Sorry for the late reply - was out of town off the net and on business. It's refreshing to actually read something from a person here who has at least some understanding on the topics of discussion as well as the civility and discipline to not immediately stoop to personal attacks. However, I note also that it is statistically improbable that the person "bawr" managed to register himself 3 years ago and has only just now jumped into the middle of an obscure discussion to make his first ever post. Haha - that's rich. Bravo. I'll make a wager a certain dcraig, who managed to sneak in an indirect remark to me in a post made immediately after bawr's is working to at least 1 alias or dopple account here and penning his own fictitious supporters. Some apparently have too much time on their hands eh? But unless the impostor had the foresight to create a legion of dopple/alias accounts 3 years ago to hold in reserve for such occasions as these (in the old good-cop bad-cop debate cheating routine of supporting yourself through supporting aliases arguments) I also must deduce this entire site is gamed. Clearly, someone participating here has the ability to not only create new alias/dopple accounts but somone also has the ability to change the account creation dates to give the appearance that they are old members (with zero prior posts ) . That means somone has access to the sysop or forum administrator or "is" the same. Geeze guys, if you forum owners are going to game the discussions with fake members and fake rebuttals as a form of censure why not just delete the posts of those who you do not agree with and tell us to leave rather than stoop to this level? It would save me time. But I'll play along for a bit more... Just a few counter "corrections": You need to re-read your history. Iraq was in no way "neutral" in WWII. Iraq was granted independence in 1932 & the British retained military bases and transit rights for their forces in the country. Iraq was invaded by the United Kingdom in 1941, for fears that the government of Rashid Ali might cut oil supplies to Western nations and because of his strong leanings to Nazi Germany. A military occupation followed after the restoration of the Hashemite monarchy, and the occupation ended on October 26, 1947. The Iraqi Arabs were constantly trying to attack and kill the British and Axis powers and were supported by the Nazi's to that end. So unless one is playing "semantics" about who's country it was the local and legitimate Iraqi government did not support the axis powers (otherwise the Brits would not have needed to invade now would they?). In fact, given the current situation in Iraq and this history any person living in England openly critical of the US's (and UKs) current occupation of Iraq while enjoying the fruits of freedom & liberty won during WWII is being completely irrational and inconsistent with their own country's history and rationale. But - that's what it means to be American in this day and age; we are held to a different standard than the hypocrites and liberals hold themselves to. My comments on Ahmadinejad were not entirely accurate about his pro-arian makeup. I apologize for that bit of emotionalism. But he has the exact same fervor, contempt and radicalism that Hitler has and he is committed to eradication of Israel. He would like to make himself or one of Iran's Shia clerics the new Muslim Caliph to unite all Muslims under his war banner. Given the Islamic history of killing or ignoring all attempts at this in the past it will never happen. Besides Turkey still retains its right to that role when it voluntarily relinquished the title when it adapted a more modern form of government (and now Osama Bin Laden wants to assume it too). But I digress. Make no mistake about Ahmadinejad. He is a religious extremist and is 100% anti-Israeli. He only tolerates & accommodates those Jews who betray their fellows to meet with him for propaganda purposes to renounce Zionists and to state that Israel should not exist (BTW: a belief held by a very narrow group of ultra right wing Jews who believe that Israel can not exist as a nation until God himself restores it). A secular Iran would be the best the West could hope for. But Ahmadinejad uses the religious rhetoric to keep himself in power with the extremists (funny enough while wearing western attire). But the truth is he wants an apocalyptic showdown with Israel and/or the west to force the Shia "Madi" to return to earth and put non-Muslims to death and reestablish a single Islamic "paradise on earth". Bottom line - he is more dangerous that Hitler ever was since he actually wants to get the nukes flying around and has no problem with a suicide tactic. Try to reason with that. TS