kactus

Hmmm! That's debatable and I beg to disagree! You see I see Israel as a big complex military state and not necessarily a democracy. Yeah sure compared to some puppet regime in the ME (which the US has supported and sponsored in the past) Israel may adhere to some princilples of a "democracy" but by far they are not democratic. Anyway the focus of my argument concern's Oleg Bach's post earlier and the hypocracy as I see it with US foreign policy during GWB era.

How true the above statement!!! It speaks volume about the hypocrisy when it comes to dealing on matters concerning foreign policy and setting priorities straight! Oh wait... Afghanistan is already in a mess and things are bound to get worse given the current climate in Pakistan. But hey let's pocket in more money to arms manufacturers and shovel it up saudis corrupted puppet kings.

I am not aware I attacked you in any post. I'm sorry if you feel that way. My point of contention is the relevance of your post by bringing in the muslims in Malmo to the west selling arms to saddam during the eighties and somehow making the connection between the two. Whether Malmo is a paradise or hell for muslims or jews for that matter doesn't concern me as regards to the topic at hand!

And your point is!?? We're talking about Iraq here and why the weapons were sold to Saddam not another muslim bashing and linking this thread to anti israeli Malmo Davis cup protest!

The problem with the US inteference and meddling of internal affairs of ME countries for decades has proved counterproductive. Presence in Saudi Arabia with the blessings of the saudi king and prior to the revolution in Iran with the blessings of the Shah (a brutal dictator) and meddling in Iran's domestic affairs...what could be the problem? SAVAK, his bloody secret police? US has been involved in many countries with the blessings of their dictators and not to spread peace and love. Let's face some historical reality. The US is not blameless...to the contrary. Then comes the case for the invasion of Iraq which wasn't about liberation. This is clear for a number of reasons: 1- The primary reason for invading Iraq was supposed to be neutralising the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, which supposedly, constituted an imminent threat. Saddam, supposedly, could attack the US "on any given day" (quoting Bush). The liberation of Iraq from its dictator (who the US had supported during the Iran-Iraq war), was certainly never cited as the primary reason for invasion until after it became clear that the stories about WMD were fabrications and "sexed up" 2- If we look at what happened in Iraq following the invasion, the actual motivation for the invasion become clear. Bush appointed Paul Bremer as the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, with powers that amounted to that of a dictator. Bremer issued hundreds of decrees, which became law. He used this power to ensure that Iraq, with its massive oil wealth, was ripe for exploitation by foreign (mainly American) corporations. (See here for a brief synopsis: http://www.thebushagenda.net/) 3- Let's look at the history of US foreign policy, we see that the US has no particular desire to foster democracy, especially when it contradicts US interests. For example, the US provided support for the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, who attempted to overthrow the democratically elected Sandanista government (and, eventually, succeed), while at the same time, supporting brutal regimes in countries like El Salvador. My main point of contention here is this: Some people here think trying diplomacy to solve problems and conflicts in the world specifically in the case with Iran is hopeless and Obama is an appeaser, and we're in big trouble because he won't be tough enough. Not to forget that Bush actually made the U.S. less safe due to his heavy-handed, go-it-alone approach. Again, it's hard to believe in honestly that Gitmo and Abu Ghrab made US safer. Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin Gitmo undercut the US case that represents a set of values that all can admire. It became a symbol for cruelty and a powerful recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Why should the world prefer US to, say, China as the global leader if there are no committments to the rule of law? This in essence makes the US look foolish, since the tactics were so counterproductive. Is Obama naive and Pollyanish? I have seen no evidence to support that conclusion. But I have every reason to believe he's more rational that George Bush. Of all of Bush's awful legacies, I think losing Afghanistan (unless Obama can turn the disaster around) due to his idiotic crusade in Iraq will be the worst: http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/200...nd-iraq-what-if

Well there are normally two scenarios: 1- One doesn't agree with what the article says 2- One tries discredit an article based on the background of the author In your case it seems to be the latter one. But you also discredited the BBC article posted earlier. No offence dude but articles on written in wikipedia are not exactly vetted or credible source for reference. Nevertheless I am always eager to hear both sides of the story.

Thanks for posting the article!

Coming back to the topic at hands again Israel alone is not capable enough to start a war or destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran which is why they are advocating the US and the rest to take part. Real question still remains on whether Obama as a president is influential enough to steer the direction of US policy or whether there are others behind the scenes who call the shot. It is unfortunate that Iran's nuclear program seems to cloud all other news positive or negative that comes out from that country. A shift of focus in policy is what is really needed here to mend the bridges and start taking a different path from what that didn't pay any dividend in the past. http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseac...askthisid=00328

I meant I advocate for full withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Let there be no mistake! I have always mainatined that the blame rests on the west as well as others for supplying Iraq with chemical weapons. Not at all! I will maintain that certain US policies in the middle east and meddling in internal affairs of the countries has not been helpful and infact has backfired. Removal of Saddam was a good step and he did oppress a lot of his own people but the west did certainly have their share of blame for financing Saddam in the eighties to win a war against Iran and subsequently killing many kurds. That is what I have problem with.

Damage is done. It's too late now. What I'd like to see is a quick exit of our troops out of Iraq.

Are we playing devils's advocate Dancer? This is not the question of who should take the blame for supplying Iraq with chemicals. Fact is Saddam was supplied by some western companies as well as Russia with these weapons percentages in supply remain details. And he used these against his own people and iraninans.

An old friend becomes a new enemy. This has been the US policy in the ME. Iraq (Saddam) back in the eighties was a proxy ally of the US, which is why US didn't object and turned a blind eye to his crime using the chemicals against kurds and iranians during the eight year Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). Afterall the Ayatollahs were the bad guys and Saddam was an ally so much for a hind sight from the US that an ally will turn against him. After the invasion of Kuwait and soaring oil prices Saddam became a liability for US and reached his expiry date. The trouble is with 6 years now after the invasion and removal of Saddam in Iraq not much has changed and secterian violence is ever so strong.

Why does any conversagtion with you gets so personal? Can you not handle a civilised conversation? Here's what YOU have said on this: And please don't tell me they were for agricultural purpose. Hmmm, the old fashion way is gassing the kurds with chemicals interesting!

Errm! Not according to the article from BBC posted earlier and many other sources. This is contradictory tp what you stated earlier. Plus the western companies. I never disputed that! The whole point was that under Saddam's rule he did utilise those chemicals against the kurds and iranians in Hallabja, for which the west tried to turn a blind eye for a while.

It's the oldest trick in the book. Creating divisions amongst various factions will allow the west to have a better control over Iraq. The same old 'divide and conquer' tactics. Exactly! The irony is with the current situation in Pakistan is worse than ever with the amount of intelligence shared between pakistani forces and the taliban. But hey they are our so called "allies on war on terror".

You mean with the chemical weapons given to Saddam by west and Russia?? Here's an interesting article on this: Full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1877161.stm Atleast I am not selective in my views and mix and choose words to suit my agenda!!!

Not sunnis alone. Under Saddam's rule he gave order to sunni devotees to prosecute non sunni factions such as kurds and shi'as. The point is that if not less there's more or less same amount of chaos and disorder now in Iraq than before the invasion.

Iraq is the creation of british influence and Ottoman empire. Shias and sunnis plus the kurds you're referring to have lived alongside eachother in Iraq for a long time. Maybe not peaceful at times but certainly better since US invasion which led to more chaos and sectarian violence. It's an if and again you're working on a scenario. Frankly I would rather have the whole region including Israel de-militarised but that just wouldn't work! No body seemed to talk much about the word 'profileration' even when Pakistan became nuclear but now Iran is the hot spot. But wait! I see Pakistan is an ally of US on the so called 'war on terror' and Iran is part of 'axis of evil'. Hypocrisy? Hmmm!

With that you're opening a different can of worm and you know where this is heading! Israel is quite capable to defend itself without others shedding crockodile tears. What is your definition of strongest army in ME? There's no right or wrong answer. I think considering the geo_politics and the number of countries the US has invaded in the region it makes it ever more justified to spend on defence.

That's a very simplistic view.

Iran historically is and remains a powerful country in the ME, which confirms what I said before. But I am not buying in to this convenient argument that Iran is a bully to her neighbours.

Sorry M I had to edit my post as I realised the history of Iraq and indeed many other countries in the ME does not stretch that long. But as for the rest I agree that there has been many invasions and conquering in the ME. But then again the history shows that this is not unique to ME! It happened everywhere.

That's just a scenario. But let me tell you this if Iran is pushed by constant threats of an attack by Israel or the west your scenario would be quite likely as a counter attack. Which is why I think this whole idea of attacking a sovereign country is futile. Besides the point of reference concerned Israel's daily rhetoric that Iran's nuclear arms is a danger tro the rest of the world. For centuries the indigenous population of these countries have lived alongside eachother! Not maybe the way you and me wanted to but they have survived many adversaries. Frankly I don't buy into this Iran controling the ME and just see it as an excuse the west is cooking up to have more control over the oil. But for sure a stronger Iran militarily will shift the balance of power in favour of Iran. A monopoly Israel has enjoyed for many decades. My beer offer has been open for a long time. I guess I'll have to get used to the idea that it's pretty much safe in Iran as long as the oil contracts are signed.

Bottom line is for the past 9 years people including belligerent israeli policy makers have been on the case to portray Iran as a danger to the world peace as an excuse for an attack. How is Iran or even a nuclear armed Iran (using that scenario) is a danger to Canada, UK or even the US for that matter is mind bogglin. What needs to happen here is a focus on the poor human right records of Iran as a priority not demonising the whole nation. But then again knowing the americans they very often mis-calculated in the past the opportunities in the way that they could more actively and peacefully engage in the middle east. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case through GWB government and I wonder what changes Obama can really bring on the table! Afterall he is the president but whether he HAS THE POWER to change/ influence the foreign policy in the middle east or whether there are others involved behind thew scenes that call the shot remains to be seen. In short in regards to Iran nothing will happen! People have been telling me that an attack on Iran is imminent after the Iraq invasion. Nothing has happened and nothing will happen! Watch this space! I will even buy those a beer.