I have been meaning to ask you, James, what is the state of New Orleans these days?
For once I agree with you, it's not a good idea to just stick with websites that you agree.
Though I doubt, what may be mainstream in the US or even Aus, is mainstream here.
It wouldn't surprise anyone if Iran was involved in Iraq some how. Though it's a bit rich that the US are complaining, that Iran is trying to set the country up to set it's purposes, when the US has been trying to do that for over three years.
It's just that awful feeling of 'here we go again', they are trying to convince people to invade another country.
Whether or not it's justified, the current crowd are the last people you would want to do it.
No James you're not a troll, it was the link that you sent that got me, but your point about watching all the media is valid. As for Churchill, well yes, a great leader, a man for his time, but people make history the leaders get to write about it. I was thinking more about Singapore, Greece and Crete re. Churchill.
By not acting decisively the US is creating doubt about it determination and emboldening its enemies.
There is a whole world of debate in this statement, not the least being, why are the US there in the first place?
you know its sort of a dont ask dont tell situation with Iraq, maybe it's a mission to secure world supplies of whaleoil. heh.
And you could throw India into the mix when it comes to Churchill...he deliberately refused to assist the Bengal region during the famine of 1942-3 as some sort of twisted punishment for the earlier rebellions against British rule (Bayly's "Forgotten Armies" documents this fairly well) thus condemning many millions to a death. Amongst many things, this is part of the reason I don't consider him a great man.
James, your point about Churchill is well made though. I can see something of him in Bush. He held his nation together in a moment of crisis but his foreign policy thereafter, and indeed most of his policies were a disaster. The Allied nations, and Roosevelt in particular, effectively sidelined him after 1943.
I too read the Australian..we can buy it new here in Bali, however its editorial slant is shallow and unpleasant, more akin to Murdoch's other outlet, Fox.
And you slant my statement about the relevance of WW2. I'm slating the continual rightwing barrage of "we saved you in WW2"...its an irrelevant statement..the stance of a nation in WW2 has no relevance to how they should be perceived in 2007...Germany for example. That aside, the statement (made by yourself in these pages too) is less than a half truth.
The only parallel I can see to that conflagration is as you say, a battle between good and evil. It seems most Americans now have an inkling, too that perhaps the dark side of that divide controls the White House these days. That perception, which that op/ed in the Australian tried and failed totally to argue against, is widespread, which may be why European common policy vis a vis Iran now seems to be a quiet containment policy aimed towards Washington.
Oh, and as others have said, and you still don't seem to grasp, Iran has a damn sight more right to be there than the fly in the ointment, the USA.
I am not suggesting that this is a reason to go bomb Teheran. But taking out any identified Al Quds command control, training or support locations close to the Iraqi border is something that is long overdue. Same for Syria. By not acting decisively the US is creating doubt about it determination and emboldening its enemies.
James, I don't think that anyone is denying that Iran is playing about in Iraq, The question is, essentially, 'So what?'
In any conflict like Iraq, the neighbours will be involved in some way or another. They have legitimate interests there. The questions that the Bush admin has not addressed in the last few weeks include:
Who is Iran arming in Iraq? Just saying Shia militia is not enough. The Quds forces that you want to bomb are, by most accounts, supporting Hakim's SCIRI. That's no surprise, but means that if you go after Quds you alienate SCIRI. Hakim is purportedly the current US fravorite to replace Maliki should that be needed.
What exactly are the Quds forces up to in Iraq? If they are simply advising and liasing with some actors in the civil war that is one thing, if they are actively fighting that is another. No evidence has been put forward either way. Some clowns asserted that quds forces did the karbala assault a couple of weeks back, but the only evidence they gave was that Iraqis would be too stupid to pull it off. Not a mistake Churchill would have made.
How important is the Iranian interference? If all the Iranian stuff ceased how would that effect the situation on the ground. Who would be strengthened and who would be weakend? The Iraqi govts allies or their enemies? That's a pretty important question that has not been answered. The idea that the Iraqi govt must not be a friend of the Iranians is another trap that Churchill would not fall into. If The US wants to get out of Iraq leaving behind a stable govt rather than a failed state, it may have to accept that that govt will be a friend of Iran's. How bad that is depends mostly on the US's attitudes and actions. Is Iran really worse than Saudi, Kuwait or Yemen?
With regard to your comment above, you seem to indicating that the US should attack Quds forces inside Iran. That is a defacto declaration of war. I'd like to see some serious answers to the questions I raised before I would consider that drastic step to be wise. The idea that Iran is already at war with the US has not been proven, and nor does it make sense. Iran would like a shiite ally in Iraq, I don't see how the US can prevent this if they want anything like a democracy there.