At the risk of sounding slightly out of step with the many anti-Blair/Bush, anti-war, anti-Israel etc, etc, sentiments expressed in many parts of this thread, I’d just like to draw people’s attention to the above links, which I found interesting. It seems that certain members of the intellectual left media in the US feel that war with Iran is not something about which there can be open debate, that their government is simply waiting for the right moment - and the right excuse, perhaps - to begin its campaign; that in reality, the coming war is a fait accomplis.

I felt exactly the same way months before the Iraq war, and I recall discussing this with a friend of mine who, as I was, strongly opposed to what we regarded as a wholly unjustifiable - and most certainly unjustified - aggression against a sovereign state. The conversation’s themes were much the same as I suspect the ones during the cranking-up of the media machine (which seems already to have begun), prior to the conflict, will be: the pragmatic, ‘realpolitik’, geopolitical motivations for such an invasion, which has something to do with security and Islamic terrorism, but everything to do with our future energy supply, and who controls it, and also the maintenance of the standard of living to which we seem to have become accustomed. Maybe Bush, but most certainly Blair, are not as ideologically motivated as we are led to believe, particularly by an angry left press in the UK.

Whether or not these ‘motivations’ can be regarded as ‘justifications’ for war perhaps is up to the individual conscience. I think they absolutely cannot, and I think that Blair/Straw/Bush etc. seem to agree with me, if their mendacious attitude to the subjects (Iraq - now Iran), clandestine maneuverings and posturing and inability to discern the difference between what is ‘desirable’ and what is ‘do-able’ (which smacks of the worst kind of Kissinger-esque foreign policy amorality) is anything to go by. An odd situation, then, when these people feel it is ‘desirable’ to act, and make the measure of such action its ‘do-ability’. This daren’t utter in public, though, since it represents the worst kind of expediency (material), and they know it, not to mention the whole question of legality. Their behaviour suggests, in short, that they know what they are doing (and have done) is (was) wrong, regardless of the reasons for it.

So the only thing I can hope now is that President Bush’s time in office runs out before the new Iranian president, who is something of an ‘unknown quantity’, provides him with a casus belli he thinks he can sell to the people that, to him, count - and that, most likely, doesn’t include me. I think this is a faint hope. Besides, with the Democrat muddle over there, and no effective Opposition here, there is no guarantee that a new administration in the US wouldn’t chart exactly the same course, albeit at a less frenetic pace. Look out Saudi.

The saddest thing of all is that I’m 100% certain that Bliar knows the thinking people of this country KNOW he’s full of shit. He just doesn’t care - because he knows there’s nothing they can do. Blair KNOWS there’s no evidence against Iran. Equally he KNOWS that a large chunk of this country’s minds will be irrevocably made up the instant they see the correct banner headlines - and it’s that segment of society he’s aiming at here. As long as he can get the unthinking herds of sheeple on board, the people who can actually see the truth become irrelevant through sheer weight of numbers - the very same numbers that are equally irrelevant when they are stacked against the government.

Heads he wins, tails we lose…

I seem to remember similar things happening a few years ago when unsubstantiated claims were made about a middle-eastern country just before we invaded it. When we did invade it not only turned out that the claims were untrue but also it came to light that there was no evidence for making the false claims in the first place.

To misquote George Bush\x92s famous misquote:

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

I fully understand why Countries who have Nuclear weapons and ‘democracy’ don’t want others to have the same capabilities.

Your argument implies that it is OK for the USA and UK to provide Israel with arms, money, political support and a Nuclear capability but it is wrong for Iran to develop a comparable capability.

When Israel are killing Muslim Arabs every day it is an entirely rational response to abhor that killing and seek the means of change.

I wonder how much you know about the ‘cold war’? - consider the eventual stability that was possible once both sides realised that there is no point in fighting a war that you can’t win.

It can be argued that once Iran has a nuclear capability to match that of Israel and sufficient to worry the UK and USA we will be at the point where stability can be considered for the Middle East.

If the answer to both of those is in the negative then that statement ("At rallies in Tehran it’s not uncommon to hear people chanting for the desruction of Israel") carries about as much weight as the EU and USA’s assertions that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. So what if you saw a couple of documentaries that said so; I can guarantee that I’ve seen at least an equal number that said otherwise.

And even if Iran did hold that view then how is it worse than the view the nuclear-equipped Israel already holds Palestine in?

What we are talking about here is international hypocricy on a grand scale. Jack Straw said just yesterday that there is no chance of military intervention in Iran - which pretty much means we’re actively thinking about military action in Iran. Remember how many times we heard exactly the same things from exactly the same people before Iraq? And remember how many of those exact same things from those exact same people were outright lies? Have we learned NOTHING?! Have we already forgotten Iraqs WMD which didn’t exist?! For crying out loud, how many times does the British (and American) public need to be beaten over the head with the truth that’s in front of their faces the whole time before they start to see what’s really going on?!

This is NOT about nuclear weapons, in exactly the same way that the invasion of Iraq was NOT about Iraq’s WMD. This is purely and simply a pretext for a future grab of Iran’s oil. Iran doesn’t have any nuclear weapons, nor is it trying to build any. The IEAE has said so on repeated occasions recently. But we in the UK, the EU and the USA still insist on insisting that they are - contrary to any evidence.

Haven’t you noticed how every country which we and the USA has had a beef with of late is either a Muslim country or is sitting atop a lake of oil? Hadn’t the startling coincidence struck you that, surprise surprise, all of our "foes" in the "war on tewwa" are, startlingly, already sworn enemies of our great "friend" Israel? Hasn’t the dual purpose of the "war on tewwa" hit home yet?

And if you think that no government could be so self-serving and dishonest (slap me for using such strong words!) as to embark on a long-term war of agression against the enemies of Israel and, at the same time, make themselves a mint into the bargain from all the no-bid contracts awarded in the aftermath and, into the bargain, get to control the world’s supply of oil (remember that the USA effectively controls the oil from the 1st and 3rd largest deposits in Saudi and Iraq), then you need to start sniffing some serious coffee…

now who might that be?

For example if you were living next to Kim Jung Il on a bad hair day, would you be re-assured by the thought of an arsenal of nukes pointing in your direction.

I think the world community should decide if a country should have nukes or not based on their track record.

I personally think that belligerent countries with an extremist outlook should not be prermitted to acquire nuclear weapons. If we don’t put these rules in place it could get pretty dodgy down the road.

I see after the Basra jailbreak the other day that we are now trying to blame Iran:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1788585,00.html

Nothing to do with the SAS running round dressed up as Arabs planting explosives who knows where, I suppose. Even less to do with the Army then breaking down the walls of the jail they were held in and in the process letting escape Christ knows how many other inmate "criminals".

What is staggering (apart from the whole sorry incident itself!) is the Defence Secretary John Reid insisting that the Army did nothing wrong. What is even more staggering is the corruptness of the Iraqi "government" who needed no prompting to "accept the blame" on behalf of the incompetent Iraqi police who have been "infiltrated" by "insurgents".

So not only do we illegally invade a country and install a puppet government and pretend to train a local police force, we run around dressing as locals in order to further the perception that the "insurgency" is alive and kicking. When these criminals are then caught we brazenly knock the walls of the police station down to protect the secrets of the special forces personnel in question and try to pin the blame for the whole thing on another country who has nothing to do with it!

You’ve gotta admit, when it comes to spin, distortion and OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIES, this country, this government and the MORONS who support them are in a league all of their own. Even the bloody Yanks will have to try extra hard to top blatant lies of this calibre - and they’ve still got 9/11 to pull out of the bag…

And finally, with this stunt fully exposed in the glare of the spotlight, would anyone care to try to convince me that the government really DIDN’T arrange 7/7?!