BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 07:34 AM

UN report on Iran- re NPT

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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:43 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: 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: 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: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:47 PM

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

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


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


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

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

They chose to sign the NPT, then violated it.

Is that too difficult for you to understand?

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

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

Barry

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

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


Or do you think international treaty obligations should not matter?

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

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

sorry, NPT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The opting out clause is actually written into the NPT.

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

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

When do I get my prize?

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

No meeeeee iv'e got the big 200!

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

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

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

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






      Ivor

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

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

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


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


Some of us remember the Cuban missle crisis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"according to diplomatic sources in Vienna."

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

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

Waiting ....

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

That was me...

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

i guess the truth will emerge.

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

Looks like my reply got deleted...

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


Along the lines of

Thank you.

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

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

And how much warning did they give the Iranians?




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




    Ivor






       Ivor

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

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

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

The word Hezbollah mean something to you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Confessions of an Economic Hitman"

Publishers Weekly revue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


THIS I can agree 100% with you!

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