Uncovering the Influence of the Pro-Israel Lobby on Mainstream News Coverage

[Yonoz]

And Use google and you will find 1000's of other references to Israeli and US threats to attack Iran. None of which require a deliberate mis-translation to make their message clear as was done with the comments by Ahmadinejad.

Wow, 1000's of references to a google search on such rarely used keywords as "Israel", "Iran", "attack" and "nuclear"...
So a single attack with tactical nuclear weapons means the destruction of Iran? Please explain.

Btw Still waiting to hear your justification for the dual standards re nuclear inspections.

I believe the best justification was given by yourself in that previous post - you demonstrated very well how the UN and its agencies are dominated by the circa-50-strong Muslim body in the GA.

 

[Art]

Are you seriously claiming Israel does not operate an apartheid regime? Would you like me to provide examples?

 

[Art]

Wow, 1000's of references to a google search on such rarely used keywords as "Israel", "Iran", "attack" and "nuclear"...
So a single attack with tactical nuclear weapons means the destruction of Iran? Please explain.

lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country. Yes this certainly sounds like the usual twisted logic employed by the current despotic leaders of Israel and the US.

Other attack plans threatened include a massive bombing campaign of all Iran's military and infrastructure leading to the same level of destruction as seen in Iraq which I think most people would agree equalled pretty much total destruction.

I believe the best justification was given by yourself in that previous post - you demonstrated very well how the UN and its agencies are dominated by the circa-50-strong Muslim body in the GA.

More twisted logic. Why insist Iran comply with the IAEA if you don't trust them yourselves??

 

[EnumaElish]

So a single attack with tactical nuclear weapons means the destruction of Iran? Please explain.

Yonoz -- I am not saying that Israel has planned or is planning this; but you seem to own up to it.

Even a limited tactical nuclear first strike will take the world to a whole new level of "acceptable and fair"; and I suspect "deep down" the mainstream Israeli public would understand this sentiment -- and logic.

 

[kach22i]

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece

I would hope that the USA has similar plans in the ready.

Nothing wrong with being ready.

 

[Yonoz]

Yonoz -- I am not saying that Israel has planned or is planning this; but you seem to own up to it.

Even a limited tactical nuclear first strike will take the world to a whole new level of "acceptable and fair"; and I suspect "deep down" the mainstream Israeli public would understand this sentiment -- and logic.

When this report came out there was a brief public discussion about it but that died down fairly quickly. We have a lot on our minds these days.

 

[Yonoz]

Are you seriously claiming Israel does not operate an apartheid regime? Would you like me to provide examples?

You'd better open up a different thread, as that would be taking us completely off-topic.

 

[Yonoz]

lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country. Yes this certainly sounds like the usual twisted logic employed by the current despotic leaders of Israel and the US.

No, Iran is to be attacked because it is developing nuclear weapons that would destabilize the already shaken up balance of powers in the Middle East, and Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon, even when it was seen as on the brink of extinction.

Other attack plans threatened include a massive bombing campaign of all Iran's military and infrastructure leading to the same level of destruction as seen in Iraq which I think most people would agree equalled pretty much total destruction.

The destruction of the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programmes did nothing to their stability, let alone destroy them. Hopefully Iran will do no more than have Hizballah and Hamas attempt to start another proxy war for them, perhaps attack an Israeli target oversees a la the Buenos Aires bombings, and increase the flames in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they do anything silly such as attacking allied targets directly, I would expect the current US administration to reciprocate with a powerful fire effort but little or no maneuver effort, mainly aimed at eroding the Iranian administration's power base. But again, that would be in reaction to an Iranian counterattack, not because of the Iranian nuclear programme.

More twisted logic. Why insist Iran comply with the IAEA if you don't trust them yourselves??

The IAEA is simply the easiest way out of this mess, for everyone.

 

[mjsd]

No, Iran is to be attacked because it is developing nuclear weapons that would destabilize the already shaken up balance of powers in the Middle East, and

what balance of powers in the Middle East are you talking about? Isn't Irsarel (with US backing) by far the "strongest" at the moment?

Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon, even when it was seen as on the brink of extinction.

seriously, at which point after WW2 do u think that Israel was on the brink of extinction?

 

[Yonoz]

what balance of powers in the Middle East are you talking about? Isn't Irsarel (with US backing) by far the "strongest" at the moment?

Careful, that sort of thinking that led to the occupation of Iraq.
Israel is very small both geographically and demographically, with a population of 7 million. Its military is ranked 33rd in size, while those of Egypt (population 88 million) and Syria (population 20 million) are ranked 11th and 16th. Egypt is also backed by the US and Europe and has extensive manufacturing abilities, including an Abrams tank production facility. Egypt also has chemical weapons ability and experience. Syria is heavily armed by Russia with state of the art anti-tank and surface to air missiles, and has an advanced surface to surface missile program, on top of its existing arsenal which is one of the largest in the Middle East, and is tightly coupled with its chemical weapons programme. The Golan Heights are the most densely fortified region in the world, and any conflict there would be too costly for either side to initiate.
... And these are just two of israel's closest neighbours. Saudi Arabia has a large and well-supplied military (25th). Iran has the largest military in the ME (8th), an extensive domestic military industry, very advanced surface to surface missile programmes and manufacturing, and is supplied by Russia with some the latest AA and anti-tank systems. Turkey is a full NATO member, and its military is 9th in size.
There's much more to the Middle East than Israel. I won't go detail all the ethnic disputes - there's too many, and the west is getting a crash course on the balance of powers in the Middle East (and what happens when it is disturbed), complete with live demonstrations and pyrotechnics.

seriously, at which point after WW2 do u think that Israel was on the brink of extinction?

During the Yom-Kippur war.

 

[Art]

During the Yom-Kippur war.

Can you show anything to justify your claim that the destruction of Israel was a goal of the Yom-Kippur war? Or that it was in anyway possible? All the literature related to this war shows the Arab goals were limited to regaining territories seized by Israel in 1967 following Israel's rejection of peace talks offered by Sadat through UN intermediary Gunnar Jarring. Israel responded that it would not withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967 lines as required by UN Security Council Resolution 242 and so Sadat publicly warned Israel it would go to war if necessary to regain it's lands.

The Syrians and Egyptians could only operate under the umbrella cover of the fixed SAM positions provided by the Russians and so territorial gains of Israeli land was an impossibility as if the Arab forces advanced beyond their air protection zone they were open to annihilation from the Israeli air-force.

 

[Yonoz]

Can you show anything to justify your claim that the destruction of Israel was a goal of the Yom-Kippur war?

When did I claim that?

Or that it was in anyway possible?

Syrian tanks stopped on the fence of the Regimental HQ in Nafah, and on the El-Al ridge, the southern tip of the Golan Heights. There was nothing between them and Tel-Aviv.
Between the 15,000-strong Egyptian armies and Tel-Aviv stood two divisions.

 

[Art]

When did I claim that?

When you claimed Israel was on the brink of extinction. Seeing as how this wasn't a goal of the Arab armies and since they were incapable of pursuing such a goal even if they wished how do you translate this into being on the brink of destruction?

Syrian tanks stopped on the fence of the Regimental HQ in Nafah, and on the El-Al ridge, the southern tip of the Golan Heights. There was nothing between them and Tel-Aviv.
Between the 15,000-strong Egyptian armies and Tel-Aviv stood two divisions.

As already pointed out the Arabs couldn't advance past the cover of their SAM sites. In fact when Egypt tried to advance to relieve pressure on the Syrians they were flattened.

 

[Yonoz]

When you claimed Israel was on the brink of extinction. Seeing as how this wasn't a goal of the Arab armies and since they were incapable of pursuing such a goal even if they wished how do you translate this into being on the brink of destruction?

Goal does not necessarily equal outcome, especially when wars are concerned.

As already pointed out the Arabs couldn't advance past the cover of their SAM sites. In fact when Egypt tried to advance to relieve pressure on the Syrians they were flattened.

If you're referring to the attack of October 14 - that attack was too late (or too early) and terribly planned.
The reasons for the Egyptian and Syrian militaries' halt is the subject of many theories. The Soviets had armed them with the highly mobile SA-6 platform, and there are ways of advancing an AA umbrella safely - the systems are designed for it. One can go on for hours about such things. One thing is for certain - even the IAF could not have stopped both armies. Without the US airlift operation Israel would have quite simply run out of ammunition.

 

[mjsd]

Goal does not necessarily equal outcome, especially when wars are concerned.

NOW, perhaps that's one of the major sticking point! I glad that you seem to have realized it. not so long ago the claim was that

No, Iran is to be attacked because it is developing nuclear weapons that would destabilize the already shaken up balance of powers in the Middle East, and Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon, even when it was seen as on the brink of extinction.

so the impression one gets from this is that Israel is seen as "responisble" (whereas Iran is not for whatever reasons) with its WMDs because Israel had been pushed to the limit and still refused to use their WMDs.

however, the idea that goals do not equate to outcomes in wars, implies that the above claim does not have much substance. This is because, from the complexity of wars, one cannot say whether it was rationality, hypocrisy, morality or ... etc. that triggered the actions/inactions we see during the Yom-Kippur war. As a result, it didn't really demonstrate whether Israel can be trusted not to use its WMDs in the future at all. All those events were telling us was that on that occasion for whatever reasons (that we probably shall never really know the truth of), Israel did not use WMDs (thank god!). But it did not add to/substract from the argument whether Israel can be or cannot be trusted.

I believe the "twisted logic" Art was referring to previously simply means that one cannot make a convincing argument and call oneself "correct" when one gloss over the details when it suits one, while only go into the essentials when it enhances one's point of view.

Iran may have a bad image but that doesn't automatically means Israel has a good image either. It is inconclusive.

 

[Yonoz]

so the impression one gets from this is that Israel is seen as "responisble" (whereas Iran is not for whatever reasons) with its WMDs because Israel had been pushed to the limit and still refused to use their WMDs.

Though I support the attributed conclusion for different reasons, that was never my intention in this section. It was constructed as a similarly structured reply to:

lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country.

The sentence consists of two separate parts that were put together to echo Art's statement, which also consists of two parts that are linked in a logical argument. My response is meant to dispell Art's implied parallellism between Israel and Iran, by presenting each part in (IMHO) its proper context. It was not meant to be viewed as a comparison between Iran and Israel.

however, the idea that goals do not equate to outcomes in wars, implies that the above claim does not have much substance. This is because, from the complexity of wars, one cannot say whether it was rationality, hypocrisy, morality or ... etc. that triggered the actions/inactions we see during the Yom-Kippur war. As a result, it didn't really demonstrate whether Israel can be trusted not to use its WMDs in the future at all. All those events were telling us was that on that occasion for whatever reasons (that we probably shall never really know the truth of), Israel did not use WMDs (thank god!). But it did not add to/substract from the argument whether Israel can be or cannot be trusted.

Very well; however, Art's contention that Israel intends to attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons stems from a single newspaper report. My response, "Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon..." contradicts Art's contention as such an attack was never carried out, and as far as we know no leader of the US or Israel has argued for it. One can argue that is weak inductive reasoning, but I feel that actions (or lack thereof) speak louder than words (even if they are printed by a News International subsidiary, vis a vis hypocrisy). While I do not discount the possibility that such an attack is planned, I highly doubt any Israeli Prime Minister will authorise such a move.

I believe the "twisted logic" Art was referring to previously simply means that one cannot make a convincing argument and call oneself "correct" when one gloss over the details when it suits one, while only go into the essentials when it enhances one's point of view.

If you feel I have "glossed over the details" you may direct me and I'll address whatever details you like. However, it doesn't at all seem as if that was Art's intention:

lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country. Yes this certainly sounds like the usual twisted logic employed by the current despotic leaders of Israel and the US.

I feel I have addressed the basic flaws in Art's perception of "twisted logic" of "despotic leaders". BTW, I don't see how one can take that statement seriously, unless it is some cynical demonstration of native "twisted logic" I do not understand. The true despots by all accounts are the ones which Art supports - the leadership of Iran.

Iran may have a bad image but that doesn't automatically means Israel has a good image either. It is inconclusive.

Fortunately, this stopped being a popularity contest since the days of Cardinal Richelieu.

 

[sneez]

Yonoz, do not take your biased and misinformed opinions so seriously. Observing your posts I wonder why the ops have not contacted you already. Your post examplify in parable the israeli tactics and politics. (Are you israeli jew?)

 

[Yonoz]

Yonoz, do not take your biased and misinformed opinions so seriously.

I don't, until I come across someone with such unbiased and well informed opinions such as yourself.

Observing your posts I wonder why the ops have not contacted you already.

You mean, for things like going off-topic? *wink*

Your post examplify in parable the israeli tactics and politics. (Are you israeli jew?)

Thank you.
May I commend you on your extraordinary powers of observation.

 

[sneez]

Very well, it must be hard to hide your true colors? I knew I was right after couple of posts. But don't mind this little expose, I will go back to observing "you" guys at work, to know what to warn ppl against and how to recognize the tactics.

 

[Yonoz]

Very well, it must be hard to hide your true colors? I knew I was right after couple of posts. But don't mind this little expose, I will go back to observing "you" guys at work, to know what to warn ppl against and how to recognize the tactics.

Now I'm at a loss for words.


You are kidding, right?

 

[sneez]

right

 

[EnumaElish]

Observing your posts I wonder why the ops have not contacted you already.

Who's ops?

 

[EnumaElish]

AGAIN everything is ruined by Israel!

To identify individual posters with countries, states, or racial stereotypes is neither fair nor helpful to the debate, IMO.

 

[Yonoz]

An example of Iran's destabilizing an already disturbed balance of powers: http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=10743

Earlier this week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dispatched his Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki to Damascus with a single message: Tehran wants Aoun and no one else as the next President of Lebanon. Believing that he is pushing the US into retreat across the chessboard, from Afghanistan to Iraq and passing by the Caspian Basin and e Levant, Ahmadinejad hopes that a spectacular success in Lebanon would enhance his own prospects for winning a majority in the Iranian general election next spring.
...
Ahmadinejad’s tough message came at a time that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was gearing himself for a compromise in which his Lebanese clients and allies would abandon Aoun in favor of a “candidate of consensus” as suggested by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.

In Ahmadinejad’s analysis, Syria, now a virtual client state of the Islamic Republic, is trying to keep the option of switching sides open. One way to block that option is to commit Syria to a direct and clear confrontation with the United States and its Arab allies over who should be Lebanon’s next president. The man most likely to provoke such confrontation is Aoun whose election would amount to a clear defeat with the current Lebanese majority headed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and backed by the US and moderate Arab states.

 

[Art]

Yonoz if Iran were to launch an airstrike on Israel would you consider this a stabilizing or destabilizing action?

 

[hazim]

hi, this is my 1st post in this nice forum:). i think most of you are americans...i am from lebanon, lebanese:D, here i can now -maybe- more than you in our politics..realy, Jefry Filtman the embassador of america here allways intervent in the smallest specialities of our concerns...as well as Rise and Wolch and all th american administration...iran and syria now are not interventing in our politics -don't think I'm with Hizbollah or Fouad al-Siniora or any lebanese politician you now...all of them are tools in americas and iran's hands, but especially they are tools for america- whay Wolch intervent the meeting of Aoun and Hariri in Paris, and why Feltman every day have to speak and meet the lebanese politicians and say for example what means that america will not let the president be from a political side (8 March and Aoun)...
there is a big project american administration is working on (mayors and democratic party) aim to divid the countries in the middle east to become weak and make civil wars so it can command and utilize on the fuel and protect israel from national resistance which they consider as terrorism! just to have a pretext to do what it want and to deceive the american and west people...

 

[mjsd]

there is a big project american administration is working on (mayors and democratic party) aim to divid the countries in the middle east to become weak and make civil wars so it can command and utilize on the fuel and protect israel from national resistance which they consider as terrorism! just to have a pretext to do what it want and to deceive the american and west people...

when there is greed and selfishness, people would do whatever they want. It is perhaps not far from the truth that the US is onto something in the middle east more than just "promoting democracy" and "fighting terrorism". But only time will tell whether you grim assessment is correct. In any case, violence from your side or their side is counter-productive to getting a friendship going. Of course, perhaps you guys (not pointing at Lebanon or any particular middle east country or US, just using "you guys" as to mean middle east and the western world), don't actually want to be friends of each other because of differences in opinion on many fronts such as religion, race, culture, trade ...etc. It is almost like if I don't like the Manchester United football team, I shall find it hard to cheer for them or getting along well with the Man Utd fans in the stadium.,...even if we don't go so far as fighting each other with chairs and iron bars.

to get a real friendship going between Iran and the US, they must first tolerate each other differences in opinion on issues like those I have pointed out above. Otherwise, it may be a waste of time and both sides needed to be separated (just like in the stadium) to avoid further conflicts.

but sometimes there are "fans" who just can't stay still and keep inciting violence

 

[-RA-]

I don't think talking about Israel on a thread about Iran is off topic, as the entire reason the whole Iranian issue is even being discussed is due to Israel in the first place. If you watch and believe what the media has to say about Israel you will have gotten a very warped picture. Israel has very powerful media lobby groups in the US (mainly AIPAC), and becuase of this any reporting done on the middle east rarely covers both sides of the story. In contrast Israels neighbours have no lobby groups and so are not given a voice in the whole issue from the beggining.

British Army spokesman Major Charlie Burbridge stresses that there is not firm evidence of any direct Iranian meddling in southern Iraq. And British Army field commander Lt. Col. David Labouchere, whose troops patrol Maysan, says that any Iranian influence is a result of a long and tragic history, one that coalition forces should understand before letting fears of Iranian infiltration influence policy. For 4,000 years the Marsh Arabs have inhabited what is now southern Iraq. For much of that history they were ignored by the various governments that rose and fell in the region. The result is a xenophobic, deeply traditional society where tribal leaders are the highest authority — and where political borders are largely irrelevant.

Meaning they cross into Iran almost daily, often without even realizing it — or caring if they do. Their intents aren’t to smuggle in weapons or to undermine the Iraqi government, but to trade, fish and visit family and friends.

The fact that some of the weapons that end up in Iraq were made in Iran is obvious, but that does nothing to implicate Iran in anything. Using that sort of logic you could claim that America should be stopped, as it has created over half of the weapons on the planet, most of which are used now by terrorists themselves.

Despite the much publicised footage of the Military general showing Iranian made mortars in Iraq, it really does not mean anything significant. Anyone watching it would get the impression that Iran has some sort of secret plan to take over the entire middle east, which is exactly what Cheyney an Co want the public to think, so if they do attack there will be more popular support for the war. Despite all this there has not been ONE case of an Iranin person caught smuggling ANY weapons into Iran. confirmed by a recent Reuters News article; http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071101/ts_nm/britain_iraq_iran_dc

"It's fair to say that no one has caught anyone red-handed bringing in lethal aid across the border," said Major Anthony Lamb, who oversees training of Iraqi border enforcement units.

"Hundreds of searches are carried out every day, but as yet, there hasn't been a direct seizure of lethal aid."

Lamb says on some days, when British forces visit the major border crossing points in southern Iraq, they can see some Iranian trucks turning back, but there's no certainty they're doing so because they're carrying illicit weapons.

"They could be carrying ladies' underwear and be embarrassed about that," he said.

The media does not even have to say anything directly implicating Iran any more. Everyone see's Iran through such paranoid eyes that if they had seen the above story I quoted most of the viewers would probably think that these trucks are actually being used to transport weapons, simply because they are mentioned, even though none of these trucks has EVER been found with ANY weapons in what-so-ever. If there was direct evidence it would be all over the media.

So, if you take into account that there is no evidence of iran trying to destabilize Iraq (which they would not have an interest in doing anyway), no evidence of nuclear weapons, no evidence of weapons being transported across borders and no direct evidence that Iran is not adhering to IAEA guidlines, apart from pure speculation, what exactly is Iran accused of?

 

[mjsd]

The media does not even have to say anything directly implicating Iran any more. Everyone see's Iran through such paranoid eyes that if they had seen the above story I quoted most of the viewers would probably think that these trucks are actually being used to transport weapons, simply because they are mentioned, even though none of these trucks has EVER been found with ANY weapons in what-so-ever. If there was direct evidence it would be all over the media.

So, if you take into account that there is no evidence of iran trying to destabilize Iraq (which they would not have an interest in doing anyway), no evidence of nuclear weapons, no evidence of weapons being transported across borders and no direct evidence that Iran is not adhering to IAEA guidlines, apart from pure speculation, what exactly is Iran accused of?

don't forget those "direct evidence" that led to the Iraq war in the first place.
Iraq had WMDs and had the capability to depoly them in 45 mins and to strike Britian and its allies; satellite photos showing suspiciously moving trucks; thousands of underground lanuch pads in the Iraqi desert; Iraq had links to Al-Qaeda and would be willing to supply them with chemical and biological weapons to use against the coalition of the willing; they have sought uranium from Africa; also President Bush had told us that Iraq is part of the axis of evil who will threaten the freedom loving world and must be stopped at all costs; it was a clear and present danger because Saddam Hussien was a dictator who kills and torture his own citizens with chemcial weapons; and remember the former Iraqi govt kept the weapon inspectors going in circles and playing cat and mouse with Hans Blix...

so the conclusion is that since Iran has been more or less playing the same game that Iraq had played, if not more sinister, therefore, in order to protect the well-being of the freedom loving ppl, and continue the free trade and healthy globalisation, we have no choice but to stirke Iran preemptively and ask questions later (Remember we civilised ppl have principles and don't negotiate with terrorists). It is a small price to pay for achieveing a common good.

It is fortunate that we have the Iraq case to compare with otherwise the case against Iran would be harder to get through to the masses. So, since it is correct to go into Iraq, there is no reasons not to go into Iran who poses an even bigger threat for it has a larger border (hence, potentially more underground launch pads)...

And if that's not good enough a reason to strike Iran, then perhaps I am really missing something here.

 

[-RA-]

don't forget those "direct evidence" that led to the Iraq war in the first place.
Iraq had WMDs and had the capability to depoly them in 45 mins and to strike Britian and its allies;

I thought that this 45 minute claim was made on fundamentally wrong intelligence, and no weapons were ever found. The 45-minute claim was meant to refer only to battlefield weapons. MI6 certainly knew. During the Hutton inquiry, the head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, had first acknowledged that the reference to 45 minutes had referred to short-range weapons. John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who insisted that he “owned” the document, also said he knew. And Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon admitted to Hutton that he too was aware of the nature of the 45-minute claim. Unfortunately the only person that didn't seem to realize this was Blair. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/wmds-f07.shtml

satellite photos showing suspiciously moving trucks; thousands of underground lanuch pads in the Iraqi desert;

Again, if you are looking at this through paranoid eyes it looks a lot worse than it actually is. how can a truck be suspiciously moving? they were probably just normal trucks. And there is no law against a country having launch pads.

Iraq had links to Al-Qaeda and would be willing to supply them with chemical and biological weapons to use against the coalition of the willing;

I am sure that this claim has been refuted. Sadam HATED Al-Queda, they would be the last people he would give a weapon to. General Wesley Clark, Former Commanding General of U.S. European Command, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, (which included all American military activities in the 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East) has recently said in the award winning documentray called 'breaking the silence' that "I never saw any of the intelligence, and thus far there has been no evidence produced to imply that Saddam was behing Al-Queda. In-fact in my experience in the time i served it was just the opposite, Saddam was the least likely person to want anything to do with Al-Queda. The only reason to have gone to war was to deal with a threat so imminent and so dangerous that war, as a last resort, was the only means available. As I weighed the evidence, and watched the debate amoung others and reflected on my own experience, as i listened to the discussions in the pentagon, inside the whitehouse, as i checked with sources in congress, people who work hard on the intelligence; That simply wasn't the case."

'The Sept. 11 commission reported that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda'; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

'Pentagon report debunks prewar Iraq-Al Qaeda connection' Declassified document cites lack of 'evidence of a long-term relationship,' http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html

BBC " There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News. "; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm

They have sought uranium from Africa;

What has that got to do with anything? Korea also got some of their technology from china? i am not sure what point you are making by saying that.

also President Bush had told us that Iraq is part of the axis of evil who will threaten the freedom loving world and must be stopped at all costs; it was a clear and present danger because Saddam Hussien was a dictator who kills and torture his own citizens with chemcial weapons;

Saddam was a nasty guy, make no mistake, but he was certainly not as dangerous as the press suggested. Why on Earth would a tiny country like Iraq try to attack the UK or US? Saddam may not be a very nice guy, but he's not stupid, he would be well aware that his entire country would be obliterated by America and Israel before he could do any significant damage to anyone. Which country did Saddam get these chemical weapons from then? I think you will find it was America, a fact that is often overlooked. Which makes the idea that anyone who supplies 'rogue' states with weapons should be attacked highly ironic as the US comes top in the list of arming rogue regimes.

and remember the former Iraqi govt kept the weapon inspectors going in circles and playing cat and mouse with Hans Blix...

The main respected weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly, said that there was no evidence of weapons. He was going to testify to that infront of a panel, but was found dead days before, buts that's a whole different issue. There was NO eveidence from the inspectors of weapons, or they would have said that. Also, Hans Blix, that you brought up, said In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, that the U.S. and British governments had drastically overexaggerated the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

so the conclusion is that since Iran has been more or less playing the same game that Iraq had played, if not more sinister, therefore, in order to protect the well-being of the freedom loving ppl, and continue the free trade and healthy globalisation, we have no choice but to stirke Iran preemptively and ask questions later (Remember we civilised ppl have principles and don't negotiate with terrorists). It is a small price to pay for achieveing a common good.

Do you honestly think that an attack on Iran would improve stability? it would more likely start a bigger war, as Russia, Syria and other countries are firmly on Irans side on this debate. Think of the impression this will give to the entire muslim world aswell, you would probably have every muslim leader in the middle east declaring jihad on Israel and the US. Remeber how angrily the muslim population reacted to that cartoon picture being published, attacking Iran would be so much worse. What would happen after the attack? another Iraq type situation? we would more likely end up with a more extreme leader in Iran than the current one. Most times America has intervened in foriegn situations they end up making it worse, and i don't expect Iran will be any different.

 

[hazim]

american adminstration is controlled by the bigist companies of weapons and fuel and by zionism! these wars done by america here and there, america's adminstration doesn't matter with it how many soldiers die in her wars ( excipt the pressure of american people..) in her wars it disburse the products of weapons ( specially in Saudi Arabia and different Gulf countries...as we see) and also it obtains the fuel...but in some places it is easier for it to get this fuel from a place were there is no real country or in the existence of sectarian and ethnic struggles (iraq, darfur) also america needs to be the strongest adminstration;that's for economical reasons not for the american countries, but for the big companies i mentioned which are controlled by zionism...how can you believe that interposition lebanon by america is for its nationalistic security, as bush said!...
about the iraqian weapons of saddam husein, there is a quasi information tells that saddam was told to confess faking that these weapons were transported to syria and he will not hanged; that is also from the ways of pressuring on syria

 

[kach22i]

about the iraqian weapons of saddam husein, there is a quasi information tells that saddam was told to confess faking that these weapons were transported to syria and he will not hanged; that is also from the ways of pressuring on syria

So Saddam did ship WMD's to Syria after all?

Do you have a link or article to post which I can read about this?

 

[Yonoz]

RICE'S[/PLAIN] STRATEGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Present at the Creation

By David Brooks in Jordan

What is Condi doing?

This is the question that's been floating around foreign policy circles over the past few months. It is then followed by more specific questions: Why is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spending her remaining time in office banging her head against the Israeli-Palestinian problem? Why has she bothered to make eight trips to the region this year? What can possibly be accomplished when the Israeli government is weak and the Palestinian society is divided?

It took a trip to the region for me to finally understand that this peace process is unlike any other. It's not really about Israel and the Palestinians; it's about Iran. Rice is constructing a coalition of the losing. There is a feeling among Arab and Israeli leaders that an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance is on the march. The nations that resist that alliance are in retreat. The peace process is an occasion to gather the "moderate" states and to construct what Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center calls an anti-Iran counter-alliance.
...
Iran has done what decades of peace proposals have not done -- brought Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Palestinians and the U.S. together. You can go to Jerusalem or to some Arab capitals and the diagnosis of the situation is the same: Iran is gaining hegemonic strength over the region and is spreading tentacles of instability all around.

The Syrians, who have broken with the Sunni nations and attached themselves to Iran, are feeling stronger by the day. At least one-third of Iraq is under Iranian influence. Hezbollah is better armed and more confident now than it was before its war against Israel. Hamas is being drawn closer inside the Iranian orbit and is more likely to take over the West Bank than lose its own base in Gaza.

 

[-RA-]

You can go to Jerusalem or to some Arab capitals and the diagnosis of the situation is the same: Iran is gaining hegemonic strength over the region and is spreading tentacles of instability all around.

How? is there any direct evidence of this happening? or is this just another person looking at the whole issue with the pesumption that Iran is evil and so everything they do is part of some conspiracy to destry the middle east and the west (a truly ridiculous notion). Iran sits on one of largest oil fields in the world, so it naturally follows it is going to be gaining strength. If there was direct evidence of Iran directly destablizing i would believe it, but i have yet to see it. I would agree that Iran is gaining hegemonic strength, but its hegemonic stregth is absolutely NOTHING when compared to the power Israel still has over the Middle east, which is ironically why Iran is gaining support in the first place, due to Israel's provocative nature.

Also, Mr David Brooks, that wrote that article, is a well known supporter of Israel and Interventionist policies. Before the Iraq War, Brooks had argued forcefully on moral grounds for American military intervention, echoing the belief of neoconservative commentators and political figures that American and British forces would be welcomed as liberators. In 2007, he argued that withdrawing from Iraq would result in 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month, but later admitted on Meet the Press that he had "just picked that 10,000 out of the air."

I would suggest that a person with such strong views on Interventing in foreign countries is not an ideal person to believe when deciding on what to do about Iran. The trouble is the vast majority of people in the mainstream news have similar pro-Israeli/zionist based ideas about the middle east, so you will probably direct me to another editor with equally biased views. A lot of his stories can be seen on one of the main zionist sites online; http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000163.html and if you read the articles he has written there you will find out that he always brings up how dangerous Iran is, without ever stating the actual hard reasons as to why this is the case.

 

[Yonoz]

If there was direct evidence of Iran directly destablizing i would believe it, but i have yet to see it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/04/international/i083503S35.DTL
Former Hizbullah Secretary-General Sheik Subhi Al-Tufeili
Lebanese Minister of Defense: Lebanon, Iran, and Syria Supply Hizbullah with Weapons
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/iran_hezbollah_e1b.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=746631
Iran and Syria as Strategic Support for Palestinian Terrorism
...and then of course there are the multiple controversial statements and actions by the current Iranian president, which - no matter how you translate them - show Iran's lack of respect for the status-quo, in an understatement.

I would agree that Iran is gaining hegemonic strength, but its hegemonic stregth is absolutely NOTHING when compared to the power Israel still has over the Middle east, which is ironically why Iran is gaining support in the first place, due to Israel's provocative nature.

You are attributing too much power to Israel - the burden of proof is on you now. Also, I believe it is the demise of its traditional foe - the Baathist regime in Iraq - that is the most fundamental cause for its rising support.
What do you mean by "provocative nature"?

Very odd, it seems to me as if he has a separate agenda than just reporting the news.

His agenda is quite clear, thankfully this isn't a news report, it's an OP-ED piece.
It doesn't seem he is calling for interventionism in this piece - I hope he's learned his lesson. Would you know what are his current views on the Iraq war?