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.