PaulL,

Lets clear up any misunderstanding. I think the current situation in Iran is far from ideal an that there are many areas requiring improvement. I feel their human rights record is pretty ordinary and the treatment of minorities can be deplorable.

But as I condemn the abuse of political prisoners in Iran I can also condemn Guantanamo
Bay, torture, rendition, and Abu Ghraib.

I am also a little bemused at being referred to as a ‘leftist’. It is not how I see myself, if anything I would consider my views as pragmatically centralist. However it matters little.

Can I imagine how any Iranian might reply to your points?

You say my government is a THEOCRACY and yet your head of state is the head of the Anglican Church. Our Supreme Leader is elected and supervised by the Assembly of the Experts who are in turn directly elected by the people. Something akin to your senate they serve 8 year terms. While their role is quite diminished, reform of this body was a campaign issue in the last election. I believe your own ‘house of review’ had little effectiveness during the final term of your last prime minister. I don’t believe your head of state ever faces an election and is not even a citizen of your country. Her representative can dismiss your entire government and while it is true our Supreme Leader has control over the armed forces a quick read of s.68 of your own constitution reveals “The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative”

Though I dispute the charges of Iranian organised attacks can I remind you of your ally’s actions in Nicuragua, the pardoning of Orlando Bosch, CIA organised car bombings in Bagdad before the invasion and the statement that the deaths of 500,000 Moslem children is ‘worth it’.

Can I finally remind you that you have been cited by the UN for the neglect of your own indigenous people.

I do think that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is undesirable but not to the point that another Iraq is created.

I didn’t make the claim that the Iranian Airbus tragedy was deliberate because I think it is unlikely that it was. However Saddam was quick to apologise for the "unintentional incident." And to make reparations to the families of those killed and for the damage to the frigate.

Iran had to take the Americans to the International Court to force them to pay compensation for the taking out the Airbus. Actually George Bush during the election campaign in 1988 stated “I will never apologize for the United States. I don’t care what the facts are,” and two years later to rub the Iranian’s noses in it gave the captain a medal.

Why I said the Americans permitted the incident to occur was because they put a aggressive, gung ho, incompetent fool in charge of a billion and a half dollar warship in a critical hotspot with an inadequately trained crew.

From Wikipedia

“Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, the warship stationed near to the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago." “

An analysis of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire.[27] The Vincennes had been nicknamed 'Robocruiser' by crew members and other US Navy ships, both in reference to its AEGIS system, and to the supposed aggressive tendencies of its captain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

So I’m wondering Paul how the hell the most expensive ship afloat at the time saw an Airbus ascending at 12,000 feet as a fighter 1/3rd the size descending at 7,000 feet on an attack run? Ultimately though it is the actions of the American government afterward that is most telling.

I find it amusing that the only possible conflict that anybody here sees coming from a nuclear armed Iran is between it and Israel...

Big hint, the Sunni & Shia have been fighting for a millenium (and long before the advent of Mohammed) and now the Shia have control of Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawite), Lebanon, Iraq & Iran, half of the Middle Easts oil, in addition to having nukes?

The sheer danger of this has seen the Saudi's, the UAE and the other oil-rich Arab States investing heavily in both offensive & defensive weapons. It seems to have escaped a LOT of people that Pakistan is Sunni and it too has nuclear weapons, in addition to a huge amount of advanced delivery systems (although Saudi has better supplies of US-made medium range rockets). It is known that this will destablise the region: http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Article.aspx?id=1323

This is why the fighting in Iraq is like it is, Sunni v Shia for the most part now, the US Troops only remain to safeguard the profits of US Corporations and provide a buffer for the Saudi's, there is zero prospect of stabilising the joint.

Wake up, for gods sake - Israel could well end up on the sidelines of this one, whether we will remains to be seen (expect to see conscription if we don't)

Dear Haganah Bet

you seem to have it together quite well, but I'm not sure how you work out the following:

"the Sunni & Shia have been fighting for a millenium (and long before the advent of Mohammed)"

The terms 'sunni' and Shia only have meaning in connection with Islam, which came from Mohammad.. so I'm not sure what ur driving at there.

I don't want your credibility diminished, because of other things you say which seem helpful, you might like to re look at that one.

As things stand now, Israel has every moral right to demolish Gaza.
They have this right based on the Hamas Charter which is becoming increasingly known in the West, and that it is the Muslim/Arab equivalent to Mein Kampf.

If Hamas were 'democratically elected' there is no escaping that their charter was also 'elected'...this it is a declaration of unceasing WAR against Israel who should deliver an ultimatum to them, giving them 1 month to change the Charter and deliver up for trial all those involved in hurling rockets at Sderot and Ashkelon. Then, they should re-consitute their charter in peaceful harmonious language which does not have any hint of the destruction of Israel in it.

Failure to do this should by all standards of morality and justice, result in total war.

No nation which has a brain in it's head can expect to survive a written agenda for the destruction of another.

My own personal position, is that all sides should embrace Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah and Lord, thus removing the barriers of race and religion and the associated predictable violent outcomes.

Csteele

Let me make this clear, I also condemn the renditions and the “torture” at AbuGhraib and Guantanomo. However I would like to make the point that if we are realistic about this, the “torture” that we engaged in, was, on the continuum of unpleasant acts, rather benign. It was unprofessional, unnecessary and may be counterproductive, but don’t think for a second it puts us in the same league as Saddam’s Mukhabarat or Iran’s SAVAM. Things like being placed in a stress position, which is used on our own soldiers during training, sleep deprivation or white noise, do not compare with watching your child ripped to pieces by attack dogs in front of your eyes, as Saddam was wont to do. I know that people were “menaced” by dogs in Abu Ghraib, I think that only illustrates my point.

Which ever way an Iranian might choose to reply, you cannot really believe there is anything other than superficial similarity. The idea that anyone is elected in a democratic manner in Iran is an absolute joke. See the election of Ahmedinejhad, who didn’t even bother campaigning even though nobody really knew who he was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2005

Iran stones people to death, carries out floggings and amputates limbs and sentences people to death for changing their religion. They have religious police for god's sake. The President converses with an imaginary man hiding down a well and makes policy based upon prophecies of his return. Where is the similarity?? http://www.iranfocus.com/en/special-wire/un-condemns-human-rights-violations-in-iran.html

>>” So I’m wondering Paul how the hell the most expensive ship afloat at the time saw an Airbus ascending at 12,000 feet as a fighter 1/3rd the size descending at 7,000 feet on an attack run?

I work in radar and if you have a look at the “Evaporative duct effect” (one of many radar difficulties) you will see that mistakes with RADAR are eminently possible. http://www.vhfdx.radiocorner.net/docs/GTPaper2004V2-1.pdf

tbc,

cont,

If you have ever stuck a pole into a pool and noticed that it seems to bend at the waterline you may understand something of the ducts effect. However the duct varies significantly in strength from second to second.

You forget that the US was only in the Straits of Hormuz because Iran was blowing up international shipping. In this way Iran was effectively holding the world to ransom, again.

>>” Can I finally remind you that you have been cited by the UN for the neglect of your own indigenous people.

Forget neglect, Iran has been cited by the UN for its deliberate and vicious OPPRESSION of its minorities, including the Baha’i and the Kurds

“Since the revolution, more than 200 Bahá'ís have been executed or killed, hundreds more have been imprisoned, and tens of thousands have been deprived of jobs, pensions, businesses, and educational opportunities. All national Bahá'í administrative structures have been banned by the government, and holy places, shrines and cemeteries have been confiscated, vandalized, or destroyed” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_minorities_in_Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Kurdistan

If Iran didn’t regularly threaten Israel’s existence the issue would be much less straightforward. I too would question the relevance of the regimes threats if Iran was not chasing nukes. But Ahmedinejhad has said he would sacrifice half of Iran to wipe out Israel. And he's made threats like this repeatedly. What do you make of this?? ?? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689559/posts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/13/secondworldwar.iran

Why is it that you accept that Iran is chasing nukes, when the regime is vehemently denying it?? Then again, they also deny the holocaust so how can one believe anything they say.

I am not pushing for an invasion of Iran. I think we should properly exhaust ALL possibilities before we even consider a military option. But there can only be a peaceful solution if the world accepts the risk Iran poses and bands together to do something about it. What do you suggest??

Can you honestly suggest that Israel and the US are not at abnormally high risk if Iran succeeds in gaining nukes??