I'm intrigued by Anthony's reporting of the London source that Australian SAS forces are operating inside Iran. If true it is deeply disturbing. I don't believe Bush will be 'Cheney-ed' into a strike against Iran, but there is little doubt that with all their land and naval forces encroaching, they would wish for an Iranian 'Tonkin incident' to give them the pretext for a 'surgical strike'. I can't argue with the author's view that Rudd/McClelland will acquiese to the US come what may. Hopefully Julia Gillard who we know is close to Mark Latham..'Bush is the most incompetent, most dangerous president this century' can hold sway but it is a very faint hope.

To read about how an attack on Iran will be a catastrophe for the US 5th Fleet and will lead to all out war between the US and Iran (probably including tactical nuclear weapons) go to:

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/11/08/01932.html

This should not be an article about Rudd. The problem is what Australia's government will do if Washington calls another war.

But once we are clear about where the anxiety lies, this important article is a lot more alarming, and a lot less alarmist, than many would have us believe.

Ask why Howard and Rudd both so assiduously maintain an ambiguous position on whether we might go to war in Iran. The Americans have advised them both to keep that option alive.

While you are at it, ask why our defense forces have been buying up all those Abrams battle tanks. Battle tanks are mostly useful in a main engagement on open ground. They are particularly necessary when fighting against an enemy who also possesses battle tanks.

Tanks are not what peacekeepers need in our region. Nor are they what Australia's occupation forces need in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely the Abrams buy-up is aimed at Iran.

The implication to me of the article in The Canadian (link in post 2 above) is that if the US wanted to attack Iran without creating a casus belli from the destruction of its Gulf fleet is that it would need to withdraw the fleet in its entirety before striking Iran. That is, it would need to flag its intentions (by withdrawal) and to remove the air cover for ground operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then attack Iran's nuclear installations only through long-range aircraft (maybe plus submarines). If it did start to withdraw its fleet, that might prompt a pre-emptive attack from Iran, on a "we've-nothing-to-lose" basis. A more complex scenario than most would realise.

Antony, does your theorem indicate that Howard has already made a decision if he stays on - to follow Bush and Cheney in a madcap attack on Iran sometime next year before Bush goes out?

Further, what does Rudd think about an attack on Iran?

Having qualified as an historian in my old age, I have decided to regard the Middle East problem as simply an extension of British colonialism under the neo name of Anglophilic imperialism - the only thing different the old title was more honest.

The neo one indeed, fits like a glove with an answer to a question from a UK reporter to Mubarak of Egypt a couple of years ago?

The question from the reporter was what was the real problem in the Middle East?

The answer from Mubarak was the one us Westerners know is all too true, but we are too gutless to admit. WESTERN INTRUSION and INJUSTICE.

Further, as some sort of protective plan for holding the fort, we have allowed little Israel to have the most potent in nuclear weaponry, seemingly to have her take the blame for the first strike, as shown with the latest conventional weaponry attack on Syria.

No wonder just ordinary Arabs fear the future so much they are ready to give their lives.

Could wonder whether we will ever learn some commonsense - better still a sense of fair play?

Cheers - BB - WA

Loewenstein is beginning the softening up process. The article isn't about preparing us to support the US in a strike on Iran.

It's about softening us up to accept an invasive and so-called pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran is a legimate way to conduct international affairs.

How rabid would be Loewenstein's reaction if I suggested a surgical counter strike by a few Arab terrorists to take out Israel's leadership would be an appropriate way to solve the occupation and repression of millions of people in Palestine?

Why do these Israeli apologists and warmongers continue to bother? Didn't they learn anything from their debacle in Lebanon. That solved zilch and has simply lead to further destabilisation in the region. Exactly the same result as their intrusion into Palestinian politics in Gaza.

Where's their promised peace treaty with the Palestinians who were forced to reject Hamas? All that talk of peace is simply lying propaganda designed to protect Israel's desire to steal their neighbours lands and dominate their neighbours people.

keith, no offence, but there is absolutely nothing upon which you can base that post. You've plucked that Israel theory out of hot air.

Loewenstein is arguing against intrusion into Iran and has argued against Israeli combat actions in the past. Your interpretation is utterly at odds with all the source material from this author. I can only conclude you've made certain assumptions, which are patently false.

Rudd's done a fair job of having a bob each way. I can't help but wonder if he would do a similar thing in the instance of an attack on Iran, perhaps committing logistical and medical support in lieu of soldiers.

Turnrightonly, :-)

Read the second sentence in the third paragraph and then show me where in the article Loewenstein condemns or even suggests such an option isn't realistic or acceptable. He rightly condemns the US option but never once the Israeli one.

Do all the Iran-haters realise that Iran is probably the most honest and bravest nation in the Middle-East.

Iran gutfulness was proven by the way she ousted the American's puppet Shah and was certainly not breaking any fair-play rules to jail the knocked out US Embassy for a year. And certainly did not break any rules to win against a US - backed Iraq after eight deadly years.

The big worry about an attack on Iran, it would surely need a nuclear attack to win.

And even then not so, because there are rumours that Iran already has nuclear warheads on hand to fit her long-range rockets.

Now honestly, the way Bush has been treating Iran well before Ahmadji' came to power who could blame her for receiving help from her Eastern neighbours rather than fom the West.

Reckon the very fact that Iran might already have nuclear warheads could result in a bit of Realpolitik, which would not be the first time it has warded off a major war.

Cheers - BB, WA

The Canadian article is a very poor analysis of the likely tactical/operational outcomes of a US strike on Iran. To suggest that the Iranian possession of ‘sunburn’ missiles predetermines the outcome of any conflict is fanciful and could only come from someone with little understanding in military matters. The British experience of the Falkands is a good study for modern ‘missile vs. warship’ combat and while the exocet’s had an extremely important role, they were never going to ‘wipe out’ the fleet. And the British only had 20 planes and a dozen destroyer pickets. The American fifth fleet could put 300 naval aircraft into the air and be backed up by twice as many land based aircraft of the air force. Tomahawks in their dozens could respond to any Iranian ‘sunburn’ anti ship missiles launched. The issue is far more complex than the author allows.

Recent agreements with Merkel and Sarkozy on sanctions against Iran shows, I believe, that Bush has partly learned his lesson about unilateral action and would not invade Iran without a Gulf War 1 style coalition backing. I don’t believe that they will go to war with Iran any time soon. In any case, it would be a stupid move to publicly suggest that military force won’t be used against Iran, even if it won’t. Keeping the option open is more likely to lead to successful negotiations than not. Especially note Clinton and the ‘NO Ground Forces’ commitment which Milosevic used to his full advantage during the Balkans crisis

Those simpletons who are obsessed with the idea that Iranian nuclear weapons are only an issue because they are a threat to the Israelis have their head buried in the sand. A nuclear armed fundamentalist theocracy is a danger to the whole planet. Iran is currently demonstrating in Iraq how far they are prepared to go to in their quest for regional dominance. The wishful thinkers and the soft lefters can apologise for Ahmedinejhads comments all they want, it doesn’t change his aggressive intentions. Most of Iran’s Arab neighbours live in fear of a nuclear armed Iran

no, keith. I'm afraid on this one you've simply made a mistake plain and simple, and it's fairly easily proven.

Your argument, that the author is an apologist for Israel, is incredibly far off the mark. I've read a few of Loewenstein's pieces, and he's definitely among the harshest critics of Israel's policies - but I'll get to that.

The only basis for your attack on the author, is that they have failed to specifically criticise Israel on this instance, instead focusing on the US and the Australian connection.

I fail to see how that can in any way be construed as an endorsement of Israeli intervention in Iran. Because the article focuses on the Americo-Australian aspect, doesn't mean it encourages the Israeli one.

I can only conclude you've seen the author's surname or background, and assumed that because they're of a certain ethnic or cultural descent, they can only be an Israeli apologist.

These kinds of assumptions are what makes it so difficult to make any progress. Just because he has the surname Loewenstein, he must be an Israeli apologist right?

Take a look at some of the other articles linked at the bottom of that page.

Here's a few snatches from 'A Country Lost In It's own Region:'

"Israel is a nation in serious decline... the military establishment is addicted to military solutions that have failed...
...I believe that only international pressure on Israel can bring a nation addicted to violence to heel and leadership on both sides mature enough to negotiate with honesty."

Hmm... doesn't sound like the image you're painting. How about this item from the ironically titled 'Palestinian Terror and Israeli nobility:'
"It had become sadly predictable that challenging the Jewish state’s actions and morality resulted in hateful correspondence."

What's sad here, is that you're attacking the author... but it would appear the author agrees with your stance entirely.

keith, You've just assumed what his attitude must be, and according to everything here, you couldn't be more wrong. I find it quite depressing that assumptions lead to such an attack when you should be supportive.

It may well be that both major parties have an interest in ensuring that the Constitutional Monarch of Iran is returned to his homeland of Persia as both Qeumars and his wife have suffered at the hands of Beattie's and Howard's thugs and with no travel documents or passport, where do you send the King of Persia after his imprisonment in far north Queensland was becoming an embarrassment to the people who were initially charged with his protection by the British Government under international law.
http://www.persiaworldnews.com/page1.aspx

The conspiracy theory is seductive for any student of Leo Strauss, Milton Friedman and neo-conservatism. Why has the US engineered this crisis in he middle east? Five reasons: First, that’s where the oil is. Second: that’s where the threats to Israel are. Third: the threatened denomination of middle eastern oil sales in euros would destroy the US dollar. Fourth: an Iranian response to a “pre-emptive” attack on Iran by Israel would justify a massive retaliation by the US on behalf of “gallant little Israel”. And Fifth: the “crisis” would justify the imposition of martial law and suspension of the Constitution by the President. We could add the ring of US military bases in the Middle East and Central Asia and the need to contain the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Scary stuff! More so when the players are mad…

Johntas

Don't forget it will also deflect attention from
a) the space ships at area 51 and
b) the expensive program that is keeping elvis alive but hidden from the general public.

No turnrightthenleft I assumed nothing. I read wgat the author wrote. He is a very skillful worsmith and I don't believe for onr minute he wasn't aware of his omission in criticising a proposed Israeli pre-emptive strike.

It is you who are assuming he will criticfise equally an Israeli strike simply because he's been critical of some Israeli actions in the past.

I'm attacking the author's attitudes and opinion, not the author. Your suggestion otherwise is wrong.

I haven't seen Loewenstein argue for a return to pre '67 borders. I've only been aware he favours negotiation. He may have but I've missed it ... and that would be unusual.

Rudd will do as he's told...

You're saying the author is an apologist for Israeli action in Iran.

You don't have anything to back it up. Quite literally.
You have an absence of discussion. You have inflated this to an entire argument based on absolutely zilch.

The author hasn't commented on Israeli action in Iran, so ultimately unless he does, I suppose neither of us can comment comprehensively either way.

The difference is, all his background has been critical of Israeli intervention. There's no Israeli apologism there.

Your argument that the omission of this mention equals endorsement is on such shaky ground it boggles the mind, though at least I have precedent.

In honestly don't see how you can make such an aggressive, insulting and authoritative statement as to the author's intention using nothing at all but an absence of comment, when the author has shown numerous examples of an attitude critical of aggressive Israeli foreign policy.

It's among the weakest arguments I've seen on OLO, and there's quite a few out there.

Guess politics like peace, has become much about making a personal choice these days?

Like trying to make head nor tail these days of the phony peace movement in Iraq?

Such news can now give substance for more than a few of our OLO’s who often talk about backing the big league US of A, more sure now because Bush has forgiven his main enemies in Iraq, Saddam’s Baath Party Sunnis, and declaring the Iraqi Shias whom Bush gallantly moved into save now the sworn enemies.

And so we turn again to Iran, whom America developed so much hate for since they kicked out the fake Iranian Shah, and held the US Embassy staff prisoner for over a year. Then Donald Rumsfeld saw his chance in 1981 to kid Saddam to knock out Iran once and for all. But once again America lost out, Saddam’s Iraqis soundly thrashed after eight years of fighting.

Now it seems America has her chance to knock out Iran once again, Dick Cheney the Vice –Pres’ seemingly much more eager than Bush, no doubt his mind on the oil.

Finally, the very fact that the only mention that Howard has made on today’s situation in Iraq is that he is so happy that the situation has quietened down for the better.

Reckon the only genuine title for it, however, is all quiet now on the Western Front, the worst still yet to come in the East.

Now my own experience of our academic historians is that they did not come down in the last shower, even though among our contributors, many, especially the females have been called left-wing loonies.

So it looks like it's up to us to revolt in our own way, saying NO NO No to any attack on Iran, and hope and pray that the attacker deserves to be the loser.

Antony Loewenstein is a Sydney-based journalist and author - and for those of you who question his credentials may I suggest that you go to either your local library or book shop and get a copy of his book,
"My Israel Question." You'll have a better understanding of the man.

As John Pilger says, "I can think of few books about Israel and Palestine written by an Australian, as important as Antony Loewenstein's - 'brave j'accuse' ..."

'The author hasn't commented on Israeli action in Iran, so ultimately unless he does, I suppose neither of us can comment comprehensively either way.'

Really!

Then what is this?:

'The key question facing a newly elected Rudd Government (or a re-elected Howard one) is a possible US or Israeli-led strike on Iran.'

That is initiating a discussion about the US, Israel and Iran.

I didn't make that up. Similarly I have reread the article numerous times and I see not one condemnation of his \suggested Israeli strike. I did however see much discussion and condemnation of a suggested US strike.

Of course it's obvious, that omission does not mean endorsement. In the context of the article which is criticism of the proposed US strike it means the author hasn't criticised the exact same proposal by Israel. That's unequal and indicates, if not error or oversight, then a deliberate bias.

I've made that point several times now and it has been misintreprepted and skewed.

The original statement and subsequent omission is exactly how many Israeli propagandists put forward and promote Israeli positions. They attempt to legitimise Israel's actions by comparison to the actions or lack of actions of others or they discuss possibilities without a searching critical examination of Israel's likely actions.

They simply state them as if they are an accepted fact. And of course if challenged ... well then my experience is that abuse usually follows.

I'll also make the point: I haven't challenged any of Loewenstein's attitudes to other Israeli - Mid East issues.

Many of you are assuming I am.

Keith,

It is clear your hatred and obsession with Israel has led you to post without having all the facts at your disposal. Your absurd attempts to cover this blatant error do you no credit. You were wrong about Lowenstein, admit it.

The article isn’t a critique of the much hyped American attack on Iran. The title of the article if you have forgotten, is the Rudd delusion, which refers to the delusion among many leftists that a Rudd led Labour Gov’t will be the answer to their prayers for a progressive leftist style gov’t. Clearly this won’t be the case.

Your contention that the Author brought up the subject and then deliberately avoided criticizing Israel because he was trying to smooth the way for the public to accept such an attack is arrant nonsense. You have no evidence for it, you just assumed that was his goal.

No one is assuming you are challenging Lowenstein’s attitudes to OTHER Israeli-Mideast issues. The point is that you made an assumption about Lowenstein article for which you had no proof and now you are using ridiculous excuses to back pedal.

Secondly,
You and some of your fellow travellers have attacked Israel over many issues whilst neglecting to criticize the many other states in the region with far worse track records. You can’t have it both ways Keith. You hold everyone to the same standard, in which case Israel is a shining beacon of liberalism in the Middle East, or you don’t complain when other people omit to criticize a particular group when the possibility arises

Yes, Keith, Kevin Rudd has that problem about a possible
Cheney-activated strike on Iran before Bush goes out.

Would say that Rudd should take the more radical academic point of view, be fully against any attack on Iran, not only because the US will have Israel much more condemned by having her do the first strike, but believe that Iran could still be used to promote future peace in the Middle East, not WW3 as everyone fears?

Reckon with V Pres' Cheney, the main instigator, it is much more about American pride, and how a comparatively weak country like Iran after making fools of America twice since WW2 could be well on the way to making it a third, especially if Putin has his way. Also possibly with China not far behind seeing that Russia and China have lately been playing war games together.

Not only about actual war, but intervening to prevent it.

Also could hope our Uni' students could be tickled up a bit, like with Vietnam.

Not much use now relying on the UN, especially with Condy Rice taking the lead every time commonsense is needed - some sort of Realpolitik needs to materialise, anyhow, at least.

Bushbred,

You seem thoroughly content to ignore the fact that Iran is making a fool of America right now in Iraq. The involvement of the IRGC in the current conflict in Iraq amply demonstrates their aggressive intentions. Your argument that Iran has never attacked anybody is demonstrably false.

Israel wouldn’t have nuclear weapons pointed at Iran if Iran didn’t continually make noises about Israel’s complete destruction. Ahmedinejhad is a complete madman. Israel are right to ensure their safety in that direction.

Your rose coloured view of Iran is fundamentally flawed. Your continued assertion that the whole issue revolves around the defense of Israel is also flawed. The UN security council obviously sees Iran’s nuclear program as a threat since they have passed three resolutions requiring Iran to desist. Germany and France are also unprepared to accept Iranian nukes.

Why should the world allow a racist, religiously intolerant, belligerent nation which has made real threats to destroy whole countries to gain access to nuclear weapons. Especially an unaligned minor power with no one to answer to.

Iran is intent on dominating the region and therefore the global oil trade. From this position Iran could do immense damage to the economies of the world, giving it the bargaining strength of a superpower. This is what Ahmedinejhad is after.

Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons to protect itself. It has ample capability to do this. It needs nukes to become the dominant force in the region. Irans weapons program is the first stage of a naked grab for power. Wake Up.

The hippies of the Vietnam era have been shown up as the shallow, vapid, band wagon jumpers that they were. Has it not occurred to you that many students today actually believe that an extremist dictatorship is not an appropriate gov't to hold nuclear weapons.

I am still amazed that someone who believes in realpolitik could encourage or support the Chekist Putin who looks like becoming Russia’s newest dictator, especially considering his clear intent to regain Russia’s military dominance of central Europe and beyond.

PaulL

Typically you haven't negated my reasoning with solid argument. As usual you have merely made generalised criticism, twisted my opinion and then attacked me personally. Unless you actually present an argument and desist with the abuse you are just not worth talking with.

Since you've obliquely bought up another subject and just to be clear once again...sigh...

You claim Israel as a Liberal Democracy. I say if that is the case then Israel like all Liberal democracies must apply standards to it's behaviour that are above those of countries that are not or who don't lay claim to be Liberal Democracies.

Why can't you accept that...we liberal democrats do. It's all part of practising our philosophy. It's why we don't accept oppression nor practise unlimited occupations. You know the types of disgraceful behaviour that can be used as an example of how we treat others.

Btw I'll be voting liberal next saturday.

Oh and didn't Israel have nuclear weaopons pointed at Iran before the arrival of Ahmedinejhad? No? :-) Typical twisting PaulL.

Bushbred

Rudd will do as he's told by the US. The US won't make a strike on Iran. I can see George leaving Iraq and the mid-east to the next President who is very likely to be a feloow Republican. Especially given the failling performance of the Democrat's in the current Congress. They promised so much at the last Senate elections and have delivered so little or are changing their stances that there is now very real anger in the US over their now evident hollow electrol rhetoric. It is placing, once what was guaranteed, the election of a Democrat President at the next election, in real jeopady.

NB.
That electrol 'success' was organised by a bloke named Vic Fingerhut. Currently Vic Fingerhut is organising the electrol effort of the Australian Labor Party. Focus groups and all.

'Why should the world allow a racist, religiously intolerant, belligerent nation which has made real threats to destroy whole countries to gain access to nuclear weapons.'

A perfect description of Israel. 'Out of the mouth of babes.':-)

Paul, it’s about time you got the message that there is such a thing as political fair play, which is taught in the philosophy of International Relations.

Compared to the dirty tricks both Britain and America have played in the Middle East, Paull, since WW1, Iran is only small fry.

Britain, of course, began by deceiving Lawrence, with the false promise of self government for the Arabs, as well as illegally grabbing the Kuwaiti ports which had belonged to Iraq for centuries.

Immediately after WW2, said to be the end of colonialism, America made the excuse to grab Iran because Mossadeq looked like joining Soviet Russia.

Then we were all told lies about an Iranian Democratic Republic, headed by the fake Shah born on the line of the Persian Peacock Throne, and so the American spin went on.

Of course, we knew really what was going on when both US and UK oil companies moved in. Might as well admit that many of us gave a cheer later when the Iranians under Khomaini revolted and held the US embassy under guard for a year.

Not to be outdone, the US backed Saddam when he attacked Iran in 1981, and adding to the dirty work, the Soviet Union agreed with the attack as well.

But the problem for President Reagan, so sure Iran would soon cave in, the Iranians began pushing the Iraqis back home again, the American s finally deciding to supply the Iraqis with the worst of chemical weapons, but still the Iranians won out.

But then a well fortified Israel came into the picture, even being allowed by the US to go nuclear, which caused Saddam of Iraq to do a turnabout, even changing his dinero to the Euro rather than the Yankee dollar. And he even tried to match Israel’s nuclear capability, Israel soon knocking out the installation doubtless with US permission. But Israel’s shock bombing tactics has somewhat unfairly turned her into a deadly little protective pariah in the minds of Islamics, as well as to many Westerners

BB - Part Two

Anyhow, Paull, with Bush now putting Saddam’s Baath Sunnis on his military payroll as the answer to peace in Iraq, has certainly got me worried, especially as John Howard and Co seem to regard it as good news.

No worries to Howard, of course that the Iraqi Shias will be the adversaries rather than Saddam’s Sunnis, and the whole movement now will be against Shiite Iran so well suiting the ambitions of Dick Cheney possibly more than Bush.

So with someone like Cheney pretty well in charge, I fear that there will be at least an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations before the end of the Bush reign next year.

While we can hope that a report that Iran already has nuclear warheads to fit her long-range rockets is not true, maybe if the report is true, however, it may create a situation as between India and Pakistan, where a horrendous situation is neutralized.

Finally, as regards Realpolitik, its two great masters, according to history have been Bismark and Keynes.
The story goes that if Bismark had been alive not long before 1914, WW1 would never have begun, and if Maynard Keynes warning about the over-harsh treatment of Germany during the Treaty of Versailles had been listened to, WW2 might never have begun. It was also a dying Keynes during the Bretton Woods Agreement in late 1945, who gave reminder about the mistake of Versailles which presaged the later Marshall Plan helping Germany and Japan quickly and economically to get back on their feet once again.

Besides the diplomacy that can use an unfriendly leader to intervene and evert a deadly war, as has been said recently about Putin able to protect Iran from the US and Israel, the above to me is real Realpolitik, taking lessons from the past, which America in the last few years has continually failed to do, the illegal attack on Iraq a typical example.

Keith >> The article ... It's about softening us up to accept an invasive and so-called pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran is a legitimate way to conduct international affairs.

Show me how neglecting to criticize Israel for a hypothetical pre emptive strike during an article on the policy outlook of the Rudd Labour gov’t implies that the author is softening up the public for such an event.

For starters your thesis implies that Lowenstein supports such a strike. Do you have any proof of this? Because there certainly isn’t any in the article. There doesn’t seem to be much support for your proposition in the rest of the authors published material either.

You suggest that although Lowenstein opposes American pre-emption, by omitting to criticize an Israeli strike he is indirectly supporting such an event. This is preposterous. There could be many reasons why Lowenstein omitted to criticize a hypothetical attack on Iran. Chief among these would be that Israel has made it fairly clear it would prefer if the US dealt with the issue and therefore Israel is far less likely to make this pre emptive strike than is the US.

Secondly the article isn’t about the pre emptive strike on Iran it is about Rudd’s likely response to a request for support from the US and the delusion of labour supporters that his position will be fundamentally different to Howards. Israel is unlikely to ask for Australian support for such an attack.

Thirdly, to suggest that the author supports any proposition he fails to criticize is logically unsound.

Fourthly, this leads to the point I made in the last post, that while attacking Israel on a regular basis you omit to criticize the regimes in the region which are far worse. Yet you suggest that we cannot take this to mean that you support these regimes. Thus I am suggesting a double standard.

BTW. Which country has Israel threatened to wipe off the face of the earth? Please provide a quote from a member of the current Israeli gov’t.

Paul's right keith. You've got nothing to back up the notion that Loewenstein supports this.

Find me one, just one, article of Loewenstein's that encourages military action at all.

By the same token, I don't recall Gandhi ever criticising a strike on Iran, but i'd be pretty confident in saying he opposes it, after reviewing the stances he has taken on other issues.

Take a look through Loewenstein's other work. I can find you plenty of examples of him criticising Israeli intervention.
What have you got? Honestly, just admit you jumped to a conclusion on that point or provide something more than an absence of an argument to back it up.

From background information through historical accounts and not so much through Media reports, would say that reports from Iraq in particular have been deliberately quietened down.

That is why I now look to history, especially regarding historical reputations which certainly does not put America in a good light.

If any, with the present position in Iraq, the main focus should be on Iran, which in my last Post I tried to present as it should be presented, as a normal nation and not as evil as George Bush and John Howard would like to present it. A nation by its record against allied America, Britain and Australia, as clear and honest as it could be in the circumstances dealing with our world’s so-called premier nation, which itself has broken so many laws in International Relations, politics and trade.

The US, for example , has highhandedly used its unipolar global positioning not only to illegally occupy Iraq, but to trash WTO rules by subsidizing its producers, and made a laughing stock of the UN, especially in the Middle East, by having personalities like Condoleeza Rice jump in front every time a UN leading personage is needed in a critical discussion.

I do believe the above should influence our coming election. If it does not, we are going to have the same Middle East problem for years to come, mostly caused at present not by big power rivalry, as with the Cold War, but by a kind of slavishness from powers seemingly scared to say what should be said when one big unipolar power dominates.

The above needs a drastic change, and It is so interesting that Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher and Father of the principle of a United Nations, was against unipolarity in world organizations, but better a Federation of Nations, not necessarily completely in agreement but together ethically and honestly.

I must say that in composing this missile, I give thanks to the support of friends with the same beliefs as myself.

Hope Rudd can get the message?

Paul show me where I say or imply Loewenstein supports a strike on Iran?

You cannot. Once again you assign an attitude to me that I haven't held or expressed. Then you argue against it and abuse me.

However your rationale:

'Chief among these would be that Israel has made it fairly clear it would prefer if the US dealt with the issue and therefore Israel is far less likely to make this pre emptive strike than is the US. '

Clearly this says you think Lowenstein supports an attack on Iran.

Palestine. is a country Israel is currently tryinng to steal. There are many quotes from many Israeli leaders over many decades that support the idea of a Greater Israel. They've been quoted to you many times. But I think you are blind to truth or to any criticism of your sacred and saintly Israel.

Don't you read what I write?

Turnright

I'd be ultra careful before I endorsed anything PaulL contributes. You should see some of heis previous posts in other related topics.

I don't recall Ghandi being discriminatory in his criticism of violence. He'd condemn all proposals or plans for violence...not just one of two such proposals.

Would you like to show me a reference to where Lowenstein has criticised the recent Israeli attack on Syria and a proposed future attack on Iran. If you can show those then I'll believe Lowenstein is indeed balanced in his criticism and isn't just softening us up not to criticise an Israeli attack.

Keith>> How rabid would be Loewenstein's reaction if I suggested a surgical counter strike by ... Arab terrorists to take out Israel's leadership?

Here is an example of your implication that the author is supporting the pre emptive strike on Israel. You hypothetically ask the question ‘how would the author react if the roles were reversed’ suggesting the author had a positive opinion on the original scenario

Keith>> Why do these Israeli apologists and warmongers continue to bother?

You are implying Lowenstein is an Israeli apologist and a warmonger,

Keith>> I don't believe for onr(sic) minute he wasn't aware of his omission in criticising a proposed Israeli pre-emptive strike.

You suggest he deliberately avoided criticizing Israeli pre emption

Keith>> In the context of the article which is criticism of the proposed US strike it means the author hasn't criticised the exact same proposal by Israel. That's unequal and indicates, if not error or oversight, then a deliberate bias. The original statement and subsequent omission is exactly how many Israeli propagandists put forward and promote Israeli positions.

1) Here you are implying that Lowenstein is an Israeli propagandist who deliberately omits criticisms to promote Israeli positions.
2) The context of the article isn’t the “criticism of the proposed US strike” its Rudds response to such a hypothetical event.

Keith>> It's about softening us up to accept an invasive …strike by Israel on Iran is a legimate(sic) way to conduct international affairs.

So to sum up. You argue that Lowenstein would react rabidly if the roles were reversed and Arabs mounted a surgical strike on Israeli leadership. You have also suggested that Lowenstein is an Israeli warmonger who deliberately refuses to criticize a hypothetical Israeli pre emptive strike, whilst criticising the same act by the Americans. Finally you suggest the whole exercise has been to soften up the public for an attack, BUT you weren’t actually accusing Lowenstein of supporting this attack .

Keith can you actually see the hair you are trying to split?

Do YOU read what YOU write?

'So to sum up. You argue that Lowenstein would react rabidly if the roles were reversed and Arabs mounted a surgical strike on Israeli leadership. You have also suggested that Lowenstein is an Israeli warmonger who deliberately refuses to criticize a hypothetical Israeli pre emptive strike, whilst criticising the same act by the Americans. Finally you suggest the whole exercise has been to soften up the public for an attack, BUT you weren’t actually accusing Lowenstein of supporting this attack .'

Thankyou. So the upshot of your post and all your personal abuse is that you've finally agree I haven't said or implied Loewenstein suported an attack on Iran.

I've not seen such contortionism since I last saw cirque-du-soleil.

Most entertaining, keith.

Beyond all your words, at the simplest level:

You've managed to take commentary critical of middle-eastern intervention from someone who has consistently been a harsh critic of Israeli policy and turn it into an exercise of Israeli apologism.

The real icing on the cake was claiming the author is softening people up for a strike... but backing away from claims he supports it.

Bravo. I'm quite impressed.

Keith

apologist - a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.

warmonger - a person or agency that advocates war or tries to bring about a war

So you're accusing the author of softening the public up for an attack because he's an Israeli APOLOGIST and WARMONGER but you weren't suggesting he supports the attack.

OK > Do you really expect anyone to believe that.

Nop

What Ive said is that Loewenstein's article is softening us up not to be critical of an Israeli attack.

It is you who has assumed he's an apologist and a warmonger. All I've added was the way his article was constructed is typical of the Israeli apologists and warmongers who employ such tactics.

sheessssssssh.

Keith >> How rabid would be Loewenstein's reaction if I suggested a surgical counter strike by a few Arab terrorists to take out Israel's leadership would be an appropriate way to solve the occupation and repression of millions of people in Palestine? Why do these Israeli apologists and warmongers continue to bother? Didn't they learn anything from their debacle in Lebanon. That solved zilch and has simply lead to further destabilisation in the region. Exactly the same result as their intrusion into Palestinian politics in Gaza.

Keith YOU use the phrase “these Israeli apologists and warmongers”. They aren’t my words. ‘these’ is used to indicate a person just mentioned or pointed out. The only person mentioned in your post is Lowenstein. You could have used many words if you wanted to suggest that you weren’t including Lowenstein in your ‘warmonger and apologist’ attack. ‘the’ would have been the easiest choice. But that’s not what you wrote.

So to sum up your position again.

1) You weren’t suggesting Lowenstein is an apologist for Israel
2) But you are suggesting that Lowenstein is deliberately biased towards Israel
3) You weren’t suggesting that Lowenstein a war monger and supports the pre emptive strike
4) But you do argue that he is softening us up to support the pre emptive stike

Are you serious

Re’ news report about Israel illegally joining the nuclear club back in 1969.

Cannot believe as the article states, that America did not give permission.

Report that Nixon and Kissinger were against it sounds like a deliberate lie.

If it is really true that the world let tiny Israel become a virtual nuclear pariah power in the Middle East able to strike any nation at will, it should be regarded as one of the tragedies of modern history, even bringing on WW3.

Ultimately because Iran may still be able to stand up to America conventionally, the nation may have to face nuclear attacks, such injustice possibly bringing in more friendly nations to the East.

All this while Iran has never attacked another country except perhaps rhetorically, while the US has broken just about every law in the book in the Middle East both politically and economically.

The latest criminal act by America, is going on now in Iraq, the local Shias whom the US went in to protect from Saddam's Sunnis now look to become sworn enemies, while what's left of Saddam's 200,00O crack Sunni Frontline Troops now on the American payroll, ready to go into Iran if Cheney has his way..

As a historian one wonders what will be written about what is going on concerning Iraq at present with news deliberately muzzled especially with what should be coming into Australia.

Now back to Mordecai - if the report is true that the US did not give permission for Israel to go nuclear, why was Mordecai not reported a hero by our Western media for justifiably and valiantly going against his country for breaking a law that was nothing else but truly based on Ethical Justice, rather than letting the poor bugger be virtually locked up for life for protesting over something that the Israeli leaders at the time should have been justifiably punished themselves.

Maybe it is why Rudd has let Julia Gillard take over education, which will make sure truths like the above will come out in Humanities studies as they should.