Let me see if I understand this article:

The problem:
1. Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel
2. The United Nations should preparing to strike, but is not.
3. The US, Europe, China and Russia are not willing to strike against Iran because of oil and trade issues

The solution:
1. Abolish the United Nations
2. Abolish International Law (or the notion of it)
3. Abolish International Organisations except corporations

I am only guessing, but is it that the author believes its best for Israel and Iran to attack each other without restriction and the rest of the world should not be involved? That would be cheaper for us, I guess, well... in the short-term.

But I don't understand how multi-national corporations can exist without international law. Surely, they would need to be abolished too. He says "leaving aside"? Hmmm, is this a coded argument against international commerce and free trade?

Frankly, I don't see how any of the quotes support the argument. We have an "international side" to our lives?

Wait a minute! This guy is a Senior Lecturer in Law! Not supposted to make any sense of those damn left-wing academics.

"The United Nations should be preparing to strike Iran "

James McConvill you are nothing but an ignorant short sighted warmonger. if you beleive in war so much I suggest you resign from your current post, volunteer for the army as a frontline soldier and reuest transfer to Iraq. If you have any children of fighting age you should make them do the same. Will you ? Of course not. Its easy to advocate killing people its much harder to prostrate your own life as a role model.

"thou shalt not kill" simple.

Not "though shalt not kill except where UN mandate xyz cannot resolve to blah blah blah". You are what is wrong with this world.

The question could be asked, what has Iran done to cop all this flak from James McConvill as well from our commentators?

Immediately after WW2, we had American and British intrusion in Iran, on the excuse that they were trying to prevent the adoption of Communism. Then next we had the setting up in Teheran of the puppet Shah, Pavlevi, sworn to by the Americans to have been related to the ancient Persian Peacock Throne dynasty.

Then we had the Shah kicked out by the Islamic Primate Kolarmie the whole American embassy crew being locked up and used as a bargaining tool against the CIA re' the South American Conga weapons controversy.

As if that was not enough, then in 1982, we had the US backing and supplying Iraq with arms and killer chemicals in its attack on Iran. Henry Kissinger was said to feel sure the US could win both ways, either Iran would become easy prey for the US after being knocked out with US help, or better still if Iraq got stuffed out as well, American Big Biz doubling up on the oil wells.

But even after nine years both brave countries made the grade. But the US eventually has grabbed its former ally, Iraq, and is now in occupation trying to invent some sort of ruse to have another try for Iran.

Suiting America, of course, is her allowance of letting little Israel go nuclear, now having 200 primed rockets mainly aimed for Iran, a report that the Americans have also allowed Israel to set up a suspected rocket site, in north-east Iraq right close to the Iranian border.

Now taking note of a university Honours backed historian writing a thesis on the above subject, our Online contributors are asked, what should the historian do about it, or because Iran has been concidered a rogue state, and our PM has agreed to the above US tactics, should this Honours historian be banned from making comments, as Mr Costello suggested about education areas a few months ago?

George C, WA, Bushbred

You do not seem to be listed as a senior lecturer at LaTrobe

David,

Brilliant post.

It never ceases to amaze me how The Right hate the UN but love the corporations. I'll never understand how they can waste so much energy on hating the UN when their beloved corporations are busy destroying people and the environment. And all in the name of profit.

Since when was the UN involved in something like Nestle's baby milk scandal? You'll never hear a peep from The Right about more important issues like that. Derrr...Corporations Goooood...UN Baaaaad. Like brain-dead drones. This is demonstrated by the fact that Mr McConvill actually makes a point of "leaving aside corporations".

Sure, the UN and international law may not be good for the sovereignty of individual nations, but what about the sovereignty of the individual victims of:

- Nestle
- Pfizer
- Chevron
- Coca-Cola
- Lockheed Martin
- Dow Chemical
- Monsanto
- Ford
- Wal-Mart...

...I could go on all day.

Abolish the UN if you will. But at the same time fragment the multi-national corporations. Re-assess your priorities while you're at it.

Bushbred

I agree that the West has always intervened in Iran (and Iraq) for the benefit of the West. This is unsurprising. Thats what countries do.

It is also in the West's (including Israel's and Australia's) interests that Iran and its President (Ahmadinejad) not have a nuclear capability.

To illustrate what Ahmadinejad thinks of International Organisations (including the UN) I think its useful to introduce some fairly current information (with a concerned tone - find something "objective" and I'll read it).

This 6 Jan 06 article http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1703079,00.html in the (UK) Guardian Unlimited states in part:

"Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, taunted the west yesterday after his country was referred to the UN security council over its suspected nuclear weapons ambitions.

As Tehran took swift retaliatory action, Mr Ahmadinejad told the west there was nothing it could do to stop Iran.

He said: "Our enemies cannot do a damn thing. We do not need you at all. But you are in need of the Iranian nation."

His defiant response came after the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's atomic watchdog, voted on Saturday by 27 to three - Syria, Cuba and Venezuela - with five abstentions to refer the issue to the security council, which could impose sanctions...

Tehran responded to the security council referral by:

· Stopping IAEA inspectors from carrying out surprise inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, making it harder for the international community to police Iran's activities.

· Scrapping a voluntary agreement reached in 2003 that included not only the surprise inspections but a suspension of uranium enrichment, a step towards attaining a nuclear weapons capability."

Pete