stefano

Ok, I voted yes. I don't think there will be a direct military campaign, but air raids are possible next year. According with declassified and public informations, both Israel and US are very concerned on nuclear facilities and they know where they are. Israeli Air Force has a lot of difficulties to accomplish this kind of mission (no invisible planes, hostile and neutral airspace to cross over Saudi Arabia or Syria...). American planes are perfect for this task: F-117 from the Gulf and B-2 from Diego Garcia. In case of Israeli air strike, Americans must be involved in any case, because their consent is necessary to open Iraqi air space. Ok, I'm speaking about an air strike and not about an invasion. But what if an air strike occurred? If there will be an Iranian answer or if armed opposition will rise inside Iran, developments could be very interesting. I don't think the war is very likely to happen, but I think that there is a possibility at least. Personally I think that a war with Iran is necessary. It's better to fight mullah's now, before it's too late. Does the Pentagon agree?

Yesterday I read a declaration of Qaddumi, leader of Al Fatah, to Iranian tv. He said that the creation of a Palestinian State is only a first step. The second one is the invasion of Israel. This statement is coherent with the PLO platform of 1974: establish a Palestinian authority in every territory leaved by Israeli forces and support a victorious arab-israeli war in the final phase. I'm astonished when I see diplomats and ministers of all Europe (and now Israel and America also) speaking about the birth of this rogue, provisional, government with enthusiasm. I don't know if they don't realize the menace, or if simply they don't believe in words and will of Palestinian leaders. Palestinians and Islamic leaders telegraph their intention, they declair it and they are collecting military means to achieve it. With an Iranian atomic bomb, they could also win a war of annihilation against Israel and deter any Western reteliation. Considering this evidence, the creation of a Palestinian State is not only immoral, because it means the birth of a dictatorship, but it will the beginning of a new era of danger for its neighbours. I'm not speaking from Israel, but I think that an eventual annihilation of that country could unleash all Islamist forces against the West: Israel, more then Turkey, is the only Western outpost in Middle East and, without it, enemies of the free world could be completely free to act and organize actions against all of us. What it could be the most proper answer to the Palestinian menace? Occupy Palestinian territories facing a perpetual guerrilla? Separate Palestine and build a fence facing the risk of a future large scale invasion? Invade Arab sponsors of Palestinian terrorism, facing the risk of a large scale conflict? Try to transform an independent Palestine in a democracy (with what means, if you don't control territories)?

Did anyone live under a dictatorship? I read all of your posts about civilian casualties in an war against an enemy dictatorship. Well, I didn't live under a dictatorship, but my grandparents did. Some of our cities in Italy was litterally levelled by US and British bombers, but now no-one speak about "invasion" of Italy, nor about "occupation" or "devastation": we speak about "liberation" of Italy from an evil regime and we celebrate that date. Why this? Because, after the defeat, we know fascism was evil, that fascist regime attacked first and US and Britain had the right to answer to that aggression with any necessary mean. With the invasion of Italy, Americans and Britons told us that our ideology was wrong and that it brought us to harsh consequences. I hope that a carpet bombing is not always necessary (in case of Japan, it was indeed necessary to win the war): what is really necessary is to adopt all means useful to defeat an aggressive ideology, defeating the regime, destroying it's symbols, imposing to people to change their aggressive idealogy. I don't think that there is a difference between militaries and civilians: in an ideological war, we can see a soldier dissident who wants to disert and a civilian who supports a dictator actively. It's a question of individual choice, isn't it? If you have free will, you always chose ideology, you're never a "victim" of a society. How to fight a war against an ideology and it's active supporters? The ideal could be: send an ultimatum to anyone. Of course it's impossible, so means to fight and win a war can change and must be adapted to local reality, but the principle must be clear: defeat their ideology and it's supporters. In a country as Iran, where people (beyond the silence of media) rebels every month against it's regime, you have only to destroy the regime, the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij. If you want to strike iranian population you'll make a mistake, because you'll hit innocents (who are actually fighting with our side) and you'll transform an ally in a new enemy. In an Arab country, where the 70% of population wants an Islamic dictatorship it would be different. In case of Iraq the situation is more complex, because in that county there are also a lot of good guys, but I thik that Pentagon is not fighting Iraq war in a proper way. Personally I think that we have to fight against forces which want to destroy Occident, defeat their islamist ideology with indivual riught's laws and a laical education, support only guys who share our ideals of liberty. And, of course, save our soldiers, first of all. Now we are looking for dialogue with Sadr's integralists (Eisenhower, in Europe, didn't look for dialogue with survived Waffen SS) and we tolerate the formation of Islamists parties and even the return of Baath members. This is what I think: we're still not winning the war, because we don't realize that we have an enemy.

Hi, this is my first post. I'm not English and so, be patient if I commit some mistake If you're looking for individualism in modern rock, try with Bjork. She's not objectivist at all (and I don't like her when she speaks about politics), but she's REALLY individualist, especially when she declared: "I don't believe in God, I believe in myself". In her lyrics there's a lot of love for modern world and technology, she hates any form of "luddism". I don't know if there is some objectivist band. Probably only Prodos, from Australia and 2112 by Rush. Usually I really like electronic music, because it's music that come directly from the mind of a musician.