boaz, you're sounding more hysterical than usual.

The mossadeq affair for instance, wasn't one of the west's finer moments.

I'll admit, that the first half of the article was the better part, with the latter half being conspicuously absent in its criticism of the Palestinians who are far from the innocent victims that Mr Passant indicates. It's also a bit of an unbalanced piece in terms of the criticism of the US, without the commensurate criticism of their opponents.

Thought I find your idea that it should be censored quite repugnant. There's nothing here that doesn't have a valid - nay, important - place in political discourse.

What bothers me more is your hypocrisy. You got so worked about about religious vilification laws when Danny Nalliah and the Catch The Fire zealots were targetted.

So the freedom to criticise is only valid when it's not directed at what you believe to be the way.

I don't believe in your conservative ideals. I don't believe your priorities are at all accurate in regard to the threats to Australia. Yes, the threat of islamic fascism is one threat, but no greater than governments clamping down on civil liberties.

I've no urge to live through an Australian version of McCarthyism. I hope articles like this are never censored.

Yes.. I'm being dramatic..I know.

But there is reason in my "hysteria".

We need to take a much closer look at our relationships with Allies and Enemies.

It's about time we knew who are our friends..and enemies and treated them as such. In the case of enemies, sure, we should take a just approach, but that does not in any way excuse people from among 'us' for supporting our enemies.

The concept of Alliances has a long history. By all means look up this to gain an insight as to 'why' I ranted as I did on this topic.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/19_ali_bin_talib.htm

But that's just one aspect. I cannot bring myself to support or advocate 'violent struggle' by Christians in Poso, though I would understand it if they did. I cannot encourage them in such a thing.

In this case. Passant is advocating violent overthrow of an allied state..and I find that treacherous.

In any response to my 'hysteria'.. (which I deliberately listed in point form) please respond to the POINTS, one by one, and declare them 'right/wrong' or more to it than that, and back it up. (please)

LOL! So it's fair to say, that we have not evolved at all. Its all about resources! Do you all really think old George gives a rats ass about these people! Give me a break! Sometimes I wonder what drug this world is on.

i have watched the champions of the left in action with close attention for about 50 years, and have been forced to conclude that plutocrats can sleep soundly, they're in no danger. the writer is a just another 'lefty' fool, presumably content to throw a stone in the ocean and exclaim: "see the wave!".

he is, however, largely right about the sins of america. what to do about it is the hard part. i fear the answer is "nothing". humanity formed it's character when it was competing with baboons for the title of 'boss primate of the savannah'. we've moved on since then, but not very far. people and nations with power behave with arrogance and brutality. americans are the current 800 pound gorillas and we shouldn't be surprised at what they do.

i have been suggesting in posts to this site that the only cure for institutional arrogance and brutality, for endemic corruption and incompetence, is democracy: rule by the people. however right i may be, i have also long ago realized that a nation's culture may make democracy impossible. that is why mr passant and 'the left' are fools: they do not champion democracy as the legitimate means of social liberation. on the other hand, perhaps they understand better than i, that ozzies are born to be fore-lock tuggers, to whichever grifters have weaseled their way onto the government benches. who is more foolish, then....

Boaz, you have a knack of reducing a discussion to a point where is becomes unarguable, simply because you present black in the deepest sable, and white as dazzlingly pristine. To you, shades of grey are unfortunate subversions, and the people who point them out to you simply "don't get it".

The reality of life is that it is in those shades of grey that we exist and live out our lives. Pretending there is always one single right answer is an intellectual cop-out.

Try this for size.

>>It's about time we knew who are our friends..and enemies and treated them as such.<<

Let's imagine you are a 70-year old Iranian, old enough to remember life under a democratically-elected government under Mossadegh. Then came the US-supported coup d'etat that installed the Shah - i.e., replaced a democracy with a dictatorship. You then watched the US align itself against you in the Iran-Iraq war, and then come running back to ask your country to be allies with them and Syria against Iraq. Now, it is once again making aggressive noises against you and your government.

Where, along that timeline, would you decide to "pick and stick" a decision on whether the US is your friend, or your enemy?

And on what evidence, given that 20:20 hindsight is not available to you?

Indeed, Pericles. I was also struck by this:

Boazy: "The allies of OUR Allies are also our allies"

It's so nice to learn that Australia is an ally of e.g. Colombia.