Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Fifteen hundred troops in a fortnight, a similar number again by the end of the year.  By Cheney/Howard logic, this makes the UK a supporter of the terrorists.

Surely Cheney wouldn't dare ask Howard for more troops now? If he did, surely Howard would be mad to comply?

What kind of Coalition of the Willing does this leave - US and Australia?  So much for that.  Downer was hinting last night that we need to look after the US so it will look after us in Asia.  Not good enough. Given Blair's troop withdrawal, we have a vindication for departing without being castigated as abetting Al Qaeda.

The White House is already spinning the story into a "UK Mission Accomplished" but the Brits aren't rushing back to Baghdad to help in Bush's final push.  They're outta there, pronto!

To paraphrase from Big Brother "It's time to go..... Australia!"

Perhaps Blair doesn't want to be involved in a war with Iran ?

PS Downer says it's a reduction, not a withdrawal.  He didn't sound happy.

"If the other side expresses concerns about possible deviations of Iran's activities in the future, we have no objections to settling these concerns at the negotiating table," [Ali Larijani] told reporters."

Then why don't they negotiate with the EU powers, as has been repeatedly suggested to them, instead of continually stalling on the pretext of needing direct talks with their chosen enemy, the United States, and with whom the current Iranian regime ceased diplomatic relations more than 20 years ago?

Because the islamist regime knows no American President can, without a humiliating backdown before President Ahmedinejad, enter into dialogue with him, given his personal role, and that of other Iranian Revolutionary Guards, in the detention and torture of American civilians in Tehran in 1980.  And this is why the psuedo-intellectual Left has no choice but to support Ahmedinejad's demands for 'direct talks' - to humiliate the American President of the day, and to ensure the continuation of Iran's nuclear weapons development program. Because this is entirely in keeping with the Left's only credible role in the world today - as cheerleaders for Islamofascism.

G'day Craig, to add to your report here is the latest from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. More conciliatory but this is an interesting proposal:

"Justice demands that those who want to hold talks with us shut down their nuclear fuel cycle program too," he said. "Then, we can hold dialogue under a fair atmosphere." 

Fair's fair.

And Hans Blix comments.

From the last para.:

It is difficult to understand why, in the case of Iran, the suspension of the program for enrichment of uranium has been made a precondition for any talks in which such suspension is the main subject.

Indeed.

Problems with Iran's oil production. 

A report in today's Wall Street Journal paints a picture of an Iran in the early stages of an energy crisis. Although long considered an energy giant, the Persian Gulf country is facing the prospect of an oil output crash within a decade, and it may start rationing gasoline next month.

Various reasons for this are given - both internal and external.

Leon Hadar on the NK model for Iran?

We hope the move towards negotiations as sought by people such as Mohamed ElBaradei are successful and bear fruit.

Speaking of fruit, and venturing into a digression, when negotiating over such important and sensitive matters it is important to be very careful in the choice of words. Some people have a problem with this which can lead to some interesting results such as this example. It might help lighten the mood considering the issue we have been dealing with. The cowboy image some have tried to create for the Commander is so Hollywood, but is it more Brokeback Mountain than John Wayne? Is this the end Dubya has in store for OBL and is it any surprise OBL is in hiding?

Today is the deadline for Iran to comply with UNSCR 1737. 

Reuters reports that Iranian chief negotiator Ali Larijani, speaking after talks with the IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, said Iran would not suspend nuclear work as the West demands:

"Maybe there are certain groups or countries willing to coerce Iran ... (But) Iran's nuclear dossier cannot be resolved through force and pressure," said Ali Larijani, alluding mainly to the United States.

"If the other side expresses concerns about possible deviations of Iran's activities in the future, we have no objections to settling these concerns at the negotiating table," he told reporters.

"We would give the necessary assurances and guarantees (in negotiations) that there will be no deviation ever toward nuclear weapons (in Iran)," said Larijani, who is due to hold talks in Italy [today].

The IAEA's report looks likely to be delayed a little.   ElBaradei really wants to revive talks.  His "time out" option is on the table.

Meanwhile Larijani says to the Bush administration:

"If they are inclined to move toward a boxing ring, they will have problems too. Anyone interested in a non-conventional or irrational move (against Iran) would definitely receive the appropriate response."

"But if they are willing to sit down at a chessboard, both sides could come to a (negotiated) result."

Maybe he's not heard of Chess Boxing?

“The meaning of September 11 is not to be gauged by counting the number of lives lost. It was an attack on a way of life that is shared by all democracies.”

That would be 2.4 cars per household?

One of my favourite authors is Orson Scott Card. In one of his stories, the military commander follows the precept ‘know your enemy’, to the point that he finally annihilates an enemy he loves. If we must go to war against our fellow humans, we need to have the courage and steadfastness of purpose to treat it as the cauterisation of a wound on our body, amputating our own gangrenous limb without anaesthesia. To demonise the enemy, to turn them into evil monsters to appease our conscience is much easier to do, but in the end, dehumanises us and those we send into battle.

Mike, I have no wish to defend Ahmadinejad, but I would be surprised if his actions were not comparable to those by many Israeli commanders. I do not wish to defend Hitler, but I remember that we nuked two cities and napalmed massive suburbs. Our treatment of aborigines was often despicable. My position is that I do not meet Jesus’ criterion for casting the first stone. If parties in a dispute demonise each other, refuse to engage with or appreciate the others’ perceptions, then it is because the parties do not want to negotiate, they want violence.

For those who do not read Baghdad Burning:

The Rape of Sabrine...

I hate the media and I hate the Iraqi government for turning this atrocity into another Sunni-Shia debacle- like it matters whether Sabrine is Sunni or Shia or Arab or Kurd (the Al Janabi tribe is composed of both Sunnis and Shia). ...

... This is meant to discourage other prisoners, especially women, from coming forward and making claims against Iraqi and American forces. Maliki is the stupidest man alive (well, after Bush of course…) if he believes his arrogance and callous handling of the situation will work to dismiss it from the minds of Iraqis. By doing what he is doing, he's making it more clear than ever that under his rule, under his government, vigilante justice is the only way to go. Why leave it to the security forces and police? Simply hire a militia or gang to get revenge. If he doesn't get some justice for her, her tribe will be forced to... And the Janabat (the Al Janabis) are a force to be reckoned with.'  - posted by river  - Baghdad Burning.

Ah, but we all know that  the Sunni and Shia have hated each other for thousands of years ....

Craig Rowley the US has never attacked Iranian soil. That part is still correct. The naval battle took place in international waters. The never a shot in anger bit, may have been a little over simplified. The US embassy also counts as US soil. Not Iranian.

Bob Wall: "So the US is looking increasingly alone. Will it impel them towards diplomacy rather than military action?"

Well, notwithstanding that, Bob, and to your great credit, you have already pointed out a report stating the reason the US has moved Patriot air defense missiles into the Persian Gulf is to lay the ground for an attack on Iran some time before April. Indeed, this is a theme that has been taken up with some assurance by Gary Younge in the Guardian newspaper.

So, does this mean the US fleet and air defense systems will be pulled back, I wonder?

G'day Craig, first, the Steinmeier spiele: another European state voices disagreement with the US. Fits the scenario of the link I provided yesterday and the general theme of states re balancing as the hegemon wanes. Indicates less chance of stronger sanctions being approved or other firm actions. The German stance will provide at least moral support for those on the UNSC opposed to stronger actions. So the US is looking increasingly alone. Will it impel them towards diplomacy rather than military action?  David reminded us of his mindset. And there is this.

Here is a response.

"Cherry tree? What cherry tree?" 

I recently linked Part 1 of an article by Walter C. Uhler on bomb matters. Here are Parts 1 and 2. 

A little perspective on the issue.

Meanwhile, some considered articles on the US/Iran issue in the US press:

The Times stable. This is from IHT but I saw it originally in the NYTimes.

Originally from the LATimes.

From the BBC -claimed  details of US attack plans.

So as the wheels spin we hope that sanity - and diplomacy prevail.

Craig Rowley: "A month later, US officials said they had turned up no evidence supporting the allegations by the handful of hostages."

Well, apart from the eyewitness testimony, there is this rather awkward photograph taken in 1980.

Craig Rowley: "Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not President Ahmadinejad, is the Commander-in-Chief in Iran. Which leads to an opinion. I think demonising Ahmadinejad is pointless in real terms.  He doesn't wield the power in Iran, his finger is not on any button of real power."

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is Iran's head of state, actually. President Ahmedinejad is Iran's head of government.

Employing the same logic as Craig, then, John Howard doesn't exercise any real power in Australia, since Michael Jeffrey is the Vice Regal appointee of our Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II. John Howard is merely our head of government.

Anyway, Craig. You might ask yourself why when President Hugo Chavez (who is definitely Venezuela's head of state) is in Iran, he greets President Ahmedinejad as his counterpart, as does the Hereditary Dictator of Syria, President Bashar Assad.

Maybe you should tell them they're talking to the wrong guy, there.

C Parsons: “President Ahmadinejad was personally involved in the torture of civilian American embassy staff”.

In a war zone, there are no civilians, only meat in the sandwich. It is a term invented to appease the conscience of those waging remote war. In any event, if we are a democracy, then we are the Commanders-in-Chief. Sending people into war and then not expecting torture and rape is like teaching your dog to be an attack dog, and then being angry with it for biting the neighbour’s children. President Ahmadinejad is extremely intelligent and has lived war. We should not preach morality to him.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has appealed in an interview for Washington to do more to meet Russian concerns over plans to deploy Son of Star Wars missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic.

He poured doubt on US statements that their missiles were primarily directed against a threat to Europe from Iranian missiles.

"According to maps showing the range of missiles, this is not so, given the current state of Iranian military technology," he said.

Steinmeier has also spoken out against any immediate new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear policies.

"The most recent resolution of the UN Security Council does not contain any automatic mechanism for the situation where Iran does not fulfil its obligations," he said. 

I think he's saying to the Decider: "Sie sind dran."

Geoff Pahoff, this is a thread of "news" reporters. Nobody is saying anything is going to happen, just reporting it. Nobody is claiming Iran will be attacked just pointing out the warning signs.

Apparently time is short. It could happen or it might not happen. Nobody is saying it will. And nobody is saying it will not happen. Clear things up?

G'day Craig, here is an article about the grand game in play - the inter-imperialist rivalry between the US and Europe. Worth consideration.

"The neocons must be stopped." Here is Prof. Francis A. Boyle on those creatures - and he knows them well, as will be seen from the transcript. Audio as well. The focus is on the need to impeach Bush and Cheney.

Claim and now counter claim - Iran accuses the US and UK of meddling.

Iran has accused the United States and Britain of provoking the Sunni insurgents. The authorities have said that the efforts are part of the plot to sow discord among Sunnis and Shiites in the country. Gen. Mohammad Ghaffari, a commander of security forces in the province, told the Fars news agency that a film that was confiscated from the suspects proved that the group was “affiliated to intelligence agencies of some of the foreign countries, such as the U.S. and Britain.”

The news agency also quoted what it called informed sources as saying that the explosives used in the bombings were American.

 The game continues and a deadline is near. Next move?

The reason that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists on "direct talks" with the United States, one of the only two nations on earth with which Iran does not have diplomatic relations, is the full realisation that that would be politically impossible for any American President because President Ahmadinejad was personally involved in the torture of civilian American embassy staff in 1980.

Meanwhile...

Iran says it will not agree to suspend uranium enrichment, as demanded by the United Nations Security Council.

The United States is "not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran," US Defence Secretary Robert Gates says.

Insert left wing cliché here [.............................................]

Now, back to today's episode of 'A day at the racists'. The story so far...

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is winding up a two-day trip to Iran. Mr Assad and his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have pledged to work even more closely.

First this happens...

The Iraqi Army says attacks and killings in Baghdad have dropped by 80 per cent in the four days since Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced the offensive was under way.

Then this...

Authorities say Iraq has begun reopening its borders with Iran and Syria after a security crackdown. The borders were fully closed for three days as part of an operation to crack down on sectarian and insurgent violence.

- February 19, 2007. 0:09am (AEDT)

Then immediately...

Two car bombs have torn through a busy Baghdad shopping area, killing 55 people and wounding 128 as militants defied a US-Iraqi military offensive.

- February 19, 2007. 1:30am (AEDT)

Meanwhile, some Sunni and Shiite cooperation for a change...

Iran has for the first time formally denied claims by Iraqi and US officials that radical Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is in the Islamic republic, the ISNA news agency reports.

The Iranian Government has up until now condemned the US claims as a provocation but not explicitly confirmed or denied whether Sadr was on its territory.

In other words, Moqtada was in Tehran for the conference with Bashar al-Assad and  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  I'm sure he'll be back in Sadr City in time for his Friday sermon in order to start carrying out his latest orders.

G'day Craig, the Supreme Leader (no, not the president) of Iran has declared that nuclear energy is Iran's future.

Expect more backhand returns?

One needs a scorecard to keep up. 

From your link it seems some people refuse to understand that the US is the law. Or is it that the US refuses to understand that it isn't? Although with enough arm-twisting it can seem that way sometimes. But let us hope all-in wrestling isn't on the agenda.

Firstly, I would like to point out, despite the plethora of Webdiary postings to the contrary, the Middle East ranks pretty low in my list of important issues. Far more important to me are having a job and decent working conditions, health, education, water costs ...

The most important reason I sent troops to Iraq is that it appears necessary if we are to keep oil prices low. If we have another oil crisis, the world economy may collapse, causing me and my fellow Ozzies a lot of pain.

Secondly, it is a good idea to keep in the good books of the US. After all, they are the top dog, and it is worth keeping in their good books. The costs of my participating in the invasion are pretty low. It is a volunteer army, the risks for them are pretty low. Those who go not only get good pay, but it’s the type of experience that matters for promotion.

There is the talk of Terrorism, Nuclear Weapons, Democracy, etc., and all these fuzzy words are good for the PR people, and for endless debates in Webdiary. These are the things that pop out when we talk about Iraq (like being conditioned to the bell like Pavlov’s dogs), but deep down I know what’s what.

I believe, Craig, that citizens do exercise real power. And if we want to change the world, then the people we need to convince are not the politicians, but our fellow citizens with different opinions, the Jay Whites of our community. To do so, we need to be willing to challenge and change both our and their mental models. A challenge to a mental model can be very threatening to our personality, and our subconscious uses all the tricks at its disposal – avoidance, mis-reading, forgetfulness……Our openness and willingness to accept conflicting ideas decreases when we feel threatened or angry. And an oil crisis is a real threat.

To convince middle Australia, I would focus on the things that matter – education, health, work and income, building communities. Perhaps the most important mental model we need to challenge is the one called capitalism, of the invisible hand, and that it needs to be a dog eat dog world. Not only does the world produce enough food for everybody, but it does it in a way that is 85% inefficiency. We need to move into the twenty-first century.

Craig Rowley rather then writing notes to a San Fran liberal bore you guys could do three things of substance.

1. Support the UN placing more sanctions on that morally and economically bankrupt country Iran. Therefore saving the world another arms race that will quickly overtake in importance anything that vain little grub running the place could ever do.

2. Support an anti nuclear device like star wars. That one day may save the world from two bit vain little grubs.

3. Find some spare change and donate it to this man. A solid financial manager along with being an excellent and intelligent leader. Moderate enough to win over middle America but not kooky enough to do it any damage. A person that will win the middle vote every single time. Keeping America in Republican hands and therefore safe hands. I mean, what sane person would wish another Clinton on anyone?

Peter Hindrup: "Jay White, you push all the fables that contradict reality."

Would you mind explaining which "fable" I am pushing? And whilst you're at it, why it would be "ethical" to just abandon an entire nation and forget about them?

Peter Hindrup: "How convenient it would be in indeed if the various factions hated each other beyond all reason. How inconvenient that intermarriage was/is so widespread!"

Whether or not it is convenient that various factions hate each other is not really the point, is it? The fact is they do. And I am not going to come on here and pretend otherwise. I have no interest in pretending a socialist (we all love each other) view of the world is shared by people all over the world. In fact socialists are of no importance to me. I, like most people, do not care what they think. And I am not changing what I say to suit their deluded sad little view of the world.

Peter Hindrup: "How convenient that none of the Iraqis know how to fight unless the US is there to hold their hand. And unless they have been trained by the US. With such a population of incompetents, why the hell was anybody ever afraid of Saddam? What ever happened to the war hardened veterans of the Iran/Iraqi war?"

I have never said Iraqis cannot fight. The idea of the US staying there is to prevent them from fighting. And this takes place mostly between themselves. Although the leaders running off to Iran (whilst asking others to do the fighting) is extreme cowardice the average Iraqi does know how to fight.

Bravery comes when knowing when not to fight. Killing each other and destroying their own nation is not something that should be looked upon as brave.

Peter Hindrup: "You want to know how to begin the long road to recovery for the Iraqis? Have the international community get the coalition out of Iraq.  I don’t care how! Charge Bush, Blair, Howard and their cohorts with war crimes, signal the clear intention to compel the member countries of the coalition to pay reparation, compensation and blood money. Squash Israel back to its 1967 borders. Ban all international financial support for Israel. Competing interests and self-interest will do the rest."

Pretty simple view of the world. The world had problems long before Bush and will have them long after he is gone. Bush is not the best President; he is also not the worst (Harding). And Iraq is certainly not Vietnam. The US has lost 3,000 people; have a look at the Vietnam statistics. Yes, it is always sad to lose lives, but this happens during war. It does not mean that it has all been futile.

There are clear reasons why failure in Iraq would be a disaster. Not only for Iraq, but the rest of the world. Bush is giving it one last try for success. The fact that some people wish to dwell on previous mistakes and hope for failure proves they have little to no ethics at all. Whatever one's politics is, success in Iraq would be in all our interests. I hope for the many decent ordinary Iraqis this current crackdown yields success. And some semblance of law and order is regained. So that normal people can go back to living a normal life.

G'day Craig, here is an account of the Russian INF manoeuvre. More pieces bought into play and more testing of diplomatic strength. Another pointer to the tussle at the UN. On that - Condi on a second resolution.

On the issue of nuclear programs and a lack of a sense of irony. Or is it hypocrisy?

...

Lost in all of this U.S./Israeli saber rattling is the gross hypocrisy of both countries. ElBaradei put his finger on it when he asserted: "We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction, yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security - and indeed continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use." [Ritter, p. 179]

Of course the US and Israel have records for not merely rattling but using sabres.  Or assorted very deadly kinds.

Speaking of plans. 

The CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress of August 10, 2006, on "US Nuclear Weapons: Changes in Policy and Force Structure", reports that "the Bush administration has stated that the United States would develop and deploy those nuclear capabilities that it would need to defeat the capabilities of any potential adversary whether or not it possessed nuclear weapons".

Like the "potential" bit?

Lessons from the NK agreement? Could well be.

The spin might still be spun but fewer people take any notice. The problem is - will Bush care that few believe it? 

Gary J. Schmitt and Reuel Marc Gerecht, resident scholars at neocon thinktank, the American Enterprise Institute, are asking what they say are not unfair questions:

Do the Europeans really want to prevent a war between the US or Israel and Iran? If they had to choose between curtailing trade with the Islamic republic, or seeing either America or Israel preventatively strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, which would London, Paris and Berlin prefer?

"Poker", they say, "may well have been invented in Iran, but it came to the Americans via the Europeans".

These neocons wanna know "Do the Europeans still know how to play?"

Jay White, you push all the fables that contradict reality.

How convenient it would be in indeed if the various factions hated each other beyond all reason. How inconvenient that intermarriage was/is so widespread!

How convenient that none of the Iraqis know how to fight unless the US is there to hold their hand. And unless they have been trained by the US. With such a population of incompetents, why the hell was anybody ever afraid of Saddam? What ever happened to the war hardened veterans of the Iran/Iraqi war?

As for the US being able to sort out the disaster which is a direct result of the illegal invasion — I suggest you take a look at situation of those hit by Katrina — then compare it with the Lebanese who started rebuilding their lives the day after peace was announced.

You want to know how to begin the long road to recovery for the Iraqis? Have the international community get the coalition out of Iraq.  I don’t care how! Charge Bush, Blair, Howard and their cohorts with war crimes, signal the clear intention to compel the member countries of the coalition to pay reparation, compensation and blood money. Squash Israel back to its 1967 borders. Ban all international financial support for Israel. Competing interests and self-interest will do the rest.

Meanwhile for those of you who are interested in what is going on, and not what the spin doctors, trolls and US apologists preach, the following urls may be of interest.

Link from Mike Carlton’s opinion piece in the Herald — Stink of blood money in the air - must be Deadeye. Scroll down past the list of reference books from which it is compiled.

SBS ran a series: The Power of Nightmares.  Actual clips and interviews with the crazies! This is a much more important work than Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. It also utterly destroys any excuses any of us may make about not having known about these crazies!

Craig Rowley: "Putin has said he does not trust US claims that the planned European missile defence system was intended to counter threats from Iran, and warned that Russia would take retaliatory measures.  The hints to Putin's stance on this were given in his speech to the Munich Security Conference last week."

Putin might not trust claims, but this is bad luck isn't it? The fact is most people do not trust the claims of Iran. So a missile defense system is the only way to go. Now obviously there must be some fear out there the system might actually work.

Would it not be better for Russia to attempt to halt Iran gaining these weapons? Take the excuse away so to speak?

Funny you know, because a simple country like Iran may lead to another world arms race. Leaving Iran of minimal importance. You do have technological advanced places, such as Japan and Germany, that may have to jump in as well. Lucky Australia and North America are long, long way away, eh?

Nations like Russia and China should think very carefully about the future at the next UN meeting concerning Iran. Also forget the Bush administration if Russia does choose to go down this route. No, and I mean no future, American administration will have any other choice but to take equal counter measures.

Iran is damaging more than Israel and America with their truculence. They are causing damage to the entire world and the entire world will have to solve the problem. And stop looking at running to the US every time something gets a little out of hand.

The US is correct to defend itself and its allies from two bit rouge nations like Iran. With their one or two basic nuclear bombs. That is why large investments in things like star wars will pay off.

Russian news agencies are reporting that Moscow could pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, negotiated between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and President Reagan in 1987.

The decision would depend on whether the Bush administration's plans to deploy components of a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic are completed. Those plans that have drawn sharp criticism from President Putin.

"We shall see what our American partners do," Baluyevsky was quoted by Interfax, ITAR-Tass and RIA Novosti as saying. "Their actions to deploy missile defense sites in Europe are inexplicable."

Putin has said he does not trust US claims that the planned European missile defence system was intended to counter threats from Iran, and warned that Russia would take retaliatory measures.  The hints to Putin's stance on this were given in his speech to the Munich Security Conference last week.

It has occurred to me that many around here are perhaps too young to remember the Cuban missile crisis and how close the world came to nuclear war.

A totalitarian state with an unstable leadership miscalculated badly when it concluded it could establish a nuclear weapon facility on allied soil close enough to the US they could not miss even with an unreliable missile capability. The US discovered the build-up and imposed a naval "quarantine" on Cuba. The Soviet Union ordered its ships to defy the "illegal blockade" and despatched submarines armed with tactical nuclear weapons. The US went to DEFCON 3 alert and then to DEFCON 2, the first time in history. An US U-2 spy plane was shot down and its pilot killed.

The Pentagon urged the Kennedy administration to launch a full scale invasion of Cuba to eliminiate the threat. Castro demanded the Soviet Union launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the United States. Soviet submarine commanders were ordered to launch tactical nuclear attacks on any US invasion forces. American warships were ordered to hunt down and destroy the submarines.  Many people "in the know" of the full details of what was happening, from London to Washington, simply assumed that these was the last hours of their lives.

And then the whole thing blew over as quickly as it started. The crisis came out of the blue and lasted less than a fortnight. Against all advice, other than his brother's, Kennedy took a gamble. Against all precedent and expectations, so did Khrushchev. US and Soviet naval commanders in the field "interpreted" their orders very narrowly. The world survived. But it is absolute bollocks to suggest this was due to "rational leadership" or Mutually Assured Destruction (notice how that term has been sanitised). It was due to sheer pure and simple good luck.

The situation is even more volatile and dangerous in the Middle East than it was at the height of the Cold War. There are many reasons for this but in the final analysis a nuclear armed Iran means nuclear war. End of story.

If people were truly "ethical" and "moral" as they claim they would put politics aside and hope for at least some success with this final push. If success is not to be had the innocent Iraqi people will really suffer. Every nation deserves law and order.

Three early mistakes were made by war planners.

1. Not taking enough troops.

2. Over optimistic views of outcomes.

3. Not expressing the huge difficulty of re-building an entire nation. Setting at least the groundwork for people to understand there will be some failure.

The situation certainly is not a lost cause. It certainly is not another Vietnam (yet). And it certainly is not a disaster (yet).

The problem is that everything seems bad news. The positives are all too easily dismissed. If the push has any effect, and at this stage some early success seems to be the case, both the US and Iraqi government must build from that. Hold the ground and not retreat back only to take it again as was the case in Vietnam.

The doomsayers in the West are not the friends of the Iraqi people. With success the Iraqi government puts them on the back foot increasing the chances of success for the Iraqi nation.

One should learn from mistakes and learn from them. Not throw one's hands in the air and give up. That is the ethics of failure. And failure and blaming others is always the easiest road to travel. Respect thy enemy. Know thy enemy. And defeat thy enemy.

Peter Hindrup: "The constant sectarian violence in Iraq is not purely of domestic origin -- much of it is directed by covert U.S. and British military: Here is Bush's other war in Iraq."

This is how it works. Firstly claim the high moral ground. Then when one has pointed out that their claimed ethics are not really ethics at all. Make something up.

Why would Bush, with everything tied to this fight being successful, wish to sabotage himself? He wouldn't. Iraq and indeed the entire region has had blood feuds and inter-religious feuds going back centuries. Many of the same things are playing out in Palestine as I write this.

If the US leaves at the moment there will be an all out civil war with fighters and supplies flooding in across all borders. A Rwanda-like situation (suppose the yanks secretly got that all going?) Iraq will be broken into pieces and will no longer be the Iraq as we now know it.

Iraq has never been a unified nation, ever since it was cobbled together by the British in the early 20th century. Those that wish for the US to leave right at this moment must accept and explain what will happen. We will be leaving a lot of innocent people to a very terrible fate.

Now people may blame Bush for starting it. However the Iraqi people have a right to blame those that choose to leave and allow totally chaos to reign.

Now you can sit around after they leave watching events unfold blaming Bush all you like. That is fine, it takes courage to make decisions and you are not making any. You simply have nothing to lose. But do not claim you are being "ethical". You have not posted anything "ethical" up to this point in time.

A true leader cannot however live their life like that. Sitting on the fence and blaming. They must make decisions both good and bad. And whoever decides to leave the Iraqi people to their fate must accept responsibility for it. Something Rudd is not at the moment willing to do.

Arab unity is the greatest myth of them all.

Why call it the Iran stand off? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to call it the US stand-off? It seems to be the US that has so many problems with other countries, many of them half a world away. The problem itself is defined in a way that precludes balance or an objective analysis (that is the way we have been conditioned to think, even those of us who decry US imperialism.)

Yes, Craig, we do want Democracy, but only for ourselves, not for others. Allowing others democracy is a loss of our own power, which we really don’t want. If we really wanted to promote democracy, we would turn the UN into a democracy, with members elected under UN approved elections. We wouldn’t have a security council making hegemonic decisions, and claiming these are by a united nations. We could send a UN controlled para-military police to take control of countries in anarchy, and the US could exit Iraq without a serious loss of face. But the price is a loss of power, and we are not prepared to pay it.

The title of Margo’s book shouldn’t have been Not Happy, John. It should have been Not Happy, Ozzies. John does what we want, and like a supreme servant, he does the dirty deeds: such as indirectly funding suicide bombers in order to sell wheat; or interfering in other countries to exploit their oil, in a way that gives us deniability. Will Kevin Rudd serve us this well? If we think there is a need to blame, let’s have the courage to blame the master, not the servant.

This may shed some light on the chaos - "War on Iraq — Assassinations, Terrorist Strikes and Ethnic Cleansing: Bush's Shadow War in Iraq" by Chris Floyd:

The constant sectarian violence in Iraq is not purely of domestic origin -- much of it is directed by covert U.S. and British military: Here is Bush's other war in Iraq.

Imagine a city torn by sectarian strife. Competing death squads roam the streets; terrorists stage horrific attacks. Local authority is distrusted and weak; local populations protect the extremists in their midst, out of loyalty or fear. A bristling military occupation exacerbates tensions at every turn, while offering prime targets for bombs and snipers. And behind the scenes, in a shadow world of double-cross and double-bluff, covert units of the occupying power run agents on both sides of the civil war, countenancing -- and sometimes directing -- assassinations, terrorist strikes, torture sessions, and ethnic cleansing.

Is this a portrait of Belfast during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland? Or a picture of Baghdad today? It is both; and in both cases, one of Britain's most secret -- and most criminally compromised –