"Of course, many of us university students felt like clapping our hands when the Ayotallah took over, and even more when the Ayotallah gave the order to lock up the US embassy before they cleared out."

bushbred: I think this is what makes a lot of people in the middle quite suspicious of the (extreme) left. Much of the left has been seriously off with the pixies for a long time, or worse, willingly compliant in as much evil as they accuse the right of. It seems to me that a large part of the problem we have in western politics is founded on an absurd "with us or against us, my enemy's enemy is my friend" premise pushed by both the ideological left and the ideological right, and neither really cares one way or another for the people involved at the ground level. Such people (in this case, the Iranian populace) are just pawns. Dare I say it, but the left and the right play the same game: support anyone who opposes our ideological enemy, regardless of how despotic the regime is.

Obviously, it's absurd to support the western backed Shah. However, those who cheered for the Ayatollah were equally morally reprehensible. Doubly so if they didn't actually believe he was a good guy but liked him simply for "standing up to America".

Shorbe - often the School of Humanities goes against America, because their faculty relies on a strong knowledge of history. You must admit that the records of both Britain and America in the Middle East in the most, do not make pleasant reading. The trouble is that the Humanities also turns out historians, of which I am one, as part of a Social Studies post-grad.

Even so, Shorbe, if we are still part of the UK, some ME happenings are maybe best forgotten, like the killing of 10, 000 Iraqis with mustard gas in 1925 when they rebelled against the Brits for not sticking to the promise of democracy as a peace-maker after the Brits double-crossed TE Lawrence by occupying Iraq after WW2.

It is interesting that our Brits, still insisted the democracy was legal because it was a patterned on Dyarky democracy, an Indian term for double-rule, meaning all the important sections of the ersatz democracy, had a British Commissar to match the Indian official.

Also you may know that Kuwait is really a historical portion of Iraq, and because the British were given permission to use its ports by the Ottomans in colonial times, the British finished up taking the whole of Kuwait without any official arrangements.

We must say that the above are only a couple of the many many unethical examples of British and American ME tactics, Shorbe. And because the Schools of Humanities turn out historians who pledge to be ethical, just right now it can be very frustrating, especially as George Bush and his offsider John Howard would prefer students to be loyal to the nation, rather than to historical truth.

Of course, Shorbe, powerful units like the Murdoch Press can have their journalists skim over the unethical portions, thus if you are dedicated to your craft as a historian, you'll easily note how the news media can be every bit as dodgy as our politicians. Makes it difficult, I can tell you.

bushbred

I am not disputing your knowledge of history I am well aware that the Iranians are not Arabs.

What I am disputing is your interpretation of recent events.

The present Iranian government is nasty. The war against Iraq was a no holds barred event involving the use of children in the suicide roles in the military. Did you see the Iranian film "Circles"? The treatment of women is appalling. Not a nice place to live in at all.

And what about the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. You seem to want to ignore that. And do you really support Saddam or the Taliban? Of course not. Regardless of what Bush is doing these countries ruled by Imans and Ayatollahs are simply horrible places in which to live.

Is it as terrible as that in Australia or US. You know that it is not. It is one thing to have your heart in the right place but that is not much use when your head is up in the clouds.

Part 1

Logic, rather than what you accuse me of, I am told that with my credentials I have a very good interpretation of recent events. Further, as a practised historian I find your argument about Iranian social problems very propagandist and deliberately made up as a reason to take over a country, as was the excuse also used by Christian nations in colonial times. Take the areas over because the occupants are just not fit to govern. Almost like the reason we took over Australia - following Old Testament Promised Land theology opposite to the compassionate Sermont on the Mount teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Remember if we truly believe in Jesus, we should know that he came on earth to discount many of the more cruel accounts in the Old Testament.

And yet, Logic, if the people of Iran do resist, you apparently still believe we have the right to lock them up, or even do away with them?

Sounds pretty grim, mate. Indeed, most Humanities lecturers would be calling you perceptively sick, and offering to teach you the correct way of analysing such problems.

That could include the White House occupants needing such tuition as well. Most of the leaders, unfortunately, including Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and the President himself, have been originally mixed up more in oil than in charge of a political unipolar system. Probably besides protecting Chevron. Exxon, Shell and BP’s interests in Iraq - they believe that pulverising a country into submission - either from the air or with missiles is the better way to go. Case of superior power rather than sensible decisionmaking

bushbred

You claim a scholastic approach. Then listen to what I am saying. Do not make false claims about my intentions. No where did I propose a takeover of Iran. I just point out that it is hardly a good example of a functioning society. Certainly I would be more concerned with Iran having nuclear weapons than India or the US or Israel. Precisely because of a fascist element in the ruling clique which denies freedom to others, does appalling things to its children, practises stoning, and treats its women likes chattels.

Frankly I wouldn't trust them anywhere near my patch. I am also suspicious of those who call foul about Israel in Lebanon but have said nothing about Syria's occupation. And statements about Zionist neo-cons in the White House added to your earlier comments about Jew wool buyers don't sound very much like a professional academic treatise.

And you aren't the only one with a degree, I did mine in the very hard discipline of Engineering.

Bushbred 2

You ought to know by now, Logic that the attack on Iraq has proven a failure, as George W Bush himself is proving a failure. So what do you reckon they would do with Iran, a country three times as big as Iraq? Surely you would not agree for the US to drop nuclear bombs. Or that little Israel should be allowed to drop an atomic bomb or two? If you do agree, surely it’s you and not me that has their head in the clouds.

You apparently do not know what goes on in Humanities Schools, Logic. During the Cold War we studied balance of power theory under an American teacher. In fact, it seemed the US and Soviets were somewhat in touch, each knowing that if one got ahead of the other in rocket range and nuclear capacity it might be time to press the red button. But as you know the Cold War finished without a nuclear bomb, or hardly an ordinary bomb dropped, with an armistice so friendly that the Soviets were allowed to retain most of their nuclear arsenal.

If only we could find some way of finishing this ridiculous war we have now, Logic. There has even been talk in study areas about working out some sort of balance of power to quieten down the Middle East problems. In fact, an agreeaable France could join Russia and China combined with an arrangement to let Iran go nuclear to balance the atomic arsenal of dangerous little Israel. All done under secret arrangement with the US, of course.

These types of studies are nothing new, Logic, and in a sense your own logic might well accept them as a way to at least maintain some sort peace in this world. Otherwise this war could last longer than the Crusades.

Finally, there has also been talk of trying to make peace with the Islamics using the doctrine of forgiveness, as Mandela used to calm down the arrogant South African aparthaidists. I guess it might be a good idea to pray for it.

Cheers