Well said Irfan.

for the record, when Pat Robertson alluded to 'assassinating' Chaves, I took the trouble to write and rebuke him in the Lords name ! as I'm sure a lot of caring Christians also did.

On the Iranian matter, I'm wondering how much of what he says comes from his 'Islamic' background, and how much is coming from the "Persian" aspect.

It would make an interesting psychological study.

Its also rather ironic to consider that the best deal Israel ever had in its past history was from King Cyrus the Great, the enlightened Persian, who resTORED them from exile to the land they now occupy.

Perhaps Ahmedinajab or however u say his name will go an now desecrate any memorial to Cyrus ?

The REAL first Crusade in 732 (The Muslim one)

<<Then Abderrahman, [the Muslim emir] seeing the land filled with the multitude of his army, crossed the Pyrenees, and traversed the defiles [in the mountains] and the plains, so that he penetrated ravaging and slaying clear into the lands of the Franks. He gave battle to Duke Eudes (of Aquitaine) beyond the Garonne and the Dordogne, and put him to flight---so utterly [was he beaten] that God alone knew the number of the slain and wounded. Whereupon Abderrahman set in pursuit of Eudes; he destroyed palaces, burned churches, and imagined he could pillage the basilica of St. Martin of Tours>>

I'm guessing, that this little effort by the Muslims in Spain had a tiny bit to do with the desire of the Christian lands to send a message or send em 'packing' from the Holy Land, because of the possibility of another 'Tours' ..which of course did happen with the expansion of the Ottomans and the Muslim Seige of Vienna in 1689ish... (2nd Muslim Crusade ?)

I can hear all the Greens and Democrats at the court of the Frankish kings.. "NOO.. don't be racist and intolerant..and bigoted.. the Muslims will NEVER seek to expand their power further...."

I guess thats also why the Dems and Greens and much of Labor are irrelevant today.

Looking at the whole sorry picture of the Middle East since WW1, as political philosophers say, it has been a case of Western intrusion and injustice mainly for hegemon, and contraband in the shape of oil.

It is well to remember that Iran was virtually occupied by Western interests not long after WW2, the puppet Shah set up and thrown out later by Shia fundamentalists.

Of course, the main cause of today's discontent, is not only the Islamic historical dislike of the Jews or Israelis which can be discounted not only back in the Late Middle Ages, especially regarding ecumenical-style Moorish schools in Spain, but also in more recent times.

But as we also know with many of today's Western nations refusing to admit it, that the real bugbear is little Israel's arsenal of nuclear rockets, which if the present problem with Iran reaches crisis point, either Israeli fighter bombers or nuclear rockets might set off a flare-up which might prolifigate, with Russia, India and China maybe having something to say, which if done peacefully using true Realpolitik as Bismarck would agree, it might help to create
some sort of balance of power.

Finally, if America removed that nuclear capacity from Israel, which we know she is quite capable of, it is believed Iran would immediately calm down, with the world all the better for it.

George C, WA - Bushbred

Well Said,

But has not this attitude been simmering in Iran for some time?

The Grand plan of whoever is pulling Bushes strings is to push into Iran eventually after Iraq anyway, is this not more than a propoganda excercise to appropriate poor sentiment for Iran, before we hear more about their weapons capabilities and their evil plans?

I find it so predictable.

There is a staged plan to embed the west in the middle east and clean out those in certain countries with power who are un co operative for many strategic regions, and whilst i support the plan if we were in danger, we are not and have not been.

How meany weapons were in Iraq...yet this was the core reason to invade. This is the next reason is all.

Call it 'restructuring' if you like, but for Bush and the boys, short term pain in exchange for long term benefits. It needs to be done now otherwise it will only get harder for them, day by day. And it is easier to move into Iran from next door.

A changing of the guard is in order in my opinion in some of the middle east, but not based on lies and deciet, which is what Bush feels they need to do to get the support form the wood duck masses.

George:

1. Although there is oil in the middle east, there is no oil in Israel.

2. If Israel gave up its nuclear arsenal, the next day it would cease to exist: many Arab states, including Egypt that signed a peace treaty with Israel, are just waiting for that moment to finish Israel off.

3. Israel's nuclear weapons are no threat to any peaceful nation. They are only intended as the very last resort doomsday weapon and were not used even in the wars when Israel was attacked.

4. America is not capable of removing Israel's nuclear capacity, because Israel knows that without that capacity it is gone and have nothing further to lose.

5. This is only rhetoric: if Israel was indeed destroyed, it would be against Iran's interests because Iran's regime would find no further excuse to exist and face greater conflicts within the Moslem world.

Realist and Yuanyutsu,

What I have said has aleady been said by political philosophers. Remember it is the US who can call the tune in the Middle East, which means that Israeli's nuclear capacity is part of America's strategic capacity in the Middle East. When Israel took out Saddam's part erected nuclear plant in the early 1980s it was said to be under American orders.

Also it has already been published in the media how Israel is geared up to take out any Iranian installations even if only rumoured to be nuclear, including using deep penetration missiles as Israel is already testing.

You are right Realist, concerning American intentions, as it has been all part of the New World Order and the Plan for the 21st Century.

This is why we need a strong United Nations so very much which, and possibly its own nuclear capabilities also, as Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher would have agreed to following his suggested plan around 1800, for a World Federation of Nations to preserve Perpetual Peace.

But a United Nations as was mooted during the Korean WAR with its own nuclear arsenal to police the globe does not fit in with US plans, and certainly not into the plans of the gang running the White House right now.

Bushbred,

You claim that "Israel's nuclear capacity is part of America's strategic capacity in the Middle East".

However, Israel's nuclear capacity was developed in the 1950's and 1960's - long before it was allied with the U.S.A. In fact, in that period, Israel was rather allied with the U.S.S.R and later with France: its warm romance with the Americans came much later.

Israel makes its own security decisions independently, regardless of its current allies. It does not receive orders from anyone. If Israel feels that there is a real nuclear threat against it from Iran, it will surely act to counter it as it previously did in Iraq in 1981 - long before the gulf war and the ensuing American intervention. The fact that America may also benefit from it is incidental.

Here is a document about the American helplessness in the matter: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/reveal