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.