 15% of worldwide FGM.
Less invasive forms of FGM that are comparable to male circumcision — the so called "Mild Sunnah", for instance — are banned regardless, and rightly so.
"[W]ith regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.  How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member?  The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."
Nowadays vaccinations for both genders are available against most of its strains, and circumcision won't replace the importance of proper sexual hygiene, either. You might as well argue that a false sense of protection leads men to more risky behavior.
There already have been two longer replies to the AAP's statement:
Their most important points:
1. The AAP chose to overblow purported benefits by cherry-picking studies and advertising their results past their proportionality, misleading the public with doublespeak of "pro" while admitting circumcision still does not qualify as routine amputation.
2. The AAP omitted both contradicting studies and objections to those it used, such as to the three WHO HIV studies.
3. The AAP omitted any discussion of the foreskin's functionality and notice of possible complications after circumcision (incl. death, an estimated 117 boys in the US per year).
One could think they felt the heat as one national agency resp. adviser after another rejected or even condemned infant circumcision.
The three WHO Africa studies did not survive review:
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf (botton of p135)
Also, infection of men by heterosexual sex is the least important transmission vector in the West, nor does circumcision apparently influence the infection of women by men:
Besides, how rational is it to tell men that they must be circumcised to prevent HIV, but afterwards they still need condoms to be protected from STDs?