BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No answer,then,beardedbruce?






       Ivor

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

sorry, lost cookie-

"No answer,then,beardedbruce?"

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do agree LH.

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

Barry

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

The US's sweethart since beginning when?

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

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

Barry

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

Dianavan

"Where did that info come from bb?"

Try reading the UN reports.

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


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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






       Ivor

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

Let me repeat:


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

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

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


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


Some of us remember the Cuban missle crisis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not so sure he does now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who would have a vested in interest in that?

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

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

Ha! No the "US" is not making a profit (if you mean the nation, the country, the people, the government). Hardly! The private contractors are making a profit. As always. People like Bechtel, Halliburton, Brown & Root, and the oil companies. THEY are making a profit. Those are the joys of privatization. Somebody else dies, somebody else pays for it, somebody else suffers, your country goes deeply into debt, your private coporations (which really control your country) get rich and have no responsibility for the debts and move their money wherever they want to around the world.

That's what it's all about.

Your government is just a helpless corporate tool, BB. You betcha it's costing your government money!!! Billions and billions. And you know where that money comes from? Out of the pockets of ordinary American taxpayers.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: autolycus
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 05:51 PM

BB,and IIIII repeat there is no immediate threat from anyone comparable to your rush to a smashed skull,that is,there is no threat due to happen in the next few seconds (or even minutes. Or hours. Or days. Or weeks. Or months.)

   So there's plenty of time to mull on the part we're playing in the situation, studying the causes of the prob. etc. etc.;the stuff of my response to your challenge.

   Some the time you've spent over the last few days and weeks (?) on this thread could have been spent considering my response to your original 'what do you do when threatened' line of argument. You still could.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:16 PM

Interesting.

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

Who would have a vested in interest in that?" - dianavan - 26 Feb 07 - 03:19 PM

By your own definition dianavan the following:

West Qurna Phase 2 (Lukoil - Russian);
Majnoon (Total - French);
Bin Umar (Zarubezhneft - Russian);
Nasiriya (Eni - Italian, Repsol - Spanish);
Halfaya (BHP - Australian, South Korean consortium, CNPC - Chinese, Agip - Italian);
Ratawi (Shell - Netherlands);
Tuba (ONGC - Indian, Sonatrach - BVI);
Suba-Luhais (Slavneft - Russian);
Gharaf (TPAO - Turkish, Japex - Japan);
Al-Ahdab (CNPC - Chinese);
Amara (PetroVietnam);
Western Desert (ONGC - Indian, Pertamina - Indonesia, Stroitransgaz - Russian, Tatneft - Russian);
Tawke 1 (DNO a.s. - Norwegian).

ALL pipelines and transportation systems in Iraq are owned by the Iraq National Oil Company, they always have been.

Now where are all those big bad American Oil Companies dianavan? See who the main player is d? - RUSSIA.

The US imports approximately 10 million barrels of oil per day, it buys less than 500,000 barrels per day from Iraq of the 2 million odd barrels per day that Iraq produces. One would have thought that if this "great adventure" was specifically engineered to "steal" Iraq's oil, they would pay for less and "steal" lots more. No doubt that there is an explanation that dianavan, or Little Hawk can come up with.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:24 PM

Hey, just in from the BBC, especially for dianavan and Ron Davies:

"Iraq Cabinet Approves New Oil Law

The new law was approved by the cabinet after Kurdish groups backed the proposals over the weekend.

"This law has been based on our national interest," Mr Maliki said.

"It will encourage the bringing together of all component parts of the Iraqi people," he told a news conference.

Correspondents say the drawn-out process of passing an oil law has been a symbol of the struggle of Iraq's ethnic groups to work together to build a stable, independent nation.

Under the terms of the deal oil revenues would be split among Iraq's 18 provinces based on population levels.

That has been seen as a concession to Sunni Muslims in the centre of Iraq, where there are few oil reserves.

The draft law also lays out method for international companies to invest in Iraq's oil industry, reports say.

Foreign investors have stayed away from Iraq during the past few years of violence and uncertainty."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:52 PM

I don't know the specific details about the oil industry, so I'm in no position to comment on that. I do know, however, that USA civilian contractors were and are the recipients of huge and lucrative construction and supply projects in Iraq...that is, rebuilding wrecked infrastructure from the war, building new military bases for American troops, supplying all kinds of stuff (food, uniforms, drugs, guns, hummers, helicopters, whatever) to support the American forces, etc...

Private corporate industry always stands to make a fortune in a situation like that...regardless of whether the original idea was a good idea in any other sense or not...regardless of whether or not it is a military and social disaster. (which it is in this case)

Why should they care? As long as they snag some lucrative contracts in the process and get paid well by the USA government and military, they are winning the corporate game. And to a corporation, that's all that really matters. The bottom line.

At the end of the day more people have died, more stuff has been destroyed and wasted, more of the world community has lost confidence in the USA, more debt has been accumulated by the US government, and the corporations are a lot richer. They can't lose under this $ySStem...because their money controls the decision-making process in Washington and in most other places (like Ottawa or Whitehall, for example). It's a self-feeding, self-aggrandizing, incestous loop, like a snake eating its own tail.

It has nothing to do with democracy, nothing to do with protecting American lives, and nothing to do with helping Iraqis. It has little to do with fighting terrorism either, because one of its main tenets is to sponsor, inspire, and carry out terrorism. Terror is good for business.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: TIA
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:58 PM

The oil was supposed to pay for the reconstruction. Remember? (Wolfowitz) So, was Russia planning to do the reconstruction?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 01:28 AM

It will probably go something like this:

Wolfowitz will loan Iraq the money (from the World Bank) so that Iraq can pay U.S. companies to extract the oil from their vast reserves so that Iraq can sell it to pay back the World Bank.

Of course its all very legitimate and cost how many lives?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 02:29 AM

"Wolfowitz will loan Iraq the money (from the World Bank) so that Iraq can pay U.S. companies to extract the oil from their vast reserves so that Iraq can sell it to pay back the World Bank."

The only problem with that little scenario Dianavan is that there are no major American Oil Companies involved in oil exploration or production in Iraq. There are no American Companies involved in field operation in Iraq.

"Private corporate industry", is a bit of a misnomer. More usual are the terms "Private Industry" and "Corporate Industry". Nowadays, if of any size to be significant, both involve shareholders. Those shareholders tend to be insurance companies, pension funds, unions. The idea of these being controlled by a few evil men is strictly for comic books and second rate movies.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 04:09 AM

Terry, what would the musings of a petrol pump attendant be on this report, which appears to claim that the Iraqi government is under pressure from Britain and the US to pass a law which would hand long-term control of Iraq's energy assets to foreign multinationals?
That's not what you said, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:44 AM

"Terry, what would the musings of a petrol pump attendant be on this report" - Captain Ginger, 27 Feb 07 - 04:09 AM.

No idea Carrots, I suggest that you ask one.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:45 AM

Mark you Carrots, a link that worked would be of some asistance.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 08:29 AM

Try this.
A quick glance at your browser's address window would have revealed the extra 'l' at the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 08:44 AM

Hilarious Carrots, I would suggest that Heather Stewart take some time-out and learn something about what she is reporting on. She obviously hasn't got a clue at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:01 PM

In a system that is based primarily on securing the largest profit, Teribus, you don't need a few evil geniuses at the top to cause things to get out of hand. You don't need a deliberate conspiracy of a few evil men. All you need is plently of normal, fallible, imperfect human beings who are subject to the usual temptations that most of us are subject to. What follows simply happens naturally once you have created institutions such as corporations which can base themselves wherever they please and move their money around from one country to another with ease.

It's a recipe for trouble. We've seen before what expansionist systems can do. Pretty much the entire Mediterranean region was stripped of most of its forests over a period of about 1,000 years by the Romans, the Greeks, the Carthaginians, and the other great military powers of the time. They did it mainly because they wanted the wood to build their navies (and secondarily for many other purposes). This resulted in great and irrepairable damage to the ecology of areas all around the rim of the Med, specially in the Middle East and North Africa. Where there were forests there are now deserts. There was no forethought involved in that process, there was only an immediate objective being sought: naval supremacy and "success".

Now we have a $ySStem that has convinced itself that "success" means an economy which keeps expanding and makes larger sales of consumer goods every year than it did the previous year. Everything in the business world is geared to that notion. I mean, hell, I run a business...and of course, like anyone else in business I hope to increase my sales this year....but I'm not rich. I'm just getting by. If I was rich enough to stop playing the game right now, I would. I'd do something else instead, believe me. I am not in love with the game of business, but some people are.

Now the corporate philosophy would be fine IF...and only if...there was simply an unlimited amount of fresh land, water, and other resources out there to exploit forever and ever.

There isn't. That is the problem.

Since our governments are themselves hostage to this very unrealistic philosophy of endless economic expansion, I foresee great trouble ahead.

Socialist and Communist systems are also guilty of the same shortsighted philosophy, by the way, because they too always want to be bigger and better in every way as every year goes by. They are equally ambitious, and just as likely to cause great environmental damage, as has already been dramatically demonstrated in Russia and elsewhere.

To get back to corporations...The real problem with corporations, as far as I can see, is that it's way too easy for them to (1) control the political agenda through massive lobbying and funding of parties and (2) to evade responsibility through the fact that they are multi-national in nature, and can easily move their money and activities from one nation to another.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 01:02 PM

Teribus thinks he knows more about the Iraqi economy than Heather Stewart! Don't be so pompous, teri. Thats a good article and explains clearly what I was trying to say earlier.

"The law, which is being discussed by the Iraqi cabinet before being put to the parliament, says the untapped oil would remain state-owned but that contracts would be drawn up giving private sector firms the exclusive right to extract it."

If you don't agree, then tell us why.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 08:28 PM

dianavan - PM
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 01:02 PM

"Teribus thinks he knows more about the Iraqi economy than Heather Stewart! Don't be so pompous, teri. Thats a good article and explains clearly what I was trying to say earlier." - dianavan, 27 Feb 07 - 01:02 PM

Don't know anything about the Iraqi economy but I have probably forgotten more about the international oil industry than Heather Stewart will ever know, having worked in it for the last thirty-five years.

"The law, which is being discussed by the Iraqi cabinet before being put to the parliament, says the untapped oil would remain state-owned but that contracts would be drawn up giving private sector firms the exclusive right to extract it."

So that is what you say dianavan, so where is all this crap that you have been spouting about the "evil-old-US of A" stealing Iraq's Oil. I take it that now you retract all such stupid statements. As you have correctly said, and nay I will go even further, ALL OIL, GAS AND WHATEVER OTHER NATURAL RESOURSES lie beneath the sovereign territory of IRAQ BELONGS TO IRAQ and her people. ALWAYS HAS, ALWAYS WILL - why dianavan because you can't move it, simple fact of life. So don't ever let me hear you spout about the the US and Iraqi oil again - it's a non-starter.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:21 PM

"So don't ever let me hear you spout about the the US and Iraqi oil again..." - teribus

I'm not your child, teribus, and you don't get to demand silence or obedience from me.

Untapped Iraqi oil is worth nothing to the Iraqis or anyone else. Its only when its extracted and moved that it is worth anything. It is the private sector that will reap the profit unless the Iraqi people are able to develop their own means of extraction and transportation.

You know as well as I do that the average Iraqi citizen will not benefit from contracts with the U.S. and Britain.

Thats why this invasion has never been about freedom. Its only about oil and it doesn't seem to matter to you how many people die as a result.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:52 PM

It's about access to and control of oil. It was also about a former key employee of the $ySSTem (Saddam Hussein) who became disobedient. He tried to go into business for himself. Such disobedience is not tolerated by either the Mafia OR the Coporatocracy. The disobedient and defiant are crushed ruthlessly.

Further to that it's about securing bases in the center of the Middle East which provide good staging points for hypothetical future attacks on other defiant or disobedient people...such as the Iranians, the Syrians, and possibly the Saudis (at some point, if things change).

None of this has anything to do with protecting Americans, but it does have something to do with protecting their overseas oil sources.

If the USA wasn't so tied down right now in the Middle East, you'd see some very peculiar things happening in regards to Venezuela right now too. Again, because Chavez is steering an independent course. He is disobedient and defiant towards to Coporatocracy. That usually leads to an early and violent death for popular leaders in Latin America. Almost always, in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:11 PM

As it stands now a large percentage of Iraqs' oil is being stolen & sold imdependantly on the world market. It's Iran's oil that the US Oil Industry has their eye on. And the way to Iran is through Iraq. Syria will fall after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:19 PM

Sounds like the most probable game plan to me...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 12:46 AM

"You know as well as I do that the average Iraqi citizen will not benefit from contracts with the U.S. and Britain." - dianavan, 27 Feb 07 - 10:21 PM.

What contracts with the U.S. and Britain? At present there are none, so the "average Iraqi citizen is not benefiting from contracts with whom?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 09:46 AM

Looks more and more to me like Iran is next. There has been a steadily escalating media campaign to convince Americans that there must be some pressing reason to attack Iran. It's kind of like being in Nazi Germany in 1939-41 and listening to the bizarre rhetoric issuing from the mouths of Herr Goebbels and Herr Hitler as Germany prepares once again with saddened but firm resolve to "take up the burden" and defend decent Germans and save western civilization from some dire threat somewhere....la de da....

I wonder if we will get through Spring without the attack on Iran? Only time will tell. I wonder if it will involve the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the USA? Only time will tell that as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:10 AM

I wonder if Iran will blame the Jews also.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:20 AM

Everyone blames whomever they fear, do they not?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:26 AM

I would like to point out that for me (and hopefully for some other people as well) the word "Jew" does not equate to the word "Israeli". They are not synonyms. One can most definitely be a Jew and not be an Israeli. One can be an Israeli and not be a Jew. One can be a Jew or an Israeli and not be a Zionist. My concern is with aggressively expansionist Israeli political and military policies, not with Jews. There are Jews and Israelis who, like me, disagree with a number of those expansionist Israeli political and military policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 12:56 PM

LH:

The only expansionisim I see is those damned settlements. Seems to me that Bush or Congress could tell them no settlements or no support and solve that problem real quick. But then that might be called Imperialisim. I call it playing hardball.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:46 PM

Thats right. At present Britain and the U.S. do not seem to have contracts with Iraq. What do you think this war is all about? Its the private sector in the U.S. and Britain that want contracts to tap the reserves.

Doesn't look like thats gonna happen either.

If you look at Iraqi's new 'oil deal', the Kurds seem to come out on top. It paves the way for a separate Kurdistan. If that happens, we will probably see an Iranian backed 'Shiastan' as well. Iraq as we know it today, will no longer exist and the U.S. will find that the Kurds are not their friends, after all and Turkey will be dragged into this whole mess.

Thank Bush for this fiasco.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 05:25 PM

Well, we certainly agree on the matter of those settlements, Dickey. I would like to see the Israelis safe to live and prosper on their own land (within the 1948 borders), and their Muslim neighbours equally safe to live on theirs (in the other areas around there). This would require some more goodwill and cooperation on both sides, obviously.

I would also like to see both sides mutually disarm and stand down.

But then too, I'd like to go out with Winona Ryder and I'd love to visit Mars... (grin) Let's face it, I'm a dreamer.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:34 PM

"(within the 1948 borders), "


Why the 1948 ones? Why not the 1923 ones, or the 1967 ones???

Or even ones to be negotiated by TWO parties acting IN GOOD FAITH?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 07:22 PM

Why not the 1948 ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 08:33 PM

Because the Arabs refused them in 1948...