BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 03:19 PM

It IS costing money and that money is going directly into the pockets of contractors like Halliburton and their CEO's.

Yes, the oil is sold on the world market but the money is made by whoever controls the exploration, pipelines and the rest of the infrastructure needed to extract and move the oil to market.

Who would have a vested in interest in that?

You know that bb, why would you continue to support the slaughter of so many innocents unless you are also profitting from this war. I wonder what your investment is or if your defense is based solely on your fear of others. I'm pretty sure you defend Bush with every breath because you are afraid that Israel cannot stand alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 03:04 PM

"then Halliburton and the US armed forces would have gone in and exploited the shit out of the place, which is what they normally do,"

So the US is making a profit off the occupation??? Better tell Congress, THEY think it is costing the government money.

As for the whole "Blood for oil" propaganda campaign, WHAT oil have we taken from Iraq? Haven't they sold it on the WORLD market, and market price, to whomever they wished?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 02:58 PM

Ah well, you deal in the old double standard practiced by all great empire advocates, BB. You feel it's perfectly all right to do to some other smaller countries what you would find completely unacceptable and outrageous were it done to your own country by a still greater power. That's a common blind spot in human thinking.

Perhaps some day fortune will place you in life AS the citizen of a small country in the shadows of a great empire, and you'll find out what the shoe is like when it's on the other foot.

Yes, Iraq would have been occupied, of course, if Saddam had stepped down. Saddam was just an excuse. He was a propaganda ministry's dream of "the bad guy". He could harly have been more perfect if he had publicly drunk the blood of children.

If Saddam had left, and the Iraqis had unilaterally surrendered to the will of the USA, then Halliburton and the US armed forces would have gone in and exploited the shit out of the place, which is what they normally do, and there would soon have developed a guerrilla war against the occupying forces....but much less infrastructure would have been destroyed in the process.

And the next step would probably have been a similar line of USA threats and accusations against Iran...or Syria, and a full scale war with Iran or Syria, because Bush would have been emboldened enough and had enough of a free hand to do it at that point.

I'm not so sure he does now.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 01:43 PM

"I recall the bitterness with which the Iraqis dismantled some of their pathetic little short range missiles to try to appease the big international wolf slavering at their borderline. But it did no good."

You mean the PROHIBITED ones they told the UN that they did not have, then when caught, dismantled them at a slightly slower rate than they built more?

"Nothing they could have done would have stopped that invasion from going ahead. No concession would have been enough. No agreement to any U.N. condition would have been enough."

I disagree. Had Saddam stepped down, or thrown his borders open, there would have been no attack. Iraq would have been occupied, but it is Saddam who chose to fight. It was the so-called "anti-war" protesters who, along with France, Russia and Germany, gave Saddam the idea that he could resist the UN demands and remain in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 01:36 PM

I think you grossly overestimate Saddam's awareness of the anti-Bush contingent, BB. ;-) I think Saddam's awareness was almost totally taken up at the time with the vast forces gathering on his borders and the barrage of threats coming his way. I certainly had that impression. I recall the bitterness with which the Iraqis dismantled some of their pathetic little short range missiles to try to appease the big international wolf slavering at their borderline. But it did no good.

Nothing they could have done would have stopped that invasion from going ahead. No concession would have been enough. No agreement to any U.N. condition would have been enough. It was a done deal. Same as Hitler's attack on Poland.

When a wolf has decided to eat a rabbit, and the rabbit cannot flee, then there is only one possible result.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 01:29 PM

"However, Saddam did not do anything that embarrassing and inconvenient."

Why would he have? The "anti-bush at any cost" had all but promised him that he would not only NOT have to step down, but that the UN would make no effort to enforce the resolutions against hime. With that king of encouragement, it is no wonder that he did not either step down, or throw his borders open, allowing the coalition forces in without attack.

I hold those who would rather demand that Bush NOT attack Iraq than to demand that Saddam MUST comply with the UN to be guilty of the resultant bloodshed.

I have still not received ANY explaination of why the organizers of the "anti-war" march in London prohibited the Iraqi group that wished to demand that Saddam comply with the resolutions to march with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 01:19 PM

You are not paying proper attention to context, BB. What I said was clearly intended to mean a pre-emptive military attack....such as the German attack on Poland (which Hitler claimed was in "defence" of Germany...ha, ha), or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, etc (which genuinely was defensive...in a sense...since Roosevelt had cut off their overseas supplies of steel and oil)....or the American attack on Iraq in 2003.

All pre-emptive attacks, all illegal, all criminal. (in my opinion)

It would have been damned funny if Saddam had decided to personally step down and flee Iraq prior to the American attack in 2003, because it would have deprived the USA of their official "evil, terrible, awful, bad guy" excuse for launching a war they very much wanted for their own gainful reasons. (They would then have had to come up with another bizarre rationale for entering that country and taking it over...and I'm sure they would have after a brief flurry of initial surprise and confusion.)

However, Saddam did not do anything that embarrassing and inconvenient. He met standard expectations and remained in Baghdad, defiant as ever, and the great incredible criminal farce went forward as planned. That entire region will suffer for many years yet to come as a result of the war that should never have been fought. Many Americans and Iraqis and other people will die to satisfy the greed of a few big multinational corporations who are cashing in right now and living high on the proceeds.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 11:01 AM

Let me repeat:


GUEST,beardedbruce - PM
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:00 AM

"But,beardedbruce,you leaped from 'threatening with a bat' to 'crushing your skull' like greased lightning."

Sorry. YOU were the one who who, when faced with a threatened attack would put down your weapon and turn away, without resolving the immediate threat.


If a country is making credible threats, it is the height of irresponsibility to pretend they are not serious. Especially concerning nuclear attack.


Some of us remember the Cuban missle crisis.

Some of us know how much damage even a single bomb would cause.

Some of us would rather prevent the development and delivery of that bomb than to see tens or hundreds of million pepole killed.

Of course, with the complete faith in MAD that so many on the Left seem to have, the number could easily be in the billions...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: autolycus
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:46 AM

bb - I mean any reply to my only post of 23.3,given that your first response (leaping from 'threat' to 'smashed skull') was quite illegitimate?






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:22 AM

So, now they have a proven launch vehicle....

Still waiting on the European Union to get them to give up their nuclear programs......




Iran announces rocket launch, believed part of commercial satellite project
Updated 2/25/2007 7:59 AM ET

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran on Sunday said it had successfully tested what it called a rocket that had reached space. The announcement, made on state-run television, was unclear, but appeared to refer to Iran's efforts to launch commercial satellites into orbit.
Iran's Science and Technology and Defense ministries built the craft, the state-run television quoted Mohsen Bahrami, the head of Iran's Space Research Center, as saying.

Bahrami provided no other details beyond saying that Iran had successfully launched what he called a space rocket or space missile.

Iran in the past has announced that it wanted to be able to send its own satellites, including commercial ones, into orbit. But it has revealed little information about the project.

In 2005, Iran launched its first such satellite in a joint project with Russia.

Iran hopes to launch four more satellites by 2010, the government has said, to increase the number of land and mobile telephone lines to 80 million from 22 million. It also hopes to expand its satellite capabilities to let Internet users to rise to 35 million from 5.5 million in the next five years.

Science and Technology Minister Mohammad Soleimani said Sunday that Iran would speed up its space program, the official IRNA news agency reported.

"Investment in space is very serious and requires time, but we are trying to speed this up," IRNA quoted Soleimani as saying.

Iran requires at least a 12 transponder satellite to enhance its communications and Internet systems. It signed a $132 million deal with a Russian firm to build and launch another telecommunications satellite two years ago.

Also in 2005, Iran said its next step would be the launch of a satellite on an indigenous rocket. Iranian officials have said the country has been developing a Shahab-4 missile that will be used to launch a satellite into space.

Under a 20-year development plan, Iran has said it hopes to become a base for science and technology in the region.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 06:51 AM

Dianavan

"Where did that info come from bb?"

Try reading the UN reports.

Or maybe even the postings here that QUOTE the UN reports.


LH,
"In legal terms, BB, preventive action "before you are attacked" (such as you recommended in regards to Iraq) is murder in the first degree. It's 100% illegal. It's equivalent to what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbour or what the Germans did in Poland in '39."

Sorry, "preventive action" can be diplomatic action, like going to the UN and demanding that they resolve the matter. AFTER that has failed, more direct action such as embargos and blockades can be utilized.
Only in the case where a nation refuses to comply with the rest of the world's demands would force be legal- Such as occurred in Iraq after the "anti-Bush at any cost" people indicated that the UN resolutions would not be enforced, leading Saddam to believe he could stay in power. The blood is on their hands, just like part of the responsibility for WW II is on Chamberlain's.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 07:19 PM

Since before the war. Remember the little imp whispering in Bush's ear about how the streets would line up & cheer the American liberators.
That was Chalabi.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 07:11 PM

The US's sweethart since beginning when?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:04 PM

I do agree LH.

"Chalabi", Iraqi's home grown maker of the sweet deals & the US's sweetheart.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:54 PM

In legal terms, BB, preventive action "before you are attacked" (such as you recommended in regards to Iraq) is murder in the first degree. It's 100% illegal. It's equivalent to what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbour or what the Germans did in Poland in '39.

I think it is almost inevitable that someday there will be a terrorist nuclear attack on some American (or other western) city, not by the armed forces of a nation, but by stealth by a terrorist group. If so, it will be directly BECAUSE of aggressive actions like the invasion of Iraq, not in spite of them. The USA is sowing the wind for a future whirlwind when they do things like invade Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:53 PM

Where did that info come from bb? Remember Chalabi? The guy who likes to play two ends against the middle? He's still very much in the picture, btw, and is as dangerous as ever.

"Although neither the CIA nor the State Department trusted Chalabi, he remained popular with the neoconservatives in the Pentagon and in Vice President Cheney's office as the Bush administration moved towards an invasion of Iraq. Chalabi was instrumental in transmitting the claims of an Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball" about mobile biological weapons laboratories that the administration used as part of its war rationale."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Alleged_intel_fixer_Chalabi_to_head_0223.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:26 PM

sorry, lost cookie-

"No answer,then,beardedbruce?"

To your comment about what YOU would do, or thought?

"Secondhand,I thought with them that therefore we had time to do what I suggested. "


In regards to nuclear war, the time to take preventative action is BEFORE you are attacked- We had information that Saddam HAD WMD (chemical and possibly biological) and had a program to develop nuclear. With his PROHIBITED (but proven by the UN to exist in violation of the resolutions) IRBMs, he was capable of attacks on allies that we have treaty obligations with, and possibly providing such WMD for ( re 9/11) terrorist attacks upon the US.

So, what time did we have? HOW LONG did we give him to comply with the UN resolutions, and he STILL did not, but continued to threaten the US and allies?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: autolycus
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:04 PM

No answer,then,beardedbruce?






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 12:56 PM

Iran: Atomic program has no brake
POSTED: 11:37 a.m. EST, February 25, 2007
Story Highlights• Ahmadinejad: "Move is like a train ... which has no brake, no reverse gear"
• U.S. official: "They don't need a reverse gear. They need a stop button"
• International powers to meet next week to discuss new resolution on Iran
• U.N. report says Iran misses deadline to suspend nuclear activities

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran has no brake and no reverse gear in its nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday, while a deputy foreign minister vowed Tehran was prepared for any eventuality, "even for war."

The tough talk comes ahead of a meeting this week of officials from the U.N. Security Council plus Germany in London to consider possible further steps after limited sanctions were imposed on Tehran in December.

"Iran has obtained the technology to produce nuclear fuel and Iran's move is like a train ... which has no brake and no reverse gear," Ahmadinejad said, ISNA news agency reported.

The United States repeated its call for Iran to halt uranium enrichment, a process Washington believes Tehran is seeking to master in order to build atomic bombs.

Iran, which insists its only wants to make fuel to generate electricity, ignored last week's U.N. deadline to stop the work.

"They don't need a reverse gear. They need a stop button," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Fox News. She said her offer to meet Iran's foreign minister or other Iranian representatives still stood if Iran suspended enrichment.

The United States insists it wants a diplomatic solution to the row but has not ruled out military action if that fails.

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said on Saturday Iran's atomic ambitions must be curbed and said "all options" were on the table. Iran says Washington is in no position to attack when its troops are bogged down in Iraq but says it is ready in case.

'Resolving differences'
"We have prepared ourselves for any situation, even for war," Manouchehr Mohammadi, one of the foreign minister's deputies, was quoted by ISNA as saying.

Iranian military commanders have said recent war games, the latest of which involved testing several missiles, show Iran's readiness to counter any attack.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani was quoted by the official IRNA news agency as saying on a trip to South Africa that Tehran would react "proportionately" to any further pressure and that it wanted more talks.

"Iran is ready to resolve existing differences over its nuclear program through fruitful and careful negotiations," he said. He urged Security Council members due to meet in London in the coming days not to continue their "hostile behavior".

U.N. sanctions were slapped on Iran in December, barring the transfer of technology and know-how to the country's nuclear and missile program. That resolution said further measures could follow if Iran refused to halt enrichment by February 21.

Cheney said during a visit to Australia that it would be a "serious mistake" to allow Iran to become a nuclear power. An Australian newspaper said Cheney also endorsed comments by U.S. Republican Senator John McCain that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran.

The New Yorker magazine said a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush.

The special planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months, according to an unidentified former U.S. intelligence official cited in the article by investigative reporter Seymour Hers.

The special planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months, according to an unidentified former U.S. intelligence official cited in the article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh.

In response to the report, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said: "The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran. To suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous."

To step up pressure on Tehran, Washington has imposed sanctions on two big Iranian banks and three firms, and has sent a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:23 AM

"I mean...we are all VERY subjective in how we go about rating things as "bad" or "good". Face it. We're all biased from the getgo. "


THIS I can agree 100% with you!

Too bad some here take their opinions as absolutes that ALL must agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:54 AM

Well, that's one person's opinion, right?

I read the book, and it impressed me. I watched the video, and I got an impression of a man who is anything but emotionally flat about what he's concerned about. He seems absolutely impassioned about it to me, and quite emotional. His book strikes me as very honest, in that he admits freely to his own shortcomings rather than trying to hide them.

He also did extremely well in business, both as an employee at MAIN and later as a CEO with his own alternative energy company. That suggests to me that he's not a weak or incapable man in the least. He's a very successful capitalist. He's the kind of guy any "conservative" should just love...if he just didn't expose the dirty laundry.

I suspect the reviewer didn't like the book because its conclusions don't match the reviewer's own cherished political beliefs. And that can ruin anyone's estimation of the worth of a book, can't it? (grin)

I mean...we are all VERY subjective in how we go about rating things as "bad" or "good". Face it. We're all biased from the getgo.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:01 AM

"Confessions of an Economic Hitman"

Publishers Weekly revue:

"The story as presented is implausible to say the least, offering so few details that Perkins often seems paranoid, and the simplistic political analysis doesn't enhance his credibility. Despite the claim that his work left him wracked with guilt, the artless prose is emotionally flat and generally comes across as a personal crisis of conscience blown up to monstrous proportions, casting Perkins as a victim not only of his own neuroses over class and money but of dark forces beyond his control. His claim to have assisted the House of Saud in strengthening its ties to American power brokers may be timely enough to attract some attention, but the yarn he spins is ultimately unconvincing, except perhaps to conspiracy buffs."

ohn Perkins relates his encounters with the Bugis of Indonesia, the Shuar of the Amazon, the Quechua of the Andes, and other psychonavigators around the world. He explains how the people of these tribal cultures navigate to a physical destination or to a source of inner wisdom by means of visions and dream wanderings. Learn to attract the inner guidance you seek.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:25 AM

Okay. ;-) Well, I have an idea what the USA's reasons are for what they do. If you read John Perkins' book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", it's all laid out pretty clearly in there. And to say "the USA" is behind it is a bit misleading...because the US government and military have become simply a tool of big business. Big business funds and controls and picks the very politicians who run the US government. It controls both major political parties.    Accordingly it is not really an American policy that is being enforced, it's a multinational corporate policy. That policy is based on:

1. controlling strategic market areas
2. controlling stragegic resources
3. controlling governments (all governments, if possible)
4. all with an eye toward enlarging profits, of course, and extending the corporate grip around the world

And that is what "globalization" is all about. Take from the poor and give to the rich.

This is not a policy that serves ordinary Americans...or ordinary Israelis...or anyone else as a general population. It serves big business. It depends on having wars, and always having some shadowy enemy somewhere to fight. That's why if one enemy is beaten or disappears for whatever reason, another is soon found...or invented. An enemy is needed for this $ySStem to keep doing what it does.

Anyway, it's inevitable that it will have enemies....because any human beings and any nations who truly believe in freedom and don't want to see their children's futures destroyed WILL become its enemies eventually, simply in self-defence.

The same thing eventually occurs with all greedy empires that go just a bit too far.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 12:24 AM

I have no idea what the USA's cause is. For Israel, it is survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 12:11 AM

Yes....now what is the USA's excuse?

I don't object to anyone having a bat, per se. I object to them using it uncessarily on others and then claiming completely spurious reasons for so doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 11:42 PM

If Israel didn't have a bat, they would have been exterminated by their neighbours by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 11:38 PM

They're not a country, Peace, and they don't have a baseball bat. They have a rubber band and they shoot paper wads and paper clips with it in study hall...a paper clip stings like hell, but it does not do much damage unless it happens to hit someone in the eye.

They're bullies, yes...but their bullying capability falls so far short of that employed by the USA and Israel that it's not in the same league at all. Israel invaded Lebanon with a mechanized army and had an air force overhead. Did Hezbollah invade and occupy half of Israel? No. I'm sure they'd love to if they could, but they aren't armed well enough to do so.

That's my point. I agree with you about their attitude but not about their capability.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 11:28 PM

The word Hezbollah mean something to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 03:31 PM

It is the USA and Israel who continually threaten "with a bat" and repeatedly actually use it to bash some other country's head in.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: autolycus
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 03:21 PM

yes,I know,beardedbruce. i did. I thought we're talking about iran or North Kores.

First I had no idea either of them was threatening us with anything currently.(Maybe in the future)

Secondhand,I thought with them that therefore we had time to do what I suggested.

You leaped from 'being threatened with a bat' (which,as I say,neither country looks like they've even got to yet) to 'having my skull crushed' just like that, and I don't see where that argument of yours is relevant to the Iran or N.Korean situation. it just looks like it's designed to put the fear of catastrophe into the mind (if not feelings) of the reader in a rhetorical and illogical way. (The conservative way - frighten people,then tell them who's to blame - copyright Abraham Sorkin)

Naturally,therefore,as I said,I think we have time vis-a-vis them,to try what I suggested in my earlier post.

it looks to me like an improvement in the current - er - mess. If I'd have come up with the policies and outcomes we have now,I might be locked up. Sitting Presidents and Prime Ministers are seemingly immune. Don't know why.




    Ivor






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 12:57 PM

Everybody has an axe to grind. (at least everybody who posts on this forum sure does) ;-)

Subject: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:49 AM

Looks like my reply got deleted...

I may have forgotten to put my name on it...


Along the lines of

Thank you.

I still have questions, in regards to the article NOT using the more normal "IAEA spokesperson" identified by name.

As well as the terms used- "some follow-up", "some military sites"

And how much warning did they give the Iranians?




I am not sure I trust anyone whose description is "diplomat"- by definition they have an axe to grind.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: freda underhill
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:36 AM

thanks bruce.. well, there's articles in heaps of papers but they all say the same thing. they all also point out that Iran is still violating safeguards agreements.

i guess the truth will emerge.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: freda underhill
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:32 AM

Nuclear agency finds US spy reports on Iran baseless
February 24, 2007 sydney morning herald

VIENNA: Intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to United Nations inspectors by US spy agencies has mostly turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic sources in Vienna say. The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, have coincided with a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran is defying a UN Security Council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear program.

The report sets the stage for a fierce international debate on imposing stricter sanctions on Iran. It also raises the possibility of US military action against Iranian nuclear sites. At the heart of the debate are accusations that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. But most of the tip-offs have led to dead ends when investigated by the agency's inspectors.

"Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," an agency diplomat said. "They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities. Now [the inspectors] don't go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility test."

...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:22 AM

That was me...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:17 AM

"according to diplomatic sources in Vienna."

You mean the Iranians deny having more centrifuges, as they have been claiming?

More details are needed to know how valid this report is.

Waiting ....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: freda underhill
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:14 AM

It would be horrible if there was another instance of faking information to create cause for a war. According to an article in yesterday's Guardian, that's exactly what's happening.

Published on Friday, February 23, 2007 by the Guardian / UK
US Intelligence on Iran Does Not Stand up, Say Vienna Sources; by Julian Borger

"Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna. The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme..."

It's so hard to know what's going on, but the sabres are still rattling.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:00 AM

"But,beardedbruce,you leaped from 'threatening with a bat' to 'crushing your skull' like greased lightning."

Sorry. YOU were the one who who, when faced with a threatened attack would put down your weapon and turn away, without resolving the immediate threat.


If a country is making credible threats, it is the height of irresponsibility to pretend they are not serious. Especially concerning nuclear attack.


Some of us remember the Cuban missle crisis.

Some of us know how much damage even a single bomb would cause.

Some of us would rather prevent the development and delivery of that bomb than to see tens or hundreds of million pepole killed.

Of course, with the complete faith in MAD that so many on the Left seem to have, the number could easily be in the billions...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: autolycus
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 06:17 AM

But,beardedbruce,you leaped from 'threatening with a bat' to 'crushing your skull' like greased lightning.






      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: folk1e
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:17 PM

oops it said 199 for LH! now i'm next at 203who nicked 201/2?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: folk1e
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:15 PM

No meeeeee iv'e got the big 200!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:06 PM

I just noticed that I got the 200th post. And I wasn't even trying to!

When do I get my prize?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:05 PM

The opting out clause is actually written into the NPT.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:02 PM

All nations violate agreements from time to time. They do so when they feel their vital interests are at stake. ;-) The USA has been guilty of this so many times that it would be quite time-consuming to even attempt to list half of them. That's why it's kind of funny when they accuse other people of doing that sort of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: folk1e
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 07:59 PM

A certain US of A signed treaties with the indigenous peoples agreeing to certain terms and conditions.......... If they signed it they should stick with it! Or is that not a fair analogy?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 07:46 PM

"In 2005, Iran was held to be non-compliant with the NPT Safeguards agreement; which is Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute (separate from the NPT), as it had not disclosed it's civilian uranium enrichment program[22]. It has not been found to be in non-compliance with the NPT itself." - Wiki

...but then, of course, India never signed, and neither did...

which makes the NPT a rather weak and ineffective tool for maintaining peace. Besides that, a nation can opt out at any time. I wonder if the U.S. has halted all development of nuclear weapons? Maybe we should order an inspection.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 03:11 PM

sorry, NPT.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 03:09 PM

Then they should not have signed the BPT, and should not have taken the technical and material assistance that went with it.


Or do you think international treaty obligations should not matter?

It seems so- Saddam also did not think that agreements like cease-fires applied to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:55 PM

Not at all Bruce. They MIGHT NOW want what everyone else has.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:47 PM

"if someone was threatening to hit me with a bat,I'd go away and examine the situation to see how it has come about,examine the deep causes. I'd also look at what part I had played in it all."

Is this before or after the other person crushed your skull in and then killed your children?


"Why on earth would you think that one nation deserves to have nukes & another does not? Is there some special qualifiying factor? Does one nation need to speek a special language in order to join the club. Is God on our side only? Is it a white only thing? What the hell are we gonna say to China when they want a club of their own?"


1. China HAS nuclear weapons- as does India, Pakistan, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the US. Probably Israel as well.

2. Iran signed the NPT, stating that they would NOT develop nuclear weapons, and agreeing to monitoring, in order to get other nuclear (power) technology given to them ( sort of like signing a lease agreeing to pay it back). THEN they violated the NPT by starting a WMD program and kicking out the monitors.

They chose to sign the NPT, then violated it.

Is that too difficult for you to understand?