BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

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

My feeling is that nuclear weapons should not exist AT ALL.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: autolycus
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:05 PM

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

   What would be useless is self-righteousness.


   And some bloke once advised turning the other cheek,while another one backin the 7th century was a man of peace.

   i gather there are deeply religious people and fundramagent - er - fundamantralists or something who thought those guys were right.

   or something.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:43 PM

Alas, I think it's a bit late for that. It would be like getting the Romans to give up triremes, catapults, ballistas, and greek fire. Not gonna happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:41 PM

Exactly!

If nobody had nuclear weapons, nobody else would need them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:31 PM

It is plainly obvious to the entire world that the USA is the big kid with the bat...and is using it to beat people up too...not just threatening to maybe do so.

The USA's military budget exceeds the total military spending of the next 10 largest military powers in the world. That tells you who has the bat.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:10 PM

Iran is not the one with the bat, at least not yet.
We are certinly leading the way towards a nuclear free world by building more & better "Bunker Busters". I don't expect any nation with nuclear capabilities to act rational & in return I don't expect others to reply to them in a rational fashion.

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

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:32 AM

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei on Friday said North Korea had invited him to visit within the next few weeks to discuss details of dismantling the country's nuclear program.

ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he and North Korean authorities would discuss how to "implement the freeze of (nuclear) facilities" and "eventual dismantlement of these facilities."

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said ElBaradei probably would visit in the second week of March, after the agency board meets on North Korea and Iran, the other country of international nuclear concern.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, on an official visit to Austria and U.N. agencies in Vienna, said he hoped the invitation will translate into concrete steps in denuclearizing the Korean peninsula.

"I'm convinced that his visit to Pyongyang will make a great contribution to implement the joint statement," he said, referring to the deal agreed on February 13 between North Korea and its five interlocutors -- the United States, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea.

"I hope that he and his delegation will be able to discuss with North Korean authorities ... methods on first freezing nuclear facilities and including the eventual dismantlement of all nuclear weapons and facilities," he said.

While ElBaradei offered no details, his announcement was significant because it signaled the North's further willingness to subject its nuclear program to outside perusal for the first time since withdrawing from the Nonproliferation Treaty three years ago and ordering agency inspectors to leave.

Under the February 13 agreement, the North -- which said it tested a nuclear weapon late last year -- agreed to dismantle its nuclear facilities and to normalize its relationships with South Korea, Japan and the United States in exchange for oil shipments, other aid and security guarantees.

The deal requires North Korea to first shut down and seal its main nuclear reactor, accept international monitors and begin discussions with the United States on its other nuclear facilities. In return, the nations will ship the North an initial load of fuel oil.

If North Korea then declares all its nuclear programs and begins to disable its nuclear facilities, it will get a much larger shipment of fuel oil and aid.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 09:38 AM

"I believe no one should have these capabilities, no one & that they should all be put back in the locked drawer "

A wonderful idea, but hardly likely given human nature.
I believe that everyone should act in a reasonable fashion, but I do not expect that will happen in this lifetime.



"& it would behove nations to start giving them up first before telling other nations to stop trying to build them."

So if someone with a bat threatens to hit you, you would throw down your own bat and then ask him to throw his away? Sounds great- for anyone who wants to beat you up.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 09:32 AM

", the US is looking to find a way to move into Iran & will use the UN, Israel or anything or one they can to do it."

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I disagree- I think the US is acting to prevent a nuclear war, which Iran has promised. When that occurs, IMHO, tens to hundreds of millions more people will die, and it will be the fault of those who block the UN enforcement of the conditions of the NPT. Those such as yourself whose hate for Bush have blinded you to reason.


"If the world's nuclear elite doesn't like that Iran or Korea or anyone else for that matter is looking to become a nuclear partner with the rest of the club that's to bad."

Than WHY did Iran sign the NPT, and take advantage of the assistance provided, then reject the conditions that the assistance was provided under?

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

The fact is Bruce, I don't care what the UN or anyone else says. I think for myself. You post the above statements for a reason. What would that reasonbe, pray tell? IMHO, the US is looking to find a way to move into Iran & will use the UN, Israel or anything or one they can to do it. If the world's nuclear elite doesn't like that Iran or Korea or anyone else for that matter is looking to become a nuclear partner with the rest of the club that's to bad. The club should figure out how to build a bridge & get over it. I believe no one should have these capabilities, no one & that they should all be put back in the locked drawer & it would behove nations to start giving them up first before telling other nations to stop trying to build them.

And the sabre rattling is getting tiresome too.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:44 AM

Barry,

Sorry if facts about how Iran is in violation of the NPT (the actual UN report, not a rehash by biased news media) are of no interest to you.

It must be nice to have a world-view so perfectly apart from reality. You blame Bush, but refuse to even try to look at facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:36 AM

Thanks for the info BB what's your point?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 07:34 AM

UN report on Iran- re NPT

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 02:48 PM

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran has expanded its uranium enrichment program instead of complying with a U.N. Security Council ultimatum to freeze it, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Thursday in a finding that clears the way for harsher sanctions against Tehran.

"Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities," said the International Atomic Energy Agency, basing its information on material available to it as of Saturday.

The conclusion -- while widely expected -- was important because it could serve as the trigger for the council to start deliberating on new sanctions meant to punish Tehran for its nuclear intransigence.

In a report written by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the agency also said the Islamic republic continues construction of a reactor that will use heavy water and a heavy water production plant -- also are in defiance of the Security Council. (Read the IAEA report)

Both enriched uranium and plutonium produced by heavy water reactors can produce the fissile material used in nuclear warheads. Iran denies such intentions, saying it needs the heavy water reactor to produce radioactive isotopes for medical and other peaceful purposes and enrichment to generate energy.

The six-page report obtained by The Associated Press also said that agency experts remain "unable ... to make further progress in its efforts to verify fully the past development of Iran's nuclear program" because of lack of Iranian cooperation.

That, too, put it in violation of the Security Council, which on December 23 told Tehran to "provide such access and cooperation as the agency requests to be able to verify ... all outstanding issues" within 60 days.

The report -- sent both to the Security Council and the agency's 35 board member nations -- set the stage for a fresh showdown between Iran and Western powers.

In Tehran, the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Mohammed Saeedi, said: "Iran considers the (IAEA demand for) suspension as against its rights, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and international regulations."

"That's why Tehran could not have answered positively to the request by resolution 1737 of the UN Security Council for a suspension of enrichment activity," Saeedi said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said that Iran's refusal to curtail its nuclear program is a "missed opportunity" for its government and people. He said he is confident that the Security Council will approve additional sanctions against Iran but declined to predict what they might be.

Before the report was issued, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the U.S. and its allies would use the Security Council and other "available channels" to bring Tehran back to negotiations over its nuclear program. (Watch Rice explain how U.S. is open to talks)

And U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply concerned ... that the Iranian government did not meet the (Wednesday) deadline set by the Security Council."

"I urge again that the Iranian government should fully comply with the Security Council" as soon as possible, he told reporters in Vienna, saying Iran's nuclear activities had "great implications for peace and security, as well as nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

Iranian companies masked, dissidents allege
Iranian dissidents, meanwhile, presented a list of alleged front companies they said were set up by the Islamic republic to evade U.N. sanctions.

Part of the sanctions target companies suspected of involvement in Iran's nuclear program -- a measure that an Iranian dissident group said Tehran was circumventing by renaming the companies and otherwise disguising them, or setting up new ones.

In a list provided to The Associated Press on Thursday ahead of general publication, the National Council of Resistance in Iran said firms under sanctions that were renamed were the Farayand Technique Company and the Pars Thrash Company. It named new companies set up to work on Iran's enrichment programs while avoiding sanctions as Tamin Tajhizat Sanayeh Hasteieh, Shakhes Behbood Sanaat and Sookht Atomi Reactorhaye Iran.

All are headed by Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's atomic energy programs, and some involve others on the Security Council's list of those involved in Iran's nuclear program, said the group, the political wing of the People's Mujahedeen of Iran, which advocates the overthrow of Iran's Islamic government.

There was no independent confirmation of the information provided by the group, which the United States and the European Union list as a terrorist organization. But it has revealed past secret Iranian nuclear activities subsequently verified by the IAEA or governments.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 12:33 PM

I remember the "Saddam tried to kill my daddy" ploy.
Smart Iranian leaders might find a way to claim they saved the life of W's mother.
but seriously folks;)
I know of no way to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons now that they are firmly in the hands of Pakistan and Q Kahn who sold do it yourself nuke kits to many other smaller countries.
It is clear this administration doesn't have a plan beyond "get em".

Leave it to Bearded bruce, Bill D or Amos to deliver an answer to proliferation. I am too much of a cynic or realist to come up with a viable answer.

Destroy them first? Treaties - not if you can't even talk to Iran, Bribes?
I bet Kim Jung Ill just saw the Woody Allen movie take the money and run.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 12:15 PM

Yes, the old "they attacked our ship(s)" scenario is probably the handiest and most common of all ways for the USA to get into a war its government very much wants to get into.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 10:45 AM

Another minuet in the endless Dance of the Idiots across the scarred and bruised face of the world.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 10:43 AM

You know Teribus, Getting the UN to propose a US made resolution and finding Saddam in technical violation of said proposal is worth the paper it was written on.

I recall that Colin Powell proposed the UN strategy since that would and an air of creedence to all the lies that would eventually unravel. George didn't want to have to play UN games at all but reluctently compromised.

It is standard operating procedure to hype a war with lies. Truth is always the first casualty. Bush's dad did the same his IRaq war with the baby incubator story which was also a bald faced lie.

For some a call to arms, only requires the church to bless it. For others the duty of patriotism is the sole justification. But there are still some who want real reasons. For them the lies and technicalities were created.


In my opinion:
The justification for the US invasion of Iran will probably use the tried and true "They attacked our ship" scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 10:22 AM

N. Korea orders maintenance of war mobilization to counter threat of a U.S. attack
Posted 2/15/2007 5:34 AM ET


SEOUL (AP) — North Korea's No. 2 leader on Thursday ordered all soldiers and people to maintain a war mobilization posture to counter the threat of a U.S. attack.
"We will mercilessly repel the aggressors and achieve reunification by mobilizing" in case of a U.S. attack, Kim Yong Nam warned in a speech to thousands of government and military officials that was carried on state televison.

The speech was monitored in South Korea.

The anti-U.S. rhetoric, which came days after a breakthrough deal on ending North Korea's nuclear weapons program, is not unusual and appears directed at North Koreans as they prepare to celebrate the 65th birthday of leader Kim Jong Il on Friday.

Under the first phase of the deal reached in Beijing on Tuesday, North Korea would shut down its main nuclear reactor and allow U.N. inspectors back into the country within 60 days.

In return, it would receive aid equal to 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil from the other countries participating in the six-party talks — the United States, South Korea, Russia, China and Japan.

North Korea regularly accuses the United States of planning to attack it. U.S. officials say they have no such intnention.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 05:30 AM

Here is the first post.

Now you can start with a clean slate.

Subject: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:30 AM

Any guesses?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 05:27 AM

If it was a secret that his son was in the military service, he should have told me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 03:22 AM

dianavan - none of us is wholly objective. I have very close friends who have been and are on tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is their first-hand experiences which shape my views. As such I believe the NATO operations in Afghanistan to be justified (if somewhat poorly put together) and the US-led invasion of Iraq to be wholly unjustified.
That is necessarily a subjective view because, unlike some, I am not privy to all the facts and don't have 20:20 foresight.
I also think the betrayal of confidences is unforgiveable. If you cannot conduct an argument based on the generally available facts (particularly in this instance) then step away from the plate. Such 'dirty tricks' belong in the hands of the sort currently machinating against the Democrat candidates in the US elections.
McGrath is right - this thread is now tainted.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 10:11 PM

McGrath - What I was pointing out was the fact that teribus is not exactly objective in his analysis.

As far as sinking the thread, maybe or maybe not.

Besides that, the U.S. has bought off Korea which leaves Iran.

If Bush were to invade Iran, he is crazier than I thought and will probably destroy Israel in the process.

Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 05:31 PM

This is more of the usual game. The aid to North Korea, whether it is in the form of fuel or in some other form, will be provided by large, privately-owned N.G.O.'s (corporate entities) who will get paid handsomely for it by someone....the US govt, I would assume. They certainly aren't going to give it away for free! ;-) That means the American public will pay for it indirectly through their taxes, and the corporations will cash in...as always. The politicians will have rewarded the big invisible hand that funds them and puts them in Congress or the White House. That's what it's always about, in the final analysis: corporate profit.

If a byproduct, however, is to reduce the threat of war in that region, well, that's considerably better than nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 03:54 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301158.html

(text for those without access)

Nuclear Bargaining
Within 60 days, North Korea is to halt plutonium production. Then will come the real test of its intentions.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007; Page A18


THE "ACTION PLAN" on North Korea's denuclearization issued yesterday by the "six-party" talks in Beijing offers the advantage of focusing, initially, on a single and relatively modest exchange. Within 60 days, the North Korean regime is to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor and reprocessing plant under the monitoring of international inspectors, who would return to the country after a four-year absence. In exchange the North is to receive 50,000 tons of fuel oil, the "resolution" of U.S. banking sanctions and the beginning of bilateral talks on the normalization of U.S.-North Korean relations. If the shutdown takes place, North Korean production of plutonium for nuclear weapons will also stop -- a welcome if very limited step forward.

Unlike the failed "Agreed Framework" between the Clinton administration and North Korea, the new deal is not open-ended: North Korea will get no more than the one-time "emergency" supply of oil, worth about $12 million, unless it takes further action. This accord also includes China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, whose involvement raises the chance that Pyongyang will comply and demonstrates that the six-party approach the Bush administration embraced more than three years ago can produce results. In that sense it is wrong to argue that the administration has simply reverted to the Clinton-era arrangement that it repudiated in 2002, and if it is rewarding North Korea's misbehavior, the bribe is a small one.

The drawback is that North Korea keeps, for now, the weapons and plutonium stockpile it has amassed. Also, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged yesterday, the first real test of whether dictator Kim Jong Il will give up his nukes lies in a less clearly defined future. According to the plan, North Korea is to permanently disable the Yongbyon facilities and provide a "complete declaration of all nuclear programs" in exchange for the equivalent of 950,000 more barrels of oil. How and when it will accomplish the disablement, how its disclosure will be verified and what else it might receive in exchange remain to be worked out; among the many difficulties is the North's refusal to acknowledge a secret uranium enrichment program. As Ms. Rice said, those steps would be "a sign that the North Koreans may, in fact, be ready to make a strategic choice" to give up nuclear weapons.

Along with many experts on North Korea, we're skeptical that Mr. Kim would choose to give up nuclear weapons unless he were convinced that the survival of his regime depended on it. Administration officials say they have been encouraged to believe that China, which controls North Korea's lifelines of fuel and food, has made the regime's disarmament a priority since its nuclear test last fall; recently enacted U.N. sanctions may also help. Trying to push Mr. Kim into a permanent shutdown of plutonium production over the next year is certainly worthwhile. Yesterday's announcement was a start, but as the football-loving Ms. Rice said, "This is still the first quarter."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 11:47 AM

Sometimes an off-key post can put a hole in a thread that sinks it. I'm afraid dianavan has done that for this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 11:14 AM

Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins. You will discover why the various wars have happened in the last few decades and you will plainly see that not one of them was ever justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 06:33 AM

Dianavan,


Of course, you have to take the position you do. Otherwise you would have to admit that Bush and Blair were right and that this is a justified war. Why else would anyone refuse to consider the evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 03:11 AM

What evidence, neither you or your fellow travellers have to date provided one shred of evidence.

You have come up with nothing save tired, emotional rhetoric and lies, half-truths and misrepresentations.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:33 PM

The contempt you feel, teribus, bounces off of me and sticks to you. In other words, its mutual and has very little to do with one post.

I did not initiate the PM. If you want to tell me that your son is a soldier, thats up to you. If I say you sent him off to war, it is no different than any other parent who has done the same. I'm sure there was a send-off, regardless of whether or not he enlisted. As a military man, yourself, I'm sure you are proud of him, following in his dad's footsteps and all. Whether or not you or your son glorify war, I do not know. That assumption was based on you rigorous support of the war in Iraq.

As far as your point of view - I stand by what I said. Of course, you have to take the position you do. Otherwise you would have to admit that Bush and Blair were wrong and that this is a useless war. Why else would anyone refuse to consider the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Alba
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:09 PM

No problem.
Don't know what that big word you used means but glad to have been of some help.
Right now I am off to see if there are any threads that a supposed idiotic lefty might be able to contribute too.
You will be delighted to know I won't be back into this Thread.
Alba

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:03 PM

Hmm. Well, although we shall no doubt continue to disagree strenuously on most of the political stuff, Teribus, I must say that you do have just cause to be offended by that statement Dianavan made about you and your son. It was way below the belt.

Just saying it the way I see it. You know I agree with you on the political stuff, Dianavan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:53 PM

dianavan - 13 Feb 07 - 11:38 AM

"What you have to understand about Teribus is that, after sending his son off to find glory on the battlefield, he has to defend that
choice. What else can a father do? Its a little late to admit that this might be an unjust war and that his son might be risking his life for no good reason."

Probably ranks as one of the most offensive posts that I have ever seen sent on this Forum, taking into account that it is to the parent whose child is in harms way, compounded by the fact that it uses information sent in confidence via the PM system - Utterly despicable.

"....after sending his son off to find glory on the battlefield" - I "sent my son off" ?? Your grounds for this outrageous remark dianavan are what? He is a professional soldier who knew exactly what could be asked of him from the day he thought about joining up. Exactly the same as I did before him. I am immensely proud of my son and of those who serve with him. I have got nothing but utter contempt for you dianavan, you are a complete and utter waste of space.

"Unjust war"? remember dianavan we are talking about the UN backed one here, besides which the current UN operations taking place in both Afghanistan and in Iraq are fully justified. While myself and others on this forum have explained our point of view and backed that point of view up with what we regard as the salient facts, you and those sharing your point of view have come up with absolutely nothing save tired, emotional rhetoric and a mass of anti-war, anti-Bush myths.

Jude, thank you for corroborating my final paragraph:

"As with most that veer to the populist chattering left, when actually challenged, having made the absolutely ludicrous statement that you did make, you shear off behind a smoke-screen of personal attack and mock indignation - but refuse to back up your idiotic statements."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 01:06 PM

Heh! Nothing new about that. Did you know that the most tried and true means of taking absolute control of a small foreign nation is by loaning them HUGE amounts of money through institutions like the IMF and the World Bank? Read all about it in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins.

This is analogous to the Mafia making a loan to a local shopkeeper who's in a jam. Guess who is in control in that scenario? It's not the shopkeeper.

It is asinine to imagine that North Korea poses any credible threat to the USA. It is not asinine to suppose the opposite proposition. The North Korean government is playing the one game it knows: survival. Like a scrawny, fleabitten rat trapped in a maze, it hopes to survive a bit longer by baring its teeth.

Someone will pofit from any financial transactions between the USA and North Korea. Someone always does. You won't hear who that someone is on the news.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:56 PM

Proof of the US's degrading global authority. North Korea has agreed to end its nuclear program in exchange for millions of dollars. WE PAID THEM TO STOP!!!!! WE PAID THEM!!!! That's only way we're going to get any other rogue nation to toe the line these days. They know we can't attack or even threaten to attack so that see a great way to squeeze us for much needed funds. And since this was not a case of the US backing NK down but rather NK agreeing to stop if we pay them enough, I have no doubt those funds will eventually be used to bolster the nuclear program that you know damned well they are continuing with. You don't detonate a bomb and then say you are stopping. I'm not buying that. You can if you want.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:31 PM

Every country that engages in military production arms whoever they please, depending on where their interests lie. In a dispute between Hezbollah and Israel.....who WOULD Iran send arms to? Hezbollah or Israel? LOL! It's not hard to figure out. Why would Iran NOT assist Hezbollah? And who would the USA arm? Hezbollah or Israel? Why should anyone be even remotely surprised that Iran would help arm Hezbollah? Why should it be fuel for such righteous puffing and blowing as we hear from the USA...when the USA arms anyone anywhere in the world who will do its dirty business for it, and always has done so? That includes death squads in Central and South America who have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians over the past few decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:25 PM

Terry, the IRA used the Barrett light 50 sniper rifle to kill people in Northern Ireland. Its active service units also used Browning pistols, Armalite rifles and elderly Garrand carbines.
Does this mean that America armed the IRA?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:09 PM

Terib:

Don't be silly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:54 AM

"The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq , released last week, concluded that Iranian or Syrian involvement is "not likely to be a major driver of violence" in Iraq .

Paul Krugman wrote that even if Iran were providing aid to some factions in Iraq , "you can say the same about Saudi Arabia , which is believed to be a major source of financial support for Sunni insurgents - and Sunnis, not Iranian-backed Shiites, are still responsible for most American combat deaths." Indeed, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. But as Krugman mentions, the Bush administration's "close personal and financial ties to the Saudis" have caused it to downplay "Saudi connections to America's enemies."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070213&articleId=4774

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:41 AM

Terrym honey, these Anglo nations that you hold in such high regard. I take it they are nothing to do with your comment "show me somewhere that has an effective administration" when it was pointed out that the current Iraqi administration is a little lacklustre.
Trouble is, lovey, you keep contradicting yourself in different threads. And when you're not contradicting yourself you're ducking the question and refusing to answer.
But, hey, it's fun exposing your absurd posturing and swaggering. What you fail to realise is that, with every new post extolling the probity of Bush and Blair and the rectitude of an illegal war, you stand exposed as a bigger and bigger clot.
Has no-one ever told you 'stop digging!'?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:39 AM

"I find that statement to be sadly lacking in substance and historical fact."

Surely, while indeed being "dismissive", that is perfectly "courteous, civil and pertinent" on the part of Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:38 AM

What you have to understand about Teribus is that, after sending his son off to find glory on the battlefield, he has to defend that
choice. What else can a father do? Its a little late to admit that this might be an unjust war and that his son might be risking his life for no good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Alba
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:31 AM

Thank for providing the expected response Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:26 AM

I am terribly sorry Jude, maybe you can explain exactly how one is supposed to take:

"I find that statement to be sadly lacking in substance and historical fact."

Patronising?

Overbearing?

Arrogantly dismissive?

My response to your post was, I believe, courteous, civil and pertinent.

As with most that veer to the populist chattering left, when actually challenged, having made the absolutely ludicrous statement that you did make, you shear off behind a smoke-screen of personal attack and mock indignation - but refuse to back up your idiotic statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:19 AM

Why blame Iran? I seem to remember that al-Sadr (Shiite) removed his militia to make room for the surge of U.S. troops. What seems to have occurred is that terrorists have taken advantage of that. It is more likely that the terrorists (insurgents) are Sunni which begs the question, why would Iran arm the Sunnis?

Once again, I smell a fish.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:12 AM

Amos,

You say

"Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces hunting down militant networks that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and that some of the material used in the devices were made in Iran.

"That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. "What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers." "


One could say that
"Reporters said U.S. forces in various prisons and detention centers were commiting acts of torture.

"That does not translate that the U. S. government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this. What it does say is that soldiers from the U. S are committing acts of torture"



So I will now demand that you clear the U. S. government of all accusations of torture.


Oh, the government is responsible for what the military is doing?

You mean like Iran is responsible for sending military supplies to the insurgents?????????


I do not see the contradiction of U. S. claims- only that the involvement may not be direct. Please show me where the General says that the Iranian government IS NOT involved in the supply of Iranian military ordinance to the insurrectionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Alba
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:46 AM

Well Teribus, if I am to go by your patronizing tone and your assertion that you have the abilty to discuss these topic in a manner that would be education or enjoyable then I, personally, have no desire to discuss any of the topics you listed with you directly.

I am afraid I lost all interest in your point of view when I read "Hundreds of years ago, the Chinese invented gunpowder, long before the wicked west got hold of it. The Chinese made this invention into a means of entertaining their Emperor (Fireworks), the West took it and put mankind on the Moon"
That statement seems to be missing the more unsavoury historical details of what the "West" did with Gunpowder.
Anyway, as I said, your tone towards me speaks volumes.
I have never been able warm to a discussion with someone who seems to be of the opinion that they can speak down to me.

You only get once chance at using that tone with me Teribus.
You have just used your one chance.
Have as good a day as an arrogant person like yourself can have Sir.
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:21 AM

JAKARTA, Indonesia - A top U.S. general said Tuesday there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces hunting down militant networks that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and that some of the material used in the devices were made in Iran.

"That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. "What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers."

His remarks might raise questions on the credibility of the claims of high-level Iranian involvement, especially following the faulty U.S. intelligence that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.


Three senior military officials in Baghdad said Sunday that the highest levels of Iranian government were responsible for arming Shiite militants in Iraq with the bombs, blamed for the deaths of more than 170 U.S. troops

Asked Monday directly if the White House was confident that the weaponry is coming on the approval of the Iranian government, spokesman Tony Snow said, "Yes."

Iran on Monday denied any involvement.

"Such accusations cannot be relied upon or be presented as evidence. The United States has a long history in fabricating evidence. Such charges are unacceptable," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in Tehran.

---

SO here's a perfectly rational sounding General contradicting the claims of the WHite House and other DoD heads about the dangers of Iran.

Why does this sound so familiar? Have there been other instances when less-than-rational claims, which might serve as a casus belli, were being promoted against the views of rational individuals? Say, "WMD", or "yellowcake", or "domino effect"?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:06 AM

Really Alba? Historically which field of human endeavour would you like to discuss? Human Rights? Medicine? International Law? Science?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Alba
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:26 AM

You specifically targeted the "Anglo Nations" in your previous posts. And while they may not be the "apotheosis of human culture and accomplishment" they have gone a damn sight further down the road in improving the lot of mankind than most.

I find that statement to be sadly lacking in substance and historical fact.