Gary T

I'm not aware of Israel taking military action other than in response to actual attacks or clear threats of attack. Given the amount of hostility and military aggression directed toward them, I think they've shown remarkable restraint

Clear threats. Now there's an interesting turn of phrase. So if a country feels there's a "clear threat" its okay to attack?. A sort of preemptive strike? That was the rationale Nixon used for Cambodia. Except it turned out the "clear threat" was a little murky. And the rationale Bush used for his recent action.

The "restraint" was more than a little imposed from the outside by the US (and to a lesser extent other supporters).

I agree that Iraq is much more likely to initiate the aggression. I Just don't agree that Israel, without the US moderating them, would have been (or will be) all that restrained.

Troll said What would YOU have done? Who would YOU go to to have the Kurds given a homeland? How would YOU force the Turks and Iraqis to give up part of their territory?

I liked to hear that to. Would I be willing to fight for a Kurdish homeland? Probably not. On the other hand, the (so far) lack of any substantial criticism of Turkey (dating back to Bush Sr) is disturbing.

Jack the Lab,

Saddam Hussein is a megalomaniac, who is not to be trusted- and God help the peoples of the area if he does get nuclear weapons Which is the reality. Another question is: Who clear would the threat have to be before Israel used its nukes?

McGrath

But in the case of some countries this kind of official state use of terrorist methods is seen as a reason to brand the countries involved as "pariah states" - but not in the case of Israel. And that is where the double standards come in.

Along with selective attention to UN sanctions. And I believe the US has some fairly strict laws about trade with countries branded as terrorist.

Regards

John