Slag quote: " Nickhere, the US made threats against Iran??? I remember training Iranian airmen at the base where I was stationed. Our good relations with the Iranian GOVERNMENT went away with the Islamic revolution and the advent of the Ayatolla Khomeini"

Ahhh. We are going all the way back to the good ol days when Iran was pro-American? I too know Iranians who liked the good old days, several of my Iranian friends fled when the Shah was deposed. They have only good words for him. Yet I know others who couldn't stand him, and compare him to the corrupt House of Saud today - doesn't give a s**t about the country's poor or unemployed as long as it has good relations with the West and gets to do what it likes. If you look at the White's Houses foreign freinds and favoured regimes you'll find a similar pattern: Pinochet, Noreiga (until he went 'rogue' i.e - decided he'd go it alone) all those tin-pot South American dictators etc., etc., the Taliban as long as they were fighting Russians and not Yanks. My point is simply, just because you were training Iranian airmen at one time doesn't mean the US nver threatened or attacked Iran. In fact it did, though not openloy and directly. It was far more convenient to get Iraq to do it (the 80n -88 war cost 1 million lives) by simply supplying them with the weapons.

Iran attacked the US embassy? Yes. I'm always sorry to see people getting killed, even if it were old Pinochet. As a christian I believe the time of anyone's departure should be left up to God since He gives everyone the time they need to be saved and no-one should cut it short. But I think Iranian popular sentiment against the US was justified. As ever where the US sticks its nose in to help out with 'democracy' it generally translates into supporting a rich elite to supress the rest of a disenfranchised population that eventually rise up and assert themselves (known as 'terrorism' in the West). It's a cycle that's becoming almost as predictable as nature, as the falling of leaves in Autumn and the tides going in and out. You'd think the White House and its cheerleaders would by now have spotted this pattern and how they store up trouble for the future for themselves and everyone else, but no, they still go at it pig headed as ever locked into their own madness.

Just look at Afghanistan: see last week's Time (I think, or Newsweek) for instance. When the US invaded Afghanistan, they were so eager to beat the Taliban they enlisted the Northern Alliance without bothering much about what kind of gangsters they'd brought on-side. I remember thinking back in 2001, looking at the motley crew of thugs and assassins that make up the Northern Alliance, 'the yanks will regret that choice of ally'. And sure enough, having armed these gangsters, they now find the country controlled by a series of corrupt warlords with very very little concern for human rights (e.g remember how they let 3,000 taliban POWs die in sealed containers in the summer heat after the war?) and in control of an ever-increasing level of heroin production. It is only a matter of time before the long-suffering locals get sick of the situation, rise up in some new form of Taliban or whatever (which will be promptly labelled a 'terrorist organisation' as it will be 'against' rather than 'for' the US) and the cycle starts all over.

They made a similar mistake when they invaded Italy towards the end of WW2: landing in Sicily, they were so keen to push on and 'pacify' Sicily they even flew in convicted Mafiosi capo's from the US to take control of the local situation. They reasoned these'd be the best guiys for the job. Unsurprisingly before too long they found they'd put the mafia (who been almsot totally destroyed in Italy by that fascist Mussolini) back into power and most of the grants and aid given to rebuild Italy found its way into mafiosi pockets. The Yanks are so keen to win - 'to get the job done' - that they believe 'the end justifies the means' and so they never get it quite right. If they are serious about creating a better world through military intervention, as seems (though I believe this is self-defeating) then they have to be morally above reproach themselves to begin with. You can't 'fight dirty' and hope to create a better world.

The tragedy is, the US could go a long way to creating a better world, but it'd require a complete change of strategy, and one that wouldn't be popular with the big corporations whon pull the strings in the White House. If they stopped trying to control people and helped them instead, by helping them in an honest way, they'd be regarded as saviours instead of pariahs and there would be no terrorists trying to attack America. To do that they'd have to stop invading people, give up on this Hollywood idea that military intervention can make a better world, stop supporting governments that oppress their own people as long as that government is pro-US, start spending a lot less money on wepaons and a lot more on disaster relief (I wonder how much was spent on Katrina in the end?), champiuon the little guy instead of the already rich-and-powerful etc., etc., I wonder will I live to see the day?

About Posada: I have some stuff saved on file, and I'll dig it up for you asap.


Peace: yes, I see only those posts as well, maybe I logged off before hitting the send button. Old age catching up with me!