The Neo-Cons' Next War - Has it Already Begun?

The real reason why Bush has repeatedly blocked a ceasefire in Lebanon is that the killing is not about the Lebanese, to an extent as far as the US administration is concerned, it is not even about Hezbollah. It is about Iran.

This is highlighted in a number of articles in today’s US press, not least this excellent report on the front of the LA Times which describes what is effectively a return to the Cold War style use of proxies to fight America’s cause. Just as during the Cold War a number of Latin American countries were aided by the US in their fight against communist rebels with the real battle being against Moscow, so here Israel is being used to attack Hezbollah in an attempt to damage Tehran.

To that end, the civilians who die, whether they be the Lebanese civilians dying in large numbers as at Qana or the Israelis being killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks, are just pawns in a much larger game. One of the more worrying things about the current attacks is that they are seen by the Bush administration as a positive move that will damage Hezbollah but somehow strengthen the democratically elected Lebanese government.

The idea that anyone thinks this is remotely possible represents a remarkable triumph of neo-con ideology over common-sense. Thank you Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, whose influence appears to have won the day against that of the more pragmatic Condoleezza Rice. She of course has to try to pick up the pieces in her latest wasted trip to the region, the Qana attack having made her mission impossible.

The belief expressed on this blog - that the air attacks and the resultant deaths of hundreds of civilians can only enhance Hezbollah’s standing while at the same time causing serious damage to Israel’s position - is backed up by some thoughtful comments from Richard Armitage, the former deputy under-secretary of state. 

"Don't get me wrong - if I thought that this air campaign would work and would eliminate [Hasan] Nasrallah and the leadership of Hezbollah, I think it would all be fine," he said. "But I fear that you can't do that from the sky and that you're going to end up empowering Hezbollah and perhaps introducing a dynamic into the body politic in Lebanon that will take some great period of time to recover from."

That new element will not of course be in favour of the west nor will it be opposed to Iran, where the attacks are seen as the prelude for the real game, the war on Iran that the neo-cons in the administration want. Bush is said to be determined to deal with Iran before the end of his presidency.

“Israel and the US knew that as long as Hamas and Hezbollah were there, confronting Iran would be costly,” said Mohsen Rezai, former head of the Revolutionary Guards. “So, to deal with Iran, they first want to eliminate forces close to Iran that are in Lebanon and Palestine.”

An attack on Iran would be incredibly stupid, but given the nature of this administration we can’t rule it out. If Iran sees the current Israeli assault on Hezbollah as a prelude for an attack on Iran by the US - presumably aided by the nuclear-armed Israel - it is difficult to see how it will be possible for Britain, France and Germany to persuade Tehran it does not need nuclear weapons. But of course that is what the neo-cons want. They have already lined up Iran's refusal to end its nuclear weapons programme as the excuse for war.

Comments

[Mike]

I agree with you Mick. Lets just call it what it is. . .WWIII. The US, I think, has welcomed this offensive by Isreal. I think they know that Isreal's efforts are not going to eliminate Hezbolla. I think they see this as a way of provoking Iran. Saying "come on. Put your money where your mouth is Iran. You say you want to wipe Isreal off of the map. Now go and do something as Isreal bombs Lebanon endlessly. Give the US a reason to bomb you." The Isreali's realize, I think, that they will do little to get rid of Hezbolla. In fact, they have to know that they are just creating more terrorists. Their hope is that Iran will get pulled into this, and the US will engage them, before Iran can get a nuclear missle. I truly believe this has been the US/Isreal plan the entire time. Make Iran appear as the aggressor. Bait them into a battle to eliminate their infrastructure for a nuclear weapon. The US and the whole world knows that the UN/Europe's negotiations will go absolutely no where with Iran. The US is not going to leave disarming Iran to Europe and its fruitless negotiations.

[Frank Schnittger]

The war against Iran has been in preparation for some time – as witnessed by Jack Straw’s summary dismissal for suggesting that such a war would be daft. It will probably begin in earnest with massive air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the war in Lebanon now is by way of limiting Iran’s ability to retaliate.

However I doubt that there will be a ground offensive as there was in Iraq. The US doesn’t have the forces for a second such grand assault, and has probably lost some enthusiasm for direct involvement in regime change and nation building. That is why the fate of the democratically elected Lebanese Government has not figured highly in its calculations. Lebanon isn’t a significant political or military player in any case, and more importantly, it doesn’t have oil.

The deal for Israel is that it gets to have another go at pacifying the Southern Lebanon region – something it also tried to do in the 1980’s when it occupied the region for many years. It also gets the green light to continue its repressive policies towards Palestinians. All the focus is on military rather than political solutions to the problems of the region.

America’s domination of the globe is now almost complete. It has troops stationed in over 100 countries worldwide and very few countries - Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela – are still able to sustain a hostile or independent policy stance. Most regimes in the Middle East and central Asia are directly controlled by pro-American elites – and very few are democratic.

The remaining few hostile (or independent) countries can expect increased military and political pressure to fall in line sooner rather than later. There have been over 50 American attempts to change regimes deemed to be unsympathetic since 1945 (many of them democratically elected) culminating in the recently attempted coup d'État in Venezuela.

Those who rail at Tony Blair’s subservience to Bush don’t get the bigger picture. We are all now just colonies of the Great American Empire. Americans may be free, but we are their captives - economically, militarily, and increasingly, politically as well.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

dear Mr. Smith,

Really, this obsession you have with "neo-cons" is worrisome. You set them up as a war-mongering cabal in the same way that the "America First" movement, during the 1930's, set the British up as cranking up a war fever against the peace-loving Germans.

Neo-Conservatives are a philosophical movement within the Republican Party. One of its members is Irving Kristol whose explanation is better than mine. See

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp?pg=1

You give your game away when you cite the LA Times and Richard Armitage as your sources. These people have wanted to sabotage George Bush's foreign policy from the beginning. These people are A Level graduates of the Neville Chamberlain Diplomatic Correspondence School. There is no Arab/ Moslem tyrant they will not appease.

You know nothing about Israel or the nature of the Jewish people if you think we'd play Ghurkas to Bush's Imperial Army.
The blinders you have on re the nature of the Lebanon struggle is truly amazing.
Two of our people were kidnapped on our own soil. Our past experience with captured soldiers have shown that Arabs/Moslems will not let the Red Cross visit them, will eventually kill them when they get bored and will bargain their bones for Arabs in Israeli jails. This is the nub of it. You have a history of callousness with your own people but we refuse to be like you. This Lebanon thing has nothing to do with Iran in the immediate sense.

Why Iran later? Because any idiot( not you of course) can see that we have a coming nuclear exchange. George Bush should be commended for seeing this and wanting to head it off and you should also. However, I can sense your preferred scenario : let the Iranians rid us of these troublesome Jews.

Before these troublesome Jews disappear, they'll set off a nuclear winter. It's in everyone's interest that these rabid Moslems be defanged rather than appeased. We've seen this scenario already in Europe during the 1930's.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Mr. Smith,

Rather than Iran being the innocent victim of a "neo-con plan", it's seen as the instigator of the current crisis.

A London based Arab paper makes the claim

see http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD122006

Check the paper, it's in London. I'm sure it's easy to find a translator if you don't trust the source.

[Tim Coulson]

In making this calculation one has to wonder where the US would get the troops to launch a war against Iran. The US are already overstretched with commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan and if we assume that resurrecting the draft is a non-starter thirty years down the line then they simply haven't the capacity to launch another offensive and retain a prudent reserve.

To imagine that anyone could launch air-strikes against Iran without the conflict escalating rapidly and unpredictably is just delusional.

Opening a new front in Iran while Iraq is still in it's current state would seem to be a madly ill-advised decision given the closeness between Iran and the Shiites in the south of Iraq. Iran also shares a border with Afghanistan. However powerful the American military is I doubt the generals would want to take on a mission across a theatre of war stretching so far and wide.

[Firozali A Mulla MBA PhD]

There is act and mouse play here. All past presidents have stated FIRMLY that they are with Israel. Dr. Rice wanted to go to Beirut. This is just a time past a taxpayer’s money touring and showing the concern of the Mildest crises. All of a sudden, bang the 30+ children died. All innocent. The strategy of firing at the terrorist or Hezbollah was all wrong and Israel spokesperson keep on honking that there were Hezbollah in the peaceful town of Qana. To cover the story of misfire what comes next. One murder lead to another one lie leads to another hence Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the UN, told the Security Council that Qana was "a hub for Hezbollah". Israeli military officials also released a video, which they claimed shows rockets being fired from the town. Dr. Rice postponed going to Beirut to seek time and statement “official” as to what next step the USA should take. UN offices were shatters in these blasts and there is no UN now in MIDEAST.
I have been saying. UN is an NGO fed by USA.

[Freedom]

For once I agree with Emanuel absolutely when he says "You know nothing about Israel or the nature of the Jewish people if you think we'd play Ghurkhas to Bush's Imperial Army".

The remarkable thing is the degree to which Israel is actually running American foreign policy both directly and indirectly through their influence in the neo-conservative movement and the lobbying/bribery/intimidation activities of AIPAC.

He makes much of the two Israeli Soldiers captured by Hezbollah, and ignores the thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli jails without trial or access to lawyers and often subjected to torture as documented by Amnesty International. He makes much of the very few Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah, and considers the 600 Lebanese civilians killed by Israeli to be authors of their own misfortune because some of their compatriots voted for Hezbollah candidates in Lebanese elections.

The Bush administration has bought into the Zionist line because it suits their larger purpose to dominate the Middle East and control the region’s oil supplies. The Palestinians and Lebanese don’t matter very much either way in this narrative – they are just barriers to the ever greater expansion of Israel and will soon be deported to captured territories elsewhere. Perhaps they will be offered part of Iraq when the Bush administration gives up on the centralised regime there and divides the country up into Shia, Sunni, Kurd, and deported Palestinian enclaves.

The “war against terrorism” is just a flag of convenience to give all of this a veneer of respectability and moral justification. Every small act of terrorism or even passive resistance becomes an opportunity for ever larger military adventures directed primarily not at the terrorists themselves, but at the surrounding countries which Israel and the US want to dominate, capture or control.

Far from the “war on Terrorism” being an attempt to pre-empt greater wars in the future, it is the Third World War in all but name – directed at any country which is not totally compliant to American and Zionist foreign policy objectives.

[Randal]

Excellent stuff, Mr Smith!

Note that the initial (and probably correct) political and media commentary following Israel's attack on Lebanon was all about how Hezbollah, in launching a long-predicted operation designed to sieze prisoners for exchange with prisoners held by the Israelis, had been caught off balance by an unexpectedly massive Israeli escalation. Within a few days, though, the political and media comment was all about how Syria and Iran were "behind" the Hezbollah operation, and it was planned by Iran in order to interfere with US-led attempts to organise opposition to the Iranian nuclear program, or by Syria in order to try to regain influence in Lebanon. This was presumably an orchestrated campaign to prepare the ground for further escalation against Syria and/or Iran, but in the last few days seems (to me, at any rate), to have been largely abandoned as the Israeli attack on Lebanon has stalled.

An analysis of the political statements, opinion pieces, etc which fueled this attempt to mis-direct the popular perception of the situation would be very interesting, I think, in identifying those media and political figures preferentially used by the US and UK regimes and other interested parties for this kind of spin.

Anyway, you are correct both that an attack on Iran would be incredibly stupid, and that that is no reason to assume the current US regime would not do it.

As for Armitage's contemptible comment ("if I thought that this air campaign would work and would eliminate [Hasan] Nasrallah and the leadership of Hezbollah, I think it would all be fine"), I might occasionally feel tempted to advocate similarly nasty ideas about the US Republican and Democrat parties and their leaderships, or the British Labour Parrty for that matter, but at least I can recognise when my emotions are carrying away my reason and humanity, and step back. Armitage evidently has no such human self-restraint on the issue of Hezbollah, perhaps because he shares the widespread, and stupidly ignorant, view of Hezbollah as "just terrorists".

If readers want to see this point dealt with by somebody who actually knows what he is talking about, and is reasonably honest regarding the Middle East, try Juan Cole's blog today: http://www.juancole.com/2006/07/what-is-hizbullah-western-and-israeli.html

[Mick says: Hezbollah like Hamas are certainly not "just terrorists", just as certain the members of IRA were not "just terrorists" but I'm afraid I'm not prepared to cut them any slack over terrorist acts simply because they also function as a political party. Hezbollah have a record of brutal terrorist attacks and of course kidnappings going back to the mid-1980s. They havent stopped commiting terrorist acts so they are terrorists.]

[Randal]

"[Mick says: Hezbollah like Hamas are certainly not "just terrorists", just as certain the members of IRA were not "just terrorists" but I'm afraid I'm not prepared to cut them any slack over terrorist acts simply because they also function as a political party. Hezbollah have a record of brutal terrorist attacks and of course kidnappings going back to the mid-1980s. They havent stopped commiting terrorist acts so they are terrorists.]"

If you are using the Irish analogy, Hezbollah is analogous to political Sinn Fein rather than the IRA itself. (In my own opinion, the IRA itself was purely a terrorist organisation, but Sinn Fein clearly was not, for all the close connection between the two).

David Clark has a nice piece about this today on the Guardian's website (including a timely, but very rare - in the mainstream media - reference to the terrorist background of the Dawa Party of the US's pet Iraqi regime's Prime Minister, Nuri al Maliki). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1833930,00.html

As for "haven't stopped committing terrorist acts", please do feel free to itemise all the genuinely "terrorist" acts committed by Hezbollah in, say, the last 5 years. Attacks on Israeli military personnel are by definition not acts of terrorism, of course. Nor are actions causing collateral damage to civilians during military operations, unless you are willing to condemn the US and UK governments as terrorist organisations on a far greater scale. Even defining as acts of terrorism Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israeli cities during the current war triggered by Israel's attack on Lebanon would be deeply hypocritical, unless similar condemnation were applied to the US and UK governments' strategic bombing campaigns in WW2.

[alex]

I think some people (Israel especially) seem unable to see the cliff that the world is teetering on, as this crisis shows the distinct possibility of exploding into a regional, and then global conflict, if we are not already surrounded by such a conflict. The interests of Israel are obviously important to the people of that nation, but the continued troubles there are, as always, putting the balance at risk. Should Iran be provoked too much it could be at a greater cost than the lives of a few Israelis and hundreds of Lebanese.

[James]

"An attack on Iran would be incredibly stupid..."

---

No, Mick, an attack on Iran is incredibly necessary - to prevent Islamofanatic terrorists from obtaining nuclear bombs (one of which would find its way to London). It would be incredibly dumb to allow the Iranians to get those bombs.

Nor do only neo-cons want such. A majority of Americans wants Iran prevented from obtaining those weapons (Americans having far, far, far more common sense than Europeans).

Alex: "I think some people (Israel especially) seem unable to see the cliff that the world is teetering on, as this crisis shows the distinct possibility of exploding into a regional, and then global conflict, if we are not already surrounded by such a conflict."

---

Alex - I assure you the Israelis are perfectly cognizant of the possibility of wider war. And yes, the conflict between terrorist nations and the rest of the world is now global.

It is far better to have a big war now, and to take out the giant hornet's nest of terrorism-loving governments, than to wait for the job to get even bigger (and worse).

That was the big mistake in World War II.

I for one prefer a big war to a World War. If we wait, it will be a World War.

James

[Randal]

Alex:

"I think some people (Israel especially) seem unable to see the cliff that the world is teetering on, as this crisis shows the distinct possibility of exploding into a regional, and then global conflict"

Without wishing to differ much from your overall sentiments, I find it difficult to see how this could expand into a global conflict. Regional, certainly, if Syria or Iran are drawn into it, or if any of the pro-US Arab dictatorships are swept away.

But there isn't the scope for a global conflict, imo, because all rival powers that could enter such a war have pretty much ceded the Middle East as a US sphere of influence. Other muslim countries are simply not global players.

About the only route out of the ME I can see for this crisis to expand would be if the pro-US Pakistani dictatorship were to fall.

I suppose that's a good thing, that we are not faced with the risk of global conflict (beyond the already ongoing 4GW islam/US confrontation, that is). On the other hand, it means there is less to discourage the half-wit in the White House and his neocon/dispensationalist nutter svengalis from murderously messing with other peoples' lives.

"Should Iran be provoked too much it could be at a greater cost than the lives of a few Israelis and hundreds of Lebanese. "

The reality is that it is Iran which is under threat from the US and Israel, rather than anybody else being at risk from Iran, provoked or not.

[Randal]

James:

"No, Mick, an attack on Iran is incredibly necessary - to prevent Islamofanatic terrorists from obtaining nuclear bombs (one of which would find its way to London). It would be incredibly dumb to allow the Iranians to get those bombs."

If we keep stirring up support for the most extreme elements, then you are probably right that a nuclear weapon will eventually find its way to London, Washington, or New York. It won't come from Iran, though, either because nuclear weapons have been declared unislamic (of course, contrary to the fantasies of those who desperately want an excuse to attack Israel's main regional rival, there is no credible evidence whatsoever that Iran even wants nuclear weapons - though I certainly would, if I were in their position!) or because Iran's leaders would know very well the response would be death for them and destruction for their entire country. Most likely, it will come from a corrupt supplier in the US, the Soviet Union, China, Pakistan or India.

As technology and material wealth advances, it is only a matter of time before terrorists have access to nuclear weapons (or worse). Our only hope is to defuse the ME situation before that happens - which requires the US to get a grip on Isreal's brutally murderous hubris, or the balance of power there to be restored in some other way.

[Mick says: No credible evidence that Iran wants a nuke, that doesnt seem to be what the IAEA says, rightly cautious as it is in the light of the claims about Iraq.]

[James]

Iran has made abundantly clear 1) its intent to obtain nuclear weapons; and 2) its intent to destroy Israel and to harm the United States.

When someone in your town declares his intent to murder you and your family, and starts trying to buy shotguns, you need to take action (unless you are a fool).

James

[Randal]

"Mick says: No credible evidence that Iran wants a nuke, that doesnt seem to be what the IAEA says, rightly cautious as it is in the light of the claims about Iraq.]"

I think you might need to actually read what the IAEA says, rather than make assumptions based upon media reports, or US/UK/Israeli intelligence spin.

Aside from transparently fabricated (and anyway inconclusive) "evidence" provided by US intelligence, the IAEA's reports have been all about what they have not found, rather than what they have found.

Indeed, the whole process of using the IAEA and Security Council to harass Iran based upon essentially unsupported assumptions that the Iranians must be developing nuclear weapons is a fundamental breach of Articles III(3) and IV(1) of the Non Proliferation Treaty, on the part of the US, UK, and other implicated governments.

I don't doubt there are intelligence and defence operatives who firmly believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and maybe they are. However, such people tend (for understandable reasons) to the suspicious (some might say, paranoid) where foreign powers regarded as hostile are concerned, tend to make worst case assumptions on a precautionary basis, and therefore tend to be somewhat over-credulous when presented with unreliably-sourced evidence which supports their fears. Then, of course, their conclusions are cherry-picked by those with a political axe to grind. We saw a fine example of how this works with Iraq, and we also know now that it happened in spades with regard to the Soviet Union.

You presumably know all this, Mick. I believe you should apply it in advance to the Iran situation, rather than later in hindsight, as so many people did over Iraq and before that the Soviet Union.

None of the above necessarily means the Iranians aren't developing nuclear weapons, of course. If I were them, I certainly would be doing so, given the clear threat of US/Israeli aggression against them. However, my main reason for doubt is that the Iranian leadership just might take seriously that islamic prohibition (absurd though that might seem to me and to you).

As it happens, I think a substantial Iranian nuclear force would be a good thing for the region anyway, forcing the US and Israel to seek a genuine compromise with the Arabs and with Islam, rather than seeking what amounts to unconditional surrender as they have to date. Sadly, it may be that Iran is not seeking such a force.

[James]

"However, my main reason for doubt is that the Iranian leadership just might take seriously that islamic prohibition (absurd though that might seem to me and to you)."

---

Oh, please, randal. Osama bin Laden requested and received a fatwa from Musmlim clerics to use weapons of mass destruction against the west. (And he intends to.)

Some prohibition.

James

[Spenser]

Randal: As it happens, I think a substantial Iranian nuclear force would be a good thing for the region anyway, forcing the US and Israel to seek a genuine compromise with the Arabs and with Islam, rather than seeking what amounts to unconditional surrender as they have to date.

While I agree that the American attitude towards Iran's supposed goal of nuclear proliferation is an increasingly dangerous mistake, I also question whether Iranian control of nuclear weapons would in fact be a stabilizing influence in the region. You assume that the Iranian government would view the weapons as the rest of the world has since the end of WWII, i.e. as a deterent to foreign aggression rather than an acceptable weapon to be deployed in warfare (or acts of terrorism).

Even if the majority of the Iranian regime might opposed the use of such a weapon (which is not at all evident in their rhetoric), all it takes is a few rogue insiders to make that nuclear capability into an international crisis. Given the chrinic instability and history of extremism in Iran, such a scenario does not seem unlikely and the world's concern over Tehran's growing nuclear capability is understandable.

[MichelG]

Come back the Soviet Union. All is forgiven. We never realised how much we needed you to keep the overweening arrogance and imperialism of the good old USA in check. I never thought I would see the day when I would be wishing for a return of the "evil empire" just to keep James and Emanuel focused on a real threat - rather than making up imagined threats all over the world just so that the US can have an excuse to attack and destroy them.

Somebody needs to put manners on the US. It can't be the EU - it couldn't put manners on a bunch of sheep farmers. Maybe China will fit the bill sometime soon - but they're too busy just making money.

Gorbachev said - when he was dismantling the Soviet Union - "we have taken away your enemy from you, America, what will you do now?” The answer has come pretty quick. America just creates imaginary enemies all over the world as an excuse to extend its empire - now stretching to over 100 countries - where it has positioned its forces to ensure that the local Governments toe the line.

I wouldn't mind if they actually went after the real terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. But no, they actually need to have those groups around so they can manufacture an excuse to go after other countries they wish to control - Iran, Iraq, and Syria etc. - anywhere that has Oil or which does not accept the Israeli terrorist occupation regime in Palestine.

Maybe it's time every country got nuclear weapons. It seems to be the only way you can ensure your sovereignty these days. Otherwise we will all end up like Tony Blair - pathetically sucking up to the Emperor Bush in the hope of being shown some favour sometime.

James is right. Terrorism must be crushed. Lets start with America, the greatest enemy of free nations the world has ever known.

[James]

"America just creates imaginary enemies all over the world..."

---

Right, MichaelG; it was an imaginary enemy that downed two giant skyscrapers in view of my home, doomed a class of little schoolchildren to death, and removed four fathers from my town.

James

[The 3rd Column]

This war is fought by both Israel and the Hezbollahs on an ideology. In an assymetric type of warfare, I don't think there's gonna be an easy win for either side.

On the face of it, the Hezbollahs can't match the military capability and resolve of the Israelis to wage a protracted war.

At the end of the day, the continuity of this assymetrical warfare will all boil down to who's got more money.

We do know that America's partial financing of Israel's military through the US FMF with 2.6 billion dollars or so annually, is an enormous boost for Israel's great military resolve to go on with their war on the Hezbollah. We also know that Israel has billions of dollars worth of outstanding orders for US-made war equipment and more to come from FY2006 onward. Moreover, Israel has its own defence manufacturing companies like IAI to rely on too.

Note: US defence items manufacturers as well as Israeli companies and a few in Britain must be making a killing - no pun intended - and should be patting each other on the back and exclaiming, "Jolly, jolly good!"

If Iran can produce weapons as fast as the Hezbollahs require, and this despite their being not as sophisticated as those produced by the US for Israel, this war will not be over soon, well, at least, not in 10 days or so, as Olmert's defence minister reckoned.

One solution to end this Hezbollah-Israel conflict is for Israel TO FLATTEN ALL OF LEBANON, I mean pulverize all of it beginning with the southern part and while they are at it, bomb Beirut to kingdom come.

I think the neo-cons will agree that this is the best course of action to finally wipe out the Hezbollahs, don't you think Mick?

When the Hezbollah is finally wiped out, the neo-cons should be able to set the next stage for a war on Iran, and if we're all lucky as in lucky to be alive, we might just witness the total annihilation of James' "Islamofanatics", which, I suppose, is a kind of holocaust.

[Frank Schnittger]

No James - it was a then small Terrorist group called Al Qaueda made up largely of Saudi Sunni Moslems that did that with funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen (who had close business connections with the Bush family).

It was not Iraq, it was not Iran, it was not Palestinians, it was not Hezbollah, and it was not Lebanon. Go after Al Qaedi and the Saudis who financed it and you have the support of the world.

Go after everyone else and you alienate them and act as a recruiting sargeant for Al Qaeda. I think what Michael is saying (in a polemical way) is that the "War on Terror" may have been started as a response to the destruction of the twin towers, but it was quickly subverted by the neo-cons into a convenient cover for their pet project - the expansion of the American Empire to cover all of the Middle East and most of the Globe.

[James]

"we might just witness the total annihilation of James' "Islamofanatics", which, I suppose, is a kind of holocaust"

---

When the Islamofanatic barbarians come after millions of innocents in the United States with weapons of mass destruction (which they will), there will be blazing hell to pay - and the price will be so steep that no one will EVER think about doing such again.

If Americans were not a far more moral people than the Islamofanatic terrorists, that hell would have been unleashed long ago. But it is coming, since the barbarians are stupid and infected with evil. Americans will only be pushed so far.

James

[Randal]

James: "Oh, please, randal. Osama bin Laden requested and received a fatwa from Musmlim clerics to use weapons of mass destruction against the west. (And he intends to.)

Some prohibition."

That's about as useful as stating that if the UVF managed to find a Protestant cleric to support a policy of killing Catholics, then the Vatican might get the Pope to sanction a policy of sectarian murder.

Apples and oranges.

[James]

"the expansion of the American Empire to cover all of the Middle East and most of the Globe"

---

Come back to this universe, Frank.

James

[Randal]

Spenser: "While I agree that the American attitude towards Iran's supposed goal of nuclear proliferation is an increasingly dangerous mistake, I also question whether Iranian control of nuclear weapons would in fact be a stabilizing influence in the region. You assume that the Iranian government would view the weapons as the rest of the world has since the end of WWII, i.e. as a deterent to foreign aggression rather than an acceptable weapon to be deployed in warfare (or acts of terrorism)."

I think the question of how the Iranians might view nuclear weapons (if, indeed, they even seek them at all) is not really the issue. Whatever their view of such weapons, they are bound by the iron reality of mutually assured destruction, given Israel's second strike capability. Granted, the point of MAD as an effective policy is that use would be triggered if one side were absolutely pushed to the wall. Which is exactly what we need something to prevent the US and Israeli bullies doing to Iran (and Lebanon, and Palestine, and as they did to Iraq).

MAD gives rise to compromise. Compromise is what is needed above all in the ME.

"Even if the majority of the Iranian regime might opposed the use of such a weapon (which is not at all evident in their rhetoric), all it takes is a few rogue insiders to make that nuclear capability into an international crisis. Given the chrinic instability and history of extremism in Iran, such a scenario does not seem unlikely and the world's concern over Tehran's growing nuclear capability is understandable."

Why should "a few rogue insiders" be a particular concern with regard to Iran? Personally, given the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin and other evidence of the fanaticism of many Israeli partisans with connections to the very top levels of Israeli society, together with their evident ruthlessness, I would say a rogue use of nuclear weapons is much more likely by Israel than by Iran, especially since Israel can probably count on US cover after the fact, given Israel's power within US politics. The fear of "rogue use" must apply equally to Pakistani, Indian and Russian nukes. Indeed, given the current US regime's changes to US nuclear posture and refusal to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers, US rogue use certainly cannot be dismissed as a possibility. And these other nations actually have nuclear weapons now, not hypothetically in 10 years time or so.

Yes, any nation aquiring nukes adds to the theoretical risk of them being used. But in my personal opinion, the excessive fear of Iran possessing nukes is mostly based upon western demonisation of the Iranian regime, and not upon a rational assessment of reality. And, as I suggested above, there are clear potential benefits to Iran acquiring a nuclear deterrent force, in reigning in the US's and Israel's murderous behaviour in the Middle East.

[Randal]

Michel G: "Somebody needs to put manners on the US. It can't be the EU - it couldn't put manners on a bunch of sheep farmers. Maybe China will fit the bill sometime soon - but they're too busy just making money."

I see two possibilities for controlling the US rogue state.

First is acquisition of nuclear weapons and effective second strike delivery systems by all the likely targets of US military aggression and subversion. A long shot, that one.

Second is the gradual building of a global coalition to resist the would-be hegemon - which is what historically has contained previous examples of such hubris. Maybe the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation can grow into such a body.

Personally, I'd like to see Britain leaving NATO and joining (with the EU), the SCO. Only a distant dream, sadly.

After all, even our generals are forced to admit we in Britain are likely to face no conventional military threat in the next few decades. So why are we still shackled to the rogue superpower through a redundant Cold War-era sovereignty-destroying bureaucracy?

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

To James

America is attacked and the Euro-sophisticates counsel moderation and offer conspiracy theories instead.

Schnittger offers up the usual "neo-con" culprits as the cabal to "today Europe, tomorrow the world" thrust of Americna foreign policy. That's not appeasement; it's a damned lie in bed with the Mohamedan fantasies re Jews and Israel. One feeds off the other.

The other naive fools see "Moose-lims" as more bluster than violent when the very headlines prove them wrong. The ones blinding themselves to facts are aided by "the yellow brigade" who will not fight for anything except making Israel surrender.

That is the state of a portion of Europe. These people belong as a Russian satellite. They like Big Brother.

[James]

"The other naive fools see "Moose-lims" as more bluster than violent when the very headlines prove them wrong. The ones blinding themselves to facts are aided by "the yellow brigade" who will not fight for anything except making Israel surrender."

---

Indeed, emanuel. Europe has become a morally relativistic society, where morality is determined by ones feelings. Europe now stands for nothing (except multiculturalism - which is nothing), and tolerance of everything - including terrorism (and many other evils as well).

Europe is well on its way to dying out, and being replaced by a Muslim society.

Instead of being attacked by terrorists, it will be ruled by them.

Just as in the 20th century, Europe is the 'see no evil,' 'hear no evil' continent.

When you are blind, you will be led by anyone.

James

[MM]

To: The 3rd Column: You're wrong on most counts. Israel is fighting this war for survival; apart from the murderous incursion which began this war, Hizb has been periodically crossing the border to kidnap & murder & at the same time loosing off their rockets at Shlomi & Kiryat Shemoneh. The people in the north of Israel (& now the whole country) are united in saying "enough".
Hizbollah are doing this for several reasons; one is their pathological hatred of Jews that they share with the Iranian president. Another is obeying the dictats of the said president, presumably in this case, to divert the world's attention from the Iranian nuke controversy or the Harari murder.
What is sad in this affair is the suffering which is going on in both Israel & Lebanon. If Resln: #1559 had been carried out & the Hizbollah militia disbanded then this would have been avoided; this time, it's imperative that Lebanon is helped to pick up the reins & extend Government control throughout the country.

[Randal]

MM: "Israel is fighting this war for survival; apart from the murderous incursion which began this war, Hizb has been periodically crossing the border to kidnap & murder & at the same time loosing off their rockets at Shlomi & Kiryat Shemoneh. The people in the north of Israel (& now the whole country) are united in saying "enough"."

The above is a lie (or at least an attempt to mislead). I linked on the other thread to a blog where somebody summarised the Israeli deaths caused by Hezbollah (or alleged Hezbollah) attacks on northern Israel in the last 6 years:

A Note on Israeli Deaths from May 24, 2000 to July 12, 2006.
A total of six Israeli civilians died in that six year period, including one who was killed by a falling anti-aircraft round (fired at Israeli aircraft violating Lebanese airspace) and five in a March 2002 incursion, which Hizballah claimed it had nothing to do with (a claim that I discount). A sixth Israeli victim died in the March 2002 incident, but he was an army officer. I may have missed one or two deaths, but I do not think that the total number is no more than ten.

Additional Israelis may have died due cardiac events during alerts, exchanges of fire, etc., but that would not add more than a few people.

Of course, a number of Israeli soldiers were killed in the period, most of them in the occupied Golan Heights, including the disputed farms.
(http://bostonuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/07/note-on-israeli-deaths-from-may-24.html)

A grand total of 6 civilian deaths in the last 6 years! Yeah, sure, the Israelis really are "fighting for survival" in their brave attack on Lebanon.

Note that the Israeli attack on Lebanon has triggered a military response from Hezbollah that has so far caused something like 19 Israeli civilian deaths already (according to CNN, based upon Israeli sources).

So even if Israel manages to destroy Hezbollah completely today and there were no further attacks ever by any organisation that replaced Hezbollah, it will be something like 19 years before Israel is up on the pre-existing rate of deaths.

Can there be any clearer demonstration that this is not about "Israeli survival" at all, but about Israeli pride, Olmert's job security, or US/Israeli plans to attack Iran and Syria. For those disreputable motives, Israel has so far killed something like 570 Lebanese "civilians and soldiers" (again, CNN figures). But Israelis evidently regard Lebanese civilians as untermenschen. Could anything demonstrate more clearly how urgent it is for Jewish people around the world to repudiate what Israel does in their name?

[The 3rd Column]

OK, MM. So, I am wrong on all counts.

But hang on - before we all get carried away, hope you can clarify. I thought this Israeli war on Lebanon was to retrieve the two Israeli soldiers captured, abducted, kidnapped or whatever by the Hezbolla? Are you saying that the Israelis had a different purpose and it wasn't the recovery of the two poor Israeli soldiers?

Anyway, am curious, how many Lebanese civilians do you reckon must die before Israel is fully satisfied that they have avenged the capture, abduction, kidnapping, etc. of their two soldiers? Would the 'destruction' of 1, 2, 3, 4 thousand or a million Lebanese civilians suffice?

[James]

You know, randal, your arguments are the kind one hears among sociology and gender studies majors in the freshman dorm at university.

A threat is constituted by what someone (or something) may do to you, along with his intent. No death need be involved.

Europe brought on World War II precisely by not confronting the Nazi threat before massive death was involved. (Israel is not nearly as stupid.)

And also, by the way, Israel is fighting to get its soldiers back, which is what moral nations do.

Here's the difference, since you obviously don't understand it:

In a moral nation, soldiers stand in front of their children to protect them; in an immoral one, fighters hide behind their children and use them as protection.

I really don't know about Europeans (who ever does...); but most Americans know the difference.

James

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Mr. Smith,

Tsahal ( IDF) Command must have monitoring this blog because they launched a Special Forces raid on Baalbek and brought back 5 captives with no casualties reported. This is exactly what you advocate. Too bad it was a useless exercise.

David Pryce-Jones, writing in The Australian, thinks that Islamic fervor is replacing Arab nationalist fervor. He also states that Iran is exploiting this to dominate the Moslem world and unite them in a war against Israel. It's not what Israel has to negotiate; it's that Israel exists.

Your next article might be that the Neo- Cons ( Jews, really) are in cahoots with Iran to plunge the world into a new war for the purpose of... Fill in the blanks. It doesn't really matter.

However, once Islam wins, we'll see more and more items like the following

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's biggest theme park has called off the country's first "National Muslim Fun Day" because of lack of interest, the park said Wednesday.

[Mick says: I guess that would be because most Muslims in this country see themselves as fundamentally British and not in any way set apart from the rest of society, as do most Jews, most Hindus, most atheists and most Christians. This of course was one of the most fundamental problems for German Jews when the Nazis came to power. The Nazis saw them as Jews not Germans, but most Jews saw themselves as Germans, something was stolen from them long before the extermination camps started rolling. They could not believe that their own countrymen would treat them this way and many therefore stayed believing that things could only get better, that eventually they would be given back the rights. You seem to be falling into the same trap as the Nazis Emanuael.]

[Randal]

Feel free to try to explain the moral principles that justify Israel in killing innocent Lebanese wholesale in response to Hezbollah's relatively trivial military exchanges with Israel over the disputed border, James.

You can't, but most likely you think you can because your rationalisation for it is based upon a false view of the reality of events on the ground (that Hezbollah is even a potential threat to Israel, or that Hezbollah's actions against Israel have been any worse than what Israel has routinely done to Lebanon), a morally abhorrent and racist assumption (spoken or unspoken) that Lebanese innocents are somehow worth less than Israeli innocents, or a misunderstanding of the moral principles that underlie the right of national self-defence (probably a misapplication of the domestic analogy in some form - that is a characteristically American ethical error), Most likely it's a combination of all three.

If you'd like to explain your reasoning properly I will point out your error, but there's no point in my doing so otherwise, in case I mis-state your reasoning and waste time knocking down a straw man.

[The 3rd Column]

"In a moral nation, soldiers stand in front of their children to protect them; in an immoral one, fighters hide behind their children and use them as protection."

---

Incredible similarity to a statement uttered by a Nazi Heinrich Himmler Warsaw Ghetto butcher and presumed Christianofanatic.

Here it is:

"The Jewish bandits are despicable cowards who hide behind women and children." - SS-Gruppenführer Jürgen Stroop on the resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto, 1943.

[James]

"Feel free to try to explain the moral principles that justify Israel in killing innocent Lebanese wholesale in response to Hezbollah's relatively trivial military exchanges with Israel over the disputed border, James."

---

Sure, randal. When a nation takes unto itself, and blesses, and incorporates into its government, and takes no action against, a terrorist organization that is hell bent on the mass murder of all the people in a neighboring nation, it sides with that evil, and with that evil purpose, and with the evil acts that that evil terrorist organization commits. Lebanon in effect declared war against Israel by harboring and glorifying and supporting Hezbollah.

If my neighbor takes into his house twenty fanatics with shotguns, who aim to murder me and my children, I have not only the right but the duty to go in and eradicate the fanatics before they murder me and my family (and other innocents). If one of the neighbor's relatives dies inadvertently in the fight, it is because the neighbor chose to harbor that evil.

But apart from that - talking about morality with you is a dead-end. I have no idea what you base your morality on (if you have a morality); it is certainly not what I base my morality on. Therefore, there's no real point to discussing such.

So let's get down to reality. Israel won't tolerate Lebanon's harboring Hezbollah (or other terrorist organizations) on its border. Don't like that? Tough.

Same with the US. The US won't tolerate organizations that fly airplaines into its skyscrapers, or governments that are involved with those types of organizations. Don't like that? Tough.

Your little blogsies won't change that.

James

[The 3rd Column]

"If my neighbor takes into his house twenty fanatics with shotguns, who aim to murder me and my children, I have not only the right but the duty to go in and eradicate the fanatics before they murder me and my family (and other innocents)."

---

FANATICS is the key word and the excuse.

When Christianofanatics are satisfied that their proxy wars have been fought for them by Israel and that evil Islamofanatics have been eradicated, Christianofanatics will seek another war to continue their Christianofanatic crusade against those who are not like them.

They will create another excuse to wipe out those who are not Christianofanatics and there is a risk that Christianofanatics might very well train their guns at the Jews for not being Christians and do a repeat of what the Nazis did.

Christianofanatics won't use nailbombs to kill and maim civilian babies and children, they will use the nuke. (To the Jewish: Better teach your children to spot Christianofanatics, they're more frightening than the evil Islamofanatics.)

Christianofanatical excuses today won't change that.

[Robin Bather]

James tries hard to extend the US fantasy that 9/11=terrorists=arabs=Muslims=Hezbollah=Iraq=Iran=anti semites=EVIL

Also his flimsy similies fall flat on their face as I can also invent another better one:
If the local municipality decides to give my neighbour's house to another family in 1948, evicting the original owners, can we be surprised when all the old neighbours hate the newcomers and demand they get out?

The fact remains that the continual string of Middle East conflicts always involve Israel and the US's blind support of this vassal state.
Israel would be much better off out of the Middle East and resettled in the US.

[James]

"Christianofanatics will seek another war to continue their Christianofanatic crusade against those who are not like them."

---

Come back to this universe, 3rd column.

America's has had the power to destroy the world, or to take it over, for decades.

Americans have not the slightest interest in so doing.

When the Islamofanatic barbarians stop trying to blow up everyone's children (in America, Britain, Indonesia, the Philippines, Jordan, Kenya, Aden, Canada, Spain, Morocco, France, Russia, India, etc. etc.), we'll stop fighting them.

James

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Mr. Smith,

Your views on Jews are most revealing. It's really the Mel Gibson school of "welt-politik".

I tried to stick to the original topic of the next "neo-con" war but it always goes back to DE JOOZ.

Your analyis of current affairs is really divorced from reality. You state that most Moslems see themselves as essentially British. Well, if "essentially British" has changed in meaning to advocating Jihad, making people wear a Burqa as they stroll along St. John's Wood, and "honor killings" of your girls because they copulate before marriage, then I guess it has.

On the other hand, it is you that has taken the English Jew's citizenship away because you cannot tolerate deviation from "received opinion". You demand that your Jewish fellow citizens bend their knee to you while letting the Moslems run amok, bombing you to pieces.

The Moslem can perform any outrage but DE JOO may not lift a finger for himself.
It's always the sign of a scoundrel to quote Nazis when what they really mean is for Jews to be defenseless.

[Mick says: As someone who has written extensively on the holocaust and what happened to Germany's Jews in the run-up to the war, I find your comments deeply offensive Emanuel. The truth is you dont know what you are talking about and it has showed throughout your postings on this thread. But as I said, you only had one post left before this thread closed and you've used it. Goodbye, and frankly, good riddance.]

[Randal]

When a nation takes unto itself, and blesses, and incorporates into its government, and takes no action against, a terrorist organization that is hell bent on the mass murder of all the people in a neighboring nation, it sides with that evil, and with that evil purpose, and with the evil acts that that evil terrorist organization commits. Lebanon in effect declared war against Israel by harboring and glorifying and supporting Hezbollah.

If my neighbor takes into his house twenty fanatics with shotguns, who aim to murder me and my children, I have not only the right but the duty to go in and eradicate the fanatics before they murder me and my family (and other innocents). If one of the neighbor's relatives dies inadvertently in the fight, it is because the neighbor chose to harbor that evil.

No moral principles there - just a lot of unsupported and dubious assertions based upon self-serving and subjective definitions of those involved, inserted into a misleading analogy.

Try the following summary argument, and see if we can isolate where we disagree.

(1) Killing innocent people is wrong
(we'll worry about the crucial definition of "innocent" later)

(2) Therefore if you intend to do something which you know will result in deaths, you must either establish that the victims are not innocent, or justify their deaths by reference to some good reason why the principle in (1) should not apply in the particular case.

(3) Israel's attack on Lebanon was obviously going to kill large numbers of people, therefore if Israel's actions are to be exonerated we must either establish that those who will be killed are not innocent (which could debatably apply to Hezbollah fighters amongst them, but not to ordinary Lebanese, especially children and those who oppose Hezbollah anyway), or establish that the deaths of innocents are justified in this case by some special circumstances.

One possible argument would be the collective responsibility argument you have put forward above, James. Lebanese are not innocent because Hezbollah operates from their country. However, such arguments are the rankest hypocrisy, coming from an American. After all, our ears are still ringing with your outrage that American civilians should have been held responsible, on 9/11, for America's years of interference in the Middle East. Furthermore, the civilian/soldier separation has become a core precept of western war ethics, and collective responsibility drives a coach and horses through that precept. Indeed, the supposedly sacrosanct status of civilians is what the US primarily uses to supposedly differentiate itself from the "terrorists" it claims to be fighting.

(4) Given that we are going to find it difficult to establish that the Lebanese children and opponents of Hezbollah, at least, are not innocent, it is necessary, if we wish to justify Israel's attack on Lebanon, for us to demonstrate particular circumstances which differentiate this from the clear prohibition in (1) above.

Two possibilities exist, to my mind. First, Israel could argue that its actions are justified by defensive necessity. Those innocent children have to die in order to prevent a far greater calamity down the line.

Second, Israel could argue that this is a case of double effect - Israel's aim is at the Hezbollah fighters, but it is impossible to hit them without killing innocent civilians as well.

Both of these arguments are made by Israel's partisans. Let's look at each in turn.

The necessary self defence argument is patently absurd when the reality of the virtually non-existent "threat" from Hezbollah is considered, as I have pointed out above. Israel is under no existential threat whatsoever, and in terms of numbers it is unlikely Israel will ever "break even", in terms of civilian deaths resulting from this attack. Already it would have taken 19 years for Hezbollah (debatably) to kill as many Israeli civilians at the rate predating Israel's attack, as have died as a result of the war. It is fatuous to try to pretend Israel faced any defensive necessity to respond to the initial Hezbollah military action by launching a general attack.

On the other hand, it might be reasonable to suggest that Israel was entitled to launch a military reprisal targeted specifically at Hezbollah military personnel. If they had done this, and killed civilians in doing so, then they would have doubtless resorted to the second argument above (double effect).

The problem with the double effect doctrine is that it includes within it a requirement of proportionality between the end sought and the collateral damage inflicted. If we were talking about one or two innocent lives, maybe the case could be argued. It is inconceivable that the destruction of billions of pounds worth of property, with all the consequent suffering, and the deaths of hundreds (and almost certainly ultimately thousands) could be regarded by any plausible objective observer as not massively outweighing the supposedly intended benefit of removing the minor inconvenience Hezbollah actually constituted to Israel.

This principle is normally applied to individual military actions under the jus in bello. I see no reason why similar considerations should not apply, though, to the decision to go to war.

[Tim Coulson]

if the US "has had the power to destroy the world, or to take it over, for decades." James, why do so many of the countries it invades end up in such a mess? If the US really were as powerful as you claim it would have had no trouble pacifying Afghanistan or Iraq yet as we all know neither is exactly calm at the moment.

There are only twenty-odd million Iraqis and they don't seem to be entirely thrilled about the presence of the US Army. I fail to see how the US could impose it's will on say a billion and a half Chinese. Perhaps you could explain.

[The 3rd Column]

"When the Islamofanatic barbarians stop trying to blow up everyone's children --- we'll stop fighting them."
---

So that when Christianofanatics like James, are done with killing the little children of evil Islamofanatics, they can blow up little Jewish children and the little children in other countries that are not Christianofanatics.

That's barbaric!

[James]

"No moral principles there..."

---

As I said, randal, you and I do not share the same moral principles. I do not know upon what you base yours.

James

[Robin Bather]

Mick Smith says:
"Emanuel Appel, good bye, and frankly, good riddance".

Well said sir! We knew you would also come to see what this individual is. You were very very patient but life's too short.

"Oh for he's a jolly good fellow
For he's a jolly good fellow
For he's a jolly good fellow
And so say all of us!!

[M Stonehouse]

Michael Smith says, "Bush is said to be determined to deal with Iran before the end of his presidency."

It's completely fatuous. What's Bush gonna do? Nuke Iran and kill all the Iranians?

What does he really think he can do in 2 years? Drop a nuclear bomb on Teheran on 31st December 2008? In that case, it's not the Islamists whom we must fear but Bush and naive Americans. Bush must be ostracised for hate and warmongering.

Bush will be gone and buried but Iran will still be around.

The sooner Bush gets real that there's only 250 million Americans against billions of people around the world, the better it is for world peace.

[dave]

James and Appel make a nice couple , with their ridiculous arguments about "appeasement" and supposed anti-semitism.

Tough talk about neighbours with shotguns is ridiculous when talking about the world's 4th nuclear super-power.

It was obvious in 2003 before the crazy invasion of Iraq that the real ME priority was sorting the Israel Problem, and its illegal goddam colonies.

Given that the US has supported it at $2Bn per year for so long, and increasingly unquestioningly under GWB, ( apart from one weak off-message moment when GWB talked of contiguous frontiers), we now are beginning to realise that the neo-con agenda is founded on creating chaos.

Final point Mick.Your last words --

""They have already lined up Iran's refusal to end its nuclear weapons programme as the excuse for war.""

MAYBE Iran does have a nuke weapons program. OK. I don't know, NOR do you... for sure...

There is a difference between 3% and c. 95% enrichment, as we all know.

The anti-iran hysteria has been running for a year now, about time to cool down, tell the neo-cons to get lost.

[Chuck Unsworth]

I must admit to a certain relief at Mick's decision to curtail any further posts on these three topics, despite a recognition of the importance of the matters.

An enormous amount of ignorance and prejudice, not to mention appalling personal abuse has been paraded here by some of the more prolific and vociferous contributors. These individuals seem to believe that such vitriolic and insulting comment will, somehow, persuade readers of the validity of their arguments. Of course nothing could be further from the truth.

It's clear that many of these people have not understood the basics of persuasion or the art of negotiation. Haranging or physically attacking one's opponents merely serves to raise the levels of antagonism. These extremist statements are mere self-indulgence. They do nothing to move the argument on, nor are they of any strategic value. In short, they are voiced by those who simply enjoy the sounds of their own cacophony.

Some contributors seem also to believe that violence, warfare and military action will somehow lead directly to peace and stability. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed it is the cessation of violence which leads to peace. Those who propound war must also understand that they must plan for peace (imposed or otherwise). That has been the greatest failing in Iraq, and will be so in the Lebanon.

The problem for all participants in wars is that as and when peace is achieved, by whatever means, former enemies must perforce live and work together. No man is an island.

At present it is not clear how the various antagonists will find ways of dealing with each other, but - eventually - that is exactly what must happen. The longer the violence goes on the more difficult will be that task.

[Bias]

It is incredibly easy for people to criticise Israel for attacking Lebanon.
Of course America had nothing to say about the attacks, it would rather Israel bomb lebanon as the last thing it wants is more criticism. Why do the job when someone else can do the work for you? Israel must realise what the bombing of Lebanon to eliminate Hezbolah is doing to Hezbolah's popularity among young impressionable muslims so maybe the attacks are to provoke a response out of Iran who have remained especially silent over the conflict. So? Israel wants Iran bombed, disabled! How dare they! If someone told you they wanted to murder your wife and children along with the rest of your family and flatten your house erasing the fact that you ever existed while making clear they had a burning irrational desire to do so, what would you do? Would you invite them onto your doorstep for a cup of tea?
As for those who criticise Israel of persecution, I suggest they go and live in Iran, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Afghanistan for a while. As a woman, regardless of my religion race or beliefs I would be persecuted in a strict muslim country for simply that. Possibly, as men you forget or do not fully seem to comprehend this as it does not apply to you.

I am not glad to see that Israel, a democratic country in the midst of fanatical stone age regimes is given so much unproportional attention and criticism. Is it because they are not stoning women to death in football arenas? Ah no, much worse, they are Jew's!

Such a relentless and consistent media flurry has never been seen before. To me this all conjours up images of hundreds of hungry chickens pecking furiously to get to one seed. Where was everyone in 2002 while there was mass genocide in Sudan?

Where were the marches and protests when Saddam Hussein was killing thousands of innocent Muslims? The West wasn't doing, Israel wasn't doing it it so no matter.

I do not defend all Israel's actions, I just see bias in the media against Israel. I am not Jewish but I know pany people will be thinking this while they read what I have written. "If you challange liberal orthodoxy your argument can not be debated on it's merits. You have to be Jew" (Nick Cohen)