America's Chamberlain?

FinanceDoc

Bless you Melanie; you are one of the most eloquent and passionate voices for Israel in the world. Yet, like so many other intelligent writers and commentators with the same conviction -- Charles Krauthammer, Norman Podhoretz, Dennis Prager, Bill Kristol -- you saw Bush as you wished him to be rather than as he was.

Remember, this is the first US president to explicitly call for a Palestinian state; to compel elections which brought Hamas to power; and to adopt the Saudi "peace plan" masquerading as the Road Map.

This is also the president who initially threatened a veto if the UAE was not permitted to buy and control key US ports; the president who has approved the most sophisticated weapons sales to the Arabs and the president has now offered the Saudis gratis, the same nuclear technology that he denies Iran.

Going into Iraq was a massive blunder for the Bush administration. Win or lose, the US has neither the military nor the economic assets to wage another battle in Iran. And the most fleeting of all assets – political capital – has been all but extinguished by this, “the arguably most pro-Israel American president in history”.

Wayne Nicholls

Mind shattering, but in a twisted way understandable.

America and sadly Israel are now totally smothered by the philosophy of pragmatism. Pragmatism the dominant philosophy has been the springboard for America’s foreign policy for most of the 20 Century.Now it Israle.
Pragmatism dispenses, because it must be seen to be practical, with principles and standards. Remember the CIA’s NIE on Iran, it wasn’t going to let facts change the practical. Anything can be tried as long as it is by rule-of-thumb.

Keep up the great journalism, it a must read. . You are a very brave and inspiring person.

"A Time To Speak"

Bush has always been in effect a President in Name Only. He got the Republican nomination in 2000 only because of the vast amounts of money put up by the Carlyle Group -- the consortium of investors headed by his father George H.W. Bush and James E. Baker III, and the Bin-Laden family. And at that time Condoleeza Rice was their employee and go-fer.

They used George W. Bush as their puppet to gain presidential power. He himself is perhaps merely a guy pushed into a job he was unqualified to hold and incompetent to fill.

In this twilight of the administration the ugly truth behind the amiable facade no longer needs to be hidden from the American people.

Ronnie Smith

Oh Melanie. If only Israel had vast reserves of oil... The United States would never waiver.

Miranda Rose Smith

The fact that so much of the world is antiIsrael has convinced me that many people are faking when they pretend to be moved by Anne Frank, may the almighty avenge her blood. A sincerely-moved-by-Anne Frank world would be a pro-Israel world. What I don't understand is how an Englishman could be so antiIsrael, knowing that, if Israel, G-d forbid, falls, EUROPE is next on the Islamofascist hitlist. Are they so anxious to see Israel destroyed that they don't care if England is next?

Andi

When will our leaders and those who aspire to leadership realise we, the Judeo-Chrisitian free world is engaged in a war against Islamic totalitarianism?

TR Evans

God bless you Melanie.

Chris

Chamberlain bought time - and was, therefore, probably more responsible than anyone for our survival and eventual victory in the Second World War. Yet still, warmongers shout appeasement when they want hostilities to begin. Let Melanie Phillips go the front line before all the young men she wants to see dead.

Charles

Poor old Neville Chamberlain, that his good name is constantly abused in this way. Churchill in his 1940 eulogy thought it would be quite different:

"It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned."

It has been said that the 'high water mark' of appeasement was Yalta not Berlin. Now, given who attended that event, subscribers to this view would be talking of revisionism of a truly epic nature. Indeed, given Churchill's positively Churchillian reputation, their views might even be considered quasi-treasonable.

Ed Hummer

I suspect it is the talentless Condi Rice who is pursuing this. She has been out of her depth from day one but since she is the teacher's pet she just keeps going and going.

Ed Hummer

Chris - that is nonsense.
If you want to play that game, congratulate the Serbs for holding up Barbarossa for a month.

GNO

This is a depressing read first thing in the morning.

George W has pulled off an amazing trick of being the most despised American President in the Muslim world and having done the most for their causes, all at the same time!

Alcuin

I share Melanie's position on both Iran and Israel, but find it hard to believe the Americans are so dumb, craven or both that this apparent U-turn is what it seems. I hope they are realist enough to understand that these counties are the front line in what may be the most important global struggle ever, and are playing a deeper game. Unfortunately, local politics tends to shorten the focus.

What that deeper game could be, I do not know, but could involve undermining the Mullahs from within, and the development of technical responses to a nuclear attack. Both are high risk (though lower than taking out Iran's nuclear facilities), but there is no low risk alternative. Technical solutions could involve lasers or rockets, both immature but approaching potential deployment. Neither would stop a truck bomb.

The front line will get hotter, regardless of what any of us do, as the Mullahs are set on their reckless course. I hope all parties fully appreciate this. I am not optimistic - I do not see how war can be avoided, but hope it will be without dishonour.

Roy

Western leaders can not get it! They misunderstand the Islamic/Arab psycho from the beginning. Even if they started out on the assumptions these people are lying through their teeth, it would be nearer the truth. But they don't, they can't, they're lost. It seems they believe every word that's said. Every tourist in the world knows you have to bargain. The top flight western politicians seem not to have the elementary wheeler dealer mentality required for the job.

Mike

To quote Melanie..."the single most important reason for the never-ending Middle East impasse -- and why the whole of the free world is now about to be held to ransom".....is because the West, the so-called 'free world', has yet to learn that you don't fight Muslims on Muslim land.

Melanie, John Bolton, and Cheney's 'Crazy Gang' continue to bang on about Iran, which only serves to strenghen the hand of the Mullahs, further alienate the Muslim world, and put Israel's long-term security at an even greater risk.

Melanie's analogies with the events of WW2, in the context of 'appeasement', are not only pointless but ludicrous......childish even!

steve

History teaches us, after all, that war is the inevitable outcome of appeasement

the beginning of this sentence should be rephrased: 'what a few examples from history teach us'.

Since there are countless examples from history of diplomacy actually preventing wars, as opposed to starting them. Or does 'history' only actually comprise the study of the uears 1930-1945? I wonder what the 'appeasament' of the IRA by Tony Blair led to. Pretending that the only lessons we can learn from history are those from a 20-year period in the previous century is disingenuous to say the least.

michael

Israel first at all costs.

Never mind the wider implications of a strike on Iran.

Never mind the price of oil

Never mind the reactions of islamicists, all of which would only play to your hand and give you an excuse to tighten your iron grip

Never mind the fact that Iranian opinion against Israel would only cement, and vindicate Dinner Jacket.

Just a co ordinated mass propaganda attack from you, Stephen Pollard and all the rest on anyone who even suggests pausing in the search for peace.

Mike

Michael: Quite right.....the neo-con agenda has been tested to destruction and failed. The price?.....hundreds of thousands of civilians dead, the prestige of the US and Britain at the bottom of the pit, trillions of dollars wasted.....for what? In the context of this thread.....all in the interests of a 60 year old fledging state....still to determine its borders....what on earth are we thinking about?

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Miranda Rose Smith: "Are they so anxious to see Israel destroyed that they don't care if England is next?". Answer: Yes! It's called 'classic anti-Semitism'. In Part 10 (Ten Plagues) of his brilliant "Crash Course in Jewish History" Rabbi Ken Spiro writes:

"Despite that, there is an amazing amount of resistance on the part of the Egyptians - not just the Pharaoh, but the whole of Egypt - to let the Jews leave. It is classic anti-Semitism, "I don't care if I take my whole country down as long as I can take the Jews with me."".

Surely you're not blind to the fact that anti-Semitism is endemic in the UK!

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Miranda Rose Smith: "Are they so anxious to see Israel destroyed that they don't care if England is next?". Answer: Yes! It's called 'classic anti-Semitism'. In Part 10 (Ten Plagues) of his brilliant "Crash Course in Jewish History" Rabbi Ken Spiro writes:

"Despite that, there is an amazing amount of resistance on the part of the Egyptians - not just the Pharaoh, but the whole of Egypt - to let the Jews leave. It is classic anti-Semitism, "I don't care if I take my whole country down as long as I can take the Jews with me."".

Surely you're not blind to the fact that anti-Semitism is endemic in the UK!

steve2

For those of you who lump Iran in with other Muslim countries as if they are one in the same, do you understand that Iran is a predominantly Persian, Shiite country? Do you realize that Iran is opposed by many Sunni Arabs, especially Saudi Arabia? To lump together all Muslims in the region as if they are one in the same is ridiculous. Perhaps you should be concerned that in increasingly allying itself with Sunni Islam as a counterbalance to Iran the U.S. is cuddling up with some of the same strains of Islam that spawned al-Qaeda.

As for Melanie, could you address what role the invasion of Iraq has played in a. curtailing the American response to Iran and b. in emboldening Iran?

Bill M

"Instead this latest act of craven American appeasement will strengthen it because it displays in flashing neon lights the message that America hasn’t got a clue what to do about Iran and so could Tehran kindly help it out of this jam, please."

I am disgusted that I voted for this man, twice. He is now repulsive to me.

I can only believe we are operating, as Melanie suggests, with ZERO foresight and a shocking denial of history OR there's something going on here that none of us understand because it is too dark and too grand. Bush/Saudi relationship, a history of backroom deals with Iran, whatever it may be. Otherwise, nothing can explain the blind idiocy of our pathetic leadership. Both scenarios are equally disgusting. (Watch the opening segment of the past two nights of Daily Show on comedycentral.com to get just a flavor.)

If it is, in fact, what Melanie suggests, it is beyond criminal and beyond human. However unfortunate, there is every reason to believe that the intent of these most recent action of appeasement and call for troop reductions are nothing short of a strategy to implant a Republican in the White House. The trail of manipulation of votes (and I am not talking about Florida) is there and it's not overcounts but undercounts.

Bush has done nothing short of betraying this nation, the office of the president, and the nation of Israel.

May he go down in history as what he is, the most arrogant miserable failure of a man and president that this nation has ever seen.

To quote Bush, "Yeh fool me once......shame on....shame on....me....shame on....you. Yeh fool meh, I won't git fooled again."

Idiot.

Thinkster

@Bill M: You mentioned something too dark and too grand. You may be spot on, and I submitted a detailed explanation of what IS probably going on, but despite trying twice, it has no appeared. Moderator? Why has my posting not appeared? (I submitted it twice, second one updated.) Either way, this is a first!

tps

I've always thought that Bush's disenchantment with Israel started after the 2006 war. He had all but given them the green light to take out Syria and Hezbollah and they miffed it. How do you support a country that doesn't choose to defend itself?

YouCannotBeSerious

"History teaches us, after all, that war is the inevitable outcome of appeasement because, instead of preventing bad people from doing bad things, it galvanises them further to do so. When the Americans talked to the Japanese, the result was Pearl Harbour. When Chamberlain talked to Hitler, the result was the invasion of Poland."

Perhaps the worst historical analysis of this period I have ever seen. It conflates appeasement with discussions,and having confused the matter, then goes onto criticise talks with opponents/enemies in all circumstances. As if Pearl Harbour was the result of Americans sitting down to talk with Japan - for God's sake!

Verity

Ed Hummer - It always puzzled me why George bush has kept Rice on. She was, as we know, tutored at Stanford by Madeleine Albright's father, a total lefty, like Madeleine herself.

Yet Bush was so impressed with her when he met her at Stanford, with George Schultz, he said after the meeting, "I want her on our team." Personally, I think she's a lefty along the lines of Madeleine Albright, yet she's lasted the course. I cannot think of one thing she's achieved.

Dave M

Congratulations to Melanie. I always believed Bush was a fraud (and the Iraq war a con) and now it seems Mel is now more suspicious of Bush lately. Then again, I think Obama and John Kerry made it clear the Iraq War was a distraction from the real threat Iran posed. I can't help but repeat a very fundamental question: Why in this world did Bush go to war against S. Hussein who fought a war against the Iranian mullahs and acted as a check and balance to Islamic expansion? Bad as S.H. may have been, his regime was secular, after all. The truth, I think, is this: Bush had a personal grudge against S.H.coupled with greed for control over Iraq's oil resources. He had little understanding of the implications for Israel if Iraq was invaded and how the Shia in Iran could control Iraq, then unite against Israel. Neither was Bush worried about crying wolf - the idea that when we did face a real threat in future, people wouldn't believe it. Also, note what else Bush did: Did he not persuade the Israelis to give up land to the Palestinians in the mistaken notion an act of surrender under pressure of terrorism would lead to peace? What were the Israelis thinking of by capitulating to such advice, when the result was ever greater rocket fire by encouraged Islamic extremists? Thus, the crux of the matter is now this: The Israelis are surrounded by hostile enemies while a lame duck President sits in the White House. America cannot and will not stop Iran which is why it is now turning its efforts to a missile defence system in the Czech Republic. Besides, the American public wouldn't tolerate another war connected to Iran. So, the ball is in Israel's court. In reality, the only way to kill a hydra is to cut off its head and the head in this case is Iran. I think Israel has no choice but to act unilaterally and make Iran understand for once and for all it will face war if it doesn't cease its nuclear program. If Israel has the fire power it should use it now before it's too late.

PJD

"Moreover, Iran is as strong as it is today only because of the astounding fact that America has refused to fight back in the war that Iran has been prosecuting against it now for almost three decades"

That ignores the obvious. The support the US gave to Iraq when it attacked Iran in 1980.

FinanceDoc

Despite their public efforts at face-saving, European governments well understand that they too are within missile range of Iran and that if Israel goes, they will be next on the Islamic revolutionary agenda.

Perhaps Michael and Mike's time would be better allocated bickering with the Greeks who a few weeks ago offered Israel airspace and technical assistance on defeating Iran's Russian-made air defense system. Athens is just 1547 miles from Tehran.

As in the case of Osirak, the Europeans will allow Israel to do their dirty work and then hypocritically condemn the Jewish state after the world has been made infinitely safer.

john mcdonald

I suspect you are correct Melanie - its up to little old Israel now to save the world - thankfully your analogy with Czechoslovakia is not entirely correct. The Czechs in 38 were helpless - Israel certainly is not - they should use their nukes on Iran - history will forgive them -

Joe Strummer

If some seedy deal has been arranged to prevent the deaths of American soldiers by Iranian IED'S and other roadside devices in Iraq then the USA has dangerously compromised itself and Israel especially for short term political expediency come election time.

I don't believe that some form of detente can be found with ruthless and devious antagonists like Iran without heavy payment.

Expect Iran now to throw its collective weight around more prominently in the Middle East now it has the USA hamstrung and silent.

N

I think a great deal of you are missing one important thing. Islam teaches that it's okay to lie to the infidel (you, me, Bush, Israel,etc..) so who cares if we do or don't have negotiations and appeasement because they (Iran) will most likely lie to us anyway.

Mike

FinanceDoc: In that case I think Israel should go ahead....alone....and without the US. It has the air capability...go ahead...do it!

It would make a change from targeting high-rises in Beirut, motor vehicles in transit or unsuspecting houses in a village.

There may be a minor problem of identifying the right mountain(s) and opening up deep seated, underground facilities....also ground-to-air missiles could be an embarrassment but they shouldn't present much of a problem to experienced, seasoned Israeli air-crews!

Not only would this activity 'save the world', it would also give no reason for Melanie to continually bang on about it!

But god help Israel if it touches an Iranian civilian or one brick of a mosque at Mashhad, Isfahan or Qum or any other mosque for that matter. Some folk could be quite vexed.

Huw Thornton

@ Alcuin 9.39

"What that deeper game could be, I do not know...."

I think that you're absolutely right - and my worry is that there is no deeper game. I know that it's strange to wish in vain for really clever and devious activity from national leaders.

Sometimes, sadly, what you see is what you get! Melanie is quite right to raise apprehensions about all this.

Sergey

America still needs Pearl Harbor like lesson to change its attitude to ongoing existentional struggle and begin to fight back with all its might. Mullas in Tehran, most probably, are the ones who will teach USA this lesson. And after dust settles, there will be no Iran to talk about.

Barney

Melanie, I listen to USA radio for about 3hrs a day and last I heard Condaleeza Rice interviewed by Sean Hannity. She stated that the visit of a US envoy was to re-iterate the offer and sanctions already on the table and to recive Iran's resply. She stated that nothing in USA policy has changed and that the visit was not a negotiation. I heard her say this. Today the newswires have called this a possible turning point and shift in the USA stance. I am still believing what Rice said on national USA radio and not what has been interpreted. Only a post visit analysis will determine if she was truthful or not. On Monday (while you were in The States) Gordon Brown stated at his press conference that he would not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. I am sure that the USA is covering itself in going the extra mile so that when Iran's nukes get attacked no-one can say they didn't try.

Luca

Articles like this make supporters of Israel sound like the members of suicide cult. If your identification with the state of Israel has reached the point when you would be prepared to ignore the risks to the wider world community in order to strike at Iran -- because you believe THAT would a fate preferable to political change in Israel ... the time has come to change your medications.

David M

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 07/18/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Bob Latchford

sorry, who promised the Jews the land?

FinanceDoc

Mike: if Israel has to go it alone, she will have to make it count. That means IDF pilots won't be worrying about schools the mullahs have built atop their underground nuclear facilities or whingeing coming from the Neocomm/Islamofascist tools in London.

Dave

I realise this comment could be seen as insulting or beyond the pale, but honestly I'm just writing in good faith.
This post is insane. I mean, really insane. It's not just the lack of any understanding of history, the armchair general air and the mullahs-under-the-beds conspiracy.
This is the ravings of someone who is completely divorced from reality. And some of you agree with it?
Perhaps it's important this blog exists to give an insight into the processes of some in the Middle East.
But surely there must be an editor at The Spectator who can step in at some point and, I dunno edit this stuff? Or look for the journalistic assignment that might stretch Mel's limited understanding of the modern world?

Adam Marlborough

"I wonder what the 'appeasament' of the IRA by Tony Blair led to. Pretending that the only lessons we can learn from history are those from a 20-year period in the previous century is disingenuous to say the least"

Steve, it lead to the virtual destruction of the moderate mainstream parties that represented their respective communities, and promoted the most sectarian terrorist
supporting parties to positions of power.Some result!

Dave M

"......If your identification with the state of Israel has reached the point when you would be prepared to ignore the risks to the wider world community..."

But a nuclear armed Iran is a risk to the wider world community. On the other hand, a tiny, democracy called Israel isn't a threat to the wider world community. Besides, many people reason why should the collective Islamic States that surround Israel not be content with the huge amount of land they already have? Not to mention the fact billions of Middle Eastern citizens have been granted citizenship in France, the U.K., Denmark and Holland e.t.c. So, surely the Arab World could assimilate a comparatively smaller number of Palestinians? Still, back to the main point: Anyone who can sleep at night with the knowledge the Mullahs of Iran may own a nuclear device leaves me breathless. The same mentality that exists amongst the Iranian elite is the same mentality that crashed civilian aircraft into the twin towers in New York. We're talking Islamic fanatics here, not rational human beings. Or even communists who understood the danger nuclear weapons represented. So, I for one will feel a whole lot more secure if I wake up one morning to hear the news Israel has just wiped out Iran's nuclear weapons program.

dave smith

I have never understood US(with us tagging along) policy in the Middle east. Iran seems to have a clear aim.Removal of all Western influence from the region. Everything it does is directed to this end. Thus Iran has a goal.The West does not. We cannot win in Iraq and Afganistan by force of arms other than by completely devasting those countries. A pointless exercise. Iran can just tie up more and more of our soldiers by continuing the present situation.
We can safeguard Israel. I doubt whether Iran seriously thinks it can destroy that country and finds it useful to keep the pressure up(via Hizbollah and Hamas) in order to swing the Arab states behind her.
A clear and absolute guarantee that an attack upon Israel would be met by the complete destruction of the attacker by the West would be enough.Mind you we would have to mean it and be prepared to use nuclear weapons.In return the West would abandon the ME to it's fate.It would no longer be our concern.
Strengthen the frontiers of Europe(and by that I mean Greece) and cut off as many ties with the ME as possible.Stop air flights,tourism and cut trade to the minimum. Disengage other than for basic diplomatic needs.
There are other powerful nations in the world the ME nations would not want to upset.
Check out the size of the Japanese Navy and you will be surprised.It makes ours look tiny.
The ME nations and Iran are in the grip of something we cannot understand or reason with.
They have the problem not us. For the time being we may have to quarantine the whole region. Not appease it but lay down terms and mean what we say.
Just thoughts and I expect many will disagree but there it is.

Bill M

@Bob Latchford:

Sorry, who promised the Palestinians their own state?

Ilya

Melanie, I constantly read your blog and support your responsible and sensible position but I think that this is over-the-top. To criticise probably the most pro-Israel US President for this stunt is nonsense. If it is a Republican trick aimed at installing McCain in the White house in January and warding off the Obama threat, then we all should hope this will work. Because if McCain becomes a President, I'm sure he will not go on appeasing mullahs. If Obama becomes a President (god save us), he would begin such talks with Iran anyway. So stealing an 'attractive' diplomatic initiative from the Obama's camp and increasing (hopefully) McCain's chances for win in November the Bush administration essentially does what it should do - protecting Israel, its closest ally in the Middle East by means of ensuring a defeat for liberal wuss such as Obama.

raymond joseph douglas

I hate to say this melanie,but the bible does teach that israel would be abandoned by all in the last days.If it is any comfort,the jewish people and israel are not abandoned by God!You remain the "apple of God's eye",and woe to those who hurt or violate that eye in trying to destroy the apple!Zec2v8

Bob Latchford

Adam Marlborough, are you being serious? Are you saying the Northern Ireland peace process was a bad thing? Were you a fan of watching peoples bones being scraped from the walls of Omagh & London? Did you enjoy watching a 30 year terror campaign waged on our streets? Did you not, like any other sane person, cheer when the bombs stopped, the arms were decommissioned and the 2 mortal enemies stood side by side in a peace which to this day has not faltered? Or are you one of these twisted people who still sees this as a 'submission to terrorists'?

And what fantastic news it is to see America opening diplomatic channels with Iran, although I can almost see the rage seeping through the pores of Ms Melanie 'war should be the last option but...'Phillips at this news

phil

Mike who has spent the last few days in his pool has obviously had too much sun or read to much fisk .probably both.I f he cannot see the danger to the world of allowing a nuclear armed set of lunatic mullahs free reign and escalating this stupidity by alluding to Israel being a force to fear for the world -he really needs to be examined .the brain has become addled Mike .the old Phil and Mike show occasionally had some sense in it but now you have brought your stooge michael into your act its time for you to leave this stage and try busking on the streets of south Beirut.No doubt you will earn a few crumbs from an audience of patricia and the ultimate buffoon latchford -what a sad demise to a once working brain .
ps I see you ran from answering the problems I set for you on the previous thread -its no surprise they always do - tim from Sydney took a ride on a boomerang the other day too and they were hardly A level question for you both ,just a little researching the truth -ah well !

Alexandrovich

phil: another courteous reply from you to Mike - someone who unswervingly resists the use of invective. Someone who posts reasoned and cogent argument.

But no, his opinion differs from yours and therefore he must be subjected to your ineffectual, puerile taunts.

If you recognised the hatred within yourself, it would give you cause for concern, along with that AsiNiNe friend of yours. You know, the one with whom you play 'good cop bad cop' on every thread.

You and people like Adam B make me ashamed of my faith.

phil

Alexandrovich-back from transylvania ?Glad to see you read my efforts ,you may learn something of value , do you actually have any faith ?-I hope you are not claiming it is the same as mine as we are taught to love and not to hate -and if you cant bear to mention Anne's name she would tell you she is an atheist but cares what happens in this world -we do not agree about her choice of words but you bet your life I agree with her sentiments-you must be aware by now that your tasteless comments on your visits here are widely despised,but they do keep us alert to the fact there is another world out there -I doubt that Mike would be proud to have you as his defender either

phil

Mike I see you did answer my post on "Israel tragic"and I have replied to you no doubt not to alex,s good taste .but we have suffered worse than that in the past :)

Mike

Phil: I think you got a little ahead of yourself....take another look at the 'previous thread'....I think that's where the problem is?

Excellent piece by RF in the 'Independent' to-day.....nothing to do with Middle East.....may help you think 'outside the square'....for a change.

Harvey

Where's the lovely Ann?

It's not the same without her spittle flecked comments about how everyone who posts something that incurs her displeasure is totally ignorant of the subject matter and a raving anti-semite to boot.

C'mon Ann. No slacking...

punkscience

Mad Mel's at it again.

The Muslims are coming to get me! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGggGggggghhhhhhhhhh ! ! ! ! ! !

Foam, foam, dribble, gnash.

Adam Marlborough

"Were you a fan of watching peoples bones being scraped from the walls of Omagh & London? Did you enjoy watching a 30 year terror campaign waged on our streets?"

No Bob I did not.But Gerry and Martin
sure did, and their reward wasn't a richly deserved life sentence in prison but a share of power in Northern Ireland. What a great message to send, kill enough people and we will cave into you. Better get growing that beard Bob, because Islam is well on the way to seizing power in this country,Islamic terrorists know that all they have to do is keep killing and the government will eventually give them what they want.

Bob Latchford

"Better get growing that beard Bob, because Islam is well on the way to seizing power in this country"

cuckoo cuckoo

Herbert Thornton

Melanie considers that for America to station diplomats in Iran as essentially a ploy to help a Republican get elected as the next President and conflates this into a parallel with Neville Chamberlain's talks with Hitler. That is a worrying thought, but I wonder if it overlooks another and perhaps over-riding factor?

It seems to me to be equally arguable that President Bush is profoundly aware that short of Iran actually launching military action against the U.S., his hands are completely tied: quite aside from international reaction to it, the magnitude of reaction against it in the U.S. itself would be incalculable. His administration can only step back from the problem and leave it to the next President - whoever that turns out to be.

My own feeling is that even when Bush ceases to be President, the U.S. will be very reluctant to embark on another war, this time to attack Iran. As for directly intervening by joining Israel in a nuclear attack on Iran - I should have thought that would be completely out of the question, especially bearing in mind the Russian paranoia over the establishment of anti-missile radar sites in eastern Europe.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that Israel will feel compelled to take on the task of neutralising Iran - with whatever consequences follow from that - see James Forsyth's piece - "Why an Israeli strike on Iran could turn nuclear". Whether the Israelis take this step - and if so when - is an interesting topic. It does however raise the possibility that the U.S. could - without itself participating in an attack - supply Israel with augmented means of carrying out their military action.

The possible international consequences of the use of nuclear weapons - American supplied or not - are even more interesting, especially bearing in mind that Pakistan is unstable, nuclear-armed and Muslim.

David Lindsay

The United States should be congratulated for re-opening diplomatic links to Iran, an emerging democracy with a very high culture, and the West’s natural ally in the Middle East. As much as anything else, even Bush now obviously expects Obama to succeed him.

Both Bush and Obama should now build on this positive development towards Iran, which has a reserved Jewish seat in Parliament and more women than men at university, by loosening ties to the Jew-hating and misogynistic Gulf monarchies, paymasters of AIPAC-backed and feminist Hillary Clinton’s mercifully unsuccessful Presidential bid.

Adam B.

Alexandrovich, you can still be proud of your faith. I see you have presumed we share the same one. What a silly comment.

Herbert Thornton

"....Iran, an emerging democracy with a very high culture....." says David.

Really? -
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386789,00.html

DaveP

Politicians have to pursue the voter. As Muslim populations in Europe and America are increasing rapidly, Israel and her friends are going to be increasingly isolated. And so it is that Islam will tear the fabric of the Judeao-Christian world - an ambition it has had for a thousand years. All that has been granted to them, just given to them, by allowing Muslim immigrants into the unprotected liberal bosom of the West.

If we wish to save the West, we will have to give up certain ideals - that all people and cultures are alike. They are'nt.