Will this increase or decrease the likelihood of terrorist actions in America, Europe and the rest of the world?

If you were a member of a family murdered in this conflict, would you be seeking revenge?

Should Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, be tried for war crimes if or when this conflict comes to an end?

What will the price of oil be in 4 weeks time?

Squelched the little man a long time ago.

But seemed to link the name with:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

WHY AMERICA WENT INTO WW1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTaOzt8vYso&NR=1

Maybe.

But the real problem now is the abuse of one group of people by another.

At the moment the Jewish right wing has the leverage, but with the more realistic US administration the tolerance of them is being exhausted.

Eventually, the rights of the Palestinians will be realised.

Hopefully, without further bloodshed.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely.

Will this be another justifiable war?

Yes you are right, I hope they will continue with the peace process, as it seems war and bloodshed is the last issue but will be if nothing happened and continue in the same maner.

fahel: There is so much dodgy history and laughable 'facts', particularly about the Rothschilds, that the entire movie belongs with the world-wide conspiracy mob.

You'll be telling us next that America went into WW2 because the Rothschilds paid the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor.

There is a funny story about Pearl Harbour.

The Japanese trade minister came to britain in 1951 when Aneurin (Nye) Bevan was Minister of Labour. He leaked some details of a trade agreement to the press. The Japanese trade minister accused him of treachery at the press conference.

You have to imagine the next part in a heavy Welsh accent.

Bevan replied

"Treachery, treachery boy! What about Pearl 'arbour boy""

Who is in favour of a first strike on Iran to stop them?

Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Irans most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistans bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application, said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.

The documents have been seen by intelligence agencies from several Western countries, including Britain. A senior source at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that they had been passed to the UNs nuclear watchdog.

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said yesterday: We do not comment on intelligence, but our concerns about Irans nuclear programme are clear. Obviously this document, if authentic, raises serious questions about Irans intentions.

Responding to The Times findings, an Israeli government spokesperson said: Israel is increasingly concerned about the state of the Iranian nuclear programme and the real intentions that may lie behind it.

Hays,

That would really be an incendiary bomb to the Middle East.

It is a "daft" idea.

I think Britain and America have enough military and economic problems on their hands already.

I wonder where the WMDs from Iran would land.

Just a thought, are you related to Bush or Blair?

Would you prefer if Iran dveloped a nuclear bomb.

The moment is fast approaching when Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, may have to make the most difficult decision of his career whether to launch a military strike against Irans nuclear facilities and risk triggering a conflagration that could spread across the Middle East.

Israeli experts believe the point of no return may be only six months away when Irans nuclear programme will have if it has not already metastasised into a multitude of smaller, difficult-to-trace facilities in deserts and mountains, while its main reactor at Bushehr will have come online and bombing it would send a radioactive cloud over the Gulf nations.

In 2007, in what is often seen as a trial run for an attack on Iran, an Israeli squadron flew undetected through Turkish airspace and over Syrias unprotected border to destroy what was thought to be a nuclear facility under construction with Iranian and North Korean support.

In June 2008, the air force staged exercises over the Mediterranean, with dozens of fighters, bombers and refuelling tankers flying roughly the same distance as between Israel and Iran. Earlier this year, Israeli jets again carried out a long-range bombing mission, hitting trucks in Sudan that were believed to be bringing Iranian weapons to Hamas via Egypt.

WMD/

I would be happier if Israel didn't have Nuclear Weapons and see much of Netanyahu rhetoric as a diversion from his own problems.

I cannot see America (under the present administration) supporting the action and being sucked into present Israeli policies.

I can not see that Iran has any less rights to have its nuclear programme. I don't see Iranians as any less civilised than America, Britain or Israel.

(Blair, Rumsfelt. Cheney Bush. Bin Netanyahu. )


I don't like the present Iranian administration but see it as the result of past decades of ludicrous British and American policies.

What you appear to be suggesting is more ludicrous policies.

However I would prefer the area to be Nuclear free.

Perhaps,for a start to the latter position, Israel will give up their weapons.

After all what is said to be good for the goose is good for the gander.

The main differecne is that Iran is virtually a dictatorship. You have to live with the fact that the area is not nuclear free.

Russia is a dictatorship. Some have accused Blair of being a Dictator. China is a party dictatorship.

The control of power in many countries said to be democracies are open to question.

How you can call Iran "civilised" and comparable to Russia under Putin or even the UK under Blair is amazing even for you. State sponsored conferences of Holocaust deniers is one example of uncivilised behaviour.

Iran's obession with the Jews

None of the other countries with nuclear weapons have such a hatred of neighbour and a desire to see them destroyed. Don't know what the solution is but very difficult when the underlying view of Iran is that Israel if not all Jews should be destroyed.

Isaacs,

I don't think all Iranians are Holocaust deniers.



The Jews or Zionists in Israel seem to be showing hatred of and dismissal human rights of others groups ie. Palestinians Arabs etc.

By their confiscation of a another's land and property, they are carrying out actions synonymous with those carried out by the Fascists in Germany.

If Israel's Government abided by United Nation diktats and rulings they might be respected internationally, which at present they are not.


It is a pity that Tzipi Livni did not come to Europe, she may have been able to defend her views and position at the Hague.

It is a pity that Tzipi Livni did not come to Europe, she may have been able to defend her views and position at the Hague.

You do live in a fantasy world, Fred. She was never at risk of standing trial at the Hague for anything, because she is not accused by the International court of any crime.

Fred - it doesn't matter what most Iranians think. It matters what Ahmadinejad and the rest of the leadership think and there views are quite clear. It is not just denying the Holocaust (or allowing those that do a state sponsored platform) but wanting to eradicate Israel and Jews. It is like China saying it want's to eradicate Japan or Tony Blair wanting to eradicate Ireland. Call that civilised if it so pleases you.

Isaacs,
I am not a holocaust denier, but I am getting a little fed up with I feel some of the Jewish community milking this period and using it as justification of some of their present actions.


This seems to me to ignore over 70 million individuals of other countries, who during that period suffered the consequences of a Fascist regime during the 1930s and later periods.

Ie Russians, other Slavs, Gypsies, etc. whose suffering was just as great, but their claims less well orchestrated.

The rhetoric of some of the Iranian and Zionist leadership could be seen as the exposure what may be considered subconscious motivation.

But I think the leadership of both groups are equally culpable in utilising the emotion of the present conflict, for their own political aims and other ends.

I cannot see Iran, even with Nuclear Arms ability, being stupid enough to consider their use in a stand-off with Israel.

Looking at the political news about Iran I guess the present government, with its insiders and supporters are beginning to lose its support. How long it will take for a more reasonable regime to emerge is debatable, but will not be any quicker by demonization by the Israel and the West.

I still think the rhetoric from Israel's leadership is a diversionary tactic to avoid observation and criticism, with the possibility of follow up actions against the abuses, which are taking place against a recognisable group within its own "borders".

I am not a supporter of Israel, but the problem of Iran has nothing to do with the leaders of Israel. Iran has an irrational leadership who are generally accepted to be a reall danger to various parts of the world. They don't have a nuclear weapon now and it would be clearly better if they did not get one. North Lorea is another country similar to Iran. The difference with North Korea, China, Russia is that they already have nuclear weapons and Iran does not.

Haystack,

Does "irrational" mean holding opinions which you or another group disagree with?

Does holding a "different opinion" ie. "irrational opinion" mean the the "holder" does not have grounds to believe in that "position" and that they as a "whole" are irrational?

No. It has more to do with being a violent dictatorship and in particular violent towards its own people.