What a Tangled WEB a tale of the modern Middle East can tell?

All about Hegemon and Contraband?

Who said imperialism was over when we just exposed our PM as acting like a typical colonial statesman paying obeyance to the American God-Man an inheritor of what is now - or was, we hope - what was Pax Britannica, and now Pax Americana, but in all truth Pax Anglicanana, Aussie-Land included, like the colonials we still must be.

If we could only hope with Rudd that it is all over, us gutless Aussies afraid to admit that much of the global intrusion into the Middle-East since WW1 is Anglicisal.

Why talk about Blix as a two-timer when the de-colonial promise after WW2, was immediately broken by America knocking out Mossadeq of Iraq and installing the fake Shah - then us all trying to hide our happiness when the Shah was kicked out and Iran's home military took over, holding the US Embassy like criminals for more than a year.

Then as if that was not enough in the ME, Iraq backed by both America and the Soviets declared war on a purported evil Iran.

But the Iranians towards the end of eight years of murderous fighting, had the Iraqis fleeing back from wence they came, despite the use of the chemical weapons from Reagan.

Then came the US nuclear arming of tiny Israel which created the change far from the better, whether the armaments were gifted or not.

And so the Web spins on, America knocking out her former friend Saddam four years ago, still on track for contraband and hegemon, Condy Rice telling fibs all the time about the coming freedom, when she knows it's all about freedom for her US of A to carry on being the toppest top dog.

But after Iraq they still have to get Iran, and one does
dare hope surveying the above history, that Iran teaches America a lesson once again?

But now the web can spin a clear future - so scary it bares not thought......

I think such articles as this drivel are properly described as "Tactical Perception Management"

Ho Hum has said it for me so I won't waste time commenting further

an unbelievably dishonest and obtuse article. i'm no fan of blix, but that doesn't mean i have time to read the pontifications of deceptive, ignorant, war-mongering fools.

Bushbred,

More rabid nonsense. You might like to restrict yourself to the topic at hand rather than blather on about how EVIL the west is. Your history is all wrong anyway.The US may have helped Saddam prevent an Iranian victory during Iraq’s war with Iran but they never instigated that war, nor did they do what they could to help him win. But of course that kind of detail is far too complicated to fit into your ONE SIZE FITS ALL view of the world.

Mossadeq was the president of Iran, by the way, and he decided to nationalize (read steal) the oil companies (particularly Anglo Iranian Oil). But I suppose that kind of theft is OK with you.

Iran also developed chemical weapons but had blowback issues and discontinued the project. Iran used young boys in human wave attacks to clear minefields for the soldiers to follow through. That is, the boys cleared the mines by standing on them. Iran is no hero at all. In fact, if Khomeini had not called upon the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam he might never have attacked them in the first place. When Saddam withdrew from Iran and offered peace the Iranians declined, intent on

1) removing Saddams regime
2) replacing it with an Islamic republic – Shia no doubt
3) taking reparations of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Israel has had its nuclear weapons through at least one Arab invasion (1973) and declined to use them. So if you could possibly demonstrate why Israel having them is such a problem, perhaps you could share it with me. Iran on the other hand has institutionalized its hatred for Israel and the US and has actually threatened to wipe Israel of the face of the planet.

Your rabid anti-Americanism clearly causes you to abandon the complexities of the issues in favour of a good vs evil approach. George Bush would be so proud.

Bushbasher,

How about some supporting evidence for your claims. To suggest that the author is a warmonger is infantile. I dare you to attempt to refute his accusations regarding Blix.

i have no interest in defending blix. but i also have no interest in engaging with ariel's straw men, nor with his slippery, revisionist nonsense regarding why bush and his fellow psychopaths started a bloody and unnecessary war. if ariel wants to start engaging with the distortions and outright lies before the iraq war, then there's something to discuss. but he shows none of that. ariel thinks the iraq was a good thing: he's a warmonger.

Bushbasher,

The topic is Hans Blix and his peace prize farce, slagging off the author is infantile and pointless. Make an argument or produce some evidence for your point of view. Otherwise you’re just another whiner.