April 24 2007 Hamas spokesman Zahar said, in regard to an expressed willingness to 'negotiate' with Israel:

[Zahar emphasized, however, that "negotiations" did not mean recognition of Israel.
In an interview with a Hamas-affiliated Web site, the former minister said that there was nothing preventing talks with Israel, as long as the talks did not involve making concessions.

Even the prophet Muhammad, Zahar said, held negotiations with infidels and enemies.]

NOTE THE LAST SENTENCE!

What kind of 'negotiations' did he have with his enemies ?

1/Khaybar Jews. "come down to my place (Medina) and we will discuss peace" yep.. so along went the military leaders of the Khaybar Jews to Medina and were ambushed on the way and killed by Mohammad.

2/ Jews of Banu Qurayza: "Surrender" they did, and he slaughtered 600-900 males and enslaved the remaining children and women.

3/ Heraclius Byzantine Emperor. "Turn to Islam and you and your property will be safe"

BASED ON the negotiating style of Mohammad, and his targeted political assassinations of opponents before they could gain sufficient momentum to deal with him and his gang, it is QUITE APPROPRIATE for the West to Invade Iran and disable it militarily.

Unfortunately, the West, being democratic, is also subject to political pandering to personal interests and is reluctant to take enemies on. This does not avoid the ultimate fight that is coming, on the contrary, every delay gives the enemy more strength to make the actual fight far worse than a pre-emptive strike.

If we waited until 'they' come charging up the beaches of Australia, it will be wayyyy too late to defend this place, as 'they' will by that time be so strong as to be unstoppable.

WORLD REALITIES 2007
-The 'Islamic bomb' (Pakistan) and probable availability of Nuclear technology to terrorists/Islamo Fascists. (Khan was spreading is around)
-The distributed nature of the enemy, not limited to a particular nation but infiltrating many nations as I write.
-Reports of a 'bigger than Hiroshima' attack on the UK by Al Qaeda.

Many variables remain to be valued.
Indeed.
Let us start with International law there is no such thing as pre-emption allowing the trashing of another country. But then from Yugoslavia on the dream of escaping the commitment to the UN in favour of imperial action has grown. Efforts are still being made to apply law to the Iraq venture, private rather than National in origin, pity!

Okay so we return to the rule by might, aided by bilateral treaties, realist foreign relations.
We can always celebrate our might mourn our dead and alter the world to our vision, presumably whilst proclaiming righteousness and honour. Enjoyable! Look out for Blowback!

Why Iran?
Because it is part of the Shiite crescent see Hersh in the New Yorker and we think maybe the Sunni‘s more amenable?
Part of the arena of oil and its control?
A guilt assuaging exercise after all we did return the Shah and set up his secret police after getting rid of Mossadeq because he wanted Iranian oil for Iran not the oil companies and then on his ouster refused to hand his decrepit but living body to Iran resulting in the hostage dispute of Carter, Reagan time and the ensuing Contra affair, the return of a theocracy stridently seeking national security?

Or simply the exceptionalism of the USA which can in effect withdraw from the Non Proliferation treaty, experiment with battlefield nuclear weapons whilst hypocritically committing to disarmament and making over the world in its democratic multinational enterprise format?
It is about time we decided the people of the world have rights and that a imperfect system exists in the UN if, since it is the sum of its parts, we party within rather than without its confines. To few resources? Then return the population question to the table. Too many little men finding purpose in domination? Then apply the law, international.
No weapons? Only an informed electorate should they choose to become so starting on the basis that Governments lie and use the media, Goering style

Jan, it is obvious as Dr Kenny an Australian political scientist teaching at Harvard mentioned some time ago that the US ever since the Revolution has been politically schizophrenic.

Thus you failed to mention that regime change in Iran has been uppermost in the minds of the CIA, well before they planted in the fake Shah not long after WW2.

US frustration felt by such an occurrence, made more evil in American eyes by Iran holding the US embassy captive for over a year, had Americans clapping their hands when Saddam attacked Iran in 1981, Donald Rumsfeld according to reports having had very much to do with it.

More US hands were clapped when even the Soviets refused to help Iran, and though Iran failed to have one large backer for some reason, it could be said that the lone Islamic state, though suffering global condemnation, put the Iraqis and the American backers, virtually to flight.

It is so interesting that the only real understanding from us Western nations over the event, came from academics, including our own in Australia.

Do these facts reveal a message about a dumbed down Western public's unawareness of the real truth in the Middle East, or is it true that most of our academics are just the left-wing fruitcakes as mentioned so much over our OLO?

If you think about it the only way the US has "won" a war was by using the Atom bomb. As long as there are people like Bush and Iran's raving loony (I rate them equal on this point) use of a nuclear weapon is inevitable. Let's hope Bush doesn't do it before he goes and that whoever does get the job uses diplomacy.

It is the threat of overwhelming force that has worked since WW2, not the use.

Sorry untutored mind but international law doesn't actually exist. It's on paper but no one practices it. Including John Howard.

We are not talking about a raving looney in charge of Iran, Pegasus, we are talking about justice, whoever is in charge of a member of the Axis of Evil as Bush calls Iran.

What we are asking, is who is the evil one, when we think about Schizo Americana's graball mental side, a side once termed by Mubarak of Egypt among others, as intrusive and unjust Western neo-colonial desperados mostly after contraband and global hegemon.

Yes, the above are more the terms of academic historians, Pegasus, so surely they could be closer to the truth than those coming from the lips of Bush, Cheney an Co, including us Anglophilic allies.

iran's shah was an american puppet, installed by the cia through murder and riots in the socialist society of post war iran. they extirpated every agency of social cohesion with the cruelest secret police of the time.

that is why a secular iran is now ruled by fundamentalist mullahs: the only social group allowed to exist was religious, so resistance to the corrupt and brutal 'empire' used religion. but a great many iranians now are too young to remember the shah's hated 'savak' police, and the modern secular nature of iranian society is beginning to re-emerge. with a little patience, america can coca-colonize iran, as eisenhower predicted would happen in china.

unfortunately, american foreign policy towards iran remains as inept now as it was in the 1950's. this is the result of being driven by ideology rather than rationality. consequently, america continues to make an enemy in the middle east of a nation whose character is much more in tune with the west than, for example, saudi arabia.

with it's great industrial and commercial power driving what is still the greatest military machine on the planet, america could be a real nightmare for the human race, if they weren't fundamentally insane. the insanity causes them to misuse their power and dissipate it's effect. things could be much worse.

incidentally, america has never been any different. a nation doesn't really mature until it has been beaten and occupied. america beat all it's neighbors, from the iroquois to the philippines, and came away from vietnam thinking they 'won', sort of. even iraq won't cure them of the adolescent arrogance of unbeaten power. we must hope that mexico occupies and dominates the usa soon, to teach them civility.

the process is well underway, so much so that americans are finally beginning to worry about their porous southern border. too late! spanish is once again an official state language in california.

I'm amazed at the historical one sidedness demonstrated by many here.

We can Condemn the Japanese for Pearl harbour but we should equally condemn the USA for Commodore Perry using gunboat diplomacy in 1854 against the weaker Japanese, forcing them to open up to western trade.

We can condemn the 'Bush gang' for dabbling in a bit of 'extended neo colonialism' in the middle east, but we should also condemn the North African Arabian Muslim states for:

"Since the 17th century, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, although nominally governed by the Islamic Ottoman Empire, had been largely independent Muslim states, run by military strongmen and financed by plunder, tribute, and ransom. The monarchy of Morocco, which had been under its current government since 1666, was equally well known by the time of the Barbary Wars for supporting piracy."

WHAT WAS MUSLIM/ARAB PIRACY COSTING AMERICA ? in 1800s ?

"Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800."

How much was that ? TWENTY PERCENT!

The lesson in this is clear. ALL sides in this very human conflict will do that which is to their economic and power advantage to those where they think they can get away with it.

It is rediculous to point to Bush and suggest 'He is the bad guy'.

If anything he is one of a number and quite probably the lesser of many evils? More important for us is "is he on our side or not"?

To speak thus is to offer purely pragmatic and down to earth human perspectives.

A rich man came to Jesus once and asked "What must I do to enter the kingdom of heaven."? Jesus replied "Sell all you have and give it to the poor" at this the rich mans head lowered and he went away.

THERE..... we have the ultimate issue and conflict, not between man and man but between an alienated humanity and its Creator.
With the vertical connection and relationship disfunctional, our horizontal relationships are also disfunctional, and we have wars.

David BOAZ,

It is very clear you have a strong anti-Islamic bent. It is evident in almost every one of your posts. Yet when I question your dichotomy when it comes to christian and islamic history, you go silent and move to another thread.

As regards Iran, they have not done anything. They are a relatively poor, weak country. 'Militarily disabling' Iran would be as simple as disabling Iraq - they have nothing to fight back with. Ahmadinejad comes out with some crowd-pleasing rhetoric sometimes, but he is not the real power.

Besides which, even if they wanted to, Iran could not be a threat to anyone except, possibly, an immediate neighbour.

Do you feel like stating your real agenda?

Carsten

Your assessment of the state if Iran and David are spot on.

I think Iran will develop a nuclear weapon. I think the US will be able to to diddly squat about it. The militarist Israelis and their apologists will be able to do diddly squat about it and every one will learn to live with it. The only change in the region will be the Israeli/Palestinian dispute will be solved. Israel will return to it's '67 borders and end it's occupation and the Palestinians will become a democratic self governing state.

Now watch the howls of protest.
:-)

No, I don't really protest about it, Squat, because it is about the way things will or should finish up.

Such points to what social science thinks about it, meaning such academic areas talk much about balance of power strategy as a last resort to preserve peace - as proved successful between India and Pakistan.

Reckon you could be wrong about Iran having poor power, however. The Americans probably thought that when they pretty well backed Saddam to attack Iran in 1981. After eight years it was Saddam and his American pals at the time, who finished up with sh't on their faces.

Remember also that the Iranians are not just desert Arabs, but Persians who back over the centuries have had a pretty proud conflict record.

Apologies from Bushbred. Participants should read Carsten and Keith, not just Squat. Don't even know where Squat came from.

Also doing some back study, have found that Iran as Persia, according to historians, had one of the more striking academic records better than any other Middle East state - much of it because it is the longest surviving state.

Also after turning to Islam similar to the more educated countries such as Iraq and Egypt - areas which had also experienced the advancement of Golden Greek Reasoning after the occupation of Alexander the Great, the report states that it was Persia which experienced the greatest scientific advancement.

It also states how much our modern Western world owes Iran/Persia for the scientific and technological benefits we experience now.

Looks like most of us have had it wrong about Iran, treating it like part of the still underdeveloped world.

Maybe it was how she had the getup and go to ward off the attack from Iraq in 1981, with America and most of the world against her besides.

Bushbred

I think in terms of power the ability to control or direct events within it's immediate sphere of influence. Iran even with a nuclear weapon will have limited impact. Limited mostly to an influence within Israel and Palestine.

You history is spot on the Iranians are the Persians but are currently flawed by the imposition of fundamentalist Islam. I've always believed much of our learning and knowledge came from the Persians even after their disasterous 100 years war with the Byzantines. They were weakened from that and easily incorporated into the expanding Arab Empire and of course Islam. I also think the Caliphates were their means of control of the Arab Empire and Islam. Once the Caliphates ended they like the rest of the Arab Empire, as it disintergrated, followed the path of Fundamental Islam...much to their common demise.

Regards Keith.

ps I love the history of that part of the world.

Yes, Keith, doubtful whether we should give praise to Alexander the Great for his conquering and slaughtering, but the Great Library of Alexandria that was later built in his name, helped spread the gift of reason far and wide to combat a misguided faith, a gift so much needed in the world today.

Yet too much faith in religion rather than commonsense won out, and it is so interesting that eons of time later, the English philosopher, John Locke, though still remaining a Christian, gave voice to the following which brought on the Glorious English Revolution of 1688.

The positive side of Locke's anti-authoritarianism, was that he believed in reason to overcome faith in grasping the truth, and as he goes on - optomising human fourishing for the individual and society in respect to both material and spiritual welfare.

Certainly those Middle East countries had the chance to tone down a deadly Islamic faith with Golden Greek Reasoning, but instead later passed the wisdom onto a struggling West, themselves falling into their own Dark Age.

Not that us Westerners just lately have been using reason in a commonsensical way, as John Locke would say.

y

Keith,

Countries are not necessarily hobbled by Islam. To the contrary:

During the Middle Ages, Islamic scholars made significant advances in mathematics, medicine, astronomy, engineering, and many other fields. During this time Islamic philosophy developed and was often pivotal in scientific debates—key figures were usually scientists and philosophers.

The prominent Iranian scientist Ibn Al-Haitham used the scientific method to obtain the results in his book Optics. In particular, he performed experiments and used the scientific method to show that the intromission theory of vision supported by Aristotle was scientifically correct, and that the emission theory of vision supported by Ptolemy and Euclid was wrong. It is known that Roger Bacon (who is usually erroneously given the credit for having founded the scientific method) was familiar with Ibn Al-Haitham's work.

Science was one of the most powerful areas of the Islamic culture of the period.

Iran strives to revive the golden age of Persian science. The country has increased its publication output nearly tenfold from 1996 through 2004, and has been ranked first in terms of output growth rate followed by China.[86]

Despite the limitations in funds, facilities, and international collaborations, Iranian scientists remain highly productive in several experimental fields as pharmacology, pharmaceutical chemistry, organic chemistry, and polymer chemistry. Iranian scientists are also helping construct the Compact Muon Solenoid, a detector for CERN's Large Hadron Collider due to come online in 2007.

In the biomedical sciences, Iran's Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics is a UNESCO chair in biology,[87] and in late 2006, Iranian scientists successfully cloned a sheep by somatic cell nuclear transfer, at the Rouyan research centre in Isfahan.[88] Iranian scientists also introduced an herbal drug that may protect those already infected by HIV from the spread of AIDS by strengthening the immune system: "IMOD" was invented by Iranian scientists in 2006, by using nano technology.[89]

Iran is not the fundamentalist Islamic backwater you might think it is, or how the west (particularly the US) might try and portray it.

Congrats, both Karsten and Keith for paying tribute to Iran's earlier contribution to the growth of early science.

In turn it makes one not only disgusted with our leaders, but also our own scientists for not only paying historical respect to Iran/Persia, for earlier scientific achievements but also letting our Phd's cop the dirty and even finding it hard to find a job because they are not swayed by the lies and spin that they cop not only from smart-a'sed business bosses, but also from the chicken livered of their own kind.

Sadly this is also especially so of the bulk of our religous leaders, who would never admit that we owe so much to the earlier Islamic thinkers for holding what really is the Golden Rule of wisdom amd understanding, that faith must always be tested with reason