Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

G'day Angela, Bob, Craig and Daniel.

From 'Bringing up Baby:' "Start as you mean to go on..."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, ... 

 ... and that's quite enough to build a just and happy world on - Oh yeah, that plus MYOB.

On another thread there is a discussion of Dawkins' "The God Delusion;" IMHO the most important item related to that discussion is: can we be good without some putative 'god?'

The answer is a resounding "Yes!" - but not just yes: we must.

IMHO, the logic is perfect:

1. All people are created equal.

2. Treat others as you would like to be treated[1].

Note that 1 and 2 are independent of whether there exists some 'god' or not. There are people who believe in some 'god' or other (these people are not to be denied their rights), and there are others who do not believe in any 'god' at all.

Sooo, it follows that to rank all people equal, any consideration of some 'god' or other must be put aside.

OK so far?

-=*=-

Now, this thread is about "Solving the Iran stand-off," but the 'Iran problem' is (IMHO) not as presented (that they may be building a nuke), but is one of a) self determination, with b) no outside interference.

Does anyone seriously expect Iran to nuke Israel, knowing that there would be instant and massive retaliation to the point of the as-good-as total destruction of Iran itself? Some mullahs may be considered mad by some people - that's after all part of the neocons' foul 'framing' propagandistic lies - but surely no mullah is as mad as that.

(Anyone who does not agree may leave; the time for arguing this stuff is looong gone, and I'm attempting a rational discussion.)

In any case, why should Iran be forbidden nukes, when the US and Israel have them - after all, all countries are created equal, eh? But really daaarlings, nukes are not the problem here - except that some of those with nukes continuously threaten some (actually all) of those without - boo! Hiss!

A better analysis of the 'Iran problem' is a) Iran owns lots'a oil, b) Iran once insulted the US (again, the childish aspect) and c) the US wants Iran's oil almost as much as, if not more than, it wants Iraq's.

-=*=-

The second biggest problem confronting us (after the greenhouse; precautionary principle not being applied) is US aggression.

Bob gave us a few links yesterday, as usual high in quality.

The best bit of this one from K. Gajendra Singh is a reference back to Chomsky:

Noam Chomsky stated that Israel serves as a strategic asset for the US in the Middle East. US and Israel interests coincide in the West's policy to control hydrocarbon energy resources. Western energy corporations have flourished with "profits beyond the dreams of avarice" with "the Middle East (ME) their leading cash cow."

(Chomsky's original, The Israel Lobby? is here.)

Then there's this one from Michael Carmichael, the real shocker:

Cheney’s redirection of America’s strategy contradicts Washington’s dictum by inciting foreign wars and campaigns of terror against America and its allies - a flagrant violation of America’s original military and diplomatic traditions...

[The Iran-Qaeda Scandal]

Also today from Zbigniew Brzezinski:

The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic and moral calamity undertaken under false assumptions. It is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties, as well as some abuses, are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

[Four steps to light in the darkness]

In my opinion, Brzezinski is only partly correct - but he can hardly be otherwise, since he is himself, like the US Dems, actually part of the problem.

-=*=-

The problem is not 'just' US aggression, but their outright criminality. The 'Elephant' that no-one in the 'establishment' dares to mention is the continuous policy and practice of theft of the world's resources, typified by but not restricted to oil, this theft accompanied by the threat of - when not the actual practice of - mass-murder.

Chomsky again:

We're supposed to believe that oil had nothing to do with it, that if Iraq were exporting pickles or jelly and the center of world oil production were in the South Pacific that the United States would've liberated them anyway. It has nothing to do with the oil, what a crass idea! Anyone with their head screwed on knows that that can't be true.

[It all comes down to control]

There are two things we can consider:

1. US bases - the US should withdraw to behind its own borders, basta! See A World Without Foreign Military Bases.

2. The US - in particular at the moment 'driven' by Cheney, but he's acting as agent for the US military/industrial complex - is instigating internecine war amongst the various Muslim sects anywhere near oil and in particular, in the ME. We must appeal to Muslims everywhere for unity, at least for as long as the US' murdering meddling continues; we must coax them, plead with them, convince them: put your differences aside, unite in the common cause - or we're all stuffed.

Brzezinski used the word intransigence. It is the US who is intransigent in its murdering thefts; all Arabs, Muslims, in fact the whole non-US world should unite: "Go home, Yanks!"

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] This is perhaps more often heard as:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - but that is the phrasing appropriated by one group of believers; we are here trying to be universal, as opposed to exclusionary.

It's pretty simple, really: would you like to be lied to? Cheated? Stolen from, or your good self (or one of your rellies, friends, neighbours - or even a stranger) murdered? If you answer "No!" to all of these (not too many wouldn't), why not treat all others as you would like to be treated yourself? Well?

"Rather than focusing on controlling symptoms and behavior, the new paradigm employs techniques that address root causes, underlying vital needs and fears, and transforms the nature of the relationship to create a new reality."

With the total lack of popularity the dictator in Iran suffers at home I don't think it would be a good idea seeming to be too friendly. The Iranian economy is down the tube and so will he be in the not to distant future.

I see that China and Russia along with the US are getting along quiet well over the Iran problem. More sanctions one would have to think. A wise move and a sign of co-operation. I would think you would be pleased? Knowing how you totally do not support the Iranian dictatorship and all.

In fact for the anti US crowd it is starting to go a little "Pete Tong". Bush starting to take up the Baker proposals and all. How I wonder will the crowd keep the momentum going? I sense a return to nobody status for quiet a few.

G'day Daniel.

I'm grafting this onto a half-worked draft...

It's all so tiresome - and childish (as well as being life-threatening, and that for the whole planet.)

At the end of WW2, with a world desperately war-weary, the UN was set up - to banish war.

Ooops!

Never really got the chance.

The US set out with at least two objectives:

a) to maintain the lion's share (if not grab more of) the world's resources, and

b) to dominate the Soviets (and all comers, one assumes) by out-competing on the building of A- then H-bombs. 10s of 1000s were built; the US usually 'in the lead.' But Russia kept-up enough for there to be a mutual stand-off: MAD.

The UN was sidelined, if not corrupted.

-=*=-

On the way to resource domination, the US has created mayhem, poverty and deaths, all too numerous to list. See William Blum:

"It was in the early days of the fighting in Vietnam that a Vietcong officer said to his American prisoner: "You were our heroes after the War. We read American books and saw American films, and a common phrase in those days was 'to be as rich and as wise as an American'. What happened?"

An American might have been asked something similar by a Guatemalan, an Indonesian or a Cuban during the ten years previous, or by a Uruguayan, a Chilean or a Greek in the decade subsequent. The remarkable international goodwill and credibility enjoyed by the United States at the close of the Second World War was dissipated country by country, intervention by intervention."

The above "What happened?" can be seen in spades after 9/11. Immense sympathy for the US. But then, the US 'went in' to Afghanistan, then Iraq. Ostensibly into Afghanistan after Bin Laden, and into Iraq after WMDs. Ooops!

Both reasons were total lies; into Afghanistan for a pipeline and into Iraq for the oil.

The UN was not just sidelined, it was corrupted. Remember the bullying? Then Powell's lies? Finally, war without UNSC sanction.

[snip!]

Long story short: you wanna talk of a new paradigm?

1. You can't shoot this rogue elephant; they've got too many nukes. It's been that way since '45.

2. Russia knows about this, even if they've dozed a few times since the wall came down. But Putin was brave enough to put the US on notice recently in Berlin.

3. You can bet China is totally aware. They are sitting on about 1Trio$US which if they 'dropped' onto the market might sink the US, but the US probably has a counter. But some action will come from China.

-=*=-

All we and similar like minds could do would be to 'send a message' by:

a) speaking out (well, we're already doing that).

b) product boycotts, i.e. anything US, including film, soft- and hard-ware. But there are three problems with this (1) the Chinese make most of the US stuff, and (2) the sheople® are obsessed with their TV/cargo-cult and (3) because of (2) they (the sheople) are not listening, not to us, to the politicians or to the greenhouse (the last will change first).

c) at the ballot box, preference both major parties last (your choice of order); the Lib/Lab here and Rep/Dem over there are all on the military/industrial complex side, not ours.

This post is a bit in haste; but in the time of this thread and much longer, I haven't been able to think any better way of stopping the rot.

d) perhaps we could all reduce our consumption of carbon (at chezPhil we've eliminated almost all non-essential travel, our house is best insulated & double glass, no alu windows), but that runs into the sheople TV/cargo-cult problem again (and then there's McMansions!), no widespread effect without the sheople waking up.

Oh yeah; star wars. This is only another aspect of filthy US global nukular aggression, they're putting star wars into Europe to try to short-circuit MAD. (Shows how really crazy the US is.) But Russia knows all about that...

G'day Craig, Angela, Phil & Daniel, There are a couple of points in the Burns' comment posted by Craig that grabbed my attention:

... and we can see this larger American strategy in the Middle East vis-à-vis Iran succeed.”

Of course, that depends on what the American strategy is and whether it is a good thing that it succeed.

He stated unequivocally that the Bush administration has not sought regime change in Tehran. “Our policy is one of seeing change in the behavior of the Iranian government,” he said.

Oh, taking into account the record of deceit of the Bush Administration and a the material that suggests that the US is working towards regime change, then caution is advised on taking the above statement at face value.

For those who are willing to don their thinking caps I have a few items for consideration. For those others then self-amusement is an option. Although that advice suggestion might well be redundant.

K. Gajendra Singh.

Michael Carmichael.

Paul Craig Roberts. A hint:

Gen. Clark told Amy Goodman that shortly after 9/11 he was shown a Pentagon “memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

That sounds exactly like the plan that neoconservative Norman Podhoretz set out in Commentary magazine.

Ernest Partridge.

Plenty to consider.

To Daniel, in answer to your question - hoping - and looking behind the curtain and through the fog are needed. Lots more to be played out.

U.S. Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns yesterday:

“We're trying to weave together multiple pressure points on Iran -- the carrier battle groups in the Gulf, the pushback against them in Iraq that we've done over the last month, the Security Council sanctions,” he said. 

But he added that the administration remains committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the problem.  “I do not believe that a military confrontation with Iran is either inevitable or desirable,” he said. “If we continue a skillful, patient, energetic diplomatic course, and we have the patience to play it out over the mid- to long term, I'm confident we can avoid a conflict, and we can see this larger American strategy in the Middle East vis-à-vis Iran succeed.”

He stated unequivocally that the Bush administration has not sought regime change in Tehran.  “Our policy is one of seeing change in the behavior of the Iranian government,” he said.

By trying to coerce and humiliate the Iranian government. Will that really work?

From the JAIPAC open letter I shared last week:

What possibilities exist for addressing this conflict? According to old thinking we have three limiting options;

1- coercive diplomacy (an oxymoron) - control by threats, ultimata, sanctions, carrots and sticks, which can be humiliating, provocative, and likely (or intended) to backfire,

2 - negotiation and diplomacy -considered impossible with a dehumanized enemy, or

3 - military action, considered a last resort, which unleashes catastrophic consequences. In this paradigm, beliefs, premises and assumptions often drive parties towards violence.

Fortunately, there is another category of responses, which are just now becoming known outside of academia. It is based on a different set of premises, tested through research and practice.

Rather than focusing on controlling symptoms and behavior, the new paradigm employs techniques that address root causes, underlying vital needs and fears, and transforms the nature of the relationship to create a new reality.

The old paradigm, in efforts to eliminate enemies, in fact creates more. The new paradigm is designed to eliminate enmity.

These methods may seem counterintuitive, or impossible, but they have been demonstrated to offer a way out of cycles of violence.

Angela Ryan: "Yes, few at the time except the "communists", few media moghuls, chided the behind the scenes interference by Mussolini and Hitler in the Spanish Civil War (plenty chided Stalin) and few chided the pair as Abyssinia was invaded (echoing for some now? "

You are slightly mixed up. Lord Beaverbrook was not only the world's leading media moghul of his day, but he actively promoted Churchill as Prime Minister and the alliance with the Soviet Union.

It was the "communists" who found it necessary to justify Joseph Stalin's alliance with Hitler, instead, and then Stalin's and Hitler's combined invasion and occupation of Poland plunging Europe into World War Two.

Goodness, as one of the Mitford girl's later recalled, the Soviet-Nazi alliance ushered in the first bit of domestic tranquility to Lord Redesdale's household since the start of the Spanish Civil War.

And as for 'Star Wars' being useless, wasn't that the final nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union? Without a shot being fired? 

Phil Kendall from one of your own links:

Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult Israeli officials, to make sure that their actions advance Israeli goals. As one activist from a major Jewish organisation wrote, ‘it is routine for us to say: “This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think.” We as a community do it all the time.’ There is a strong prejudice against criticising Israeli policy, and putting pressure on Israel is considered out of order. Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the World Jewish Congress, was accused of ‘perfidy’ when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid-2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb construction of its controversial ‘security fence’. His critics said that ‘it would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.’

One would think the World Jewish Congress was the number one Israeli lobby group. And that Mr Bronfman of Seagrams fame would not be the easiest person to push around. Obviously not, if this is to be believed.

Phil Kendall: "My comment: Note that M-W are concerned with 'US policy towards Israel,' there would be some US policy areas, one supposes, that 'The Israel Lobby' leaves largely to the US. After all, one does suppose that the Lobby would only meddle where it had an identifiable interest?"

That's nice of them, I mean to let the US decide at least some issues for themselves.

Now Phil how about being a champ and answering the question directed to you about why China and Russia would be interested in Iran outside of their oil and selling them weapons? 

Angela Ryan: "Jay talks of the right to take wealth and resources from other nations as needed, imperialism, as did Hitler, and poorly reported regime changes, yes even democratic nations and Kings, occur with our allies' hands deeply soiled.."

Nope I talk about guarding one's interests and I make no excuse for it. And by guarding ones interest does not mean to steal. It means keeping a reliable flow of an essential product. Without corruption and artificial restrictions placed on that product. Guarding against monopolistic behaviour by a very small minority.

If most people understood the extreme downside to not guarding this interest, and let's say for the time being something did happen, I can assure you the Arab love will be well over. It will be pack the shotgun time and let's go get ours. And that Angela is the unarguable nuts and bolts of self interest. Three dollar petrol would do more to bring on the aggression than 100 9/11s.

Phil Kendall: "So certainly people with wit and intelligence pondered "why?" after 911 and certainly the spinmeisters tried the same ploy that has worked upon the diaspora for two generations, "because they hate us for whom we are", and certainly some who wish to think that, stop any thought process and bow to such numbing and dumbing down spin."

Actually certain people with "wit" hang about the 9/11 site selling their tales and other assorted odds and ends. Not to mention the entire conspiracy industry (getting bigger) that has grown up around it. Someone has got to be making a buck. In a bizarre way it is re-assuring. It shows the American spirit of knowing and making good on an industry built from nothing. Bodes well for future entrepreneurship. I long for the day when Oliver Stone jr tells us all the real story. Wonder who will do the sound track?

 ...or Stehaufmänchen?[1]

G'day Jay White.

Jay:

And why is it that every time you [Daniel Smythe (g'day!)] speak of American policy you link Israel to that policy? Are you suggesting the "Jews" control American policy?

PS Webdiary: This is a legitimate question and it should be allowed to be answered. This person continually makes inferences on every post.

Me: Haw! - Then, too easy:

1) Just 2 letters, M-W:

The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: "Help AIPAC."'

2) Here's Chomsky's critique (he doesn't agree), but:

M-W deserve credit for taking a position that is sure to elicit tantrums and fanatical lies and denunciations, but it's worth noting that there is nothing unusual about that. [see 5 below]

As noted, the US-Israeli alliance was firmed up precisely when Israel performed a huge service to the US-Saudis-Energy corporations by smashing secular Arab nationalism, which threatened to divert resources to domestic needs. That's also when the Lobby takes off (apart from the Christian evangelical component, by far the most numerous and arguably the most influential part, but that's mostly the 90s). And it's also when the intellectual-political class began their love affair with Israel, previously of little interest to them. They are a very influential part of the Lobby because of their role in media, scholarship, etc. From that point on it's hard to distinguish "national interest" (in the usual perverse sense of the phrase) from the effects of the Lobby.

[ICH/ZNet/Chomsky]

3) Here's an agreeing article from Justin Raimondo:

The success of the Lobby has been achieved by the careful application of pressure at key points: Congress, the executive branch, and the media. Yet the goals of the Lobby - succinctly summed up by Massing as "a powerful Israel free to occupy the territory it chooses; enfeebled Palestinians; and unquestioning support for Israel by the United States" - have never been supported by the American people. That is why such a tremendous lobbying effort is required, why so much money and political pressure is brought to bear on politicians to make sure they don't deviate one iota from the AIPAC party line.

[People have had it up to here with The Lobby]

4) A bit more on how it works: 

 ... shows how the Lobby, utilizing an effective combination of money, organization, and relentless insistence on absolute fealty to AIPAC's agenda, runs roughshod over anyone so foolish as to oppose it. Money is pumped into the coffers of its sock-puppets...

[ibid]

5) Then, as if to damn with faint praise, here's what a naysayer says:

The study, Cohen contended in his "Yes, It's Anti-Semitism" piece, betrayed "obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews," accusing Jews of "disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments." It collected "everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group" while ignoring "any exculpatory information." This from a man who almost immediately after 9-11 declared that "the obvious candidate" as a regime to "target" was Iraq, which had "helped al Qaeda"---and thereby unfairly and wrongly, and oblivious to exculpatory information, linked Saddam Hussein to 9-11.

[Leupp/Meet Eliot Cohen, Condi's New Deputy]

Phew! Some tantrum!

(Thanks to Bob Wall for the latter link.)

My comment: Note that M-W are concerned with 'US policy towards Israel,' there would be some US policy areas, one supposes, that 'The Israel Lobby' leaves largely to the US. After all, one does suppose that the Lobby would only meddle where it had an identifiable interest? I'm not 'from there,' so I just have to go on what I see. And what we far too often see, is the US marching - or even killing dead burnt bodies - to an Israeli tune, hmmm? Where there's smoke there's fire, eh matey?

-=*end*=-

PS Do you see what's going on here? Yeah. Lobbying, and corrupt lobbying at that; the theme chosen by Howard to try to knobble our Kev, the strategy (at least according to Ian M) that has back-fired so spectacularly...

Ref(s):

[1] Stehaufmänchen: a whatnot which, even when repeatedly floored by whoppin' great haymakers always manages to struggle groggily to something approaching a vertical posture.

I have been wondering for some time how the anti American crowd would attempt to keep the ball rolling after Bush. Although a lot of the rhetoric suits the anti Bush political crowd at the moment (though this is becoming less so with each day). A lot of the anti Bush crowd are of course out and about for pure political reasons. The other crowd are unfortunately not. They are anti US pure and simple and politics is only a minor issue.

The truth is the style of Bush does not play well outside the US. The suck up style of Clinton did. And this did have the effect of keeping anti US sentiment to a minimum (at least hidden away) in polite society. The truth is, though, it was always there and has always been with us. Osama Bin Laden was shooting at a poster of Bill Clinton, so Bush was not blame for his rampage. The President made little difference. It simply would not have mattered. Also directly after the 9/11 attacks many critics somehow emboldened came out and directly played the "America deserved it" card. This of course went over like a lead ballon and conspiracy soon reared it's ugly head as the alternative.

So how can the anti US crowd keep the hate bubbling along? What happens when their favoured whipping boy is gone? What next? I think Phil Kendall gives us a glimpse:

Phil Kendall: "The two main political parties (in AUS Lib/Lab and the US Rep/Dem) are almost indistinguishable; i.e. the voters have no real choice: for example, in the US both the Repuglicans and the Dummocrats want Iraq's (and probably Iran's) oil. Lastly, the sheople® have sunk into a TV-distracted cargo-cult, and on the whole are not paying enough attention."

And I will tell you exactly what this means. It means that for a certain element irrespective of who is President they are thinking of business as usual. I will tell you if a Democrat does get up they are going to be surprised how quickly a certain section drops them like a bad habit.

I note also the Phil complaint about only two major parties. Interesting indeed when added to this comment

Phil Kendall: "Now that we know about the US' pug-ugly imperial intentions (well, some of us), Q: what can we do? A: not much. Ironically, our 'salvation' may be in the hands of the Russians and/or Chinese (Europe appears cowed), but the Russians and Chinese are unlikely to have much regard for poor little old Aus (except as a quarry; what else is new?) After all, we're in the shit too, recall the 'H' part of B, B & H and their dreadful US (with side-kick UK and dag Aus) illegal invasion of Iraq. Fellas - Oh, and ladies; we're on the wrong side... "

The difference between the US and Australia with Russia, China, Iran and a good deal of others is that we do have two parties. They have but the one. Perhaps it is not choice for the people that you seek? More your choice?

BTW what in the hell reason would you think China and or Russia would care anything about Iran outside of oil and selling them arms? They are certainly not hanging around the area to find out the secrets of the perfect Persian rug.

And the Chinese thinking of Australia as a "quarry" is a good thing. Keep buying is all I say. Get out there and get their money people...

G'day Daniel, there is still time for developments which will divert the US from further military action. The negotiations in re Iran and the next step towards further sanctions and such are in process, and we await the outcome. As I mentioned in my previous post, cautions have been given - nice touch that one from Russia about the US missile shield proposal in Eastern Europe.There are differences in the Administration as to how to proceed.

Then there are the various domestic concerns - the Libby verdict will focus more attention on the deceit and abuse of power, as will other issues that are causing concern. The more that is revealed  the more (hopefully) the media and Congress stand up.

I do share much of your concern as to the nature of the Administration and its abuses and delusions and the danger it poses and allow for unpredictable responses (even irrational ones) to the troubles which beset it. This is even more reason for not being too quick to draw lines in the sand. Remember the whole macho image that has been created. So I do counsel allowing the step by step approach for now.

Here is a review of Zbigniew Brzezinski's new book on the damage done by Bush.

Just need to survive this president for the next to, hopefully, repair the damage. Depending on what happens in the meantime.

And this is not a good sign - a new appointee as counselor in the State Department. 

I read an opinion that perhaps this appointment was meant to mollify the neocons, but it is a worry. Still, measured steps are needed at least for now.

Daniel Smythe: "Bob, G'day, I don't have to tell you that before WW2 lots of people sat around talking and let Germany arm itself, then let it begin invading and occupying."

Gee, now who was it that did that? Oh yeah...

In October 1933, the year Hitler came to power, George Lansbury, the pacifist UK Labour leader proclaimed that when elected to power that Labour 'would disband the Army and disarm the Air Force' and would 'abolish the whole dreadful equipment of war'.  He was joined in this by his deputies Clement Attlee and Stafford Cripps.

- source: Making Friends With Hitler, Ian Kershaw, Penguin Book, 2005

To his credit, Attlee later served as deputy Prime Minister to Winston Churchill in the war-time coalition government, despite having previously denounced Churchill as a war monger, and was Prime Minister himself when the the allies dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Something of a turn-around, that.

Subtitle: oderint dum metuant[1].

G'day Bob Wall; thanks again for your quality links.

G'day Craig Rowley; thanks but no thanks, for your "working in the wrong direction, moving ... toward MAD". Recall that by balancing the US' threats, MAD kept us sane? Better of two evils?

G'day Daniel Smythe; thanks but also no thanks, for your revving-up of our existential angst. Sounds a bit like you just discovered the neocons et al; PNAC, the Vulcans and the Israel Lobby and all the rest of the dreadful USrael empire[2]?

G'day to any other friendlies.

-=*=-

Yeah, we've got a problem alright, and it's not small.

Note that the alarm is becoming widespread, from New Scientist/We are closer to Armageddon (subs. req):

WHO would have thought, at the end of the cold war, that the world would be closer to a nuclear conflagration in 2007 than at just about any time since 1945? Yet that's the way it seems today.

Daniel's not the only one to suggest countering US threats with violence, from ICH/Yamin Zakaria, 7 Reasons To Nuke The USA:

According to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike which the US has adopted since 9/11, it too can be subjected to a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as it poses a threat to other peaceful nations of the world. The US has a sordid track record for using such weapons against civilians and it has constantly maintained a large stockpile of such weapons of mass destruction, and continuously develops them. There are additional reasons to nuke the US, however I have decided to highlight only seven...

Bob provided us with a link to Ritter/Regime Change Is the Reason, Disarmament the Excuse which has a lot of good info, but I do not agree with this from Ritter:

If Iran goes down that path [nuclear weapons development], I myself would support a military strike against Iran, because then it's legitimate. We have a legitimate right to say Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.

Me: What? I just can't see how the US can forbid anyone else from acquiring a countervailing force. After all, daaarlings, who's madder? The Iranian Mullahs or the US? Tip: the US has actually used nukes; from wiki:

 ... it is estimated that as many as 140,000 had died in Hiroshima by the bomb and its associated effects, with the estimate for Nagasaki roughly 74,000. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were those of civilians.

The US has been threatening to nuke any serious rival since 1945. I've given my theory before; that the US nuked Japan as a warning: "We have nukes, can and will use them. See Japan?"

Now, as to the US sheople® taking back their country from the sociopathic plutocracy, this is unlikely for at least four reasons:

1) The US military/industrial complex is now deeply embedded in the US economy, and spread throughout the country. Simply put, the people have become dependent on it.

2) The Democrats are not a possible solution, rather part of the problem. Although having recently been handed control of Congress, they are not moving to extract the US from Iraq, nor are they moving to halt the rush to war with Iran.

3) The sheople® (US in particular and as the vanguard) doze on in front of their TVs, mostly anaesthetised by trivia. Despite voting to dump the Repugs, they are not sufficiently alarmed, and may in any case be subject to martial law; the legislation to enable this has been 'smuggled' through their Congress. Better watch out!

4) Generally, democracy is failing us. A valid democracy should be truthful and open, the choice of candidates should be meaningful and the voters should be engaged. How many of these do we have? On the whole, our MSM has been captured by big business. They operate in their interests, not ours (ours = we the sheople®.) The two main political parties (in AUS Lib/Lab and the US Rep/Dem) are almost indistinguishable; i.e. the voters have no real choice: for example, in the US both the Repuglicans and the Dummocrats want Iraq's (and probably Iran's) oil. Lastly, the sheople® have sunk into a TV-distracted cargo-cult, and on the whole are not paying enough attention.

Conclusion: until 1st hearing of the "Shock and Awe" planned for Iraq, we the sheople® (speaking mostly for myself, but generalising) had little idea as to what the US sociopathic plutocracy was up to. Now those of us who look can see - mainly via the internet; the venal and traitorous MSM have failed us. Now that we know about the US' pug-ugly imperial intentions (well, some of us), Q: what can we do? A: not much. Ironically, our 'salvation' may be in the hands of the Russians and/or Chinese (Europe appears cowed), but the Russians and Chinese are unlikely to have much regard for poor little old Aus (except as a quarry; what else is new?) After all, we're in the shit too, recall the 'H' part of B, B & H and their dreadful US (with side-kick UK and dag Aus) illegal invasion of Iraq. Fellas - Oh, and ladies; we're on the wrong side...

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] oderint dum metuant "let them hate, so long as they fear" Favorite saying of Caligula, attributed originally to Lucius Accius, Roman tragic poet (170 BC). [wiki]

[2] Lets Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President

15 September 2002: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

...

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

Hear, hear! And wha'da'bout our very own wide-brown's PM? Just what is his moral standing? (Silly question.)

Daniel Smythe: "It is obvious from the recent rhetoric by the Bush Administration (which is a front for the Neocons who also have strong links to Israel) combined with the military build-up in the Middle East that an attack against Iran using nuclear weapons is both imminent and inevitable. Once that happens, Pandora’s Box is open and can’t be closed!"

Actually it is not "imminent" at all. In fact as each day passes it becomes more and more unlikely. It won't happen and I have stated it on a number of occasions. Every person in the US government has also stated it is not on the agenda.

And why is it that every time you speak of American policy you link Israel to that policy? Are you suggesting the "Jews" control American policy?

PS Webdiary: This is a legitimate question and it should be allowed to be answered. This person continually makes inferences on every post.

Daniel Smythe: "Given that the American people and the Democrats seem powerless to stop the Neocons, the world has only three ways to stop this madness that I can see .."

The Democrats controll Congress and the House of Reps. So please do not spout such nonsense.

Daniel Smythe: "1. Urgently form a military alliance of Europe, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, etc, one that will threaten to immediately attack America if it further escalates the Middle East conflict. 2. Given the huge debt that America has incurred because of its warmongering, immediately pull the plug on America financially and bankrupt it. 3. Simultaneously use a combination of the previous two steps. Friends, these measures are extreme but surely, given the calamity that is unfolding, extreme measures are preferable to sliding into a nuclear Armageddon."

"Extreme measures"! You think so? Although this is quiet funny in a literal sense it is disturbing on so many levels. Some of the nations mentioned in your list make it even more so. Very disturbing indeed.

Craig Rowley: "Daniel I think your idea on what is needed is wrong, but I do understand that your concern is becoming magnified into fear. "Scared as hell" is how you've described your current state."

You find his "idea" just "wrong"? This doesn't "scare the hell" out of you? You have got to be shitting me!

I tell you what, you talk about "psychology", well I am not trained in it but through observation of people throughout my life, I have learnt a bit about it. A hatred of something or someone never starts out with the "big stuff". It is usually very minor and very personal and not keep in check it grows until eventually it gets out of control.

Jay White: "When is the war Iran going to start?"

Don't be hasty. According to The Arab Times, the war will start some time before 1 April.

Daniel Smythe: "Given that the American people and the Democrats seem powerless to stop the Neocons, the world has only three ways to stop this madness that I can see ..."

I think you are a bit behind the times. The neocons have long been out of the picture. The only influence they now have is in the minds of people such as yourself.

Much of the last couple of months has been very Reagan-like. Even talk of new relationships being formed with Russia. So, no, I do not think Iran will be getting attacked anytime soon. Well, not without Russia getting its slice it won't be.

The Reagan (Baker) approach had its critics. It is, though, undeniable that it was successful. The continued effort into finding a nuclear deterrent such as star wars should move with great haste. Very few could argue that having something that stops nuclear attack is a bad thing. The US should continue to speak out about the dictatorship of Iran. A self perpetuating ugly government that is unpopular and will eventually with time collapse on its own merits. When it does the average Iranian will not be thanking anyone for having showed it support.

The US should think about its own self interest and that of its friends first, second and third. And all the signs are that is exactly what they are beginning to do. Making the world in one's own image and the spread of democracy was never really realistic. So, no, after Iraq I do not see any more great military adventures in the near future. That counts for both UN ones and ones concerning Iran. Though the US will always and should always have a presence in the Middle East.

Get behind star wars. It may one day save your life and that of your family.

G'day Daniel, I concur with Craig on extreme measures. That way lies disaster. However, there might be good to be gained from the level of criticism and opposition being expressed by states such as Russia. The good is that the concerns being expressed and the balancing that is occurring might caution the US. The realisation that it will not get its way as it desires could strengthen those who seek a diplomatic solution and be a dose of reality to break through the delusions. This might not happen but it is a hope.

Craig referred to the JAIPAC letter, there have been and should be more such representations, particularly to Congress. The public might make its feelings increasingly felt. And the MSM, if it does its job and is not merely a messenger for the WH. An example is this editorial from the NYTimes. Other issues than Iran but such a call to action on abuses should have an impact.

Measured steps are required and it is not time to panic or seek extreme remedies.

There have been reports in today's media of a paper by Frank Barnaby arguing that "Far from setting back Iran’s nuclear programme, a military attack might create the political conditions in which Iran could accelerate its nuclear weapons programme."

The paper is from Oxford Research Group

From the introduction by Hans Blix:

This report does not reject the contention that a wish to develop nuclear weapons or at least the option to acquire such weapons may be part of the reason for Iran’s program for the enrichment of uranium. Today, it does not matter much what the Iranian intention is, if, indeed, there is an agreed intention. After all, whatever the intention today, it could change in two years time. Inducing Iran to suspend the enrichment program at least for a prolonged period of time would - all agree - be desirable to reduce tensions in the Middle East and to give time for other efforts with the same aim. The question is how to induce Iran to join this conclusion.

With much technical knowledge this study argues, that it would be several years before the present Iranian programs for the enrichment of uranium and possible production of plutonium could result in weapons and that there is time for diplomacy. It further argues that military attacks on Iranian nuclear installations would be disastrous and counterproductive. I fully agree.

And from the conclusion:

In the aftermath of a military strike, and if Iran devoted maximum effort and resources to building one nuclear bomb, it could achieve this in a relatively short amount of time: less than the two years muted as the time military strikes would set back its current programme. The argument that military strikes would buy needed time is flawed. It does not take into account the time already available to pursue diplomacy; it inflates the likelihood of military success and underplays the possibility of hardened Iranian determination leading to a nuclear crash programme. Post military attacks, it is possible that Iran would be able to build a nuclear weapon and would then wield one in an environment of incalculably greater hostility.

... unless provocation and war is really what the U.S. is seeking in its new policy.

If that is not the case, Craig,  then it seems that there has been a lack of in-depth analysis of the situation, perhaps driven by the "create our own reality" approach. Hubris? To be followed by nemesis? The same questions are asked about the Iraq war - "Mission Accomplished", but what was the mission?

There has been a lot of delusional thought, whether driven by a belief in doing God's work or the rightness of the American way and thus the belief that not only should it be spread around the world but that it can be imposed (selectively of course, geopolitical considerations exempt some) but also that people will automatically accept this imposition and interference. Oh those flower waving, cheering crowds!

The problems with Iraq and Afghanistan show they seem to have taken little note of their own history let alone learned from the longer history. I mentioned momentum and miscalculation or accident a while back on Cease Fire!, nothing exceptional in that - see the historical record - yet on they go, rattling sabres and spinning their spin.

So the question of intent has to be asked.

A lot of people are worried, and the Russians are getting quite concerned about wider intentions and sending some warning signals.

Time on the mixed signals. All so confusing. Which is not good.

G'day Craig, Daniel & Phil (good to see you back), the discussions continue about further action to take against Iran, but elsewhere a whiff of hypocrisy can be discerned. We have discussed the action taken against Iran despite its legal rights under the NPT, but the loudest mouth has plans to develop new nuclear warheads. Here and here.

Somehow I doubt we will see a push for sanctions against the US for its breaches.

Options on the table.

The game continues.

Daniel, what was it you were saying about Jay walking?

It's seems to be he's trying to straddle both sides of the street at the moment.  Here's an example of how it works:

Jay today:  "No sensible person takes any option off the table."

Jay a few weeks ago: "There is no plan to attack Iran. And without UN sanction (which you seem to seek at every turn) it will not be possible to attack Iran."

Jay a week earlier than that: "The USA however can obliterate Iran at any time of its choosing."

So does he want to stick with the option of leaving the suggestion of a unilateral pre-emptive attack, the threat that the USA "can obliterate Iran at any time of its choosing" on the table (which "only helps the Iranian President")? 

Or does he want to acknowledge that pre-emptive attack can only be with launched with UN sanction?

Well, here's what Jay thinks of the UN:

Jay today: "If they [130 nations] are saying this issue [Iran’s uranium enrichment activity] should not be discussed and no penalty should be given to Iran it would be a big mistake. It would actually show why the UN does not work."

Jay last week: "I have always supported the role of the UN." 

Jay a year earlier: "... you have the UN, a unelected rabble, running about pronouncing what everybody else should be doing ..."  and "Once the wall fell however the UN became a expensive waste of time and that has not changed one bit."

G'day Jay White.

Jay: "...why should the Israeli leadership be singled out for special attention? I thought this was a discussion on Iran the US and the world."

Me: Agree with Jay! The Israeli leadership should not necessarily be singled out for special attention.

But: in any discussion of 'US and the world,' Israel can never be excluded - Oh, no! See "The Israel Lobby" at LRB/M&W. A mild summary of the M&W thesis is that Israeli considerations may even over-rule those of the US' own - but one could 'duck' this conclusion, I suppose, by saying Oh, that's just someone's opinion...

-=*=-

Second time 'round for this single item:

UN says one in eight Iraqis flee their homes

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees says that one in eight Iraqis have been forced from their homes because of the bloodshed raging across the country, and warned that the numbers will only rise.

[AusBC/Justin]

Already two million have fled Iraq altogether, he said, while another 1.8 million are already displaced inside the country, which has an estimated population of around 27 million.

"The biggest displacement in the Middle East since the dramatic events of 1948 has now forced one in eight Iraqis from their homes," he added, referring to creation of the state of Israel that triggered a massive Palestinian exodus.

Hmmm, 1948, eh?

Well, history buffs, wha'd'we know about 1948? That Israel was founded on (allegedly!?) stolen land, the legal inhabitants 'back then' having all been either killed, forced off at the point of a gun or 'merely' viciously oppressed these past 60 years or so now, with many more years of murderous violence to come, if the IDF has its ugly way?

And, I suppose, if the US 'defense' forces have their ugly way, the rehabilitation of Iraq may well take - Oh, how about: as long as it takes to pump all the oil? Wha'd'ya reckon, 60 years, more or less?

-=*=-

There's yet another parallel here: "I feel compelled to issue an appeal... to the Muslim world and in particular to the Arab world to play a greater role in the discussion, formulation and implementation of international refugee policy." [ibid]

Ah, yes! USrael creates a problem, and hands it to the Arab world to fix up, eh? 1948 Palestine, 2003 Iraq - and now they're getting ready to 'do' Iran (for the 2nd time, remember 1953?)... Where's the justice in any'o that, eh?

-=*=-

PS I cannot know how many will bother to read through my '1953' link, so here is the conclusion:

In every country where the United States has intervened, it tries to turn power over to a government that will (a) honestly represent the people of that country, and (b) be pro-American. Quickly it becomes clear that these two goals are in conflict, and that the United States has to choose between imposing an unpopular regime that will do the Americans' bidding, or a popular one that will place its own country's interests ahead of American interests. It naturally chooses the first option. Those unpopular regimes must use repression to remain in power. The United States supports them, and violently anti-American anger grows toward future explosions.

Does history seem ironic and tragic and awful to you? It seems that way to me quite often, especially when I consider the history of the Middle East.

History is becoming America's enemy because too many American leaders do not believe in history. They believe that the United States is so unique, so much more powerful than any other nation or empire has ever been, that history does not apply to it. They believe, in effect, that history has stopped happening. Clio always takes revenge for such insults.

[ibid]

The quote, of course, explains the current puppet Iraqi regime, which reputedly rules almost nowhere outside of the 'Green Zone' - and will soon pass an oil law enabling the looong anticipated rip-offs to begin. Then, I wonder in what form Clio's revenge will take?

Craig Rowley: "I think you may need to lobby your Republican friends at the Whitehouse to start explaining what evidence they have of the weapons program you assume to exist and do so in an open and honest fashion ... and fast."

So we are back to the beginning of the roundabout? Now Iran is not and will not have any weapons? Well I have already told you what I think will happen if surprise, suprise they end up with them.

Craig Rowley: "You see, Jay, the Non-Aligned Movement, an organisation of 118 nations, representing nearly two-thirds of the United Nations' members and 55% of the world population, and also the Group of 77, which these days actually has 130 members, have prepared separate statements calling for Iran’s nuclear dossier to be removed from the agenda of the UN Security Council."

What is the nuclear dossier? And if they are saying this issue should not be discussed and no penalty should be given to Iran it would be a big mistake. It would actually show why the UN does not work.

If Iran gains nuclear weapons the world gains a world of problems.

Craig Rowley: "I take it this means you'd keep pre-emptive strikes on the table."

A war has a beginning. And asking people if they wish for war is like asking if they wish for cancer. The fact is though that it happens. As much as people do not like it. And when it happens it must be dealt with. There are hypothetical situations when a first strike would be called for. To pretend otherwise is not only less than adult it is utterly idiotic.

Craig Rowley: "What would you think you'd achieve, first by putting it on the table, and second by ever following through and exercising that option?"

Protection of one's own nation and the protection of one's own allies. WWII would have been very different indeed if this principle would have been followed. No sensible person takes any option off the table. The world is just a little more complicated than that.

Speaking to the BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi slammed the West over failure to reward Libya in return for its decision to remain a non-nuclear country.

Colonel Gaddafi blamed the West’s failure to reward Libya for the persistent refusal of Iran and North Korea to renounce nukes; arguing that the West has lost bargaining power with those nations.

"This should be a model to be followed, but Libya is disappointed because the promises given by America and Britain were not fulfilled," he said.

"And therefore those countries said 'we are not going to follow Libya's example because Libya abolished its programme without any compensation'."

However, he asserted that there would be no return to the confrontation of the past.

UN Sanctions imposed on Libya for a decade over the 1988 Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people were killed, were lifted and it was also removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terror, after it agreed in 2003 to suspend its nuclear programme.

U.S. and UK also resumed ties with Tripoli following its decision.

I hope this helps explain the thinking in Iran and North Korea.

Jay White, thank you for putting your ideas about a solution on the table.  I like the way one of the strong themes of your approach is about offering 'explanations' to the Iranian people.  I also like the way another part of your solution is to "ask the people" of Iran.

You say that "at the moment the solution is for the world to stand together and make it known that Iran's path is the wrong one and everyone knows it."

I think you may need to lobby your Republican friends at the Whitehouse to start explaining what evidence they have of the weapons program you assume to exist and do so in an open and honest fashion ... and fast.  And not just to the Iranian people, but also to most of the world's peoples.  They're all standing together, but they're not adopting the stance you advocate.

You see, Jay, the Non-Aligned Movement, an organisation of 118 nations, representing nearly two-thirds of the United Nations' members and 55% of the world population, and also the Group of 77, which these days actually has 130 members, have prepared separate statements calling for Iran’s nuclear dossier to be removed from the agenda of the UN Security Council. 

Jay you say "It will only make them a much, much bigger target minus any rewards."

I take it this means you'd keep pre-emptive strikes on the table.  So could you please answer those questions I'd asked you (seeing as I answered your questions): Would you put pre-emptive war on the table Jay?  If you would, why?  What would you think you'd achieve, first by putting it on the table, and second by ever following through and exercising that option?

Daniel Smythe: "I hope that Jay sends this wise thought to Olmert."

And why should the Israeli leadership be singled out for special attention? I thought this was a discussion on Iran the US and the world. Why not mention the President of France, or Germany, etc?

Daniel Smythe: "Perhaps the Jewish lobby will give him a medal, put him in the John Howard category. Hang on, what am I saying? Jay's comment indirectly condemns Israel."

I do not know anything about the "Jewish lobby". I am a Catholic. I have a couple of Jewish friends I might ask them the password. I certainly do not know if my comment backs their postions, but I hardly think it "condemns" them.

I think US and Israeli policy has differences. I think it always has. And I suppose it is a simple geographical fact that if you are not in the firing line of a nuclear missile you have more room for, let's say, latitude. I also think it is a mistake for any US administration to link Israeli problems into their national policy. Lest the sort of critics it gives air to. And people on here talk about framing.

Daniel Smythe: "Jay, beware the Mossad!"

Message for any Mossad agents reading: I ask you do me quick and clean. And please not in the face. The beautiful face that I am sure at least makes one very lucky lady very happy.

Craig Rowley: “Jay White you say "The solution is easy", then talk up the enormity of the problem without offering any actual solution to it and then point to who you think has to deal with the problem. The question was: What solution do you propose? Not: Who should create a solution?”

The solution for mind depends on a common world stance.

I would continue to seek it in the UN through the use of agreed upon sanctions. Although the severity of the sanctions may not come up to what the US is looking for, they at least supply symbolism. And at least supply an understanding that Iran having these weapons is a PROBLEM.

I would explain to the Iranian people it is not a fight against them. It is a fight against the dictatorship they live under. And from all polls one that is not so popular with them either.

Iran does have a place as a powerful nation in this region. Power, though, is gained through economics and success. It is not gained through a nihilist view of the world expressed through sixty year plus technology nuclear weapons. Whilst Iran continues down this path they are in fact destroying for themselves any chance of "real" power and pride in this region. I would attempt to explain this to the Iranian people.

I would also ask the people why is it that they must undergo sanctions for a dictatorship that suppresses any view they do not share, and supports and funds wars with their tax dollars that do not concern them. Neither Israel nor the US has ever attacked them. And a few of the groups they are supporting are not only a different ethic mix but also of a different religious one.

And finally, why should they have to undergo the world’s wrath (economically) for over-expensive weapons possible being used in a war (that does not exist) as a ruse to take away from all the things really going wrong. Why, for example, are they not a very rich nation?

Are they really willing to degenerate into economic outhouse status simply for a man (highly unpopular) to pounce around the world stage giving his off beat and embarrassing views on everything?

So at the moment the solution is for the world to stand together and make it known that Iran's path is the wrong one and everyone knows it.

Giving into this person would not only be a poor move for the world, it would be an extremely poor move for Iran. It will only make them a much, much bigger target minus any rewards.

Jay White you say "The solution is easy", then talk up the enormity of the problem without offering any actual solution to it and then point to who you think has to deal with the problem. The question was: What solution do you propose? Not: Who should create a solution?

Saying "the world should deal with it" is not offering a solution, it's pointing at who should create and implement it. 

Unless you're saying you'd have the world do nothing about a solution to the standoff, whilst those entering alliances with the US simply sink billions into building son of star wars.

So that when Pandora's box is opened ... What? What happens then?  Is the problem solved? Or does everything just continue being problematic? 

Jay you also say: "No sensible person takes their options away." 

Nonsense. The US shouldn't have put a pre-emptive strike option on the table in the first place. It's illegal. It's unintelligent. It's not a viable option.

Would you put pre-emptive war on the table Jay?  If you would, why?  What would you think you'd achieve, first by putting it on the table, and second by ever following through and exercising that option?

BTW - if the best you can come up with is a tirade to try and paint me as anti-American, good luck.

Also, a question we should get out of the way before more talk of son of star wars - do you have investments in the defense sector from which you stand to benefit if son of star wars is implemented?

Craig Rowley: "What solution do you propose and why would the pre-emptive attack option have to remain on the table if your solution was taken up?"

The solution is easy. It is a world problem and the world should deal with it. Let's face it, even if Iran does get nuclear weapons they will not be reaching either Australia or the USA. They will in fact be a lot closer to China and Europe. Now an ally, such as Israel, is a problem and I will say this is a huge problem for them. And to think some would say Israel dictates US policy. The best the US can offer is moral, political and military support if the need arises.

The fact is, if Iran gains nuclear weapons it opens a pandora's box. Other nations around the world will surely follow. Asian states directly effecting China. And perhaps some Baltic states directly effecting Russia. If one wants to be purely stategic, this is not all bad news for the USA. Hence, it does become a equally shared world problem. Because it is bad news for the whole world.

And that is why out of interest for the US and its allies (Israel is one) it should proceed with all haste toward getting the star wars program up and running. If nations in the UN decide not to go down this path they will do something about it. If they do not do anything the world will go down this path. This problem is bigger than the USA. The US like any other nation can merely act in its own self interest.

No sensible person takes their options away. No person can read the future. Situations call for options and it is best to have a full book. No other nation takes options off the table and neither should the US. And of course logic dictates they won't. And of course that is why it has been the policy of all past presidents and will remain the policy of all future presidents.

If this is the best you and others can come up with in your anti-American bashing tirades, good luck.

Jay White, ok I'll answer your questions and then ask you one.

Jay: "Why should the US take any option off the table is no other nation is willing to?"

The option the US should take off the table is the strategy of pre-emptive war as formulated by the Bush/Cheney administration.  That strategy is described by Murswiek (.pdf) and to summarise drawing on his material:

The maintenance of peace under international law is based on a doctrine from which all other pertinent rules are derived: the general prohibition of the use of force contained in Article 2 (4) of the U.N. Charter. As a rule, the use of military force between states is prohibited. International law sanctions warfare; it follows that war is not permissible as an instrument for the enforcement of political interests.

Potential sources of conflict between states should be resolved, but by peaceful means only. This remains valid even when the conflict originates in a serious violation of international law by one of the parties to the conflict.

The U.N. Charter contains only two exceptions to the general prohibition of the use of force: the right to self-defense contained in Article 51, on the one hand, and collective action initiated by the Security Council within the framework Chapter VII, on the other.

Article 51 does not entitle to measures for the general avoidance of danger. A distinction must be made between the avoidance of danger or of a threat and the defense against an imminent attack. The avoidance of danger – of a threat to peace – rests within the exclusive competence of the Security Council (Articles 39-42).

With regard to preemptive measures, the following conclusion ensues: a state that feels threatened by an imminent attack may only carry out measures of self-defense if it no longer has sufficient time to wait for the adoption of required measures by the Security Council. Furthermore, the burden of evidence rests with the defending state, which must provide compelling evidence for an imminent attack by the hostile state. The existence of an attack situation must be evident. Mere assumptions or circumstantial evidence, however plausible, are not sufficient. If no evidence can be presented, the situation must be considered a mere threat, not an attack as demanded by Article 51.

The United States is seeking to amend these norms so that preemptive wars become legal. This no longer affects the current Iraq-conflict only. As the American president declared openly, instead, the United States is determined to wage preventive wars if these appear necessary for its own safety. This “Bush Doctrine” was initially presented in a presidential speech at the West Point military academy on 1 June 2002 and later reflected in the National Security Strategy of September 2002. It cannot be reduced to a mere statement made spontaneously and without deliberation.

The Bush-Doctrine violates international law.

Additionally, you should read the JAIPAC letter that I pointed out on Thursday.  Pay particular attention to the lines:

As Otto von Bismarck said,  "Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death." Acting out of fear, we make unintelligent decisions that backfire and play into the hands of extremists.

Many politicians assume they must "leave the military option on the table." Threatening war to prevent war is likely to provoke war. Actions taken out of existential fear, "in self defense" trigger existential fear in those threatened, creating a self-fulfilling paranoia. Actors are most dangerous when afraid and most violent when attacked, humiliated, and despairing.

So, Jay, the US should take off the table the option of launching a strike against another nation by invoking the Bush-Doctrine, and it should do so because it is an illegal option and unintelligent (i.e. idiotic) option.

In addition to your question, Jay, you also say: "And of course you know no other future President is willing either."

No-one should have to point this out, but that is illogical and unintelligent statement.  For once, Jay, please apply some logic and, while you're at it, stop thinking you can tell me what I know.

I know, as just about every other human being capable of rational and logical thinking knows, no-one can forecast as fact what future presidents will be willing to do. We can all speculate, those with better data can estimate, but no-one can conclude that some future president will be willing or unwilling to do anything. 

Jay: "Why do you keep attempting to talk up war with Iran when every thinking person understands this is not possible?"

You can't be serious. I'm not "attempting to talk up war with Iran" as thinking people who read what I write will see.  I'm attempting to talk about the solutions available other than war with Iran.

Jay: "Why are you not talking about the positives of talking with Iran over Iraq?"

That's a disingenuous question as well Jay. The fact is I have, I am, and I will continue to talk about the positives of talking with Iran, whether it be about Iraq or any other issue. 

Jay: "What do you really hope to gain?"

Ahhh ... and now I see why you asked those other questions, questions that were part of (yet another) straw man construction exercise.  You think I've got some questionable 'motive'.

As I've said so many times before, when I write for and comment on Webdiary I really hope to gain nothing more than conversation with intelligent people on topics I'm interested in and the learning I derive from that.

Jay: "A war or even a suggestion of such only helps the Iranian President who is very unpopular at home. So why would you make it your number one focus?"

It's not actually my number one focus.  Outside of Webdiary my number one focus is family and especially my young children, then my various business and investment activities take up most of my daylight hours, I'm also a volunteer helping Sudanese refugees learn our language and that is certainly a higher order priority than Webdiary on the day that I undertake that activity. 

Even restricted to focus within Webdiary what I've been focused on is a peaceful solution to the standoff.

Now, having responded to your set of questions today, Jay, I have one (actually a two-in-one) for you:

What solution do you propose and why would the pre-emptive attack option have to remain on the table if your solution was taken up?