Over and over they claim Iran set Hizbollah on present violent course

[bigtree]

WITHOUT PRESENTING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL

Why should ANYONE looking on believe these claims? Especially in the wake of Bush and Blair's lies that led us into Iraq.

I personally don't think Iran would want to 'distract' from their present nuclear showdown as it was reported today that they were near to accepting the incentives offered in exchange for reigning their uranium enrichment program in. It makes no sense at all that they would invite attacks on Lebanon, endanger Syria, and give Israel pretext to attack them.

The Iran canard is being repeated by Democrats and republicans alike. They should be pressed to prove their claims before they use Iran as a pretext for anything involved with the Israeli/Lebanon conflict.

[Recursion]

1. Just curious, why do you think it's false?

Hezbollah has been known for years to receive a large amount of support and advisory personnel from Iran. I think the assumption is that anything Hezbollah does, Iran probably cleared ahead of time. It's kind of like * and Rove; it's a pretty safe bet that whatever * does, Rove signed off on.

[bigtree]

2. That's not the way we should operate our foreign policy

or justify military action.

Just asserting something as truth until it's proven false is Kangaroo justice.

I outlined why *I* think it's false. It makes no sense that Iran would invite a military campaign by Israel that could lead to an attack on their own country.

Does every entity that we provide support and advice to do our bidding in every case?

[Recursion]

4. No

Does every entity that we provide support and advice to do our bidding in every case?

No. Israel's a good example; we don't want them to do what they're doing now. But, we've supplied, encouraged, and enabled them. Similarly, Hezbollah might have gone farther than Iran tactically wanted at the time, but they supplied, encouraged, and enabled them.

[AlamoDemoc]

3. same goes for Israel;;; United States supplies Israel with weapons

...and ammunitions, and airplanes, and overall support at the UN. Are we to view Israel as legitimate force, whilst Israel's manifesto is based on religious and homogeneous state>Apartheids?

[Recursion]

5. Yep, exactly

It's fair to say US foreign policy has enabled Israel's aggression, and it's fair to say Iranian foreign policy has enabled Hezbollah's aggression. Even if neither the US nor Iran wanted this outcome, we're the ones that set this situation up.

[bigtree]

6. Listen to what you are saying

While it has been documented that Iran has aided Hizbollah, it's just not going to wash that Iran should be held accountable for every stupid act Hizbollah carries out.

If the U.S. allows Israel to act against Iran because of this incident, they will be setting a precedent for other nations who may be compelled to act against their neighbors without any visible, justifiable proof of complicity.

Israel is piling on the innuendo about Iran's involvement, hoping that they can create enough of consensus against them to give cover for an attack. The plan the are executing in Lebanon has been in the works for 5 years. You can bet it has an attack on Iran as a component. That's the neo-con dream. PNAC revived. Perle and Kristol are wetting their pants with anticipation of their domino strategy actually pursued by Israel as they proscribed in their pre-Bush planning.

[Recursion]

7. I didnt advocate any action against Iran

Any more than I think it would be right to bomb us over Israel's action.

I'm just saying the US and Iran both bear a heavy responsibility for the state of Lebanon, and I wish the two of us would do something about it.

[malaise]

8. I have an open mind

but based on their record I have no reason to believe a word from Bushco, Blair or Israel.

This articulates my position rather well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1822923,00.html?gusrc=rss

[cantstandbush]

9. It's called a talking point and they are sticking to the script. nt