BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 08 - 01:15 PM

This source looks like it answers the question in the thread title.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:39 PM

Yes, Teribus, India is another strong possibility for the next great Imperial Power. I wasn't igoring them, I just didn't want to take the trouble to type out every single possible example of potential imperialism that is out there. I omitted many examples of past imperialism also, because I was simply doing a quick overview of the concept to illustrate the general point I was making. You see, I don't want to develop carpal tunnel syndrome by typing 88,000-word-long posts that leave no single stone unturned just to satisfy your obsessive-compulsive need to engage in minutiae and thereby dominate other people (so you think). ;-)

You've got OCD bad, mate. Get help.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:31 PM

Oh deal the model-maker and wargamer's concise History of the World.

"China might well be the next predominant Imperial Power" - Think so LH? Oldest "Empire" in the world, never amounted to much because it has far too many internal problems to worry about. That continues to be the case for its current set of Communist "Emperors and Mandarins".

Odd that you should ignore India, potentially far, far more powerful than China.

So Persia fell to Greece. Greece (and many others) fell to Rome. Rome fell to its own internal corruption and to barbarian invasions. But not a word about either Charlemagne or Genghis Khan, strange.

"Much later Spain was the great imperialist of the world, but they fell from prominence after 1588, and Britain became number one for a long stretch."

Naw LH, there were quite a number of "Imperialists" toddling about around this time, you really should read what occured after the death of Charlemagne. There were two "Super-Powers" in Europe at this time France and Spain, you also had the Holy Roman Emperor whose progeny would create what would become known as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in terms of overseas exploration the Portuguese were also in there pitching. One thing is for certain Spain was not all powerful. Another really significant player that you omit from your list the Ottomans, what about their Empire LH. So you see it was quite a melting pot with no defined "cock o' the walk". England and The Netherlands around this time were opportunistic small timers, and it would be a long, long time after 1588 before the British Empire took form and centre stage.

The British Empire, like that of the Dutch and the Portuguese grew from trade not conquest, which is why it lasted and which is why there is still to this day the Commonwealth of Nations. France under Napoleon, attempted to forge an Empire by force of arms, he was not defeated by a coalition of those he had alienated as you put it LH, he was defeated by an alliance of countries that he had invaded - big difference.

The Tsarist Russian Empire? That was an implosion that brought that down, a failure to move with the times. German attempts at "getting a place in the sun" and later attempt at "Leibenstraum", were the same as Napoleon's grubby little local smash and grab, and just as short lived.

Post WWII, you had the US and the USSR, with their respective "spheres of influence". The US tied those to her by economic means while the Communists of the USSR under Stalin had a bit of a different, and more direct way of keeping people in line (Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 are examples). Afghanistan had little or nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR, the final bullet to that Mastadon's head was Iraq in 1990, when the people of Russia saw the lie they had been sold for forty years exposed for exactly what it was.

"..the Anglo-American empire now saw that there was no counterbalance left in the world against them and they felt free to rob and take over anything pretty well anywhere in the world (except within China). So they did. And they have been fighting a series of their own chosen wars in a series of places where they see something to gain." - little hawk

Interesting theory but in reality a load of biased and emotive bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 11:11 AM

I think that China might well be the next predominant Imperial Power, BB, but they are not the present one (although they are being imperialists in Tibet, for sure).

The USA/UK coalition is the present predominant Imperial Power, and is acting as such. Therefore, I oppose it.

This sort of thing recycles itself endlessly and it moves around from one nationality to another. Imperialism changes hats after major wars. One rises and tramples around the world for a bit until it reaches too far and it alienates too many...then it falls.

Persia fell to Greece. Greece (and many others) fell to Rome. Rome fell to its own internal corruption and to barbarian invasions. And on it went. Much later Spain was the great imperialist of the world, but they fell from prominence after 1588, and Britain became number one for a long stretch. Napoleon put France on the top for awhile, but fell to a great coalition of all those he had alienated. In recent times the Czars fell, the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman and German empires fell. Then the fascists rose, and for awhile they did very well indeed...till mid-1942. Then they fell. Over their ashes rose two great empires...Stalin's Soviets and the American-dominated bloc symbolized by NATO. The Soviets fell by 1989 due to internal problems and fallout from the debacle in Aghanistan. We were supposed to get a "peace dividend" from that, remember? We didn't! No, because the Anglo-American empire now saw that there was no counterbalance left in the world against them and they felt free to rob and take over anything pretty well anywhere in the world (except within China). So they did. And they have been fighting a series of their own chosen wars in a series of places where they see something to gain.

Those wars were not any result of 911. 911 was not an attack launched on the USA by any sovereign nation. It was not an act of war. It was a crime. It was launched by a small group of secret operatives who were not serving any sovereign nation at all, but who were serving some special interests of their own. That's a crime, not an act of war, but it was used to get the American public to support unprovoked wars against sovereign nations.

It has been used as a spurious excuse to attack TWO countries now, two countries which did not attack the USA.

It's your version of the Reichstag fire, and it has served the same basic purpose...to panic your public into supporting extreme militarization and foreign wars of aggression and abrogation of civil rights and violation of your democratic traditions.

Yeah, sure, I figure the Chinese will be the next imperialist aggressor after Anglo-America. So what? The point is that I am concered about the present imperial aggressor....part of whose ground I am living on and that is the Anglo-American alliance. I am opposed to all such imperial aggressors, BB, not just those who speak a different language from me, and who live in a different part of the world.

When China takes the Imperial crown and wears it, I will regard them as the number one problem in the world, but they have not taken it yet.

And you know what? After them there will be another who does the same. There always is. You just have to wait long enough. Who will it be? I can't say. That depends on things that have not yet happened, and that you and I will not live long enough to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 08 - 10:45 AM

LH,

Are you so sure it is not Russia, China, or Iran that will be the next Imperial Power?

Is it possible you are part of the 95% taken in by THIER propaganda?


Would you wait until the mushroom cloud destroys all hope of a peaceful world before you admit that Iran is both in violation of International Law, non-compliance with the NPT, and a danger to the world unless it ceases to work on nuclear weapons?


Have you read

Hiroshima ( by a German Jesuit who was there)
Level Seven
A Canticle for Liebowitz



I really do not want the use of nuclear weapons to become acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 10:34 AM

America, like Nazi Germany or Japan or Italy in the late 30's, is presently laying the ground for a very large anti-American war, BB, and in much the same fashion: by unprovoked aggression and grand imperialism.

Like a good many honorable gents such as Hans Rudel, Adolf Galland, Werner Moelders, Erich Hartmann, Sho-ichi Sugita, Saburo Sakai, Hiroshi Nishizawa, Tameichi Hara, Tetsuzo Iwamoto, etc....you have simply not yet realized that you are serving on the wrong side in this one. You can't see past your own national identity to what's really happening. That's not unusual. At least 95% of humanity is the same as you in that respect. People naturally back the home team, even when the home team is the aggressor and is dead wrong. They believe the propaganda, and they think they are engaging in legitimate defence of their homeland, not aggression.

I wish all such honorable gents the best of luck in time of war...personally speaking, I mean. I don't necessarily hope that their side wins, but I do hope that they live through the mess they landed in and that they and their loved ones survive to rebuild when it's done.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 08 - 09:43 AM

Washington Post

Iran's Failed 'Litmus Test'
Will there be consequences for Tehran's stonewalling of U.N. nuclear inspectors?
Wednesday, May 28, 2008; Page A12

LAST AUGUST, the International Atomic Energy Agency struck a deal with Iran on a "work plan" for clearing up outstanding questions about its nuclear program within three months -- in other words, before December 2007. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, who launched the initiative as an end run around the Western campaign to stop Tehran's ongoing uranium enrichment, claimed that it would be a "litmus test." "If Iran were to prove that it was using this period for delaying tactics and it was not really acting in good faith, then obviously nobody -- nobody -- will come to its support when people call for more sanctions or for punitive measures," Mr. ElBaradei said in an interview last September with Newsweek.

On Monday, some six months after the expiration of the deadline, the IAEA issued a report saying, in essence, that Iran had not acted in good faith and was engaging in delaying tactics. "Substantial explanations" were still lacking, the agency said, for documents showing that Iran had worked on bomb-related explosives and a missile warhead design. Moreover, while the IAEA has been cooling its heels, the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been installing two new and more advanced sets of centrifuges at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, without providing required notification. International inspectors were denied access to sites where the centrifuge components were manufactured. "Iran has not provided the Agency with all the information, access to documents and access to individuals necessary," the IAEA report says.

So will Mr. ElBaradei now support tough new punitive measures by the U.N. Security Council? We expect not. Like several of the Security Council's members, the Egyptian-born director is far less concerned with preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb than in thwarting those he describes as the "crazies" in Washington. As long as that mentality prevails, it's unlikely that Iran will face sanctions stiff enough to cause it to reconsider its defiance of the multiple U.N. resolutions ordering it to suspend uranium enrichment.

That, in turn, is bad news not only for President Bush but for Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). The two presidential candidates have been arguing over whether and how the United States should negotiate with Iran; Mr. Obama suggests that talks would be a key element of his strategy. But as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently pointed out, negotiations won't work unless the United States and its allies develop "leverage, either through economic or diplomatic or military pressures, on the Iranian government so that they believe they must have talks with the United States because there is something they want from us."

At the moment, such leverage is manifestly lacking. How could it be brought about, despite the obstructionism of actors such as Mr. ElBaradei? That, more than the facile subject of whether to negotiate, would be a worthy point for the presidential candidates to address.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 08 - 07:58 AM

Oh, piffle.

Sing me the one about "I've Got A Loverly Bunch of Coconuts", Little Hawk. I've not heard it in some time.

The longer the USA is not attacked by any of the countries on my hypothetical list of possible attackers, the happier I will be. I am simply delighted that no further anti-American wars have broken out since 2003, and I hope it continues that way for at least a century, by which time you and I will be long gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:37 PM

Oh, piffle.

Sing me the one about "I've Got A Loverly Bunch of Coconuts", Teribus. I've not heard it in some time.

The longer the USA doesn't attack any of the countries on my hypothetical list of possible targets, the happier I will be. I am simply delighted that no further American-sponsored wars have broken out since 2003, and I hope it continues that way for at least a century, by which time you and I will be long gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 May 08 - 01:50 AM

"Doobie, doobie, do..." Indeed Little Hawk, here's what you said three and a half years ago on the subject:

"Little Hawk - PM
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:24 PM

Most likely victim: Iran. They are surrounded already by American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have oil, and they sit astride desired routes for moving oil from the Caspian.

Next most likely victim: Syria. Israel will lobby strongly for an attack on Syria, and Israel plays the USA like Hendrix played the electric guitar.

Next most likely victim: Venezuela. But not an invasion, just another undemocratic coup arranged by the CIA. Venezuela is also a major oil producer!

Next most likely victim: North Korea. But I don't think it's very likely. Too dangerous.

Possible victim: Cuba, if Castro dies. But that's more likely to be a velvet takeover by economic means than a shooting war. If it happens, millions of Cubans will shortly descend from being basically okay into living in desperate poverty.

Whether it will be possible for the USA to do any of the above, given how overstretched they are already, remains to be seen. Let's hope not.

Skipy - A "democracy" on both sides of Iran? Ha! Ha! Ha! That's a knee-slapper! I bet you still believe in Santa Claus too, eh?"

What happened then Little Hawk?

Iran continues to be the worlds greatest sponsor of terrorism and has been identified as a major cause for concern by the IAEA.

Syria engaged in secret negotiations with Israel that could soon result in Lebanon/Hezbollahville being the only "frontline state" confronting Israel over her right to exist.

Venezuela has been more or less completely ignored irrespective of how much Chavez tries to ramp up tension in the area. Tried very hard with Columbia but had to back down. Nobody is really interested and like all populist leaders in South America, Chavez will be the person who brings Chavez down.

North Korea has negotiated a deal, except this time due to US insistance it has had to make the same deal with all five nations that rate as interested parties.

Cuba, well the replacement of one Castro by another has brought some commonsense to the equation, that will only improve. Guess what Little Hawk, people in Cuba can now have free choice of what hotels they stay in, travel restrictions although not lifted completely have been "eased", what an absolute paradise they must live in. It makes one wonder why so many want to escape.

Democracies either side of Iran - not too shoddy a picture there either, after all in both Afghanistan and in Iraq there exists no Supreme Council of 12 "Old Gits" telling the people who they can elect and who they cannot. Might not be perfect but it is light years away in terms of improvement from what the people in both countries have experienced for the last forty years.

"Doobie, doobie, do..." Indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 10:32 PM

Doobie, doobie, do....da, da, da, da, dah...

Doobie, doobie, do....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 May 08 - 10:11 PM

CANADA, as the No. 1 supplier of petroleum to the United State, is the obvious target.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:19 PM

Wotta headache, eh?

Especially with the really terrible precedent of Iraq. Hard to know what is true and what is not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:12 PM

updated 1 hour, 51 minutes ago


Iran holds back nuclear details, IAEA says
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors say they can't get clear info from Iran
The agency has not detected "the actual use of nuclear material" by Iran
Iran maintains its nuclear ambitions are peaceful





(CNN) -- Iran is still withholding critical information that could determine whether it is trying to make nuclear weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a restricted report.

The nine-page report, obtained by CNN on Monday, detailed a number of recent meetings with Iranian officials who deny conducting weapons research and continue to stymie the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency.

"The agency is continuing to assess the information and explanations provided by Iran," the report said. "However, at this stage, Iran has not provided the agency with all the information, access to documents and access to individuals necessary to support Iran's statements."

Iran has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, namely energy for power lines, and in the past has described interactions with the IAEA as positive.

But the May 26 report -- to be released June 2 to the Board of Governors -- hinted at the frustrations of the IAEA investigators who want clear answers about the program.

The report said Iran still has not disclosed full information about its work on high-explosive testing and missile design work, as well as the "green salt project" studies -- research involving uranium tetrafluoride, a precursor to uranium hexafluoride, which is used in gas centrifuges to make enriched uranium.

"The agency has not detected the actual use of nuclear material" in the projects. However, they remain "a matter of serious concern," and clarification of them is critical to assessing Iran's past and present program, the report said.

The IAEA said some of its member nations had provided information on these programs. But Iran dismissed the allegations as baseless and argued that the evidence contradicting the agency's claims was fabricated, the report said.

Iran also rejected the IAEA's concerns about its work to develop a highly precise detonator that would be suitable for a nuclear weapon. Iran said the research was for civil and conventional military use, according to the report.

Still, Iran has remained open to the IAEA's surveillance and containment of nuclear material at its fuel enrichment plant.

Over the past year, IAEA investigators conducted 14 unannounced inspections of the facility, the report said.

Iran's nuclear program has spurred concerns by the United States and much of the West. In March, after the IAEA released a similar report on the program, the United Nations Security Council voted to impose new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

That report said Iran had clarified many of the outstanding issues regarding its nuclear program, but that it had not suspended its activities related to enrichment of uranium, and that doubts remained about whether the country's program had a peaceful aim.

The latest U.N. sanctions against Iran tighten travel and trade restrictions on people and companies associated with the nation's nuclear program. The sanctions also allow searches of cargo suspected of carrying prohibited equipment and the monitoring of Iranian banks suspected of having links to proliferation activities.

Iran has condemned the resolution as "politically motivated" and "unlawful and illegitimate."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 08 - 05:59 PM

Thing I've missed has been Dianavan's anual WAG's at who it would be next - Whatever happened to Azerbijan? She predicted that as a hot favourite if I remember correctly.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:12 AM

Washington Post:

The Right Path With N. Korea

By Siegfried S. Hecker and William J. Perry
Tuesday, May 13, 2008; Page A15

The Bush administration's North Korea strategy is being criticized from the right and the left for letting Pyongyang off the hook. Some advocate scuttling the six-party talks. Others suggest slowing our own compliance with the agreement to get North Korea to make a full declaration of its nuclear program first. We disagree with both positions. Our mantra should be: It's the plutonium, stupid.

North Korea does have the bomb -- but a limited nuclear arsenal and supply of plutonium to fuel its weapons. The Yongbyon plutonium production facilities are closed and partially disabled.

In separate visits to North Korea in February, we concluded that the disablement was extensive and thorough. We also learned that Pyongyang is prepared to move to the next crucial step of dismantling Yongbyon, eliminating plutonium production. This would mean no more bombs, no better bombs and less likelihood of export. After this success, we can concentrate on getting full declarations and on rolling back Pyongyang's supply of weapons and plutonium.

We must not miss this opportunity, because we have the chance to contain the risk posed by North Korea's arsenal while we work to eliminate it. As dismantlement proceeds, negotiations should focus concurrently on the plutonium declaration, the extent of the uranium enrichment effort and Pyongyang's nuclear exports.

Pyongyang's declaration of 30 kilograms of plutonium (sufficient for roughly four to five bombs) falls short of the estimate of 40 to 50 kilograms, based on our past visits. We believe that North Korea is prepared to produce operating records and permit access to facilities, equipment and waste sites for verification. Obtaining and verifying its declaration of plutonium production and inventories is imperative. Let's proceed.

Pyongyang continues to claim that it has made no efforts to enrich uranium, despite strong evidence to the contrary. Although it appears unlikely that these efforts reached a scale that constitutes a weapons threat, a complete accounting is required. Dismantlement of the Yongbyon facilities should not, however, be postponed to resolve this issue. In October 2002, the Bush administration accused North Korea of covert uranium enrichment, only to have Pyongyang withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and produce plutonium to fuel the arsenal that we are now attempting to eliminate.

Nuclear exports are of greater concern. As recently revealed evidence demonstrates, North Korea sold nuclear technology to Syria, much as it sold missile technology. North Korea must cooperate if we are to get to the bottom of the Syrian incident and ensure that it is not repeated elsewhere. Israel eliminated the Syrian threat, for now, by bombing the reactor at Al Kibar. But it is imperative that Pyongyang reveal the nature and extent of its export operations and, most important, whether it has similar deals underway with Iran.

We do not advocate letting Pyongyang off the hook, but a "confession" regarding Syria is not the critical issue. We have good knowledge of what the North Koreans supplied to Syria. What we really need is information from North Korea that will help us deal with potential threats. For example, was North Korea acting alone, or was it part of a more sophisticated proliferation ring involving Pyongyang's trading partners and suppliers? North Korea's leadership must resolve all three declaration issues fully, and these will take time to verify.

To ultimately succeed in the peaceful elimination of nuclear weapons, we must understand why North Korea devoted its limited resources to going nuclear. The September 2005 six-party joint statement addresses many of these concerns, promising mutual respect for national sovereignty, peaceful coexistence, and a commitment to stability and lasting peace in Northeast Asia, as well as normalization of relations. Given the acrimonious history of our relations, such steps require a transformation in the relationship between North Korea and the United States, a change that will first require building trust -- step by step.

The six-party negotiations have put us on that path, and there is much evidence of winds of change blowing in North Korea that will make navigating that path easier (the recent New York Philharmonic concert in Pyongyang is one such symbol of change; the joint industrial facility at Kaesong is another). But North Korea's reluctance to provide full declarations and the Syria revelations have moved us in the wrong direction.

Nevertheless, walking away from the talks or slowing them at this point would be counterproductive. Instead, in its remaining months, the Bush administration should focus on limiting North Korea's nuclear capabilities by concluding the elimination of plutonium production. If it can also get answers on the Syrian operation and resolve the question of uranium enrichment, it will put the next administration in a stronger position to finally end the nuclear threat from North Korea.

Siegfried S. Hecker and William J. Perry are with the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. Hecker was director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1986 through 1997. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 through 1997.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:53 AM

I had been quite sure it was Liechtenstein that was next, not Iran or North Korea.

I was wrong.

It seems that Liechtenstein has made such extraordinary progress in their development of absolutely dreadful WMDs in the last year...the extent of which is not generally known but which would terrify the American public if they did know....that Washington no longer DARES to attack Liechtenstein or even threaten to!!!

This is an extraordinary development, and it may be the beginning of what will be known as "the Liechtensteinian Century" in future history books.

Liechtenstein now has a weapon that can instantly emasculate every American male at the push of a button and reduce his remaining weenie to the size of a baby's little finger. It can also make all the Walmart stores and cineplexes crumble into dust and simultaneously cause marijuana plants to grow luxuriantly on all the lawns and parks across American, thus making enforcement of the marijuana laws effectively impossible, and contributing to a breakdown in American morals and standards (not that there was much left to destroy in that sense...but...well, you know...).

Liechtenstein is biding its time for now and has made no public announcements regarding the situation, but their secret activities are well known by governmental intelligence services in all the great powers.

We are witnessing an unforgettable moment in world history, a sea change in human affairs.

Watch Liechtenstein! The "sleeping croissant" is about to awaken, and when it does it will shake the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 08 - 09:18 AM

Washington Post:

( Note: IMO, this is critical of the Bush Administration- and I think it is far too kind. In this case, the Bush administration is wrong, and if (the Democratic -controlled) Congress does not step in and hold N. Korea to previous agreements it will become the Democrats problem.)


A Pushover for Pyongyang
By Danielle Pletka
From the American Enterprise Institute
Tuesday, May 6, 2008; 7:20 PM

The Bush administration is on the verge of signing an agreement with North Korea that, it argues, will result in the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. In practice, however, the likely outcome will be the continuation of North Korea's nuclear weapons program and the proliferation of North Korean nuclear technology around the world.

The evolution of the administration's approach to North Korea has been an object lesson in muddled diplomacy, a "how-not-to" handle rogue states. Six years ago, the Bush administration cancelled the Clinton administration's Agreed Framework Between the United States of America and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, holding back a generous package of aid and light water nuclear reactors that had been promised to Pyongyang in exchange for giving up its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program. At the time, the Bush administration accused North Korea of cheating on the agreement by establishing a covert uranium enrichment program. Intelligence and the North Koreans themselves affirmed those charges.

Since the signing of the original Agreed Framework in 1994, North Korea has detonated a nuclear weapon, exported a nuclear reactor to Syria, aided Libya's incipient (and since dismantled) nuclear program by providing uranium hexafluoride (a precursor to the enrichment of uranium), aided the terrorist group Hezbollah with the construction of reinforced tunnels that emboldened the group and enhanced its capacity to wage war with Israel, provided sophisticated long range missiles to Iran, Syria, Yemen, Egypt and Libya, masterminded the counterfeiting of U.S. one hundred dollar bills, money laundered development aid from the United Nations, and likely starved to death hundreds of thousands of its own people.

This is an impressive record of international and domestic mayhem. Over the years, the American response has been to impose, either under law or executive order, a web of interlocking sanctions the collective impact of which is to preclude foreign assistance, exports, imports, trading preferences and all the other accoutrements of relations with normal countries.

In the case of most of the penalties imposed over the last decades, the president enjoys the right to waive sanctions under particular circumstances. However, in the case of at least one law, the so-called Glenn amendment to the Arms Export Control Act (which is triggered by a nuclear detonation), Congress must act to remove the sanctions imposed. The State Department is now pressing the House and Senate to do just that.

Indeed, far from seeking a narrow carve out of sanctions in order to facilitate verification of North Korean disarmament, the Bush administration appears intent on the rehabilitation of North Korea and a broad lifting of sanctions. American officials have committed to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, remove restrictions tied to the Trading with the Enemy Act and waive other sanctions where the president is empowered to do so.

In other words, the Bush administration, having begun its term repudiating the concept of the Agreed Framework because, as Secretary Rice then said, Pyongyang cheated by "pursuing another path to a nuclear weapon, the so-called 'highly enriched uranium' path", and having then initiated the Six-Party talks with the intention, as President Bush suggested, of "North Korea completely, verifiably, and irreversibly dismantl[ing] its nuclear programs," will end its term by agreeing to an accord that essentially rewards Pyongyang for its misbehavior and falls short of the president's own demands.

Sequentially, we have demanded North Korea "dismantle" its nuclear program but have settled for "disabling." We have demanded a "complete declaration of all nuclear programs," but have accepted a deal that allows North Korea to avoid disclosing details of its program to enrich uranium and its assistance to Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt or various subnational terror groups.

Three important questions remain: How did this happen? Will the United States Congress acquiesce in the administration's plan? And what impact can be expected?

Regarding the first question, it appears that certain officials have developed the North Korean equivalent of Stockholm syndrome. So eager are they to ink a deal, they are not only willing to jettison meaningful requirements, but have stooped to making arguments on behalf of the North Korean dictatorship to the U.S Congress and the American public. Why so eager? We can only speculate that the unpopular Iraq war, the failure of efforts to contain Iran, and the sputtering Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts have produced a drive within the hallways at Foggy Bottom to accomplish something for the history books.

Will Congress go along? Notwithstanding expressions of concern from experts and opinion leaders on both left and right, some in Congress appear poised to sign up to the new North Korea deal. The Senate Armed Services Committee recently sent a Defense Authorization measure to the full Senate that includes a provision waiving the Glenn amendment -- nominally for the purpose of providing aid to dismantle the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon. Practically, however, it is broad enough to permit vast amounts of assistance to the Kim Il Sung regime. The House Foreign Affairs Committee has also sent legislation to the full House. That provision, however, has significant restrictions on the easing of sanctions tied to North Korea's support to terrorist-supporting states and the accord's verification requirements.

Here we get to the heart of the matter: Is an accord with Pyongyang that manages to make some undetermined progress on disarming North Korea and allows a marginal engagement with the regime worth the price? Doubtless among would-be nuclear weapons states such as Iran and Syria, the deal will be seen as a model. Rewards without concessions and disarmament without verification are standards that even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can live up to. The likely outcome? Iran, Syria, and with them Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and others will line up to become nuclear states. Meanwhile, even a partial lifting of sanctions by the U.S. will unlock the door for other countries and United Nations agencies to open their coffers to North Korea. The result will sustain the world's most ruthless regime, prolonging the danger it poses not only to its population but to the entire civilized world.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 05 May 08 - 09:23 PM

Just a coincidence but if you combine the first three letters of Korea with the last three of Iran you get the word Korran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 08 - 11:53 AM

oh- 800

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 08 - 11:52 AM

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/unsc_res1803-2008.pdf

In case anyone wonders what the UN is doing... Note Paragraph 11

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 08 - 11:26 AM

Washington Post

War of the Rockets
By Jackson Diehl
Monday, May 5, 2008; Page A17

Last Tuesday, Israel faced the fallout from a Palestinian family of five perishing in the Gaza Strip during an Israeli strike against militants firing rockets at an Israeli town. On Wednesday, the Bush administration woke to a front-page picture in The Post of a 2-year-old Iraqi boy killed in a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad aimed at Shiite militiamen launching rockets at the city's Green Zone. The similarity of these tragic and politically costly episodes was anything but a coincidence.

For months now, Israel has been mired in an unwinnable war against Hamas and allied militias in Gaza, who fire missiles at civilians in Israel and then hide among their own women and children, ensuring that retaliatory fire will produce innocent victims for the Middle East's innumerable satellite television networks. A growing number of the militiamen have been to Iran for training, and some of the missiles they launch are Iranian-made. Their objective is obvious: to exhaust Israelis with an endless war of attrition while making it impossible for Israel's government to reach a political settlement with the more moderate Palestinian administration in the West Bank.

Now U.S. forces have been drawn into a similar morass in Sadr City, the Shiite neighborhood of 2 million ruled by Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. As Iranian-made rockets rain down on the Green Zone and nearby neighborhoods, U.S. forces attempt, so far in vain, to stop the fire by attacking Shiite militants from the ground and the air. Hundreds of people have been killed, filling the satellite airwaves and handing a new argument to the "this war is lost" lobby in Washington.

It's not hard to grasp the common strategy at work here or to intuit what interest it serves. The rockets fired from Gaza and from Sadr City are two prongs of an offensive aimed at forcing the United States out of Iraq, putting Israel on the defensive -- and leaving Iran as the region's preeminent power. The third front, in Lebanon, is also the model. There the Hezbollah militia has armed itself with thousands of rockets and long-range missiles in preparation for a repeat of its 2006 war with Israel, while making Tehran a power in domestic Lebanese politics. The fourth front is in Afghanistan, where Taliban militiamen near the Iranian border now come armed with Iranian-made weapons.

Countering the strategic Iranian challenge -- which also includes its unimpeded nuclear program -- is likely to preoccupy U.S. policy in the Middle East for years. But the more immediate problem for both the United States and Israel is how to end the wars of the rockets. As Israel has demonstrated over the past 18 months, selective strikes against rocket crews by aircraft or special forces can inflict a lot of casualties -- but don't stop the launchings. As U.S. forces have shown in Baghdad, sending substantial ground forces into Sadr City (or Gaza), building walls and fighting for control of the streets doesn't bring quick relief, either. Israel has so far avoided a similar offensive in Gaza in part because of another problem, the lack of an exit strategy. Even if the streets can be cleared of militants, who will ensure that no rockets are fired after the invading forces depart? Neither Iraqi nor Palestinian government forces seem up to the job.

Both Israelis and Americans are tantalized by the prospect of a political solution. With U.S. encouragement, the Iraqi government is negotiating with both Sadr and Iran; Israel is talking to Hamas through Egypt. Both militias say they would be happy to observe a cease-fire in exchange for political concessions. (Sadr has already announced one, though the rocket launches continue.) But neither will agree to disarm. This is again the model of Hezbollah, which participates in the Lebanese parliament but refuses to give up its weapons, giving it the ability to wage war at any time of its -- or Tehran's -- choosing. Hamas will not surrender its option to bleed Israel, nor will the Mahdi Army its means to harry the American enemy.

Some think all this can be settled by a direct approach to Tehran by the United States and a grand bargain that would stop the flow of weapons and trainers to Baghdad, Gaza, Lebanon and Afghanistan, along with the nuclear weapons program. In exchange for what? Never mind: The next president, especially if a Democrat, will probably try it. But let's hope Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain also are thinking about a grimmer possibility: that Iran believes that its offensive is succeeding and that its goals are within reach, and that it has no intention of stopping. As long as neither Israeli nor U.S. commanders can find a way to win the war of the rockets, that's likely to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 01:50 PM

Excellent talk about Iran here...

http://fora.tv/2007/06/25/Iran_A_Grand_Bargain

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:48 PM

Does the Bush Administration Want War or Peace?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 05:25 PM

The internal disagreements on policy within Iran are an interesting study.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:44 PM

From the Washington Post:

How Famine Changed N. Korea

By Kay Seok
Tuesday, February 26, 2008; Page A17

SEOUL -- Today in Pyongyang, the New York Philharmonic, the most prominent U.S. cultural institution ever to visit North Korea, performs live on state TV and radio. Many observers have cautiously dubbed this a prelude to a thaw between Washington and Pyongyang. But for North Koreans, a very real thaw, unseen by the musicians, has been transforming life for years.

A famine that killed a million people in the 1990s has driven fundamental societal changes in North Korea. As people struggled to survive, they were forced to defy many restrictions imposed by the state, which has consequently lost much of its control.

Before the famine, North Korea could plausibly be called a hermit kingdom. Citizens had no source of information but state media and were banned from traveling outside their immediate area of residency, except for family weddings and funerals. The state intelligence agency tightly monitored people. Most important, the state dominated food distribution, control that kept people subservient and immobile for fear of losing their only access to sustenance.

Things changed in the early 1990s. After decades of government mismanagement of the agricultural sector and years of natural disasters came the collapse of the Soviet Union and, with it, an abrupt end to barter trade. North Korea's chronic food shortage grew into a full-fledged famine. At least 1 million of the state's then-20 million citizens starved to death while waiting for rations to resume.

But not everyone followed the state's orders. A massive number of North Koreans -- possibly in the tens of thousands -- sold their belongings, packed their bags and left the cities for the countryside, where food was more readily available. Most of them of course lacked permission to travel. But with even police officers out hunting for food, the authorities were unable to stop the widespread relocations. The state's restriction of movement began to break down.

Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans escaped to China throughout the 1990s to find food and work. Tens of thousands of them were arrested and repatriated as "illegal migrants," while others voluntarily returned home to feed their families and use their new knowledge or skills to make money. These people inevitably brought back news from the outside world, information undistorted by the government's propaganda machine.

Markets began to spring up all over North Korea, replacing the ration system -- now defunct -- as the main source of food. At first, markets operated on the barter system, where desperately hungry people could exchange anything valuable for food, but they gradually developed into places where people bought and sold items to make a profit. Today, in Pyongyang and beyond, the country is teeming with bustling markets. North Koreans are engaged in all kinds of businesses, selling homemade noodles, running express buses and real-estate development, both legal and illegal.

Echoing the words of many other North Koreans, a 60-year-old woman from Wonsan told me, "In North Korea, people now only care about making money."

Some activities motivated by profit-seeking have led to greater access to information: Consider, for instance, the roaring trade in pirated and smuggled CDs and DVDs of South Korean soap operas and movies. After years of watching these stories, many of the North's urban residents have learned that South Korea is far richer and freer than their own country. It is increasingly common knowledge that South Korea is the world's 13th-largest economy and a democracy, while North Korea remains a poor dictatorship.

About a decade ago, most North Koreans "knew" that South Korea was a desperately poor country and that its capital, Seoul, was filled with prostitutes and beggars. They also "understood" that North Korea was a "workers' paradise" going through temporary difficulties because of U.S. sanctions.

Of course, not all is different or rosy in North Korea. Kim Jong Il's government still holds unchallenged power, and it continues to run a prison-camp system that enslaves tens of thousands, including young children. Periodically, it publicly executes people for offenses such as stealing state property or other "anti-communist" behavior. North Koreans also complain of the ever-rising level of corruption and extortion by officials.

But whatever the North Korean government does to return to its pre-famine society, for many North Koreans the changes set in motion by the famine are irreversible. In fact, many North Koreans that I have met, especially the young, say they want more change. They have survived the country's worst disaster in half a century. Compared with their parents, they are far more informed, open-minded and unafraid. And therein lies hope for North Korea's future.

Kay Seok is the North Korea researcher for Human Rights Watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 06:31 PM

Iran dismisses nuke documents as fakes By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
40 minutes ago



VIENNA, Austria - The U.N. nuclear monitoring agency presented documents Monday that diplomats said indicate Iran may have focused on a nuclear weapons program after 2003 — the year that a U.S. intelligence report says such work stopped.

Iran again denied ever trying to make such arms. Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, the chief Iranian delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency, dismissed the information showcased by the body as "forgeries."

He and other diplomats, all linked to the IAEA, commented after a closed-door presentation to the agency's 35-nation board of intelligence findings from the U.S. and its allies and other information purporting to show Iranian attempts to make nuclear arms.

A summarized U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, made public late last year, also came to the conclusion that Tehran was conducting atomic weapons work. But it said the Iranians froze such work in 2003.

Asked whether board members were shown information indicating Tehran continued weapons-related activities after that time, Simon Smith, the chief British delegate to the IAEA, said: "Certainly some of the dates ... went beyond 2003."

He did not elaborate. But another diplomat at the presentation, who agreed to discuss the meeting only if not quoted by name, said some of the documentation focused on an Iranian report on nuclear activities that some experts have said could be related to weapons.

She said it was unclear whether the project was being actively worked on in 2004 or the report was a review of past activities. Still, any Iranian focus on nuclear weapons work in 2004 would at least indicate continued interest past the timeframe outlined in the U.S. intelligence estimate.

A senior diplomat who attended the IAEA meeting said that among the material shown was an Iranian video depicting mock-ups of a missile re-entry vehicle. He said IAEA Director General Oli Heinonen suggested the component — which brings missiles back from the stratosphere — was configured in a way that strongly suggests it was meant to carry a nuclear warhead.

Other documentation showed the Iranians experimenting with warheads and missile trajectories where "the height of the burst ... didn't make sense for conventional warheads," he said.

Smith and the senior diplomat both said the material shown to the board came from a variety of sources, including information gathered by the agency and intelligence provided by member nations.

"The assumption is this was not something that was being thought about or talked about, but the assumption is it was being practically worked on," Smith told reporters.

He said the IAEA presented a "fairly detailed set of illustrations and descriptions of how you would build a nuclear warhead, how you would fit it into a delivery vehicle, how you would expect it to perform."

The U.N. agency released a report last week saying that suspicions about most past Iranian nuclear activities had eased or been laid to rest. But the report also noted Iran had rejected documents linking it to missile and explosives experiments and other work connected to a possible nuclear weapons program, calling the information false and irrelevant.

The report called weaponization "the one major ... unsolved issue relevant to the nature of Iran's nuclear program."

Most of the material shown to Iran by the IAEA on alleged attempts to make nuclear arms came from Washington, though some was provided by U.S. allies, diplomats told the AP. The agency shared it with Tehran only after the nations gave their permission.

The IAEA report also confirmed that Iran continued to enrich uranium despite demands by the U.N. Security Council to suspend the work. The council has sanctions on Iran for continuing enrichment, which can produce the material needed to make atomic bombs.

Iran says its enrichment program is intended solely to produce lower-grade material for fueling nuclear reactors that would generate electricity.

Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammad Khazee, said the intelligence information turned over to the IAEA was "baseless" and alleged it was fabricated by an Iranian opposition group.

"I'm afraid to say that, according to my information, some of these allegations were produced or fabricated by a terrorist group, which are listed as a terrorist group in the United States and somewhere else in Europe," Khazee said told the AP in New York.

He appeared to be referring to the Mujahedeen Khalq, also known as the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, which was listed as a foreign terrorist group by the U.S. government in 1997 and the European Union last year.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:54 AM

"new regime in force now, but anyway they seem willing to - grudingly - comply with IAEA inspections: "

False statement, according to the IAEA.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:52 AM

"If Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons."


And if Iran had NOT signed the NPT, and taken advantage of the benefits of it ( denied to Israel, since it did not sign) Iran WOULD have the right to develop nuclear weapons. I have not seen any effort by Iran to repudiate it's signing; only the flagrant violations of that treaty as noted by the IAEA, a UN agency.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:47 AM

"Star Wars 'defensive'? Yes, in the same way nuclear missiles are said to be defensive: no one will attack you if you have them but they have offensive applications also. "

Missiles are hardly a valid example to use.

As someone who has worked on those programs ( LACE, RME, DSPSE, MISTI-3) I can state that they do NOY have any offensive capability.

They DO allow for the consideration of something other than global thermonuclear war in the case of an accidental launch , or the use of a few weapons by some terrorist group. The previous stratagy of MAD said that the US would launch it's missles upon detection of the fireing of missiles at the US or our allies: Under SDIO, the US has the option to destroy those missiles before they can impact: Thus allowing for something other than massive retaliation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 03:17 AM

"Iran, or more correctly Iran's Revolutionary Council, currently sponsors International Terrorist Organisations"

Actually, its the present government of Iran that keeps Al Qaeda out of Iran.

As to the nuclear question. If Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. If the present treaty is to be viable, then the U.S. should be open to inspections and should stop aiding countries who are not signators, like Israel.

The Nepalese grocer argues that Pakistan and India now talk to each other because they both have nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 12:40 AM

Teribus, here's the brief reply as it's late and I must get off to bed soon.

"As a signatory of the 1968 NPT Iran is obligated by the same Treaty that permits exchange of nuclear technology to declare absolutely everything connected with its nuclear programme"

Signed under the Shah (installed by the US, since deposed, new regime in force now, but anyway they seem willing to - grudingly - comply with IAEA inspections: when can we expect the USA to do the same?)

"Iran, or more correctly Iran's Revolutionary Council, currently sponsors International Terrorist Organisations'

So says the same people who said Saddam had WMD etc., etc., any old excuse... even if it is true, it would be a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Ever heard of the 'School of the Americas', old chum? The USA has sponsored terrorism by the bucket load since ages ago. It's just that no one has been able to call it to book since it does happen to be the world's main superpower, able to act above the law. No wonder the US refused to sign up to the International Court etc.,

"The US has never threatened Iran with any form of action whatsoever beyond those sought through UN Sanctions and trade restrictions that can be imposed on trade between the US and Iran"

Evidently we watch different TV stations, read different papers. BTW it's the US who has a massive fleet off the coast of Iran, it's troops in the neighbouring country, not the other way round. Come on, seriously - if the tables were turned and Iran had its soldiers swarming along the borders of the USA (having invaded Canada and Mexico) and its guns trained on Washington DC would you or would you not consider them acting at least provocatively if not belligerently? That's not including the long litany of acts against Iran, the shooting down of flight IR 655 etc., etc., arming Saddam to attack Iran by proxy.

Star Wars 'defensive'? Yes, in the same way nuclear missiles are said to be defensive: no one will attack you if you have them but they have offensive applications also.

If Iran had as much as a water pistol, Bush would be stomping around yelling about the 'threat to the world's safety' Bush has done nothing to make the world a safer place, quiet the opposite on the contrary. If he's allowed to continue, it can only get worse.

Now, any chance of you answering one of my questions -

"And as sure as night is day, just as has happened in Iraq, thousands upon thousands of Iranian civilians will die or have their lives reduced to abject misery. Is that all right with you?" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:00 AM

According to Nickhere, "G Bush seems determined to see things how he wants to see them, regardless of the facts left inconveniently about for everyone to trip over!"

A couple of points Nick:
The first is that George W. Bush, or anyone else holding the Office of President of the United States of America, is duty bound to see things from one perspective and one perspective only. He does not have the luxury of being able to give people the benefit of the doubt.

The second relates to all these facts that have been left inconveniently lying about for people to trip over, and I must admit that there have been many, you should know you have refused to answer questions I have raised relating to those facts:

-        Why were Iran's Uranium enrichment facilities built in secret? As a signatory of the 1968 NPT Iran is obligated by the same Treaty that permits exchange of nuclear technology to declare absolutely everything connected with its nuclear programme.
-        Why has Iran elected to use P2 type centrifuges for enrichment of Uranium? Type P1 centrifuges enrich uranium to levels required for fuel; Type P2 centrifuges enrich uranium to the much higher levels required for weapons.
-        Why does Iran require the number of P2 Type centrifuges to run rapid cascade enrichment?
-        Iran, or more correctly Iran's Revolutionary Council, currently sponsors International Terrorist Organisations, their al Quds Brigade is the secret underground army of the Iranian revolution, answerable not to the high command of the IRGC, but directly to the highest authority in Iran, the Head of the Iranian Revolutionary Council, Ayatollah Khamenei. The scope of their operations over the last 25 years has taken in Lebanon, Israel, Gaza and Argentina

Since the NIE came out I have heard no denials that a weapons programme was being run in Iran. I have heard lots remark on the fact that it was halted in 2003. If it was halted in 2003 it seems to suggest that it was running in 2002, 2001, 2000, etc – Get the drift Nickhere, Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons pre-dates Afghanistan and Iraq, it pre-dates the election of George W. Bush.

"I suppose fact of the matter is, he WANTS to invade Iran as its necessary for whatever plan he has in mind for the region and nothing, it seems will get in the way of that."

If you suppose that then I believe that you suppose wrong. The US has never threatened Iran with any form of action whatsoever beyond those sought through UN Sanctions and trade restrictions that can be imposed on trade between the US and Iran.   

"In any case, Bush's reactivation of a previous Republican's Star Wars programme is aimed to make nuclear weapons redundant by taking war into outer space as if there isn't enough of it already."

MSM labeled it the "Star War's Programme", it is more correctly termed the "Strategic Defense Initiative" for the eminently logical reason that it is a defensive system. Now Nick can you explain to me how one can threaten anybody with a weapon system that is purely defensive. Or do you attempt to imply that having a defensive system capable of knocking out a potential enemy's offensive missiles the US would start throwing its weight about? If that is the case can you then explain America's willingness to share this system with anyone who wants it?

And I agree, "It'd be nice to see the WMD redundant". Which is why I'd like to hear officially from Iran that it had, like Libya, renounced its nuclear weapons programme, but all we have heard so far by way of an evaluation by the US is that Iran "halted" this programme possibly as early as 2003. Now you tell me Nickhere, does that report really fill you with that much confidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:30 PM

I agree Amos, G Bush seems detremined to see things how he wants to see them, regardless of the facts left inconveniently about for everyone tro trip over! I suppose fact of the matter is, he WANTS to invade Iran as it's necessary for whatever plan he has in mind for the region and nothing, it seems will get in the way of that. What a decidedly dangerous man to have in charge of the world's most powerful military. He reminds me of the school bully who keeps hanging round his next victim, goading him and provoking contexts for a fight which he's fairly sure of winning.

In any case, Bush's reactivation of a previous Republican's Star Wars programme is aimed to make nuclear wepaons redundant by taking war into outer space as if there isn't enough of it already. It'd be nice to see the WMD redundant, but if only one country has the technology, it'll start to throw its weight around a lot more, and more recklessly, than it currently does.

Then he says "Iran could have been a danger in the past, it might be a danger in the present and it will be a danger in the future" in a 'speech' reminiscent of his "I've made good jugdements in the past, I've made good judgements in the future". Maybe he wants to demonstrate his sweeping command of English language tenses. When there was talk of obliging all immigrants become proficient in the use of English if they wanted US citizenship, I remember thinking "the US better be ready to see its President deported".

But soon he'll be gone, as he can't run for a third term. The world might be breathing a sigh of relief, but I think that's when we need to be extra vigilant. Any sucessor to Bush will effortlessly be able to come across as an Einstein, but that appearance could mask an even deadlier agenda. At least Bush is so painfully obvious that he has managed to politicise a whole generation of otherwise apathetic people. His handlers won't make the same mistake twice....probably! ;-))

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 01:10 PM

Speaking at a White House press conference today, Mr. Bush said he saw the report as "a warning signal" of a continuing threat from Iran, and he insisted that it vindicated his administration's "carrots and sticks" approach to the Iranian nuclear question because Iran had halted its weapons program.

"I still feel strongly that Iran's a danger," Mr. Bush said, in his first comments on the report. He added: "I think it is very important for the international community to recognize the fact that if Iran were to develop the knowledge that they could transfer to a clandestine program, it would create a danger for the world."

He said that he had learned of the new intelligence findings only last week, and that no one in the intelligence community had urged him to step back from his tough warning, made in October, that a nuclear Iran could pose a danger of a "World War III."

---

This is the thing about Bush and his machine. He completely stone-facedly inverts what something means without batting an eye. Case in point: a new report comes out saying that Iran had stopped developing nuclear weapons some time ago, rebutting multiple assertions from Bush and Co. about nuclear armageddon being brought on by Iran. Good news, say most folks. Maybe they aren't as crazy as we thought.


Bush comes out and says the report is a warning signal. "The enemy stopped making weapons" is warning signal??? WTF is UP with this dude? The only people I know who see the world in quite so inverted a fashion are in an extreme posture of cranio-colonic intraposition.

Man.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 05:44 PM

And the Russians (You know them dianavan, the ones with 50% more operational nuclear weapons than the US) have been doing what over the last four years? Vladimir Putin has been rather vocal about it in recent months Dianavan.

Now the intelligence community of the United States of America, or at least 16 of its agencies, has reached a concensus that "the nation (Iran) halted its weapons project in 2003 because it feared international sanctions". Now if memory serves me correctly the intelligence community of the United States of America reached a concensus on something else relating to WMD in that region around that time. And does my memory fail me in thinking that that evaluation was greeted in exactly the same manner, as this little snippet?

Oh I have got no doubt at all that they crash stopped their programme to the best of their ability, but it had damn all to do with the threat of international sanctions, unless the term "sanctions" is used in its old "Cold War" context (Roughly the same as "serious concequences"). The following are the reasons the Iranians stopped, or should I say more correctly, halted, their programme:

1. The whistle had been blown on their Uranium enrichment facilities in 2002, they could no longer keep their work secret, and now had the IAEA to face.

2. Dr A. Q. Khan's operations had been shut down and the Government of Pakistan was co-operating fully with the US Intelligence Agencies and Government.

3. Libya had just come clean and renounced its WMD programmes and revealed a hitherto unknown nuclear weapons programme.

4. US had acted against Saddam Hussein exactly as it said it would.

So tell us Dianavan, the US is not going to invade or attack North Korea is it? The US is not going to invade or attack Iran, in fact it has not even threatened Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 05:01 PM

Have a read. This article explains alot.

"In the last four years, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, kept the Senate from ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, refused to commit itself to halting future tests, and began work on two new nuclear weapons. The U.S. now spends nearly $7 billion a year for nuclear research and upgrading US nuclear capabilities, and the spending curve keeps rising."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0105-24.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 03:39 PM

That Iran has not got a nuclear weapon but may be keeping open the option to acquire one - That is news Amos???

Now have a think back what was happening in 2003 that caused more than just Iran to stop its nuclear weapons programme?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 02:08 PM

Iran has no nuke program, U.S. intel says

The consensus view of 16 agencies is that the nation halted its weapons project in 2003 because it feared international sanctions.
By Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
10:01 AM PST, December 3, 2007

WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON -- U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the threat of international sanctions has worked in compelling the Islamic republic to back away from its pursuit of the bomb.

These judgments were among the key findings of a long-awaited intelligence report in which U.S. spy agencies retreated from earlier assessments that were more hard-line in their view of Iran's nuclear ambitions and intentions.

The document, and the nuanced tone it strikes toward Iran, is likely to generate fierce new debate within the U.S. government, challenging the positions of officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, who have urged taking a hard line against Tehran.

The report also concludes that Iran "does not currently have a nuclear weapon," and that the country is unlikely to be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium to make a bomb before 2009 at the earliest.

The findings were included in a National Intelligence Estimate titled "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities" that represents a consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program," the report says. "We also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."

But the intelligence community also acknowledged that emerging evidence has forced analysts to alter their views on Iran's intentions and capabilities. The changes portray Iran as more responsive to international pressure than previously thought.

"Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military cost," the report concludes. Overall, the report notes that Iran "is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005." ...

---

This is a bit of a spinner, innit?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 04:27 PM

Teribus, you say you posted a reply to my question as to the most effective form of protest on another thread about Burma. I didn't realise it was the custom in your part of the world to reply to a question from one thread on another thread ages later and that the recipient was supposed to guess where it had been hgidden and poke it out. But at least now I know. However, I feel duty bound to advise you I do not have time to read all the threads on Mudcat! ;-))

Anyway:

Teribus "Now I said that demos/protest marches were ineffective, you seem to agree that civil disobedience is more effective.
Quouting Nickhere "Marching and demos are at the less extreme end, so of course they are less effective in that sense;"

Yes, but as you will quickly see, 'less effective' is quite a different matter altogether from 'ineffective'. So let's be clear - I did not say protest marches were ineffective as your juxtaposition implies.

I should point out that I was thinking of forms of protest that are still within the bounds of the law, and was not going so far as to advocate breaking the law, which you do by advocating civil disobedience. Nor am I saying I don't agree with civil disobedience.

You say you thought the anti-war movement had mass support, as a way of implying my post suggested it doesn't (and which would therefore be a contradiction of the anti-war position). Again, this is a solipism. The anti-war movement does indeed have widespread support. there are lots and lots of people who morally do not support Bush or what is happening in Iraq etc., My point, which you seem to have missed, is that this support does not extend as far as breaking the law -yet. That people - even though they may disgaree with the war - are few in number who are willing to put their jobs and comfort on the line making the sacrifice for people far far away. That is human nature. We criticise the Germans for not resisting Hitler, but here we are with a moral outrage that we could do something about and we just let it go on. Perhaps history will judge us as harshly? The Germans at least had the excuse that they would have probably disappeared into concentration camps if they raised even a fuss. Of course, an even more effective form of 'protest' would be to raise a privbate army, storm the government and put a stop to the nonsense. But then you'd just be feeding a cycle of war, plus it would be illegal. So once again, I was thinking of a from of protest that most are willing to participatye in, and it has the effect of being a voice of dissedence, at least when it's not starved of media coverage as often seems to happen.

About that death toll - 600,000 was the figure given by Lancet about a YEAR ago, and it's safe to assume it's being going up since. I certainly doubt it has gone down. I'm glad to see you are no longer insisting that the bodies be stacked up for counting...


Iran / Iraq war: so, the USA NEVER armed or funded Saddam? Am I correct in thinking that's what you are saying?

As for the US not threatening Iran. 1) you forget they have already interfered with Iran by deposing their democratically elected leader in 1958 and installing the pro-US Shah; which Iran has not forgotten. By the way Iran signed up to the NPT under the Shah, and since it's had a total regime change since then, I see no reason why it should continue to be bound by an agreement made with an unelected leader illegally installed by the US.
2) The US has never forgiven or forgotten Iran for the US embassy hostage crisis. Though under the terms signed to secure the hostages release the US agreed never again to interfere in Iran or its government etc., Seems the US is the one renaging on its signed agreements.
3) I seem to remember far more recent threats made to Iran, at the lower end of the scale were White House comments about not ruling out 'any measures' (read militray intervention'). And Yesterday on the news they were talking more openly of attacking Iran. There's little doubt they'll do it, perhaps having learned from Iraq they just want some psuedo-legal backing for what they intend to do anyway. And as sure as night is day, just as has happened in Iraq, thousands upon thousands of Iranian civilians will die or have their lives reduced to abject misery. Is that all right with you?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 03:52 PM

BTW I was wrong it seems about US Iraq militrayt casualties. 3,800 have died on active service, but around 6,400 have committedn suicide during or shortly after their tour of duty. Why isn't this story being covered in the media?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 06:11 PM

Sure thing. Let's hope it will be neither!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:05 PM

"unless someone is foolish enough to actually launch an attack, "

Which is what * I * am afraod of. We just seem to differ on who the idiot who will launch the attack most probably will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:22 PM

BBruce "And this would slow Hezbollah down how THEY were the ones who placed rocket launchers in civilian areas, and schools, in order to drive up the civilian casualties in Lebenon"

As if Israel doesn't have military bases and military hardware scattered all over its population areas as well.

"In case of nuclear attack on Israel, the real losers would include the Palestinian people, who would be sacrificed on the alter of Iranian destruction of Israel"

No, the real losers would be Israelis and Palestinians, and anyone else unfortunate enough to get caught in the blast, God forbid, But personally I think Ahmadinejad does a lot of sabre rattling and unless someone is foolish enough to actually launch an attack, little will come of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:17 PM

Nickhere:

"No problem" referred to the fact I was still waiting for an explanation as to what you considered to be the most effective form of protest; thus, 'no problem I'm sure you won't waiting months for a reply as I had to'. But in fairness to you have posted your reply above (civil disobedience, the Gandhi way).

But Nickhere I posted that almost one month ago, on 27th September, 2007 on BS: Should we care about Burmese? Thread.

Now I said that demos/protest marches were ineffective, you seem to agree that civil disobedience is more effective.

"Marching and demos are at the less extreme end, so of course they are less effective in that sense;"

"First, it would need mass support to be effective."

But I was under the impression that the anti-war lobby was convinced that they already HAD mass support. I was also under the impression from the anti-war lobby that that mass support was world-wide.

Now this rather mystified me:

". Indeed, your own approach to countries like Iran etc., are along these lines. For it seems it would be quite alright for hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die and their country reduced to rubble and their lives to nothing, in order to stop their government getting a nuclear weapon (even if they succeed in producing Uranium, they won't have enough to make more than a few bombs. Far more powerful countries like China only have a few hundred)." – Nickhere

When have I ever said or implied that, "it would be quite alright for hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die and their country reduced to rubble and their lives to nothing, in order to stop their government getting a nuclear weapon". By the bye Nick as far as the number of bombs go, they only require two as a minimum, four as a maximum. After all, the plan is that neither the Government of Iran, or its armed forces would deliver any of them, that task would be delegated and assigned to others who do not have a country or a government that anyone could retaliate against. My bet Iran will use Hamas or Hezbollah to attack Israel and Al-Qaeda/Al-Qaeda off-shoot or clone to strike at the United States of America. Timing for this depends very much on what the US does in both Afghanistan and in Iraq. If the Democrats take the White House and cut-and-run in time honoured fashion, then this could happen within the next three to five years. If the Iranians did this right, the US would be like "Humpty-Dumpty", their military would be of no use to them, there would be no-one to hit. The Iranians must be cursing the dissident who blew the whistle on the uranium enrichment plants in 2002, otherwise they would still be secret yet and that I believe would have suited their purpose a lot better.

Exactly what has been "our treatment of these long-suffering people"? And which long suffering people are you referring to, the Iranians? As far as I know the US has not threatened Iran in any way

"India, despite popular myth, did not achieve independence through Gandhi alone. There was a very active war of independence going on at the same time under the leadership of Subhandra Bose. Today he's regarded as a hero on the same level as Gandhi in India."

Now let's see his name for a start was Subhas Chandra Bose, his activities during the Second World War amounted to very little, certainly no "very active war of independence". Between the outbreak of war in 1939 and early 1941 he was under surveillance, in 1941 he escaped from India via Afghanistan and Russia to Germany. He stayed in Germany and Austria with his Austrian wife until 1943 when he was taken by U-180 to Singapore, where he took over the INA which consisted of ex-Indian Army POWs. Their peak was when they fought alongside the Japanese forces at Kohima and Imphal where they were defeated. After these battles and the subsequent drive down to Rangoon the INA suffered desertion and diminished in importance as a propaganda tool for the Japanese who stopped funding them. Subhas Chandra Bose supposedly died in a plane crash over Taiwan in 1945 on his way to Tokio. So while some may think well of him in India Nick he most certainly was nowhere near as significant or effective as Mohandas Gandhi with regard to India's struggle for independence.

Glad to see that that you now refer to Iraq death estimates, that is a bit different to your original "700,000 + deaths in four years" claim. Still no opinion as to why an anti-war group such as IraqBodyCount would downplay the numbers of fatalities?

"They (The West/US) even helped Saddam to attack Iran for years, so little wonder Iran might feel the need to do whatever necessary to ensure ITS own security." – Nickhere.

Left wing myth, go away and read about it. Iran/Iraq War 1980 to 1988, in the latter half of that period Saddam Hussein was helped because it looked like he was going to lose and that result would have suited no-one, particularly Saddam's trading partners (France, Russia and China).

The hundreds of atomic tests contributed 7% of background radiation levels which "might have" contributed to "an increased incidence of leukemia etc.,". But the odds are marginally better than 10:1 that they didn't.

Nuclear disarmament was well under way up until India then Pakistan tested their weapons. The number of operational weapons had been reduced by around 67%. India acquired its nuclear technology from the USSR, Pakistan's came from China. The US had very little to do with it. So your contention that, "It's not really about stopping countries from acquiring the bomb, but about stopping countries that are not western allies or western aligned from acquiring it." That's just rank stupidity of the highest order and needs no serious consideration, as neither Russia or China could ever be described as western allies or western aligned.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 07:43 PM

"Of course a nuclear bomb wouldn't be confined by whichever of Israel's borders one accepts, and people all over the region would suffer horribly. "


And this would slow Hezbollah down how THEY were the ones who placed rocket launchers in civilian areas, and schools, in order to drive up the civilian casualties in Lebenon.

In case of nuclear attack on Israel, the real losers would include the Palestinian people, who would be sacrificed on the alter of Iranian destruction of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 04:40 PM

That's true BBruce, and I would hate to see any Israeli citizens being killed by a nuclear bomb. Of course a nuclear bomb wouldn't be confined by whichever of Israel's borders one accepts, and people all over the region would suffer horribly.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 02:54 PM

The Hopkins Researchers are no longer the statistical outlier. Opinion Research Bureau has recently done a study that estimates about 1.2 million civilian violent deaths in Iraq since 2003. Details here.

IMHO, it is foolish or deliberately obtuse to make a distinction between a statistical estimate and a fact. Very few scientific facts are not based on statistical estimates.

If a countable body or certified death certificate is required for a death to be factual, there were few factual deaths under Pol Pot, Mao, Pinochet, Milosovic, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 02:00 PM

"even if they succeed in producing Uranium, they won't have enough to make more than a few bombs. Far more powerful countries like China only have a few hundred)."



The People's Republic of China is estimated by the U.S. Government to have an arsenal of about 150 nuclear weapons as of 1999, which matches the Chinese government statement that it possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal amongst the five major nuclear-weapon states.

Wickipaedia

Estimate of N. Korea weapons to rise
US officials cite strides in nuclear capabilities
By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post | April 29, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The United States is preparing to significantly raise its estimate of the number of nuclear weapons held by North Korea, from ''possibly two" to at least eight, according to US officials involved in the preparation of a report.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/04/29/estimate_of_n_korea_weapons_to_rise/



According to a late 2002 CIA analysis, "Restarting the 5 megawatt reactor would generate about 6 kilograms [of plutonium] per year. ... The 50 megawatt-electric reactor at Yongbyon and the 200 megawatt-electric reactor at Taechon would generate about 275 kilograms per year, although it would take several years to complete construction of these reactors." If about 5 kilograms of plutonium was required for one bomb, the North Korean bomb-production rate would thus be about 55 weapons per year after the reactors are completed. ["North Korea Can Build Nukes Right Now," By Bill Gertz, The Washington Times, November 22, 2002 Pg. 1].

A story in the New York Times on July 20, 2003 reported that US intelligence officials believe that North Korea may have a second facility that could produce weapons-grade plutonium. The second facility is believed to be buried underground at an unknown location. The story, "North Korea Hides New Nuclear Site, Evidence Suggests" by David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker New York Times reported that sensors on North Korea's borders have begun to detect elevated levels of krypton-85, a gas emitted as spent fuel is converted into plutonium. The report says the issue that most concerns American and Asian officials, though, is analysis showing that the gas is not coming from North Korea's main nuclear plant, Yongbyon. Instead, the experts believe the gas may be coming from another hidden facility, buried deep in the mountains. North Korea is believed to have 11-15,000 underground military-industrial facilities.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke-plutonium.htm



And a single bomb could destroy 80% + of Israel's industry, and 70% of the population...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 01:45 PM

All fair points, Teribus.

Ok, let's start at the beginning. "No problem" referred to the fact I was still waiting for an explanation as to what you considered to be the most effective form of protest; thus, 'no problem I'm sure you won't waiting months for a reply as I had to'. But in fairness to you you ahve posted your reply above (civil disobedience, the Gandhi way). It certainly sounds good, and I'd be inclined to agree. But it'd mean large numbers of people who'd have to be willing to consign themselves to jail and allow their livelihoods to be destroyed in order to wrest democracy back from the oligarchs. Marching and demos are at the less extreme end, so of colurse they are less effective in that sense; but if no-one protested our 'leaders' could at least say no-one minded the war, there'd be no voice of dissent. Civil disobedience may yet come, but there's a time and place. First, it would need mass support to be effective: as with Gandhi's example - he didn't bring India to a stanstill alone. There are further points to be made here. 1) The mass of Indians might have been willing to risk their lives and livelihoods in order to secure an independent India, but would they have made the same sacrifice for say, the people of Uganda? Because that's what the anti-war message asks. It's actually very difficult to find people who see 'the brotherhood of man' as including people far, far away from them. Most people don't give much of a damn about the arabs in Iraq, or the victims in Rwanda, and are willing to accept whatever world order prevails as long as it doesn't hardship them directly. Indeed, your own approach to countries like Iran etc., are along these lines. For it seems it would be quite alright for hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die and their country reduced to rubble and their lives to nothing, in order to stop their government getting a nuclear weapon (even if they succeed in producing Uranium, they won't have enough to make more than a few bombs. Far more powerful countries like China only have a few hundred).

Now apply the same approach to the USA. Let's suppose the Iranians decided the only way to stop the White House neo-cons from attacking any more countries or disrupting any more democracies was to destroy as much of the country as possible. Bush's 'pre-emptive strike'. So thyey manage to fly in and unleash some of their firepower on the big cities, anywhere there are nuclear facilities (e.g Long Island) and if millions of people die in the process, well, that's too bad. At least the US will be so busy bandaging its wounds it won't even have to time to think of attacking anywhere for a while, and the world might see a short era of peace and quiet. (Now whether that'd be the actual outcome is irrelevant here, as we're just supposing the reasoning of the Iranian govt). My question here is, how many attacks would be allowed to happen and how many Americans would be allowed to die before Americans rose up in outrage and epected the world to do the same? Why should it be any different for a place like Iran or Iraq, unless of course, from a western perspective, their lives simply aren't worth as much.

That's why you are unlikely to get mass civil disobedience in protest at our treatment of these long-suffering people.

Phew! Right, second point 2) India, despite popular myth, did not achieve independence through Gandhi alone. there was a very active war of independence going on at the same time under the leadership of Subhandra Bose. Today he's regarded as a hero on the same level as Gandhi in India.

Next. Iraqi death estimates. The Lancet report estimated something in the region of 600,000 deaths a year ago, as a result of, and since, the invasion of Iraq. Of course it is an estimate. In such war conditions, one cannot neatly stack up all the bodies and count them. It is in the interest of both the US forces and the Iraq government to downplay the figures, as to do otherwise would be to admit things are not as rosy as they look. US soldier casualties are also downplayed - 'killed in a helicopter crash' often turns out to mean "shot down by 'insurgents' " on closer inspection etc., Then there was the journalist fired for showing the coffins of US soldiers being flown home. This is standard practice in any war, and I am not surprised to hear people saying 'Did 600,000 really die?' now. Basic services in Iraq are almost non-existant, meaning people have little access to electricity and clean water, which they did have under Saddam.

Now you are quite correct in saying Saddam wouldn't tolerate Iran having nuclear capability (which he wanted for himself). So of course the west would rush to Iran's defence if he attacked, just as they did with Kuwait....actually, no, they wouldn't, because in the west, Iran is the bad guy. They even helped Saddam to attack Iran for years, so little wonder Iran might feel the need to do whatever necessary to ensure ITS own security. Or is that a luxury only allowed to the countries we approve of?

Yes, despite what you think, I am quite well aware that hundreds of above-ground nuclear tests were carried out from the late 1950s until they were banned. they contributed aboput 7% to the level of background radiation, and their contribution is currently estimated to have dropped to about 1% of the background level of radiation (the rest from natural sources and events like Chernobyl etc.,).

But while such activities might be linked to an increased incidenece of leukemia etc., (and this is not acceptable) there is a world of difference between that and actually intentionally dropping those devices on heavily populated cities in order to kill as many civilians as you can. That's what the USA did, and remains the ONLY counry to have done so, despite all their misgivings about other countries. The Italians have a phrase "Chi la fa, la pensa' which translates as 'the thief thinks everyone's stealing from him'.

Perhaps it's a good time to add a reminder. The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just the 250,000 + who died in the immediate blast and aftermath, but also thousands who died prematurly in later years, and all those who remained unmarried thanks to the fact no-one - afraid of genetic defects and put off by the ugly scars - wanted to marry nuclear victims. Thus all those people were deprived of a normal married life and the joy of having kids etc., Is there any memorial in all the USA dedicated to the memory of the vcitims of this particular holocaust, inscribed 'lest we forget'? Maybe there is - does anyone know of one?

Now you might say the US is just trying to stop the dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons, but this wouldn't be entirely true either. India - a country that has long-running tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir, and as likely a candidiate as any to use nucelar weapons - was allowed to acquire them. Pakistan itself wasn't strongly discouarged from nuclear-arming by the US while it was a valued ally against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Yet we now know one of Pakistan's top scientists shared soem of that know-how around. It's not really about stopping countries from acquiring the bomb, but about stopping countries that are not western allies or western aligned from acquiring it. That's just rank hypocrisy of the highest order and needs no serious consideration.

You touch on this yourself while asking what would the rest of the world do if the US simply scrapped its weapons. fair question, and of cousre the answer is that we don't know. It'd be such an unprecented step that no-one could guess what'd happen. If the US was also to pull its troops out of all the places it has them posted and publicly commit itself to purely peaceful, economic and diplomatic means of foreign policy and trasnparent 'world policing', shake hands with Iran; the world might breathe a collective sigh of relief. Israel would be obliged to make a fair settlement with the Palestinians. Iran might consider 'perhaps we don't need a bomb after all' Al Qaeda would be deserted in droves after an interval of a few years. Then of course other countries might take advantage of what looked like 'softness' to step up attacks or chance their arm. So here it is: thanks to our own nature, fear and suspicion of each other, we're locked into a cycle of mutual mistrust and ever-escalating military budgets. You know those movies where the whole earth unites to fight the invading aliens? Would never happen. Some earthlings would collude in surpressing their fellow-earth brethern in order to enjoy a slightly priviliged advantage in the new order. You'll always find people like that.

Your last list of points are your fairest and most convincing however. If indeed the things you accuse Iran of are true, it does seem likely they are hoping to acquire nuclear bomb technology. I read of the IAEA report on the nuclear blueprint story in the newspapers the day after my last posting.
It's just with all the sexing up of the Iraq dossier that these days it's hard to know what to believe. The US has been making a case for attacking Iran for some time, just as they did with Iraq. We know most of the Iraq case was pure nonsense, but now it's too late and thousands have been shot down like dogs in pursuit of the dollar thanks to our swallowing those lies. So you might forgive us if we approach these latest claims with caution.

There could be a number of explanations for the points you mentioned. If I was Iran and I had a nuclear programme, knowing how I was regarded by a belligerent superpower with troops next door and a fleet of aircraft carriers just off my shoreline, I might be quiet about my programme as well. Even if it were a peaceful programme, I would feel sure it'd be interpreted as an excuse to attack me. Plus I'm not sure that Iran has been as secretive as you say. Following the story over the last few years, Iran's presidnet has made a number of public announcements as to the progress of Iran's nuclear programme. But I don't know if these stories are covered by the media where you live.

The Iranians might not plan to build a bomb but leave themselves the option of doing so if they wish. Even if they do plan to build a bomb, there's no certainty they would actually use it except in case of survival - i.e if attacked first. That's their right, if it's the only way for them to ensure they are not destroyed like their neighbour then why shouldn't they take that route? In which case building a bomb is a race against time. When the US invaded Afghanistan there was much talk of 'nuking the country'. Now, thankfully that hasn't happened, though it's nearly as bad. You must also remember that much sabre-rattling takes place on the international stage. If the Iranians even succeed in making the world believe they have bombs, they have a good chance of being left alone, no-one wanting to risk a nuclear confrontation with a country desperate for survival. If so, mission accomplished, and Iran joins the elite club of countries that get to live unmolested.

BTW, are the USA/ Russia/UK/ France etc., nuclear facilities open to IAEA inspection? And why should only NPT countries be considered? That leaves nuclear countries like Israel out of the loop, and if nuclear non-proliferation is to work, all countries with nucelar programmes need to transparent. Then of course Mordechai Vanunu would know all about that.