chicot

Do you actually know the first thing about Iraq except what you hear from the media? I happen to be half-Iraqi, have lived in Iraq and have many relatives there, and I can tell you that the situation, at least in the central region, is absolutely awful. Yes, Saddam was a ruthless tyrant but, before this stupid half-baked invasion, you could live your life. There were rules - stay out of politics, don't criticize the regime and, by and large, you were ok. Now, there are a hundred and one ways you can be killed - you can be killed by a sectarian militia, you can be killed by criminals (kidnapping and extortion is rife), you could be unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity when a roadside bomb goes off (if the bomb doesn't kill you, you have a good chance of being killed when the soldiers open fire in all directions), you can be killed by jihadis, etc... You can argue a good many things about the rights and wrongs of this invasion, but don't tell me it was done for the good of the Iraqis or that things are so much better now because you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

"they make the desert "bloom and rejoice" (a fulfilled prophecy from the Book of Isaiah) and now, the Palestinians want it...the fact that they didn't do anything with it for the 900 years they owned it notwithstanding. " It really is amazing how many people believe this nonsense. I guess if you repeat something enough then it somehow becomes fact.

If the Jews had had nothing to do with the exile of the Palestinians (they did) and the vast majority of the Palestinians had been away from their land for two millenia, then yes, I would say that the Palestinians have no right to come along saying that they have a God-given right to that land and that the Jews should leave. What is your argument here? That the original inhabitants of a land have a right to return to that land no matter what the circumstances of them leaving, no matter how much time has passed in the interim and displace any people that have settled there in their absence, no matter how long they have been there for? All this is besides the point anyway. As I keep saying, I do not think the Palestinians should displace the Israelis. All that would accomplish is more conflict, the only difference being the Palestinians would be the ones on the inside, the Israelis the ones attacking it from without.

Ok, I've been away from the board for a few hours but I still don't see where this became an "anti-Jew" discussion. All we have been discussing is Israel, not Jews in general. How exactly is this an anti-Jew discussion?

You would have a point if it was the Palestinians that forced the Jews out in the first place. As I understand it, it was the Romans that expelled them.

As I have said before, the only fair and equitable way out of this mess is to for the whole of Israel/Palestine to be a multi-ethnic state with equal rights for all of it's inhabitants regardless of their race/religion. I have never advocated ethnic cleansing of anyone, so the question of who "owns" the land is not relevant. My point was that, having lived on the land for centuries (more than a couple, incidentally), the Palestinians had the right to remain there and not treated as if they were squatters with a temporary lease on the land until the rightful (Jewish) owners decide to return.

No, because I don't accept the argument that whoever came first therefore owns that land forever from that day forth. The Palestinians had lived in that land for centuries. To me, that gives them a right to remain there and not be displaced by Jews coming from Europe, whose only connection to the land is that there was a Jewish kingdom there some two millenia ago and some biblical prophecy.

Why was it "their" land? Because God said so?

I wonder if the people displaced by hurricane Katrina would have got such a warm welcome if they had come proclaiming that they were God's chosen people, that God had promised them that their host's homes in fact belonged to them and that their hosts were inferior and actually had no right to live in their own homes. Somehow I think not.

There's so much nonsense there that I don't know where to start. If you really think that the intention of zionism (which predates the holocaust) was to live side-by-side with the Arabs muslims I suggest you take a look at some of the zionist literature that was written in the early 1900's.

But denying people the right to live in a land that they have lived in for generations on the basis of race/religion is fine with you? This notion that the problem the Muslim/Arab world has with Israel is that they have some longstanding pathological hatred of Jews and all things Jewish is a complete nonsense. For centuries prior to the rise of zionism, muslims and jews lived side-by-side in the middle east relatively peacefully, certainly far more harmoniously than did the europeans and jews, the former feeling the need to slaughter large numbers of the latter at regular intervals. The holocaust was carried out by europeans, not arabs (or persians for that matter). The issue that muslims have with Israel is the way it was created and the resulting dispossession of the Palestinians.

Your reply has little to do with my post. There are plenty of reasons why attacking Iran is not a good idea, quite apart from whether Iran having nuclear weapons is "fair" or not.

But do you honestly believe that the US has any intention of achieving complete nuclear disarmament? Call me a cynic, but I am very sceptical that this will happen in the foreseeable future.

I can see that but I can also see a whole lot more hypocrisy. Like nuclear armed countries that have no intention of getting rid of their weapons crying foul when other countries follow their example. The US and UK have both signed up to the non-profileration treaty. Contrary to popular belief, this is not just concerned with preventing countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. It also specifies that the nuclear powers should move towards full nuclear disarmament. I don't see much sign of that. Do you not find it hypocritical that countries that are themselves renaging on their commitments to this treaty are the ones leading the charge against Iran for doing the same thing?

Would you say the same thing if the UK, US or France, for example, were to be elected deputies? Somehow I think not.

Pretty bizarre comparison. North Korea went ahead and got the bomb despite US pressure. How exactly do you call that backing down?

I should be safe enough on this side of the Atlantic

Bank holidays on Good Friday and Easter Monday.

You don't get a day off for it? We get 2

A war of territory, not of extermination.

Very, very subjective definition. Would you label anyone who starts a war as irrational? In that case, the US would be one of the most irrational states around. And don't forget that Israel continues to occupy Syrian territory. Which country would not fight a war when part of it's territory was illegally occupied?

What is your definition of "states founded on irrationality"? Your list seems a bit odd to me. You might not like the Syrian goverment but I find it difficult to see how you could describe it as a state founded on irrationality. That seems to me to be a label that could be more easily applied to Saudi Arabia but I suppose since Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US that automatically makes them rational, eh?

Look at their neighbours - Pakistan has nukes, India has them and so does Israel. If you were president of Iran would you not conclude that Iran too would be safer if they had them?

Personally, I'd prefer a planet where no one had the bomb. Not the Iranians, not Israel and not the US. However, the fact is that it has been invented and we cant unmake it. Like it or not, more countries are going to get the bomb and there isn't that much that can be done about it. As far as the Iranians selling atomic weapons to potential terrorists goes, I see that prospect as remote. They are not going to invest all this time and money to develop these weapons and then pass them on to any old nutjob who they have little control over and who could draw them into a potentially catastrophic confrontation with the US and/or Israel. No, Iran wants the bomb for the same reasons most countries want it - prestige and deterrance.

I doubt Iran would commit it's own forces against US troops in Iraq but almost certainly would use it's influence with the Iraqi Shiites to encourage them to rise up against coalition forces. However, I think a bigger threat would be what Iranian missiles could do to any US ships in the gulf. The Iranians have the latest Russian anti-ship missiles and this is one of the few areas of military technology where Russia is more advanced than the US.