Al Queda in Iran?/ U.S. Considering Toppling Iranian Gov.

Why did not Iraqi people that were so much happy with disappearance of Saddam did not throw him to garbage themselves? IMO, they had no chance; the same thing is applicable to Iran.

BTW: to which "progressive and enlightened monarch" are you referring?

Not necessarily, the operation may develop as smoothly as it was in Iraq. But if the troops face serious resistance that may cause large number of casualties, nukes can solve this problem.
The monarch I refer to is Mohammed Reza Pehlevi. I know that his security services used methods different from this of the Red Cross. But the same happened in Russia 300 years ago: if His Majesty Peter the Great did not execute oppositioners without any remorse, Russia would stay in the Stone Age up to date.

Since this is cleared, what's your answer to Setanta's question

Mr. Setanta, with all the respect I give to him, obviously has never been in Israel. We have here normal life, and majority of citizens are more concerned with global hi-tech stagnation (that surged unemployment here, since our economy is hi-tech dependent) than with escapades of Arafat/Hamas/Islamic Jihad and the similar buffoons. If the EU did not interfere all the time, all the mentioned enemies would be dead long time ago.

bookmark

How successful do you think the US Roadmap will be in Israel? c.i.

It depends on Palestinians now. Only on them. Israel has officially agreed to establishment of the Palestinian state in futue.

Well, as for here, maybe there is the occasional simpler explanation. Every time the Bush ratings dip, we get a terror alert, and words of warning about another country. This is to keep us all on our toes and reminds us of what a great war leader Bush is.

But, reading the PNAC site (unless they've wiped some of it), there is a plan there. The object is to establish the US as the dominant power in the mid-east, with control of the oil. To get there, we must first establish a foothold, and it was decided years ago that Iraq would present the easiest target. Using Iraq as a base we would go for Iran, and then Syria, Lebanon, Jordan. The rallying cry would be to bring freedom and democracy to these poor, benighted countries, and to maintain American control at all times. And twelve years ago the names appearing on these plans were Rumsfeld, Libby, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and more - the same names we see today executing their plan. And they expected no resistance. The American public would swallow what they put out, and the rest of the world would go along for their own reasons.

So none of this is a surprise. Nuke Iran? Why not? That cartoon, Walter, while funny, is not. And just yesterday we watched the movie "Dr Strangelove" again. A pox on all their heads.

There is exactly my point, Steissd, which you apparently cannot see--Israelis live a more or less "normal" existence, as citizens of a modern technological state. And yet, the soldiers of your nation are constantly in danger of being targeted by fanatics in territories they occupy, the residents of which deeply resent the occupation, and do not want them there. The non-combatants of your society (which does not, of course, included illegal settlers with assault rifles), can lead this "normal" life for a decade, a generation, and, if they are very fortunate, for a lifetime and not be touched. But they know that any day can bring a suicide bomber, the bus they ride may explode, they might die on a simple errand to a shop.

And with this as your view of normality, how very easy for you to adivse that the United States do what you wish they would do, give your extreme right-wing and paranoid view of Iran. With what serene equanimity you can survey the prospect of further American and British combat deaths in Persia, or yet again in Syria (how you must long for such a consumation!). And then, we can face the prospect a "normal" life, in which our soldiers face death each day manning checkpoints in occupied territories, the inhabitants of which deeply resent our presence; and our population can face the prospect that any trip to a city of any size may put them in the crosshairs of a terrorist attack. Given sufficient cause, we may lure the terrorists back to try again on our soil. And so, finally, we can lead the kind of surreal existence each Israeli now leads. I've known other Israelis than you, Steissd, and not all of them are right-wing believers in a Reagan- or Bush-style crusade against an "axis of evil." Not all of them believe that your government is justified in publicly ignoring and privately encouraging the illegal settlement of new Jewish immigrants on occupied territories. Not all of them think that they sould be compelled, as reservists, to go out and kill Palestinians indiscrimantly on the basis of a contention that a terrorist leader is harboring in a neighborhood, or that the shots which rang out agains a settler with an assault rifle came from this or that street. But all of them described to me their increasing disenchantment with a surreal existence in which everyone went about their daily business as if in any other peaceful, technological society--knowing that at any time they might be blown to atoms and become just another statistic in a lengthening litany of anguish and revenge.

You see, Steissd, i think American Presidents should have put the hammer down long ago on Israel, and ought to have threatened cutting the umbilical cord of billions of dollars in American aid, ought have threatened embargoing arms sales to Israel, because your governments routinely bargain in bad faith, and lie through their teeth about their resolve to prevent settlement in occupied territories, and to recognize and work with a Palestinian state. And i think that given the likelihood of an Israeli administration making promises they never intended to keep, that American Presidents should have cut off the aid, should have embargoed weapons to Israel. That would have been the only way that Israel would have kept their commitments. Because we are justly seen in the Arab world as supporters of a government which shows no respect for their treaty commitments, and thumbs its nose at UN resolutions, while the US stands behind them, the big brother to protect them, there will likely never be a shortage of recruits for terrorists. Because Harry Truman wanted that Jewish vote so badly in 1948, and because every US president since then has feared a backlash, first from Jewish voters, and later from right-wing christian voters with their own cockeyed fantasies about the "Holy Land" and "God's Chosen," Israel has gotten away with what has never been tolerated in any other "ally" of ours. Israel is an albatross around the collective neck of the Americans, and i have no doubt you would be delighted to see the weight of that relationship drag us down further, into Iran, into Syria . . . and where else, Steissd? Jordan, Egypt . . . how long is the list?

Every government in Israel since the Camp David accords has made such promises, and every one of them were lying through their teeth. We're suddenly supposed to believe them now?

Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be reduced to the settlements (that will be dismantled if the Palestinians fulfil their set of obligations regarding terror). Arabs consider every Israeli city and town, including these that were built within the 1967 borders on the lands that were bought from Arabs on monies of Rothschields and other rich Zionists, being illegal settlements. They want us to be thrown into the sea. If they give up this idea, just as president Sadat did, the peace will be possible.

That describes the sentiments of some of the people of the Arab world--just as your point of view does not represent the sentiments of all Israelis. If someone were to make promises to me for more than 50 years, and not keep those promises, i would consider that person a liar. The same applies to nations states. For decades now, Israeli governments have promised American governments that there would be no new settlements, and, at times, pervericated extravently enough to claim that they would dismantle the settlements. It hasn't happened, and frequently, those same governments sat by, inactive, while settlements were made in despite of their promises. Why should you expect anyone to believe the contention you've just made, when it's been made so often in the past, and it isn't true? Many Israeli conservatives believe that every Palestinian city and town should be demolished and the Palestinians driven out. I'm Irish. My people have a struggle of centuries compared to your decades, in which the same thing has happened, the same promises made, and broken, and the same conditions were always applied: when the other side gives up violence. It just appalls me that the United States has been suckered into this conflict. Tell me something, Steissd, are you going to go out and drive settlers from the homes they built, or they trailers they hauled onto a patch of land, so the bulldozers can knock them down? With no Israeli party able to form a government without a coalition--a pact with the devil--which includes right-wing parties, do you expect intelligent people to believe you when you contend that a government so constituted is every going to dismantle the settlements? Just as soon as the terrorist attacks stop, right? So, you also expect intelligent people to believe that poor, beleaguered, innocent Israel is willing to keep it's commitments, but those bad ol' Palestinians keep sending out suicide bombers--so the settlers stay; the Palestinians send out suicide bombers, so we only sent out this attack heliocopter because Mossad had definite information that a terrorist leader would be in the building, oh, but hey, we didn't mean to kill those women and children--fortunes of war, you know. I've seen it in the homeland of my ancestors for more than three centuries--i'm perhaps a little cynical here, but pardon me if i don't buy the Israeli claptrap any sooner than i would the Palestinian . . .

Setanta
In that 50 years you speak of how many times have Israel's Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to destroy it? In addition how many times have they said that the would not acknowledge Israelis right to exist? How many times have the vowed to sweep the Jews into the sea?
As far as Palestinian casualties I will cry for them as soon as I hear the Palestinians cry for the Israeli men, women and children they target.

I'm crying for none of them, Au, and my point is not to suggest that Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular are innocent victims--i'm pointing out that everyone here is a potential victim, and everyone a potentially guilty party. Because the Arab world justifiably sees Israel as a client state of the United States, their hatred, which i do not deny predates our support of Israel, is now pointed at us. And i see no good foreign policy justification for support of Israel which is not motivated by the political consideration of the likely reaction of American Jews, and others in this country who support the concept of the Israeli state. I'm not saying that the Israelis are worse than the Palestinians, simply that they are no better. Futher, i am pointing out that the governments of Israel have shamelessly taken advantage of their relationship with U.S. governments, and have consistently shown bad faith. Finally, i'm pointing out, which i did at the very outset of this diatribe, that American Presidents, with the exception of Carter, have been unwilling to put the screws to the Israelis to make them behave. In the eyes of the Arab world, we do nothing while Israel does as it pleases. Saying that contention is unjust, or that Israel has and continues to suffer itself means nothing to those who see the situation in those terms--Arabs specifically, and Muslims generally, do and will continue to hate us for it. Therefore, when i see Steissd come here, and complacently advocate a United States military intervention in Iran, which i see as basically a result of his desire to see someone "get" the long-term supporters of Hizbollah and the Intifada, i get rather sickened by it all.

What we have here gentleman, is the classic "Mexican standoff."

"I'll put my gun down, effen you put down yourn."

"Hokay, Gringo, i'll put my pistola down if you put yours down."

"You first . . . "

"Oh, no, please Senor, i insist, you first . . . "

Setanta
Gun has been holstered.

As for Iran. Bush has put a seal on the file reading only to be opened if required for election.
I think we have more on our plate than we can handle at the present time. I only hope that someone can make Bush and Rumsfeld understand that. If there were a rational individual in the WH there would be no need to worry however,Bush and little Caesar Rumsfeld are IMO are anything but rational.

Setanta is of course correct. I have long believed there ought to have been a coalition to separate the Jews and Arabs instead of to invade Iraq or Iran.

They ain't got no oil, Boss, geeze . . . now that Iraq, thas just gonna be a cash cow i tell ya . . .

A recent poll taken in Israel shows that the majority of Israelis do not want an independent state of Palestine in Israel. No matter how much political wrangling goes on, especially this so-called Roadmap of GWBush, it just ain't gonna happen. c.i.

modus operandi that is merely the least evil, not so many alternatives exist to aerial strikes. When the terror leaders were deprived of impunity, terror did not completely cease, but frequency of attacks decreased drastically. I do not have statistic materials on the issue, but this is a part of my everyday life, so I know it better than any scientific institution studying the frequency of terror attack as a function of the number of killings of terror leaders.
I am not a supporter of settlements activity, but linkage of Palestinian terror to the latter became a mantra that has no real grounds. PLO, I want to remind, was established in 1964, when there were no settlements at all, and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were not occupied by Israel.
In opinion of Palestinians, any Jewsih city or village in the Middle East is an illegal settlement that has to be destroyed and its inhabitants murdered.
And the mentioned PLO has done absolutely nothing to liberate the territories mentioned from Egyptian or Jordanian occupation: all its teror attacks, both before the Six-Days war, and after it, were directed against Israel. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mainly a problem of boosting self-esteem for the Arabs, while for Israelis it is a problem of physical survival.
About polls (re: input of Cicerone Imposter). Of course, no sane Israeli wants to have a country with rabid regime and savage population on the Eastern border (and the future Palestinian state does not seem to be the good neighbor). But from the other side, people understand that there is no alternative to complete separation with Palestinians, and establishment of such a state provides such an opportunity. Therefore, there were no serious rallies against decision of the current government to accept the Roadmaps plan. I do not take into consideration rallies of the settlers: their realty is in danger. But settlers constitute no more than 5 percent of the Israeli Jews; majority of Israelis accept the program and are not planning to do anything to support the settlers' claims.
There is one very important difference between the Irish national liberation movement and Arab terror: even the IRA has never declared elimination of the Great Britain as its ultimate aim.