Until the Nuclear Powers reduce their own armouries to rational proportions every independent country in the world has a duty to have enough to defend itself. - Until all nuclear arsenals are handed over to UN and rearranged solely for the defence of Earth against an attack from outer Space.

The problem then is the UN and its big bully boys in the Security Council. Perhaps God will take a hand in this game and make bird flu person to person infectious and increase its lethality. Dumping eighty or ninety percent of the human population might just be enough to save the Earth's ability to support Life. Hey God! Are you listening? Do you really want to go back to that lonely begining all over again. Homo Saps are overpopulating to destroy this Creation of Life on this planet. Scientists are disabling your checks and balances.

Aside from the tiresom (yet thankfully breif) assertion that the 911 attacks were staged, this article is concise and detailed, if somewhat similar to what most people already know.

However I must take issue with something; whilst it is recognised that Israel needs "the green light" (so is not the real power in America, as some especially rabid anit-zionists would have us believe), there is little recognition of Tehran's own short comings. For one, the President is an insane holocaust denier who, like Bush, believes he is guided by a deity (the only difference is that his is Allah), after all, he said that he felt a 'glow' surround him whilst at the UN once.

People rally round Iran instinctively because they are threatened by US imperialism, and these people ignore the human rights abuses, dodgy voting system (as in the US and UK and other states across the globe, the Iranian elites have learnt that allowing everyone or nearly everyone the vote is no obstacle to their dominion, all they need to do is restrict the choices that their citizens can for for) and the insane theocratic government.

War is not the option, but neither is appeasement. Revolution, mobilisation of the people of Iran, is the only way to liberate them, and this doesnt need the intervention of the US or any other state, in fact it would most likely make such a thing more difficult. It is, however, an uphill struggle due to the intensive propaganda campaigns of the Iranian government.

We cannot afford to support this theocracy merely because it is threatened by the US; it is an authoritarian theocracy and furthermore, there is no such thing as a "good government"; that is precicely why i think most of us feel solidarity with the Iranian people, and certainly not with its government.

Ahmedinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map, together with another few million Jews.

He is nearing nuclear capability.

He has the mentality of a suicide bomber.

He needs stopping.

Let me respond to the VILE racist post of "the last klansman".

1) No thinking person denies the the MEME 911 was staged, as an updated version of the 60's plan "OPERATION NORTHWOODS". It is amusing that those that stand behind the official lies of Blair/Bush NEVER explain how those tasked with protecting Bush on the day understood that his location was not a target (despite following a publically disseminated itinerary), or how buildings collapse at free-fall speed as a consequence of physical damage at their tops.

2) Given that only muslims, not christians or jews, have faced GENOCIDE since WW2, it is appropriate for Iranian leaders and others to challenge the 'holocaust business' (generated by the same New York PR agencies that were responsible for the lies about babies and incubators in Kuwait during the so-called 'gulf-war'). Hitler used stories of long dead Germans to justify his atrocities against the jews etc, and the leader of Iran is well aware that Israel (and its supporters) is using stories of long dead jews to justify their atrocities against the Palestinians, Iraqis, and soon the Iranians. Humans should spend ZERO time remembering old atrocities (if those responsible are defeated or long gone) and ALL their time remembering new atrocities, like Chechnya, Rwanda, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and all those acts of mass murder carried out by Israel. This is all the leaders of Iran expect, and they are right.

3) "Appeasement"??? Ironically, the ONLY criminal activity that Iran is involved in is its partnership with Blair and Bush in the active occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Somehow, I don't imagine you disapprove of that. Iran doesn't just have a right, it has a duty to do everything it can to defend its people against monsters like Blair and you. At this moment in Earth's history, nuclear weapons may just achieve this. Personally, I disagree with this thinking, because the game is much more complex than that.

4) your last comment is the most vile of all. It was, of course, the self-same thing that Hitler said just before he invaded each nation. We all know exactly who and what you feel solidarity for!

"Given that only muslims, not christians or jews, have faced GENOCIDE since WW2"

And given you are twit who spouts repeated nonsense, I suggest you follow your own arrogant advice and read a book sometime. Ever heard of buddhists in Cambodia and Vietnam ? Ever heard of Catholics in East Timor ? The fact you make such repeated and basic errors discredits you more than your MAD SHOUTING does.

Hey J&P, how many countries has Iran invaded since the Iranian revolution? How many countries has Israel invaded since it's creation?

"No thinking person denies the the MEME 911 was staged"

Yes they do deny it - most thinking people do not ascribe to the stupid 'blood libel' type conspiracy theories which you champion.


"Given that only muslims, not christians or jews, have faced GENOCIDE since WW2",

The post above deals perfectly with this crass point

"it is appropriate for Iranian leaders and others to challenge the 'holocaust business(generated by the same New York PR agencies that were responsible for the lies about babies and incubators in Kuwait during the so-called 'gulf-war'). '"

Not quite sure what you mean there Twilight - I know that you occassionally flirt with Holocaust denial; sad really, I can introduce you to a few people with numbers on their arms who can confirm it really did happen.
In the alternative you may accept it happened but seek to compare that to a conflict such as in the disputed territories in Israel where just over 3000 Palestinians have died (according to Amnesty and Red Cross figures), mostly armed terrorists to the slaughter of six million Jews, enough to fill 120 football stadiums.
That does nothing but diminish the terror of what happened in the holocaust and desecrate the memory of those who died just two generations ago .

"Humans should spend ZERO time remembering old atrocities " -

Shit Twilight, we should learn from attrocities and see what hatred dirty little conspiracy theorist like you can cause and we should honour the memories of those who suffered and died and of those who survived by never forgetting.

" At this moment in Earth's history, nuclear weapons may just achieve this. "

What just because he wants to wipe Israel off the map - do you realise what you are saying you absolute moron

"your last comment is the most vile of all. It was, of course, the self-same thing that Hitler said just before he invaded each nation. "

My last comment was that Ahmedinejad has the mind of a suicide bomer - Hitler never said that before invading any nation - I would be interested if you can show me such a quote.

He does have the mentality of a suicide bomber - Ahmedinejad said: "Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity."

And he wants to build nuclear weapons .......


Hermes - Unlike Twilight who really is a few sandwiches short of a picnic, you and I have had some very good and lengthy debates in the past. I even accepted your view on one or two (albeit minor points); no mean feat on Indymedia.
I do not approve of nuclear attacks on anyone and believe a nuclear free world would be a lovely idea.

In answer to your question, Iran has not invaded anyone. However they have been behind the training of a number of terror groups and have sponsored global terror since 9/11. Surely you can see that if Iran are allowed to develop to nuclear capacity, the world will be as close to nuclear war as it was in the Cold War or worse.

I know you do not agree with Western aggression, but do you really want a nuclear Iran to up the ante?

I'm not Twilight, but I wanted to address your comments anyway.

"Yes they do deny it - most thinking people do not ascribe to the stupid 'blood libel' type conspiracy theories which you champion."

Who are you speaking of? Anyone who's done any research on the subject? See, Twilight said "thinking person", not Useful Idiot. It's not "blood libel" to ascribe certain traits to criminals with a history of such deeds, who profit from conflict.

The unproven explanation you champion is a Conspiracy Theory, completely devoid of support, fed to us by a contemptable bunch of LYING Neo-Fascists.
www.newamericancentury.org

"The post above deals perfectly with this crass point"

Really? Compare the numbers of these groups slaughtered over the past forty years ...

"Not quite sure what you mean there Twilight ..."

Sure you do. Your response is exactly that of those who attempt to distract from facts about the Holocaust Industry, which is mostly driven by Zionists.

"I can introduce you to a few people"

How many ... ?

Eight hundred thousand Palestinians were driven out of the portion of Palestine which now comprises the Zionist State, in the very first years of the European Zionist invasion. Many more were killed, and their villages were destroyed. This alone refutes your point.

"Shit Twilight, we should learn from attrocities"

Indeed. Too bad the Israelis didn't, as they continue to perpetuate a similar system ...

"see what hatred dirty little conspiracy theorist like you can cause and we should honour the memories of those who suffered and died and of those who survived by never forgetting."

I think you need to look a little more closely at the parallels between Fascists of the past, and the Fascists you support. Academia certainly has ...

"What just because he wants to wipe Israel off the map"

This is a manipulation of what was said. More accurately, he meant that the violent, supremacist ideology of Zionism needs to be wiped out. There is nothing wrong with this.

"My last comment was that Ahmedinejad has the mind of a suicide bomer - Hitler never said that before invading any nation"

Sure he did. He called his intended targets "terrorists", in order to end debate.

Just as you & yours have ...

"And he wants to build nuclear weapons"

According to the people who told us Saddam was a dire threat ...

Credible voices involved with these issues disagree.

"In answer to your question, Iran has not invaded anyone."

Indeed.

That was only half of the question.

"However they have been behind the training of a number of terror groups"

This relates directly to the second part of the question. If you get to define who a "terrorist" is, then I get to define who the "War Criminals" are.

This is nothing in comparison to the terror training carried out by the West/Israel.

"Surely you can see that if Iran are allowed to develop to nuclear capacity, the world will be as close to nuclear war as it was in the Cold War or worse."

That's like saying that if you give a chef a knife, he may stab someone. Iran isn't close to nuclear-capable, and weapons development is years off, even if they were to start it at all.

Well, J&P, first, arguing with Twilight is fairly pointless, I've tried numerous times and I think he just likes winding people up. Or he's actually crazy. But either way, it's a waste of time posting responses to him...well, sometimes it lets of steam to post some angry message.

Anyway, in response about Iran, obviously it would not be really great to have some other country playing with nuclear weapons, although sometimes, strangely, a situation where both sides have nuclear weapons is more stable than one in which only one has them. The real threat of nuclear war sometimes sobers people up, and you only have to see the peace that has suddenly broken out between India and Pakistan to understand that. The real issue is not pushing the ante up yet further.

From my perspective, it is quite obvious that this cycle of aggression pushes people to more and more extreme positions. For example, as a consequence of western aggression, you now have muslim fundamentalist governments in Iran, Iraq and Palestine. The Palestinians voted for Hamas, the Iraqis voted for a Shia party with strong links to Iran, and the Sunni party with links to the Iraqi resistance, and Iran is the oldest sotry of them all. They had a secular left-wing Prime Minister, Mosadeq, who was overthrown by the CIA and replaced by the Shah. The current Islamic government is very much a reaction to that.

It is interesting the Islamic fundamentalism as a global movement is a modern phenomenom, and co-incidentally corresponds with the time in which they muslim countries see their lands being invaded, their resources divided up between western imperialist powers, and their historic lands colonised by millions of Jewish settlers. Every secular attempt to resist this has failed, and so the people turn to religious fundamentalism, the only force that can give them the psychological impetus to fight.

In fact, the extreme situation of the modern world has pushed people to seek some sort of direction in religious fundamentalism, extreme nationalism and identity politics. Where somehow the rather artificial distinction of being born in a certain country, or into a certain ethnicity, dictates what you should believe in. So you see in the Great Depression, the Germans looking for their essential, and artificial superior 'Aryan' identity. Obviously, ( well, obviously to racist fascists ) the only way to prove this superiority was by killing the other lesser identities. After that, everybody is engaged in this pointless exercise, to some extent or another. Every 'race' ended up looking for 'self-determination', creating a host of pointless little countries, and a whole load of problems like those following the break up of Yugoslavia, where somehow being 'Serb', 'Bosnian' or 'Croat' defined more about the people than the beliefs they held. Perhaps if that war had been a battle about political ideologies, like capitalist-socialist, it would be more understandable.

And it becomes ridiculous, like the BNP demanding the British right to self-determination, in a world which is basically being run by anglo-saxons at the moment.

I don't understand why this 'right to self determination' in the form of hundreds of little nation states is held as such a high ideal. What gives some races the right to their own state, and others not. Why do the Jews deserve a state in the middle-east, and the Druze no? If the Druze collectively demanded their own state in parts of Israel, Lebanon and Syria, should they be granted it?

In some sense, this is why I see the Palestinian demand for the 'state of Palestine' silly, and instead I believe in a one-state solution, because I believe in integration, not more arbitrary seperations which solve nothing. And that is why I don't believe in Zionism as the state of Israel, although I do believe in cultural Zionism, the re-assertion of Jewish identity after thousands of years of persecution, as promoted by people like Einstein, who incidentally did not support the creation of a state to accomplish this purpose.

Hmmm, I've digressed from my point, about Iran, but basically I'm trying to show that this sort of 'fundamentalism' is common, although perhaps it takes on a stronger flavour
when it is religious. But it is a reaction to threatening aggressive forces, and believe me, the West has been an extremely aggressive force in the middle-east, especially from the first world war onwards.

So, if we want to lower the tension you have to do several things. The first is to recognise that we are a victim of these forces too, trying to find identity and direction in nationalism, as a way of distinguishing ourselves from 'the others' who appear to threaten us. If we abandon that narrow idea in favour of a broader ideology which sees us all as essentially the same, but trapped in these vicious cycles by a great deal of ignorance and fear, then we will stop reacting in such a way that makes the situation worse and ups the ante even further, don't solve anything, and create more problems in the future.

In material terms, you can see that the more Iran is threatened, the more inclined it will be to develop nuclear weapons to defend itself. An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could work, in the short term, but it would push the entire region to the brink. The only reason the US isn't getting their arse completely and utterly kicked in Iraq, and only a little bit, is that the Shia aren't rising up as well. And everybody knows that that is Iran's card. Plus, the US will completely lose any respect and authority in all parts of the world, which is pretty low at the moment anyway. One consequence could be the price of oil will rise through the roof. What will happen then? Could the iron US economy finally falter and fall? What happens if the US can no longer afford to protect Israel with billions of dollars of aid, or even that you can't get the fuel to run your tanks and F-16's? It's not particularly far-fetched, what with the US driving a major wedge between themselves and the major oil-producing regions of the world.

This is speculation, but I'm trying to show you that the option of violence will not provide any solutions to your problem, and will create a whole host of new ones, just as the invasion of Iraq did. You have to be smarter than that, and stop reacting in a conditioned way to every perceived 'threat'.

Yes you are right Hermes -I should stop responding to Twilight and his holocaust denying friends.

I am not getting into another Israel debate with you - I agree with 2 states, not one, never will.

But Iran...


"It is interesting the Islamic fundamentalism as a global movement is a modern phenomenom,"

Not really sure I agree with that, Calls to establish a global Caliphate have been around for some time; this idea started in the 14th Century but has since been in retreat.

It roused its head again in the 1900 - 1935 period with the rise of Whabism, the most fundamental branch of Islam, starting in India and Egypt.

But certainly now the call to establish a Global Calpihate is at a new high. Al Queda called for attacks on all corrupt secular regimes and this is why attacks are mainly being targetted at Muslim Shia states by Sunni attackers.

Zaraqawi in an open letter to Bin Laden offered to be his deputy and assured him he could launch attacks against both Shia and Western targets. Bin Laden accepted that.

There have therefore been a number of attacks in Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Saudi - mainly by local groups supported by Iranian funded groups - all aimed at causing chaos, insurgency and creating the opportunity for the establishment of Caliphates in those states. This would create a very dangerous fundamentalist Islamic block.

Only then will the west see attacks at full capacity when attention is turned fully to the West. These attacks will be a lot more serious if the state at the centre of them is nuclear.

Extremist Islam knows what the west holds dear - Democratic freedoms and life; they do not hold these dear and we, in the west, do not understand what they want.

TO protect life and democracy in the long term, how far can we sacrifice democracy and human rights in the short term? This is a very difficult question and I defy anyone to offer a simple answer - there isnt one.

Yes - it is true that both sides being nuclear can create a balance of power - but not if one side is someone like Ahmedinejad who has no respect for life, who champions suicide bombers, who calls for attacks against civilians and who wants to wipe Israel off the map (and Israel can be a little bit jittery when such threats are made).

Quite simply if Iran has nukes we are on a path to destruction.

China got the nuke, nothing happened. Pak and India got the nuke, nothing happened. Why. Nukes are useless because of MAD. Israel and Iran will face off but never launch. MAD/ By now there must be 1000 nukes targetted at Iran, all in vain, they cannot be used.

A bomb given to say Hizbollah and taken to Tel Aviv by shipping container, and detonated, say, one would expect the same to happen in Tehran:/Riyhad/Damascus/Islanabad.

Let then waste their time with nukes. The whole story is a front. Possibly Iran is being used to bring pressure on Saudi to control AQ. The shite/sunni war is next.

"Yes you are right Hermes -I should stop responding to"

Don't forget the 25 Tactics of Disinformation, and the Traits of a Disinformation Agent - they travel in packs, or post as more than one individual.

"Twilight and his holocaust denying friends."

I didn't see anybody "deny the Holocaust", but your defensive, knee-jerk, tired old mischaracterization of your opponents tells me that you cannot debate them honestly, because you support the indefensible.

"I am not getting into another Israel debate with you - I agree with 2 states, not one"

Only one state will create a permanent solution. Two states will only allow old hatreds to simmer, until they explode into future wars. Plus, allowing Zionists to keep what they've stolen would only "reward them for terrorism".

"Not really sure I agree with that"

Nor do I. The current version was created by the CIA, when creating "Jihadists" played into their war against the Soviet Union, at first in Afghanistan, and more recently in Bosnia and the 'Stans.

It was the CIA which created textbooks which manipulated the teachings of Islam, and combined these manipulations with military training. In Bush's speech last night, he mentioned this process - but as if the Arab world was to blame - and he condemned the architects. Of course, he and his ARE those architects.

"But certainly now the call to establish a Global Calpihate is at a new high."

But it's still just an anomaly, rhetoric used by people who wish to gain power through this path, directed by who knows ... ? It's mainly a Conspiracy Theory put forth by the Fascists in power, and those Useful Idiots who support them and their crusade, as noted in "What Islamic Terror?" by Israel Shamir.
 http://www.nade.dk/web/nade/site.nsf/FramesetHP?readform&wmain=files/15FCD7DD0097E9CCC1256DDE00521D63&thisdb

"Al Queda called for attacks on all..."

Every single person positively ID'ed as "al Qaeda" can be directly connected to Western/Israeli intelligence.

"this is why attacks are mainly being targetted at Muslim Shia states by Sunni attackers."

No, this is done because the Fascists want to provoke a Civil War, so that they can loot the Arab World while the Arabs are busy killing eaxh other, with weapons provided by their enemies. This was detailed in the leaked document, "Iraq: Options Paper", prepared for the US by the UK Overseas & Defense Secretariat Cabinet Office. The UK said that "'Divide & Rule' is easy", a full year before the illegal war in Iraq commenced.

"Zaraqawi in an open letter to Bin Laden offered to be his deputy and assured him he could launch attacks against both Shia and Western targets. Bin Laden accepted that."

An easily-forged document, used by the Fascists to avoid having to provide any evidence that this one-legged "Terrorist Mastermind", whose death in Afghanistan in 2002 they claimed as a "success in the 'War on Terror'", ever set foot in Iraq.

You'll have to do better than that, I'm afraid ...

"Extremist Islam knows what the west holds dear - Democratic freedoms and life"

The People? Yes, just as Arabs hold these things dear, freedom and life, things which the Fascist leaders in the US/UK are stealing from them.

The leadership? Money and Power.

"TO protect life and democracy in the long term, how far can we sacrifice democracy and human rights in the short term?"

You can't. In becoming a thousandfold worse than any bogeyman they can provide, the Fascists have destroyed these very things, because they are only slogans to them, and they do not care for them.

"Yes - it is true that both sides being nuclear can create a balance of power"

This is an irrelevant question, however, because Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, nor are they currently intent upon gaining them.

"but not if one side is someone like Ahmedinejad who has no respect for life"

Bush/Bliar are the ones slaughtering civilians en masse, without compunction or apology ...

"who champions suicide bombers"

The US pays for the weapons Israel uses against the Palestinians, in a war fully of Zionism's creation. If you're only going to look at life through a skewed lens, then it's no wonder your perception is so imbalanced.

"who calls for attacks against civilians"

Where? Support that.

Meanwhile, the people you support are actually KILLING CIVILIANS - by the thousand.

"and who wants to wipe Israel off the map"

I slapped you once for that already. That is a misinterpretation of his speech. He was talking about the elimination of the racist, supremacist, and violent ideology of Zionism, which is just as much an anathema to Judaism as it is to Arabs.

There is nothing wrong with this.

Apartheid states should not be tolerated.

"Quite simply if Iran has nukes we are on a path to destruction."

No, if the warmongers your work here supports are not stopped, and people fall for this bullsh*t like they did with Iraq, we are on the path to destruction.

I think one other thing which demonstrates what I was saying is the fact that, however flawed the election was, the Iranians voted for this guy, instead of the other more moderate candidate. Obviously, not everybody could stand in the election, but there was a choice between him and this other guy. Why did people choose the candidate who was more 'extreme'? Why do people around the world keep electing people who are against the US, and not just in the middle-east. Chavez in Venezuelan, Evo Morales in Bolivia...these are hardly bastions of Islamic fundamentalism ( although Pat Robertson once amusingly said that they should take out Chavez, otherwise Venezuela would become a bastion of communism and Islamic fundamentalism ).

How come no-one is pressing for democracy in Saudi Arabia these days? It's pretty likely that in a vote between the House of Saud and Al Qaeda, Bin Laden would be President of Arabia.

Anyway, aside from the fact that attacking Iran would be immoral, you also have to look at the weak strategic position of the US at this moment in time. The price of oil is record-high, and an attack on Iran would push the price through the roof, which is why Bush is suddenly talking about 'ending our dependence' on foreign oil. Iran is heavily linked to the current Iraqi government, and an attack on Iran is likely to lead to a wider insurgency in Iraq involving the Shia, which would essentially finish off the US occupation there for good, and leave them without Iraqi oil supplies as well. I guess Saudi would be a good little puppy and continue providing the US with oil. But many oil producing countries, for example Venezuela, are looking to sell their oil to someone with less imperialist ambitions, like China. Bolivia is likely to nationalise it's gas. Nigerian oil supplies are now unstable, as rebels are attacking the oil facilities there.
Even without the oil factor, an attack on Iran essentially means the US would lose control of Iraq, and the region would be further destabilised and radicalised. You might stop nuclear weapons now, but be building up trouble for later. What would happen if Pakistan was radicalised, for example? It's just next door to Iran and Afghanistan. If both of these countries were made sufficiently unstable, the instability could spread next door, and who knows who could get their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Strategically, the posture of the US is weak, and they know it. Iraq is killing them, they would have been in a better position if they had finished their 'war on terror' with Afghanistan, and concentrated their efforts on rebuilding Afghanistan ( I'm not saying it was right, I'm just trying to point out what an intelligent move from an imperialist view-point would be ). Instead, Afghanistan is becoming more violent, and we are sending more troops out there to try and deal with it, much like the Soviet Union the last time they were in Afghanistan.

Quite frankly, the US has bitten off a bit more than it can chew, and it has found itself in a bit of a pickle. I frankly think they're screwed in the region, although I don't know what the consequences will be. Their economy survived being beaten in Vietnam, but then Vietnam wasn't providing them with all their oil. Personally, I think the best thing they can do is leave, now, because the longer they occupy Iraq, the more screwed they are.

"the Iranians voted for this guy, instead of the other more moderate candidate."

Why do you perceive him as "more moderate"?

"Why do people around the world keep electing people who are against the US"

People around the world are getting tired of being exploited by them.

"How come no-one is pressing for democracy in Saudi Arabia these days?"

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

However, the People are pressing for reforms, and bit by bit, they're making progress. It may seem slow in our eyes, but it's not up to us, and their struggle is their struggle.

"The price of oil is record-high, and an attack on Iran would push the price through the roof"

And add to those record profits being made by the oil companies.

"an attack on Iran is likely to lead to a wider insurgency in Iraq involving the Shia"

Many Shia are a part of the Iraqi Resistance, according to US Generals. It's a lot more widespread than we're being told.

"You might stop nuclear weapons now, but be building up trouble for later."

This is not about "nuclear weapons". This war was planned long before PNAC arrived at the White House. That's just their way of finding a plausible justification for their plans, much as they did with Iraq.

"Instead, Afghanistan is becoming more violent, and we are sending more troops out there to try and deal with it"

This is because this war was never about "liberating" the Afghan People. It was, first and foremost, about a strategic pipeline from the Caspian Sea Basin, which is now operational. The only people who care about rebuilding are the feet on the ground. The people calling the shots don't give a damn about all that.

"Quite frankly, the US has bitten off a bit more than it can chew"

Arrogance will lead you to do that. You should read the broad policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" - www.newamericancentury.org - if you haven't already. It will give you a deeper understanding of just how we got into this mess, and also how Mad the people who came up with this are.

"I frankly think they're screwed in the region, although I don't know what the consequences will be."

Perpetual War, just as the people who profit from conflict, the ones who started this, want.

To Re: Disinformation:-

"Only one state will create a permanent solution. Two states will only allow old hatreds to simmer, until they explode into future wars. Plus, allowing Zionists to keep what they've stolen would only "reward them for terrorism". "

Actually the land which formed the 'Partition Agreement' in 1948 had been purchased by Jews, not as you say, stolen.

Jewish donors, such as the Rothschilds, and charities bought up parcels of land from absentee Turkish & Lebanese landowners, often at inflated prices.

Much of this land was dessert or malari infested swamp. Pioneers worked hard and irrigated the dessert, turning it into farmland and worked the swamps to turn them into fertile land.

By 1948 the Arabs had decided that they wanted this land and the Jews out - so under Haj Amin Al Husseini, Hitlers friend, the Arabs attacked (7 armies) against the most deperate, ragged, underfunded, newest, under armed and under trained army in the world - and we won. That land was not stolen.

The Jews have had a presence in and an attachment to the Land of Israel since time immemorial.

It is the only country in the middle east where women have full rights, there is full freedom of conscience, press, religion, sexuality - a country which has made peace with any neighbours who would accept it (and now enjoys good relations with Jordan and Egypt) and continues to hold out the olive branch to any country who will take it; at the sime time Israel has to hold out a sword to protect her citizens from groups such as Hamas or lunatics like Ahmedinejad who are sworn to the destruction of the Jews (yes they do say Jews, not Israelis).

And you want to destroy this country - this state which has given more to the world in medical, scientific and technological advances than all Arab states combined.

Check your facts you bloody moron.

Hermes; you are right the USA is buggered in Iraq - less dependancy on oil - that means bankrupt Arab nations selling oil to go in purfume. Maybe that thopught will bring them to the table

Without getting into a big Israel discussion again, since we both know what the other thinks, I just want to pick up one thing

"And you want to destroy this country - this state which has given more to the world in medical, scientific and technological advances than all Arab states combined"

Didn't the Arabs basically lay down the foundations for modern mathematics and medicine? Algebra is an arabic word.

Also, perhaps one other thing you should bear in mind, is whether or not Ahmedinejad has the 'mentality of a suicide bomber' is beside the point as well, since the real political power in Iran lies with the Ayatollah, and the clerics. Even if he wanted to launch a nuclear attack, I doubt that he would be allowed. Anyway, I don't think that is what he wants. He is playing games with the US and Israel, deliberately raising the stakes, because he knows the strength of Iran's position at the moment. He didn't have to make those comments about Israel, at the same time as beginning the nuclear program again. It would have been more sensible to have simply begun the program again a bit more quietly. So why did he say those things? He is daring you to attack, because he knows what will happen if you do.

So, be careful. The rulers of Iran are not so simple-minded as you make out. Better to calm down, and find a way to lower the temperature, because the situation in the middle-east is right on the brink.

Totally agree with you Hermes; he is trying to raise the stakes and to exploit America's weakened poistion, but a problem in Iran, as in many other countries which were or are controlled by extremists, is that the rhetoric inflames the people.

Iran has more to worry about than Israel and it may be that what Ahmedinejad said was merely to secure the backing of his people; nevertheless you cannot blame Israel for taking the threat very seriously.

Once they are inflamed and the stakes are raised, it is difficult to get them to back down. This is a very dangerous game with no clear rules on either side.

"It is the only country in the middle east where women have full rights, there is full freedom of conscience, press, ...."

Tell that to Mordechai Vanunu!

His conscience led him to tell the press about Israel's illegal stockpile weapons of mass destruction and he sever 18 years in an Israeli prison for it!

Defend Iran?