Dear Gather Members,
I have a theory - one I haven't seen discussed - so I'm going to put it before you and see if it has any legs.
Here goes: Iran has been behind this whole mess from the start. Which mess is that? The U.S. invasion of Iraq and the recent Hezbollah - Israeli conflict. (If the Lebanese had been consulted beforehand, they'd have utterly rejected Hezbollah's adventure.)
I've come to this point in my thinking by connecting little. forgotten dots. It begins with Ahmed Chalabi. What we know about him is that he was a huge instigator for the ouster of Saddam. He was also the one who kept insisting Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. What is less known is that he was an Iranian mole inside the Bush Administration. He duped them all and was evenutually banished from their midst - but not before he'd completed his task.
Backing up, Iran's government is one of the most extreme and tyrannical on the planet. It's well armed and financed. It has long-range plans to destroy America, Israel and Western civilization itself! (the people of Iran are not so monolithic in their thinking - but like here, the government controls the agenda.) They know, maybe from Chalabi or just reading neo-con writings, that members of Bush's administration have long wanted to invade Iraq. They use Chalabi's role as a Bush confidante and Middle East "expert" to plant the idea that now is a good time to go ahead with the plan. ("Now", being when Bush was installed in 2000.) 9/11 may or may not have been known or perpetrated by the Bush administration - everyone has an opinion on that - but it certainly provided the opportunity. Though we had no good excuse to invade Iraq, the Bush team did just what it always does, it made up one.
At every stage, Bush was encouraged to do something bad for this country and good for Iran. I don't excuse Bush - it just proves that he isn't bright, especially, tactically. He assiduously avoided serving in the military, as did the vast majority of people he chose for his Cabinet - not to mention vice President. He got rid of the smart military men and women who were wisely advising against the invasion. He saw to it that his incompetent appointees ousted the senior, knowledgeable intelligence analysts and operatives at the CIA and FBI. Getting us involved in Iraq was just recklessness running after evil.
What has been the result of our campaign in Iraq?
For us, many good, brave, patriotic Americans soldiers are dead. Our treasury has been looted (with some of that wealth going to Bush's needy billionaire friends) and our debt is owned by the likes of China and Saudi Arabia. Our reputation on the world stage has dimmed to a flicker. Yes, we did a good thing when we toppled Saddam, but then we blew whatever currency we had when we used his tactics at Abu Graib prison. There's an undeclared, but quite obvious, civil war going on there now. Yes, they had an election and that was good - but every day there are more and more bombs - and more and more terror! For Iraq, that means more and more casualties. Innocent Iraqis are dying in droves.
For Iran, it's been just what they've been wanting. The end to that infidel secular, Sunni led government next door (where, btw, all the holiest Shiite shrines are located). They've been able to import terrorism and destabilize Iraq beyond their wildest dreams! They knew the U.S. would get hopelessly bogged down (also part of the plan) and now they get to call us occupiers and vilify us and work their people into a frenzy of hatred toward us. Those "on the fence" are now joining the chant, "Sag Barg America" - "Death to America." Next, after we finally leave, they step into an exhausted Iraq, take control and impose a Shiite theocracy. Smart plan.
As for Lebanon: Iran supports, and arms, Hezbollah. Hezbollah takes up residence in the southern part of Lebanon - near Israel's northern border. Things have been pretty quiet there since 2000 when Israel completely withdrew from Lebanon. (Of course, Hezbollah disputes some little mound of dirt. Can't let those Israelis get away with doing the right thing - they must remain guilty of occupying - else what would Hezbollah do with itself?) All of a sudden, right before Lebanon's much-anticipated tourist season begins, Hezbollah decides to cross the border, kill 8 Israeli soldiers and kidnap 2.
Hezbollah's story is they wanted to trade the kidnapped soldiers for their guys in Israeli prisons. Why did they cross a peaceful, sovereign border, attack and kill non-combatant soldiers and kidnap others before they ever tried diplomacy? Y'know, first try talking about it with the Israelis!"
They didn't do that because, prisoner exchange wasn't the real reason - only a lame excuse.
(The Israeli soldiers still haven't been returned - if they're even alive anymore. And what about those eight murdered soldiers? There was no provocation - they were just murdered.)
Iran wanted this conflict. They recognized and seized the opportunity. They knew Ariel Sharon would never have fallen for this tactic - but Ohlmert? They knew he had doubters - people who wondered what he might do if an attack occurred on his watch. Using Hezbollah, they provided it, Ohlmert bit - and it was a disaster for Israel. Worse because the Bush Administration egged-on Israel and used it to destroy Hezbollah without personally getting its hands dirty. Didn't work out that way, of course. Iran knew well Hezbollah wouldn't be destroyed because they'd armed it to the teeth and made sure the members were well hidden in homes, businesses, schools, hospitals, etc. all through the south. They got to test their new rockets and cause a great deal of destruction to Lebanon.
Why? Why would they purposely cause such grief and misery to Lebanon?
Though it gets little publicity, Lebanon is anything but a homogeneous Muslim country like Iran or Saudi Arabia. There are many Lebanese Christians, as well as people of other faiths, living together in relative peace - or they were! There are many Sunni Muslims in Lebanon but Hezbollah, like Iran, is Shiite. Iran would like a Shiite theocracy in EVERY Muslim country...uh, make that EVERY country!. The average Lebanese is not interested in living in a Shiite theocracy. The Christians certainly aren't but the Sunnis don't want it either.
The Shiites in Lebanon - and Hezbollah in particular - gained a great deal more support and influence from this war. Now, I'm sure - as was their plan - Hezbollah is swooping in to aid the war-torn people of Lebanon. The whole thing was timed to hurt Lebanon as much as possible. Now, while the pain is excruciating, here comes Nasrallah with lots of Iranian money to throw around and equipment to start the rebuilding. Everyone is SO grateful to Hezbollah, to Nasrallah. Wow, pretty impressive - except that I think the plan and all its necessary components were in place before Hezbollah ever set foot across Israel's border! Not so charitable when you see it through that lens. Anyway, now that Hezbollah's already been elected to the Lebanese Parliament, and more popular than ever, it's only a matter of time before we see Islamist trouble-making in Lebanon.
Iran has the money, power and influence to prevail - which is what it was - and is - after, all along. One more domino down.
So, there it is. Does anyone else see these dots?
(Just so you don't think I forgot, I considered oil, oilmen, war profiteering, the Kurds, Saudi Arabia and the part revenge might be playing in this drama - but didn't want to go there in this article. Mostly, I think Iran has been cleverly, sinisterly and effectively using everyone's weaknesses against them.)
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
The problem is this administration is just so secretive and manipulative I just can't figure out whether it's sheer stupidity on their part or if it's something they're doing on purpose as part of a darker plan. Trust is something these guys don't inspire in me.
I was just pondering current events and wondered if the Iranians might be a step or two ahead of the Evangelicals?
When people keep saying they're going to kill you, better believe them. So I am an unreconstructed supporter of Israel, and you can tell the doubters to do their own damn research!
Brief comments on your on thoughts. First, Chalabi has long had extensive contacts in Israel as well as Iran (don't imagine the Mullahs in Iran don't do business with Israel. The Russian Mafia is very big in Israel, too.) Chalabi got backed by the US to be our puppet to replace
Saddam. Iraq was a neocon "Project for new American Century " operation. The dual-citizenships crowd and Wolfowitz and such. Chalabi was a useful lobbyist and con-man that they could use.
Hizbollah did not expect the escalation from their capturing soldiers. Prisoner exchange was the usual result of such kidnappings. The border since 2000 had been pretty calm. UN had recorded 1800 Israeli incursions, only 100 by Hizbollah. Few military incidentsOne Israeli civilian had died from 2000 to July 2006 kidnapping. Israel had been active in Lebanon, doing targetted assassinations in Beirut.
It doesn't figure Iran wanted to provoke a war. I doubt they knew or approved of Nasrallah's actions. Hizbollah represented a "second front" to deter Israel from attacking Iran. A weakend Hizbollah was not a good thing. Iran is interested in direct negotiations with the US
to make their position in the region secure from hostile Arab states and Israel. They want sanctions removed, trade with US and access to World Bank. Their 2003 proposal to US offered many concessions to make a deal.
Among them recognition of Israel, acceptance of the 2002 Arab proposal that included settlement of Israel-Palestine question and recognition of Israel. The 2003 proposal also made commitments regarding support for Hizbollah and Hamas, and terms on nuclear development.
Possibly the Supreme Leader Khamenei, a hard-liner would still be willing to push for a similar deal. He is in charge of official policy, foreign and domestic. Ahmadinejad hasn't the power. I don't like Larijani's handling of the current negotiations with Group of 5 plus 1 so far. Hassan Rohani, a senior figure, would be better.
He would work toward better relations with Europe and the US down the line and not get distracted.
John, I'm quite aware of the neo-con's "Project for A New American Century" which is why I referenced it in the article: " They know, maybe from Chalabi or just reading neo-con writings, that members of Bush's administration have long wanted to invade Iraq." I'm suggesting the Iranians are one or two steps ahead of the neo-cons and used Chalabi to capitalize on that knowledge to urge the Bush Administration to, at last, go for it.
About Chalabi - The biggest question with him is "Who was using who?" My theory posits that like a good "false flag," he duped the Bush crowd into thinking he was their puppet when, in reality, they were his - and Iran's, by association. Btw, who were his Israeli contacts? What was he up to there? I'd suspect anything he was doing.
As I said to John, I totally get that the neo-cons had a long term plan to invade Iraq but, as I've said, am beginning to believe Chalabi was an agent for Iran and helped get us into this VERY expensive quagmire - at their behest.
You say Hezbollah didn't expect the response they got. I know they've SAID they didn't expect it but who knows?
It seems bloody odd to me that, just as tourist season was about to start, they crossed the border and killed eight people. Yes, they've kidnapped soldiers in the past, which makes this kidnapping the perfect cover for what I theorize they're up to. Since 2000, I can't remember any killings at that border. The provocativeness of these acts combined with testing Ohlmert leads me to believe they knew exactly what would happen when they did it.
Personally, I think it's a mistake to underestimate Iran. They have money, determination, patience and fanatical, megalomaniacal aspirations. They know the terrain much better than we do and are able to navigate very, very well. Hezbollah is their army - and it's a highly mobile one. They're in Iraq and Lebanon for sure. As we've just seen, they're a formidable enemy. Diane is mostly right. Iran and Syria have an alliance - for now - and Syria is the 'de facto' government of Lebanon. Hezbollah has four seats, I think, in Lebanon's Parliment - and is also a military arm of Syria and Iran in Lebanon. After they assassinated Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese, rightly, were enraged and Hezbollah wasn't so popular. They won those Parliment seats only because the large, partisan Shiite population showed up and voted. This conflict gave Syria and Iran the chance to get back the popular support they'd lost after the assassination. Israel is just that convenient.
You said: "It doesn't figure Iran wanted to provoke a war. I doubt they knew or approved of Nasrallah's actions... A weakend Hizbollah was not a good thing. Iran is interested in direct negotiations with the US"
Sorry, don't agree. It figures if Iran is enriching uranium and wants the eyes of the world looking elsewhere. It figures if Iran wants to see how far their new Katusha rockets will fly. It figures if Iran can destroy Lebanon's infrastructure in order to seize control. Once they have control, they'd be much closer to their goal of "wiping Israel off the map." I'm pretty sure they knew what Nasrallah was up to because I think they told him to do it. Where do you think he got the money he's handing out? Seems like there's lots of need in the Muslim world and money doesn't flow like water in those places. The hearts and minds of the people in Lebanon are being bought wholesale. Nasrallah purposely sees to it the country is destroyed and then magnanimously come to its aid!
As far as direct negotiations with the U.S., I don't see that happening anytime soon. They live in their own defiant world and don't care what we think.
John, above, claims we can "nuke Iran to dust with the push of a few buttons." Tells me to think it through. I think he's the one who hasn't thought it through. It's a fantasy that we would nuke Iran. (I definitely wouldn't want to see that happen. There are too many good Iranian people I'd miss.) Nuclear war is the end of the world and even those crazies know it. I DO believe they'd use a dirty bomb on the U.S. or Israel or Europe - but not a full-scale nuclear bomb. That's why we have to keep them from getting enriched uranium. They're crazy, they lie. they don't care about world opinion, they're determined and wealthy, they're megalomaniacs, they're fanatical Islamists who want to force the whole world submit to their oppressive brand of fundamentalist Islam, they want to annihilate Israel and they continually threaten to kill us. I think those are good enough reasons to prevent them from getting the bomb.
Check out the resumes of the neocons and their connections. Take Perle , Bolton, Netanyahu to name a few.
My analysis was intended to present what the interests of the different players are at present, and how the US can best serve its interest. I don't agree with your take, but so be it. I have researched and worked in the region for nearly half a century, and I try to form a realistic, balanced view. Most of the information one reads has to be interpreted critically. It is easy to say the US and Israel are both getting screwed from within, but that is too simplistic. There is a lot of history involved. Today presents certain conditions and options, and that was my focus.
Sounds crazy doesnt it?
Well thats how it is in Lebanon.. The north and the south.
North Christians and the South Muslim.. This is why I agree with Duse in his theory.... Iranians cant stand the Lebanese in the north because of their religion..
Intresting Theory..
The more you tell me about Chalabi, the more I lean toward "agent for Iran." Wouldn't it make sense to have your hand in all those pies if you're an agent of a country hell-bent on world domination? (Have you seen the film "Obsession, Radical Islam's War Against the West"?) He's obviously a great con man and able to infiltrate many groups - including the Bush administration! That's a huge asset for a spy!
I know Saudi Arabia is also active in the same quest. Eventually, the Sunni and Shia crackpots will probably fight each other for the privilage of destroying us. Until that time, they both present a clear and present danger. (Without their oil money, they wouldn't be able to act on their delusions of grandeur. Fanatics with lots of money are the most dangerous sort - and we have a few like that of the Christian persuasion here.)
Finally, since you're familiar with the region, you must know that Muslims are allowed to lie and break promises to Infidels. It's a good thing to remember when assessing their words and their agreements. (Look for my next post for more on this subject.)
Hear or read at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5702969&surl=http%3A//www.scpr.org/programs/freshair/&f=module-FA
Also, All Things Considered had something about it as well:
http://www.kcrw.com/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?show_code=al&tmplt_type=Program
Apparently, it's all Iran today, Aug. 24th, on Public Radio!
I have tried to briefly give my view of the situatation. Your study of Islam, Iran etc. is based on a lot of information that hasn't been understood and evaluated in terms of what corresponds to reality. I don't write that to protest I'm "right" and your "wrong." What is going on in many Muslim countries and among many Muslims who have emeigrated to the West is a complex matter. It is not essentially an "Islam vs. the West" or a "Clash of Civilizations" matter. Akbar Ahmed, a fine scholar and experienced diplomat has written good books on the situation. Fortunately, he is a senior advisor to our Homeland Security.
Personally I've seen a lot of wars and revolutions, since I first went to the Middle East. The 1967 War was my first. I have had a lot of friends killed, murdered, tortured (Americans, Iranians, Israelis, Arabs et al.) since that war. I have my list of people I would like to see put in a cell forever. Quite a few are big shots in Iran today. But I could go on, including those in many other countries.
If the US keeps screwing up as it has since 2001, it will pay a heavy price. The same goes for Israel, but that doesn't carry the same weight with me. We have no defense treaty with Israel, in any case. We have a memorandom of agreement to supply arms, no more. The identification of our policy with Israel's, as Bush has done - the first US Administration to have done so - is bad for us and them. Just one more opinion as to what concerns me. I don't anticipate any direct conflict with Iran during the present Bush term. However, should it occur, Pakistan might erupt and become controlled by the dangerous minority of fundamentalists. Pakistan has the bomb. The shift of power would move to China from the West. We would become a really second-class power, more isolated from Europe, with Russia elevated to major power status. We have already strengthened Iran's position by our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and ,worse, become mistrusted and feared by our allies and hated by many. The estimates of the cost of 2 trillion for the Iraq adventure and the degradation of our military, we will be paying for for years while our infrastructure, social services and education lack need funds. The damage to our respect as a nation that represented freedom and hope to the world may take generations to repair. This notion of the "War on Terror" or the threat of "others," the "Enemy" - call it Islam today, yesterday it was "Communism" - has been and is being sold to Americans more to deceive than to serve their interest.
PS
Chalabi is a nobody. You didn't seem to get that ffrom what I said.
"War on Terror" or the threat of "others," the "Enemy" - call it Islam today, yesterday it was "Communism" - has been and is being sold to Americans more to deceive than to serve their interest.
I can't argue with that too much, just remember. Islam is a religon. Communism & Nasi, were the two biggest threats this nation has faced. Both were driven by forms of government. It was "Kill a Commi for Mommy" for a fair time after the Cold War. We are allies with China and Russia.
Islam is driven by a religion. The conquest of the globe is promised to them in their scripture. The government driven by this religous agenda by radicals, terrorist, is a new type of threat that we have never seen.
Remember, America would have never been founded if it was not for only a handfull of people. A religion has no physical boundary, therefore a Domino Effect(of total self-sufficantcy) is Very, very possible. Government funding, being one of the main "seeds" of terroroism.
Isnt that the truth. Its called the replacement threat. The neocons have been looking for it since the demise of the Soviet Union.What better way to ensure that it has a longevity similar to, if not greater than that of the Cold War, than to stoke the fires of hate by invading a Muslim country (Iraq) once you have your demon (Islam).
It made sense to target Afghanistan and the regime of the Taleban and it should have happened a lot sooner, but why did the Bush administration even bother to demand Bin Laden's handover? Did they want to give Bin Laden more time to escape to ensure the Bogeyman remained at large?
The Islamic countries are an easy target for the Bush administration. They dont (at present) have any superpower friends and the only Islamic nuclear power is Pakistan, a US ally. It makes sense therefore, in the eyes of the neocon to keep this particular pot boiling. The enemy is Islam, the terrorists are all Muslims. That is the logic they instil in the western mind in the same way they made the "Red Threat" omnipresent.
To those like Tom who believe that Islam is interested in taking over the world, have you ever asked yourself did you ever have this belief, or should I say fear BEFORE 9/11? BEFORE the invasion of Iraq? If you want to talk about religions taking over the world you should perhaps consider the Spanish conquests of South America or the modern equivalents of the various Christian missionaries attempting to convert the globe. I cant say I have ever had a Muslim cleric knocking on my door...
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976775282 It's called America Needs to Wake Up! by a US Navy Captain named Ouimette. Check it out.
Anyway, I suggest you read my new article which is more comprehensive (it's really two articles in one).
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976781454
I am not arguing that there aren't Islamists up to no good.
What I'm saying is that without the neocon inspired activity in the middle east, they would have remained an obscure and relatively impotent assortment of lunatics. By elevating them to the status of a supposed threat to the basic order of the world, not only did they gain power to further there petty non-religious distortions of Islamic principals, but also, a ready excuse has been created for advancing neocon strategy. In other words; the neocons WANT Islamists to flourish. That IS the plan.
Such a state of affairs as now exists, provides perfect cover for continuing to implement the strategy. Without a credible (or at least believable) threat of this type, how could they possibly convince Americans to support further large scale incursions in the region???
I'm not asking you to believe the neocons intentionally inflamed the Islamists fire, I'm asking that you suspend dis-belief long enough to think through the possibility. A devil's advocate exercise. In this way you may not end up concurring with the position, but you will at least have a clear understanding of the rationale behind it. If you continue to act as though there is no possibility that such a rationale should even be considered, by trying to establish the danger posed by Islamists, we will be forced, against our will, to keep saying: But look at how they came to be this dangerous.
I am not undermining what is probably real fear for many Americans but it needs to be put in perspective. Al Qaeda and its vile surrogates have their spectaculars now and again but thankfully it is not on a daily basis, it is barely on a yearly basis thankfully. You should not have to live in fear because of what you are being force-fed through the media. Nobody wants to see real terrorism, from any source succeed, I just question the hype that we have been fed for the last 5 years and what its real purpose is. I suspect US foreign policy towards Iran and Syria and non-compliant Islamic states is closer to the real purpose.
This is not something I believe in stone, it's a theory I pondered AFTER believing, in stone, that the neo-cons and the Bush Admin. were behind the whole thing. I saw and still see how they've cynically used the terror threat to hype everyone's fears and let them get away with making war and other civil-liberty violations. I've believed they purposely stoked the fire under Islamism to create what they think is the prelude to the Apocalypse. What I'm wondering here is whether Iran USED what THEY knew about the neo-cons and the Evangelicals to put THEIR plans in motion? Both want dominate, both want utter control so, admittedly, it's difficult to know who's got the upper hand - but it sure looks like Iran to me! That doesn't mean I BELIEVE it - it's just another facet to consider.
P.S. Brian, I know the difference between daily terror - I keep up with the news around the world and sometimes find myself reporting it - or frustrated not to see it reported in the major media - and fear of terror. Speaking only for myself, I don't live in fear of terror - it's going to happen or it's not. If I'm unlucky enoug to be caught in it, I hope I'd die swiftly or be able to do something like the people on Flight 93.
I do think they played their hand pretty well this time, but they're still under far more pressure than we or Israel. God I wish we could stop this train, it's bound to end very badly, for everyone.
Iran has no intention of attacking Israel. That would be crazy. The rhetorical talk is not their policy, which is that Iran will attack no country unless attacked. Iran has made clear she wants a deal that would lead to establishment of normal relations with US, and in return for negotiations offered concessions,as recognition of Israel, agreement on nuclear development, agreement on kind of support of Hizbollah and Hamas etc. The US doesn't want to talk, so far.The 2002 National Security Policy
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
This laid out the intention to follow a hegemonic
policy of taking out evil regimes.
Iraq was not a war, but an occupation. No elections in 30 days, and get our troops out in 90. Bremer , the Czar had a 300 page plan book, "to take 270 days" to carry out: write a new constitution, laws, privatize utilities, water, oil . A virtual corporate takeover. And the corporations could come and buy the country's assets. A temporary government was appointed to give time to get the paperwork done. The Iraqis could have kept the institutions and services operating , and repaired the infrastructure, had we let them. And they probably could have arranged an election in 30 days, too. All the different groups had multiple relations and ties at all levels. Every community knew who was who and they had worked together.
The US policy is not working. It failed with North Korea, and backfired.
Thank you.
Very well written article.
I think the cycle starts with the Bush and neocons and others react to the US's foreign policy.
Iran in talks to join alliance against West
From Oliver August in Beijing
MAHMOUD Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, held talks with Chinese and Russian leaders at a summit meeting yesterday to build up a security grouping in opposition to the US and Nato.
Mr Ahmadinejad was invited to address a meeting of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO), a China-sponsored proto-alliance that aims to strengthen defence links across Central Asia.
In an implicit reference to the US and its pressure on Iran to end its nuclear weapons programme, he said that the SCO could "ward off the threats of domineering powers to use their force against and interfere in the affairs of other states".
The summit was also attended by the leaders of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia, India and four Central Asian former Soviet republics. A joint declaration signed by those attending appeared to back the Iranian President.
"Differences in cultural traditions, political and social systems, values and models of development formed in the course of history should not be taken as pretexts to interfere in other countries' internal affairs," the joint declaration said.
The SCO was founded by China, Russia and the Central Asian republics ten years ago to fight terrorism, religious extremism and separatism in the region. In recent years, however, its militaries have expanded links to include joint exercises. Iran is said to be seeking full SCO membership, as is Pakistan. The participation of Iran has caused consternation in Washington. "It strikes me as strange that one would want to bring into an organisation that says it is against terrorism. . .one of the leading terrorist nations in the world — Iran," said Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary.
China and its official media have played down suggestions that the SCO could become a rival to the US and Nato. "For China, this is one of the most important diplomatic activities of the year," said a Foreign Ministry spokesman, adding that it would produce a series of agreements on security and economic co-operation.
The Russian press has been much more outspoken. "The main ideological message of this summit is growing anti-Americanism," the Kommersant daily said.
Iran is looking East. Iran would benefit from establishing normal relations with the US, enabling it get World Bank financing and to buy US technology to develop its economy. Normal relations with Israel would benefit both Iran and Israel. Iran wants stability and security for itself and in the region for the present. The US ideologues are pushing too hard, and pushing Israel, too.
When I first read that one of Bremmer's tasks was to privitize the utilities, I felt that white hot rage that accompanies the "I knew it" vindication - those bastards killed all those people, soldiers and Iraqi's alike. looted our treasury, pissed-off the Muslim world and increased terrorism - all to fatten their wallets!
I'm aware Iranian politicians engage in hyperbole but lately it's been a bit over the top. It doesn't sound like they want to talk or negotiate or be reasonable. I just know the world cannot allow these maniacs to get their hands on "the bomb." Maybe it ain't fair but who ever said life was...
Thanks Brian. Peace.
Thanks Fred. Yeah, I was just pondering a "what if?"