Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

G'day Craig, this thread sure is wandering, as they tend to. However, where it might be understandable for some to mistake Iraq for Iran - a matter of one letter at the end of the names and they are neighbours - Venezuela is quite a leap. Then there is the bounding past the 1953 coup, either ignoring it or, when reminded (again) claiming the aftermath was nothing to do with the US. Here is one account of US involvement. The internet is chockful of material on the matter.

On the matter of "Anyway, the resumption of diplomatic relations between Iran and Iraq would be a pre-requisite for any negotiations between them" does anyone recall seeing previously linked material (such as on Cease Fire!) about the Iranian ambassador to Iraq or reports of the kidnapping recently of the second secretary of the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad? Ambassador, embassy ....

Now to some article about the US/Iran issue.

First, Stephen Zunes from Foreign Policy in Focus.

Philip Giraldi from The American Conservative.

Robert Dreyfuss with Breakdown at the Iraq Lie Factory.

It was, President Bush must have been thinking, a heck of a lot easier five years ago. Back in 2002, the president had a smoothly running lie factory humming along in the Pentagon, producing reams of fake intelligence about Iraq, led by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith and his Office of Special Plans. Back then, he had a tightly knit cabal of neoconservatives, led by I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, based in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, to carry out a coordinated effort to distribute the lies to the media. And he had a chorus of yes-men in the Republican-controlled Congress ready to echo the party line.

In 2007, Bush stands nearly alone, and he never looked lonelier than during a bumbling, awkward news conference on the Iraq-Iran tangle Wednesday.

Just the start, here's another sample:

According to The Washington Times, the effort to blame Iran was directly torpedoed by the U.S. intelligence community, through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The ODNI, said the Times , “sought to play down the intelligence on Iranian involvement, fearing that the report will be used as a basis to launch an attack on Iran.” Many earlier reports noted that both the State Department and the U.S. intelligence community were strongly opposed to any attempt to demonize Iran. There’s nothing like a bureaucracy scorned to conduct passive-aggressive sabotage of misguided policies, and in this case the bureaucracy apparently succeeded. The dog-and-pony show on Iranian meddling in Iraq not only didn’t scare anyone, it caused guffaws of laughter and ridicule.

The magic is wearing off, except, perhaps,for a few like Michael Gordon.

On the matter of media and Administrations - Carl Bernstein.

Q: Finally, I just want to get your reflections on the [famously contentious] relationship of Richard Nixon and the press.... How does that compare to George W. Bush and the press?

Bernstein: First, Nixon's relationship to the press was consistent with his relationship to many institutions and people. He saw himself as a victim. We now understand the psyche of Richard Nixon, that his was a self-destructive act and presidency.

I think what we're talking about with the Bush administration is a far different matter in which disinformation, misinformation and unwillingness to tell the truth - a willingness to lie both in the Oval Office, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in the office of the vice president, the vice president himself - is something that I have never witnessed before on this scale.

The lying in the Nixon White House had most often to do with covering up Watergate, with the Nixon administration's illegal activities. Here, in this presidency, there is an unwillingness to be truthful, both contextually and in terms of basic facts that ought to be of great concern to people of all ideologies....

This president has a record of dishonesty and obfuscation that is Nixonian in character in its willingness to manipulate the press, to manipulate the truth. We have gone to war on the basis of misinformation, disinformation and knowing lies from top to bottom.

That is an astonishing fact. That's what this story is about: the willingness of the president and the vice president and the people around them to try to undermine people who have effectively opposed them by telling the truth. It happened with [Sen.] John McCain in South Carolina. It happened with [Sen.] John Kerry. It's happened with [Sen.] Max Cleland in Georgia. It's happened with many other people. That's the real story, and that's the story that [the press] should have been writing....

It's very difficult, as a reporter, to get across that when you say, "This is a presidency of great dishonesty," that this is not a matter of opinion. This is demonstrable fact. If you go back and look at the president's statements, you look at the statements of the vice president, you look at the statements of Condoleezza Rice, you go through the record, you look at what [counterterrorism expert] Richard Clarke has written, you look at what we know - it's demonstrable.

Will they ever apologise for those lies? And for actions taken on the back of them?

Craig Rowley: "I haven't seen any statement by Ms Rice of that nature. Could you please point out where I it might be found so I wouldn't make the mistake of disbelieving you?"

Washington Post:

She took questions; one man pointed out that the United States had supported dictatorships in the Middle East for 60 years.

"Yes," conceded Rice, "there's 60 years when we didn't -- we were not outspoken about the need for democracy in this part of the world."

"Things have changed. We had a very rude awakening on September 11th, when I think we realized that our policies to try and promote what we thought was stability in the Middle East had actually allowed, underneath, a very malignant, meaning cancerous, form of extremism to grow up underneath, because people didn't have outlets for their political views." She didn't need to add that al-Qaeda was founded, in large measure, by Egyptians.

I would think the over throwing of democratically elected governments for the need of friendly ones would come under this description.

Now this still does not detract from the fact Iran should apologise for it's illegal act and de-facto declarition of war on a nation that has never fired a shot in anger at it. Until that time the two nations cannot have any relationship. This has been at least the official policy of all previous administrations.

The UN should handle any negotiations and the US is totally correct and totally within it's rights to ask they do so. The US should not under the present circumstances talk directly with Iran.

And until this situation is addressed (the illegal and international criminal act of taking over a embassy) you have a front to expect them to.

Like it or not, the US will have to accept a multipolar world. Around the three poles of Europe, India and South America, we could create a more balanced and democratic world order.

David Clark today in The Guardian:

One of the many casualties of 9/11 and its aftermath has been the idea, fashionable in the 1990s, that a world with only one superpower would be a more comfortable place to live. This hinged on the argument that in a unipolar world order the dominant state, in pursuit of its global interests and responsibilities, acts as a producer of global public goods from which everyone benefits, such as security, stability and free trade.

Getting back to Craig's definition of torture for a moment, a definition which apprently doesn't include blindfolding, trussing and publicly humiliating civilian captives for years at a time, I thought it might be instructive to compare that with left wing Melbourne academnic Peter Singer's definition of torture over at the America the Hypocritical thread. Reporting on the horrors of Guantanamo Bay, Peter reports:

"Other FBI agents reported seeing prisoners left in shackles for 12 hours or more, again in cold conditions, being subjected to strobe lights and loud rap music for many hours, or being forced to wrap themselves in an Israeli flag."

Okay. You got me there. Being subjected to rap music and walking around wrapped in an Israeli flag. That's pretty horrific stuff. I'd rather be bound and blindfolded for a year and a half at gunpoint anytime.

Craig Rowley:  "An apology for overthrowing the democratically elected nationalist cabinet of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953....."

Suddenly, 1980 seems very recent, doesn't it Angela?

Anyway, the resumption of diplomatic relations between Iran and Iraq would be a pre-requisite for any negotiations between them. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must now regret his part in the stupid stunt, technically an act of war, that resulted in his nation closing down the American Embassy in Tehran. Mind you, it's taken 26 years for the Rial to finally drop through the slot, so that gives some idea of the intellectual calibre of the Ayranian leadership.

Craig Rowley: "What have you got against the Bush administration coming to the table with all the parties present to engage in multilateral negotiations to try and solve the immediate situation - the standoff over Iran's nuclear program?"

What have you got against the Ahmadinejad administration coming to the table with all the parties who actually have diplomatic relations with Iran. Why the "direct talks with the Great Satan" meme? What would the USA's principal interest in issue be that wasn't also of concern to, say, Russia? Or France? Apart that is from Iran's threat, of course, to remove Israel from the pages of history, it being a key American ally in the region? And even that's "open to dispute", isn't it? So why not multilateral negotiations indeed? Unless of course it's all just a propaganda stunt to big-note Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the benefit of the Muslim world.

Craig Rowley: "So too could an apology from the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom for their roles in the illegal Operation Ajax. An apology for overthrowing the democratically elected nationalist cabinet of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 could be helpful and perhaps too some compensation for the suffering (including brutal torture) of Iranians under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran and the man who styled himself Aryamehr (Light of the Aryans)."

To a large extent Ms Rice has already made clear some past US policy was a mistake. Though I do not think the US should apologise for anything the Shah did wrong. That is down to him.

The difference here is that the present Iranian government was directly involved in this illegal action. With the current President taking part in it. I think the US should demand an apology and not sit down until one is given.

Craig Rowley: "What have you got against the Bush administration coming to the table with all the parties present to engage in multilateral negotiations to try and solve the immediate situation - the standoff over Iran's nuclear program?"

Nothing. And this is taking place in the UN. You should be happy.

No Jay, I did not mean those that have fled to Iran and Syria waiting for the time to return and cause havoc --- according to you.

As for the repetitious claim that  the Sunnis and Shiites hate each other ...

Why then the wide spread intermarriage, with the lessor, but still significant  intermarriage with the Kurds?

Yes,  extremists are murdering Sunnis and Shiites but is that hatred or simply a method of ensuring that discord and chaos reigns?  And who stands to benefit?

C Parsons, Lebanon wasn't doing to badly until the Israelis decided to smash things up.

But then look at the mess the Palestinians are making of things.  Any reasonable being would simply ignore the murder and destruction being inflicted on an almost daily basis and get on with life, wouldn't they?

And fancy electing a government in free and fair elections without first asking Israel and the US if it was okay to do so.  Or if they approved.

Lets have a look at how the Iranian President's best mate is doing

"Older people leave because they are concerned about the future of their families," said Mr Barreiro, a graphic designer, "and younger people like us leave because there is no future."

Now this is a nation enjoying record oil prices. What happens when that stops? Like all socialist dictatorships that have gone before it collapses. It is gutting it's entire education base. Maybe they could build a wall? It really is pathetic that people would cheer this insanity on. In ten years when we are sending the aid packages to a starving population it will no doubt be the fault of the US. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Socialism is a mixture of a evil mind and mental disturbance. The Swiss banking system will no doubt benefit from another broken country. All Australian MPs should avoid this man like the plauge and save themselves from much future embarrassment. Nobody if defeats the certainty of mathematics. All socialism is doomed to failure that is why it attacts failures.

Peter Hindrup: "While the ethicists believe that it is past time that the coalition withdrew from Iraq, opening the way for the Iraqis and their neighbours to begin the long and difficult job of rebuilding both the infrastructure and the trust necessary for the Middle East to function normally..."

Jay White: "If you have not noticed most of the killing is done by Iraqi against Iraqi."

Peter's statement is not so weird, Jay, if you allow for the possibility he doesn't include some of the factions engaged in the sectarian violence as part of his personal definition of what an Iraqi is. Resistance hero Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, you may recall, didn't even consider the Shia to be human, let alone Iraqi. Perhaps once the world's attention is diverted from Iraq, maybe when Kevin Rudd is Prime Minister and Hilary Clinton is Commander in Chief, and the Coalition has again abandoned the Kurds and Shia to their fates, then one side or the other in Iraq can completely exterminate its opposing factions?

Then, as Peter hopes, the survivors "can begin the long and difficult job of rebuilding both the infrastructure and the trust necessary for the Middle East to function normally."

To understand how the Middle East to functions "normally", you only need look to Lebanon. Or Iran.

Craig Rowley, would an apology for the illegal Iranian embassy taking be helpful? I know how much people around here look up to international law for guidance. And this hostage-taking did break more then one of them. As well as a quiet a few basic understandings and conventions.

Actually the Iranian embassy was part of US soil. Its take over was an act of war. This convention is understood the world over. At least an apology and probably some form of compensation is long over due. Yet here we are talking about a few words Bush has used against the very same government involved in this internationally illegal activity.

C Parsons is correct. You have some front expecting the US to even entertain the thought of speaking to these criminals one on one, without at least an apology. "Most" embassy staff are merely civil servants attempting to do a job. Much of that job is daily routine stuff. They deserve protection and it is a part of international law and convention they receive it. This current Iranian government never offered that.

Peter Hindrup: "Eg: While the ethicists believe that it is past time that the coalition withdrew from Iraq, opening the way for the Iraqis and their neighbours to begin the long and difficult job of rebuilding both the infrastructure and the trust necessary for the Middle East to function normally, the criminals, piqued at not having got their hands on the untold wealth of which they dreamed, want to revenge themselves upon the defenceless Iraqis by slaughtering all who get in their path and destroying all of the meagre infrastructure that remains."

Well I think just leaving the place in the current condition would not be ethical. If you have not noticed most of the killing is done by Iraqi against Iraqi. And if you mean criminals I hope you mean those that have fled to Iran and Syria waiting for the time to return and cause havoc. There is pretty much nothing ethical you have written in the entire post.

"Iran is quietly accelerating efforts to negotiate a deal on its nuclear program, using this week's agreement to freeze North Korea's program as a model.

In Tuesday's pact, the Bush Administration signed a deal that provides significant incentives to North Korea even before it completely steps back from its nuclear weapons program."

Oh, dear. "Peace activists" everywhere will be devastated.

Craig Rowley: "Talking about links Bob, did you see the not so fair and balanced source offered up as "evidence" for the unsupported claims made today about torture during the Iran hostage crisis?"

Angela Ryan: "BTW, with all that alleged suffereing of the hostages that C Parsons reminds of from so long ago, still some do anything for political power, even against their own people ...

So, suddenly a definition of "torture" depends not on what is done to a captive? But who does it? And when it is done? And who tells you about it? Why doesn't that surprise me?

The Ayranian president and the thuggish regime he serves can be personally involved in:

• taking dozens of civilian hostages,
• blindfolding them,
• parading them before the world media,
• confining them for 444 days, and
• use them as pawns to make demands of their government

- but that is not torture. And anyway, it happened "long ago" (1980)?

On the other hand....

"Fifty people gathered in Federation Square to remember those executed, and the disappeared on the occasion of the death of the brutal military dictator, Augusto Pinochet."

Nope. 1973 is not too "long ago".  And that President is dead and the regime he served is long overthrown.  Whereas the Ayranian torturer is actually now President of his state.

If gun-totin' mercenary David Hicks doesn't have his cell light switched off, it's "torture".  If some Hamas bomb thrower is blindfolded, that's "torture". But oddly it's not torture when the Iranian government seizes dozens of US civilian embassy staff and ties them up for 444 days? Now that's a balanced, even handed view of things, isn't it?

Angela, only just caught up with this. "I like the nose, how did you do that?  :)"

Simple.   :   -     Hyphen.

Hope that you pick up on it, as I see that you are off to, presumably further than the airport?

Thanks Daniel for "Real evidence - get real!"  Great to see some rational observation as opposed to righteous dogmatism on this thread!

Jay seems to be saying in "The left and ideas" that everyone who is not in favour slaughtering anyone, everyone who is sitting on resources which ‘we’ can put to better use, is a ‘leftie’, while all those who support the US/coalition/Israel are ‘righties'.

Seems to me that left and right in this sense lost all meaning after the fall of the Berlin Wall — if it in fact had any real meaning prior to that!

May I suggest that the WD editors consider banning the use of ‘left’ and ‘right’ and refer to those who believe that murder, rapine and plundering are justified practices if it enhances ‘our’ living standards, as criminals, and describe those of us who oppose that view as ethicists.

One of the benefits of such a policy would be the difficulty posed to those who now sneeringly refer to those who do not share their views as ‘lefties’, as if the word is of itself a disparagement.

Eg: While the ethicists believe that it is past time that the coalition withdrew from Iraq, opening the way for the Iraqis and their neighbours to begin the long and difficult job of rebuilding both the infrastructure and the trust necessary for the Middle East to function normally, the criminals, piqued at not having got their hands on the untold wealth of which they dreamed, want to revenge themselves upon the defenceless Iraqis by slaughtering all who get in their path and destroying all of the meagre infrastructure that remains.

That said, the problem of what to do in Iraq becomes much more manageable once one accepts that the problem is the invaders.

Putting aside for the moment the questions involving reparation, compensation for both personal injury and looted treasures of international significance, the ‘disappeared’ 20 odd billion that belongs to the Iraqis and  the prosecutions of war criminals for war crimes — with the invaders outed the Middle east has to begin the long road to ‘normality’. 

It is of no consequence that the ousting the invaders ‘looks like a loss for the US.’ Hell, everybody knows that the whole criminal enterprise was a disaster from the conception. Everybody knows that the Iraq adventure has established beyond any doubt that the dying, rotting carcass of the US consists of nothing more than a mouthful of ugly and  still dangerous teeth.

As for the wail that the US would lose credibility — what credibility?

The reality is that although Iraq’s neighbours may all like to take a slice, any move to do so could well bring the Iraqis together to defend what is theirs. And acquisitive as all Iraq’s neighbours may be, there must be a natural restraint imposed by the certainty that other Iraqi neighbours may take exception to the move, and the uncertainty of how they might respond.

In the harsh light of this reality it may well be that all Iraq’s neighbours reach the conclusion that a stable Iraq within the existing boundaries is in fact in their best interests.

This understanding could, I believe be reached in a very short time.  At that point there only remains the problem of putting Israel back in its box, and however much various Middle East nations dislike, distrust or detest one another, these differences could well be put aside in the interest snuffing out Israel’s ability to foment discord.

A united Middle East, with the rest of the world paying the free market price for crude, the resource  that properly belongs to the peoples of the Middle East.  Now what could be fairer than that? 

Given the nature of the source, Craig, the responsible approach would be to find other material that supported the claim. So, on that basis, perhaps there was a paucity of such material. However, given that assertions have continued to be made despite material having been posted that, at minimum, disputes those assertions, then perhaps validating claims is not a priority. The recourse to the statements of members of the Bush Administration despite all the evidence of lies told - and continue to be told - should also be considered. I don't take it seriously but prefer to get on with the matters at hand.

G'day Craig, thanks for the link - I threw the China question out there and back you came with some very helpful material.  As does, as you noted, Trevor (G'day). Trevor also commented, in re his material, on the paucity of coverage in the Anglo media. That is not helpful in trying to gain a better understanding of issues.

On the substance of your link, Craig, it is again indicative of a reordering and growing cooperation between the states mentioned. The sentiments expressed in the "balanced and fair ..." passage are worthy. The unfairness that we have witnessed, and noted, has had a negative effect.

On the immediate issue, that this growing cooperation and combined with other factors such as mentioned in my previous post (Putin and Chirac) do indicate quite a tussle at the UNSC. And, if reality intrudes for even a moment, might give the Bush Administration pause for thought with the realisation that they might have major players arrayed against them in re further measures such as harsher sanctions.

Craig Rowley: 'In fact, Bush Administration officials have always emphasised that "all options are on the table."..."

They'd be stupid not to. And only the wilfully blind could have failed to notice that George W Bush, Condi Rice and Bob Gates have over and over and over said they have no intention of attacking Iran.

Craig Rowley: "The Bush administration refused to participate directly in the negotiations that the EU3 had opened with Iran. The Bush administration persistently refused to come to the table and participate itself."

That's because Iran broke off diplomatic relations with the USA when the Islamist regime sacked the US Embassy in Tehran and took the embassy staff hostage for over a year and a half.

It is staggering that anyone would imagine that the Americans should be expected to do business according to normal diplomatic protocols with the very perpetrators of what was technically an act of war directed against US civilian embassy personnel, simply in order to provide Iran with yet more opportunities for a propaganda advantage.

Craig Rowley: "C Parsons claims the US nationals were tortured when held hostage in Iran between November 4, 1979 and January 20, 1981.  I understand there was no torture."

So, blindfolding and publicly humiliating civilian hostages isn't torture when Iran does it?  But is, I am sure, if Israel or the US Marines blindfolded and detained an Islamist terrorist suspect? For example, David Hicks? By the way, here's picture of the young Mahmoud Ahmadinejad parading a blindfolded American hostage in 1979 during the hostage crisis in Tehran.

Craig Rowley:  "The "evidence" of this alleged "call [by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] for destruction [of Israel ] is disputed."

Not by any credible, even remotely impartial observer. Imagine if the USA took Iranian diplomats at the UN in New York hostage, blindfolding and parading them, holding them as hostages for 444 days, George W Bush personally humiliating the captives before the world's media, calling for Iran to be "wiped from the pages of history", supplying bombs to dissidents inside Iraq and and then demanding that Iran conduct normal diplomatic business with the USA. What unbelievable arrogance and folly.

The US should not bargain with Iran one on one. This would be a mistake. When it comes to Iran they are in the correct postion. They should not have made a bargain with North Korea.

The aid (bribe) will be used and then the same thing will occur again. A person that lives in luxury as the NK leader whilst his population is starving is not somebody one should deal with. You cannot deal with a blackmailer. They simply come back wanting more and more every time.

People can stick up for places such as Cuba, North Korea, Iran etc. The truth is outside of a keyboard warrior rhetoric none are heading off to live in any of these places. The Western capitalist way of doing things is the best way of doing things. It has been proven time and time again.

I can say this over and over again without flinching. And I am 100% correct. The decision made by Bush and Co to stand up to tyrants will be proven the right decision in the future. I have little doubt about that. Leaders stand up to people and follow through with what is right even if not always popular. Giving in never wins respect.

If America gives in to these two bit hustlers and gangsters it will be something that it comes to regret.

Craig Rowley: "In fact, Bush Administration officials have always emphasised that "all options are on the table." 

Yes, and so they should. I cannot recall any American administration, ever, taking options off a table before a negotiation. In fact to do so would be total irresponsibility.

Craig Rowley: "When the Bush administration offers to come to a regional security roundtable and offers to negotiate taking its military strike option "off the table", negotiates that outcome and announces that security agreement,  then, and only then, will C Parsons have the evidence to back his claim."

Garbage. Iran will either seek weapons or it will not. Iran has never been attacked by either Israel or the USA. Taking options off the table will not help this issue one bit. What happens if Iran tells everyone to take a flying jump? Has this possibility ever entered your head? Do you even think about alternative possibilities? Do other options then jump back on a table?

Craig Rowley: "He echoes what he's heard from the Bush administration yet we still haven't seen the evidence to back the claims.  We haven't been shown the evidence."

At least as much evidence, more so in fact, than your evidence alluding to an up-coming US attack. 

I pray that this final push in Iraq achieves something for the long suffering Iraqi people. Most of whom are no doubt good people. I hope this leads to at least some calm in the region. And I hope that Iranians begin to see the sham government they have for what they are and what road they will be lead down. They are already well on the road to economic ruin.

All decent people will be hoping for success I am sure. And it's good to see Richard Tonkin holding similar sentiments.

C Parsons: "Well, it's where his family lives, so that's understandable. And where his boss has his office, after all." 

Yeah, well, I would prefer to avoid the calls for proof. Seems all things with Iran demand an absolute level of proof that does not seem to extend to either Israel or the USA, or for that matter to Australia.

I am from the old school. A true leader stands and fights for what he believes. He does not abandon his post when the going gets tough. Perhaps his followers should look for a new leader.

Jay White: "I note Mr Sadr has fled to Iran."

Well, it's where his family lives, so that's understandable. And where his boss has his office, after all. 

I have the rare distinction of having met someone who once went to one of Moqtadr's sermons. My informant, a fluent Arabic speaker, said Moqtadr's sermons are hard to follow because of his thick Persian accent.  According to what my friend said, at one point in the sermon an acolyte had to step to the microphone to elucidate on some phrase the chubby firebrand was trying to annunciate. "Ohhh," said the congregation nodding appreciatively as the point was finally clarified.  Moqtadr then stepped forward again to pick up where he left off.

It would be as if Bob Brown spoke with a thick Cuban accent and periodically went to Havana to pick up his paycheck and backslap Raul Castro while visiting the family. And nobody here thought that a bit odd.

Perhaps, Jay, you could get the ball rolling by suggesting how to bring peace to the Middle East?  Nobody else seems to be able to find one without too-costly ramifications.

I can't see that there is a solution, but surely there must be a lateral one that has yet been undiscovered.

You've probably noticed that I like SF.  One of my favourite authors, Julian May, worked from a world-view of creating ethnocentric planets where folks could immerse themselves in their own culture, while the home planet was homogenised.

If someone like Hawking gets his/her  sh*t together and cracks interstelar travel we have half a chance of finding enough planets to terraform (nanotechs?) to create homelands for everyone.

Until then we're stuck with ethnocentric conflagrations that have been intensified by misguided interference.

Mind you, the universal outlawing of nuclear weaponry might go a long way towards toning things down.

Yes, I know it sounds pie-in-the-sky,  but if there's no solution available we're going to have to invent one.

PS I learned a new pool-table trick yesterday, tried it out on a few people. You place a queue across the middle of the table, and invite the mug to hit the ball under said queue without it being interfered with in any way and without the white ball coming into contact with it.  Can't be done, people say.  You then hit the ball into a pocket so that it travels under the queue via the chute below.  The naysayer then buys you a beer.

PPS Mostly agree with your sentiments on the "final push".  Still, we shouldn't have arrived at this point of brinkmanship.

I see that the "final push" in Iraq is about to get underway. I think all people of good will hopes for it to be successful.

It is the duty of all caring decent people to get in behind our troops. The vast majority of which are fine young men and women doing their best to complete an extremely difficult assignment. One that will cost some of these fine people their lives. Hopefully not all in vain. For Iraqi democracy I feel this really is the last throw of the dice.

There is no winners if this final effort fails. Only criminals and murderers. If one does not like the local copper one does exact revenge by plunging the whole town and everybody in it chaos and violence.

I note Mr Sadr has fled to Iran. A strange thing for a "leader" and a man of courage. One would think with "God on his side" he would choose to fight it out to the end. Probably the Iran fleeing is the same logic that says "leaders" never actually become suicide bombers.

A sad situation for humanity indeed.

Craig Rowley, your suggestion that the USA, in relation to Iran, should "Explore all the non-military means; making full, direct, positive participation in multilateral negotiations a must" is ironic given that;

• The current US administration has repeatedly and emphatically stated that it has no intention of taking any military action against Iran whatsoever, and
• That the USA has, as was pointed out to you, repeatedly stated that "Iran must negotiate with the three European powers that have led nuclear diplomacy since the Iranian nuclear program became public in 2002", this
• In spite of the fact that Iran effectively ended diplomatic relations with the USA the day the Islamist regime invaded the US diplomatic compound in Tehran, taking its staff hostage for over 444 days, including torturing them, and
• has called for the destruction of a key US ally in the Middle East, and
• supplies weapons to Islamist Militias in Iraq targetting US forces there.

Can you some some latitude for Ayranian diplomatic initiative there? I can.

By the way, wasn't it funny to see Moqtadr run back to his headquarters in Iran for RR and further instructions. The lying freaks running Ayran cannot even find the guts to admit he's there.

Bob Wall rather then constantly tell us all about past years, how about giving us a guide to the future? What is going to happen if the US leave Iraq say this year?  I mean the world cannot go on forever referring to the Bush speech of 2002 now, can it?

Craig Rowley, the USA is already following every point you have made. 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.

This whole topic has become political and anti-American. For some here anti-American sentiment is a way of life. It will not be changing on the election of a new President. Your problem seems more along the lines of simply wanting to see the end of Bush.

Now the problem is that the same with Iraq, Iran is a bigger issue than just Bush. Either the world allows them to have these weapons (in which case a arms race will surely commence) or it does not. And as I have pointed out previously Iran is a lot closer to other places than say North America is.

Obama and his policy on Iraq are wrong. And Howard was right to point this out. 9/11 (and no I am not saying they are related) happened shortly into Bush's term. The actual Bin Laden footage had them shooting at a picture of Clinton. If these people are allowed to run riot things will not get better they will become much worse.

Now your belief in running about "making nice" with false flattery etc may work in a small workplace dispute. It will not work on the world stage of highly charged regional politics. Many of these people have a rock solid position and will attempt to make it know at all costs. And the US like most of the civilised western world does not have a position in it. And yes, that includes Western liberals.

Obama is young. Now whether he believes his position or whether, like Rudd, he has simply tried for base political reasons, he has proven he is not ready to be President. It is perhaps the toughest job in the world and one where 50% of the world is going to dislike you at any one time. You simply cannot be all things to all men.

An American withdrawal (looking like defeat) will be a disaster for not only them, but also Australia. If Kosovo has proven anything it is that without US help the world is powerless to stop many things. In fact, without US help the UN will struggle to function.

People wishing for an Iraqi withdrawal must spell out how they see Iraq and indeed the world after such withdrawal. I predict if this is to happen a US return mission to this region within ten years. And a much bigger war.

Anyhow, I have struggled away here for months trying to get my points across. I now see that I have little chance. To many people have their positions anchored to what ever the hell it is they believe (anti US, or base politics). Having Bob Wall entering the thread as a de facto cheerleader for any anti US statement is the final straw. It is obvious this discussion is going nowhere and will not go anywhere.

In ten years time the world cannot keep going back to what Bush did and said in 2002. They will have to deal with the issues as they arise. I would advise any future President to not worry about Bush but rather what at least the next term will be bringing them.

My God.  If the same logic (what is more heinous - knowledge or lack thereof) that Bush uses in dealing with Iranian upper-echelon involvement in providing weapons in Iraq was applied to the AWB scam, Howard, Downer and Vaile would be in deep trouble.

At any rate, you can see where this is heading ... a neocon belief that Iran needs to be dealt with before they provide nukes to Iraqis. 

Bush's IQ seems to be slipping again. Catch the bit where he refuses to answer a journo's question but then allows him another with the line "I will recycle you."  After the laughter, he asks "Did you like that one?" and then later refers to the episode as "deft" handling.

If this is the level of deftness with which he's handling Iran....

Full transcript of Bush's Valentine's Day speech here. 

G'day Craig, Angela, Richard, amongst others, and making a special mention of Trevor for his very interesting post. The reports of discussions and suspicions of President Chirac having an involvement are factors to be considered when looking towards the next step in the Iran issue.

On previous Swiss involvement - here is another report on the 2003 approach.

"I got the clear impression that there is a strong will of the regime to tackle the problem with the U.S. now and to try it with this initiative," Tim Guldimann, the ambassador, wrote in a cover letter that was faxed to the State Department on May 4, 2003 [pdf file]. Guldimann attached a one-page Iranian document labeled "Roadmap" that listed U.S. and Iranian aims for potential negotiations, putting on the table such issues as an end to Iran's support for anti-Israeli militants, action against terrorist groups on Iranian soil and acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

Although two links are given in the above paragraph they are the one and same document.

More on Putin and Russia from K. Gajendra Singh.

Chirac, Putin, from two states that are Permanent Members of the UNSC. Further deliberations by that body on Iran should be very interesting.

And what of China?

Last night I had the strangest dream
The nations grouped to say
The leaders of the War Of Lies
shall not speak here today.
Put them into cells until
the world can make amends
Let those who work out what to do
be bonded as good friends

Perhaps some common goals may come
and thinking minds converge
while the gluttons of war go hungry
as they sing their evil dirge
Peace may be within our reach
within our heart and mind
But while these bastards rule the war
 what hope can have mankind?

Last night I had the strangest dream
The nations grouped to say
The leaders of the War Of Lies
shall not speak here today.

(with apologies to Ed McCurdy)

Anyone got any ideas about what should happen in regards to Iraq?

Or is this board a mindless whinge session that is political in content and basically adds nothing?

If anyone out there thinks America should withdraw, what happens then?

The left are followers not leaders. Without someone telling them what to do they would be completely lost. Anyone merely has to read this pages to see how bereft of anything even resembling an idea.

Kevin Rudd has no idea's either. He simply refuses to answer the question of what will happen. Pathetic. And this person is looking to lead a nation. Pathetic.

Craig Rowley: "See the real problem is that the only person around here thinking the problem was what C Parsons says it was – is C Parsons!"

Well I think the real problem is that a person would need Stephen Hawking type intelligence to work out what you believe. Half your time is spent writing what you say you have not said. Then using the other half telling us all exactly what you say, you have not said.

Would it be possible for you to write out in point form what you actually think the US should be doing about Iran? And actually sticking to it?

What about a sitcom with a happy but clumsy Iranian nuclear worker, a zany unlikable western liberal twat and the Iranian President all locked in a room together with a bottle of scotch, one gun and one bullet? I am cheering the western liberal gets it first.

Angela Ryan: "I was trying to point out to Jay that it is the US, with their continuing upward spiralling debt, that has the lack of time and pressure to "pull their horns in", not oil secure, positive payments Iran."

Do you have any proof, any at all? That the Iranian economy is good shape? Or do you think constantly repeating it over and over will magically make it so?

I have no desire to debate the virtues or (lack of) of socialism. It is failed miserable system spruiked by those that have never lived under it. Pushed by those who wish to "get theirs" and have little ability to get it any other way except bludge off others.

I depise and loath it with a passion and do not respect people that believe in it. A soul destroying alternative religion that is as morally bankrupt as those that push it. Frankly if I had my way any that believe in it, I would like to swap with a equal amount of people who wish to leave, say, that bankrupt sickening system in Cuba.

The problem with free speech is having to listen to the losers that put it to use, time and time and time again.