Give me Hitchen's over Chomsky any day. Chomsky makes many very valid points, particularly about comparing atrocities. The problem is he turns around at least twice in this short clip to his own comparisons with Israel. As far as Israel is concerned, Chomsky seems to be too far down the idealist road in condemning Israel. Unless blame can be assigned to Israel from the original war of independence, they've never had any choice for a non-violent existence. Hamas, Hezbollah and their Iranian funders all still refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist in any form. Only an idealist can condemn a nation for violent self defense. Only an idealist can condemn a nation for the inevitable mistakes that come from having all your neighbors perpetually at war with you. Ideals are great, but at some point when applying them to the real world as though it were a vacuum creates atrocities.

^Biminim:^

Does that mean that the situation McCain is referring to was actually a problem solved by Jimmy Carter and not Reagan at all?

In reply to this comment by Biminim:
I am not a McCain fan, but I have to respond to this. These are two DIFFERENT hostage situations. The one that McCain is referring to is the embassy hostage situation that was resolved the day Reagan took office in 1981. The Iran-Contra affair was about American hostages in Lebanon under the control of Hezbollah who were ransomed with weapons trans-shipped through Israel. Now, while there is deep speculation that the first hostage situation--our embassy staff taken in Tehran when Carter allowed the deposed Shah into the U.S. for cancer treatments--was resolved because of some back-channel dealings, including a rumor that George H.W. Bush went to Paris and met with Iranians to STALL the release of the hostages until after the U.S. election of 1980, these are two completely different situations. The first took place in 1981, the second in 1985/6. So McCain is technically right.

I am not a McCain fan, but I have to respond to this. These are two DIFFERENT hostage situations. The one that McCain is referring to is the embassy hostage situation that was resolved the day Reagan took office in 1981. The Iran-Contra affair was about American hostages in Lebanon under the control of Hezbollah who were ransomed with weapons trans-shipped through Israel. Now, while there is deep speculation that the first hostage situation--our embassy staff taken in Tehran when Carter allowed the deposed Shah into the U.S. for cancer treatments--was resolved because of some back-channel dealings, including a rumor that George H.W. Bush went to Paris and met with Iranians to STALL the release of the hostages until after the U.S. election of 1980, these are two completely different situations. The first took place in 1981, the second in 1985/6. So McCain is technically right.

I want to see Chomsky and Hitchens sit down and debate the middle east for a few hours.

A few things I'd appreciate if someone can explain to me.
1.Why mention the over throw of the Shah, but ignore that current Iranian popular opinion is pro-US and strongly against the Ayatollah?
2.Does America really have to accept Iranian support of Iraqi insurgents without complaint because America has backed insurgents else where?
3.When talking about American support for Saddam against Iran, it's disingenuous to leave out that America was working with most of the middle-eastern Arabs who looked to Saddam almost as a hero.
4.Why completely ignore the obvious reason to be more concerned over Iran's nuclear program than countries like Japan? That obvious reason being Iran's stated desire to remove Israel from the map. Chomsky himself points out the agreement between Iran and the EU were Iran restarts their nuclear program because their 'security' wasn't secured as promised. Let's not pretend anything but military security was at stake and Iran wants nuclear weapons to get it.
5. Why do all the talking heads on both sides refuse to discuss the real world. If Iran stops supporting Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations and recognizes Israel's right to exist, then there aren't any valid complaints to throw at them anymore. As long as those are outstanding, it's pretty tough to say they are just victims of unwarranted American aggression. At the very least, Israel must be recognized as a victim as well of unwarranted Iranian aggression, which Chomsky et. al. are very reluctant to accept.

cause syria is constantly demonised by the western media and nobody gives a damn about their side of the story, that's why


Not even the surrounding arab nations that refuse to recognize Israel and take every opportunity to condemn them for taking military actions against Hamas and Hezbollah? Surely Syria could find some sympathy from condemning this bombing. That they sat around and said as little as possible is far and away the most bizarre piece of the whole story.
2 other interesting bits:
1.Syria had just recently unloaded a large shipment of "cement" from North Korea.
2.Syria had recently spent billions on an extremely advanced anti-air system from Russia, guaranteed to keep Israeli jets out. This bombing run hit deep in Syrian air-space though, and the first indication they had of anything was the bombs going off.

To me it looks like the North Korean reactor story is quite credible. That Israel not only knew about it, but was able to destroy it without even triggering any lights on Syria's new defense system was beyond humiliating to Syrian leadership.

She did not even bother to answer the interviewer's first question.

Notice how quickly she turned the subject to the West's "lack of understanding" and the fact that we "have to work on our multiculturalism".

I've often remarked that many Muslims being interviewed on Islam have adopted this tactic of immediately diverting too-precise questions towards Western "faults" in an attempt to guilt non-Muslim audiences. They have understood that to gain one's sympathy you have but to plant a tiny seed of guilt which will then create a malaise that persists for the ensuing statements, making them seem much more sensible... no matter how outlandish. Just plant seeds as you go along and you've got yourself an audience lapping your every word.

For instance, a CAIR spokesperson said that we should sooner lock up all Catholic priests to prevent pedophilia rather than be wary of Muslims. No connection whatsoever, but his statement was so absurd that it took the interviewer off guard and the spokesperson got free reign to spew whatever he wanted without reprisal.

Lebanon peaceloving and modern? Yeah... when they were Druze and Maronite Christian... before the Islamic Palestinians arrived to "diversify" the place. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lebanon#Rising_prosperity_and_peace

About the war in Lebanon, it was indisputably brought on by the Muslim demographic. The "innocent civilians" were Islamic Hezbollah fighters masquerading as victims. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War#Beginning_of_conflict

This woman is simply a front for gullible Western audiences. She could not pull an ounce of clout in a debate.

I'll be sure do downvote it when I get my bronze star.

Hezbollah is primarily anti-israel. They have no intention to attack the USA, and probably lack the ability also. So calling Hezbollah a US national security threat is dubious.

Oof. I feel that some of Condi's points need to be responded to.

1) Not all "terrorists" are alike, obviously. Condi needs to get it straight that Hezbollah is not Al Qaeda. They are very different organizations with somewhat opposed goals. They shouldn't be lumped together. As Paul points out, it is highly unlikely that Iran would be helping Sunni terrorists, and Condi's answer is just some more of the vague hand waving he was complaining about.

2) Iran Nuclear Program: Iran is currently approaching a major energy crisis. Lack of maintenance and support for their oil refinement infrastructure, combined with increased energy demand, has been having serious effects on their economy. It's projected that within a decade, Iran will not be exporting any oil at all. To help combat the crisis, Iran is now requiring all of its automobile manufacturers to make hybrid cars only. It is only reasonable that they move to nuclear energy. That's not to say that they might not also work on nuclear bombs on the hush-hush as well; it's in their interests. But as things stand, they can't afford /not/ to build nuclear reactors at this time.

3) The supposed unilaterality of the opposition to Iran is not as simple as it seems. To be sure, the craziness of Ahmadinejad does tend to make non-Iranians worry, but the real worry isn't that Iran will bomb anyone. Rather, the power afforded by nuclear weapons would make Iran a far more influential country, with far more say as to how the Western countries interfere in the Middle East. To be sure, there is some truth to Condi's assertion that it's a national security matter; a rise in Iranian power could threaten our petroleum supply. In response, one must answer with the cliche, nonetheless true, that we need to reduce our dependence on petroleum period. A more far-sighted foreign policy would allow Iran to do as it wills in the region--decreasing Middle Eastern animus toward the West and especially America--and simultaneously move toward alternative energy sources in serious way. The Bush administration's lack of concern with alternative energy is well established by now.

Chris Matthews did a great job embarrassing that guy, but he's not doing his job, he leaves the audience stupider going out then going in.

DailyKos article about accomplishments. Here is blog source linked from C&L.


Clinton's Successes:
S.694 : A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes. (This is currently in conference committee to reconcile difference with the House bill)
Passed in the Senate:
S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day".
S.RES.21 : A resolution recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York
S.RES.92 : A resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.
S.RES.141 : A resolution urging all member countries of the International Commission of the International Tracing Service who have yet to ratify the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords to expedite the ratification process to allow for open access to the Holocaust archives located at Bad Arolsen, Germany.
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.AMDT.666 to H.R.1591 To link award fees under Department of Homeland Security contracts to successful acquisition outcomes under such contracts.
S.AMDT.2047 to H.R.1585 To specify additional individuals eligible to transportation for survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces to attend their burial ceremonies.
S.AMDT.2108 to H.R.1585 To require a report on the planning and implementation of the policy of the United States toward Darfur.
S.AMDT.2390 to H.R.2638 To require that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security that provide award fees link such fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
S.AMDT.2474 to H.R.2638 To ensure that the Federal Protective Service has adequate personnel.
S.AMDT.2823 to H.R.3074 To require a report on plans to alleviate congestion and flight delays in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace.
S.AMDT.2917 to H.R.1585 To extend and enhance the authority for temporary lodging expenses for members of the Armed Forces in areas subject to a major disaster declaration or for installations experiencing a sudden increase in personnel levels.

Obama's Success:
S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests.
S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder.
S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers.
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy.
S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness.
S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs.
S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
Senate Resolutions Passed:
S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".

I disagree with the man on several points however I must say that it takes a certain of person to be able to go forth and make his case to the American people and actually answer questions posed to him, with the visit to Columbia, the interview on TV and his speech in the UN.

I thought the introduction by Lee Bollinger, the university president of Columbia was appalling, calling him a "petty and cruel dictator" when the University itself invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. To which he replied:

"In Iran, tradition requires when you invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students enough to allow them to make their own judgment, and don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of complaints to provide vaccination to the students and faculty."

While we sit and laugh at his lunacy regarding gay people, I am glad we are allowed to make our own judgments rather then sitting here and reading the constant war drumming about a military strike against Iran which sounds so much like the fear mongering and lies fed to us in the run up to Iraq.

The most important thing is that he reiterated that Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear power acquisition, a point that is supported by the IAEA. Yet in the West we have constant allusion that they are researching nuclear weapons or attacking US forces covertly. The US has branded the Iran Republican guard as a terrorist organization, the fleet is in the Persian gulf. It's like the US Administration is just itching for an excuse to expand the war into Iran.

I mean don't take my word for it. Heres the American Thinker:

"Now for the good news. All the damaging consequences of all the blunders the President has committed to date in Iraq are reversible in 48- to 72-hours - the time it will take to destroy Iran's fragile nuclear supply chain from the air. And since the job gets done using mostly stand-off weapons and stealth bombers, not one American soldier, sailor or airman need suffer as much as a bruised foot.

Let's look downstream the day after and observe how the world has changed.

First and foremost, there's this prospective fait accompli -- and it changes everything. The Iranians are no longer a nuclear threat, and won't be again for at least another decade, and even that assumes the strategic and diplomatic situation reverts to the status quo ante and they'll just be able to pick up and rebuild as they would after an earthquake. Not possible.

Next, the Iranians would do nothing -- bupkes. They don't attack Israel, they don't choke off the world's oil supply, they do not send hit squads to the United States, there is no "war" in the conventional sense of attack counterattack. Iran already has its hands full without inviting more trouble. Its leaders would be reeling from the initial US attack and they would know our forces are in position to strike again if Iran provokes us or our allies. They would stand before mankind with their pants around their ankles, dazed, bleeding, crying, reduced to bloviating from mosques in Teheran and pounding their fists on desks at the UN. The lifelines they throw to the Iraqi insurgents, Hezbollah and Syria would begin to dry up, as would the lifelines the double-dealing Europeans have been throwing to Iran. Maybe the Mullahs would lose control.

Miracles would be seen here at home. Democratic politicians are dumbstruck, silent for a week. With one swing of his mighty bat, the President has hit a dramatic walk-off homerun. He goes from goat to national hero overnight. The elections in November are a formality. Republicans keep the White House and recapture both houses of Congress. Hillary is elected president - of the Chappaqua PTA.

[...]

Am I dreaming? I don't think so. Being too sensible is probably more like it. In any event, I am not creating anything original here. Combine Bush's recent statements with those of the President of France and it's not hard to see where this is heading. Mr. Bush still has time to put America back on the offensive again. But with only a little more than a year left in his term he has no time to lose. Rarely does history provide a failed wartime leader with such a golden opportunity for salvation.

Carpe diem, Mr. President. The chicken pita is on me."

I mean WTF?

ok, bamdrew, though i won't say fair enough...

the daily show really shouldn't have it both ways - it's either a comedy show or it's a news program -- jon stewart on crossfire intimated that the show shouldn't be taken seriously because they followed a program where puppets make crank phone calls

if this is the source of other people's beliefs or 'what they've absorbed' then i can only shake my head - too many people are not sufficiently circumspect of what they accept as a source for their understandings

so, with no idea of why, what, or from where they draw their beliefs...

yes, i'll try to help in providing what they apparently can't or don't want to find

osama / taliban:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

as to saddam, well, your contention and mine aren't specifically at cross purposes...

the tds clip appears to claim that our military sales to saddam made him too powerful to easily remove in any subsequent regime change

to this you bring up rumsfeld and intel - both of which, i'll wager, did very little to strengthen saddam vis a vis the tds claim -- the military sales / aid i already clarified in my first post here

only the most obtuse of revisionists will fail to remember the context of realpolitik of the early '80s -- the ayatollah's islamic revolution having just seized control of iran--as well as their taking and holding us hostages for 444 days (and finally releasing them just two years before the rumsfeld photo), and providing hezbollah support with which they kidnapped more americans in lebanon--meant that the us was pleased to have a secular foil on the arab street

you may find it interesting that, in speaking of the infamous photo op of saddam and rumsfeld shaking hands, for every such photo, i can provide you with at least five of jacques chirac and saddam

Government is a necessary evil?

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

--George Washington

We're the stupid ones here whining about our own mistakes. Don't be so harsh.

Dude, we're not harsh enough. The reason guys like Kucinich tick me off is, there are important decisions to be made based on historical realities (e.g. give tyrants the smackdown, don't coddle them) and guys like this just gum up the works.

"Do we really want far-left Congressman Dennis Kucinich to be chairman of the subcommittee on national security?

This is the same Dennis Kucinich who once introduced a bill 'to abolish all nuclear weapons,' who has refused to condemn Hezbollah terrorists, calling instead for us to have a 'recognition that connects us to a common humanity and from that draw a flicker of hope to enkindle the warm glow of peace.' Poetic but dumb."

--T. Sowell

Let me make sure my spelling is correct for the NSA and everyone else that monitors our public discussions for dissent.

What a great piece. Too bad the arrogance of the admin and distain for justice and truth will never give up the power bought and paid for by Exxon, Big Pharma, etc. But most Americans are finally seeing the 1 party system we're under. The Dems don't have the nuts to impeach even Cheney. Clinton (another crook) was dragged thru it over lying about BJs. What is the list of crimes of this admin? It's long and shameful enough that the rest of the world is just shaking it's head at us. Too bad this isn't the 60s/70s and we unite to ram this kind of BS down the throats of the corporate elite and politicians they buy.

Really, who wants to see Bush > Clinton > King George > Hillary > Jeb through more rigged elections. And all the dummies like QM, just keep investing in Blackwater and Halliburton, profits are always more important than human rights or blood of children that aren't white and Christian.

And 9/11? We're funding Sunnis now to fight Hezbollah to fight Al-Q to fight the commies, etc. It's state sponsored war, just like selling weapons to Iraq AND Iran in their war against each other. Let's make a new flag with the top 50 corporate logos on it instead of the stars!!!

Nicholas Cage was right in "Lord of War", the US prez makes him look like a punk with the arms he supplies in 1 day.

I'm the first person to admit that the UN has some great flaws, is sometimes "a forum for politically selective finger-pointing and criticism", and is in need of major reform - including the security council which is a relic of the Cold War.

There are two major causes of the UN's ineffectiveness. The first is the unilateralist attitude adopted by the US - particularly under the current administration. The second is that anytime that the the UN adopts a resolution condemning Israeli action the US will automatically veto the resolution (thanks to the power of AIPAC) regardless of whether the condemnation is justified or not. The un-objective use of the veto by the US in support of oppressive, unjustifiable and illegal Israeli government policies has severely damaged international perceptions of the UN. When Israel illegally steals Palestinian land, subjects the Palestinian people to daily abuse and humiliation, and collectively punishes the Lebanese people for the actions of Hezbollah, the US automatically vetoes any UN resolutions condemning these inexcusable actions. It is not just the Arab or Islamic states that support such resolutions - very often it is only America and Israel who condemn the resolution. The unobjective use of the American veto in favour of Israel is undermining the entire UN. For many people it symbolises the need for UN reform - particularly reform of the security council.

The problem with this clip is that while there are important objective criticisms to be made of the UNHRC and the UN in general, UN Watch is not actually making them. The speaker carefully disguises pro-Israeli government policy propaganda as objective criticisms of the UNHRC - this is why the Council President rejects the speech as inadmissable.

One point at a time:

"And I think it profoundly oversimplifies things to say that the American presence is widely loathed. Certainly, the Sunnis loathe the American presence. The Kurds love us. The Shiites are ambivalent at best. Some of the most reliable reporters on the ground in Iraq (Burns, Packer, et al.) seem to indicate a deep ambivalence rather than a widespread loathing."

You're right - not everyone loathes the Americans. But the vast majority of Iraqis resent the American presence because of its ineffectiveness, and the brutality of its troops. They are also starting to see through the lies that America used to justify the invasion. Historical perspective is important here. The roots of modern political Islam lie in the Islamic movements that opposed colonialism/imperialism - be it European or Ottoman - in the nineteenth century. If you look at the impact of British imperialism on the Islamic world in the nineteenth century you will see many paralleles with the current situation in Iraq. At first the British were liked - even praised - by the Islamic communities they colonised. For example, Muhammad Iqbal - one of the most important Muslim leaders in the subcontinent and one of the chief architects of an independant Pakistan - at first praised the British Empire as a 'civilizing factor'. He argued that: "England, in fact, is doing one of our own great duties, which unfavourable circumstances did not permit us to perform. It is not the number of Muhammadans [Muslims] which it protects, but the spirit of the British Empire which makes it the greatest Muhammadan [Islamic] Empire in the world." Yet only a few years later Iqbal was condemning the negative influence of the British Empire. In general, as time went by the colonised began to realise that the colonial/imperialistic program of the British Empire was motivated purely by self-interest - economic interest, strategic interest, etc. Disillusionment set in and resistance began to grow. The same is happening in Iraq. Furthermore, as the situation deteriorates it is no wonder that Iraqis are looking to other regional powers like Iran to help resolve the situation. It is also simplistic to say that the Kurds love the Americans. While the situation in Northern Iraq has improved it is important to remember that the Kurds had more autonomy than any other region before the illegal invasion. Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether the Kurds will achieve their long-term political goal of independence. America will not support an independent Kurdistan because such a situation would severly antagonise Turkey - a key ally of America and Israel. Therefore the Kurdish opinion of the Americans could change dramatically if their autonomy and long-term political goals are undermined by the Americans.

"To the extent that the continued American presence radicalizes polity in the Middle East, it is the world we now live in. Radical Islam will not go away if Gaza and the West Bank is handed over to the Palestinians, though its appeal to young Muslims may indeed be dented by such actions."

Palestine is one of the greatest injustices in the world today. The Palestinian people have been appallingly treated for over fifty years by the Israelis and the Americans have not only stood idly by, they have funded it! It is not only a rallying point for 'radical Islam' but for all Muslims, and all other peoples who oppose injustice and oppression. The vast majority of people in the world are appalled by the way Israel treats the Palestinians and they cannot understand how America - a country which is meant to stand for freedom and justice - could not only allow this to happen, but could openly support it. Add to this the illegal invasion of Iraq, the illegal invasions of Lebanon, and American support for tyranical regimes throughout the Middle East, and you understand why the majority of Muslims - and a large number of non-Muslims - detest America. This is why they will not cooperate with the Americans. Contrary to what many American politicians, AIPAC, and the Israeli government argue organisations like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas do not 'hate our freedoms' they hate the injustices that are committed by Israel and America on a daily basis. The prinicpal political objectives of these organisations are the liberation of Palestine, and the overthrow of the Gulf monarchies. America and Britain have only been targetted because of their blind support for Israel. Again, I'm not advocating that we stop supporting Israel, I'm advoacting that we start supporting Palestine and being more objective. All funding and aid to Israel should be suspended until they start recognising the right of the Palestinian people to live a life free from terror and oppression. But thanks to the concerted efforts of AIPAC this will never happen. And day by day more Palestinian land is stolen and more Palestinian kids are killed as Israel extends its illegal settlements - funded by US aid. People in Iraq do care about what is happening in Palestine - they can sympathise greatly with an oppressed people let down for fifty years by the Americans. And they do worry about the power of AIPAC precisely because AIPAC is preventing any kind of multilateral talks or engagement with countries like Iran and Syria who could help resolve the situation in Iraq.

"wumpus - if Iran were to attack Iraq they'd suffer even worse than the Americans are suffering now - while some Iraqis band together against Americans, the ensuing bloodbath against an Iranian invasion would be many times worse, despite the weak Iraqi government."

Very good point Krupo! If Sunni militants resent the American presence in Iraq, they would be twice as determined to get Iran out as they see all Shi'a Muslims as evil heretics.

"If the U.S. were to pull out, Iran will almost certainly move in to take over. There are already Iranian agents in Iraq mounting attacks against military and civilian targets, and with all the oil and resources in Iraq, it's an opportunity far too rich to pass up and if they don't someone else will. The key difference is that the U.S. is held accountable in the media everyday for everything it does and happens. Iran is not."

The US media is starting to hold Bush to account for his actions but it is five years too late. Furthermore, the enormous political bias of so much of the American media ensures that many people are kept in the dark. Furthermore, the power of AIPAC and other unquestioning supporters of Israel in the media ensures that many of the most contentious issues are kept out of the news. As I have said before, and as Krupo has argued, Iran does not wish to conquer Iraq - they are fully aware of the potential consequences of such an invasion. You talk about Iranian agents helping to plan attacks against the Americans and the civilian population of Iraq because this is what Bush, the neocons and AIPAC want you to talk about. The vast majority of attacks are perpetrated by Sunni militants - yet the Whitehouse has held several press conferences highlighting the role of Iranian agents. Why? Could it be part of AIPAC's continual campaign to sully Iran's image in the build up to a pre-emptive strike on Iran? You bet it could!

"The American campaign is aimed at defeating the armed insurgency and helping the country back on its feet. An Iranian campaign would be aimed at suppressing the population and crushing any opposition by killing as many civilians as possible."

No - the American campaign is aimed at establishing a new ARAMCO, removing a potential threat to Israel, and establishing a new American base in the Middle East. America is only interested in defeating the insurgency because it threatens their vision of an American and Israeli dominated Middle East. If America was truly interested in helping the country back on its feet it would have had a better plan at the beginning, backed up with the full support of the international community. Furthermore, it would be engaging with other regional powers like Iran and Syria in order to resolve the current situation. American troops have killed far more Iraqi civilians than Iranian agents. When you say that "An Iranian campaign would be aimed at suppressing the population and crushing any opposition by killing as many civilians as possible" you are simply wrong. The Iranians are no more cold hearted butchers than the Americans, and the Americans are just as ruthless when it comes to silencing opposition.